Check out the year-by-year strikeout rate of PITCHER X, who is now in his fifth season:
8.2
6.9
6.7
6.0
A steady (almost rapid) drop each season, which would normally be alarming and an indication that this pitcher is no longer getting outs, because he is missing far fewer bats.
But take a look at these rates...
H/9
9.2
9.0
8.8
7.1
HR/9
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.5
BB/9
3.5
3.2
2.7
2.7
And the results....
ERA
4.81
4.41
3.64
2.31
WHIP
1.414
1.360
1.276
1.090
So over the course of four seasons, which is a significant sample size, PITCHER X has improved steadily in every area, despite decreasing strike out rates each year. Every other number improves.
PITCHER X after his first start of 2012, where he struck out "only" 5 batters over 7 innings (3 Hits, 0 Runs):
This has been his story for the last four seasons. Less power, more finesse, induce weak contact, rear back for the K when the situation dictates. Same pitching coach all four years, who has managed to get PITCHER X to buy into this approach.
There is way too much evidence to chalk this up as 'luck', but I wonder what the advanced stat community thinks. He seems to be the perfect example of ZOMG REGRESSION CANDIDATE, but I never see those types of articles about this pitcher. Maybe because all of those articles were three years ago, and it would look kind of silly to write that now.
So I guess my question is, in an era where we scrutinize every pitcher who losses a half mile per hour of velocity, and we focus more about strike out totals and average fastball speed while losing sight of the raw results, would it be wiser for teams to ask some pitchers to settle down, take something off the fastball, reduce walks, and work for weak contact? Could somebody like Edwin Jackson, who had loads of talent, have benefited early in his career from a pitching coach who encouraged him to slow it down, stop trying to strike everybody out, reduce his walks, and get a ground ball now & then so he doesn't have 90 pitches by the 6th inning every start?
How many potential Mark Buehrle's have been squandered in recent years?
8.2
6.9
6.7
6.0
A steady (almost rapid) drop each season, which would normally be alarming and an indication that this pitcher is no longer getting outs, because he is missing far fewer bats.
But take a look at these rates...
H/9
9.2
9.0
8.8
7.1
HR/9
1.5
1.3
0.9
0.5
BB/9
3.5
3.2
2.7
2.7
And the results....
ERA
4.81
4.41
3.64
2.31
WHIP
1.414
1.360
1.276
1.090
So over the course of four seasons, which is a significant sample size, PITCHER X has improved steadily in every area, despite decreasing strike out rates each year. Every other number improves.
PITCHER X after his first start of 2012, where he struck out "only" 5 batters over 7 innings (3 Hits, 0 Runs):
"I don't care or look for strikeouts," PITCHER X said. "I look to get outs with less pitches."
There is way too much evidence to chalk this up as 'luck', but I wonder what the advanced stat community thinks. He seems to be the perfect example of ZOMG REGRESSION CANDIDATE, but I never see those types of articles about this pitcher. Maybe because all of those articles were three years ago, and it would look kind of silly to write that now.
So I guess my question is, in an era where we scrutinize every pitcher who losses a half mile per hour of velocity, and we focus more about strike out totals and average fastball speed while losing sight of the raw results, would it be wiser for teams to ask some pitchers to settle down, take something off the fastball, reduce walks, and work for weak contact? Could somebody like Edwin Jackson, who had loads of talent, have benefited early in his career from a pitching coach who encouraged him to slow it down, stop trying to strike everybody out, reduce his walks, and get a ground ball now & then so he doesn't have 90 pitches by the 6th inning every start?
How many potential Mark Buehrle's have been squandered in recent years?
Comment