Worley and Liriano ... A Fangraphs case study for why change is needed in Minnesota

[Willihammer]

Yes, "synergy" is the word you might apply to club like the Rays, Pirates, and A's. FO, field staff, and player skillsets are on the same page. Clubs like the Astros (under Porter) and Twins (under Gardy), not so much.

[USAFChief]

I'm a bit confused. Doesn't DIPS theory hold pitchers cannot influence the quality of contact on balls in play? If so, how can Pittsburgh's pitching staff be getting consistently "weaker than average" contact?

[Thrylos]

I'm a bit confused. Doesn't DIPS theory hold pitchers cannot influence the quality of contact on balls in play? If so, how can Pittsburgh's pitching staff be getting consistently "weaker than average" contact?

 

Magic

 

Burn them. On. A. Pole.

[Kwak]

Speaking of elephants in the room, how does the NL and especially the NLCD compare withe AL and the ALCD hitting-wise especially power hitting?  Last night May said he made two bad pitches--the two HRs.

I recall a Verlander comment about Mauer claiming that "making a mistake [to Mauer] is a single...".  Making mistakes to power hitters in Detroit--HR.  Perhaps that is part of the explanation why Worley has better results in PITT (well and PITT has better defense).

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Or perhaps with a different pitching coach? Or a more strategic shift.

 

I wonder if perhaps the biggest difference between the Pirates and Twins org is a disconnect between what the FO knows in regards to acquiring talent and how it is executed on the field. Gardy does shift but as stated he doesn't seem fully committed. I don't buy the Twins haven't changed narrative, but I would certainly agree that Gardy hasn't 100% embraced it or that it is as systematically implemented as an organization like the Pirates.

nailed it, it's less about the 2 seam fastball, than it is about strategy fitting the fixture and tactics implementing the strategy all working hand in glove.

[gil4]

 

I wonder if perhaps the biggest difference between the Pirates and Twins org is a disconnect between what the FO knows in regards to acquiring talent and how it is executed on the field. Gardy does shift but as stated he doesn't seem fully committed. I don't buy the Twins haven't changed narrative, but I would certainly agree that Gardy hasn't 100% embraced it or that it is as systematically implemented as an organization like the Pirates.

 

That certainly could be the case, but we won't know until the involved parties are able to speak freely about it (when they no longer have to work together.)  Hopefully we will learn more over the winter.

[gil4]

Magic

 

Burn them. On. A. Pole.

 

I thought we had to tie them up and throw them in the lake first. Then, if they float we burn them.

[The Wise One]

I'm a bit confused. Doesn't DIPS theory hold pitchers cannot influence the quality of contact on balls in play? If so, how can Pittsburgh's pitching staff be getting consistently "weaker than average" contact?

When actuality and theory present different vews, the statisticians call the reality an outlier

[The Wise One]

I wil use th same arument that people use to castigate the Twns.hen they win in the payoffs with this staff then I will get excited about what they do.

[jokin]

Vance Worley does it again tonight, taking another game into the 7th inning against Cincinnati, giving up one run while scattering 9 hits. striking out 4, walking none.  He lowered his ERA to 2.85 and his FIP to 3.44. He continued his ground ball ways, with a GB% tonight of exactly 50%. In 17 starts, he now has 11 Quality Starts, in 8 of which he has given up 0 or 1 runs.  He improved on his career-high BB/9 number as it's now down to 1.79, which is ~1 BB/9 better than his career mark, as well as his mark with the Twins last year.  His BB% is now 4.8%, which would be good enough for the #14 spot for all starters, putting him with the likes of the top control pitchers in baseball, such as Shields, Price, Chen.  

 

Worley would be #1 or #2 in virtually every pitching category among starters in Minnesota. Compared to all Twins starters, only Phil Hughes beats out some of Worley's numbers in (*** indicates Worley is #1):

 

 

ERA+  ***

K/9

BB/9

K/BB

K%

BB%

BA  ***

WHIP 

ERA ***

FIP 

xFIP

SIERA

GB% (Worley #2 to Gibson)

 

 

His GB%, ERA, FIP, xFIP, SIERA, BB/9, BB%, K/BB, WHIP are all at career highs. All of these measures of success and a postseason playoff berth, too?  Oh yeah, Vance loves and is excited about being a Pirate allright.

[Willihammer]

I'm a bit confused. Doesn't DIPS theory hold pitchers cannot influence the quality of contact on balls in play? If so, how can Pittsburgh's pitching staff be getting consistently "weaker than average" contact?

xFIP? SIERA? I don't think DIPS has held that view for maybe 10 years. Today its probably more accurate to say that DIPS theory holds that pitchers can influence the quality of the contact (but still can't influence the outcomes).

 

As for the 2nd question, I imagine the high ground ball rate has a lot to do with pitch selection. According to the pitchf/x classifications on fangraphs, 36.9% of pitches thrown by Pirates pitchers are classified as either a 2 seem fastball or a sinker, which leads baseball by a wide margin.

 

Team FT% (pfx) SI% (pfx) Combined

Pirates 18.50% 18.40% 36.90%

Phillies 10.50% 18.10% 28.60%

Nationals 21.20% 7.20% 28.40%

White Sox 21.10% 6.10% 27.20%

Athletics 22.00% 4.80% 26.80%

Brewers 16.30% 9.70% 26.00%

Mets 20.90% 4.90% 25.80%

Cardinals 11.30% 14.40% 25.70%

Diamondbacks 8.90% 16.80% 25.70%

Cubs 17.80% 6.00% 23.80%

Angels 15.80% 7.10% 22.90%

Yankees 9.40% 12.80% 22.20%

Rays 19.20% 2.70% 21.90%

Giants 15.60% 5.90% 21.50%

Indians 8.20% 12.80% 21.00%

Padres 15.80% 5.00% 20.80%

Blue Jays 16.30% 4.30% 20.60%

Reds 14.40% 6.00% 20.40%

Astros 10.80% 9.30% 20.10%

Twins 17.00% 2.80% 19.80%

Mariners 11.80% 7.90% 19.70%

Orioles 16.90% 2.80% 19.70%

Red Sox 13.60% 6.10% 19.70%

Dodgers 11.50% 8.00% 19.50%

Marlins 14.40% 4.90% 19.30%

Rangers 9.10% 8.10% 17.20%

Tigers 14.10% 0.90% 15.00%

Braves 14.70% 0.10% 14.80%

Royals 11.20% 2.80% 14.00%

Rockies 10.80% 2.60% 13.40%

[snepp]

I'm a bit confused. Doesn't DIPS theory hold pitchers cannot influence the quality of contact on balls in play? If so, how can Pittsburgh's pitching staff be getting consistently "weaker than average" contact?

 

You know we've come a long ways from the original McCracken theory behind DIPS. Not many left that will make the claim that pitchers don't influence the type and quality of balls in play against them.

[Willihammer]

I queried fangraphs to find correlations between all pitch types and BABIP for 2014, the results are in this beautiful table:

 

FA% (pfx) FT% (pfx) FC% (pfx) FS% (pfx) FO% (pfx) SI% (pfx) SL% (pfx) CU% (pfx) KC% (pfx) EP% (pfx) CH% (pfx) SC% (pfx) KN% (pfx) UN% (pfx) RA9-WAR BIP-Wins FDP-Wins F-Strike% SwStr% K% BB%
correlation to BABIP 0.12098238 -0.317285126 0.100400287 -0.143752133 -1 0.016848709 0.313366373 -0.07527808 -0.137007319 -0.592004068 -0.149926515 -1 -0.254203539 -0.023788041 -0.71634591 -0.997160654 -0.892536334 -0.166202062 -0.252646251 -0.396551956 0.058421582
ERA 0.056016514 -0.303139756 0.148969511 0.132755349 -1 -0.035534044 0.314664732 -0.115678425 -0.217680181 -0.114985569 -0.178763239 #DIV/0! 0.121206546 -0.18457518 -0.820015675 -0.692303418 -0.767304764 -0.449334499 -0.625555669 -0.694031812 0.344774735
FIP 0.077989628 -0.152785053 0.06845779 0.23822841 1 -0.017451697 0.156006741 -0.292223036 -0.047086765 0.526721555 -0.199691975 1 0.219847832 0.013452483 -0.453502863 -0.158628888 -0.15219325 -0.560501491 -0.730187006 -0.708580704 0.510022856
Xfip 0.331709091 0.013962586 -0.149762294 -0.068729626 1 -0.236509949 -0.027494681 -0.25069382 -0.158124044 0.320832936 0.034632044 -1 0.266932707 -0.027568648 -0.442185851 -0.283279557 -0.297823996 -0.553444696 -0.881607623 -0.857356292 0.482278011
SIERA 0.354215998 -0.016366512 -0.119088992 -0.115210591 1 -0.233023831 0.002760747 -0.230924895 -0.134554357 0.304049645 -0.012713755 1 0.220216402 2.21498E-16 -0.489485504 -0.332957947 -0.308037593 -0.571423996 -0.884804457 -0.916295269 0.482447966

 

As you can plainly see, the highest negative correlation with BABIP is what pitchf/x calls a 2 seem fastball (-.32). The strongest positive correlation with BABIP are sliders (.31). The Pirates are 6th in 2 seem usage and 21st in slider usage. The Twins are 8th and 10th.

 

 

[The Wise One]

High GB%. Sinkerball pitchers. Hmmmm Check out what Twins pitchers did in 2010  Maybe the Twins were onto something that year. A trendsetter perhaps. The starters did have a 6.37 K/9 without the benefit of pitching to a pitcher. Wonder what changed?

[The Wise One]

You know we've come a long ways from the original McCracken theory behind DIPS. Not many left that will make that claim that pitchers don't influence the type and quality of balls in play against them.

Then BABIP is not luck. Many here claim it is luck

[jokin]

I queried fangraphs to find correlations between all pitch types and BABIP for 2014, the results are in this beautiful table:

 

FA% (pfx) FT% (pfx) FC% (pfx) FS% (pfx) FO% (pfx) SI% (pfx) SL% (pfx) CU% (pfx) KC% (pfx) EP% (pfx) CH% (pfx) SC% (pfx) KN% (pfx) UN% (pfx) RA9-WAR BIP-Wins FDP-Wins F-Strike% SwStr% K% BB%

correlation to BABIP 0.12098238 -0.317285126 0.100400287 -0.143752133 -1 0.016848709 0.313366373 -0.07527808 -0.137007319 -0.592004068 -0.149926515 -1 -0.254203539 -0.023788041 -0.71634591 -0.997160654 -0.892536334 -0.166202062 -0.252646251 -0.396551956 0.058421582

ERA 0.056016514 -0.303139756 0.148969511 0.132755349 -1 -0.035534044 0.314664732 -0.115678425 -0.217680181 -0.114985569 -0.178763239 #DIV/0! 0.121206546 -0.18457518 -0.820015675 -0.692303418 -0.767304764 -0.449334499 -0.625555669 -0.694031812 0.344774735

FIP 0.077989628 -0.152785053 0.06845779 0.23822841 1 -0.017451697 0.156006741 -0.292223036 -0.047086765 0.526721555 -0.199691975 1 0.219847832 0.013452483 -0.453502863 -0.158628888 -0.15219325 -0.560501491 -0.730187006 -0.708580704 0.510022856

Xfip 0.331709091 0.013962586 -0.149762294 -0.068729626 1 -0.236509949 -0.027494681 -0.25069382 -0.158124044 0.320832936 0.034632044 -1 0.266932707 -0.027568648 -0.442185851 -0.283279557 -0.297823996 -0.553444696 -0.881607623 -0.857356292 0.482278011

SIERA 0.354215998 -0.016366512 -0.119088992 -0.115210591 1 -0.233023831 0.002760747 -0.230924895 -0.134554357 0.304049645 -0.012713755 1 0.220216402 2.21498E-16 -0.489485504 -0.332957947 -0.308037593 -0.571423996 -0.884804457 -0.916295269 0.482447966

 

As you can plainly see, the highest negative correlation with BABIP is what pitchf/x calls a 2 seem fastball (-.32). The strongest positive correlation with BABIP are sliders (.31). The Pirates are 6th in 2 seem usage and 21st in slider usage. The Twins are 8th and 10th.

 

FWIW:

 

Twins SP BABIP #1 (.326)    ALL P #1 (.316)

Pirates SP BABIP # 23  (.288)  ALL P # 21 (.289)

[snepp]

Then BABIP is not luck. Many here claim it is luck

 

Then I guess you have three options.

 

One, direct them toward materials in order to expand their knowledge on the subject, hopefully leading to more informed discussion in the future. Two, ignore them. Or three, complain about it.

 

 

I prefer #1 personally, more often than not engage in #2, all the while resisting the urge to participate in #3.

[Paul Pleiss]

So wait, Rick Anderson isn't baby Jesus for the pitching world? i don't understand.

 

The biggest disappointment about Vance never figuring it out in Minnesota is that I was never able to purchase a Twins Vanimal shirt. That's a big loss. Imagine how fun that would be.

 

Dang nabbit!

[diehardtwinsfan]

xFIP? SIERA? I don't think DIPS has held that view for maybe 10 years. Today its probably more accurate to say that DIPS theory holds that pitchers can influence the quality of the contact (but still can't influence the outcomes).

 

As for the 2nd question, I imagine the high ground ball rate has a lot to do with pitch selection. According to the pitchf/x classifications on fangraphs, 36.9% of pitches thrown by Pirates pitchers are classified as either a 2 seem fastball or a sinker, which leads baseball by a wide margin.

Interesting irony here given how much the Twins are castigated for drafting guys who get a good sink on their fastballs.

[Willihammer]

Interesting irony here given how much the Twins are castigated for drafting guys who get a good sink on their fastballs.

Balls not put into play are still preferable, which is easier to accomplish at higher velocities. The fear of power arms has always been my chief complaint.

[USAFChief]

You know we've come a long ways from the original McCracken theory behind DIPS. Not many left that will make the claim that pitchers don't influence the type and quality of balls in play against them.

Honest question Snepp: I know that everyone agrees pitchers have influence on the type of batted ball they allow, ground ball vs fly ball.

 

But unless I'm missing something, DIPS theory still holds pitchers do not have control over quality of contact...they can't control how hard the ball is hit, or how many hits they allow on balls in play. The only way to allow fewer hits is to allow fewer balls in play.

 

Can you point me to research that says differently? Or am I misinterpreting DIPS?

 

It seems to me if Pittsburgh's staff is allowing ground balls that are hit softer than other ground ball pitchers, which is the claim in this article, then they will allow fewer hits on those ground balls, no?

[Jham]

Then I guess you have three options.

 

One, direct them toward materials in order to expand their knowledge on the subject, hopefully leading to more informed discussion in the future. Two, ignore them. Or three, complain about it.

 

 

I prefer #1 personally, more often than not engage in #2, all the while resisting the urge to participate in #3.

I agree.  I am not a statistician, but I do love to read the analysis of the proponents of the various metrics on this site.  Always enlightening.

 

The point of metrics is to limit the variables.  One could never, and would never want to completely eliminate the variables which would by definition create an entirely predictable result.  Who would want to watch a game if you knew what the outcome would be?  For what its worth, I have never seen anyone on the site proclaim that BABIP is a metric that measures luck.  Instead, it has been described as a tool to help predict bounce back and regression, and determine if luck is a factor or if another variable (defense, pitch selection, ball park etc.) is in play.

 

 

 

[Badsmerf]

This analysis is curious. Rick Anderson is a huge 2 seam guy, to a fault in the past. He was routinely shoving it down the staff throats. I think that this 2 seam hard on the pirates have is successful because of their personnel. It's been great in the regular season and I'll be interested to watch how this "weak contact" works in the postseason. If anyone else remembers, this is almost exactly like what the twins had in the 2000's..... and we all know how well that staff did against good lineups.

[Thrylos]

Interesting irony here given how much the Twins are castigated for drafting guys who get a good sink on their fastballs.

 

I think that they get castigated because those fastballs barely hit 88 (see: Wimmers, Alex) and not because of their sink. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

This analysis is curious. Rick Anderson is a huge 2 seam guy, to a fault in the past. He was routinely shoving it down the staff throats. I think that this 2 seam hard on the pirates have is successful because of their personnel. It's been great in the regular season and I'll be interested to watch how this "weak contact" works in the postseason. If anyone else remembers, this is almost exactly like what the twins had in the 2000's..... and we all know how well that staff did against good lineups.

but the 2 seamer argument against Anderson in this case is a strategy vs implementation argument, it's not that the pitch is bad or good, it's that he didn't have the team that could pitch or field the 2 seamer.

[Parker Hageman]

Great discussion on this thread. Kudos to everyone on this.

 

Just to add to the discussion about the infield shift, Inside Edge's Steve Moyer showed their data in the Wall Street Journal for all teams this year. The Twins shifted about 300 times fewer than the Pirates but the Twins' shifting saved them 15 hits while the Pirates' cost them 2. 

 

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-EL824_SHIFT0_G_20140909191910.jpg

 

Then this from the article:

Far more surprising is that shifts don't work for every team. In fact, they have actually worked against some. Take a look at the Pittsburgh Pirates. They ranked No. 5 in MLB in total shifts attempted in our sample with 826. But the net result of all those shifts has been -2 hits, meaning the Pirates allowed more hits because of the shift than they would have if they'd been positioned normally.

 

It is tempting to conclude that the Pirates are just doing it wrong, or that hitters are finding ways to "beat" their shifts by hitting or bunting the ball where the defenders aren't. But neither scenario appears to be true. After watching hundreds of plays in which the shift failed to prevent a hit, we found that most times the ball just went to a place where it normally wouldn't—the result of a check swing, a broken bat or dumb luck.

 

 

 

The whole article is a good read on the subject. 

[Parker Hageman]

I should also mention that Worley has a .266 batting average on ground balls in play which is well above the league's average of .245, so it is not like the shifting has been extremely beneficial to him. Where he's really excelled is in line drive defense -- his .600 batting average on liners in play is much better than the league's average (.648). 

[jokin]

Great discussion on this thread. Kudos to everyone on this.

 

Just to add to the discussion about the infield shift, Inside Edge's Steve Moyer showed their data in the Wall Street Journal for all teams this year. The Twins shifted about 300 times fewer than the Pirates but the Twins' shifting saved them 15 hits while the Pirates' cost them 2. 

 

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-EL824_SHIFT0_G_20140909191910.jpg

 

Then this from the article:

 

 

The whole article is a good read on the subject. 

 

Parker, you just blasted a lot of theories on this thread right out of the water in these last two posts.  Judging by these numbers, the Twins have actually demonstrated one of the higher competency rates in terms of hits-saved/shift in the whole league.  

 

Does the bulk of the credit for this then redound to Paul Molitor?

 

I would conclude that Worley's IFH%, which is well above league average, accounts for much of his higher GB BA- PItt infielders showing more range and keeping more balls in the holes and foul lines that went for hits, in the infield, or more or less, "dumb luck", as the Inside Edge author surmises, due to balls oddly hit while in the shift ?  And how much did Worley benefit from double plays on his behalf?

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Great discussion on this thread. Kudos to everyone on this.

 

Just to add to the discussion about the infield shift, Inside Edge's Steve Moyer showed their data in the Wall Street Journal for all teams this year. The Twins shifted about 300 times fewer than the Pirates but the Twins' shifting saved them 15 hits while the Pirates' cost them 2.

 

 

 

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-EL824_SHIFT0_G_20140909191910.jpg

Then this from the article:

 

 

 

The whole article is a good read on the subject.

it looks like the Giants implement the most effective shift with 494 shifts and 25 net runs saved. Fewer shifts than the Twins and significantly more net runs prevented. What makes the Giants so effective at shifts, and How can the Twins adapt philosophies to do both the Pirates go rate strategy and Giants shift strategy well? How to balance with effective hitting? So many questions...

[drjim]

Parker, you just blasted a lot of theories on this thread right out of the water in these last two posts.  Judging by these numbers, the Twins have actually demonstrated one of the higher competency rates in terms of hits-saved/shift in the whole league.  

 

Does the bulk of the credit for this then redound to Paul Molitor?

 

I would conclude that Worley's IFH%, which is well above league average, accounts for much of his higher GB BA- PItt infielders showing more range and keeping more balls in the holes and foul lines that went for hits, in the infield, or more or less, "dumb luck", as the Inside Edge author surmises, due to balls oddly hit while in the shift ?  And how much did Worley benefit from double plays on his behalf?

 

My theory on the Twins is that they are more savvy on statistical matters (like shifts) than people give them credit for, mostly because they don't talk about it.

 

I would also not hesitate to say that although Gardy does shift he is not fully bought in and there has not been as great a top down synergy between talent brought in and how it is utilized by the major league staff when compared to a franchise like Pirates

 

There is also an obvious talent gap, which is still the biggest issue, and we have also witnessed the Twins get burned by bringing pitchers from the NL to the AL, while the Pirates have benefitted from bringing pitchers from the AL to the NL. Lots of moving parts here