Article: Geeking Out: Pitch To Contact And Team Pitching

[jay]

Strikeouts just get expensive!

 

This is on point.

 

If you have two pitchers with the exact same stats/results but one guy gets more strikeouts, that guy is going to make more money. You almost hate to say it, but I have to believe this is at least a part of the rationale behind the Twins' strategy.

[Willihammer]

Walks are annoying, but figure equally to a single. (all else being equal, as in, didn't drive in a run or anything).

 

That's a heck of a caveat.

[old nurse]

How a pitcher grips a ball would be an indication of what pitch is coming. Disguising and varying the speed and movement of the ball then becomes a key component in preventing the ball from meeting the sweet part of the bat. How you would measure that to prove it would be a long task. That slugging percent rated higher than batting average in scoring runs might confirm the notion. Carl Pavano's 2010 season would show that it can be done without a lot of strikeouts. All the good strikeout pitchers would prove that it might be easier to find a great strikeout pitcher than a great pitch to poor contact pitcher.

[gswanson]

But we certainly shouldn't treat strikeout rate as anywhere near as important as OPS. They're not in the same solar system.

 

I don't think it should be surprising at all that hits are the strongest predictor of scoring. After all, hits are the primary way of getting on base as well as the only way to hit for power. I don't think any sabermetrician would doubt that hits correlate strongest with runs scored.

 

Instead, I think sabermetrics would predict that just as OBP and SLG correlate strongest with hitter's scoring (as you said in your introduction), OBP-against and SLG-against would correlate strongest with a pitcher allowing runs to score.

 

The correlations you ran of H/9, BB/9, HR/9 and SO/9 are basically serving as proxies for OBP-against and SLG-against when compared to ERA. And just as we might expect, H/9 is the best proxy for both OBP- and SLG-against because, again, hits are the most common way to get on base and the only way to slug. Of course, HR/9 was also highly correlated with scoring because of its major relationship to slugging (and it's minor relationship to getting on base).

 

Predictably, BB/9 and SO/9 did not correlate as well with runs allowed because of their more tangential relationship to OBP.

 

So all in all, your study basically showed (through proxies of varying quality) that whereas OBP and SLG are the best tools around which to build an offense, their prevention is the best way to guarantee a low ERA.

 

Just for fun, I downloaded your table and made a down-and-dirty version of OBP-against by taking H, BB, IBB, and HBP over batters faced. The correlation between H/9 and R/G per your table was .882. The correlation for OBP-against? .886.

 

Similarly, I made a REALLY down-and-dirty estimation of SLG-against. I tried to estimate total bases by taking all hits and adding the three extra bases for each home run allowed. Then I divided this by batters faced minus BBs, IBBs, and HBPs. While this "semi-slugging" percentage was much lower than the actual slugging percentages, I figured the differences among teams would hold up alright. The result? A .869 correlation, much higher than HR/9 alone.

 

Now your last question was your best: What prevents hits (or more accurately, OBP and SLG)? Here is where K rate becomes important. But all sabermetricians would agree that BB rate and GB rate are important too. The problem with a "pitch to contact" philosophy is its reliance on the shakier idea that pitchers can control their BABIP and the hitting profile of the batters they face (ie their power). But if you're willing to concede that pitch-to-contact-if-you-induce-groundballs is a philosophy, then I'm sure many sabermetricians would take that just as often as high strikeout rates.

[Badsmerf]

I'm with Oxtung on this. Using teame stats isn't the best indicator. I'd feel like the stats would tell a different story when using individuals. The elite strike-out pitchers, Aces, allow less runs. I can't think of many elite strike-out pitchers that are just average at allowing runs. Once you dilute the field and include all pitchers, you are making their impact minuscule. Most MLB pitchers are going to strike out between 5 and 7 batters per 9. These guys far outweigh elite pitchers in a compilation stat. The numbers look interesting as a whole, but tell us little for individuals.

[Guest USAFChief]

I don't think it should be surprising at all that hits are the strongest predictor of scoring. After all, hits are the primary way of getting on base as well as the only way to hit for power. I don't think any sabermetrician would doubt that hits correlate strongest with runs scored.

 

Instead, I think sabermetrics would predict that just as OBP and SLG correlate strongest with hitter's scoring (as you said in your introduction), OBP-against and SLG-against would correlate strongest with a pitcher allowing runs to score.

 

The correlations you ran of H/9, BB/9, HR/9 and SO/9 are basically serving as proxies for OBP-against and SLG-against when compared to ERA. And just as we might expect, H/9 is the best proxy for both OBP- and SLG-against because, again, hits are the most common way to get on base and the only way to slug. Of course, HR/9 was also highly correlated with scoring because of its major relationship to slugging (and it's minor relationship to getting on base).

 

Predictably, BB/9 and SO/9 did not correlate as well with runs allowed because of their more tangential relationship to OBP.

 

So all in all, your study basically showed (through proxies of varying quality) that whereas OBP and SLG are the best tools around which to build an offense, their prevention is the best way to guarantee a low ERA.

 

Just for fun, I downloaded your table and made a down-and-dirty version of OBP-against by taking H, BB, IBB, and HBP over batters faced. The correlation between H/9 and R/G per your table was .882. The correlation for OBP-against? .886.

 

Similarly, I made a REALLY down-and-dirty estimation of SLG-against. I tried to estimate total bases by taking all hits and adding the three extra bases for each home run allowed. Then I divided this by batters faced minus BBs, IBBs, and HBPs. While this "semi-slugging" percentage was much lower than the actual slugging percentages, I figured the differences among teams would hold up alright. The result? A .869 correlation, much higher than HR/9 alone.

 

Now your last question was your best: What prevents hits (or more accurately, OBP and SLG)? Here is where K rate becomes important. But all sabermetricians would agree that BB rate and GB rate are important too. The problem with a "pitch to contact" philosophy is its reliance on the shakier idea that pitchers can control their BABIP and the hitting profile of the batters they face (ie their power). But if you're willing to concede that pitch-to-contact-if-you-induce-groundballs is a philosophy, then I'm sure many sabermetricians would take that just as often as high strikeout rates.

Awesome first post.

[Oxtung]

I'm with Oxtung on this. Using teame stats isn't the best indicator. I'd feel like the stats would tell a different story when using individuals. The elite strike-out pitchers, Aces, allow less runs. I can't think of many elite strike-out pitchers that are just average at allowing runs. Once you dilute the field and include all pitchers, you are making their impact minuscule. Most MLB pitchers are going to strike out between 5 and 7 batters per 9. These guys far outweigh elite pitchers in a compilation stat. The numbers look interesting as a whole, but tell us little for individuals.

 

Just to be clear, I don't know if the numbers would change just looking at individual pitchers rather than team numbers. My argument was more a logic based one. Looking at a sum of numbers tells you nothing about the individual parts that constitute that sum.

 

For example if you have 5+5 you know the resulting sum is 10. However, if all you have is the sum, in this case 10, you know nothing about the terms that were used to derive the sum. It could be 5+5, 3+3+3+1, 2+8, 1+7+2, etc...

[IdahoPilgrim]

Just to be clear, I don't know if the numbers would change just looking at individual pitchers rather than team numbers. My argument was more a logic based one. Looking at a sum of numbers tells you nothing about the individual parts that constitute that sum.

 

For example if you have 5+5 you know the resulting sum is 10. However, if all you have is the sum, in this case 10, you know nothing about the terms that were used to derive the sum. It could be 5+5, 3+3+3+1, 2+8, 1+7+2, etc...

 

Does it really matter? At the end of the day, this is a team sport and aggregate team ability is what drives success, including aggregate team pitching. We could have one superstar and four middlin' pieces - it won't add up to a world series (think Kevin Garnett and the Timberwolves).

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative - just raising the question.

[Oxtung]

Does it really matter? At the end of the day, this is a team sport and aggregate team ability is what drives success, including aggregate team pitching. We could have one superstar and four middlin' pieces - it won't add up to a world series (think Kevin Garnett and the Timberwolves).

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative - just raising the question.

 

Since the pitcher on the mound any given night isn't some freakizoid conglomeration of body parts encompassing every pitcher on your staff, yes it matters. The only way to know if strike outs correlate to less runs is to look at it from an individual pitcher perspective.