Strikeouts And Ground Balls: The Rangers' 2010 Rotation Candidates
David
There are a lot of great baseball analysts whose work is captured in books and on the internet. In the coming weeks, I plan to run a series of articles that will review some of the more intriguing studies that have been published in the past few years and apply the results of these studies to the current Rangers.
In 2007, Rich Lederer began using scatter plots to compare major league pitchers based upon their strikeout and ground ball rates. Lederer theorized that strikeouts and ground balls were the two most favorable outcomes for a pitcher and that the most effective pitchers would be those who were best able to induce strikeouts and groundouts. Consistent with his hypothesis, Lederer found that most top-of-the-rotation starters had higher than average strikeout and ground ball rates and thus were clustered in the upper right-hand corner of his scatter plots.
Mid-rotation starters were typically strikeout/fly ball pitchers and non-strikeout/ground ball pitchers who clustered in the upper left and lower right quadrants of his plots. And pitchers whose strikeout and ground ball rates were below average tended to be back-of-the-rotation pitchers, or failed starters who clustered in the lower left-hand quadrant of his plots.
Rich's most recent graphs were published prior to the 2009 season and used data from 2008. Provided below is a Lederer scatter plot using strikeout and groundball rates for the 123 pitchers who tossed at least 100 major league innings in 2009. Overlaid on this plot are the strikeout/ground ball rates of Rich Harden, Scott Feldman, Derek Holland, Tommy Hunter, Brandon McCarthy, C.J. Wilson, Neftali Feliz, Matt Harrison, and Guillermo Moscoso.
LEDERER PLOT OF 2009 STARTING PITCHERS (PLUS RANGERS STARTING CANDIDATES)
The red lines bisect the plot at the average strikeout and ground ball rates for all of the pitchers considered. Names in black show non-Ranger pitchers to provide orientation -- strikeout/ground ball pitchers like Felix Hernandez, Jon Lester, and Tim Lincecum appear in the upper right; strikeout/fly ball pitchers like Javier Vasquez (and Rich Harden) appear in the lower right; fly ball/non-strikeout pitchers like Jeremy Sowers and the 2009 version of Kevin Millwood appear in the lower left; ground ball/non-strikeout pitchers like Aaron Cook and John Lannan appear in the upper left, and solidly average pitchers like John Danks appear in the middle. The ten Rangers pitchers who are candidates to pitch out of the rotation in 2010 are shown in red.
With the caveat that they generated their 2009 results as relievers, it is easy to see the attraction of having C.J. Wilson and Neftali Feliz in the starting rotation. Wilson's 2009 numbers place him solidly in the upper right-hand quadrant and 2009 was not a fluke as his career strikeout (21.1 percent) and ground ball (52.9 percent) rates are the results one expects of a top-of-the-rotation pitcher. If he can limit his walks and give the Rangers 5-6 innings per start, he could be fabulous as a starter. Feliz's 37.5 percent ground ball rate should improve with time (his minor league ground ball rate was 45.6 percent), so it would not be a surprise to see Feliz move into the upper right quadrant, perhaps into Lincecum/Lester territory.
Rich Harden's high strikeout rate allows him to overcome his fly ball tendencies, while Scott Feldman and Matt Harrison overcome low strikeout rates with strong ground ball rates. Harrison's 12 percent strikeout rate is among the lowest in baseball, so he will need to maintain high ground ball and low walk rates to be effective. Feldman's strikeout rate improved during the season, though the 14.2 percent rate that he finished with was still well below the average for major league starters (17.7 percent).
In 2009, Brandon McCarthy combined slightly below-average strikeout and ground ball rates, which is consistent with his career numbers (16.9 percent strikeout rate, 36.4 percent ground ball rate). Dustin Nippert was as close to average as any of the Rangers' starting candidates, which is consistent with his career numbers (17.5 percent strikeouts, 40.3 percent groundballs). Worth noting is that Nippert's 2009 and career rates are superior to McCarthy's.
Tommy Hunter fell in the lower left quadrant with below average strikeout (13.5 percent) and ground ball (37.4 percent) rates. Hunter's strikeout rate might improve, but it will likely never get up to league average. His ground ball rate, however, appears likely to improve given the 49.3 percent mark that he enjoyed as a minor leaguer. It would not be surprising to see Hunter move into Scott Feldman's neighborhood on the Lederer plot.
In his rookie season, Derek Holland combined an above-average strikeout rate (18.2 percent) with a surprisingly low ground ball rate (39.8 percent). Young major league pitchers often improve their ground ball rates, and it is likely that Holland will approach the 45.9 percent ground ball rate that he enjoyed as a minor leaguer. At worst, that would move Holland into John Danks territory, and if he can improve his strikeout rate along with his ground ball rate, then he could take up residence in the upper right quadrant.
Consistent with his minor league career, Guillermo Moscoso combined a slightly above-average strikeout rate (18.8 percent) with a significantly below-average groundball rate (33.3 percent) in his first major league action. Scott Baker, Scott Richmond, Aaron Harang, and David Bush are Moscoso's nearest neighbors in the plot.
Using strikeout and ground ball rates as the key criteria for pitcher selection, it seems reasonably clear that the leading candidates for the Rangers' rotation in 2010 are C.J. Wilson, Rich Harden, Neftali Feliz, Scott Feldman, and either Dustin Nippert or Derek Holland.
Reader Comments (34)
David, where have you been my whole life? This stuff is awesome! Thanks and please keep it up. I look forward to the series of articles.
Good stuff here. As always!
If CJ were to transition to a SP, I would expect his K% and GB% to drop some. Hopefully he can also decrease his walk rate. CJ is at his best with at least 3 days rest unlike most relievers who are at their optimum with 1-2 days rest. ST will be interesting as far as CJ Wilson is concerned.
I'd rather see Nippert stay in the "6th-man spot starter, long-man if you need him" roll he was in last year. He was reliable for 6 innings when you needed him.
And as David pointed out, Nippert outpitched Macarthy last year. What's BMac's roll on this ballclub moving forward? Trade bait? How much value does he have on the market? It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.
Great article!
What a bunch of nonsense.
As John Madden said when asked about the numbers one of the NFL's draftees had received at the Combine. (40 yd dash; weight lifting; vertical jump, etc)
I only have one question...........That's all great BUT: "Can he Play?"
People here have always greatly under-valued CJ. He may be different from a personality standpoint, but lefthanders with his stuff are rare commodities. If the Rangers were ever to seriously shop him around (which I hope they don't), we'd see just how valuable he is.
David, is there a way to generate this same kind of plot but with K/BB ratio instead of K%?
jd21: If you were to trade Cj Wilson, what type of value would you expect in return?
Jesse - I like McCarthy for the depth that he provides but I hope that the quality of the Rangers' other starting pitchers is such that he will eventually be forced out of the rotation. Given that he is one of the more experienced and consistent (when he is not hurt) starting pitchers on the roster, I expect him to be in the rotation when the season begins. For the longer term, I think that his best value to the Rangers' organization would result from trading him to a team that is desperate for a starting pitcher.
Boo1mer - I don't really see the relevance of Madden's quote to this article. 40 times and bench press results measure tools. Interceptions, receptions, yards rushing, etc measure performance. Performance + "Can he play?". Srikeout/groundball rates are two of the key metrics for evaluating the performances of pitchers. So, the Lederer plot is merely a way to illustrate "Can he play?" and "Who is he most similar to in the way he plays?"
jd21 - I agree. The relationship between fans and relievers is notoriously fickle because it is hard for fans to forget about the games that relievers lost. The more analysis that I do on Wilson, the more convinced I become that he could be one of the 5 most valuable players on the 2010 Rangers. I really hope that he gets a chance to start this year.
T.E. - It is straight-forward to plot K/BB vs groundball rate. I will give that a try when I have a moment.
JP - I realize that you didn't ask me, but I will give you my back-of-the-envelop for what CJ is worth. If one assumes that he will will be a 2-WAR player for each of the two years that he has left befor becoming a free agent, then he projects to be worth ~$17M in 2010 and 2011. Assuming he is paid $3M and $4M for the next two seasons, then the Rangers (or another team) would save ~$10M relative to what they would spend on the free agent market. Using a really nifty table published at Beyond the Boxscore (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/3/777412/al-west-farm-system-values) using data from studies done by Victor Wang, that would make CJ worth a couple of Grade B prospects. If Wilson proves that he can start, then his projected value is likely to double and he would suddenly be worth a better package of prospects or an established major leaguer with a performance - salary in $10-20M range.
Jason: Let me respond with a question for a question: Who would you rather have, Edwin Jackson or C.J.? Granted Jackson is a couple years younger, but though C.J. has been a bullpen guy, he's left-handed, he's been consistently more productive, and Jackson faded pretty badly at season's end. Right now, who's a better bet for the future? That kind of comparison helps place him in a range, I think.
Rangers offer a 7mm contract to Vlad...
jd21: I'd rather have Edwin Jackson going forward.
This will most assuredly come back to bite me, but just this once I must disagree with Professor Parks (assuming we are talking about who will be the better pitcher in the future, and not on whose trade value is currently higher). I would rather have Wilson than Jackson. Jackson has been (and presumably will continue to be) a mediocre to poor starting pitcher. In 2009, his K-rate was slightly below average (18.1%) and his groundball rate was bad (39.1%). And 2009 was a good year! I would much rather roll the dice on Wilson being able to start (and excel) than having another Brandon McCarthy (which is essentially what Jackson is).
David-
I just think these are nerdy stats, that can easily be misread. If a pitcher sawed off bats and got nothing but dinky pop ups to the catcher....................would he not be considered a fly ball pitcher?
Give me an old time scout, without a speed gun any day of the week, to evaluate any pitcher out there.
The scout would say something like, "I don't need a speed gun, the hitters will tell me, through observation. An out is an out; It's great that he throws 96, but can he pitch."
Boo1mer - Preferring scouting to statistical analysis is fine, though I would suggest that combining the two gives you a much better perspective on what has happened in the past and what is likely to happen in the future. Scouts are awesome at revealing how and why a player produces the results that are recorded in a stat book. But scouts can be misled by personal biases and small sample sizes. With a reasonable sized data set, statistics can provide incredible insights into a player's performance and when used properly, can be exceptionally effective in predicting the future.
David: I don't necessarily disagree with you about Jackson. While I wouldn't exactly call his '09 season mediocre (I think he took several big steps forward as a pitcher), I would have some concerns about his flyball and K rates going forward, especially if he pitched in Arlington. I'd like to think that his command will continue to improve, but his mechanics are very inconsistent and his pitch sequencing often leaves a lot to be desired.
However, when forced to choose between Jackson and Wilson, I'll go with the starting pitcher with above-average stuff over the reliever with above-average stuff. Personally, I don't think Wilson will be able to maintain the effectiveness of his short-burst arsenal multiple times through an order. If Wilson proves he has the stuff to be an effective starting pitcher, I would certainly be willing to re-visit the question.
BOO1MER,
If these stats are irrelevant, then how is it that the best pitchers are grouped together where you'd hope (GB + SO), the next best pitchers (either GB or SO) are grouped together to the left or below the best quadrant, and the worst are where you'd expect (in the FB quadrant)?
David didn't "put" these pitchers where they are on the graph, the pitchers put themselves there,by virtue of their results.
It's one thing to say "I'm not interested in trying to convert a numeric list of results into a visual version of the same... I'm not even interested in trying to use the FREE map of someone who did".
But to call it "nonsense" is in fact nonsense. It's thoughtless. It's not an intellectual difference you have with David's snapshot of '09 pitching history, it's simply your current lack of will. I don't blame you for that. I just wish you'd call a spade a "spade" rather than "shoot the messenger" for your disinterest in this little slice of history.
THANK YOU, DAVID! This is a new-world map of the the old world of pitching!
Might you:
a) Add some of the pitchers the Rangers are considering (eg Sheets, Garland, Lewis-in-Japan; and
b) factor in "pitches thrown per out" to see how efficient some of these "best quadrant pitchers" are, in hopes of considering that in the question of projectable success as a starter?
Thanks again.
Jason- You seem to think you know what you are talking about. Keep thinking. Like most of the knobs on this site, you either like to spout off about things you are clueless about or you just make shit up and pass it off as fact. Which is it? Also, only people who are trying to impress others use terms like "stuff," and "mechanics" when talking about pitchers. They are vague terms that impress simpletons and nobody else. Let me guess, you read Baseball America? Congrats. Next time know how to properly apply those terms before throwing them up in order to strengthen a weak argument.
Joey's Balls:
"Let me guess, you read Baseball America? Congrats."
Actually, Baseball America reads me. Thanks for playing.
Baseball America reads you? Cute. Baseball America reads what, exactly? Your incredible breakdown of Edwin Jackson's "stuff?" Yeah, I'm sure it's at the top of their reading list. Next time, spend more time thinking on a retort before jumping in the ring with me. It would also help if you had a clue about baseball, but I guess baby steps are in order. I'm not sure what it is about this site that encourages underdeveloped thought, but some people who post here are crazy stupid. Thanks for playing? Another unfinished statement, Jason? Let me finish it for you--Thanks for playing...with my nuts.
It sounds like Joey's Balls need a nice cold shower to calm down and get rid of that stink of failed sarcasm.
Keep up the good work David. Do you have enough info do replace current MLB starter candidates with current minor leaguers? I think it would be interesting to see how high Ross would sit in that upper right quadrant.
To Joey's Balls,
Hi, you might be interested to know that generally the posters on this site have been able to maintain a certain sense of civility. If you can't really cope with that, then might I suggest that you GET YOUR SORRY ASS OVER TO THE DMN BLOG AND STAY THERE WITH ALL THE OTHER ASSHOLES.
Thank you,
A concerned BBTiA reader.
Yah, this stuff is weak. I'm just too lax to stop reading and too asinine to come up with a reasoned argument.
Actually I'm a simpleton who loves you knobs.
Whoa Jason, David, Michael - Don't feed the trolls!
I need to put my stuff up. My mechanic's tool set is all over the floor. I guess I am a simpleton since i own so many wrenches
David,
I hope you don't mind my commenting on our Vlad-offer here.
It only makes sense to me if we're planning on dealing DMurphy, which may well be the case since his value is a lot higher now than it will be if he becomes half of a DH platoon.
Last year's Vlad is fine as a DH/5th OF on most teams, but doesn't yet make sense for us. Offensively the '09 Vlad was comparable with Murphy in both his (remaining) ability to hit RHPs, and his (new) inability to hit LHPs. Carrying both players would leave us with 5 OFs who hit RHPs, and still only Hamilton who hits LHPs. Nady makes much more sense for our needs, unless we're about to trade DMurph to SF or Milwaukee for a lefty masher, ... or plan on bringing up Moreland to play OF vs LHPs.
Does anyone have insight into how we'd balance our offense if we get Vlad?
Great article David. Appreciate your work.
Regarding Joey's B: People resort to personal attacks when they do not have a valid argument. Ignore and delete his nonsense.
I've always thought that CJ had the stuff to be a quality starter and i wasn't happy when the Rangers decided to privilege short-term needs over long-term maximization of assets by making him a reliever (yet another example of their delusional lack of patience at that time). But that was years ago, and it's taken awhile for him to become a top-shelf reliever (which he clearly was last year). I worry that turning hiim back into a starter will usher in another transition period for him at the wrong time for this club. I also worry about his mindset for the job. CJ the reliever became successful when he stopped trying to dream up new pitches every week and focused on fastball command. CJ the starter -- I fear -- just might invent a new pitch every other day and lose sight of what he does best.
splendid analysis, btw
Thanks for the great comments and suggestions.
TE LeGraf - I did as you suggested and plotted groundball rates vs SO/BB. For the most part, the positioning of the pitchers in the graph was similar to what it had been with plotting SO% vs GB%. The exceptions, of course, were those with very strong or very weak walk rates. Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Dan Haren moved from very solidly in the upper right quadrant to outliers in the upper right quadrant. Joel Pineiro and Nick Blackburn moved from the lower left quadrant to the lower right. The placement of Rich Harden and Yovanni Gallardo went from outliers in the lower right quadrant to simply in teh pack in the lower right quadrant.
Michael Gleason - Jon Garland is an upper left quadrant guy (high groundball rate, low strikeout rate), situated between Scott Feldman and Matt Harrison. Ben Sheets lands near Rich Harden in the lower right quandrant with a high strikeout rate and slightly below average groundball rate. In the last two years that he pitched in the minor leagues, Colby Lewis posted strong groundball rates and decent strikeout rates which would have placed him in the upper left quadrant near Scott Feldman.
I like the idea of pitches thrown per inning. Unfortunately, I don't have a data set infront of me that will allow me to answer that. Perhaps a future article will address that issue. Thanks for the idea!
Dave H - Great idea regarding the minor league pitchers. I will put that in the queue for a future article. Thank you!
Thanks for commenting, MJH! It is great to have your well-informed and reasoned input.
David-
I do appreciate your analysis, but I just believe player evaluation is more art than science. How's Money Ball working out now for Billy Bean?
Still waiting your response about a pitcher that saws off bats and gets dinky pop ups to the catcher and infield. Would he not be considered just another fly ball pitcher by this use of stats?
The real world's pitching staffs are not made up of Nolan Ryan; Bob Gibson; Sandy Koufax; Steve Carleton and Dave Stewart in the starting rotation. You obviously strive for this type of staff, but it is not obtainable unless you are a big money team that can always get the best talent available, because you can pay the most scoots. That's the type of analysis I would like presented to the Commish's working group, for the "best interests of the game."
Most staffs are a work in progress; patch and repair throughout the year......pitchers competitiveness and heart are not chartable....That's why when you have an organization with Nolan Ryan ; Mike Maddox; Mark Connor you know you are going in the right direction. I would love to hear their views on all these charts. I would bet that they would be at the bottom of their evaluation process.
BOO1MER - Pop-ups to the catcher (or anywhere on the infield) are labeled infield flies. To your point, they do not get counted as groundballs, though they do not get counted as flyballs either. The reality is that no pitcher can consistently induce infield flyballs, thus your hypothetical has little meaning. Dominant pitchers are able to induce weak contact, which more often than not results in weak groundballs to the infield. That is actually why many dominant pitchers combine high strikeout rates and high groundball rates.