What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Can a pitcher control his strand rate? (Knightro?) (1 Viewer)

Your Mother

Footballguy
For the uninitiated, strand rate is: (HA + BBI - ER) / (HA + BBI - HRA), or, how many hitters that get on base (excluding HR) that eventually score. The league average, I believe, is 72%.

There are some things that a pitcher can control, obviously (GB/FB, K/9, BB/9), and some they can't (HR per FB, BABIP), where does S% fall? Is it a function of some players being able to pitch out of the stretch better than others? Dave Bush is the first guy who comes to mind, who historically has great K and walk rates, but his strand rate is perennially brutal, leading to solid WHIPs and gross ERA. It seems like most closers have excellent S% rates (Papelbon, Street), is this a function of not having to pace one's self?

I think I'm sort of answering my own question here, I just haven't seen any studies on this.

 
Closers have an excellent rate because they have less chances to blow it. In the smaller sample size, they can run a hot streak (like Gagne in his prime) whereas a starter is always going to normalize at some point in a season save the outliers like David freaking Bush.

A starter can somewhat control it but if his OBABIP fluccuates (something a pitcher has a tough time controlling) or his HR/FB rate grows, that is going to affect his strand rate.

 
Knightro said:
Closers have an excellent rate because they have less chances to blow it. In the smaller sample size, they can run a hot streak (like Gagne in his prime) whereas a starter is always going to normalize at some point in a season save the outliers like David freaking Bush.A starter can somewhat control it but if his OBABIP fluccuates (something a pitcher has a tough time controlling) or his HR/FB rate grows, that is going to affect his strand rate.
Are you sure? Looking at the Top 20 guys in saves last year, 11 have S% of over 80% (Papelbon was in the 90's, which is part of the explanation for his microscopic REA). Only 2 are below 70% (T. Jones and Turnbow). Looking at the Top 20 in QS (kind of an arbitrary measure, but it's late and I don't want to set up a new template on Sportsline), 3 are under 70%, and nobody's over 80%. Three guys are at 77% (Oswalt, Santana and Arroyo), but nobody's over that.Examining Bush a little closer, since he's the poster boy for the low WHIP, high ERA-type pitcher. With the bases empty last year, his K/9 was 7.73, BB/9 was 1.68, HR/9 was .98. Studly stuff. With someone on base, his K/9 drops to 6.14, and his BB/9 is 1.53. Still pretty good, but a noticeable drop in his K/9. Over his career, there's the same type of drop, from 6.9 with nobody on to a pretty pedestrian 5.27 with runners on.My theory is that some pitchers are just worse off in the stretch, and they're, essentially, a different pitcher from the guy who's pitching out of the windup.Another one:Javier Vazquez lifetime-Nobody on: 8.52 K/9 2.13 BB/9Runners on: 6.82 K/9 2.77 BB/9Freddy Garcia might be another one, but I have to go to bed. Anyway, food for thought I suppose. Hopefully some others chime in, I think stuff like this is crucial to evaluating pitchers.
 
Interesting theory on the runners on/off stuff. I see a guy's strand rate somewhat controlled because walks are a part of it. If a guy can stop giving up the free passes, he can somewhat hold that strand rate in check. Hits allowed are iffy because of the "seeing eye singles" and the like but hits are clearly less controllable than walks.

 
I think there's something to be said for some guys pitching out of the stretch better than others.

Also...is there any evidence that lefties have slighty better strand rates than righties since they should be harder to steal on?

 
You're so far ignoring/forgetting the effect that baserunners have on the way that the infield plays. If runners break, infielders leave their defensive positions to cover the base. The hit and run obviously exploits this.

Runners on first and second sometimes will draw the infield to double play depth with does increase the chance to get a double play, but also enables a hit ball "with eyes" to find its way through an infield at medium depth.

Pitchers also, with speed on the bases, can't afford to throw as many off-speed pitches which in turn makes them more hittable.

My assumption here would be that a guy like Derek Lowe who is a ground ball pitcher will fare better in this type of analysis given his ability to induce double plays than will other types of pitchers. A guy, OTOH, who is known for pitching well generally but giving up big innings will probably fare worse.

As for closers, as a group they too will normalize over time, especially if they are put into the game with inherited runners. Guys like Saito, though, who tend to enter the game at the beginning of the 9th and who have nasty stuff and can rely upon the K to get themselves out of a jam likely will be on the better end of the scale.

Finally, you should look at the team's fielding %, especially on the infield.

 
You're so far ignoring/forgetting the effect that baserunners have on the way that the infield plays. If runners break, infielders leave their defensive positions to cover the base. The hit and run obviously exploits this. Runners on first and second sometimes will draw the infield to double play depth with does increase the chance to get a double play, but also enables a hit ball "with eyes" to find its way through an infield at medium depth. Pitchers also, with speed on the bases, can't afford to throw as many off-speed pitches which in turn makes them more hittable. My assumption here would be that a guy like Derek Lowe who is a ground ball pitcher will fare better in this type of analysis given his ability to induce double plays than will other types of pitchers. A guy, OTOH, who is known for pitching well generally but giving up big innings will probably fare worse. As for closers, as a group they too will normalize over time, especially if they are put into the game with inherited runners. Guys like Saito, though, who tend to enter the game at the beginning of the 9th and who have nasty stuff and can rely upon the K to get themselves out of a jam likely will be on the better end of the scale. Finally, you should look at the team's fielding %, especially on the infield.
Interesting points. As far as the defense playing differently with runners on, that doesn't concern me since that occurs for all pitchers. I'm wondering if some pitchers have better core skills (K/9, BB/9, etc.) with runners on than without, I think it's fairly safe to say that almost all pitchers aren't AS good with runners on. I just did a peek on guys who had strong S% rates last year (Oswalt, Santana) and they too suffered a drop in K/9.The GB pitcher vs. FB pitcher theory is interesting, I'll poke around on that later. One other thing I've been thinking about lately, is that the optimal strategy re: GB/FB depends on the hitter himself, obviously you'd rather have Juan Pierre hitting flyballs and Albert Pujols hitting ground balls, but do pitchers adjust for this? Can or do pitchers be GB pitchers for some hitters, and FB pitchers for others? I would think so.I'm not sure about closers being ultimately just as bad with runners on. Again, it bears further looking into, but I think that closers not having to pace themselves with regard to the stuff they throw, and probably being more conditioned and trained to pitching with runners on/out of the stretch (doesn't Papelbon always throw from the stretch?), probably makes them better pitchers with runners on.Lots to chew on, lots to look into later. I think guys who always pitch out of the stretch might make an interesting control group for our purposes.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top