53 replies to this topic

[dbn]

Several times I've heard a broadcaster say something to the effect of: "Daisuke strives to never give up hits -- he'll walk you, but he doesn't want to let you hit him", or whatever. I largely ignore these comments as flippant platitudes. However, they got me thinking about some things which I thought I'd share in hopes that they'll induce productive discussion.

Obviously, from a pitcher's standpoint giving up a hit is worse than giving up a walk is worse than getting an out. Thus, if it were possible to 'exchange' hits for walks, it would be a good thing. However, it is unlikely that pitching works that way; more likely, when a pitcher is on, his walk and hit rates both go down; when he's not on, they both go up. In other words, it is more likely an 'exchange' of an out for a walk.

I put 'exchange' in inverted commas because, of course, we can never know what would have happened (a hit or an out) to the batter had he not walked. So on some level, we can not know if such a proposed approach is possible in practice. Nonetheless, looking at some figures might lead to some insight.

First, let's look at ERA vs WHIP for all AL pitchers (except for DM) in 2008 with IP > 100 -- a sample we'll use as a control (data through 15/08/08):



The correlation is impressive: Pearson's r = 0.870 +/- 0.033, with a scatter (standard deviation) of 0.429 in ERA from the best linear fit. There are zero outliers of >3 standard deviations (stdv). However, DM (in the plot, the red star) falls 3.4 stdvs (a random probability of ~0.04%) below the fit. How can we understand this?

First, let's look at simply ERA versus hits per 9IP:



Also a very good correlation (r = 0.788 +/- 0.051, stdv = 0.535). Now look at ERA versus BB per 9 IP:



There is a detectable, but weaker, correlation (r = 0.311 +/- 0.122, stdv = 0.826), and DM is in an otherwise unpopulated locus. Thus, DM having a very atypical walk rate deviates him from the WHIP-ERA correlation, since walks have much less affect on ERA than do hits (obviously), and folding in BBs to the hits-data only improves the scatter by ~ 0.1 run.

So how do we interpret this? Is DM (uniquely?) able to 'exchange' hits for walks? What should we expect going forward:

1) DM can continue to give up hits and walks at his current rate, and the result will be:
(i) his ERA will remain low, as it is spot-on for his hit-rate and the BBs don't affect the ERA that much relative to hits allowed
or
(ii) his ERA going forward will be worse; his current ERA is a statistical fluke given his WHIP

Or
2) his hit-rate is will increase; it is his low H/BB rate that is the fluke, and his ERA will rise accordingly

Or
3) DM can reduce his walk rate without increasing his hit-rate, and he will then dominate the AL

Three asides:

* I have no idea whether this is DM's "approach" or just how it works out for him, but either way I think it's worth discussing. I will note, however, that he was not such an outlier in the 2007 whip-era data.

* As we all know, no matter the ERA, a high WHIP leads to shorter outings and increased use of/dependence on the bullpen, which is a bad thing. I mean to discuss these stats independent of this effect (although we of course shouldn't forget all about it!)

* There are better predictors of ERA (such as contextual ERA, etc.) than WHIP. I'm using it here as it is a simple, obvious stat; a comparable discussion using, eg., CERA, would be too dense.

Thoughts?

Edited by dbn, 18 August 2008 - 01:01 PM.

[Bowlerman9]

Is DM (uniquely?) able to 'exchange' hits for walks?

* I have no idea whether this is DM's "approach" or just how it works out for him, but either way I think it's worth discussing. I will note, however, that he was not such an outlier in the 2007 whip-era data.

Thoughts?

I think DM is able to exchange hits for walks because, unlike most pitchers who are likely to pepper a 2-0 or 3-0 fastball right down the middle of the plate, he continues to throw HIS pitch (whichever one of the eight) and doesnt give in to the hitter. I havent looked at his splits in various counts and that would tell us a lot more of the story, but throwing a breaking ball to the outside of the plate on 3-0 will probably be a walk, a strike, or a weak out, whereas a fastball down the middle on 3-0 will either be a strike or a longball.

[PedroSpecialK]

I think Bowler's right - he's perfectly fine with surrendering a walk without anyone on (44 walks in 62.1 IP with the bases empty vs. 28 walks in 59.1 IP with runners on), and appears to be adopting the baseball equivalent of Belichick's "no big play" defense. The apparent strategy (he looks like a different pitcher than last year imo - those 3-0 fastballs were going for home runs last season) is working, as he's given up 8 homers compared to 25 last year and has given up more than three runs in an outing only three times, and more than two runs only 6 times. It's frustrating to watch, but it's been effective.

edit: After taking a look at his splits, Matsuzaka gave up 10 homers on the 1-0 pitch last year, versus 1 homer this year. Instead of grooving a fastball over to get it to 1-1 and avoid walking the guy, he's willing to take the risk of it going to 2-0.

Edited by PedroSpecialK, 18 August 2008 - 01:19 PM.

[Eric Van]

There are two different questions here, which may or may not be related:

1) What part of his low BABIP, if any, is a function of his high BB rate (trading hits for walks by throwing everything on the corners), and what part, if any, is random?

2) What part of the difference between his Component and Actual ERAs is derived from skill, and what's random? He's given up 10 fewer runs than you'd expect gievn his complete pitching line and neutral karma, due to extraordinary situational splits. Opponents are 2-20, 2 BB, 2 SF with 2 RISP (including 0-12, BB, SF with the bases full), .120 / .279 / .140 with 2 outs and RISP, and so forth. It's easy to dismiss that as luck, but he had similar splits last year, too.

[CaptainLaddie]

I remember in the James historical extract in his section about Nolan Ryan he said that Ryan's goal on the mound was to not allow you to get a hit - a walk was fine with him, but a hit was the last thing he wanted you to do. This is similar to Daisuke's approach as described by others - he won't let you beat him, he'll only beat himself (with walks and then a hit), but he's nails with guys on.

He has the 4th lowest OOPS this year in the AL (all numbers are min 100 IP) and the 2nd lowest OAVG, but is 35th in OBP. He is 53rd in the AL in strike %.

Does anyone know where to find league-wide numbers like OOPS with runners in scoring position? ESPN only has them in a team-by-team manner and that's annoying.

Edited by CaptainLaddie, 18 August 2008 - 01:37 PM.

[Sprowl]

I think DM is able to exchange hits for walks because, unlike most pitchers who are likely to pepper a 2-0 or 3-0 fastball right down the middle of the plate, he continues to throw HIS pitch (whichever one of the eight) and doesnt give in to the hitter. I havent looked at his splits in various counts and that would tell us a lot more of the story, but throwing a breaking ball to the outside of the plate on 3-0 will probably be a walk, a strike, or a weak out, whereas a fastball down the middle on 3-0 will either be a strike or a longball.

I agree that DiceK tries to throw HIS pitch, but it's not usually a breaking pitch on a hitter's count, and hardly ever a slurve (which is his most effective pitch in terms of getting swinging strikes and avoiding hits). On the contrary, HIS pitch is most often a fastball that avoids the center of the strike zone. DiceK doesn't have pinpoint control of his fastball, but he does seem to have the ability to avoid grooving a fastball belt-high down the middle. Instead, he throws a fastball on the edge, or often enough, way outside. He's wild, but he's not wild in the strike zone.

Here's DiceK's pitch selection by linear-weighted game state from his last loss against the Angels. In many ways, it is typical of his first-half reliance on the fastball (and occasionally the cutter) when the chips are down. In his August games, DiceK has shown a slightly increased willingness to use his slurve in hitters' counts, and the effects have usually been good ones. Hitters, right-handed ones especially, have a great deal of difficulty getting the bat on the slurve. The slurve, incidentally, occasionally appears as a curve, but usually as a slider in the Pitchfx classification, while the cutter appears as a cutter, fastball or slider. DiceK's pitches are best identified by velocity, horizontal movement and catcher's signal (a slightly tedious manual exercise), not by the automated classifications.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Jim Palmer had a similar strategy. He never surrendered a grand slam in all those innings pitched, because he figured that there was no point giving in to a hitter as long as there was a base open, even if it was home.

Palmer never walked as many guys as Matsuzaka is, however. While there's some justification for the strategy, if it is one, I don't think his present rates are very sustainable.

[dbn]

2) What part of the difference between his Component and Actual ERAs is derived from skill, and what's random? He's given up 10 fewer runs than you'd expect gievn his complete pitching line and neutral karma, due to extraordinary situational splits.

Isn't there another possibility, namely, that CERA doesn't handle pitchers with highly abnormal rate ratios (such as DM, who has a BB/H rate over 4.5 standard deviations from normal)? I don't know how the parameters for CERA are computed; are they done analytically or empirically?

(or, perhaps, you might just consider such a strange rate ratio as due to skill...)

[Rudy Pemberton]

I don't know; I think he's been lucky more than anything. How has his approach changed from the second half of last year? The big difference is that he's not giving up homeruns this year. It could be meaningful; but I'm not so sure. With Beckett and Pedro we saw guys who had their HR rate jump around a lot from year to year. Last year, in the second half of the season Dice-K had 4.4 BB/9, 8.3 K/9. This year he's at 5.3 BB/9, 7.6 K/9. The difference between a 5.19 ERA and a 2.74 ERA is a major drop in HR Rate (1.4 vs 0.6) but also some really good karma, I think.

I'm just not sold that he has this special ability to not give in to hitters yet still get out of jams; he didn't show that skill for most of last year.

[Eric Van]

Isn't there another possibility, namely, that CERA doesn't handle pitchers with highly abnormal rate ratios (such as DM, who has a BB/H rate over 4.5 standard deviations from normal)? I don't know how the parameters for CERA are computed; are they done analytically or empirically?

(or, perhaps, you might just consider such a strange rate ratio as due to skill...)

I'm calculating his Component ERA with my Contextual Runs formula (see CEE in the the stat wiki), and that's a variation on BaseRuns, and that's the RC formula best suited for being accurate despite odd component rates. So I would say that the estimate of 10 runs less than expected is reliable -- and something like that it is what you'd expect given his situational splits.

[paulftodd]

I remember in the James historical extract in his section about Nolan Ryan he said that Ryan's goal on the mound was to not allow you to get a hit - a walk was fine with him, but a hit was the last thing he wanted you to do. This is similar to Daisuke's approach as described by others - he won't let you beat him, he'll only beat himself (with walks and then a hit), but he's nails with guys on.

The difference though is Nolan Ryan actually finished the game, pitch count be damned. Dice-K's walks mean he pitches 1-2 less innings than he otherwise might have. So he pitches 6 innings, and parts of the 7th. he has finished off the 7th in 1/3 of his starts (comared with Jon Lester 50%, Wakefield 50% and Beckett 44%).

Also, those high PC innings take a toll on the fielders and his aging catcher.

His approach carries a hidden cost his team pays for. That said, he is keeping the ball in the park this year, and he is keeping runners on base from scoring. So long as he can continue this, his walks won't hurt him. Buchholz OTOH, walks batters like Dice-K, but pitches horribly with ROB and has trouble keeping the ball in the park. So you have these 2 pitchers, both have healthy K/9 rates, High BB/9, yet one has an era over 6 , and the other under 3. Some of it may be luck of course, but certainly not all.

BABIP has a luck component, but it is also a function of how hard balls are being hit. Dice K uses the walks to avoid making pitches too good to hit on hitters counts. Thats why he has a low BABIP. He is not wild within the strike zone.

[CaptainLaddie]

That's also partly the times. I'm not comparing Ryan to Daisuke (Ryan is one of the fifty best pitchers of all time; Daisuke is one of the fifty best pitchers in the game today) - but you can't really blame Daisuke for being pulled at 100-110 pitches - Ryan was allowed time and time again to reach 140 pitches (and more).

[paulftodd]

That's also partly the times. I'm not comparing Ryan to Daisuke (Ryan is one of the fifty best pitchers of all time; Daisuke is one of the fifty best pitchers in the game today) - but you can't really blame Daisuke for being pulled at 100-110 pitches - Ryan was allowed time and time again to reach 140 pitches (and more).

I do not blame Daisuke. I am just saying that in Ryans case, the cost of the strategy was a higher pitch count to himself (he had to work harder and longer). In Daisukes case, given the realities of today, the strategy while effective for keeping his ERA low (assuming he keeps the ball in the park and pitches well with ROB) is less innings pitched, and a greater contribution from the BP to get his wins.

[grantb]

In Daisukes case, given the realities of today, the strategy while effective for keeping his ERA low (assuming he keeps the ball in the park and pitches well with ROB) is less innings pitched, and a greater contribution from the BP to get his wins.

Are you suggesting the Red Sox bullpen is strong enough to get him that many wins.


The fact that Dice-K has 115.2 innings of under 2.00 ERA (from his wins and no decisions) so far this season is really amazing. In his two loses, he pitched 6 innings of 19.50 ERA. Whatever his approach, it is working and helping the team have a chance to win.

[paulftodd]

Are you suggesting the Red Sox bullpen is strong enough to get him that many wins.

The fact that Dice-K has 115.2 innings of under 2.00 ERA (from his wins and no decisions) so far this season is really amazing. In his two loses, he pitched 6 innings of 19.50 ERA. Whatever his approach, it is working and helping the team have a chance to win.

Why should I suggest this? The facts clearly show this to be the case. His starts require on average 3 RP'ers and a total of 62 1/3 IP in 21 starts (54 1/3 IP in 20 starts if you throw out the game he left due to injury) Also excluding this abbreviated start, in his 20 other starts, the BP has only allowed 3.15 RA/9 (for non Dice-K starts it is 3.5 RA/9) . And of his 9 IR's, only 3 runs were allowed in by the BP (compared to Beckets having 8 of his 12 IR's being allowed in).

Don't get me wrong, I am not ragging on Dice-K, the 2008 version certainly beats the 2007 version. But Wins by starting pitchers who fail to pitch 7 innings or more should have asterisks to denote he required a lot of help. Dice-K has 4 wins where he went 7 IP or more. The other 10 required the BP to get 7 or more outs, thats over 25% of the outs required for a teams win. Thats one of the costs of his approach which certainly is giving the team a chance to win his games.

Edited by paulftodd, 19 August 2008 - 02:41 AM.

[sachmoney]

Are you suggesting the Red Sox bullpen is strong enough to get him that many wins.

The fact that Dice-K has 115.2 innings of under 2.00 ERA (from his wins and no decisions) so far this season is really amazing. In his two loses, he pitched 6 innings of 19.50 ERA. Whatever his approach, it is working and helping the team have a chance to win.

I wanted to see if this was true, so I decided to look at each of his starts this year and the score when he left the game (I'm pretty sure I got it right...I included runners that were charged to him...but I don't think there's any other discrepancies). In addition, I included his IP and the result of the game.

Start IP Decision Score when leaving Result
1 5 3-2 Sox W
2 6.2 W 2-1 Sox W
3 6.2 W 5-0 Sox W
4 5 W 7-4 Sox W
5 5.1 W 9-3 Sox W
6 7 1-0 Sox W
7 5 W 4-1 Sox W
8 7 W 3-2 Sox W
9 6.2 W 4-2 Sox W
10 5.2 W 11-3 Sox W
11 4 3-0 M's L
12 1 L 7-0 Cards L
13 5 W 3-1 Sox W
14 5 4-1 Sox L
15 7.1 0-0 W
16 6 W 2-0 Sox W
17 7.1 W 4-2 Sox W
18 5 L 6-2 Angels L
19 6 W 4-2 Sox W
20 8 W 3-1 Sox W
21 7 W 9-0 Sox W

Okay that didn't turn out as best as I'd hoped, but you can see that for the most part, he's left with the lead. I know that this isn't the best way to gauge a starter, but keep in mind that part of a starter's job is to leave with a lead. Other than that one (devastating) loss to Tampa Bay, every game he's trailed, he's lost. Additionally, the Sox have won every game in which he had the lead (besides the aforementioned Tampa game) and tied. Sox are 17-4 in his starts.

Edited by sachmoney, 19 August 2008 - 02:58 AM.

[OttoC]

...every game he's trailed, he's lost...

If he leaves trailing during an inning, he can't get the win. He'd have to finish the inning then the Red Sox would have to rally in the next half inning (and hold the lead) for him to ge the win. One-third of the runs he's given up this year have come in his two losses. In other words, in the other 19 games he has started--14 W, 5 no-decisions--he has allowed a total of 27 runs and the club is 17-2 in those games. The bullpen has played a role but Matsuzaka is also only averaging about a third of an inning less per start that the other starters combined (5.79 to 6.16). On the other hand, he has probably left the bullpen more to work with as his ERA is 1.45 runs per game less than that of the other starters combined.

[bakahump]

I guess you cant argue with the success of the Ryans, Palmers and DiceKs of the world.

However.....on an extreme level could we not look at this the same way as the "Bonds Strategy"?

No one ever gave up to Bonds if they could walk him. Sometimes they walked him regardless....

Posters much better versed then proved that this was a bad idea as it let Bonds get on base at an astronomical rate via the intentional/Unintentional walk.

As an example they compared some of the best offensive seasons ever (which included players like Ruth and Bonds) and compared to if they had just been intentionally walked every single time.

Granted Dice K isnt walking players every single time......But the point I got out of the discussion I mentioned above is that if you let a guy hit the ball he is bound make SOME outs.

SO while Dice K may think "I will not let this guy hit the Ball I would rather he walk..." that means he will let a guy on base every time. As opposed to if they hit the ball, some large percentage of the time they would make an out.

Even 3-0 counts the League AVG is not 1.000 Yet if Dice K refuses to "give in" and throws a pitch that is likely to be ball the chance a Runner gets on will be close to 1.000.

[Bellhorn]

BABIP has a luck component, but it is also a function of how hard balls are being hit. Dice K uses the walks to avoid making pitches too good to hit on hitters counts. Thats why he has a low BABIP. He is not wild within the strike zone.

How do we know that this is true? Is there any statistical confirmation for the notion that pitchers can be "effectively wild?" I don't believe that there is any general inverse correlation between BB rate and BABIP. Of course, what we're more interested in here is whether a particular class of pitchers has shown such an inverse correlation over the course of their career (thus implying that they can, in a sense, trade hits for walks.) Has this ever been established?

I don't know of any detailed study on this question, but I can point out that Nolan Ryan does not seem to be an example of such a pitcher. Yes, he had consistently high BB rates and consistently low BABIP against, but these seem to vary more or less independently of each other over the course of his career. From 1968-1983, his translated BB rate (relative to a league average of 3.0) was never below 4.5. Over these 16 seasons, he had 82 fewer hits on balls in play than an average pitcher, 5.1 per season. In 1984, he seems to have found religion on the question of control, never posting a translated BB rate above 4.2 until his abbreviated final season in 1993. Over the 9 seasons from 1984-1992, he saved 43 hits on balls in play; just under 4.8 per season. Hardly a significant difference. I didn't calculate the overall correlation coefficient between his translated BB rate and his delta-hit numbers, but I bet it would tell a similar story.

It's an intuitively appealing explanation to say that Dice-K's fantastic results on BABIP and HR/FB this season are due to his refusal to compromise in hitter's counts, but until we see some stronger statistical evidence for such a phenomenon in the history of baseball, I would hesitate to put much weight on it.

[semsox]

Don't get me wrong, I am not ragging on Dice-K, the 2008 version certainly beats the 2007 version. But Wins by starting pitchers who fail to pitch 7 innings or more should have asterisks to denote he required a lot of help. Dice-K has 4 wins where he went 7 IP or more. The other 10 required the BP to get 7 or more outs, thats over 25% of the outs required for a teams win. Thats one of the costs of his approach which certainly is giving the team a chance to win his games.

If this is the case, maybe the sox should take a more hands off approach to Dice-K and just let him keep pitching. He leaves most of these games because he gets up to 100 or so pitches and Tito immediately takes him out. I'm not advocating letting him stay out there to throw 140-150 pitches, but I would have no problem with leaving him in there for 120-130 pitches most games. While pitching in Japan, other than one season where he had 2 CGs, Dice-K never had less than 6 CGs. And I know, I know, they had 5 days rest there and only 4 here, but if there's one pitcher on our staff I would be confident with consistently throwing very high pitch counts, it would be Dice-K.

[dbn]

I guess you cant argue with the success of the Ryans, Palmers and DiceKs of the world.

However.....on an extreme level could we not look at this the same way as the "Bonds Strategy"?

No one ever gave up to Bonds if they could walk him. Sometimes they walked him regardless....

Posters much better versed then proved that this was a bad idea as it let Bonds get on base at an astronomical rate via the intentional/Unintentional walk.

As an example they compared some of the best offensive seasons ever (which included players like Ruth and Bonds) and compared to if they had just been intentionally walked every single time.

Granted Dice K isnt walking players every single time......But the point I got out of the discussion I mentioned above is that if you let a guy hit the ball he is bound make SOME outs.

SO while Dice K may think "I will not let this guy hit the Ball I would rather he walk..." that means he will let a guy on base every time. As opposed to if they hit the ball, some large percentage of the time they would make an out.

Even 3-0 counts the League AVG is not 1.000 Yet if Dice K refuses to "give in" and throws a pitch that is likely to be ball the chance a Runner gets on will be close to 1.000.

Right. Let's say Bonds makes an out 60% (or whatever) of the times he's pitched to. If you intentionally walk him, you're trading 0.6 of an out and 0.4 of a hit, for a walk. The 'approach' has the pitcher mostly trading hits for walks, not outs for walks. I'm not saying DM can do this, I'm just think the numbers are interesting enough to talk about.

[dbn]

A PM I received and my reply:

Hi dbn,

Long time lurker here...

Nice work with Dice-K's numbers.

I'd be interested in seeing OPS vs. ERA, instead of WHIP. Let's factor those extra base hits into the equation and see how strong the correlation gets and if DM is still such an extreme outlier...

Cheers,

Wake's Knuckle

Hi there W's k.

I've been playing around with, instead of fitting a line to era versus only Hits or walks or whatever, fitting an n-dimensional line (or a n-plane) to era vs BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, SO, etc., simultaneously. Such a method returns the linear combination of those things that gives the smallest scatter when compared to ERA. I think I'm just reinventing the cERA wheel, but I'm enjoying myself so I don't care.

OPS is a linear combination of such things, but not necessarily the one with the smallest scatter in predicting ERA. However, I did fit ops-vs-era, and it is a better predictor than whip (not surprisingly), and, sure enough, DM's ERA is very close to the predicted ERA from the fit to OPS.

Thanks for the message,
DBN

[CaptainLaddie]

More of the same tonight. Lots of walks, lots of wiggling, a few hits, not many innings. His job in getting out of that bases loaded jam was impressive.

[paulftodd]

For those in the camp that Dice-K's low innings (5 IP last start) can not impact outcomes in the following game, consider that Masterson would have been available to come in when Clay got pulled tonight. The outcome might very well have been different.

Again, not saying I would trade a 5 IP, 2 ER performance with a 7 IP, 5 ER performance. Just saying that how deep a pitcher goes into a game is not a trivial point. If Dice-K has to pitch this way to keep runs from scoring, so be it.

Edited by paulftodd, 20 August 2008 - 10:26 PM.

[OttoC]

As I pointed out somewhere (game thread, maybe), Matsuzaka is not far behind other Red Sox starters innings pitched per start. He has averaged 5.76 innings per start while THE other starters are averaging 6.11. That is approximately one-third of an inning difference. Looking at rotation starters, Lester is at 6.45, Wakefield is at 6.39, and Beckett is at 6.49. So, he's about two-thirds of an inning behind them. This is not to say I wouldn't mind seeing him get deeper into games but comparatively, his performance is not that far out of line with his cohorts.

[paulftodd]

As I pointed out somewhere (game thread, maybe), Matsuzaka is not far behind other Red Sox starters innings pitched per start. He has averaged 5.76 innings per start while THE other starters are averaging 6.11. That is approximately one-third of an inning difference. Looking at rotation starters, Lester is at 6.45, Wakefield is at 6.39, and Beckett is at 6.49. So, he's about two-thirds of an inning behind them. This is not to say I wouldn't mind seeing him get deeper into games but comparatively, his performance is not that far out of line with his cohorts.

Dice-K has went 7 IP or more in less than 1/3 of his starts compared to Wakefield, Becket and Lesters 50%.

The ones that hurt the most are not getting out of the 6th inning, as this means you need a longer bridge to the 8th.

Lester has failed to do so 4 out of his last 20
Beckett 4 out of 22 (excluding last one)
Wake 5 out of 23
Dice K 10 out of 21 (excluding injury game)

Lester struggled to start the season, and over the last 20 games is 6.8 IP/GS
Beckett is 6.7 IP/GS (excluding his last outing which was abbreviated due to physical issues)
Dice-K 5.9 IP/GS (excluding his start where he came out early due to injury)

Over a long season, the extra relief appearances can add up. You accept it from the 4-5 starters, but Dice-K is supposed to be at least our # 3 guy. Going less than 6 IP in almost 1/2 your games is not what you want. Of course, we do not want to see the 2007 Dice-K who was giving up a lot of HR's, so I will take the 2008 version. But if asked who is the MVP of the starting pitching staff at the end of the year, I won't be fooled by the 20 wins that he may get.

[Sprowl]

DiceK's performance during the 13-5 laugher against the Rays on September 15 looks very different from the pitchfx perspective than the pitcher we've seen through most of the season. Since he had a 4-run lead before throwing his first pitch, it's probably safe to say that he felt free to experiment and to take a few risks that he might not have taken in a closer game. And experiment he did, throwing 9 changeups and 8 shuutos (or sinkers, or 2-seamers, depending on how you choose to classify them). In contrast to some of his mid-season games, the changeup was effective -- or at least, it didn't get hammered: it either missed the strike zone, or batters swung and fouled it off, hit it for an out, or missed it entirely. The only hits he gave up were on 2 fastballs and 1 cutter, and he struck out 7, especially on the slurves. The shuuto was also effective in generating weak contact, but he de-emphasized the cutter -- partly because he didn't need to fall back on it much as a get-me-over alternative to the fastball. This was a DiceK closer to the fabled Matsuzaka from Japan than to the FB-cutter-slurve nibbler we have come to know, throwing a wide range of breaking pitches and fastball variations, and leaving hitters baffled.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Interesting stuff, Sprowl, but what you're saying seems a bit contradictory given that he threw 103 pitches in only 5 innings last night. That to me screams nibbler. He didn't walk many last night and he did K 7 so he threw more pitches than Greg Maddux would, but the pitch count indicates a guy going very deep into counts yet again. Any thoughts on this?

[PedroSpecialK]

Interesting stuff, Sprowl, but what you're saying seems a bit contradictory given that he threw 103 pitches in only 5 innings last night. That to me screams nibbler. He didn't walk many last night and he did K 7 so he threw more pitches than Greg Maddux would, but the pitch count indicates a guy going very deep into counts yet again. Any thoughts on this?

Part of it had to be the additional 13 pitches he was forced to throw in the first when a pitch slightly above knee height over the middle of the plate to Pena was called ball 2. If that correct call is made, it changes the complexion of his entire outing and we might be talking about 7 innings with 115 pitches.

[Sprowl]

Interesting stuff, Sprowl, but what you're saying seems a bit contradictory given that he threw 103 pitches in only 5 innings last night. That to me screams nibbler. He didn't walk many last night and he did K 7 so he threw more pitches than Greg Maddux would, but the pitch count indicates a guy going very deep into counts yet again. Any thoughts on this?

I think you're right that DiceK is still a nibbler. The contrast I had in mind was in his use of his old repertoire, not in a reversion to a willingness to challenge hitters with the fastball over the heart of the plate, which was the pattern that observers of his Japanese performances noted: when he got in trouble, he dared the hitters to catch up, and most of them couldn't. What he found in his first year in the major leagues was that major league batter COULD catch up, and he paid the price in home runs surrendered in 2007 (25 in 204.2 IP, vs. 11 in 150 IP in 2008). How he has managed to avoid the gopherball this year is still a mystery to me, since he really can't control where many of his pitches end up. How a pitcher can be wild, but not wild in the strike zone is a puzzlement. He's still reluctant to challenge hitters, even with a 4-run lead last night. There were exceptions: the first batter, Iwamura, got two fastballs over the heart of the plate, but took one for a strike and fouled the other off. Longoria, on the other hand, walked on 6 pitches, including 3 in the dirt. DiceK's stuff is wicked, and often enough he can't control it -- but he rarely grooves it. I don't know how he does that, but 17-2 says he's doing it pretty well.

[Sprowl]

And 18-2 says DiceK is getting even better: 2 hits, 2 walks and 0 runs over 7 innings to beat the Blue Jays 3-0. He's still nibbling and throwing lots of pitches, 109 of them, because when he needs to put the batter away, his fastball alone is not a strikeout pitch. He is using the slurve more in high-leverage situations, and getting plenty of swinging strikes, but most batters manage to hang in and foul off the fastball until eventually they hit it in play. On this afternoon that meant long at-bats and plenty of popups and fly balls.

DiceK used most of his repertoire again (clockwise from lower left): changeup, 2-seam shuuto, 4-seam fastball, cutter, slurve, and one very slow curve.


He was getting lots of horizontal movement on the shuuto, including several that tailed back over the outside edge of the plate for called strikes on right-handed hitters. Both of the hits he surrendered were on shuutos too, but everything else was unhittable. He did get lucky on a few hard-hit liners to outfielders in the first inning, but for the most part the Blue Jays could only hope to stay alive, and rarely got good wood on the ball. The boundary between 2-seamer and 4-seamer is arbitrary, but the range in horizontal break within the fastball cluster is so great that the difference is almost certainly intentional. For the purposes of this analysis, I'm assuming that any fastball with horizontal break of -9 to -13 inches is a shuuto.

The slurve cluster also includes a wide range of pitches with no clear division, with velocity from 78 to 83 and horizontal break from 2 to 13 inches. That cluster probably includes slow sliders (as distinct from the cutter 86-89) and true curves, but the continuum is so gradual that it's impossible to state where the slider ends and the curve begins. If anybody noticed Tek's signals, it might be possible to distinguish them, but I'm sticking with the slurve category for now.

[TomRicardo]

Daisuke is now averaging 5.84 IP/GS and if exclude the injury game and the ill advised return it is over 6 IP/GS.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Daisuke is now averaging 5.84 IP/GS and if exclude the injury game and the ill advised return it is over 6 IP/GS.

Actually, if you only subtract out that first start after his injury that he made instead of AAA rehab, DiceK has put up a season line of 27 GS, 162 2/3 IP, 44 ER. That's good for almost exactly 6 IP/GS, with a 2.44 ERA. It may be ugly and excruciating when he refuses to challenge hitters, but he's managed to shave .085 off last year's SLG against while keeping his OBP stable.

He's pitched extremely well this year, it's just harder to watch him than Lester or Beckett because the game moves so damn slow. But there are very few pitchers in the AL that I'd rather have than him on my staff.

[Foulkey Reese]

Very good article in today's Globe about Dicek's approach this season.

"As it's been pointed out, I know that pitch count is an issue for me. Even if I allow runners on base through hits or walks, I want to hold them, prevent them from scoring. But at the same time, I know I need to keep my pitch count down, and that's always been an ongoing area of improvement for me. In the games that I start, I'm aware that I'm putting strain on the bullpen at times, and I always feel guilty about that."

"In Japan, to put it simply, I'd split the games into thirds," Matsuzaka said. "So the first inning to the third, the fourth to the sixth, and the seventh to the ninth, and I would take a different approach to each third of the game. Since I didn't worry about my pitch count, the question was more, how do I get through these three thirds, through these nine innings?

"That was how I approached the games, going all the way back to high school. But, like it or not, over here pitch count is enforced, so I need to change the way I approach the game."

http://www.boston.co..._way/?page=full

[Manny's Hammies]

I thought this passage was equally as fascinating:

So Matsuzaka added the two-seamer to the rest of his repertoire - a four-seam fastball, cutter, slider, changeup, curveball, and splitter. And, yes, that's seven pitches. Since then, Matsuzaka has all but abandoned his splitter and throws his curveball rarely.

That makes him not one pitcher, but two.

"Days when he doesn't feel as powerful, that's when we'll see him go to more breaking balls," Farrell said. "He has a rare ability to be two different types of pitchers, whether it's start to start, or even inside a game. So he's special in that way, he's very aware of himself, he's aware of the game situation. At the end, he's of one thought. That is to win.

[Rough Carrigan]

In his scouting report on the different teams over at espn, Keith Law says that one problem Matsuzaka has is that he doesn't throw inside to righties and seldom to lefties, even then only with cutters or sliders. I know that's not true as an absolute statement, but as a general description of how he works, I think it's true. He needs to make them respect the inside half of the plate on Friday.

Let's talk about that 18-2 record that has masked what a disappointing season Daisuke Matsuzaka has had. He's going to lead the AL in walks, despite barely qualifying for the ERA title, while pitching seven or more innings just eight times all year. His velocity is now just solid-average, although he might flash a 94 or two in his 110 pitches (roughly five innings of work), and he refuses to pitch to the inner half or even try to get on or under a hitter's hands with it. His entire pitching plan now is to work away with hard stuff and maybe run a few sliders or cutters inside to lefties. The slider has some tilt, but finishes belt-high far too often, and his changeup, which is his best secondary pitch, should be on the side of a milk carton.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 30 September 2008 - 10:49 AM.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

I question the part where Daisuke attributes his ability to pitch longer in games in Japan to not having to worry about pitch counts there. At least I don't think it's the complete answer. I realize they are less stringent in that regard in part because starters pitch once a week there and perhaps in part because of a different cultural view. However I don't think he was regularly over 150 pitches/9 innings in Japan (not sure where to find those numbers though). That's what his numbers here would suggest. A big part of it that he didn't mention may be the difference in how balls and strikes are called here vs. Japan (i.e., a wider strike zone in Japan).

[OttoC]

In his scouting report on the different teams over at espn, Keith Law says that one problem Matsuzaka has is that he doesn't throw inside to righties and seldom to lefties, even then only with cutters or sliders. I know that's not true as an absolute statement, but as a general description of how he works, I think it's true. He needs to make them respect the inside half of the plate on Friday.

RH hit .195 and LH hit .225 off him this year and .229/.232 for his ML career. It's not like he's being hammered because he can't make batters respect the inside half of the plate.

[RedOctober3829]

I question the part where Daisuke attributes his ability to pitch longer in games in Japan to not having to worry about pitch counts there. At least I don't think it's the complete answer. I realize they are less stringent in that regard in part because starters pitch once a week there and perhaps in part because of a different cultural view. However I don't think he was regularly over 150 pitches/9 innings in Japan (not sure where to find those numbers though). That's what his numbers here would suggest. A big part of it that he didn't mention may be the difference in how balls and strikes are called here vs. Japan (i.e., a wider strike zone in Japan).

Another point that wasn't brought up is that hitters are more patient at the plate in the US as a whole. Organizations in the US believe working pitchers deeper into counts no-doubtedly plays a role in his pitch count rising over here in the States. It's really a combination of all the points that have been brought up here: the hitters in the US major leagues are better and (for the most part) more disciplined than any league in Japan, the umpires having a different zone than he is used to, and the mindset of pitch counts differing on both sides of the Pacific.

At some point(IMO sooner rather than later), the cumulative effects of consistently high pitch counts in Japan are going to show over here and he will start to break down. I just hope it is at the end of his contract and not in the middle.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

RH hit .195 and LH hit .225 off him this year and .229/.232 for his ML career. It's not like he's being hammered because he can't make batters respect the inside half of the plate.

I understand why Law carps on certain things with Dice K that might be troubling, but his BABIP was .260, not an untenable figure, he only allowed 128 H in 167 IP (around 6.87 H per 9), and his HR has dropped way, way down. If you were looking to project what Dice K might do next year you'd be concerned about the HR rate and H rate rising up to more normal levels (although the BB rate would probably drop a bit as well), but in terms of looking at how he's pitched this year I think it's obvious Dice K has taken an approach to minimize hits with runners on base. This leads to more walks, but since it's tough to drive in runs without getting a hit it seems to work for him.

[Dogman2]

I understand why Law carps on certain things with Dice K that might be troubling, but his BABIP was .260, not an untenable figure, he only allowed 128 H in 167 IP (around 6.87 H per 9), and his HR has dropped way, way down. If you were looking to project what Dice K might do next year you'd be concerned about the HR rate and H rate rising up to more normal levels (although the BB rate would probably drop a bit as well), but in terms of looking at how he's pitched this year I think it's obvious Dice K has taken an approach to minimize hits with runners on base. This leads to more walks, but since it's tough to drive in runs without getting a hit it seems to work for him.

Are you basing normal levels for his entire career in Japan and MLB, or just his time this side of the pond?

If just for MLB, wouldn't we need at least 3 seasons until we can adequately perdict his normalized rates?

[Jnai]

In his scouting report on the different teams over at espn, Keith Law says that one problem Matsuzaka has is that he doesn't throw inside to righties and seldom to lefties, even then only with cutters or sliders. I know that's not true as an absolute statement, but as a general description of how he works, I think it's true. He needs to make them respect the inside half of the plate on Friday.

I mean this in the least hostile way because maybe I'm missing something here, but here's what I get when I crunch the numbers-

Background info:
Non-Cutter fastballs are identified as pitches >87mph with at least 3 inches of leftward movement; "On the Plate" defined as pitches vertically under 3.5 feet and above 1.5 feet.

To RHH:


To LHH:


On the same graph, so that you can compare:


The RHH distribution looks pretty bimodal actually, with a peak on either sides of the plate and a drop in the middle. It doesn't look heavily biased to just pitching outside, although I guess at the edges he's more likely to throw pitches off the plate outside than off the plate inside. The LHH distribution looks a lot more biased to pitching outside, but that's the reverse of what Law was saying, right?

These are just fastballs, but I'm confused. Maybe someone else can run the #s and make more sense of it than I can. I've been wrong before a lot of times.

Edited by Jnai, 30 September 2008 - 10:47 PM.

[Sprowl]

In his scouting report on the different teams over at espn, Keith Law says that one problem Matsuzaka has is that he doesn't throw inside to righties and seldom to lefties, even then only with cutters or sliders. I know that's not true as an absolute statement, but as a general description of how he works, I think it's true. He needs to make them respect the inside half of the plate on Friday.

Let's talk about that 18-2 record that has masked what a disappointing season Daisuke Matsuzaka has had. He's going to lead the AL in walks, despite barely qualifying for the ERA title, while pitching seven or more innings just eight times all year. His velocity is now just solid-average, although he might flash a 94 or two in his 110 pitches (roughly five innings of work), and he refuses to pitch to the inner half or even try to get on or under a hitter's hands with it. His entire pitching plan now is to work away with hard stuff and maybe run a few sliders or cutters inside to lefties. The slider has some tilt, but finishes belt-high far too often, and his changeup, which is his best secondary pitch, should be on the side of a milk carton.

I think Law is out of date in several ways. We've been looking at DiceK's changeup for months now (see this post). DiceK dropped the changeup after several games where batters hit it hard during May (Jnai had an excellent post which I can't find right now showing how poor the results with the changeup), used it very little when he returned from his rotator cuff strain in June, and reintroduced the changeup during the blowout against Tampa Bay (see the chart in this post: 9 changeups). The buzz when he came from Japan was that his changeup (or splitter, or vulcan change, depending on which video clips were viewed) was his best pitch, but the 2008 results suggest that it is in fact one of his worst.

The notion that DiceK's slider ends up belt-high can be defended -- but that doesn't make it hittable: the slurve (meaning his rightward moving breaking pitches 77-83 mph) produces consistently good results against RHH. Lefties can't hit it either, but they don't get thrown so many of the pitches either. It has more horizontal than vertical break, but that makes it a slurve, not ineffective. What has become abundantly clear this season is how much trouble RHH have in doing anything with the slurve, whether it is belt high, knee high or ankle high. All the results I have seen suggest that his slurve, not his changeup, is his best secondary pitch, and by a wide margin too.

To RHH:

...
The RHH distribution looks pretty bimodal actually, with a peak on either sides of the plate and a drop in the middle. It doesn't look heavily biased to just pitching outside, although I guess at the edges he's more likely to throw pitches off the plate outside than off the plate inside.

That's an elegant demonstration of what it means not to be wild in the strike zone: DiceK misses with his fastball often enough, especially high and outside to LHH, but he never grooves a fastball to RHH.

The LHH distribution looks a lot more biased to pitching outside, but that's the reverse of what Law was saying, right?

On this one, I think Law is saying that DiceK prefers to pitch outside to LHH (ie, to the catcher's left) and outside to RHH (to the catcher's right). The numbers seem to confirm the former, but contradict the latter.

I think Law gets frustrated by watching DiceK pitch, just as many SoSH game thread posters do, because he is a slow worker and a nibbler. I have the opposite reaction: I love watching him pitch because of the movement on his pitches and the results. I don't buy the notion that he must inevitably revert to the mean of giving up more HR and more H. When a pitcher can maintain a low BA, low BABIP and high strand rate for an extended period, sooner or later one has to acknowledge that he is a very good pitcher, walk rate notwithstanding.

[paulftodd]

Any SP'er who fails to complete 6 innings 50% of the time better change his approach if he wants to be considered among the elite. Lester does so 2/3 of the time, and has finished 7 IP or more 50% of the time.

But it is not as much an issue in the playoffs as there are more days off. So long has he keeps the runs down through 5 IP, the BP can pick him up and still be available for the next game as well.

[paulftodd]

I question the part where Daisuke attributes his ability to pitch longer in games in Japan to not having to worry about pitch counts there. At least I don't think it's the complete answer. I realize they are less stringent in that regard in part because starters pitch once a week there and perhaps in part because of a different cultural view. However I don't think he was regularly over 150 pitches/9 innings in Japan (not sure where to find those numbers though). That's what his numbers here would suggest. A big part of it that he didn't mention may be the difference in how balls and strikes are called here vs. Japan (i.e., a wider strike zone in Japan).

Here you are, from 2006



http://matsuzaka.blogspot.com/

He had some high PC games but he was used more cautiously than in previous years. He averaged 7 2/3 IP per start, about 2 IP more than this year. Obviously, pitching in the AL is tougher.


In Japan, he also pitched once every 7 days (all teams have 1 day off per week and 6 game schedule) and not every 5-6 days .

Edited by paulftodd, 01 October 2008 - 02:51 AM.

[gibdied]

Let's talk about that 18-2 record that has masked what a disappointing season Daisuke Matsuzaka has had.

Disappointing? Matsuzaka was outstanding this year, posting a 3.11 RA in the AL East and finishing 14th in MLB (4th in AL) in SNLVAR, and that was despite the starts he missed and the subsequent ill-advised rehab start upon his return. Was Law expecting him to pitch like vintage Pedro? That's about the only way Matsuzaka's season could be considered "disappointing".

Any SP'er who fails to complete 6 innings 50% of the time better change his approach if he wants to be considered among the elite. Lester does so 2/3 of the time, and has finished 7 IP or more 50% of the time.

But it is not as much an issue in the playoffs as there are more days off. So long has he keeps the runs down through 5 IP, the BP can pick him up and still be available for the next game as well.

I disagree that he needs to pitch more innings to be considered elite. The most important thing for a pitcher is to keep runs off the board and he's excellent at that. The difference in value between averaging ~6IP vs. 6.2IP is comparatively small. Sure it would be ideal to go deeper in games, but it's not crucial and that's evidenced by the support neutral stat I listed above. Other stats show it too like the expected team winning percentage in his starts, which at .599 was good for 6th in MLB among qualified starters, just a whisker behind Halladay at .605. Furthermore, those stats assume league average support for both offense and bullpen. On a team with better offense and/or bullpen, like the Sox, averaging an extra 2 outs per start becomes even less valuable.

Now one could argue that those stats are incomplete because they don't account for the extra wear and tear put on the bullpen by having to get an extra 2 or 3 outs in Matsuzaka's starts, and that's a fair point. But ultimately that only amounts to about 30 IP, and spread out over the course of a season that's a fairly small number, especially on a team that already has a few starters that consistently go over 6IP.

As far as the playoffs go, not only do the rest days help, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Francona loosens the reins a little on Matsuzaka. If he's at 108 pitches through 6IP, I don't think it's automatic he gets pulled. At least, that's what I hope. I really believe Matsuzaka can handle throwing more pitches than most other pitchers, especially after being carefully used during the whole regular season.

[TheGoldenGreek33]

All AL rankings of Qualified Starters

The Good:
5th with a 8.27 K/9
4th with a 0.64 HR/9
1st with a .213 BAA
7th with a 18.1 LD%

The Bad:
24th with a 1.32 WHIP
33rd with a 1.64 K/BB

The Ugly:
2nd worst with a -1.13 ERA-FIP
Last with a 80.6 LOB%
Last with a 5.05 BB/9

Miscellaneous and "Luck" Stats:
.267 BABIP
0.89 GB/FB
6.1 HR/FB

Edited by TheGoldenGreek33, 08 October 2008 - 09:31 PM.

[Vermonter At Large]

All AL rankings of Qualified Starters

The Good:
5th with a 8.27 K/9
4th with a 0.64 HR/9
1st with a .213 BAA
7th with a 18.1 LD%

The Bad:
24th with a 1.32 WHIP
33rd with a 1.64 K/BB

The Ugly:
2nd worst with a -1.13 ERA-FIP
Last with a 80.6 LOB%
Last with a 5.05 BB/9

Miscellaneous and "Luck" Stats:
.267 BABIP
0.89 GB/FB
6.1 HR/FB

Honestly, the four items you list under "The Good", along with his RA and ERA are what really count. All the other measurements you list are superfluous junk stats. The bottom line is that opponents have been unable to make solid
contact on him all year. Has any pitcher in recent years ever been so unhittable?

[JimBoSox9]

Honestly, the four items you list under "The Good", along with his RA and ERA are what really count. All the other measurements you list are superfluous junk stats. The bottom line is that opponents have been unable to make solid
contact on him all year. Has any pitcher in recent years ever been so unhittable?

Aren't they still important when it comes to projecting him for next year, though? I would think that for a pitcher to put up such a good ERA+ while posting a poor walk rate (and, by extension, WHIP) over multiple years would be something that does not often occur.

[smastroyin]

I think the BB rate is the only thing of concern amongst all of the negatives. All of the other numbers are a direct consequence of the BB rate.

If Dice-K never puts the ball in a place where the hitter can make solid contact, I think it follows that he will have a lot of BBs, just by the nature of this league. So the question becomes whether his suppression of hits in general and SLG in particular will vary and fall in line with what most pitchers do, or if there is something in the way he pitches that allows us to expect him to continually suppress BABIP and line drives in general. Most of the discussion of his "lousy season" is based entirely on established thoughts that pitchers have little influence on what happens after the ball hits the bat. That's where the crappy FIP comes from. In this way, if you look at Dice-K's numbers as a random guy from the pool of all pitchers, you say "here is the guy who was the luckiest guy in the league" or some-such. But, if there are reasons to believe that he has an ability to induce weak contact, then I think that should necessarily skew the interpretation. Now, I don't think we have enough evidence either way but like many things, not having enough evidence is not the same thing as "it's not there."

I agree with anyone who says that the walks are maddening and I was quite disappointed in the way he threw in Anaheim. But, I also think there are some pieces of evidence that suggest merely saying that he was awful but lucky is a cop-out and/or the words of a person who has drunk too much Kool Aid at the altar of Voros. And some of it does get into the idea of the discussion I had with Bellhorn a couple of months back. For someone to look at the components and say "he had a disappointing season" while basically pooh-poohing the facts that we care about, the team won a lot of games that he started, is, to me, so much intellectual garbage. Whether through luck or skill, Dice K was very good this year at producing actual results. Even if all you can say is that he had some bizarre (and unrepeatable) synergy with the defense, that is worth something to me when that translates to wins. Now, when evaluating the future, then bring the components in, that's fine. "Here are some indicators that Dice K will struggle in the future." Whatever. But to brazenly say that his record masks a disappointing season? I can't buy that.