The Ground Game: Searching for Market Inefficiencies

Snodgrass'Muff · Dec 12, 2014

With adding three ground ball pitchers to the staff, it's kind of hard to not see it as a specific effort to take advantage of what should be an above average infield defense, even with Bogaerts being average at the absolute best, but I think this is also an attempt to offset the risk in hoping for 150+ innings from each of Buchholz and Kelly. All three pitchers they acquired have a strong track record of getting out on the mound and taking their turn in the rotation all season. Wade Miley's low total in the last three years is 194.2, Porcello has been at 176.1 or higher in each of the last four seasons and Masterson went 180.1, 216, 206.1, and 193 in the four seasons leading into 2014. If they don't think his injury issues from last year are likely to persist, he's a good bet for something near 200 innings.

But yeah, the Red Sox are big on using the shift where they feel it makes sense and have had some very creative uses of it over the last couple of seasons, so I imagine there is a strategy at play here that involves inducing ground balls and trusting in a combination of the defenders and the analytics to create outs. That both Masterson and Wiley have demonstarted an ability to strike batters out at a higher than average clip in addition to being excellent inducing ground balls speaks to a desire to minimize hard contact and perhaps the impact on the bullpen over the course of the season by getting starters later into the games. It's tough for a starting pitcher who strikes out a ton of guys to get really deep because striking a batter out takes a minimum of three pitches and letting guys stay in for 130, 140 or more pitches is considered downright criminal in today's MLB.

I don't think I'd say that it's an attempt to induce ground balls above all else, but it's very likely a big part of what they are trying to do. These pitching acquisitions bring more than that to the table, though, which is great.

Drek717 · Dec 12, 2014

I'm hoping this doesn't feel like too much of a tangent, but another market inefficiency they Sox might be looking to tap into (related to the newly acquired pitches) is how effective both Porcello and Miley have been at minimizing stolen bases. Kelly is comparatively frugal in that regard as well, and while Masterson had issues with SBs in 2012 (allowing 25) he's been solid at holding runners on each of the last two years (9 and 5 respectively in 2013 and 2014). Given that near ubiquitous trait and Vazquez' 51.7% CS rate in 54 games last season (29 total attempts, 15 caught, so he got tested) you have a recipe for the Sox going from one of the worst SB defense teams to one of the best effectively overnight.

Over the last few seasons and especially last season stealing bases has come back into prominence as league-wide power production declines. The Sox are primed to have several good base stealers themselves (Betts, Castillo, Victorino, Pedroia is no slouch, and Bogaerts is a good athlete himself) the differential they're creating here could have some real tangible benefits. Keeping guys on first when a ground ball pitcher is on the mound is also essential to inducing double plays, so they got that going for them, and a sac bunt when Vaz is the guy most likely scooping it up doesn't seem like a bet the opposition is going to win on very often either.

Kull · Dec 12, 2014

Assume for a moment the Sox do not add a power arm at the top of the rotation, what is the impact when you go into a series with team "x" with a rotation of Porcello, Buchholz, Miley, Kelly, and/or Masterson? The opposing hitters will get a steady diet of sinkers over a multi-day period, which is really going to help when it comes to pitch recognition. In addition, the top speed for each pitcher is about the same (low 90's) so my concern is that timing of pitches and an eye for those that will not reach the strike zone is going to swing the advantage quite perceptibly to the hitters. Over a long season, this does not sound promising, both in terms of pitch counts and results.

lxt · Dec 12, 2014

Someone, I think Hillbilly, put up information about hitting in Fenway and that lifting the ball could be a major issue with the Green Monster. It's a source of many 2Bs were it would be a fly out in other parks. This could be another justification for leaning toward GB pitchers.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 12, 2014

Kull said:
Assume for a moment the Sox do not add a power arm at the top of the rotation, what is the impact when you go into a series with team "x" with a rotation of Porcello, Buchholz, Miley, Kelly, and/or Masterson? The opposing hitters will get a steady diet of sinkers over a multi-day period, which is really going to help when it comes to pitch recognition. In addition, the top speed for each pitcher is about the same (low 90's) so my concern is that timing of pitches and an eye for those that will not reach the strike zone is going to swing the advantage quite perceptibly to the hitters. Over a long season, this does not sound promising, both in terms of pitch counts and results.

I've wondered about this too, but I think it's mitigated by the fact that one of these guys is a lefty and the other four have pretty different secondary repertoires, as well as differences in velocity (Kelly throws harder than the other three) and arm angles. It won't quite be looking at the same guy four days in a row.

chrisfont9 · Dec 12, 2014

Kull said:
Assume for a moment the Sox do not add a power arm at the top of the rotation, what is the impact when you go into a series with team "x" with a rotation of Porcello, Buchholz, Miley, Kelly, and/or Masterson? The opposing hitters will get a steady diet of sinkers over a multi-day period, which is really going to help when it comes to pitch recognition. In addition, the top speed for each pitcher is about the same (low 90's) so my concern is that timing of pitches and an eye for those that will not reach the strike zone is going to swing the advantage quite perceptibly to the hitters. Over a long season, this does not sound promising, both in terms of pitch counts and results.

I've often wondered about this day-to-day consistency, or lack thereof. Conversely, did having Wakefield all those years enhance the hard-throwers' stuff? I suppose with the sinkerballers, there may be some value to hitters adjusting their approach, what they're looking for, i.e. bottom of the zone, etc. The pitches themselves will vary with differing movement, plus Miley is LHP, and other subtleties that should reduce the carry-over effect. But have hitters ever spoken about this as a thing?

Kull · Dec 12, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
I've wondered about this too, but I think it's mitigated by the fact that one of these guys is a lefty and the other four have pretty different secondary repertoires, as well as differences in velocity (Kelly throws harder than the other three) and arm angles. It won't quite be looking at the same guy four days in a row.

I agree - the guys are all somewhat different but the top end velocities are pretty similar (none overpowering), and the key pitch (sinker) is the same for most of them. Perhaps arm angle and secondary pitches and the L-R variation will be enough to keep hitters from getting too comfortable, but it will bear watching. Not really sure how to quantify this, but I'll be interested to see how the opposing hitters are doing in games three and four versus the first two of any given series.

chrisfont9 said:
I've often wondered about this day-to-day consistency, or lack thereof. Conversely, did having Wakefield all those years enhance the hard-throwers' stuff? I suppose with the sinkerballers, there may be some value to hitters adjusting their approach, what they're looking for, i.e. bottom of the zone, etc. The pitches themselves will vary with differing movement, plus Miley is LHP, and other subtleties that should reduce the carry-over effect. But have hitters ever spoken about this as a thing?

Anecdotally I can recall guys saying something about an adjustment period in going from a junk baller to a power arm, but the reality is that with all the bullpen specialists that sort of differential happens within almost every game as the bullpen arms enter the fray. But the majority (2/3) of the game is still handled by the starters, and the Sox top five are now all pretty similar.

benhogan · Dec 12, 2014

Someone call up Dave Mellor and tell him to get the hoses out and put away the lawn mowers.

Seriously, I'm sure Lucchino and the rest of the front office is figuring out a game plan to make the infield play favorable for ground ball pitchers...

Mighty Joe Young · Dec 12, 2014

benhogan said:
Someone call up Dave Mellor and tell him to get the hoses out and put away the lawn mowers.

Seriously, I'm sure Lucchino and the rest of the front office is figuring out a game plan to make the infield play favorable for ground ball pitchers...

Wouldn't be the first time .. Back in the Eighties the infield in Detroit's Tiger Stadium was infamous .. All to the benefit of Trammel and Whitaker ..

Wake's knuckle · Dec 13, 2014

Hmmm.... maybe the market inefficiency is #2/3 starters? We didn't seem to pay all that much for the guys we got relative to what a lester/hamels would have cost -- particularly given the rate at which pitchers are ripping their elbowa to shreads these days. Maybe it's better to have 3 #2/3s than an ace for the same price? It would cut down on variance, anyway....

wade boggs chicken dinner · Dec 13, 2014

Hmmm.... maybe the market inefficiency is #2/3 starters? We didn't seem to pay all that much for the guys we got relative to what a lester/hamels would have cost -- particularly given the rate at which pitchers are ripping their elbowa to shreads these days. Maybe it's better to have 3 #2/3s than an ace for the same price? It would cut down on variance, anyway....

Without knowing more about the stats, I'd agree with this. Guys with high K rates and have been successful - i.e., top of the rotation starters - are asking for and generally getting ridiculous money. Comversely, successful pitchers who don't have high-K rates - i.e., sinkerballers - seem to have much more reasonable price tags.

For example, according to Cot's, the 10th highest paid pitcher will get like $22M this year while the 20th will be like $15M. There's a lot more value outside of the top 10 or even top 20 pitchers. Of that is a market inefficiency, then yes, the Red Sox are exploiting it just like they did in 2013 with signing position players who weren't getting huge deals.

phenweigh · Dec 13, 2014

There is no Rev said:
What's intriguing is that they may be targeting a kind of "surplus value" market inefficiency in that there are multiple dimensions to how these guys might get better results on the Red Sox than on many other teams, making them good values.

Recently while thinking about the variance among the different context neutral pitching measures, SIERA, FIP, xFIP, I thought that each team has probably developed their own proprietary measure. Then it occurred to me that team owned measures shouldn't attempt to be context neutral, but they should weigh the fact that half of their games are played in their home park. Maybe the park factors of the teams in their division could also receive some weight in the formulation. In addition to park factors, the strengths and weaknesses of the defense could also be factored into the team pitching analytics. The idea of signing players that "fit" with the team is hardly new, but developing measures that account for the fit (beyond personality traits and other "soft" factors) seems smart. In this way team specific market inefficiencies can be found with better success than spitballing fit.

There is good discussion in this thread about how the signing of GB specialists looks to be an indication of the Sox finding such a market inefficiency, as the Sox have a solid infield defense. However, a contrary factor is that Fenway tends to suppress home runs, so loading up on GB specialists doesn't seem like a great fit. Maybe the defense outweighs the park factor.

phenweigh · Dec 13, 2014

chrisfont9 said:
I've often wondered about this day-to-day consistency, or lack thereof. Conversely, did having Wakefield all those years enhance the hard-throwers' stuff? I suppose with the sinkerballers, there may be some value to hitters adjusting their approach, what they're looking for, i.e. bottom of the zone, etc. The pitches themselves will vary with differing movement, plus Miley is LHP, and other subtleties that should reduce the carry-over effect. But have hitters ever spoken about this as a thing?

I recall Remy sharing his opinion. IIRC his position was:

It didn't carry over day-to-day for him.
If it did for some, at most it would be one at bat.
A different style of reliever compared to the starter can be a difficult adjustment

JGray38 · Dec 13, 2014

Fenway is also en extreme doubles park. Keeping the ball on the ground reduces those routine fly outs anywhere else that become wall-ball doubles.

Toe Nash · Dec 13, 2014

They had better be right about Bogaerts' D. It doesn't make sense to pursue this strategy and then have a poor defender at the most important defensive position.

According to UZR he was actually above average in terms of preventing errors but below in range and turning double plays. I agree that he didn't look too bad range-wise and he should have enough athleticism to improve, and I'm aware of the problems with UZR, but it's definitely something to watch.

If it didn't evoke bad Jets karma, they should call the team "Ground and Pound..."

The Boomer · Dec 13, 2014

Wake's knuckle said:
Hmmm.... maybe the market inefficiency is #2/3 starters? We didn't seem to pay all that much for the guys we got relative to what a lester/hamels would have cost -- particularly given the rate at which pitchers are ripping their elbowa to shreads these days. Maybe it's better to have 3 #2/3s than an ace for the same price? It would cut down on variance, anyway....

Miley certainly won't replace Lester on the Sox but he will replace his innings and lefty balance in the rotation for between $15 and $20 million less during his remaining 3 years of team control. Going forward, a much younger Kelly should perform as well if not better than Lackey for the rest of his career for much less overall (even considering Lackey's tiny salary for this season). I'm always looking for what might be the new Moneyball inefficiency in baseball (with OBP no longer an undervalued factor). Perhaps, with Kelly and Miley as 2 recent major trade acquisitions for Ben, proven major league starters still in their primes but under team control for several seasons are too undervalued. If DLR and Webster reach that point in the Diamondbacks launchpad, they will be much more valuable than they are at this moment. High K/BB pitchers, like high OBP hitters, are also no longer a market inefficiency. However, it looks like Cherington believes that cost controlled and one year from free agency (Porcello and Masterson) sinkerballers are generally undervalued too. Porcello is arguably still 2-3 years away from his prime and, while they are negotiating a generous settlement for his final year of arbitration, signing him to a market rate extension is much less of a gamble than paying top dollar for older more proven pitchers for too long.

wiffleballhero · Dec 13, 2014

Fenway's new infield grass level:

Sampo Gida · Dec 13, 2014

I remember Bill James not being a fan of GB pitchers. Has he changed his mind or the Red Sox are disregarding his concerns?. FWIW, I am not sure I buy into James thinking as GB pitchers seems to be a good thing at Fenway, especially if you have the defense and an optimum positioning (shifting) strategy. However, I do remember Schilling touting the advantages of being a FB pitcher since the BABIP on FB was so much lower compared to GB, and Fenway is a park that suppresses HR or at least no better than neutral (although it is a doubles haven due to the wall)

JGray38 · Dec 13, 2014

Sampo Gida said:
I remember Bill James not being a fan of GB pitchers. Has he changed his mind or the Red Sox are disregarding his concerns?. FWIW, I am not sure I buy into James thinking as GB pitchers seems to be a good thing at Fenway, especially if you have the defense and an optimum positioning (shifting) strategy. However, I do remember Schilling touting the advantages of being a FB pitcher since the BABIP on FB was so much lower compared to GB, and Fenway is a park that suppresses HR or at least no better than neutral (although it is a doubles haven due to the wall)

The expanded strike zone, especially at the low end of it may have changed the equation.

Even if it did not change things, and James or even Cherington do not "like" ground ball pitchers, if the cost to acquire young, durable starters with a track record of being league average or better is relatively inexpensive, I think you do it, even if you're not fond of how they get their results.

FanSinceBoggs · Dec 13, 2014

This can't be a coincidence. The Red Sox are targeting GB pitchers for a reason, but I doubt that reason will be made public in the near-term.

Even though BABIP is higher with GB pitchers, the Red Sox don't seem to be concerned. Perhaps in an era of depressed offense they have concluded that a few fluke singles aren't going to matter especially if the Red Sox (1) control the running game (2) minimize walks (3) play above average infield defense. The Red Sox have also built a pretty strong lineup, and so while their opponents hit ground balls, the Red Sox will hopefully hit 3-run homers (or doubles). There may be something specific to Fenway Park going on as well--ground ball pitchers might augment a home park advantage.

Plympton91 · Dec 14, 2014

Wake's knuckle said:
Hmmm.... maybe the market inefficiency is #2/3 starters? We didn't seem to pay all that much for the guys we got relative to what a lester/hamels would have cost -- particularly given the rate at which pitchers are ripping their elbowa to shreads these days. Maybe it's better to have 3 #2/3s than an ace for the same price? It would cut down on variance, anyway....

wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Without knowing more about the stats, I'd agree with this. Guys with high K rates and have been successful - i.e., top of the rotation starters - are asking for and generally getting ridiculous money. Comversely, successful pitchers who don't have high-K rates - i.e., sinkerballers - seem to have much more reasonable price tags.

For example, according to Cot's, the 10th highest paid pitcher will get like $22M this year while the 20th will be like $15M. There's a lot more value outside of the top 10 or even top 20 pitchers. Of that is a market inefficiency, then yes, the Red Sox are exploiting it just like they did in 2013 with signing position players who weren't getting huge deals.

I speculated about this "market inefficiency for #3 starters" in the Lester thread after it was leaked that he was signing with the Cubs. My thought was that there's just no way Lester at 6 years and $26 million a year is twice as good as Liriano at 3 years and $13 million a year, especially when you take into account the risk associated with the longer contract. But, then you look at WAR on Fangraphs, and Liriano is at 1.6 and Lester is at 6.1; with even Lester's mediocre overall 2013 worth 4.3. So, at least in AAV, the premium is more than justified.

So, maybe the inefficiency is #3 pitchers who haven't reached free agency yet, because it seems like they got away with much lower prospect costs than they would have had to give up for an ace with 1 year to free agency.

twothousandone · Dec 14, 2014

Plympton91 said:
So, maybe the inefficiency is #3 pitchers who haven't reached free agency yet, because it seems like they got away with much lower prospect costs than they would have had to give up for an ace with 1 year to free agency.

Is "market inefficiency" required, though? Valuing a guy a bit more highly because Fenway may emphasize his strengths isn't about "the market." And since the market continually reprices assets, today's value fad may not apply tomorrow. If we, here, and zGammons can speculate and discuss, is it unreasonable to think other teams do, too? It wasn't six months ago the we speculated power hitting was scarce. Is it no longer? Or did the Sox move on one front -- free agent position players -- that created a slight opportunity for THEM to adjust their view? "Inefficiency" suggests Detroit and Arizona undervalued their guys. Maybe they believe the in efficiency is in what the Sox gave up? It's still not easy to acquire a power hitting OF, and it is far from clear that the Red Sox have one.

timlinin8th · Dec 14, 2014

FanSinceBoggs said:
This can't be a coincidence. The Red Sox are targeting GB pitchers for a reason, but I doubt that reason will be made public in the near-term.

Even though BABIP is higher with GB pitchers, the Red Sox don't seem to be concerned. Perhaps in an era of depressed offense they have concluded that a few fluke singles aren't going to matter especially if the Red Sox (1) control the running game (2) minimize walks (3) play above average infield defense. The Red Sox have also built a pretty strong lineup, and so while their opponents hit ground balls, the Red Sox will hopefully hit 3-run homers (or doubles). There may be something specific to Fenway Park going on as well--ground ball pitchers might augment a home park advantage.

While I can understand the idea that an uptick in BABIP does not automatically translate to more runs allowed (by suppressing opponents SLG and total bases), has that actually been the case? Posting from mobile so its hard to post numbers, however a quick glance at bbref shows that while Porcello indeed had an above average year in 2014, all of Miley, Kelly, and Masterson (granted, potentially due to injury) all took steps back in ERA+... You would believe the lower strike zone in 2014 should have translated into those guys moving up compared to league average.

I want to trust the front office has a plan, but without a top-line guy, if the plan doesn't work, the season has a chance to be a colossal bust.

*edit - formatting*

lxt · Dec 14, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
I think we overreact to every move in thinking that it is part of some grand new strategy to exploit market inefficiencies. They acquire Cespedes and it's suddenly a sign that they value power hitting outfielders (even if they don't have that much power) as a way to explain why they got a guy with a low OBP. They sign the guy who hacks at more pitches outside the zone than any other, and it means something else. They go after Lester hard- and it's reasoned that because he's always healthy and that is the best predictor of future health. Then they miss out, and it's ground ballers. I think they are trying to assemble the best team they can and to do that, you can't be fixated on a specific type of player. We can find patterns in anything; and it's very easy to envision a scenario where they got Lester Miller and Liriano and there's a "lefties with high K rates" thread on the main board.

Well done. We do seem to do exactly what you said. Dr. Ruby it is.

However, looking at the rotation you have to agree to some extent that they are doing exactly what the thread seems to indicate. Not sure if its a planned strategy, exploit market inefficiencies or coincidence.

phenweigh · Dec 14, 2014

twothousandone said:
It's still not easy to acquire a power hitting OF, and it is far from clear that the Red Sox have one.

Well, Hanley has a higher slugging percentage than Yoenis. So if they don't have a power hitting OF now, they didn't before they traded Cespedes either.

lxt · Dec 14, 2014

Interesting article from the Boston Herald ... John Tomase
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2014/12/red_sox_focus_is_a_moving_target

pokey_reese · Dec 22, 2014

Does anyone know where/how to get specific batted ball data for parks, as well as outcomes? What I would like is to see how many FB/GB/LDs there were (by year) at Fenway, and how many of each turned into doubles. I generally go to Fangraphs and Baseball-Ref, but I can't figure out how to get this data.

Any ideas?

geoduck no quahog · Dec 22, 2014

Isn't it conceivable that with all the talk about the lower strike zone - umpires may be directed this year to raise the zone back to where it used to be? Seems like counting on the zone to always be the same shape is a risky business.

iayork · Dec 22, 2014

geoduck no quahog said:
Isn't it conceivable that with all the talk about the lower strike zone - umpires may be directed this year to raise the zone back to where it used to be? Seems like counting on the zone to always be the same shape is a risky business.

First, even if MLB is inclined to tighten up the zones, I don't think they can do it just like that. Remember that this larger strike zone is actually the official zone as defined in the rulebook. The smaller zone pre-2008ish was not following the official definition. MLB would have to actually change their rulebooks, redefining the zone to the previously existing unofficial de facto zone which was never approved. That would be a huge deal; I can't see them doing that, especially since as far as I know MLB hasn't even officially acknowledged that there is a difference in the zone.

And let's say they did try to enforce some precise rulebook-defined zone. That would be a gigantic change, because the de facto zones whether today or in 2008 are way, way different from the defined books. The zones bulge out the sides, they're different for LHB than for RHB, they don't quite reach the tops of the official zone -- how are they going to formally define the 2008 shape in any clear way?

So I don't believe they can do anything formal or official to change the zone. Could they sort of indicate to the umpires, nudge nudge wink wink, maybe bump your zone up a little bit? It's taken the umpires years, of half-inch changes per year, to edge the zone down to where it is now. I don't even think the senior umpires could physically force themselves to change their personal zone that dramatically, that fast. And you're back to the problem that MLB hasn't made an official notice of this, and how they're going to explain to the umpire's union what they want to do, and why, and of course, exactly how the umpires are no longer going to be evaluated on their strike zone calling.

And finally, it's not like the Sox are depending completely on the lower zone, or on Vazquez framing the bottom of the zone, or whatever. The pitchers they grabbed aren't solely dependent on having a bigger zone. Porcello really doesn't work the bottom of the zone at all, for example; everything but his change tend to fit neatly into the classic pre-2008 zone. Porcello and Miley are both pretty decent pitchers who, as a mild bonus, may also benefit from the larger zone, but who should be able to get pretty decent results even without it.

lxt · Dec 22, 2014

pokey_reese said:
Does anyone know where/how to get specific batted ball data for parks, as well as outcomes? What I would like is to see how many FB/GB/LDs there were (by year) at Fenway, and how many of each turned into doubles. I generally go to Fangraphs and Baseball-Ref, but I can't figure out how to get this data.

Any ideas?

Try
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/86345-obp-and-run-scoring-in-2014/

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 22, 2014

lxt said:
Try
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/86345-obp-and-run-scoring-in-2014/

???

I've just looked at that thread (which is short enough to read through in a couple of minutes) and I have seen literally nothing that is relevant to pokey's question. Am I being dense?

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 22, 2014

pokey_reese said:
Does anyone know where/how to get specific batted ball data for parks, as well as outcomes? What I would like is to see how many FB/GB/LDs there were (by year) at Fenway, and how many of each turned into doubles. I generally go to Fangraphs and Baseball-Ref, but I can't figure out how to get this data.

Any ideas?

This 2008 article includes a link to a spreadsheet with relative park factors for batted ball/result combinations (e.g. GB singles, LD triples, etc.). It's old (2006-07), but most parks haven't changed all that much since then so it might still useful info.

A relevant (and unsurprising) tidbit from the article: back then Fenway had a FB doubles factor of over 1.5.

lxt · Dec 22, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
???

I've just looked at that thread (which is short enough to read through in a couple of minutes) and I have seen literally nothing that is relevant to pokey's question. Am I being dense?

You, dense, never. Sorry, my bad. I thought it was a thread I read on hitting at Fenway which it is not which you picked up on immediately. Just write it off as noise. I can't find the thread so I recommend the article Savin's offers.

pokey_reese · Dec 23, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
This 2008 article includes a link to a spreadsheet with relative park factors for batted ball/result combinations (e.g. GB singles, LD triples, etc.). It's old (2006-07), but most parks haven't changed all that much since then so it might still useful info.

A relevant (and unsurprising) tidbit from the article: back then Fenway had a FB doubles factor of over 1.5.

Wow, thanks for the reminder! I think I actually referenced this post during some posts in my early days on the board (I think I was writing about how these newfangled infield shifts are killing lefty sluggers like Ortiz and Thome and Howard who see their HR/FB rates decline. Boy was I wrong on Ortiz).

Luckily, it has just what I needed, awesome work.

But yeah, essentially the point (that I promise I will finish doing the work on, and that a lot of people have basically already suggested as a possibility up thread) is specifically that while ground ball pitchers are valuable across the board, that isn't a market inefficiency because every team already knows that (they probably have an intern who reads Fangraphs).

If there is something to be "exploited," I agree that it is weighting your assessments heavily to home park factors, and that this should lead the Red Sox to value GB pitchers more than just about every other team, due to the huge increase in the rate of outfield fly balls that turn into doubles at Fenway vs other parks.

pokey_reese · Dec 23, 2014

pokey_reese said:
Wow, thanks for the reminder! I think I actually referenced this post during some posts in my early days on the board (I think I was writing about how these newfangled infield shifts are killing lefty sluggers like Ortiz and Thome and Howard who see their HR/FB rates decline. Boy was I wrong on Ortiz).

Luckily, it has just what I needed, awesome work.

But yeah, essentially the point (that I promise I will finish doing the work on, and that a lot of people have basically already suggested as a possibility up thread) is specifically that while ground ball pitchers are valuable across the board, that isn't a market inefficiency because every team already knows that (they probably have an intern who reads Fangraphs).

If there is something to be "exploited," I agree that it is weighting your assessments heavily to home park factors, and that this should lead the Red Sox to value GB pitchers more than just about every other team, due to the huge increase in the rate of outfield fly balls that turn into doubles at Fenway vs other parks.

Ok, home from work now:

So, some things to look at:

First of all, while offense has changed a lot in the last decade+, the batted ball profile for MLB is essentially identical. The rates in 2014 were:

LD%: 20.8 GB%: 44.8 FB%: 34.4%

While in 2003-05 they were about:

LD%: 20.8 GB%: 43.9 FB%: 35.3%

Compared to 2003, ISO and HR/FB have dropped by about 15% league-wide. However, SLG has dropped by only about 8%, as, crucially, the rate of 2B/PA has only dropped about 6% (from .047 to .044).

Now, we also know that K% is up across baseball in that same time period (K/9 has increased by 20% since 2003), so the distribution of fly balls among balls in play is the same, but fewer total fly balls are hit because there are fewer balls in play, and fewer of them are leaving ball parks as the average distance of FBs dropped a bit after the steroid era.

Fenway however, instead of turning HRs into FB outs, is turning a lot of them into doubles, which is why SLG remains inflated for Fenway even as it supresses HRs, to the insane rate of over 50% compared to average (according to that hardballtimes article).

As such while generally GBs are valuable to everyone, they are proportionally much more valuable to pitchers who have to make roughly half their starts in Fenway. It isn't that the ground ball game is a market inefficiency, because that approach won't be as valuable to a team like San Diego, who should load up on K/FB power pitchers. The striking thing is that looking at all of the park effects for 2014, while Fenway's doubles wasn't the largest magnitude effect (that honor goes to triples in Arlington, at over 116%, which is why you want to look at a few years for this usually), if you look at the magnitude of the effect AND the frequency of the hit type (to account for the likelihood that the park effect will actually show up in games), then suddenly the Fenway effect is massive, rivaled only by the Coors Field effect on singles (which is as much atmospheric than park related).

So, the Red Sox have an opportunity that other teams don't even really have, by virtue of the extreme nature of the field dimensions. I guess you could say that there is a potential inefficiency in stadium design in MLB, because normal, symmetrical stadiums are more common and lack an exploitable feature.

lxt · Dec 24, 2014

pokey_reese said:
Ok, home from work now:

So, some things to look at:

First of all, while offense has changed a lot in the last decade+, the batted ball profile for MLB is essentially identical. The rates in 2014 were:

LD%: 20.8 GB%: 44.8 FB%: 34.4%

While in 2003-05 they were about:

LD%: 20.8 GB%: 43.9 FB%: 35.3%

Compared to 2003, ISO and HR/FB have dropped by about 15% league-wide. However, SLG has dropped by only about 8%, as, crucially, the rate of 2B/PA has only dropped about 6% (from .047 to .044).

Now, we also know that K% is up across baseball in that same time period (K/9 has increased by 20% since 2003), so the distribution of fly balls among balls in play is the same, but fewer total fly balls are hit because there are fewer balls in play, and fewer of them are leaving ball parks as the average distance of FBs dropped a bit after the steroid era.

Fenway however, instead of turning HRs into FB outs, is turning a lot of them into doubles, which is why SLG remains inflated for Fenway even as it supresses HRs, to the insane rate of over 50% compared to average (according to that hardballtimes article).

As such while generally GBs are valuable to everyone, they are proportionally much more valuable to pitchers who have to make roughly half their starts in Fenway. It isn't that the ground ball game is a market inefficiency, because that approach won't be as valuable to a team like San Diego, who should load up on K/FB power pitchers. The striking thing is that looking at all of the park effects for 2014, while Fenway's doubles wasn't the largest magnitude effect (that honor goes to triples in Arlington, at over 116%, which is why you want to look at a few years for this usually), if you look at the magnitude of the effect AND the frequency of the hit type (to account for the likelihood that the park effect will actually show up in games), then suddenly the Fenway effect is massive, rivaled only by the Coors Field effect on singles (which is as much atmospheric than park related).

So, the Red Sox have an opportunity that other teams don't even really have, by virtue of the extreme nature of the field dimensions. I guess you could say that there is a potential inefficiency in stadium design in MLB, because normal, symmetrical stadiums are more common and lack an exploitable feature.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Thanks for the research. This is cool stuff. It seems the Sox may be exploiting the benefit of Fenway both ways. I seem to remember reading about how Panda & Hanley hit, lifting the ball with a tendency towards FB, which could be huge at Fenway using the Monster. A lineup that hits FB with a pitching staff that is GB oriented. Using an anomaly to the teams advantage[/SIZE].

The Ground Game: Searching for Market Inefficiencies

for king and country

oppresses WARmongers

Member

wannabe merloni

for king and country

for king and country

New Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

for king and country

wannabe merloni

Granite Truther

The North remembers

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

seantwo

bubble burster

Well-Known Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

not particularly consistent

Member

New Member

loves the secret sauce

loves the secret sauce

New Member

for king and country

Member

Member

New Member