THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Despite all the PC stuff about how teams know more than we do, how scouting should be combined with statistical analysis, how teams don’t necessarly look at the numbers, etc., etc., etc., ALL teams (maybe not the Red Sox), not to mention fans, commentators, and even some analysts, use small sample performance numbers WAY, WAY, WAY, too much.  Why do you think that all bullpens are revolving doors and that pitchers like Capuano are in the pen rather than starting?

It is human nature to be results oriented.  If you see a pitcher like Hennessey for SF having good success yet he has the same pitches and mechanics that he always had when he was a crappy pitcher, you (teams) are STILL going to use him as your closer!

If a pitcher like Gagne still has good mechanics, velocity, etc., but his numbers, albeit in a small sample, are horrible, almost no manager is going to keep throwing him out there, and if he does, the fans and commentators will scream for his (the manager’s) head.

The idea that teams use “scouting” at the major league level (I am not necessarily talking about for drafting and for prospects) to nearly the extent that they could and should, is absolute crap.  Baseball managment and decison-making is stll DOMINATED by numbers with a complete lack of understanding of those numbers as well as sample size issues. 

End of rant.

On Aril 10th, the Astros took Brad Lidge out of the closers role. He had 1.7 innings(!),1 k, 3 bb’s, 1 hr and a 16.20 ERA.

Since then, he’s pitched 62 innings with 83 k’s, 21 bb’s, 8 homers, and a 2.61 ERA.

Talking about 2 innings is of course ridiculous. But as far as I know, that’s the only reason they decided he shouldn’t close (and maybe because of a little spring training struggles).

Inspired by Nate’s post, I looked at Gagnes pitch-by-pitch data from this year.  Given his crazy high BABIP in Boston, most stat-heads will say that he’s just been unlucky.  If true, we shouldn’t see any difference between his pitches in Texas and his pitches in Boston. 

Here are the results:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc85s9cv_0hkfwpf

From Gagne’s pitch movement and velocity, we can clearly see his 3 (possibly 4) pitches: fastball around 92 mph; big curve at 70 mph with 15 inches of break; a biting change of pace around 83 mph with some movement away from a RHB; and a slider he rarely uses with less movement than his change. It could be that I’m misreading hanging change-ups as sliders… Can’t be sure.

Is Gagne throwing different types of pitches? No.
He has thrown the same % of pitches in Boston and Texas.
Fastball: 57% in Boston, 52% in Texas
Curve: 15% in Boston, 12% in Texas
Change: 24% in Boston, 30% in Texas
Slider: 3% in Boston, 6% in Texas

Are there any differences between his Texas pitches and his Boston pitches in terms of velocity, movement or pitch location? No.

Each of his pitches show nearly the same movement in the X and Z dimensions during his TEX and BOS stints.  If anything, he has a bit more horizontal movement on his fastball.

Each of his pitches show nearly the same velocity across his stints.  If anything, his fastball is a bit faster (possibly an artefact of gameday, but I don’t think so). He still has great seperation between his change and his fastball.

His pitch locations are all over the place.  These data are probably impossible to interpret.

Is any one pitch easier to hit? Maybe.
His curveball still falls off the table; no ones touching that.  His hits in Texas were primarily off his curve. In Boston, most of his hits were given up on fastballs.

So, by looking at his pitch-by-pitch data, I’d go out on a limb and say that Gagne in Boston doesn’t appear any different than Gagne in Texas.  He’s getting tagged throwing fastballs, but its *the same fastball*! Maybe he’s tipping his pitches, as the Red Sox thought; maybe the hitters are just guessing fastball and guessing right.  $10 says that Boston continues to play Gagne, he turns it around, has a good postseason, and signs an extention in the off-season.

-cdm

Gagne just struck out 2 in an inning of work against the Devil Rays in a 8-1 game.  He was totally dominant, with swing-n-miss stuff.  The only ball put in play was a slow dinker down the 3rd base line. The guy is still a beast.

Fantastic job!

I think you can make an srgument that his mix of pitches has changed in Boston.  His change is his outpitch and it’s dropped from 30 to 24% and apparently been replaced by fastballs, an increase of 5%, and perhaps some curves.

You could say that he’s traded a few sliders for curves, but the sample so small and hard to categorize that there’s not much point there.

Varitek has taken a fair amount of online criticism for his pitch calling this year.  The main complaint has focused on Matsuzaka’s transformation from a guy who mixed 5+ pitches to someone who throws way too many fastballs.

You might say that Gagne has shown a similar pattern after the trade to Boston - his repetoire a little narrower and much more concentrated in fastballs.

You can criticize a catcher for getting shaken off too much (IOW, he is calling bad pitches and the pitcher realizes that), but you can’t really criticize a catcher for bad pitches thrown, unless perhaps you are talking about rookie pitchers. Pitchers and certainly Matsuzaka, an experienced pitcher, are 100% in charge of what to throw.  If Varitek is calling too many fastballs, why is Dice-K “listening” to him? 

When I pitched, I really didn’t care what my catcher called.  If I wanted to throw another pitch, I simply shook off my catcher.  Lots of times, we were on the same page.  Also, lots of times it didn’t really matter what I threw, because I was always randomizing my pitches anyway.  For example, if I was going to throw 50% fastball inside and 50% curveball, if my catcher called fastball, I threw the fastball.  If my catcher called curveball, I threw the curveball.  As long as I was reasonably sure that it looked random to the batters.  When I managed baseball, I made it very clear to my pitchers that they were 100% in charge of their pitches - not the catcher.  Now, if the catcher can help a pitcher with certain batters (their strengths and weaknesses), that is great.  And if the catcher was a lot smarter (or more experienced) than the pitcher, then I would expect the catcher to call the game and hope that the pitcher did not shake him off too much.  I don’t think that is the case with Dice-K and Varitek, altough perhaps Varitek is more familiar with the batters.  I would think so.

MGL,

This is off-topic, but a post about Gagne reminded me of something that I’m having trouble finding much data on.

I’ve been trying to find numbers on closers in save versus non-save situations. I can only find a comment from you on Primer saying there isn’t a difference ERA-wise, but then I also stumbled across a Stat-of-the-Week entry that says there’s about 3/4th of a run difference for closers from 2003-2005.

Marc Normandin mentioned this question at Beyond the Boxscore yesterday, but said he wasn’t going to share the answer until a later date.=

Well, make that a year ago on the BTB entry. But it appears there was never a follow-up.

I thought that Tango looked at that in The Book and found no difference, but I am not sure.  Maybe he can chime in.  The conventional wisdom is that they don’t do as well in non-save situations.  I would be shocked if the difference were .75 runs and surprised if there were any significant difference.  If there is that large a difference and everything is controlled for properly, that kind of puts a thorn in the “use your closer in high leverage non-save situations” theory.

Has anybody ever mentioned the possibility that Gagne just isn’t any good anymore? I don’t mean that he got lousy since he came to Boston, but rather he is no longer the pitcher he once was after the surgery (ies?) of 2005-2006?

Everybody was so quick to proclaim Gagne’s triumphant return from injury—his numbers in Texas were pretty darn good. But, they are only based on 33 IP and as we all know, that is not a meaningful sample. It would be nice to have pitch-f/x info on Gagne from 2004, but of course, we don’t.

I dunno, but it doesn’t seem to me that we have much (numerical) evidence that Gagne is still an elite pitcher.

Has anybody ever mentioned the possibility that Gagne just isn’t any good anymore?

Lots of people, including Nate Silver in the article that was the stimulus of this thread:

In the two most reliable indicators of pitching performance — strikeout and walk rate — Gagne has been exactly the same pitcher in Boston that he was in Texas. And that is a pitcher with decent but unremarkable talent. The 2002-2004 Eric Gagne was incredibly good. The 2007 version is — I don’t know — a rich man’s Ryan Dempster.

Now, it’s not like Ryan Dempster is great shakes. But Gagne is not nearly as bad as his ERA suggests.

I think the issue is Gagne with Tex and Bos THIS YEAR.  There is little doubt that he is NOT the pitcher he was pre-surgery.  He used to be almost unhittable - the best closer in baseball.  He used to throw 97-98, did he not?  Now he is 92-93, a big difference.