THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I knew Feller would have to say something bad about Strasburg. He was actually a lot more generous than I expected although he did point out a few advantages that Strasburg has that he didn’t. That’s too be expected. Feller always wants to make it clear that he threw harder and better than anyone else and no one else can compare.

Strasburg doesn’t lose 2-3 mph on his fastball with men on base.  His sinking fastball is 2-3 mph slower.  Was a left-handed batter at the plate when this comment was made?  If so, he might have been throwing him all two-seamers/sinkers.

The interview was just Feller sitting in front of a camera after Strasburg’s outing was done and taking some questions. Any drop in velocity at all for Strasburg would have been confirmation enough for Feller.

So if he looked over and saw 97, he would think to himself: “Yep, the kid losing something with men on base. That’s what I figured. I could gas it up there whether there were men on or not.”

Mike:  What is the typical velocity loss for a starter pitching from the stretch (if any)?

Guy/4: none (with limitations of sample bias)

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/does-the-stretch-cost-a-pitcher-fastball-speed/

Interesting.  So the question is, why not just teach pitchers to pitch from the stretch all the time? 
A) A windup reduces stress and risk of injury.
B) A windup produces better movement and/or control at the same velocity.
C) No good reason.
D) Something else?

Guy/6:
Click name for a previous discussion here.

Well, that didn’t work.  How about this:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/stress_not_fastball_speed_is_what_it_costs_you_to_pitch_from_the_stretch/

Guy/6,

All of the evidence of which I am aware says that A is not true.  The study by ASMI is linked in the comments to my article linked in #5.  I am, of course, interested in evidence to the contrary.

I don’t see how the windup would produce better movement, as that’s a function of grip and pronation/supination.  It’s possible it would produce better control because it’s easier to repeat, though that does not necessarily seem to be obviously the case.

After my article, I was emailed by a youth coach who suggested I check whether there was increased deception from the windup by looking at the whiff rates on fastballs from windup vs. stretch.  I thought that was a good idea, and it’s on my to-do list.

Thanks, ElBonte. 

To me, the fact that starters generally use a wind-up when they can is pretty strong evidence that it increases endurance by reducing energy expenditure (assuming it doesn’t somehow increase command or movement).  My assumption would be that starters cannot pitch 7 innings from the stretch and maintain velocity, even though they can do this for part of an inning—just as starters can increase their velocity if they become relievers.  If/when some starters prove that they can do this, I’ll certainly reconsider.  (Just as I won’t believe starters could be as effective on 3 days rest in today’s game until someone proves it.)

Mike/9

Hm, the deception issue is interesting.  I might try to look at that with batting eye scores at some point.  Haven’t had much time lately but hoping to free some up…

I agree with Guy.  That pitchers have been throwing with both, and universally (for starters) go through the full windup when men are not on base is extremely strong evidence of a benefit.

It’s the difference between a trot, which uses parts of your body and a run, which uses all of your body.  A pitcher uses more of his body in the full windup, thereby reducing work on some parts of his body (distributing work across body).  Whether this helps with endurance, power, or control (or any/all) I don’t know.  But, it’s a clear benefit.

The longer you can take getting to a final pitch velocity, the lower average power you need to get there.

Certainly a pitcher is doing more work in the physics sense if he had, for example, a high leg kick in his normal delivery, but this doesn’t matter. Tissue don’t care that much about total work - peak power is the thing that stresses it.

Just the same as how bench pressing 200 lbs is a lot harder than benching 100 lbs 2 (or more) times.

Winding up also takes advantage of biomechanical effects like the stretch reflex (the body’s ability to produce a force more efficiently if it is stretched in the opposite direction first). The stretch is AFAICT from a dead stop.

Matt

I have always assumed that the windup produced more deception and the only reason relievers pitched from the stretch (even with no runners on) was because in the old days they were used to coming in with runners on base and were therefore more used to pitching from the stretch (and generally practiced from the stretch), but I’m not really sure.

I agree with Guy.  That pitchers have been throwing with both, and universally (for starters) go through the full windup when men are not on base is extremely strong evidence of a benefit.

I interviewed Dr. Fleisig over the phone after Mike’s article.  I was particularly interested in how pitchers of vary different body types were able to acheive pitch speeds of over 100 miles per hour but seem to max out at around 102.  He wasn’t able to help me much with that, but he surprised me by saying that all pitchers, no matter what their body type, seemed to use the same technique to maximize their pitch speed.

I also did some additional studies to see whether Mike’s conclusions held true within individual games.  That is, would there be just as many games where a pitcher had his maximum speed for that game from the stretch as he had games where his maximum speed was from the windup?  I found that was true, but the more interesting fact was that some pitchers had many more games where his maximum pitch was from the stretch and others lopsided the other way.

Tango - I think what you said above is highly conjectural.  But there is a fairly easy way to test whether it is true.  Pitchers have some games where they pitch a lot from the stretch and others where they pitch mostly from the windup.  If what you are saying is true then fastball speed should be decrease more in the games when they have to pitch more from the stretch.  Total performance might suffer more too.  Again, easy to test.

"I think what you said above is highly conjectural.  But there is a fairly easy way to test whether it is true.”

It won’t be easy at all, Peter.  Games in which pitchers throw more from the stretch will also be games in which they throw more pitches per inning and are less effective.  So they will almost certainly throw fewer innings.  It will be hard to separate cause and effect in looking at this inferior performance.

And I disagree that it’s “highly conjectural.” Our starting assumption should be that when professional athletes do something, there is usually (not always, but usually) a reason for it.  So even if a study did find no relationship btwn # of PAs from the stretch and performance, we could not safely conclude that pitchers could throw from the stretch all the time just as effectively.  I would still consider that an untested theory. 

I have really grown tired of a tendency I see in sabermetrics to think there are lots of “inefficiencies” which we can readily identify.  It’s a really unfortunate legacy of “Moneyball.” So you get people claiming runners could go around the bases faster if they ran the right way, or that pitchers throw too many fastballs, or hitters swing too much at this or that count, and on and on.  And at least 95% of it, probably more, falls apart upon inspection. 

Every researcher should post this on their monitor: 
*If you think you’ve discovered that players all do something wrong, there’s a 98% chance you’re wrong.  Check your work again.
*If you think you’ve discovered that managers all do something wrong, there’s a 95% chance you’re wrong.  Check your work again.
*If you think you’ve discovered that GMs all do something wrong, there’s still a 90% chance you’re wrong.  Check your work again.

15/ When pitchers are pitching more from the stretch then they normally do, then they have poor performance issues, so it is not really a good way to test

Games in which pitchers throw more from the stretch will also be games in which they throw more pitches per inning and are less effective.

Although this will most often be the case it does not always have to be the case.  If the batters leading off the innings get on more than usual, a pitcher could still pitch a low scoring game and last into the high pitch counts, but pitch a disproportionate number of pitches from the stretch.

Guy - I hope you are not ranting at me.  I don’t think you can find where I have ever suggested that a GM, manager, or player knows less than what I do and should listen to what I have to tell them. 

I think that it is quite possible that we will find a valid reason why most pitchers should pitch from the windup when they have the opportunity.  But just saying that there must be an advantage because they have always done it that way in the past doesn’t sound like analysis to me.

"Guy - I hope you are not ranting at me.”

No, sorry Peter, wasn’t directed at you.  Just at a lot of what I see these days.

“But just saying that there must be an advantage because they have always done it that way in the past doesn’t sound like analysis to me.”

Not “must be.” But “very likely is.” To me it’s a question of the burden of proof.  Some in the sabermetric community feel there should be no presumption that current behavior is rational—defending current practice requires as much as evidence as proving an inefficiency.  I think that’s mistaken, given how often studies purport to find an inefficiency that isn’t real (including, as best I can tell, the original Moneyball thesis!).

Pitchers may throw harder from the stretch because they’re in higher leverage situations. Is there any difference between fastball speed for, say, R1 with 2 outs versus R3 with 1 out?

Generally speaking, is there any difference between a pitcher’s command of his pitches when throwing from the stretch and when pitching from a full windup? On a Braves’ broadcast, John Smoltz claimed that a lot of young starters have trouble controlling their pitches from the stretch.

"John Smoltz claimed that a lot of young starters have trouble controlling their pitches from the stretch.”

See the title of this thread.  If I had a nickel for every “claim” that the so-called “expert” commentator makes, I’d have lots of nickels.

The other night Rob Dibble casually proclaimed that young pitchers have a lot of trouble pitching on the road, as if it were obvious and everyone knew it.  I’ve never seen home/road splits for young and old pitchers, but I’d bet lots of nickels that you won’t find much of a difference if any.

Guy, it should make absolutely no difference whether players, managers, or GM’s are “right” 99% or 3% of the time.  Either a contention (by a researcher) us supported by evidence or it is not.  I suppose that you can use the “opinion” of a player, manager, or GM as part of a Bayesian analysis, but I think your numbers (95%, 90%, etc.) are ridiculous.  Then again, trying to attach ANY number to the discussion is ridiculous since we have no idea what sort of behaviors or opinions are included.  If we include things like, “Pitchers should not hit for themselves in the bottom of the 9th when down by a run,” or ,"The Molina brothers should not steal second base in a close game,” then it is probably true that managers are “right” 99% of the time, but…

"it should make absolutely no difference whether players, managers, or GM’s are “right” 99% or 3% of the time.  Either a contention (by a researcher) is supported by evidence or it is not.”

If only life were so simple.  Often, the evidence we have cannot give a definitive answer.  Especially on issues like this one, or the debate on 4- vs. 5-man rotations, where there is no actual example of a strategy someone is arguing for.  Even though no team uses a 4-man rotation today (or even 4 day rest, I think), and despite some evidence that pitchers do worse on 3 days rest, some argue that it’s essentially an open question—a 50-50 proposition—as to whether a 4- or 5-man rotation is better today.  My argument is that our “prior” should be that 5-man is better, until someone provides strong evidence to the contrary. 

And I never said players or managers were right 90% of the time.  I said researchers were WRONG 90% of the time (when they make this kind of claim)—a different and more precise claim.  A lot of researchers push out studies claiming to have figured out something players or managers are doing “wrong,” and upwards of 90% of these studies end up being incorrect or greatly exaggerated.  It’s a kind of confirmation bias, because people are searching for inefficiencies—and when they find one, they stop thinking.  If researchers would remember that, question their assumptions a bit more, and maybe have someone critically review the study first, the quality of the work would be greatly increased.

I know you think you could save a team several wins a year.  Maybe so.  But until/unless that is forumlated as some testable hypotheses, we’ll never know if that’s true.

"My argument is that our “prior” should be that 5-man is better, until someone provides strong evidence to the contrary.”

I basically agree that the default position should be that “they” are correct, but that only applies to certain things - those things in which there is a reasonable chance that they know things that we don’t know or that it is likely that they got it right through 50 or 100 years of trial and error.

"it is likely that they got it right through 50 or 100 years of trial and error”

THIS is the main reason our prior should be that current practice is close to correct.  It’s not that players or managers are geniuses.  They don’t have to be.  It’s that conventional wisdom is the result of thousands of trial-and-error efforts, and the copying of success by others.  So the CW is right a lot.  SBAs is a good example (see table 137 in “The Book"):  teams attempt steals in almost perfect proportion to the break-even rate of score/out situations.  It’s not like managers have done the calculations, but the conventions of the game get it right anyway.

I don’t want to unnecessarily state the obvious, but ...

(1) When pitching from the stretch, runners are on (if you’re a SP), so your focus isn’t 100% on the hitter/catcher.

(2) many pitchers use their legs less from the stretch than they do from the windup, mostly due to reduced leg lift and loading to decrease the time of delivery. This can also easily lead to rushing, dragging the arm, and variance in release points. At the ML level this should be less of a factor, but likely still present..

John Kruk was breaking down one of Lincecum’s starts a couple weeks a go and trying to explain why he thought he was off that night, and he pointed out that his fastball and change-up were too close together in speed (8-10 mph apart, right around what they normally are; Kruk seemed to think they should be more like 15-20 mph apart).  His closing remark was that he had never seen a pitcher who threw his change-up faster than his curveball.

***

I wouldn’t be surprised if either the benefits of the wind up are mostly in control or deception, or if the use of the wind up is mostly just from tradition or from players being taught that way as kids.  I could also see maybe for some pitchers there being a benefit to more consistent offspeed pitches or better pitch selection from the wind up (from being more confident in throwing their offspeed pitches more often or in more counts).  I would be a bit surprised if there is an endurance effect.

I think it is easier to learn to pitch from the wind up.  The slow build up and the methodical motions give you physical keys to help focus and repeat the process.  When I used to pitch, my delivery was pretty similar from the stretch and the wind up, but with the wind up, I used the motion to sharpen my focus and follow a set path to get to a good loaded position, whereas from the stretch, it felt a bit more like a rush to get to that same loaded position, and it felt like I was more erratic than when I used the wind up (like what CircleChange mentioned in #26). 

By the time pitchers are in the Majors, there probably aren’t too many of those issues left, but most of the pitchers have still learned primarily from the wind up from a young age.  Either by habit or just as a comfort thing, there’s not really much reason to abandon it even if you are just as effective from the stretch, especially if there isn’t really any benefit to the stretch either.

There is also a strong historical tradition for the use of the wind up that would make it hard to erase if there isn’t a clear benefit to not using it.  The current usage is pretty traditionally based (such as relievers often not using it at all even with the bases empty, which probably wouldn’t happen if there were inherent advantages to the wind up).  The wind up has also gotten less elaborate over time as pitchers have found that the extra effort involved in a big windmill delivery doesn’t really give you any benefit to offset the extra effort and more difficult repeatability.  For quite a while now the wind up has been a lot quieter and more compact than it used to be (with some exceptions, of course).  The parts that were found to be potentially problematic with little benefit were discarded, and what’s left is basically the traditional motion evolved to a lower effort, possibly more optimal delivery.

Because of that, it doesn’t surprise me that someone like Feller who pitched before the wind up had evolved to the current quieter delivery would think there is a benefit in velocity from a bigger delivery with more effort involved (i.e. the wind up), but trial and error (and possibly data from radar guns) eventually pushed that theory out of the game for the most part.  The current wind up and stretch deliveries don’t differ all that much over the actual deliveries for most pitchers.

Really, the most sensible explanation for the current usage to me is that it’s just what pitchers are most used to doing or more comfortable with doing, and since there’s not really much difference between pitching from the wind up or stretch, pitchers just do what they’re used to or what they were taught or whatever the traditional way is.  I don’t think it’s that either the stretch or wind up is preferable (at least at the Major League level; at the amateur level, the wind is probably better), but that they are both viable deliveries and there isn’t really much reason either way to switch the way you already doing using them.  The comfort thing could lead to better control, and being able to take your time to tailor your motions up to the loaded position could improve deception for some pitchers, but I wouldn’t really be surprised if there’s not much effect either way.

"John Kruk was breaking down one of Lincecum’s starts a couple weeks a go and trying to explain why he thought he was off that night, and he pointed out that his fastball and change-up were too close together in speed (8-10 mph apart, right around what they normally are; Kruk seemed to think they should be more like 15-20 mph apart).  His closing remark was that he had never seen a pitcher who threw his change-up faster than his curveball.”

Was he talking about the speed differential that night or in general?  As successful as Lincecum is, it would be kind of strange to criticize something like that about him in general.  I also find it hard to believe that his differential would be much less that night than usual.

That being said, MANY pitchers have a slower curveball than changeup.  In fact, I would bet that that is the norm.  So here we have a guy who played MLB for 15 years saying that he has never seen a pitcher with a slower curve than changeup and we have another guy (me) who never played higher than Little League baseball saying that it is the norm or at least MANY pitchers do that.  Who do you think is right?

Plus, while someone (Mike Fast?) did find that according to the pitch f/x data it is better to have a larger differential, it is not like a pitcher can just slow down his change-up at will.  You pretty much throw it at any speed that it happens to come out of your hand given the grip that you use.  You cannot alter your arm speed or your delivery at the major league level. Some pitchers have an excellent change-up which is 8-10 mph slower than their fastball and other pitchers have one that is 10-15 mph slower.  Same with the curve ball actually.

So basically, Kruk does not know what the hell he is talking about. Not even close.

After looking at the game day pitch by pitch, Feller was generally right on Strasburg.  As the game progressed, his FB lost 2-3 mph (100 to 97-98), and with runners on base at the end, he lost another 2 mph with some FB going as low as 94-95.  One of these was at the eyes, so it is unlikely it was a 2 seamer.

Not sure of his statement that this is generally true of most pitchers.  I don’t normally notice much of a drop off with most pitchers, but maybe I have not been watching close enough.

Kruk was just talking about the differential being small for that night.  It was pretty clear that he had no idea what the typical speeds were for Lincecum.  He thought they were a lot further apart than what they were that night, when they really aren’t.  Obviously, when he put together his segment, he didn’t look at any of Lincecum’s other outings to compare.  Probably he just assumed that since he had a bad outing (in terms of allowing runs or baserunners or whatever), whatever he decided to pick out to focus on must have been bad.  I think his co-hosts even knew he was full of it, and they seemed kind of baffled when he finished, but they didn’t say anything (although I think one of them made a subtle comment later in the show about someone’s curve being really slow or something along those lines that might have been making fun of Kruk’s claim).

It looks like Feller may have been onto something.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/strasburg-from-the-stretch/

It kind of just looks more like he lost velocity over time, to me.

Kruk’s comment (if accurately portrayed) is just unbelievable.  Without giving it much thought, I would assume that most changeups are 80-something while most curveballs are 70-something.  What the hell speed does Kruk think a curveball typically comes in at?  The next pitcher that can chuck a 90mph curveball would be the first, I think..

Mike #31 - fantastic chart

I was at Strasburg’s first start at Altoona in April. I only had the scoreboard gun to go by, but I noticed a similar trend by inning. He was sitting at 96-97 in innings 1-2, but 94-95 innings 3-5, I don’t recall him hitting 97 after the 2nd.

Re Kruk, a typical changeup speed in MLB is 6-12 mph slower than the fastball, and a typical curveball speed is 10-18 mph slower than the fastball.