This month last year, Connor Kurcon of Six Man Rotation set out to quantify the location aspect of command (or “LRP”). By establishing an accounting system that credited and debited pitchers for changes in ball-strike counts based on the attack zone of and hitter’s disposition (take? swing? ball in play?) for every pitch, he effectively created an alternative to Pitch Value (PVal) that rewards optimal movement through ball-strike counts but with much more pitcher and hitter context.

His findings are as you’d expect: Jacob deGrom and Justin Verlander lead the pack, with Gerrit Cole, Max Scherzer, and Clayton Kershaw not far behind. Other budding aces like Jack Flaherty and Mike Clevinger pepper the list, and some pleasant surprises (such as Brendan McKay, Caleb Smith, and, for those still thirsting, Jake Odorizzi) are scattered throughout as well. Out of the bullpen, newly anointed relief ace Nick Anderson led the pack followed by the underrated Emilio Pagán, breakout reliever Giovanny Gallegos, and others.

Near the end of his post, Kurcon includes a subhead dedicated to Kyle Hendricks where he highlights how Hendricks, widely respected as a command artist, fares lukewarmly by measure of LRP. He then reminds us “LRP doesn’t paint the full picture of command.” True that.

Fortunately, Kurcon has left the door open for me to tie up loose ends with find Gs I’ve been meaning to write up for a couple of months now. Never fear, Hendricks is the command artist we know and love — it’s just that he relies heavily on incurring contact in optimal pitch locations. It is a needle very few pitchers can thread, but Hendricks does it masterfully.

Read the rest of this entry »

Introduction

This is the fourth article in my wPDI vs. CSW series. You can catch up by reading the first three articles – on called strikes, whiffs and residuals.

Here is a quick summary of some of the basics of wPDI & CSW from this series:

Last year, I developed the Weighted Plate Discipline Index (wPDI) framework, whereby all pitches can be classified into six different outcomes as follows:

Each outcome is then assigned a weight, or an index. A% through F% are the percent of pitches thrown in each outcome. The general formula for wPDI, the Weighted Plate Discipline Index is given as:

wPDI = Index_A * A% + Index_B * B% + Index_C * C% + Index_D * D% + Index_E * E% + Index_F * F%

wPDI can generate an all-in-one sortable metric used to evaluate pitchers. The plate discipline framework may be tailored to mimic (or to correlate to) various measures of deception or effectiveness.

In the first three articles of this series, we developed indices for wPDI to approximate the PitcherList metric, CSW. The Called Strikes + Whiffs (CSW) statistic was featured in last year’s FSWA Research Article of the Year by Alex Fast, and is defined as:

Called Strikes + Whiffs
Total Pitches

We separately tacked the called strikes and whiffs components, and landed on the following wPDI equation to represent CSW: Read the rest of this entry »

Introduction

This is the third article in my series – wPDI & CSW. You can catch up by reading the first two articles – on called strikes and whiffs – found here and here.

Here is a quick recap of what we have covered so far:

In this series, we are looking at the PitcherList metric, CSW and how it relates to my plate discipline framework, wPDI. Last year’s FSWA Research Article of the Year by Alex Fast featured CSW, which is defined as:

Called Strikes + Whiffs
Total Pitches

With the Weighted Plate Discipline Index (wPDI) framework, all pitches are classified into six different outcomes as follows:

Each outcome is then assigned a weight, or an index. A% through F% are the percent of pitches thrown in each outcome. The general formula for wPDI, the Weighted Plate Discipline Index is given as:

wPDI = Index_A * A% + Index_B * B% + Index_C * C% + Index_D * D% + Index_E * E% + Index_F * F%

Read the rest of this entry »

On last October 3rd, I examined how the effects of the Happy Fun Ball could mess with ERA estimator assumptions. I was self-serving in that I wanted to see how the variables in my own ERA estimator (pERA) changed*. Once I had the new constants, I created the valuations, and Randy Dobnak came in with an estimated sub-3.00 ERA ahead of starters such as Carlos Carrasco, Blake Snell, and Shane Bieber. The rankings were there for the public to admire and they were completely ignored throughout draft season.

I probably would have ignored them also if it weren’t for Spencer Turnbull. At the end of the 2018 season, Turnbull had a 6.06 ERA and was on no one’s radar for 2019. But I had his pERA at 2.31 better than both Justin Verlander and Chris Sale. I completely blew off the rankings and paid for it. From the beginning of the season until a shoulder injury in late June, Turnbull had a 2.97 ERA, 9.2 K/9, and 1.29 WHIP. And I had him rostered on no teams.
Read the rest of this entry »

This is the second article of my series – wPDI vs. CSW. For those new to either metric, I will quickly catch you up. [The opening article can be found here.]

In last year’s FSWA Research Article of the Year, CSW Rate: An Intro to an Important New Metric, Alex Fast of PitcherList examines his site’s pitching statistic, CSW. The short and simple formula for CSW is defined as follows:

Called Strikes + Whiffs
Total Pitches

Independently, I came up with the concept of Weighted Plate Discipline Index (wPDI). With wPDI, we ask just three questions, or three binary events for every pitch:

1. Was the ball thrown in the strike zone?
2. Was the ball swung on?
3. Did the batter make contact with the ball?

Every pitch can then be classified into 6 possible pitching outcomes based on the above. The definition of each outcome is as follows:

Each outcome is then assigned a weight, or an index. The formula for wPDI, the Weighted Plate Discipline Index is then given as:

wPDI = Index_A * A% + Index_B * B% + Index_C * C% + Index_D * D% + Index_E * E% + Index_F * F%

A% through F% are the percent of pitches thrown in each outcome, and the indexes are linear multipliers to obtain the aggregated, sortable metric.

What CSW has most in common with wPDI, is that it shares the same denominator – Total Pitches. That being the case, we can attempt to use the wPDI framework to express the PitcherList metric. CSW is rooted in Baseball Savant data, while wPDI is fed by FanGraphs figures. By exploring the similarities and differences between the metrics, we can also uncover some great nuggets of understanding.

Read the rest of this entry »

Introduction

Last year’s FSWA Research Article of the Year, CSW Rate: An Intro to an Important New Metric, was awarded to Alex Fast of PitcherList. In his article, Alex presents the pitching statistic, CSW – a metric which was originally coined and created by Nick Pollack in 2018. As cited in the author’s article summary, CSW is more predictive than Swinging Strike Rate (SwStr%), and is more descriptive than Whiff Rate (Whiff%).

The short and simple formula for CSW is defined as follows:

Called Strikes + Whiffs
Total Pitches

I enjoy elegant formulae. Sure – wOBA, wRC+ and the like are extraordinary metrics in their own right, but they are not the simplest to jot down. CSW is plain, simple, easy to understand, and nicely predictive.

Coincidentally, and unknowing of CSW, I came up with the concept of wPDI back in 2018. I then published my first works of the plate discipline framework on April 2, 2019. The original article was entitled Introducing: Weighted Plate Discipline Index (wPDI) for Pitchers, and can be found here.

What jumped out to me immediately upon reading Fasts’s article – was that the two metrics have something very in common. CSW and wPDI both share the very same denominator – Total Pitches. The base of both of our metrics are identical. Both utilize the very same sample size, both stabilize just as quickly, and both describe baseball through the very same lens – the pitch.

As a quick reminder of how wPDI works, every pitch can be classified into 6 possible pitching outcomes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Read first before freaking out

I started digging into pitch velocities and documented everyone who has changed. Two trends immediately appeared. The overall velocities were down and a few pitchers experienced major drops.

Normally in Spring Training, teams build a pitcher up to their maximum velocity and then start increasing the innings. At this point, all starters should have been ramped up to a full workload with their next start being in the regular season. Many don’t seem ready.

First off, I’m a little suspect of the velocity reading. Back in 2017, MLB installed new pitch-tracking systems and the velocities were high. A new system has been installed (Hawkeye) so something will likely be off. It is the MLB who can’t find a home for a team and decides to expand the playoffs with the season starting … that day. MLB going to MLB.

A second possible cause could the unique ramp up to the 2020 season. Teams have implemented different approaches to keeping their pitchers ready. Some of the velocities are down 5 mph from two separate parks. Maybe the pitchers are still worn down from the long postseason and four-month quarantine. Of the cameras are off. Or both.

Fastball velocities are down for a reason, but the cause(s) remains unknown. Fantasy owners need to remain calm and hopefully, in a few days, the truth will be known.
Read the rest of this entry »

Note: If you read this on Saturday evening, I’m likely to add a few names as I do some more research and more news rolls in.

Projecting this season’s FAAB is going to be a nightmare. In past seasons, the process seemed fruitless at times but it’s going to be even more of a mess this season. Most leagues are giving teams the same amount of FAAB to cover a third of the season that will lead to some high dollar desperate bidding. Additionally, when a league was drafted matters. For instance, I have two leagues running FAAB tomorrow. The one from early March I need to clean up (e.g. one had Trey Mancini) and the other I drafted last so I may gamble on some different bullpen arms.

In this article, I’m going to at least cover the players in demand using CBS’s (40% or less ownership) and Yahoo’s ADD/DROP rates. Both hosting sites have the option for daily and weekly waiver wire adds. CBS used a weekly change while Yahoo looks at the last 24 hours. Yahoo is a great snapshot of right now while CBS ensures hot targets from early in the week aren’t missed.

Additionally, I’m going to add anyone else I fill is appropriate.

Read the rest of this entry »

I semi-recently had the honor of presenting at PitcherList’s PitchCon online conference to help raise money for Feeding America. My presentation, “ERA Estimators: Past, Present, and Future,” discussed, well, exactly what it sounds like it discussed. Over three posts, I will recap and elaborate upon points made in my presentation.

In the first two parts of this series (1) (2), I reviewed every manner of estimator, from the classics (FIP, xFIP, SIERA) to new-fangled doohickeys (Baseball Prospectus’ DRA, Statcast’s xERA, Connor Kurcon’s pCRA, Dan Richards‘ FRA). Today, we march forward, envisioning a future that may already be upon us.

ERA Estimators, Part III: Future

Read the rest of this entry »

I spend a lot of time bothering Connor Kurcon. He’s a smart dude with a certain intuition about baseball and a certain ability to apply that intuition to produce tangible results that invariably reflect his hypotheses. He devised Predictive Classified Run Average (pCRA), an ERA estimator that outperforms the big three (FIP, xFIP, and SIERA). He also created a dynamic hard-hit rate which, to me, was astoundingly clever and a superior accomplishment to pCRA (although maybe he disagrees).

Anyway, like I said, I bother him a lot, he tolerates me, we bounce ideas off each other. The journey starts there, with my incessant annoyance of him, but also it starts here, with this Tom Tango axiom: exit velocity (EV) is the primary predictive element of hitter performance (as measured by weighted on-base average on contact, aka wOBAcon) — significantly more so than launch angle (LA). Some of the inner machinations of Tango’s mind:

That's not that interesting. What I was more interested is its relationship to NEXT YEAR's wOBA.

Not surprisingly, the performance of the 5% hardest batted balls is what indicates talent in the following year, and by a huge amount. If you've been following my barrels thread.. pic.twitter.com/hvLWr0rCSr

— Tangotiger 🍁 (@tangotiger) February 27, 2020

I won’t speak for Kurcon, but I think this finding helped guide his work on the dynamic hard-hit rate. I also think it inspired his foray into replicating this effort for pitchers or, at the very least, his attempts to determine the most predictive element of pitcher performance. Which leads us to this tweet that (spoiler alert) is actually not stupid at all:

Read the rest of this entry »