Chris Archer’s Last, Best Hope
Fantasy owners have been chasing, to no avail, Chris Archer’s 2015 season, during which he recorded a 29% strikeout rate with a 3.23 ERA. After finishing just outside the top-50 overall by National Fantasy Baseball Championship (NFBC) average draft position (ADP), Archer averaged the No. 50 pick from 2016 through 2018. Unfortunately, the outcomes annually and in aggregate have been awful…
| Years | IP | ERA | WHIP | K% | BB% | GB% | FIP | xFIP | SIERA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-15 | 564.2 | 3.33 | 1.19 | 24.1% | 8.1% | 46.3% | 3.36 | 3.47 | 3.51 |
| 2016-18 | 550.2 | 4.12 | 1.28 | 27.5% | 7.5% | 44.8% | 3.64 | 3.44 | 3.54 |
… even though his peripherals before and after 2015 have been nearly identical. That’s the persistent problem with Archer: he has given us perpetual reason to chase results he may never again achieve.
I’m here to argue Archer’s woes started not in 2016, when his ERA ballooned to 4.02, but in 2015 — yes, his career year. That’s because he stopped throwing his sinker in 2015, opting instead to rely on a pitifully bad four-seam fastball as his primary offering. His 2015 success can be attributed primarily to his slider, which he began to feature much more prominently, but the remaining success was thanks to good luck.
In the absence of his sinker, Archer’s four-seamer allowed a 121 wRC+ in 2015 — in other words, it performed 21% worse than league-average. Yet the pitch recorded a positive pitch value — just barely positive, but still positive — despite being resoundingly below-average in aggregate to date. This speaks volumes to the good fortune he incurred on a mediocre pitch he threw more than 50% of the time.
(Had his four-seamer been unlucky, or at least true to form, we might have been able to diagnose Archer’s problems much earlier on. We might’ve taken more seriously his abandonment of his sinker in favor of an exclusively four-seam approach. Instead, we accepted Archer’s 2015 season as vintage production, and it blindsided us.)
Alas, we’ve reached the important wrinkle: after Archer was traded from Tampa Bay to Pittsburgh, he started throwing his sinker again. (Jason Rollison of Bucs Dugout discussed the potential implications here.)
The fantasy community has recently become more adept at diagnosing pitchers’ struggles. The primary fielding-independent pitching statistics (FIP, xFIP, SIERA, etc.) all assume batting average on balls in play (BABIP) and home run-to-fly ball rate (HR/FB) regress toward league-average (or, in other words, are outside the pitcher’s control). This is, or maybe was, an adequate assumption in the grand scheme of things; home runs and batting average are terribly noisy within single seasons for pitchers.
But there’s plenty of evidence pointing to varying levels of season-long success based on pitch-level skills and optimizing a pitcher’s repertoire. I would like to think I’ve contributed meaningfully to this paradigm shift by emphasizing and embracing the importance of pitch-type analysis. Considering our best pitching estimators hold constant batting average and (sometimes) home runs, I know we as an analytic community still have room to grow in regard to incorporating the nuanced effects of repertoire optimization.
I’m saying all this because: Archer’s fastball is very bad. Fastballs typically allow below-average BABIPs and can be homer-prone, which pretty soundly explains nearly all his struggles the last three years. His sinker, on the other hand, was actually pretty spectacular before he abandoned it.
I admit I’m staunchly anti-sinker; it’s usually a terrible pitch, and almost everyone should not throw one. But a select few pitchers can, with success. Blake Treinen can. James Paxton can. Archer, well, I don’t know if he can, still, but he once could and maybe should.
Because Archer threw — and, evidently, might still be able to throw — a power sinker. Among 77 pitchers who threw at least 500 sinkers in 2014, Archer’s ranked 17th in True Average (TAv). It allowed a mere .333 slugging (SLG), good for 7th among this same list, and allowed an even-better .297 SLG in 2013 — 2nd-best among 106 pitchers (min. 350 sinkers thrown). The pitch was far from a wipeout offering, but it doesn’t need to be. But it did very, very clearly limited contact in a way Archer fails to do now. Considering most other sinkers are flaming turds, Archer’s power sinker was one of a select few to give the pitch a good rap.
Now, consider the annual slugging percentages allowed by Archer’s four-seam fastball, which displaced his sinker as his primary offering, in the years since eradicating his sinker usage: .405*, .527, .506, .512. Aside from 2015 (as marked by an asterisk), Archer’s fastball has been utter garbage. The pitch is incredibly hittable, as mediocre fastballs tend to be. Velocity does not a fastball make.
It’s evident (to me, at least) the Pirates saw something — ideally, for my pride, the same something I’m seeing — in Archer’s power sinker. It allowed a .152 isolated power (ISO) and .359 BABIP in August and September last year, both far off what we saw from it half a decade ago. I would call it a small sample, though (just 226 thrown), and I might give him the benefit of the doubt having not thrown the pitch for almost five years. Looking past the subpar (but not terrible) outcomes, arguably the most important and bankable trait for his sinker would be velocity. At 94.9 mph per FanGraphs (95.24 per Brooks Baseball), the pitch mostly has the same zip it once did. Archer can’t quite reach back the way he used to; his sinker’s maximum velocity reading last year fell about a mile-per-hour short of its previous peak (according to both FanGraphs and Brooks), which might stifle the “ceiling” for the pitch. But, at first glance, it resembles the pitch it used to be.
A pitcher can only succeed on two pitches (effectively operating as a fastball-slider guy) for so long, especially when the fastball is crap. The sinker, while not a knock-’em-dead offering, keeps hitters not only honest but also off-balance, probably. At the very least, the pitch, when featured heavily, should perform no worse than his fastball; at the very most, it helps everything click for Archer, and he approaches peak form. By implementing this change, the Pirates have nothing to lose (if it fails catastrophically, simply ditch the sinker again) and everything to gain.
Let’s build in a few assumptions. If Archer throws more sinkers (displacing his four-seamer in the process), he likely accrues marginally fewer strikeouts in exchange for much-improved contact management. Given he features his slider much more prominently than he did in 2014, the strikeout rate should not dip significantly below its current rate (or, if it does, it shouldn’t fall back to 2014’s relatively mediocre levels). When synthesized, what does it all mean, ultimately? A 29% strikeout rate (like the one he achieved in 2015) is a lot to ask for, but if he can repeat last year’s strikeout and walk rates with league-average BABIP and home run rates — well, that’s exactly what Steamer is projecting, right? A 3.64 ERA with a 1.23 WHIP?
In a full season, that’s excellent. It’s not elite, like it was in 2015, again, 2015 never should’ve happened in the first place. Drafting Archer at 133rd overall (his current NFBC ADP) is, at worst, a break-even proposition given clean health. Despite how it sounds, breaking even on any draft pick ain’t bad, especially when the return on investment (ROI) of the average draft pick is well below 100%. A sinker-heavy Archer at least builds in a new ceiling, although it’s hard to envision exactly what that ceiling might look like.
But after years of tolerating lackluster results with no end in sight, what more could we reasonably ask for? For the first time in years, Archer might actually be a positive expected value (+EV) play — and, if he wins more than, like, 11 games, may actually possess top-50 upside.
For 3 years now the only plus value pitch has been the slider and it appears to be in steep regression (22 to 19.5 to 6.1) as well. It takes the rosiest of glasses to see how adding another pitch that was negative value (yes small sample but negative all the same) makes him anymore valuable a pitcher. Top 50 is an extreme stretch as now he heads to the wrong side of 30 already regressing. Worth noting that in 2014 the last year of the sinker he had career low K/9 and outside of his 29 inning debut in 2012 a career high BB/9
I admit that I generally stay away from pitch values, as I haven’t seen much written about using them predictively. My (admittedly biased) perspective is that they seem subject to the same variances as surface level stats such as ERA.
Further being biased, I tend to believe much more in component stats than results. I am led to think if we rewound the 2016-18 seasons, and played them several million times each, we’d see Archer’s numbers much closer to his xFIP/FIP than his real world results. This is only because I don’t think 3 seasons is that big a sample to declare someone breaks the trend, although that’s more from a general skeptical approach instead of one I’ve validated thoroughly.
On that note — what pitchers have consistently beat their peripherals? Are there legitimate studies that indicate this isn’t due to normal variance? Matt Cain comes to mind as the poster boy, but he only did it until he didn’t. (And SF home park certainly helped turn some dingers into outs — I think this was in the day when we didn’t appreciate the batted ball profiles like we do now.)
You’re right in that pitch values have poor predictive value. They are effectively the ERA of pitch-level measurement.
Again, your intuition is correct here. The component stats exist for a reason; (as I outline in the post) BABIP and HR/FB stick weakly or not at all from year to year, so it’s valid to regress them to league-average when talking about performance.
My dream is that we do get to a point where we can better explain the noise between ERA and FIP/xFIP/SIERA and the guys who consistently over/under-perform. There are definitely different attributes to pitch types that, when brought to the surface, can yield gains in this area, I believe. For example, sliders and curves, on average, allow a BABIP of roughly .280, whereas fastballs and sinkers allow BABIPs of .315-.320. There will be noise at the pitch level, of course, given a pitch might only throw a couple hundred of certain pitches in a season, but we can at least use this information to better describe or predict ERA and ERA estimators. It’s something I’m working on for this offseason (based primarily on this post.
I like where your head’s at, Travis
I address a couple of these things in the post already, but:
1) Pitch values ≠ pitch effectiveness. Pitch values relates strictly to outcomes and its intersection with sequencing.
1b) But if you do want to go this route: per 100 pitches, his sinker has been worth 0.5 runs, whereas his fastball has been worth -0.3 runs. Huge difference. That’s how it makes him more valuable
2) Top-50 is an extreme stretch — that’s why it’s upside/ceiling.
3) Again, I cover this in the post, but in 2014, he threw his slider (his best swing-and-miss pitch) only 28% of the time. In 2015: 39% of the time. Huge change in approach toward actually optimizing his arsenal.
Minor correction – I think this should say “can only succeed on two pitches..”.
> “A pitcher can only succeed on three pitches (effectively operating as a fastball-slider guy) for so long,”
Yes, thank you!
Great article! I have a question about Archer’s fastball. You indicated that by the numbers his fastball was more or less an “average” pitch. Archer has basically been a two pitch guy – fastball-slider. Looking at this very simply, at any point Archer can only make two choices, and predictably the batter only has to correctly decide to swing for one of two pitches. For some pitchers this does not matter as their two pitches are very good. However, when any pitcher gets a number of innings into a game, eventually he will feel some fatigue, and he will miss a pitch. For Archer, when he misses a pitch he still only has two choices, but now he has to choose between attempting the pitch he just missed or go for the second pitch in his repertoire. In this scenario if he chooses the second pitch in his repertoire and successfully gets a strike in the count, he then has to decide to choose that same pitch again or go back to the pitch he missed. You get the idea. Now all of a sudden being predictable does becomes a problem. Major league hitters love fastballs. Do you think the reason the fastball is showing up as average is because it is truly an average pitch or because it is taking the brunt of Archer’s limitations in his repertoire? I feel your analysis regarding a sinker could help in either case. However, in the instance that his fastball is “taking the brunt”, the ainker would give Archer a major boost. In the instance the fastball is average and will always be average, I feel like the sinker will make an impact but to a lesser degree.
I can only attest to this anecdotally/intuitively: I think pitch interaction must play a huge role, even if it can be difficult to quantify. Any two-pitch pitcher has a much smaller margin for error. Archer’s fastball might be better were it not for his predictability (as you allude to). By outcomes, his fastball was average in 2015 but generally it has been awful by both outcomes (huge negative pitch value overall) and production allowed (138 wRC+). But, again, maybe those numbers wouldn’t be so bad — it wouldn’t take “as much of the brunt,” per your words — if there were a third pitch to provide some variation.
Regardless, if he remains a two-pitch pitcher, I think sinker-slider will be more effective for him than fastball-slider. Preferably, he would use his change-up more and go sinker-slider-change or sinker-slider-fastball-change. Really, anything more varied than what he’s currently doing, haha
All of those options would be great! I do feel Archer has a horrible changeup – I don’t know if it is because the delivery is easy to read or what the case is, but a changeup has never worked for him. To your point though, if anyone can help Archer get an effective third pitch it is the Pirates.
Don’t tell that to Glasnow.
… or Gerrit Cole. Glasnow’s curve was out of control and Cole’s breaking stuff was suppressed in Pittsburgh. The Pirates do not have a good record of creating value from their talent when it comes to breaking pitches – it is not core to their strategy in recent years. Based on Alex’s article, Archer on the other hand has a great breaking pitch but needs help on everything else. Archer and the Pirates are a great match, just like Cole and Glasnow are/will be great matches for their respective teams.
Where are you getting that he has a horrible changeup? 33% whiff rate and .301 xwOBA in 2018, plus a 33% whiff rate and .338 xwOBA in 2017.
It also had the lowest average exit velo of any of his pitches the last two years.
Are you referring to something specific about the Pirates’ pitching instruction that makes them good at adding pitches to pitchers’ arsenals? Because I actually think the Pirates are the one team that stands out as having poor overall pitching instruction.
I’m not sure the sinker is the answer. Its xwOBA last year was in the range of his four-seamer. I’m also not liking the scatter plot of Archer’s location on the two-seamer.
Other pitchers with four-seamers just as bad, if not worse, are Tanaka and Carrasco. They both survive by throwing well over 50% breaking balls/offspeed stuff.
I suspect Archer needs to develop another secondary breaking/offspeed pitch, perhaps his changeup, which grades out very well by whiff rate in his brief (8-10%) usage of it over the last couple of years. Throwing a functional changeup more often will probably help his fastball as well.
Realistically a third fresh offering would be best. But in the absence of any evidence that he would ever do it, I need to place my faith in something tangible. I’m reluctant to trust xwOBA for a 226-pitch sample. But also, like I said in the piece, if it turns out the sinker just isn’t good like it used to be, can the overall package really get any worse? We’ll just be back at square one.
The whiff rate on his change-up is pretty average, by the way; I would guess the 33% you’re seeing is whiff/swing. In terms of whiff/pitch, it’s like 13% (on my phone, sorry if imprecise), which is middle of the road.
This. As a Rays fan having watched Archer since he burst onto the scene with such a great game against the Yankees in 2011 it has been frustrating to watch the changeup development, or the lack of trying a curve. As Nick alludes to earlier, even last year he would throw a change up or three in a start and generally they would be good and you’d think ‘hey, he’s on his way’ and then he’d seem to get frustrated with it because he missed his spot or one got tattooed and then you wouldn’t see it again for weeks.
His Fastball is ok, good velo @ 95 but it has a bad pitch score because of command in the zone (he has good control). More than any other pitcher I can recall his fastball gets hit because players can sit on it on 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 3-1 counts and these counts tend to come after he looses command on his slider which happens periodically for no apparent reason. It’s subtle, but it’s enough to make him a league average type pitcher.
With his velocity and control though, he should be much more so whether it’s a sinker or using both the sinker and changeup 10-15% that should help.