Stuff Wins: Revisiting the Multi-Fastball Profile

Beyond the Obvious Multi-Fastball Breakouts

Building on the chart we used last week to identify multi-fastball starters, some interesting names did not receive the analysis they perhaps deserved. This second piece seeks to address that, diving deeper into the names that did not fit the profiles identified in the initial piece but deserve coverage nonetheless, both from a pure baseball and fantasy perspective. Of the 38 qualified starters using a multi-fastball approach, 24 utilize a true multi-variant arsenal. The majority of these pitchers are already well known. Deep dives on Bryan Woo or Max Fried are not necessary at this point, but having covered some of the more obvious fantasy adds in part one, there was still plenty more to explore. The updated chart below reflects the latest qualified starter data, including some new names worth keeping an eye on.

As we move deeper into this pitcher profile, I wanted to give more attention to Stuff+ and Location+ as potential separators, rather than something so heavily weighted to strikeouts like SIERA. This actually proved to be very useful and told great stories of pitchers who might have graded out well in one or the other, but still statistically fell behind. Of course, these metrics will be discussed relative to the group rather than in absolute terms, as most pitchers here sit around or even below league average in both.

The Value of Stuff over Location

Aaron Civale has had a strong statistical start to 2026 and has warranted consideration on face value. But his profile is not particularly sustainable, and regression appears likely. Civale has two genuine weapons in his cutter and curveball, but his fastball variants, the core of the multi-fastball profile, are below average in terms of raw stuff and are surviving purely on elite location. Despite that plus location, he is getting hit hard consistently due to his low velocity and lack of movement or genuine deception on his fastballs. We have already seen this regression begin: since the first part of this article was published, his ERA has moved from 2.70 to 3.31. With his LOB% remaining at a historically unsustainable 89.4% and his hard-hit rate climbing to 48.2%, further regression is not a question of if but when.

Interestingly, his teammate J.T. Ginn — who did not qualify for the previous chart — now enters the picture following his agonizingly close bid for a no-hitter against the Angels. He presents a much more compelling case for being rostered. Looking at his overall Stuff+ and Location+, he appears very middle of the pack, but when you break those grades down by pitch type, the story changes considerably. His sinker, by far his most-used pitch, carries a Stuff+ of 112, significantly higher than any other individual pitch in this group, with 27 inches of vertical drop resulting in a run value of six outs above average. He does carry well below-average Stuff+ on his other fastball variants, which is a legitimate concern given the significant gap between the current BA and SLG on those pitches and their expected counterparts. Combined, they still account for 29% of his pitches, which is not negligible. Ginn should perhaps lean further into his sinker and utilise his changeup more — particularly against left-handed hitters — as it has been somewhat unlucky from a contact quality perspective so far. A cutter sitting in the high seventies in Stuff+ is one he should be dropping from his arsenal almost entirely.

The profile is there for sustained success. Unlike Civale, Ginn is not purely dependent on location — he possesses a pitch with genuinely strong stuff metrics, and while the sinker is not a traditional put-away pitch, it projects considerably better long-term than anything Civale is working with. To understand why Civale’s profile is unsustainable while Ginn’s is not, it helps to look at how their fastball grades break down at the individual pitch level — weighted by usage to reflect what each pitcher actually throws.

Note: Hover over any dot to see the individual Stuff+ and Location+ grades for each pitcher’s four-seam, sinker, and cutter — weighted by pitch usage to reflect what each pitcher relies on.

The contrast is stark — Civale’s elite Location+ of 115 is the highest in the group, yet he is getting hit harder than almost anyone here, despite borderline elite location on his pitches, without the stuff to give hitters trouble, the location in reality means little. In contrast, Ginn’s sinker Stuff+ of 112 is doing something Civale’s arsenal simply cannot replicate. Ginn is a must-add, I think, going forward.

What to do with Wrobleski

Wrobleski is the clearest example of why weighting each fastball’s Stuff+ and Location+ by usage matters. His unweighted Location+ was dragged down to 67 by a cutter he throws less than 1% of the time, while his usage-weighted Location+ of 114 — driven almost entirely by a four-seam he throws over 50% of the time — tells a considerably more honest story and puts him in interesting territory for a buy discussion.

That weighted Location+ of 114 actually mirrors Civale’s elite location grade, but where Civale’s location is masking poor contact outcomes, Wrobleski’s contact suppression is genuine. His barrel rate of 7.2% sits closer to Ginn’s 6.4%, and both are suppressing hard contact consistently. The difference is in the bat-missing ability — Ginn induces more ground balls, weaker overall contact, and posts higher SwStr% and K-BB%. Wrobleski’s K% of 13.7% ranks at the second percentile among qualified starters, and his SwStr% of 7.2% offers little upside if the contact suppression regresses even slightly. So while the two are stylistically similar, Ginn has the higher ceiling, some swing-and-miss potential, and the best individual pitch in this group, his sinker. Wrobleski is worth monitoring in deeper formats, particularly if he can find a way to miss even a few more bats.

Time to Sell High

Eduardo Rodriguez presents another puzzling set of numbers. A 2.24 ERA and 3.68 FIP, a solid barrel rate of 7.2%, and a Location+ of 107. But his expected metrics are concerning across the board. Not only are his xERA and xFIP significantly worse, but looking at his individual pitches, his only offerings with positive run value are his four-seam and changeup. The four-seam is thrown 38% of the time and generates a 32% strikeout rate — particularly effective when he locates it up in the zone in two-strike counts, which goes some way toward explaining the 108 Location+.

Outside of two-strike counts, however, it is hard hit 44% of the time and is thrown too often into the middle of the zone. His next most-used fastball variant is his cutter, which carries an xSLG of .663. His 2.24 ERA is really being held up by his changeup; statistically, it is performing really well. It will be interesting to monitor if he can sustain this success based on this pitch alone. Now could be the time to bet that it doesn’t, and his most thrown pitch, his four-seam, regresses. He followed a five-run outing in Colorado with a strong seven scoreless innings performance, making this an ideal time to sell high while his ERA remains in the twos.

The Big Three

Not every pitcher in this group is a cautionary tale — three sit on entirely different analytical footing. Of the ten pitchers in this group, only three sit comfortably in the top-left quadrant of our xERA versus K-BB% chart — strong contact suppression and an above-average strikeout-walk profile simultaneously. Rasmussen, Elder, and Suarez are examples of the fastball-heavy approach resulting in sustained success.

I touched on Rasmussen briefly in the first piece, but wanted to give him more thorough treatment here. He is the clear outlier even within this sub-group of three high-performing pitchers, and his Stuff+ metrics only reinforce that. He is the only pitcher in this group with all three fastball variants grading above 97 in Stuff+, four-seam at 109, sinker at 111, cutter at 98, meaning his contact suppression is not location-dependent in the way others in this group are. Elite pitch placement combined with solid, if not elite, bat-missing ability. His 7.9% barrel rate paired with a nearly 50% ground ball rate gives him an exceptionally high floor, and crucially, he has the raw stuff to miss bats on all three of his fastball variants.

What is interesting is identifying the differences between Elder and Suarez, who on the surface appear to be performing similarly. Elder has posted remarkable numbers so far in 2026, headlined by a 2.01 ERA and an extraordinary 3.5% barrel rate. He carries positive run value on all three of his fastball variants, and while his expected data suggests he may be riding his luck to some degree, his four-seam in particular has provided a strong foundation driven by an impressive Location+ of 117. Despite his sinker having a higher run value, the expected data shows that it will regress, while the fastball xwOBA, xSLG, and xAVG all match the results thus far and its plus location means he should lean on it more going forward.

Neither Elder nor Suarez will ever generate elite Stuff+ grades; both rely on precision and contact suppression rather than raw stuff. Suarez, despite a slow start in Boston, is demonstrating a higher ceiling over the course of a full season. With comparable contact and batted ball numbers across the board, Suarez has greater bat-missing potential, and Elder’s raw stuff is genuinely below average — an aggregate 86 Stuff+ across his fastball variants — meaning his 2.00 ERA has more regression risk baked into it than the surface numbers suggest.

Final Thoughts

While this piece cannot cover every pitcher in the group, I thought it was worth including names such as Foster Griffin, Michael Wacha, and Jameson Taillon as useful points of reference for the chart. Foster Griffin is potentially the most interesting omission; his ERA of 4.02 is running hotter than his xFIP of 3.84 suggests it should, with elite location on his cutter, making him a quiet buy-low candidate in deeper formats if his K-BB% of 15.2% holds. Michael Wacha continues to be a useful streaming option; his contact profile is solid enough to keep him rostered in most leagues, but his xERA of 3.94 and elevated hard-hit rate suggest the current ERA flatters him slightly. He also suffers from poor Stuff+ metrics. Jameson Taillon is the clearest fade in the group, a 14.8% barrel rate and xERA of 5.10 mean his ERA of 4.97 is already honest, and there is little in the underlying data to suggest improvement is coming.

The multi-fastball profile is not going away. If anything, the pitchers succeeding with it in 2026 will accelerate its adoption across pitching staffs over the next two to three seasons, and the pool of qualified starters meeting the 55% threshold will only grow, particularly within the back-end of rotations where sides will look for stability. The opportunity for fantasy managers is in the identification window — the gap between when a pitcher commits to the approach and when the ownership numbers reflect it. The fingerprint to look for has not changed: meaningful sinker and cutter usage above 40% combined, an xERA under 4.00, and if you can find above league average K-BB% that provides at least a modest bat-missing floor.