Archive for K%

Back in June, I tried to tackle the age-old question: are foul balls good or bad? I tried to determine the “worth” of a foul ball by grouping plate appearances by their number of foul balls (from zero to four-or-more) and looking at two outcome metrics: strikeout rate (K%) and weighted on-base average (wOBA). Unfortunately, my endeavor turned up mostly duds. There are some interesting nuggets – a pitcher’s wOBA allowed improves by nearly 30 points in two-strike counts if he allows at least one foul ball – but most other splits were meaningless. Similar attempts to quantify the effect of a foul ball on the subsequent pitch were similarly fruitless.

I stepped back from the research to let it breathe. Intuitively, I knew there should be value here – I just wasn’t sure how it would present itself. Then, one day (specifically, June 27), inspiration struck in the form of Bryse Wilson’s third career start, during which he incurred nine swinging strikes but also 20 (twenty!) foul balls on 56 four-seam fastballs, amounting to a 16% swinging strike rate but also an absurd 36% foul ball rate (Foul%). The coincidence of many whiffs and also many fouls struck me as fascinating and extremely relevant to my previous research. It encouraged me to reframe the question at hand:

How does foul ball rate correlate with other measurements of success by pitch type?

Read the rest of this entry »

This is, and is not, a Mike Tauchman post. My relentlessly Tauchman-centric brand has been, in the words of beloved pal Sammy Reid, “hotter than the sun’s ass.” Tauchman has become the folk hero Yankees fans didn’t know they needed. I also have become insufferable to everyone within digital arm’s length of my Twitter account.

When I reviewed my bold predictions in July, I lamented Tauchman’s bad-luck strikeout rate (K%). By measure of “deserved” strikeout rate (I regressed the components of every hitter’s plate discipline against their strikeout rates to derive a “deserved” rate), Tauchman had been one of Major League Baseball’s unluckiest hitters.

Despite his recent torrid streak, Tauchman still emerges as one of 2019’s unluckiest hitters. That is why this is, in a sense, still a Tauchman post. But it’s also an Everyone Else post, in that I’m eager to unearth baseball’s luckiest and unluckiest hitters this year.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve had the question written on my whiteboard for ever: are foul balls good or bad? It’s a glass-half-empty, glass-half-full conundrum. The former group might think a foul ball is simply a barely-missed opportunity at in-play contact. The latter group might view that same event as a positive — that the poor quality of contact on a foul ball is indicative of an ability to induce poor contact quality in general, and it’s not inherently different from a swinging strike.

In my heart of hearts, it makes more sense to me that a foul ball is closer to in-play contact than not. Considering the diameter of both a bat and a ball, and the nearly physically impossible feat of connecting the two in motion, a foul tip has a margin of error of mere inches, whereas a swinging strike, fully sans contact, can have a margin of error measured in feet. Yes, it seems like getting a piece of the ball suggests, from the pitcher standpoint, makes the glass appear more half-empty than otherwise.

I wanted to finally tackle the subject, but I didn’t really know how. I first looked at the outcome of the pitch directly following foul and non-foul pitches, but it was a bit noisy (although, to be fair, I may have missed clear patterns in that noise). I imagine the effects spawning from a foul ball are not exclusive to the next pitch; rather, they may manifest two or three or even four pitches deeper into the plate appearance. In other words, a pitch-sequencing analysis might be prohibitively difficult, at least for someone like me who lacks the brainpower or mental stamina to pull it off.

Instead, I opted for something a little easier yet arguably just as telling. Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, I devised a new expected strikeout rate for pitchers and used it to identify qualified starting pitchers who over- or under-performed in 2018. I’m reluctant to make out the exercise to be more than it is. I simply wanted to take the most intuitive approach to describing a pitcher’s strikeout rate (K%): by using the plate discipline exhibited by opposing hitters. Today, I seek to do the same for hitters. I can tell you now the discussion will be much more qualitative than quantitative.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mike Foltynewicz, a first-ballot Hall of Namer, immediately strikes me as someone who outperformed his strikeout rate (K%) in 2018. I don’t have to look far for confirmation: his 27.2% strikeout rate outstripped his 10.3% swinging strike rate (SwStr%) by a mile. Because whiff rate correlates so strongly with strikeout rate, it serves as a useful proxy for what one could expect of a pitcher’s strikeout ability.

I generally follow this rule of thumb when I’m reluctant to get too into the weeds when assessing peripherals: SwStr% * 2 = K%. It’s imperfect but useful in a pinch. Folty violates this rule of thumb pretty dramatically. Of 13 qualified pitchers who struck out at least 27% of hitters, his 10.3% swinging strike rate falls well short of the shortlist’s 2nd-lowest mark (Charlie Morton, 11.9%). Foltynewicz’s 2018 performance has already wilted under what amounts to very little duress.

Still, I wanted to allow Foltynewicz the opportunity to redeem himself. Whiff rate does not a pitcher make; there are other components to plate discipline allowed such as chase rate (O-Swing%) and zone rate (Zone%), among others, that describe each pitcher in much finer detail. I broke down a pitcher’s plate discipline allowed into its component pitch outcomes:

Read the rest of this entry »

Well, maybe not you, specifically. The royal you. The editorial.

Kyle Schwarber has had himself a pretty dang good season so far. It’s exactly what I needed. Having just inherited my first ottoneu team — a relatively downtrodden 9th-place team (of 12) — and hardly knowing the rules, I took a gamble and traded a $12 Jon Gray for a $6 Patrick Corbin, a $7 Willie Calhoun, a $3 Jake Junis, and a $20 Schwarber. I liked every piece of the trade (although I, now regretfully, cut Junis during spring training, not really understanding the dynamics of the draft, my finances, or of ottoneu generally). But acquiring Schwarber at his relatively exorbitant price given his 2017 season was a risky proposition, especially after a summer of these headlines:

Read the rest of this entry »

A few weeks ago, I took a deep dive on Luke Weaver, budding Cardinals No. 2 and Adam Wainwright torch-taker. I came out of it reluctant to invest in him at his hefty asking price: per National Fantasy Baseball Championship (NFBC) average draft position (ADP) data, 27th among starting pitchers and 105th overall. His lackluster swinging strike rate (SwStr%) indicated to me he could not sustain his lofty 28% strikeout rate (K%) when pitchers of similar SwStr% caliber had strikeout rates ranging from 18% at worst to 25% at best. The best, in that instance, was Aaron Nola. I doubted Weaver could compare so favorably, primarily because Nola steals strikes in a way few others can.

What I failed to do — what I should’ve done — is check. Duh! I should’ve checked how often Weaver earns called strikes. So I did, and I came away feeling even more scared than before. Turns out, I’m an idiot who botched some simple arithmetic: Weaver falls just outside the top quartile of pitchers in stealing strikes, as opposed to literally 3rd-worst like I claimed in the previously linked Tweet. That would’ve been really bad. Still, this miscalculation and subsequent mischaracterization of Weaver’s ability sent me on a quest of ultimately marginal value.

The more I looked at Weaver’s plate discipline peripherals, the more I realized Weaver doesn’t coerce many swings-and-misses out of the zone. He’s actually pretty bad at it. That means he generates most of his success in the zone, which, to me, seemed unusual. I was nervous that thriving by threading the needle — i.e., pounding the zone (assuming some semblance of command) and hoping for whiffs — might be a dangerous way to live, or that, at the very least, a young pitcher for whom the proverbial book on him isn’t out yet might be subject to regression in this particular area. The freshly FanGraphs-retired Eno Sarris thought thriving in the zone is better than thriving outside the zone:

Read the rest of this entry »

This kind of post is right in Mike Podhorzer’s wheelhouse. We have a lot of common interests as far as baseball research topics are concerned — namely, xK%, xBB% and xBABIP — but he’s typically the one who periodically updates RotoGraphs with x-leaders and x-laggards.

So, again, this would be the kind of post Pod would tackle: an update on which starting pitchers will likely regress in their strikeout rates (xK%). But instead of using the xK% equation, to which the above paragraph is hyperlinked, I want to focus on a particular metric: zone contact rate, or Z-Contact%.

I’ll be up front about this: I haven’t done much research regarding pitcher zone contact rates and how it sticks from year to year. That’s primarily what this post will entail, and my evidence is largely anecdotal. But it’s important to note that zone contact rate plays a profound role in determining a pitcher’s strikeout rate; the Pearson correlation coefficient between K% and Z-Contact% is -0.72. In other words, K% and Z-Contact% are strongly negatively correlated.

Read the rest of this entry »

A couple of weeks ago, I investigated Justin Verlander’s resurgence. I found reasons to validate his hot streak but turned up additional question marks along the way.

One of them was his zone contact rate (Z-Contact%). At 79.7 percent, it would have been the second-lowest of his career by several percentage points (despite not performing “at peak”). However, I realize now, unfortunately, that I must have encountered a glitch in the leaderboards — his Z-Contact% as of August 21 (because the post, despite running the same day as his Aug. 26 start, was published prior to it) was 85.7 percent.

Regardless, it got me thinking what affects a pitcher’s zone contact rate because it correlates very strongly with strikeout rate (R-squared = .594). User DoubleJ speculated about the metric via comment on one of last week’s posts:

Read the rest of this entry »

Chris Carter is off to a bad start. This is an unambiguously true fact. Jeff Sullivan, among other Twitterers (Tweeters?), have succinctly illuminated this unambiguously true fact:

selection of players with ISO of .000 Curtis Granderson Brandon Phillips Desmond Jennings Logan Morrison Chris Carter

— Jeff Sullivan (@based_ball) April 21, 2015

Carter has supplemented the zero extra-base hits with four singles, 21 strikeouts and nary a run batted in to speak of through 51 plate appearances. (FYI, that’s a 41.2-percent strikeout rate.) His atrociously bad start is the talk of the Twitter town, and it has Astros Manager A.J. Hinch dropping him in the batting order. As of last night, Carter’s ownership had dropped to 67.7 and 73 percent in ESPN and Yahoo! leagues, respectively, as owners have jumped ship.
Read the rest of this entry »