Archive for strikeout

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 »

At the beginning of last season, I contextualized the swinging strike rate (SwStr%) (and refreshed those numbers after the season concluded). I had seen other analysts call certain pitches “above-average,” “below-average,” “elite,” etc. using the league-average whiff rate as a baseline. This is neither a criticism nor a judgment, as I absolutely did this before I had my statistically-driven epiphany. But understanding the average four-seamer’s or slider’s or cutter’s whiff rate lends additional context to any assertion one might make about the “elite-ness” of a pitch.

More recently, I wanted to convert discrete outcomes by pitch type into fielding independent pitching (FIP) statistics — namely, FIP and xFIP (expected FIP, which substitutes a pitcher’s rate of home runs per fly ball for the league-average rate). Let me warn you now: the results are very imperfect. It took some brute force on my part to get there, but I got there. I would wager that the the extreme (lowest and highest) values are probably a bit exaggerated. Regardless, it’s an interesting table to ingest:

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 »