What's eatin' Roy Oswalt and Lance Berkman?
Richard Justice asks a pretty valid question in his most recent blog post: Can Roy and Lance still be elite players? Richard cites declining power stats for Lance and a rising ERA for Roy as proof of their possible demise. Of course, there are better stats to evaluate these two players.
Taking a deeper look at Lance, we can see that a lot of his numbers are similar to what he was able to do in 2007. His batting average and BABIP are similar which probably is not a coincidence. Strikingly alike are his Isolated Slugging (Slugging % - Batting Average) numbers of .232 and .233 in 2007 and 2009 respectively. He's been able to maintain that high level of pure extra base hitting production by smacking doubles at a higher clip this season than in 2007- his homer totals will most likely fall short in no small part because he'll have played in twenty or so fewer games.
Patience has been key to Berkman's value- drawing more walks than in years past and posting an above 1 BB/K ratio. He is swinging at a lower percentage of pitches in the strike zone than at any other time in his career, and making contact overall at a slightly higher clip than in the past three seasons.
One part of Berkman's game that has seen a steep decline in 2009 has been his ability to punish opposing pitchers when they throw fastballs. Fangraphs does a nice job of quantifying how many runs above average a batter is when he faces a particular pitch. I realize that the season isn't over yet, but with 15 or so games left, it's not as if this number is going to change all that much. That being said here is Lance's wFB (runs above average when throwing his fastball) numbers since 2006:
| Season | wFB |
| 2006 | 34.9 |
| 2007 | 27.1 |
| 2008 | 25.9 |
| 2009 | 10.0 |
Compared to his performances against the other pitches, Lance has always been fairly consistent in how he does against fastballs. Could his relative struggles this season be due in part to his less aggressive, more selective approach at the plate this season?
Like Berkman, Roy Oswalt has had to withstand injury this season, to the tune of making a total of only thirty starts. Once a strong suit of his, Oswalt has been unable to induce groundballs like in the past, which has definitely been a factor in his lesser degree of success in 2009.
Batters have similar contact and swing %s against Roy this season as compared to the recent past, which was a surprise to me probably because I guessed he would have lost a little on his fast ball this year. That hasn't been the case, but Oswalt is throwing his fastball less and his slider and changeup a bit more.
This season has pretty clearly been Roy's worst, but it's not as if his stats are varying all that much than in years past. A rising BABIP has led to a higher BAA and ERA. Looking beyond these baseball card metrics, tERA and FIP (think ERA substitutes) indicate that Roy has actually been better this season than last season.
For the first time in nearly a decade, the futures of these two are in doubt. Will Lance play beyond his current contract? Is this the offseason that Roy gets dealt? After frustrating seasons for each, question marks abound for our two stars.
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Comments
Good points.
I’m glad you did this analysis (I procrastinated doing it, myself), because Justice’s views of “decline” relly too heavily on batting average (for Berkman) and ERA (for Oswalt). All season, Justice and others have been overreacting to Berkman’s season because they focus on batting average.
Berkman had an excessive BABIP last season, and regression is a bitch when it happens immediately the next season. Berkman has posted a .340+ BABIP three times in his career (last year included), and each time the succeeding year was .304 or less—or 20 points below his average BABIP. If regression to mean happens again, he will boost his BABIP next year.
Your point about Berkman’s doubles power this year is a good one. Many times the difference between a HR and double is just a matter of a foot or two, and reflects some degree of luck. Berkman’s HR/fly rate is 16%, which is a drop off from his career 19% average. Looking at Berkman’s doubles and HR annual totals during his career, you can see a rough pattern that high doubles seasons tend to correspond to lower HR seasons.
Based on this, I think the main thing to worry about for Berkman is that he will suffer more injuries as he gets older (which is natural). Otherwise, I wouldn’t be surprised if he has one of his better seasons next year.
As for Oswalt, like you point out, most of his fundamental stats are fine. Oswalt’s FB is better (velocity) than it has been in years. That may be associated with his declining GB rate. I think both trends may be due to throwing more 4 seam FBs (which have higher velocity but produce fewer GBs). For all I know, this may be intentional on Roy’s part in order to reduce his exposure to declining infield defense (Roy hasn’t hidden his view that he would like to see better infield defense). People will look at Roy’s 4+ ERA and think he has gone down the tubes. That ignores the fact, though, that two straight attempts to start games with his back injury caused his ERA to increase from the 3.75 area to 4.12. From a pitching standpoint, I don’t think there is anything wrong with Roy.
But chronic injuries like his degenerative back condition are the biggest threat for Roy in the future. I think we may have to get used to a Roy Oswalt who doesn’t pitch 200+ innings in a season. He probably needs to be handled with more care (certainly more than Cooper has shown) and given more frequent rest instead of penciling him into ever rotation advancement created by an off day. If Roy pitches 190 innings per year with mid-3’s ERA, I think we would be happy.
by clack on Sep 18, 2009 9:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
age is age
as you point out. we’re just going to have to deal with it. craig biggio was an anomaly as far as playing as long as he did and playing through those nagging injuries that come with playing 145+ games a season. i hate to venture off into waters that i’m unfamiliar with, but i feel like neither lance nor roy have the “body types” that are suitable for playing a long time at a high level. lance isn’t prince fielder, but he has suffered major injuries before, and doesn’t have that much of an athletic build. playing first base should reduce wear and tear to an extent, but i still worry. one of the reasons roy was drafted so late was because of his build. he’s a little guy who threw very hard, and still does. to throw that hard, he must generate a great deal of torque in his trunk, which may explain his back/hip issues..at least to an extent. i mean, tim lincecum is a freak, and isn’t completely analogous to roy, but the sort of hubabaloo surrounding tim’s crazy delivery can be compared to roy a little bit i think. couple roy’s stature with his manager’s unwillingness (as you point out) to keep him on a shorter leash in some instances, and roy has most likely seen his best days pass by. that’s ok because he can still be an upper tier starter, just not the ace which we knew in 2004 and 2005.
by Evan Hochschild on Sep 18, 2009 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My view
Surprisingly void of any statistical backing is that Lance through out his career has had these up and down years, with the up years being even years and the odd years being down years. Roy, (AND I’M NOT BLAMING THE WORLD BASEBALL CLASSIC, I THINK IT’S GREAT AND I ENJOY WATCHING THE GAMES), started throwing earlier this year than previous years, and I believe we’re just seeing what happens to a 32 year old pitcher whose been throwing pitches since January.
I believe they will have bounce back years, compared to this year. Let’s not kid ourselves Roy and Lance are past their prime years, but the way they play the game (Lance with his patience at the plate and Roy pitching to contact) allow them to age better than your typical player.
by timmy_ on Sep 18, 2009 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
???
Where can I get definitions for all the acryonims used in these analysis? I have no idea what you are saying….ISO, wFB, BABIP and all the other ones used in the other blogs?
by David P on Sep 18, 2009 3:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
good question....
we should remember more readers may have the same question. Hardball Times’ glossary is very good: Link. BABIP, ISO, FIP and similar terms are defined there.
Some of the acronyms, like wFB, are from fangraphs.com. Unfortunately the pitch type win values are not defined in fangraph’s glossary. The wFB is part of the general explanation of pitch type linear weights here.
As I understand it, wFB (fastball) or wSL (slider), etc. is based on the outcome (single, double, triple, HR, groundout, strikeout, etc.) for each FB thrown, and develops a win probability based on the pitch counts, which are summed to arrive at a win probability above or below average for a particular pitch.
by clack on Sep 18, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm sorry about that David
I think that we usually do a good job of explaining without being overly “statty”, if that makes sense. or at least we usually explain or link to definitions as clack did below me. i apologize for not being more thorough in introducing the stats. keep readin’ the blog and you’ll find that out, promise ya.
by Evan Hochschild on Sep 18, 2009 5:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















