More Wandy Rodriguez Talk: Pitching Linear Weights
Whilst in the midst of a FanGraph chat Wednesday, Dave Cameron brought up a good point about linear weights. I'll let Beyond the Box Score take it from there:
"I do think that we need to do more work on pitch type linear weights in the future. I see people quoting these as gospel, saying so and so had the best curveball in the game or what have you, and they aren't defense-independent, so I hesitate to use them in that way."
Since I had just used linear weights in discussing one Wandy Rodriguez the night before, I paid particular attention to this and the comments in the BtBS post. What do we know about linear weights? I use them from time to time, but I surely haven't made a huge deal out of his curve's linear weight dropping off a cliff. Shouldn't we be worried about that?
To answer that question, I thought we could put his numbers this season into a little context. After the jump, we'll look at what his curve looked like physically the past two seasons, how he sequenced it and where he located the pitch. Maybe then we'll be able to better understand what his linear weight means.
You may not remember, but Roy Oswalt called Wandy's curve "the best curve in baseball" last spring. Lo and behold, his curve had one of the highest linear weights according to FanGraphs in 2009, so Roy was onto something. Then, for some reason, that effectiveness ended in 2010. Did the pitch lose some of its break? Let's look to Pitch F/X to find out:
2010
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity | Vertical | Horizontal | Spin Angle | Spin Rate |
| CU | 1157 | 36.4% | 75.7 | -7.93 | -4.54 | 330 | 1,516 |
2009
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity | Vertical | Horizontal | Spin Angle | Spin Rate |
| CU | 1068 | 32.2% | 76.7 | -7.03 | -4.94 | 325 | 1,435 |
Not much difference there. Wandy's curve had a little less vertical drop in 2009 and a little more horizontal movement in towards a right-hander, but not by a lot. The spin rate was a little higher in 2010, which could explain why the pitch dropped more, but neither were significant enough to justify a change in the linear weight.
If the pitch itself didn't change, maybe the timing of when he threw it did. Let's look at a breakdown of the counts he threw curves on in the past two seasons:
| 2010 | |||||
| Count | Curves | Total Pitches | Percentage | Rank | Top Pitch |
| 0-0 | 201 | 821 | 24.48% | 2 | FF |
| 0-1 | 209 | 409 | 51.10% | 1 | |
| 0-2 | 83 | 189 | 43.92% | 1 | |
| 1-0 | 88 | 328 | 26.83% | 2 | FF |
| 1-1 | 151 | 326 | 46.32% | 1 | |
| 1-2 | 135 | 287 | 47.04% | 1 | |
| 2-0 | 18 | 112 | 16.07% | 4 | FF |
| 2-1 | 62 | 198 | 31.31% | 1 | |
| 2-2 | 147 | 263 | 55.89% | 1 | |
| 3-0 | 0 | 26 | 0.00% | 3 | FF |
| 3-1 | 9 | 78 | 11.54% | 4 | FF |
| 3-2 | 54 | 144 | 37.50% | 1 | |
| 2009 | |||||
| Count | Curves | Total Pitches | Percentage | Rank | Top Pitch |
| 0-0 | 154 | 839 | 18.36% | 2 | FF |
| 0-1 | 213 | 439 | 48.52% | 1 | |
| 0-2 | 113 | 231 | 48.92% | 1 | |
| 1-0 | 47 | 321 | 14.64% | 2 | FF |
| 1-1 | 138 | 334 | 41.32% | 1 | |
| 1-2 | 172 | 337 | 51.04% | 1 | |
| 2-0 | 14 | 115 | 12.17% | 3 | FF |
| 2-1 | 35 | 167 | 20.96% | 2 | FF |
| 2-2 | 141 | 283 | 49.82% | 1 | |
| 3-0 | 0 | 38 | 0.00% | 3 | |
| 3-1 | 2 | 75 | 2.67% | 5 | |
| 3-2 | 39 | 138 | 28.26% | 2 | FF |
Now we're starting to see a pattern. Wandy emphasized his curve a little more in 2010, but not by much. The real change came in when he threw it. In 2009, when the pitch had such a big linear weight, Wandy concentrated his curve in counts when he was ahead, using the hammer curve as an out pitch. His percentages didn't move much in those counts, as the curve was still his standard pitch to throw when he needed a strikeout. What changed is when he also chose to throw it.
Look at the percentages in some of the counts he was likely to get hit in. 0-0, 1-0, 2-0, they all showed an uptick in how much he used the curve. Heck, he even saw an increase in 3-1 and 3-2 curves. What that suggests is that maybe Brad Arnsberg wanted him focusing on locating the pitch instead of just throwing it for a strike to get guys out. The reliance on fastballs in hitter's counts suggests Wandy may not have had confidence always to throw his curve for a strike when he needed it. Arnsberg may have changed that as part of his "plan," which in turn could have also led to a slight uptick in Wandy's walk rate.
But, we still have to look at location. If he's throwing more pitches in hitter's counts, did he change where he threw them. For these next two charts, I looked only at right-handed batters to see if the pattern changed.
There you have it. Wandy changed not only when he was throwing the curve, but where he was throwing it. Instead of pounding right-handers in at the knees, Wandy focused on the bottom lower triangle of the strike zone. Draw a line from the lower left corner to the upper right, and basically no curves got above it. Look at how many times he threw that curve up and in last season compared to 2009. Also look how much he used the entire bottom of the strike zone as compared to the inner corner in 2009.
Now we know that Wandy used his curve more in even and hitter's counts in 2010, throwing it almost exclusively low and away. That probably led to more contact, but weaker contact, which in turn would have led to a higher ground ball rate. A higher contact rate means more hits trickling through, which will weaken his linear weight.
There's still things we don't know. We don't really know the sequencing of his pitches that led to his effectiveness. We don't know how little changes in when he threw the curve, like in his percentage dropping on 0-2 counts, affected his other pitches. What if a batter was expecting the curve 0-2 and he threw the change instead? That strikeout would raise the linear weight of the change, but it was set up by his curve being effective earlier in the count. In short, there's a lot still unknown about how good his curve was last season. What is clear is that the pitch didn't use its effectiveness. Wandy just changed how he used the pitch and still stayed successful overall. That in itself shows that he's become a pretty darned good pitcher.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting stuff. In general, I am skeptical of the pitch values shown fangraphs due to sample size and impact of sequencing. This kind of analysis is much more compelling than just relying on the pitch values. By the way, throwing your best pitch on hitter’s counts makes sense (assuming you can throw it for strikes), right?
Off-topic, but Lance Berkman’s interview in Houston is drawing fire from Rangers’ fans because he says that, excepting Cliff Lee, the Rangers’ pitching staff pitched above its true talent level. The headline of the Dallas ESPN article says that Berkman “bashes Rangers.” Really, that’s kind of funny, because Berkman sounds more like a sabermetrics analyst than a basher. In any event, the article drew angry retorts from the Rangers’ C.J. Wilson.
To clack and/or David
We have gone over Wandy quite a bit and have covered a lot of data and a lot of ideas about what he’s capable of. You two seem to be the number wizards so I’ll ask you my question. Regarding mainly Norris, but Happ as well, how did they progress last year? I know both had high quality starts mixed in with not so high quality starts. My question did they continually get better or were they continually inconsistent? Mainly asking to know if they’re coming in improved from where they were at the start of last year or not. Brett was very consistent until he finally wore down at the end and we know what Wandy did…how about some info about our middle boys and what to maybe expect? :)
by Its Gonna Happen on Jan 29, 2011 5:55 PM CST via mobile reply actions
David wrote some periodic evaluations of Norris’ pitching over the course of the season. Maybe he can give you some links or summarize Norris’ progress based on that work.
My subjective impression is that Norris’ pitching performance improved when Arnsberg persuaded him to incorporate his change up and breaking pitches more later in the season. Norris had obvious pitch count problems early in the season, but later in the season, when Norris began to trust his ability to get weak contact, I think that problem diminished.
Both Norris and Happ have significant walk issues which have to be conquered in order to be successful in the long run. I have less confidence in my ability to assess Happ because he was with the Astros for such a short time. My general impression is that Happ seems to have good pitchability, and some deception in his delivery, which may allow him to consistently outperform his peripherals. I’m not sure yet what Happ’s potential might be (lower end to upper end of rotation).
Bud's second half
Not exactly advanced stats, but Bud was much better in the second half last year. First half: 2-6, 5.97 era, & 1.60 whip. Second half: 7-4, 4.18 era, 1.41 whip. Hopefully, he can be closer to the second half version in 2011.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=norribu01&year=2010&t=p
my main concern with Happ is that he has a tendency to throw in the upper portion of the strike zone. He is very erratic with his placement and im not sure if its a lack of command or an unusual style targeting the idea “you never know what’s coming next.” If he shows me its not a command problem then I’ll have much more faith in him and our future. Norris has shown the ability to strike people out. If he decides to pitch to contact and those hits start to drop he can always revert to sacrificing pitch count and strike out batters to get out of a jam. This philosophy gives me more comfort in Young Bud. Interestingly “I” look at our pitching staff of the future, including Lyles, and I see Brett Myers as the guy with the lowest ceiling. But it is 530 in the morning.
by Its Gonna Happen on Jan 30, 2011 5:49 AM CST via mobile reply actions
Both Happ and Norris have a style of relying upon the high fastball. For a high velocity pitcher like Norris, it can produce strike outs, but the down side is more exposure to HRs. It seems like the high fastball strike is a common style for some lower velocity lefthanders like Happ. When I watched Happ, I thought about left hand pitchers like Doug Davis who used the high fastball effectively, despite the risk.
Another good example of a lefthanded pitcher who didn’t have high velocity but effectively used high fastballs in the upper part of the zone was Jim Deshaies. As I recall, Deshaies had a good change up to go with the fastball. Both Deshaies and Happ are tall lefthanders. Happ could do worse than having a career like Deshaies.
Good to know
On Norris’ part at least he made some good progress. I can see him as a potential ace with a little more experience. Just remember with the tutelage of the Brads anything is possible.
by Its Gonna Happen on Jan 30, 2011 4:46 PM CST via mobile reply actions
I’ll be absolutely shocked if NOrris ends up with ace credentials; I’d be happy for him to be a #3 pitcher on a playoff team or an elite closer.
by Snake Diggity on Jan 31, 2011 1:20 PM CST up reply actions
Well think about what you just said...
“an elite closer” Would Billy Wagner have been as dominant as a SP (excluding the fact that his body might not have been able to take it)? Probably not. But if you can be an elite closer, which I think Bud is capable of, what happens when you stretch him out over 7 innings instead of just the 9th? Is it that he becomes mediocre the second time through the line up or can he be just as dominant as he would be in the ninth?
by Its Gonna Happen on Jan 31, 2011 6:54 PM CST via mobile reply actions
-Relies on velocity, so the more innings he throws, the less effective this weapon becomes.
-Prone to big inning.
-Only mastered 2 pitches so far.
by Snake Diggity on Feb 2, 2011 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

by 


























