Differences in pitching quality

[brett]

So I've been told that pitchers in the same time and place allow roughly the same results in terms of hits and extra bases per ball put in play. I heard it varies a little, but is not a major factor in differences in allowing runs.

So doesn't that leave just 3 things that can make a pitcher good?

1) Preventing batters from putting balls in play (in K/9IP)
2) Allowing fewer walks
3) Allowing a lower relative distribution of balls put in play/walks when runners are on base, in scoring position etc-when it counts.


What about a guy like Dan Quisenberry who seemed to force more grounders and pop-ups than an average pitcher? Was that an illusion?

How much variation can actually be explained by the minor variations in results of balls put in play?

[Tango Tiger]

You've been told wrong.

Webb, Lowe, Wang et al are GB pitchers.

Santana, Zito et al are FB pitchers.

When a GB is hit, be it out of Lowe's or Zito's hand, you won't get many extra base hits. Plus you get alot of DP. When a FB is hit, you'll get a fair number of extra base hits (especially HR). And hardly any DP.

However, when you look at the overall runs allowed, then there is little difference between a GB and a FB, as they are both around -.10 runs per ball hit, if you exclude HR (which is an enormous exclusion, and one you didn't address at all). That is, at the runs level, it ends up balancing out mostly.

Your three points boils down to: to be good, do things that result in good things, and don't do bad things that result in bad things. But, you didn't say what he has to do exactly. The only thing the pitcher can control is:
1. his pitch repertoire
2. the sequencing of his pitch repertoire
3. the location of his pitches
4. understanding how the batter approaches each pitch, based on the game conditions and count

The other stuff follows from it. Saying he has to keep his walks low is as obvious as saying that a batter needs to not make an out. Those are results, outputs. What you care about is inputs.

[brett]

Your three points boils down to: to be good, do things that result in good things, and don't do bad things that result in bad things. But, you didn't say what he has to do exactly. The only thing the pitcher can control is:
1. his pitch repertoire
2. the sequencing of his pitch repertoire
3. the location of his pitches
4. understanding how the batter approaches each pitch, based on the game conditions and count

The other stuff follows from it. Saying he has to keep his walks low is as obvious as saying that a batter needs to not make an out. Those are results, outputs. What you care about is inputs.

But as far as walks, what about the balance between walks and strikeouts. More walks may be worth it if it also results in more strikeouts right?

I also have read articles that the pace of pitching has a big impact. I read an extensive article on college batters and pitchers that a batter is much less likely to hit a pitch that follows the previous pitch by less than 10 seconds than one that follows by more than 15 seconds and that that is the direct result of pitch recognition.

Lastly what about a pitcher's pattern of control (not just pitch selection). If one guy tends to have poor control in streaks, while another has a more diffuse pattern of control.

For example, we saw with Ryan that he allowed few hits, for few extra bases, but he did much worse with runners on base. Where would that fit?

What did Greg Maddux do well, both in inputs and outputs?

[stevebogus]

Excuse me please for butting in, but I'd like to comment.

But as far as walks, what about the balance between walks and strikeouts. More walks may be worth it if it also results in more strikeouts right?

To a degree, since strikeouts are sure outs (excepting the dropped third strike). But you wouldn't want to add one walk for each strikeout gained. I think the break-even point lies somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1.

I also have read articles that the pace of pitching has a big impact. I read an extensive article on college batters and pitchers that a batter is much less likely to hit a pitch that follows the previous pitch by less than 10 seconds than one that follows by more than 15 seconds and that that is the direct result of pitch recognition.

I'd like to know more details if you could point me to this study. I don't know why it would be any harder to recognize a pitch based on the delay between one pitch and another. My initial guess is that there is something wrong with the study.

Lastly what about a pitcher's pattern of control (not just pitch selection). If one guy tends to have poor control in streaks, while another has a more diffuse pattern of control.

Sure, walks and hits are more damaging when they occur in bunches. And pitchers do sometimes have control problems.

For example, we saw with Ryan that he allowed few hits, for few extra bases, but he did much worse with runners on base. Where would that fit?

People tend to talk about Ryan with awe because of his 100-MPH fastball and knee-buckling curve, his no-hitters and strikeouts and longevity. But he was poor at just about all of the other things that pitchers need to do. He was easy to run on. He was a terrible fielder. He threw lots of wild pitches. Somehow I don't find it surprising that he did relatively poorly with runners on base. Mind you, his numbers with runners on base are still very good. But Ryan genuinely WAS awesome with nobody on base, when all he had to concentrate on was the batter.

What did Greg Maddux do well, both in inputs and outputs?

The outputs are easy to figure. Maddux walked very few batters and kept the ball in the park. And he struck out a decent number of batters too despite being an extreme groundball pitcher (a rare and valuable combination). The inputs, well, I don't have details on that. If I may lapse into anecdote and hearsay: Maddux is an excellent card player, one of those guys who remembers every card played. I'm sure he remembers what he threw to each hitter and what the result was. And I'm sure he knows exactly where he wants each pitch to be and why.