A MLB pitcher who embraces sabermetrics

[XV84]

Anyone happen to see this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns

[Brian McKenna]

Tell him he would better be served getting traded to the Padres and sitting next to Greg Maddux in the dugout five days a week.

[AstrosFan]

"I realize very well that I could regress to the mean."

I think that made my day.

[BoofBonser26]

I am now officially a Brian Bannister fan. :cap:

[Tango Tiger]

Bannister actually posted at length at a sabermetric blog. Here's my blog that discusses and points to him:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/mlb_pitcher_agrees_with_dips_we_can_finally_come_out_of_our_basements/

You can jump straight to post 38 if you don't want to follow our discussion.

[Dalkowski110]

"'I realize very well that I could regress to the mean.'

I think that made my day."

Ditto here! I'm changing my sig line!

[BoofBonser26]

Bannister actually posted at length at a sabermetric blog. Here's my blog that discusses and points to him:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/mlb_pitcher_agrees_with_dips_we_can_finally_come_out_of_our_basements/

You can jump straight to post 38 if you don't want to follow our discussion.

Thanks for that link Tango, it's very interesting.

[EdTarbusz]

"I realize very well that I could regress to the mean."

.

That sounds like a eupimism for 'don't blame me if I don't pitch well.'

[digglahhh]

That sounds like a eupimism for 'don't blame me if I don't pitch well.'

I guess that depends on the filtrations system used when listening....

Even if it was true, it would also mean, "don't credit me when I do pitch well."

Really, what it means is simply what he says - there's no reason to interpret when he spells out his feelings explicitly.

BB realizes that he is not in control of the outcomes of his pitches, once hit, to the ultimate degree. This has been proven, empirically, over a huge sample size. So, maybe there's some random distribution that has worked out in his favor, and he is aware of that, and is not assuming it will continue to do so forever.

BB is using a wide array of tools in an attempt to maximize his efficacy. He is trying to actually contradict the notion of a BABIP as a relatively stable constant to which one will inevitably regress. He's trying to see if he can beat that by analyzing movement, and situational factors.

I think it's pretty commendable. Where you may see Bannister as ducking accountability, I see refreshing open-mindedness and humility!

[StillFlash]

I only ever pitched in a college summer league from 1975-1981 (age 16-21), but even before Bill James I read the same Ted Williams book and strike zone diagram, and as a pitcher, I took it to mean where NOT to throw the pitch. vs rhb, I lived on a cut fastball low and away. More walks, but fewer hits. vs lhb, I didn't have a well defined pattern, and more often was over the middle of the plate. Few walks, many more hits.

In a "hitter's count" (2-0, 2-1, 3-0, 3-1) the pitcher does not want to risk a ball, and regardless of the pitch thrown, I believe will tend more towards the center of the plate. The hitter can be patient and take a borderline pitch for a called strike.

In a "pitcher's count" (1-2, 0-2) the batter does not want to risk a called strike, and must chase those borderline pitches, which I believe results in more swinging strikes, and balls in play tat are not hit as square (bak to Ted William's chart).

These are things which can be looked for in the pfx data. In the Bannister anaylsis, pitch location was not addressed until the thrid and final part, and in my opinion did not get as much attention as count and pitch type analyzed earlier.

[Tango Tiger]

BB realizes that he is not in control of the outcomes of his pitches, once hit, to the ultimate degree. This has been proven, empirically, over a huge sample size.

... as long as the pitch wasn't hit for a homerun! That's a huge qualifier, and is a good reason that some minor league pitchers are still in the minor leagues.

And of course, the "not in control" is "limited control".

[digglahhh]

... as long as the pitch wasn't hit for a homerun! That's a huge qualifier, and is a good reason that some minor league pitchers are still in the minor leagues.

And of course, the "not in control" is "limited control".

Yes. Of course.

Sometimes I forget that there are probably other people reading and not posting, and therefore talk too casually.

[stejay]

I think every MLB player should embrace Sabermetrics. It is such a vital part of the game, and without it, we would be lost.

[mikefast]

I only ever pitched in a college summer league from 1975-1981 (age 16-21), but even before Bill James I read the same Ted Williams book and strike zone diagram, and as a pitcher, I took it to mean where NOT to throw the pitch. vs rhb, I lived on a cut fastball low and away. More walks, but fewer hits. vs lhb, I didn't have a well defined pattern, and more often was over the middle of the plate. Few walks, many more hits.

In a "hitter's count" (2-0, 2-1, 3-0, 3-1) the pitcher does not want to risk a ball, and regardless of the pitch thrown, I believe will tend more towards the center of the plate. The hitter can be patient and take a borderline pitch for a called strike.

In a "pitcher's count" (1-2, 0-2) the batter does not want to risk a called strike, and must chase those borderline pitches, which I believe results in more swinging strikes, and balls in play tat are not hit as square (bak to Ted William's chart).

These are things which can be looked for in the pfx data. In the Bannister anaylsis, pitch location was not addressed until the thrid and final part, and in my opinion did not get as much attention as count and pitch type analyzed earlier.

I spent a lot of time looking at the count in the first part of the series because that's what Bannister talked about in the MLB Trade Rumors interview. I ultimately didn't see a very big affect on BABIP from the count. Pitch location was the main focus of the second part of the series. The third part of the series talked about it some, too.

I did have this to say in the third part:

It turns out there’s not much to see from that angle, either. In the four counts most favorable to the pitcher (0-2, 0-1, 1-2, 2-2), the righty hitters were 6-for-28 (.214) against the fastball, and in the four counts most favorable to the hitter (3-1, 2-0, 3-2, 1-0), they went 4-for-25 (.160). Those pitcher’s counts typically result in more balls in play than the hitter’s counts; conversely, pitchers throw more fastballs in hitter’s counts, although not quite enough to balance out the first effect. So Bannister was near the average in terms of his mix of counts, and he actually got slightly better results on the fastball put in play on a hitter’s count than on a pitcher’s count.

That's only against the fastball to right-handed hitters, but I don't expect it would be much different/better for other pitch types since Bannister was much closer to league average BABIP on his other pitches. In any case, that's why I didn't investigate the count/location avenue further. Do you think I missed something in the data that was worth pursuing?

[ReignInBlood]

And yet he’s exactly the kind of person you do, the one who’s self-aware enough to realize that he can’t get by on just an 89-mph fastball and needs something supplementary to make him into the pitcher he wants to be.

This sounds rather fishy.