SB Nation User Blog: sharksrog

The Extreme Houdini Save

sharksrog — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:31:40 -0000

I mentioned in the post on Brian Wilson's far better performance when he had regular work that there are several different types of saves. I listed five types, with the toughest one being when a pitcher entered the game with runners on second and third )or with the bases loaded) and no outs -- in a one-run game.

Now I see that Bill James has a name for such saves (although he limited his to bases loaded, not runners only on second and third). He calls such saves Extreme Houdini saves.

One of the points I made in my previous post was that two- and especially three-run saves were easy saves that any decent pitcher should achieve a high percentage of the time. But the Houdini saves are darn tough.

How tough? So tough that there have been only eight Extreme Houdini saves since 1974 -- and none since 2000.

I think most relief pitchers in general and closers in particular would benefit from more regular work. Wilson appears to be a prime candidate. I think baseball is ripe for a re-examination of how closers are used.

If the Giants had used Brian Wilson on a strict schedule of no more than two days in a row and no more than two days between appearances, he would have missed out on only two of his 47 save opportunities last season. That doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to make, given that his ERA when used regularly was several runs lower than when he wasn't.

Let's see closers making more tough saves (and perhaps even the occasional Extreme Houdini) and fewer two- and especially three-run saves. Sometimes the time when a true Houdini is needed is in an earlier inning -- when the bases might be loaded with no outs or one out. Why not use the closer in such critical situations?

If the fire isn't doused in that particular situation, there most likely won't be a game for the closer to save later. Saves are important. Team wins are even more so.

Harry Houdini was at his best when his tricks were tough. He proved his stuff by making escapes on one else could make -- not by making the routine ones.

How Brian Wilson Regularly Pitches

sharksrog — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:23:29 -0000

Brian Wilson inspires strong emotions. Some think he is among the game's best closers, pointing to his being tied for second in the NL with 41 saves. Others point to the seven times he gave up multiple runs despite only once pitching beyond a single inning of any game, saying he is inconsistent.

Perhaps both are right -- with the reason being that he's being misused.

When Brian pitched every day or every other day, he yielded only 8 earned runs in 34.2 innings, an ERA of 2.08. He yielded runs in only 5 of his 35 such appearances.

When he pitched every third day or longer, Brian gave up 24 earned runs in 27.2 innings, a very generous ERA of 7.81. Brian yielded runs in 13 of 28 such appearances, pitching on the eighth day once and on the seventh five different times.

To make matters worse, the rust Brian showed after long periods between appearances seems to have carried over a bit into his second appearance after a long layoff. In such games, he yielded 10 earned runs in 19.0 innings for a 4.74 ERA.

Brian's being a bit of a Jeckyll and Hyde pitcher may have had to do with whether he had been given too much rest to stay sharp or had merely pitched enough to remain sharp without being over-rested. Brian never pitched more than three days in a row, and he did so only twice.

Overwork didn't appear to be a problem with Brian. Lack of work may have been.

Small world

sharksrog — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:23:10 -0000

It is sounding more and more as if Pablo Sandoval will be up no later than September. He just came off an 8-for-10 splurge, including a home run off a 24-year-old pitcher named Richie Lentz. Richie is a former teammate (at UW) and long-time friend of Tim Lincecum.

Here is a picture of the two of them. Oh, and Tim, get that darn WHITE SOX HAT OFF! :)

Here's a shot of Tim and Richie after college.

Very Cool

sharksrog — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:42:55 -0000

The first-ever gathering of the McCovey Chronicles brethren and sisteren at the appropriately titled McCovey Chronicles' Restaurant at McCovey's Cove East was a rousing success -- at least for me. What great people and great Giants fans I was permitted to meet.

After the event, appropriately capped by a Giant win after inappropriately being temporarily thrown off track by yet another Giants arsonist, I was able to spend time conversing with DeLorean and his wife, girlfriend, could I marry her if you ever get tired of her?

And naturally we talked about ... cars. Turns out this lovely thing drives the exact same car I do. Mazda. MX 5 (aka Miata). Charcoal. Black top. I thought about telling DeLorean that he could just HAVE my car, and I would drive home with HER.

But I didn't, since I had spent the lovely evening sitting next to the delicious (offered me dessert -- no, not THAT kind, you lecherous thing, you), delightful, charming and talented Baron, sexily adorned in her finest McCovey Chronicles T-shirt. Well, yeah, she was wearing pants, too.

Oh, and I brought my friend Jim, the only guy I know who looks as goofy as I. He had never met ANYONE like the McCoven. But then, neither had I.

So as I walked to my car, cursing myself for choosing it over DeLorean's prized possession, I ran into none other than Toothpick, so nicknamed by none other than Willie McCovey himself. Toothpick, who was one of the two nice people who greeted us at the front door and helped us figure out why there was no reservation under the obvious name, "McCovey Chronicles" and under what name the actual reservation -- I was beginning to have some -- was made.

And Toothpick had the most wonderful suggestion for our next gathering, the one after they add "Chronicles" to the restaurant's name. Hopefully that gathering will be soon and become maybe a twice-a-season-or-so event, perhaps even with a hot stove league session. Toothpick suggested that we call ahead and ask if they would reserve the "McCovey Room" for us -- the one in the back where Willie himself eats when he visits, the one with the mementos under glass, right under your place mat. The private room with the two TV's! The one where we can scream our celebration of the inevitable Giants win without causing heart attacks among the startled patrons.

Toothpick said the McCovey Room has a two-hour limit, but that when we tell them that we ARE The McCovey Chronicles, they might be willing to waive it -- presumably if we promise them a Giants win!

Anyway, I just wanted to thank all involved for a WONDERFUL time. It was really cool to meet all you fabulous people and CRAZY-mad fans.

Oh, I wanted to tell Baron and she and I would make a strange and wonderful couple, since I'm strange and she's wonderful.

And DeLorean, if you ever need help ...

And, no, Jim and I are not gay.

Name Change

sharksrog — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:36:11 -0000

I'm sure our posters noticed the new keystone combination employed -- and, yes, even played -- by the Giants last night. They may even have noticed that Dave Roberts was playing left field and batting third, cleverly disguised as Freddie Lewis.

They probably noticed that after the trade deadline Jose Castillo was no longer playing second base and that Omar Vizquel and Rich Aurilia weren't starting, period.

But in last night's second inning, did they notice the name change made by the Giants' first baseman -- you know, that good-looking young man with the crew cut who keeps hitting line drives that hang up for the outfielders to catch?

Yes, in the second inning of last night's game, in the court of public opinion, that first baseman changed his name to John Balker.

Firemen

sharksrog — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:31:04 -0000

Before there were closers, there were firemen. Of course there were -- and remain -- arsonists such as Tyler Walker and Jack Taschner, but that is why firemen are needed.

So what is the difference between a closer and a fireman? The closer pitches the final inning, hopefully mopping up the affair in a positive manner. The fireman comes in when things are dangerous, puts out the fire, and keeps the game safe until it is over.

Obviously the Giants chose to use Brian Wilson as the closer in Tim Lincecum's last two starts -- but since he was going to come in after arsonists Walker a week ago and Taschner last night, he didn't get the chance.

The answer, of course, is that Brian should have been used as a fireman, entering the game in the eighth inning when things could get hot, and finished out the game. Would he have a league-leading 29 saves if he were used in this manner? Probably not. Would he have made a bigger contribution to Giants' wins? Almost certainly.

The save rule has distorted how a team's best relievers are used. The object of the game has been perniciously distorted. Back in the days of the fireman, the object was to win the game. Now the object seems to be to get the closer as many saves as possible.

So the closer is used for the ninth inning -- even if the difference is three runs. Teams score three runs or more only once in 16 innings. Does it make more sense to bring in your best pitcher into a situation in which the average pitcher will still allow your team to win more than 15 out of 16 times?

Or would it make more sense to bring in that great reliever into a one-run game when the opponents have the bases loaded with no one out and their cleanup hitter at the plate? Even if the game is an inning that is earlier than the ninth?

Should a team's best reliever be brought in only in one-inning save situations and in some games just to keep him from getting rusty since there haven't been any save situations? Or would it be better to bring him in earlier in a game, when the situation is the most dangerous but when he might have to pitch more than an inning to earn the save?

In other words, would it be better to use a combination of arsonists and a closer to hope to win a game -- or would it be better to use a fireman to put the fire out, or possibly even preventing the fire from developing, say to begin the eighth inning of a one-run game?

As Yogi the Berra always says, only you can prevent baseball fires.

Bowker or Lewis? Lewis or Bowker?

sharksrog — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:23:39 -0000

I have a question to pose. This season the two top Giants everyday rookies, John Bowker and Freddie Lewis, have hit .274 and .273, respectively. Lewis' career average is .283, while since all Bowker's at bats are this season, his is the same .274 as his season's average.

So my question is this: Which player is more likely to maintain or improve his seasonal batting average, and why?

I have done some research on the matter and have some ideas, but before I get into them, I'm curious as to what others think -- and their reasons for doing so.

Swing and a miss. He STRUCK him out!

sharksrog — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:41:07 -0000

Hopefully it's not off-color to say that it is Tim Lincecum's off-speed pitches that separate him from Matt Cain. Because it is indeed the rainbow of pitches Tim employs that separates him from Matt.

As good as Tim's fastball is, Matt actually gets about half again as many swing-throughs as Tim. Tim's 13% swing-through rate on fastballs is good, but Matt's 19% is even better. Matt's fastball is tougher to get wood on than even Tim's.

But the majority of Tim's strikeouts come on his secondary pitches, and it is easy to see why. Tim's 34% swing-through rate on his curve is nearly twice that of Matt's 18%. Tim doubles Matt on sliders, with a 49% swing-through rate to Matt's 24%. And at 41% swing-throughs, Tim's change up is also well ahead of Matt's 24%.

It is with his secondary pitches that Tim sets himself above.

And while Matt's fastball is even harder to get wood on than Tim's, Matt has yielded a hit on 33% of balls put in play or out of the park on his fastballs, while Tim is slightly better at 30%. The big difference, though, is that batters have extra-base hits on 14% of the fastballs they hit against Matt, while Tim limits them to extra bases on just 8% of the fastballs batters put into play or out of the park.

On all pitches, Tim has limited batters to that same 8% extra base rate, while Matt is at 15% overall. This has provided Tim perhaps his greatest advantage over Matt -- the ability to limit extra bases.

Batters have increased their .236 batting average against Tim by only 87 points in achieving a mere .323 slugging percentage. Matt has allowed his .240 batting average against to soar by 164 points in allowing batters a .404 SLG. Tim has allowed just 26 extra-base hits, just five of them home runs. Matt has yielded 42 extra-base hits including a dozen homers.

Both Tim and Matt are hard to hit, but Tim is much harder to hit with power. Perhaps that is because Tim's great off-speed pitches make it harder for batters to get wood on the ball, allowing Tim a 24% overall swing-through rate to Matt's 17%.

Matt is tough to hit. Tim is VERY tough to hit. That is why even though Matt beat Tim to the majors by 20 months, Tim has beaten Matt to the All-Star game. Apparently Tim won't be starting the All-Star game. But he has outpitched Brandon Webb, the man who will be.

Oh, and he also gets more swing-throughs than Brandon.

The /fx Files: They're Out There

sharksrog — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:17:32 -0000

Entering this season many Giants fans looked at Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as Twin Towers of Twirling. They figured both were potential aces, All-Stars and even Hall of Famers.

Suddenly Lincecum has emerged as the potential hardware bearer, while Cain has struggled to get the lead out. Matt uncharacteristically gave up nine earned runs in one start. Tim has given up nine earned runs total in eight starts.

Why the sudden split in direction by the two 23-year-olds?

With the help of the PITCH/fx data so graciously provided us by Josh Kalk and by analytically looking at both pitchers' splits, we can examine the reasons, perhaps identifying how both pitchers can continue to improve. Here are some of the reasons for the difference:

1. Tim has been phenomenal with runners in scoring position. With RISP he has limited the Giants' opponents to a .115 batting average, a .222 on-base percentage, and a .173 slugging percentage for a nearly invisible .395 on-base-plus-slugging percentage. Matt has struggled once runners get into scoring position, allowing a poor (and uncharacteristic) .314/.372/.514/.886 in comparison.

Lincecum showed at Fresno a year ago how tough he could be with runners on base and in scoring position, allowing just one hit with runners on and nary a hit with RISP in his five starts there. But NO ONE is as good in this regard as Tim has been. Tim has shown a true propensity for being able to really buckle down when he most needs to, but it seems highly unlikely he can continue to hold teams below a .400 OPS with RISP.

On the other hand, unless he has suddenly lost the ability to pitch out of the stretch, Matt is almost sure to improve his performance with runners in scoring position.

2. Both pitchers pitch much better when they throw first-pitch strikes. But while Matt's difference is pronounced, Tim's is huge.

This season Matt has limited batters to just a .218 batting average, a .256 on-base percentage and a .336 slugging percentage when he gets his first pitch over. That's an impressive .592 OPS against. When his first pitch is a ball, he is quite hitable, allowing batters to rake him at a .286/.435/.476/.911 pace.

Tim's difference between a first-pitch strike and a first-pitch ball is even greater. When he has gotten his first pitch over, Tim has limited opponents to a paltry .219/.240/.263/.503 line. When he gets that first pitch over, he becomes Greg Maddux-stingy with his walks and makes every hitter look like Manny Burriss when it comes to yielding extra-base hits. If his first pitch misses, he falls back to a level very close to Matt's, at .282/.402/.493/.895, in which batters look almost like the latter-day saint, Barry Bonds.

Not only is Tim even tougher than Matt if he gets that first pitch over, he does so considerably more often. Matt has really struggled with his first pitch, finding strike territory just 53.0% of the time. Tim's 61.6% first-pitch strikes is up from 55% last season and may be the biggest single sustainable factor in his rapid rise this year.

3. Matt has lost one mph off his fastball this season, while Tim's has picked up by half a mile per hour. Since Tim's average fastball is 2.5 mph faster at 95.5 than Matt's 93.0, it is even harder to catch up to. Even more importantly, this leaves Tim's fastball 12.1 mph faster than his change up, while Matt's heater is only 6.4 mph above the speed of his change.

Matt's fastball, curve and slider move very similarly to Tim's, and his change up actually moves 2.6 inches MORE sideways and drops by 1.2 inches more than Tim's. But Tim's greater speed differential between his fastball and his off-speed pitches makes them tougher to hit than Matt's.

4. Most pitchers' hardest pitches to hit are their off-speed deliveries. Still, they throw predominantly fastballs because they can control them better, because they have more confidence in them and because they are macho. Part of the reason Tim has outpitched Matt is because Tim throws his off-speed stuff about a third of the time compared to Matt's only about a fourth of the time.

We saw that Tim's fastball velocity has improved this season and that Matt's has declined slightly speed-wise, yet Tim throws his most effective pitches far more frequently than Matt. In particular, he uses his change up 21.0% of the time compared to Matt's 14.4%. The change up has been each pitcher's toughest pitch to hit, but perhaps for control reasons Tim has used his more often. Add in that Tim has nearly twice as much velocity difference between his fastball and change as Matt has, and clearly Tim is getting more juice from the change up than is Matt.

The result is that Tim has been much harder to hit for power than has Matt, now having yielded only three homers to Matt's six. (Matt's six homers include the one he gave up last night. All other stats used here preclude Matt's last start.)

5. Matt has really struggled with his control this year. Last season he was at 63% strikes, and Tim was at 62%. This year Matt has thrown only 60.7% strikes, finally reaching the 60% mark for the season in his start on May 8th. Conversely, Tim has improved his control, throwing strikes 64.5% of the time.

Tim's walks are at only 3.22 walks per nine innings, after he walked 4.00 per nine in his rookie season. Matt's walks have ballooned to 4.89 this season, up from a career best 3.56. Tim's walks have been consistently dropping since his sophomore season of college. Matt showed great control promise by walking just 1.80 batters per nine innings the last two months of the 2007 season.

But it is Tim who has continued to improve his control this season, while Matt has struggled.

So in summary, Tim has been especially tough with RISP while Matt has struggled, Tim has gotten his first pitch over far more consistently than Matt, Tim's fastball has improved while Matt's has slowed to the detriment of both Matt's fastball and his change up, Tim throws his better off-speed pitches more often than Matt, and Tim has had much better control.

By season's end, Matt will likely have improved and Tim will likely have dropped back into the reality of at least the two's in ERA. But we can see that Tim has clearly outpitched Matt in five areas thus far, resulting in a greater gap between the two than most every expected.

The /fx files -- why is Lincecum outpitching Cain?

sharksrog — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:18:00 -0000

Entering this season many Giants fans looked at Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as Twin Towers of Twirling. They figured both were potential aces, All-Stars and even Hall of Famers.

Why the sudden split in direction by the two 23-year-olds?