Offensive Consistency and Opposing Pitchers

by dahlian on May 20, 2008 6:23 PM EDT

A few days ago I was wondering if there was a reason for the Diamondbacks' dominance of the NL West that goes above and beyond simply pointing to the weakness of the rest of the division. One of the things that came was the adjustment period that broadcasters always bring up when teams face new pitcher. My thought was that for a young offense such as this one, they would have a faster learning curve again the pitchers in their division than they would against the out of division pitchers that they rarely see.

To look further into this I've compiled a spreadsheet of this team's offensive performances against all the pitchers faced so far this season while also listing the number of past starts those pitchers have made against Arizona since 2007. Why 2007? Well, it was part laziness and part of it just seemed like a good mid-point to choose. Sure, some players like Drew, CJ and Snyder have had at bats before then, while others like Option J and Reynolds will have never faced some of these pitcher (specifically the NL East pitchers), but I figure it's a start.

That being said, I'm not sure how much analytical value this information will have. There are some trends, but at the same time there are sample size issues galore. Also, I just realized that I left out the home parks - something that also can have a big effect. Nevertheless, I thought some here have probably had the same questions at some time and would be interested in seeing the data. Also, if anyone wants a copy of the spreadsheet file to do their own monkeying with the data, just shoot me an email.

First, some fun little numbers:

Opposing pitchers' ERA with 7 starts - 10.97

6 starts - 13.94

5 starts-6.11

4 starts-4.86

3 starts- 10.29 (courtesy of Maddux's 9 ER)

2 starts- 6.02

1starts- 5.97

0 starts- 5.23

Also, ERA among pitchers that we've faced more than once this season:

First start - 5.72

Subsequent starts - 10.09

Unfortunately, these numbers are the result of taking a bludgeon to the problem. To get something more useful you would have to compile the combined pitcher's ERA for each group to account for the differences in quality. To do that seems daunting, though. But I've digressed enough, here are the raw numbers:

Player	Innings	Runs (R/ER)	Previous Starts	ERA to date
A. Galarraga	6	2.2	0	3.06
B. Myers	5	7.6	0	5.76
H. Kuroda	5.2	4.2	0	3.67
J. Bonderman	6	3.3	0	4.76
J. Cassel	4.2	3.3	0	5.59
J. Cueto	7	1.1	0	5.75
J. de la Rosa	4.2	4.4	0	7.78
J. Santana	6	1.1	0	3.3
K. Kendrick	6	3.3	0	4.76
N. Robertson	5.2	4.4	0	6.08
R. Dempster	6	2.2	0	2.35
S. Gallagher	4.1	4.4	0	4.4
A. Eaton	4	6.6	1	5.59
A. Harang	6	3.2	1	3.12
B. Arroyo	5	4.2	1	6.02
F. Morales (1)	6	0	1	6.39
M. Pelfrey	5	5.5	1	4.17
M. Redman	5.2	5.4	1	7.84
S. Chacon	5	5.5	1	4.14
C. Sampson	4.1	5.5	2	6.46
E. Loaiza	4	4.4	2	5.63
F. Morales (2)	4	7.7	2	6.39
J. Maine	6	2.2	2	2.81
J. Moyer	6	2.2	2	4.89
R. Wolf (1)	6.1	4.4	2	5.05
T. Lilly	7	1.1	2	5.14
D. Lowe	5	1.1	3	5.34
G. Maddux	7	9.9	3	3.98
J. Germano	5	6.6	3	5.88
J. Sanchez	5	4.3	3	4.59
R. Wolf(2)	4	5.5	3	5.05
A. Cook (1)	6	3.3	4	2.82
B. Zito (1)	6	4.3	4	6.25
C. Young	6	2.2	4	4.18
K. Correia (1)	6	5.5	4	4.5
J. Francis (1)	6.1	5.5	5	5.87
A. Cook (2)	5	5.5	5	2.82
B. Zito (2)	3.2	5.5	5	6.25
J. Peavy	7	2.2	5	2.91
K. Correia (2)	6	2.2	5	4.5
C. Billingsley (1)	2.1	5.4	6	4.34
J. Francis (2)	5	7.7	6	5.87
C. Billingsley (2)	6	5.5	7	4.34
J. Francis (3)	4.2	8.8	7	5.87

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As you said, it's tough to know exactly what to make of this,

but one might look at the numbers and get pretty excited—some would call it evidence that in another year or two, our young guys should be MASHING up the pitching in the rest of the NL.

It’s not nearly that simple, of course, but for now, I’m going to pretend it is.

Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.

by DbacksSkins on May 20, 2008 6:49 PM EDT reply actions

interesting work

Thanks Dahlian… and I hope you’re right. But what’s really important about this post is that it finally knocked the Byrnes thread off the front page!

"There are only two seasons: winter and baseball"
-- Bill Veeck

by njjohn on May 20, 2008 9:19 PM EDT reply actions

Ssshhh...

Best not to mention it. :-)

Looks like some good work Dahlian. Will take a detailed look at it when I have more time, probably tomorrow.

by Jim McLennan on May 21, 2008 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions

I was rushed today

and I didn’t want to make the post too long, but the one thing I should say is that I started to compile the numbers looking for something to support my thesis. But looking further into it, I’m not sure there’s enough there to draw any definitive conclusions about whether this team fares better against pitchers they’ve seen more often.

While some of the numbers show a trend, at this point I don’t think you can say anything other than “this team really likes hitting against Francis, Zito, Billingsley et. al.”. As I said, to get anything deeper you would probably have to do a deeper study comparing the total team offense against the combined ERA numbers of the pitchers – all the while accounting for park effects. That stuff I don’t see myself tackling soon, but I wanted to at least put the data out there to see if there’s anything else that you guys could glean from it.

by dahlian on May 21, 2008 1:52 AM EDT reply actions

Dahlian, your post got me thinking.....

What about the TYPES of pitchers the D Backs are facing….i.e….GB/FB/Neutral. I knew from looking at splits that the D Backs were hitting GB pitchers unusually well. So your post prompted me to take a closer look at this and see how it might relate to what you are saying.

Baseball reference has breakdowns in their batting splits (for leagues, teams and individuals) for different types of pitchers, i.e., GB, FB and Average.

Fly Ball pitchers have a ground ball out to fly ball out ratio of less than 0.83, Ground Ball have a GO/AO ratio above 1.08. Stats are based on the three years before and after (when available), and the season for when the split is computed.

2007 Split:
Vs.GB .272/.336/.412 .748 OPS
Vs.FB .253/.326/.422 .748 OPS
Vs.Avg. .269/.337/.428 .764 OPS

2008 Split:
Vs GB .266/.335/.407 .742 OPS
Vs FB .255/.337/.415 .752 OPS
Vs Avg .256/.330./407 .737 OPS

OK…so looking at this…..we can see at least one thing we would expect to see. GB pitchers give up more batting avg, flyball pitchers give up more slugging, due to homers. Don’t ask me to explain why the Avg, or neutral pitchers are so much better in 08 than they were in 07. Going back to 06, the neutral pitchers are a little worse, but not as extreme as 2007.

Now…Lets look at the D backs for the last two season:

2007
Vs GB .267/.329/.425 .753 OPS
Vs FB .222/.308/.371 .679 OPS
Vs Avg .252/.321/.422 .743 OPS

2008
Vs GB .290/.375/.463 .838 OPS
Vs FB .202/.278/.349 .627 OPS
Vs Avg .265/.339/.460 .799 OPS

WOW!! They Really struggle against Fly Ball pitchers, and really mash Groundball pitchers.

Now check out what else I found:

D Backs PA distribution by pitcher type
2007
Vs GB 27.6%
Vs FB 19.6%
Vs Avg 52.9%

2008
Vs GB 48.5%
Vs.FB 17.8%
Vs.Avg 35.2%

Ok, again, a fairly significant piece of information here. Relevant to last year, the D Backs have faced far more GB pitchers, and that has probably contributed to their better overall numbers…..since they hit ground ball pitchers better in the first place.

Now one more set of numbers before going to my conclusion. My initial thought was that they are facing such a disproportionate amount of groundballers, and that seems out of whack, and as that number moves towards a more neutral number…..the D backs offense will continue to regress. Except one thing.

NL PA Distribution by pitcher type
2007
Vs. GB 23.4%
Vs. FB 25.2%
Vs Avg 51.3%

2008
Vs GB 45.1%
Vs FB 23.9%
Vs Avg 30.9%

Hmmmmmmm…....why so many more “Groundball pitchers” ??

Conclusion:

For whatever reason, the current D Backs lineup, as a group, hits groundball pitchers much better than flyball pitchers. Individual player profiles vary of course, but as a whole, there is a clear and distinct difference over the last 207 Games that have been played by mostly the same roster

In addition, the D backs, and the league as a whole, have seen a significant jump in the % of PA’s against GB pitchers, and that has played right into the D Backs strength.

Whether or not these trends continue remains to be seen, but if you are a betting man, I suggest you start taking a closer look at the FB/GB tendencies of the pitchers the D Backs face. Wink

by shoewizard on May 21, 2008 2:11 PM EDT reply actions

very surprising numbers… and eye opening.

"There are only two seasons: winter and baseball"
-- Bill Veeck

by njjohn on May 21, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

For me

the most surprising point of that is how bad our slugging is against FB pitchers. Any decent way to find out what our HR/FB% is against FB pitchers compared to GB guys?

by AZSEAfan on May 21, 2008 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Parallel discussion at DBBP

The point was brought up by Robert S. that the D backs hit an extremely high number of flyballs, and of course that plays right into FB pitchers strength…....so that would explain in part the bad numbers against FB pitchers.

I don’t know how to get a breakdown as you mentioned AZSEAfan

by shoewizard on May 21, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions

One thing that will help

Five of the seven pitchers with the highest ground-ball ratio in the National League currently play in our division. Obviously, we don’t face Webb, but we’ve seen the others (Maddux, Jimenez, Cook and Lowe] a total of four times and have also faced Kyle Kendrick and Chris Sampson, who are in the top ten too.

by Jim McLennan on May 21, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

That is indeed interesting. Great analysis, shoe.

Also—Jim, I would point out that we haven’t faced Jiminez yet this year, although we faced him 3x last year (Aug. 31, Sept. 30, and Oct. 12 in the NLCS). We lost all 3 of those games, though Jiminez didn’t get a decision in any of them. Cook also throws off the curve a bit, since he was pretty sharp against us the first time this year, but not so much last time.

Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.

by DbacksSkins on May 21, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions

counterpoint

Instinctively, I want to agree that we are dominating the West because our batters are inexperienced but improve the more times they see a pitcher. However, 2007 was just plainly a weird year and I don’t think it can be counted on for a couple of reasons. First, we played twice the games against the West than any other division last year but our record was much better against the other divisions and Interleague (54-36) than the West (36-36).

Ok, well last year the West was the best division in baseball with 4 teams above .500 but even still you think you would perform above our heads against the teams we see more often than the teams we don’t. Weirder still, we had a 22-20 record against the NL’s weakest division, the Central, and an unreal 24-9 record against the East that included going 12-7 against the three Eastern teams with winning records (Meta, Philly, Atlanta).

So, I really can’t explain the results because 2007 had so many anamolies (our run differential being high on that list). That being said, I think our current dominance in the West is most directly attributable to Col. and SDP nosediving from last year and playing the Dodgers before they got hot (and the luck of drawing Zito twice but missing Lincecum).

by UofAZGrad on May 22, 2008 7:39 AM EDT reply actions

You need to look deeper into the game log and splits

Last year through the all star break they went 15-22 vs. the NL West, but then went 21-14 after the break within the division.

Prior to the break the team had a .716 OPS and averaged 4.12 R/G, after the break the OPS was .755 and they averaged 4.74 R/G
That wasn’t all pure gain, because the league in general hit better in the second half right along with them. (NL .740 OPS in 1st half, .776 in the 2nd)

It’s a game of adjustments, and last year in the second half there were enough adjustments by enough players on the roster to make an overall positive impact on the team’s offense. They started off hot this year, but the league has adjusted to them again, and the scouting reports are now all saying…......soft….soft…..soft…...don’t give this team fastballs to hit. And when you do give them fastballs, give it to them upstairs because they can’t hit it and they can’t lay off.

Fail….../adjust…./succeed…./face counter adjustment…../fail…......../NOW WHAT?

We don’t know how long it will take, but most of the young players on the team need to learn how to recognize the softer breaking stuff they are facing, and either layoff or go the other way with it. Pitch recognition is the key here. And they need to discipline themselves somehow to lay off the high fastballs. Sounds simple, and in theory and words, it really is that simple…......but oh so hard to do.

Please put Eric Byrnes on the DL

by shoewizard on May 22, 2008 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions

These days, it seems that

even when the pitcher DOES make a mistake and give us a fastball in the zone, we’re just fouling it off rather than taking advantage of it, maybe because we’re so shocked that we got something to hit. I don’t really know how else to explain it?

Max Scherzer is all out of bubblegum.

by DbacksSkins on May 22, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions