Stats. Giggity!

[Terpfan76]

sure, but pitch-to-contact doesn't necessarily mean you're  getting quick outs all the time. in certain situations, like the one you presented, yeah, but i mean as a whole.

like, do guys with higher K/9s ("strikeout pitchers") throw more pitches than guys with lower K/9s ("pitch to contact")? i'm going to do some research and see if i can answer this for my own personal knowledge

I'd be interested in seeing the results. I very well could be mindfacting.

[UMDNats]

ok so i looked it up:

top 10 in K/9, and their pitches per batter faced:

1. darvish - 4.10 pitches (3rd most)
2. scherzer - 4.05 pitches (5th most)
3. sanchez - 3.99 pitches (12th most)
4. burnett - 3.77 pitches (50th most)
5. fernandez  - 3.83 pitches (36th most)
6. harvey - 3.91 pitches (21st most)
7. jimenez  - 4.07 pitches (4th most)
8. hernandez - 3.86 pitches (33rd most)
9. sale - 3.75 pitches (54th most)
10. strasburg - 3.90 pitches (25th most)

AVERAGE: 3.92 pitches per batter

bottom 10 in k/9, and their pitches:

1. Guthrie - 3.72 pitches (23rd in mlb)
2. Correia - 3.69 pitches (16th in mlb)
3. Saunders -  3.79 pitches (38th in mlb)
4. Kendrick - 3.59 pitches (6th in mlb)
5. Arroyo - 3.49 pitches (1st in mlb)
6. Colon - 3.61 pitches (7th in mlb)
7. Lohse - 3.74 pitches (27th in mlb)
8. Williams - 3.62 pitches (8th in mlb)
9. Leake - 3.63 pitches (10th in mlb)
10. Chacin - 3.63 pitches (9th in mlb)

AVERAGE: 3.651 pitches per batter


not a perfect test obviously, but it seems contact guys throw less pitches per batter, though the difference is less than a pitch per batter, so...whatever. it's really close. most of the high strikeout guys were near the top of the pitches/batter faced, and vice versa, but again the difference is so little as a whole

carry on with your day

[Ray D]

Even if you were to find that there isn't any statistically significant difference in the number of pitches for a strikeout pitcher and a contact pitcher of comparable skill, it might be more meaningful to look at their relative average number of inning per season.  A strikeout pitcher might be all used up for the season after 180 innings because he throws so hard, while the contact pitcher might have another 40 or so innings left in the tank. Might be an argument that the contact pitcher is more valuable.

[UMDNats]

Even if you were to find that there isn't any statistically significant difference in the number of pitches for a strikeout pitcher and a contact pitcher of comparable skill, it might be more meaningful to look at their relative average number of inning per season.  A strikeout pitcher might be all used up for the season after 180 innings because he throws so hard, while the contact pitcher might have another 40 or so innings left in the tank. Might be an argument that the contact pitcher is more valuable.

just to see if there is any merit to this, as it is a fair and legitimate question:

Top 10 in K/9:

1. darvish - 209 IP, 6.53 IP per start
2. scherzer - 214 IP, 6.69 IP per start
3. sanchez - 182 IP, 6.28 IP per start
4. burnett - 191 IP, 6.37 IP per start
5. fernandez  - 172 IP, 6.14 IP per start
6. harvey - 178 IP, 6.84 IP per start
7. jimenez  - 182 IP, 5.69 IP per start
8. hernandez - 204 IP, 6.58 per start
9. sale - 214 IP, 7.13 IP per start
10. strasburg - 183 IP, 6.1 IP per start

AVERAGE: 192 IP, 6.43 IP per start

Bottom 10 in K/9:

1. Guthrie - 211 IP, 6.39 IP per start
2. Correia - 185 IP, 5.97 IP per start
3. Saunders - 183 IP, 5.71 IP per start
4. Kendrick - 182 IP, 6.06 IP per start
5. Arroyo - 202 IP, 6.31 IP per start
6. Colon - 190 IP, 6.33 IP per start
7. Lohse - 198 IP, 6.19 IP per start
8. Williams - 169 IP, 6.76 IP per start (also had 12 relief appearances, i did not include these, if i did: 4.57 IP per game)
9. Leake - 192 IP, 6.19 IP per start
10. Chacin - 197 IP, 6.35 IP per start

AVERAGE: 190 IP, 6.22 IP per start (if you do Williams' appearances total and not starts, it dips to 6.00 IP per start)

[blue911]

K% is a truer stat

[UMDNats]

K% is a truer stat

I didn't see a big discrepancy in the top 10 in strikeout percentage and K/9, so I felt OK using K/9 for this basic comparison.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I'm not sure p/PA is a good statistic in measuring workload of strikeout pitchers v. pitch to contact pitchers because, when you pitch to contact, roughly 30% of that extra contact drops for hits.  That may be reflected in the IP difference.  I'd also want to see the RA9 difference.  Offhand, I'm going to guess that the high K group is giving up a lot fewer runs.

[NatsDad14]

There is no relationship between pitch to contact pitchers and being more efficient pitch count wise.

http://www.baseballnation.com/2012/7/12/3155427/steve-mccatty-nationals-pitching-coach-strikeouts

[NatsDad14]

I still can't believe the Nats told Strasburg to stop striking out guys. Wasn't that the same thing the Mets told Doc Gooden to do which messed up his promising career? Davey Johnson should have learned his lesson from that.

[UMDNats]

There is no relationship between pitch to contact pitchers and being more efficient pitch count wise.

http://www.baseballnation.com/2012/7/12/3155427/steve-mccatty-nationals-pitching-coach-strikeouts

I knew someone had done the research better than me. Thanks!!

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Excellent article by Sullivan calling out McCatty.  I'll throw another wrinkle in to this.  If the research about the "times through the order penalty" is right, then an additional problem with pitch to contact is that, even if it were more pitch efficient, by allowing more plate appearances (through more balls in play), you allow hitters to cycle through the order and get to the 3d trip through the order earlier in the game.  Pitchers are significantly less effective after 2 times through the order.  Getting there earlier in the game leads to rougher middle innings and more appearances by the worst pitchers in your bullpen.

Pitch to contact as a way to be efficient is kind of a euphemism.  It's more avoid nibbling.  Walks kill, not Ks.

[stiffler]

you said it all cant defend walks great point

[blue911]

Excellent article by Sullivan calling out McCatty.  I'll throw another wrinkle in to this.  If the research about the "times through the order penalty" is right, then an additional problem with pitch to contact is that, even if it were more pitch efficient, by allowing more plate appearances (through more balls in play), you allow hitters to cycle through the order and get to the 3d trip through the order earlier in the game.  Pitchers are significantly less effective after 2 times through the order.  Getting there earlier in the game leads to rougher middle innings and more appearances by the worst pitchers in your bullpen.

Pitch to contact as a way to be efficient is kind of a euphemism.  It's more avoid nibbling.  Walks kill, not Ks.

Throw quality strikes. Strasburg in 2013 held opponents to a .487 OPS on their third look. He was far and away better.Maybe not showing the change up as early in the game?

[welch]

Because K's for a pitcher are vastly superior to pitch to contact. A K is almost a guarantee of an out. With contact, you are relying on your defense to make a stop and typically the defense gets 70% of the balls, so .300 of the time its a hit. Plus K's are even more important with men on base since you can't advance them on the K.

- If we value K-pitchers, why do we value K's in hitters?  Example: Espinosa struck out at a rate no Nat has matched (to my memory) since Son Lock in the mid-60s. And Lock played a fne CF while hitting 25 homers. Espy hit 15 - 20 homers. Good for pitchers, bad hitters.

- Pitch to contact pitchers: ought to be divided between ground-ball pitchers and fly-ball pitchers. Ground ball pitchers are getting outs. Flyball pitchers might be giving homers, or at least sac flles. Good in a pitcher, bad in a hitter. That's why I kept hoping that our Yankee refugee would return heathy and throw his sinkers.

[Terpfan76]

- If we value K-pitchers, why do we value K's in hitters?  Example: Espinosa struck out at a rate not Nat has matched (to my memory) since Son Lock in the mid-60s. And Lock played a fne CF while hitting 25 homers. Espy hit 15 - 20 homers. Good for pitchers, bad fpor hitters.

I'm not sure what you're getting at but I'll throw my .02 in the ring. A high strike out hitter is tolerated if he produces at the plate. A guy that hits 40hrs and drives in 100rbi is deemed acceptable with a high k rate because he drives in runs, any defense is a bonus. A guy that is all glove and high k rate is not bringing enough to the plate to be considered a full time player. At least that's what my gist of popular notion is.

[blue911]

- If we value K-pitchers, why do we value K's in hitters?

Sabermetrically players are evaluated in a context neutral environment. Thus things that are situation driven (RBIs, Wins, advancing runners,GIDP etc...) aren't part of the evaluation process. Because there isn't a way to properly evaluate quality of outs, all outs are given the same value. If and when HITf/x data becomes available to the public, then we'll see a new wave to oWAR. 

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Welch - with hitters, there are things that can make a high K rate tolerable, like getting a lot of walks, getting a high contact rate when you do start the bat, and power. 

Some of the best hitters in the game have close to a 20% K rate.  Since 2009, of the top 20 hitters by OPS (min 1000 PAs), Votto (#2, 18.7%), Trout (#3, 20.5%), CarGo (#9, 21.6%), Thome (#14, 27.9%), Goldschmidt (#15, 22.3%), Stanton (#16, 28.6%), Youkilis (#18, 19.9%), and Choo (#20, 20.4%) all had K% that round to 19% or higher.  OK, I did that to pick up Votto , but that's 8 out of 20 with high K rates.  If I wanted to go to the top 30, I'd pick up Napoli, Werth, Hamilton, and Longoria.  What those 8 high K / high OPS hitters have in common is, other than CarGo (8.5%) and Stanton (11.2%), they all had walk rates > 12%.    Also, Choo (.171) and Youkilis (.212) were the only ones with ISO (SLG - AVG) < .225. 

Of course, we'd like every hitter to be Pujols over that period (#8, 11.7 BB%, 10.4 K%), but it is telling that only 4 of the top 20 OPS hitters over that long period who had a K% < 15% (#1, Cabrera, 12.5 BB%, 14.3 K%; #12, Mauer 12.1 BB%, 12.4 K%; #13, Cano, 7.3 BB%, 12.2 K%).

Regarding Espinosa, he is an extreme case in almost all respects of his game.  He is a very good fielder, very good base runner, and, until last year, was a very good power hitter.  He also had a miniscule walk rate and a significantly high (25%+ K rate) going into last year.  That was still good enough to make him a good second baseman, but then last year, the power fell off the cliff, his strike zone judgment deteriorated to the point where he he was taking a ton of 3d strikes and swinging at a high rate on balls out of the strike zone, and he could not get on enough to use his base running skills.   No one argues that he had a decent year.  The only argument is whether 2013 is what he is or whether that was all compensating for an injured shoulder (which again, may be what he is because he did not get it repaired).

[Ray D]

with hitters, there are things that can make a high K rate tolerable, like getting a lot of walks,

Similarly with pitchers, there are things that make a low K rate tolerable, like a low walk total.   I like to look at K/BB ratio both for pitchers and hitters.

[welch]

Going back 60 years, a pitcher should have more K's than BB's. Maybe double.Has always been that way. If a pitcher has more BB's, it means he is wild. Used to be called "a free pass", for good reason.

On K's for hitter and pitchers, if a K is good for a pitcher, it has to be bad for a hitter. It can't be split. If a hitting stat ignore K's, then it is not a finsihed stat, or it is broken.

Re Espinosa: I'll accept his K's if he hits 30 or 40 homers, but he tops out at about 20 homers. My guess: he's swinging for homers, and he's not a power hitter. Lock was acceptable with Espinosa-style hitting because he hit 25 homers, and played a fine CF. When lock dropped to about 15 homers but kept striking out, it was time to give up.

[wpa2629]

I still can't believe the Nats told Strasburg to stop striking out guys. Wasn't that the same thing the Mets told Doc Gooden to do which messed up his promising career? Davey Johnson should have learned his lesson from that.

Pretty sure it was the drugs that messed up his promising career

[varoadking]

Davey Johnson should have learned his lesson from that. 

Davey thinks he is Chuck Norris, and things have to learn their lessons from him...

I am so happy we are finally rid of him...

[welch]

Pretty sure it was the drugs that messed up his promising career

I followed the Mets. We thought it was drugs.

[NatsDad14]

Pretty sure it was the drugs that messed up his promising career

Quote from Davey Johnson:

"  I blame it on the drugs, and I also blame it on the delivery change they had him make. I don't even know where the orders came from, but they didn't come from me or Mel Stottlemyre. They wanted him to shorten his delivery, lower that big high leg kick and not turn as much. Sure, he could be run on, but they could run on [Greg] Maddux, too; did they change his delivery? To this day I regret even going along with it."

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Nats Park apparently is an extreme park for suppressing Ks and BBs.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/baseballs-anti-tto-ballpark/#comment-4293953

Note that the park factor reflects Home K rates over Road K rates, and Home BBs over Road BBs, so this isn't simply McCatty preaching "pitch to contact."  Note also that while the park is near neutral for HRs, it suppresses triples alot.

http://www.fangraphs.com/guts.aspx?type=pf&teamid=0&season=2013

[rbw5t]

Quote from Davey Johnson:

"  I blame it on the drugs, and I also blame it on the delivery change they had him make. I don't even know where the orders came from, but they didn't come from me or Mel Stottlemyre. They wanted him to shorten his delivery, lower that big high leg kick and not turn as much. Sure, he could be run on, but they could run on [Greg] Maddux, too; did they change his delivery? To this day I regret even going along with it."

I blame it on shoulder problems.  Lots of good young pitchers have run into shoulder issues and were never the same.  Doc supposedly started on drugs in '86, and had several more good years, although none as good as '85 of course.  It was after the shoulder issues in '91(? -- going from memory), that his career really fell apart.  He won almost 200 games, and I think without the shoulder issues (rather than without the drug issues) he would have won another 50 or so games and be a borderline HOFer.