Follow BallHype on Twitter
The Hardball Times
found this 8/21/2008
-
xnumberoneson Ironically, this article comes on the heels of Santana being named NL Player of the Week. The bottom line is that if the Mets had even an average bullpen, Santana would have 15+ wins and he would be in the Cy Young discussion. Instead, we're reading "what's wrong with Johan" stories. I don't think there's anything wrong with Johan Santana, though this analysis does shed light on a couple of interesting things. First and foremost is his increased use of a two-seamer. To me this indicates that Santana recognzes that he is at the tail end of his prime and is making a conscious decision to decrease his strikeout rate and increase his GB%. Perhaps this is a result of his proclivity to give up the long ball over the last couple of seasons. His HR rate is also down. He's made a couple of adjustments in his pitch selection, but he can still dominate when necessary. His recent CG shutout of the Pirates is a perfect example. He induced a lot of weak pop flies and grounders early, then racked up 5 K's between the 6th and 8th innings. I'm not worried. He knows what he's doing out there.
-
ballhyper I dont agree with this article very much at all. First off, I am a mets fan and know a ton of others, and not one is wondering what is wrong with Santana. He is the absolute last problem on this team, he isn't even a problem, he's a solution once every 5 days. If it weren't for his team(bullpen and run support), he is in the cy young race on B Webb's tail. And who cares about strikeouts, smart pitchers just get outs. It saves your pitch count(so the bullpen doesn't have to come in and blow the game in the 7th and rob you of a deserved win) If you can exploit a hitters weakness and get him to pull an outside pitch to short/2nd, that is more impressive to me than a strikeout b/c it took alot less to do it. And have you seen his changeup lately, wow....thats as good as it gets. I agree he has been changing his pitch selection a little bit this year, but that could be attributed to the fact that not only is he maturing as a pitcher, but he is in a new league. He is learning new ways to get these guys out.
Any time you take statistics like this, you can twist them however you wish. This is what you are doing. All these statistic "categories" you have listed are great to talk about, but they are basically irreleveant. I could come up with plenty new "statistics" that are improvements over last year and then we would be saying how he is a better pitcher now. I watch every Met game basically, and I have been impressed with Santana in each one. He is as good as it gets right now, although Webb seems to be on a different level right now. Even the games he gets beat up a little he keeps his composure and limitis the damage every time. Also, talk about a workhorse, every game he goes atleast 6 or 7 like clockwork, and you can count on the fact that the team is set up to win when he exits. That is all you can ask of a starting pitcher, he's just a piece of a puzzle.
I understand your point of view in this article, but I disagree. I am a ratonal fan and if he were not what was expected, I would be the first one to say so. But so far, Johann is lights out. And he is a dominant second half pitcher too, so lets see where hes at come playoff time before we start saying hes underperforming.
-
Derek Carty Hey ballhyper,
Thanks for your comments, although a few of them are incorrect.As I said in my previous comment, I too am a Mets fan. I realize that Santana is our best pitcher and is still one of the best pitchers in the game. That doesn't mean he can't get lucky, though, because he has a little bit. He's still the best pitcher on the team, no doubt, but he is pitching over his head. Obviously there are other problems with the team, but this article was written to examine Johan Santana. The presence of those other problems could lead people to ignore Santana's changes because he's still good and there are more pressing issues, but this is an issue nonetheless.
As I said in my previous comment to xnumberoneson, the Cy Young award means nothing if you're trying to identify the best pitcher in baseball. Your own comment proves this. "If it weren't for his team(bullpen and run support), he is in the cy young race on B Webb's tail."
Why should his team have anything to do with his Cy Young chances if Cy Young picks out the best pitcher? The answer, is because it doesn't. It is flawed and somewhat meaningless. When examining the Mets, you need to look at the components individually. What the bullpen and offense does when Santana pitches is completely separate from Santana himself.
As far as the lack of strikeouts go, there is zero reason why it is a good thing. It does not save your pitch count. Check out this article for proof on that: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-kazmir-conundrum/
As far as the comment "who cares about strikeouts, smart pitchers just get outs." Those who understand basic math and it's place in baseball analysis care about strikeouts. A strikeout is a guaranteed out. Any ball in play has a only chance of becoming an out, but not all of them will. Only a percentage. That percentage is shown in one of my 'irrelevant' stats, BABIP (Batting Average on Balls in Play). Santana's has been consistent from year to year and is no better this year than in the past. Changes he's made this year haven't helped him because, honestly, it would be nearly impossible to maintain one much better than Santana does.
Here's a basic math exercise. Say a pitcher faces 100 batters twice (and for simplicity's sake walks 0). On balls he allows to be put in play, 25% become hits (a very low number, but a round one for simplicity's sake). Let's say this pitcher strikes out 50 batters the first time around and 25 batters the second time around (high numbers, but simplified).
100 pitches -> 50 K -> 50 Balls in Play
100 pitches -> 25 K -> 75 Balls in Play
So on those 50 balls in play, roughly 13 (25%) becomes hits. On those 75 balls in play, roughly 19 (25%) become hits.
100 pitches -> 50 K -> 37 In Play Outs -> 87 Total Outs
100 pitches -> 25 K -> 56 In Play Outs -> 81 Total Outs
More Ks = More Outs. Obviously Ks are important. If a pitcher can reduce Ks and somehow get more in play outs, great for him. I've yet to see an example of this, though, ever, and Santana isn't one. His BABIP (again, the percentage of hits on balls in play, the inverse of the number of outs on balls in play) has remained constant this year, so he isn't foresaking strikeouts to get more total outs. He's getting less. Simple math.
Yes, I have seen Santana's change-up this year. I have it quantified actually in this article. Check out that movement chart. No doubt, a good pitch, but worse than last year. Still a great pitch, as I noted in the article, but worse than last year. And it's not being utilized as much as last year in the most important counts.
Changes like this are not a part of maturing as a pitcher, learning new ways to get guys out. As I said earlier, he's not getting as many out this year as last year. Maybe he's making these changes in an attempt to, but if he is, he's failing at it.
Finally regarding my statistic "categories," they all have a purpose and are proven many times over to do what they are intended to do. I'm not going to go over all of them, but feel free to send me an e-mail with specific ones and I'll point you in the right direction.
Again, thanks for your comments. If you don't understand anything I said or have any more comments, feel free to let me know.
Thanks!
-
ballhyper "Why should his team have anything to do with his Cy Young chances if Cy Young picks out the best pitcher? The answer, is because it doesn't. It is flawed and somewhat meaningless. When examining the Mets, you need to look at the components individually. What the bullpen and offense does when Santana pitches is completely separate from Santana himself.
I agree with you here, the Cy young is flawed, maybe not meaningless b/c its a prestigious award, but definltey flawed. The way a team performs for a pitcher definitley does matter, although it shouldn't. If Johann has 16-17 wins right now b/c the bullpen and team decided to actually show up when he was on the mound, is he not right there w/ Webb? He probably doesn't win, deservedly so, but he's right there.. But with his win total now, it's not even a legitmate discussion.
As far as strikeouts, yes, a strikeout is absolutely the best way to get an out b/c theres no chance of a hit/error, etc. So I'm not saying to trade K's for groundouts by any means, I just don't like to judge pitchers very much on this statistic. The Braves staff in the 90s(as much as I hated them) were premier pitchers who realized what it took to get guys out, without going for double digit K's each game. Maddux still is making a living off soft ground balls and pop ups, hes' not too good anymore, but you know what I mean.
Take Pelfrey for example, would you rather him going for K's each batter and making mistakes up in the zone with his fastball, or throwing his sinker for routine ground balls? Maybe strikeout statistics work for some power pitchers, but for most, I have a hard time taking this into serious consideration when evaluating performance.
And not to be picky but,
"A strikeout is a guaranteed out"
No its not, WP or PB and runner to 1st isn't an out.
-
Derek Carty I agree about Santana being in the Cy discussion with more wins, but that still doesn't mean that the award means anything. I basically ignore it.
As far as a guy like Maddux goes, he succeeds (and succeeded) because he has impeccable control and gets 50% GBs while still keeping a strikeout rate not too far below league average. He and Glavine both were probably able to limit hits on balls in play (BABIP) in their prime similar to what Santana is able to do, but very few pitchers are able to.
And yeah, I realize that there are ways that strikeouts aren't guaranteed, but they happen so infrequently that they are basically ignorable.
-
ballhyper I watched the Johann game the other night, and without a doubt he was not even close to himself. Maybe your onto something here. Still though, he had nothing and still was able to go 7 with no runs, even when throwing 120+ pitches. That's what a 100mm+ ace is supposed to be able to do. He's always been a beast in the 2nd half, so hopefully he stays true to form.
And good for Jerry Manuel letting him get into some trouble and work it out by himself. That needs to happen a bit more I think.
-
-
-
-
-
Derek Carty xnumberoneson,
Thanks very much for your comments. I'd like to address a few of them, though.I'd first like to note that I am a diehard Mets fan (though I approached this article purely objectively, as I do every article).
Second, being "in the Cy Young discussion" just isn't enough. You know who else is in the Cy Young discussion in the AL? Joe Saunders and his 4.65 LIPS ERA. The Cy Young Award is somewhat meaningless because the most deserving pitcher rarely gets it because those voting for it don't understand the effect luck has on the game. The fact that you acknowledge that he'd be in the discussion if his bullpen was better (something which, to the best of my knowledge, does not include Johan Santana and which Santana has essentially zero influence on) shows the flaws in the Cy Young process.
Also, whether it's a concious decision or not, Santana's K/ 9 is down a full two points. That's huge! And his GB% isn't even up all that much. It's barely above league average.
Also, concerning his HR proclivity, the only year he struggled with HRs was last year when he posted a 13.1% HR/FB. Judging by what we know about HR/FB (that can be heavily luck influenced), his previous years' numbers, and this year's number, I'd say there's little doubt last year was anything other than bad luck. Santana might not have perceived it that way, but that's the case.
Santana is a great pitcher, but his ERA is too low. It will still be in the low 3.00s because he's a good pitcher and can keep his BABIP low, but the fact of the matter is he's gottena little lucky. The purpose of this article was to point out that his skills were off (namely his K/9) examine why this was the case.
Anyway, thank you again for you comments. Hopefully this clarifies my point a little better.
-
-
dwezilwoffa Hey I love the article. I had a question regarding his pitch selection in certain counts. Could his reduced usage of his primary strike out pitches be a conscious choice to not show his hand to much. With an adjustment to a new league and home park and knowing he would be on a team with almost certain post season aspirations, could he be saving himself for a huge 2nd half run. Except for last year, he has had tremendous July thru Sept runs.
Again thanks for the article on one of my favorite players since 2004 when I found Aaron Gleeman's site and then this one thru him. So you can thank Johan Santana for this reader.
-
Derek Carty Hey,
Definitely possible that he's doing this, though there's no way to know for sure. I certainly hope that's what's going on.Thanks for the comment!
-
-
claudio1 Johan Santana is getting much older. He was losing zip on his pitches in Minnesota. He is nearing the downside of his career in 2-3 years. It also doesn't help a pitchers psyche when you get no run support.
blog.yoonew.com
-
nails4 Great article. I have a theory on the decreased usage of Johan's changeup to right handed hitters with 2 strikes and in pitchers counts, and I'd like your thoughts.
In 07 the 4 seamer was his bread and butter and he got alot of swings and misses with it. Your chart shows he was very consistent with it.
In 08, with a high percentage of his 4 seamers losing both vertical and horizontal movement, and perhaps Johan knowing this and being a bit more homerun conscious with the spike in HR's in 07 and beginning of 08, maybe he's going to the changeup earlier to get ahead of hitters? He must be if his overall changeups thrown percentage hasn't changed. Having changed his approach, in these situations now it might be natural that he goes with what he thinks is his best pitch (and possibly what he is setting them up for): his 2 seamer.
-
Derek Carty That's a good theory nails4. It would be really interesting to actually talk to Santana about this stuff after the season to see where his head is at.
-
-
TheAnswer131313 I too am a big mets fan. I have downloaded all the gameday data and I was wondering on just exactly what algorithim you used to classify the pitches? I have a hard time distinguishing between two-seamers and four-seamers, so I was just wondering how you go about determining the two.
Also, whats the accuracy like with regards to gameday? I know Josh Kalk has to do corrections to the data after 2007 and I was wondering how the data is in 2008?
-
Derek Carty I use Josh's data and make small changes if needed. Classifying pitches at the league-wide level is a terrible difficult thing to do, and Josh's algorithm does a good job. Picking out four-seamers and two-seamers is very difficult to do even on an individual player basis, so I used Josh's classifications and picked apart those classified as fastballs into four-seamers and two-seamers. I went on a game by game basis looking at vertical movement and spin direction (I followed a similar approach to Mike Fast in his article from the off-season: http://mvn.com/mlb-stats/2008/01/09/tales-of-the-changeup-an-analysis-of-johan-santana/). I know I didn't do it perfectly, though.
As far as accuracy goes, this is a great system, but there are still bugs in it. Josh's corrections do a very good job, from my experience working with them, making essentially unusable data usable. There are still problems with 2008 data. As far as the in-system classifications that have started in 2008, they aren't very accurate.
-
TheAnswer131313 Oh ok so you used the calculations from the Mike Fast article.
I've seen people use formula's, also people using K-means clustering or two step clustering. I wonder whats most accurate.-
Derek Carty I didn't use the precise calculations, just the method. I'm definitely new to classification and don't spend a whole lot of time on it, mostly because guys like Josh and Mike and John Walsh already do such a great job. Josh's data is what I use, though, so occasionally some small changes will need to be made, like splitting apart four-seamers and two-seamers. These can be very tough to pull apart when doing classifications at the league-wide level.
Things like K-means clustering and such I think are best used when trying to do these in bulk. When you're looking at one specific player in-depth, I think it's best to go start by start and see if patterns emerge, or go start-by-start and refine the bulk classifications.
If you're interested in classifications and such, I'd definitely talk to Josh or Mike or someone else who's done it more than I have, though.
-
-
-
BASEBALL: Stuff About Stuff
Baseball Crank —
... In case you have missed it, The Hardball Times has had two recent looks at Mets starting pitchers and where and how they are locating their pitches - Johan Santana and ...
