Lately - especially in light of yesterday's performance - there's been a lot of talk about Daisuke Matsuzaka's ability to strand runners and get out of jams. To carry at 2.90 ERA with those kinds of peripherals is no small feat, and his .225 BABIP with men on base is something to behold.
At first glance it just seems like he's getting lucky, but Sox fans and Matsuzaka supporters will tell you that there's something else going on besides luck, that Matsuzaka really is in control of those at bats where he has to buckle down. What they'll tell you is that Matsuzaka throws so many pitches, and that he's so good at mixing them around, that he keeps batters completely off balance, thereby preventing them from having the kind of success against him you'd expect. And that's his secret. That's how he defeats DIPS theory. Pitch variation. He doesn't always, say, throw fastballs in fastball counts, and that's what allows him to have so much success.
People will tell you this with such conviction that you almost want to believe they're right. Me, though, I'm just not seeing it.
There are two things, I think that work against that argument:
(1) little proof that pitch variation helps with BABIP
(2) little proof that pitch variation helps Daisuke Matsuzaka with BABIP
As far as #1 is concerned, I played around with Fangraphs and pulled out pitch information for 337 individual pitcher seasons since 2005. Once exported to Excel, I looked at every pitcher and marked down how many pitches he threw at least 2% of the time. I then grouped them by the resulting number and looked to see if this had any kind of effect on BABIP.
| # of pitches | BABIP | # of seasons |
| 2 | .307 | 1 |
| 3 | .299 | 91 |
| 4 | .300 | 154 |
| 5 | .300 | 80 |
| 6 | .309 | 11 |
There's no significant difference in there. The majority of pitchers work with between 3-5 pitches, and regardless of which way they go, in the end it gets them the same results, at least as far as BABIP is concerned. This isn't a perfect way to run this study (we don't have enough PITCHf/x information to go on), but it should get us close, and so generally speaking, this doesn't look like a satisfactory explanation for why Matsuzaka has had so much success. I'm reminded of Padre Josh Banks, who's known for his eight-pitch repertoire. He posted a league-average BABIP.
As far as #2 is concerned - and I think this is the bigger point - if Matsuzaka's pitch variation helps him so much with runners on base, why doesn't it help him when the bases are empty? This year he posted a .289 BABIP with the bases empty and a .225 BABIP with runners on. Last year it was .322 and .272. Overall his BABIP over two seasons is .289, which is in the ballpark of where you'd look for an average pitcher to be. So where's the magic? You can say that he buckles down when he gets in a jam, but what does that really mean? If he has the ability to induce weaker contact when he has to, why doesn't he just use that ability all the time, instead of waiting until he gets himself in trouble? It doesn't make sense.
Daisuke Matsuzaka may very well pitch better with men on base than he does with the bases empty. Over two seasons, his K/BB in the former situation is 2.26 versus 1.92 in the latter situation, so who knows, maybe that's meaningful. Maybe the pitch variation really does help him keep some sort of an edge over the hitter. But I just don't see any reason to believe that he has some fantastic ability to get out of trouble by generating weaker balls in play. The only indication that he does is two seasons' worth of splits, and two seasons of splits can tell you pretty much anything.
Daisuke Matsuzaka is a good pitcher. He's a legitimate #2 who's going to help the Red Sox for a long long time. But his performance with men on base isn't sustainable. That ERA is going to get the living crap regressed out of it.
0 recs | 21 comments
It'd be interesting to see how well (BABIP w/ runners on)-(BABIP w/ bases empty) correlates with ERA-tRA
My guess is very
Dewey N - October 11, 2008
Matching ERA to tRA doesn't work
Graham MacAree - October 11, 2008
Why wouldn't the difference of the two work when comparing to something else?
Dewey N - October 11, 2008
Or maybe finding the mean difference and then using the distance from the mean in comparison to (BABIP w/ runners on)-(BABIP w/ bases empty)
Or maybe it’s not worth the effort
Dewey N - October 11, 2008
Because unless you compare to RA there's a false gap
Graham MacAree - October 11, 2008
And also park factors
Graham MacAree - October 11, 2008
Ok gotcha
Dewey N - October 11, 2008
AP:
So frustrating.
Teej - October 11, 2008
Further
Matsuzaka, 1B/contact, bases empty: .218
Matsuzaka, 1B/contact, men on: .177
Matsuzaka, XBH/contact, bases empty: .112
Matsuzaka, XBH/contact, men on: .107
Matsuzaka’s low BABIP with men on is mostly the result of a singles reduction, further suggesting that it’s more luck than weaker contact.
Jeff Sullivan - October 11, 2008
I'd say (without actually looking at numbers) that it's possible that he tries harder to strike guys out with men on base
which would help keep his RA down despite terrible peripherals, but that really shouldn’t help him at all in the BABIP department
seattlebruin - October 11, 2008
It really seems that Dice-K's a unique case where he is able to buckle down when in trouble
I see that this year Matsuzaka’s BAA for runners in scoring position is even lower than that with just men on base. BAA with RISP of .164!! That is amazing.
2008 BAA bases empty: .225
2008 BAA men on: .193
2008 BAA RISP: .164
career BAA bases empty: .249
career BAA men on: .208
career BAA RISP: .201
More data (years) will be necessary, but there is a trend at least with bases empty and men on, which impressively is completey opposite of usual pitchers.
Wish this guy was on the M’s throwing behind Felix instead of Silva, Batista, Washburn…
Sam Regens - October 11, 2008
Reminds me of Jarrod Washburn
JI - October 11, 2008
Washburn seems like a bad comparison. :)))
His BAA with none on was .278, with men on it was .298 which is higher. But I know you meant his BAA with RISP which was .268.
But JI, how many pitchers did you have to search the stats to find someone (who sucks) who had opposite splits (albeit not with "men on" just with "RISP")?
If there were many than I completely agree with your point. But I don’t think there are many, because after all, in total, batters have significantly better BA with men on and RISP than with none on.
And seriously, Washburn’s BAA with RISP was .268, nothing whatsoever special about that. Maybe he sucks less in that situation but it’s nothing to point out because he’s still not very good. Dice K’s was .164 which is phenomenal and really struck me when I read the recap of the game.
And I’m not discounting sample size, but Dice K has shown this trend for his whole (admittedly only 2 full seasons) career here.
Looking a little further into the numbers, an interesting thing was that:
Washburn’s SLGA (OPSA)
.418 (.744) with none on,
.525 (.888) with men on
.515 (.877) with RISP
Washburn’s getting hit hard when it counts more. (like duh for us people watching Mariner games :)))
Dice K SLGA (OPSA):
.324 (.661) with none on
.324 (.623) with men on
.288 (.523)!! with RISP
Dice K might go against the common wisdom (and thus be aggravating to some), but I do like his results and also I like a guy who morphs into a mean tough mofo when people get on base,
instead of the collapsing soggy paper sacks we got.
Sam Regens - October 12, 2008
Washburn has a ridiculously good strand rate in 2005, which led to him posting a 3.20 ERA
which led us to securing four years of his services.
JI - October 12, 2008
Thanks JI
I remember that bit now.
Sam Regens - October 13, 2008
of course everyone likes his results
it’s just that he hasn’t really caused all those results
Sky Kalkman - October 14, 2008
But my whole point is that this isn't sustainable
Jeff Sullivan - October 12, 2008
what about 2007?
and it’s not like there haven’t been pitchers to put up numbers like Daisuke in the past. do you know what happens going forward? they don’t get as lucky.
Sky Kalkman - October 14, 2008
uh . . .
correct me if i’m wrong here but it seems like everyone is ignoring matsuzaka’s japanese statistics.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=7775&position=P
i dont have the time to crunch the numbers right now, but if someone else wants to i’d be interested to see how his BABIP numbers from japan correlate to MLB. Also how japanese BABIP stats normally correlate (as a baseline to determine whether they should be changing or not, better fielding, etc.). i have been wondering about daisuke on this matter so if anyone can help i’d appreciate it!
jessef - October 13, 2008
I don't think we know anything about Japanese BABIP
Jeff Sullivan - October 13, 2008
The fangraphs site I linked
gives statistics for Matsuzaka’s BABIP and Strand%. I am guessing that if they have the information for him, then they keep it for everyone. I am assuming that someone must have run these numbers, right?
His numbers there don’t seem terribly out of whack from MLB (there is a lot of variation). They seem to be lower than MLB league average, though he has seasons of .314 (194 IP), .357 (146 IP) and .295 (215 IP). Additionally, the season he had a .357 (146 IP is admittedly a small sample, but whatever) he had his lowest HR/9 and a much better FIP than in previous seasons of much lower BABIP, suggesting that the .357 is probably an artifact of luck vs. skill. It is also possible that hitters were off balance for a while (BABIP consistently very low for his first five or so seasons) but hitters adjusted (much higher BABIP later in career).
In either case, he should be regressing BABIP-wise, though I still do love him.
jessef - October 14, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.