SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Lookout Landing

Pitchers Hitting, Continued.

First off, the ideas presented forthwith are the result of some joint discussions with Graham, so credit or blame goes to him as well.

There were some lingering questions that Graham and I had after looking at how pitcher's hit a few days ago. Chief among them was the issue of run environments. A typical batter has little effect on his run environment and the situations he bats in are for the most part normally distributed around a 1.00 LI. Pitchers however have a huge effect on the run environment of the particular game itself and we should attempt to account for it.

Consider this, lets say that we have a hybrid player who pitches like Tim Lincecum and hits like Carlos Zambrano. And lets say that in our hypothetical situation, every NL pitcher is a Tim Lincecum clone, imbued with the same talent and ability. In this case, the league average wOBA wouldn't be .333 anymore, it would plummet to something like .310 or whatever Lincecum's wOBA-against was in 2008. Scoring league-wide would be down about two runs per game. That means that each individual run would become more valuable since there are now fewer of them. Now, compare our hybrid Lincecum-Zambrano player to any of the Lincecum clones and you can hopefully see what we're driving toward here. The Zambrano-batting player is now much more valuable than any of the clones because the difference in hitting skill has been made more important.

To put it in a more basic and understood way, just look at park effects. We all know that a run in Texas, Philadelphia, Colorado, etc is not as valuable as a run in Seattle, Oakland or San Diego. That's because those parks have differing run environments. Over the course of a full season they will see enough combination of pitchers that, like the batters, it evens out and the determining factors for parks becomes their dimensions, altitude, weather, etc.

But in an individual game, the pitcher matters a great deal and because of that, we feel that it would be pertinent to give them credit for that on the hitting side. Now, in order to approximate run environment, I am going to use tRA. Specifically, the league average wOBA (.333 in the NL, where pitchers hit) will by divided by a factor which is defined as: tRA+/200 + 0.5. The reason for this is that we want to take the percentage a pitcher bettered the league (tRA+ / 100) and because a specific pitcher only controls half of the run environment for the game (the opposing pitcher, after all, has an equal effect), we add one to account for a league average and then divide by 2 to get back to scale. In unsimplified form: [(tRA+/100)+1] / 2.

What this boils down to is that pitchers that are above average at pitching will get a boost to their hitting value, no matter how good or poor it is because he will be batting in lowered run environments, while the opposite holds for below-average pitchers.

Another factor to consider is leverage. As mentioned, low run-scoring environments mean that each marginal run is more valuable than in a high-scoring environment. That means that each plate appearance in an offensively suppressed situation is going to have a fractionally higher leverage. That can affect our model by magnifying or attenuating the importance, to a small degree, of how the pitcher bats in his turns at the plate. If the pitcher is especially good, like Tim Lincecum, his plate appearances might carry a larger leverage index than those of Kyle Kendrick and thus how Lincecum performs in those at bats is slightly more valuable, either positively or negatively.

To test if this effect exists, I would need a large amount of information on the leverages encountered by pitchers in their at bats since they have such small samples individually. It does me little good to point to the above example, but note that Lincecum does indeed have a higher LI on average than Kendrick. In fact, just by looking through the numbers of some long time NL hurlers, their LI seems to be more connected with their hitting ability than their pitching. The better the pitcher is at hitting, the higher his leverage is, theoretically because the manager will let him bat in higher leverage situations. Again though, that is nowhere near confirmed.

Either way, pitchers do face an overall lower leverage in their at bats, to the tune of about a 0.90 average, so we should knock off 10% of their hitting value to account for this.

Here are the top 25 starting pitchers in terms of wins (encompassing all mentioned above):

Star-divide



wOBA is park-adjusted, BRAA is the straight hitting value, PosAdj is the position adjustment for pitchers (roughly 9.8 wins per 700 PA in 2008), Runs is the addition of the preceding two values, BRAA^ is BRAA adjusted for the run environment, Diff is the difference between BRAA^ and BRAA, Wins is Runs^ / 10 * 0.9 [for leverage].

Bottom 10 in wins:



Top



and bottom 10



in terms of Diff, seeing the spread in how the pitcher's pitching ability affects his hitting value. As you can see, the spread here is not as large, roughly ten runs, compared to the overall values, which have a spread of 20-25 runs. Still, it's a worthwhile addition to the model and provides a far more complete picture.

Once again, to be clear, the value presented as wins is not the pitcher's hitting ability in WAR. It's the pitcher's hitting ability plus a positional adjustment plus a leverage adjustment plus a run environment adjustment. For example, Brandon Backe is a better hitter than Tim Lincecum, but because Lincecum is such a better pitcher, Lincecum's hitting is more valuable because his poor at bats do less damage in a low run environment.

Of course, that is just the hitting component, so why not go ahead and add the pitching wins to those? Good idea, Matthew! Here's the top 21 (so that you could see Zambrano) and bottom 20 in overall wins. As far as I can figure, this represents a complete measure for everything except a pitcher's ability to field.

Top 21:

Bottom 20:

Note that these are separated by team-seasons, so CC Sabathia has separate entries for his time in Milwaukee and Cleveland. Altogether he was worth a little over 9(!) wins in 2008.

0 recs  |  40 comments

Comments

"This

This means something…"

Yay! An article about Real baseball!
in re pitcher LI

I don’t really keep track of the NL but it seems a lot of managers will walk a hitter to get to the pitcher. So while a starter will not generally see any late inning at bats in a close game with runners on, the first couple of times around they should have a higher chance of hitting with a man (or several) on base.

Also, it seems unfair to give starters a bonus for being good on account of they hit in a (self) suppressed run environment. After all, there are plenty of pitching and defense first teams whose entire pitching staff is well above average and who therefore always play in a suppressed run environment (take the Blue Jays for example). By this rationale, should not the Jays’ hitters receive a bonus to their wOBAs since all opposing teams hit poorly against them?

Depends if you're trying to measure value or true talent

There’s a pretty big difference between those two things.

In this case it's value unless I'm more stupider than I thought
Then yes, it's an adjustment you should probably make

but I think most people are more interested in true talent. That’s why you hear way more talk about, say, BABIP and regression than WPA.

But isn't that what they are doing here?

Measuring value, not true talent? Ok, assume a good defensive player. Doesn’t he help lower the scoring environment, therefore making his hitting more valuable? But does that mean his true hitting talent increases? Or for that matter, a slugger who is a butcher in the field. He will increase scoring (both in the field and at the dish) therefore making him less valuable as a hitter, and conversely, more valuable (not as large a determinant) as a defender. I mean, it seems to me we are looking at value here. Or at the least, have to re think our analysis of position players bats based on how their defense effects the run scoring environment.

The difference in impact between the best and worst defensive players in baseball is ~0.25 runs per game

that just isn’t big enough to make a real difference.

, the first couple of times around they should have a higher chance of hitting with a man

They do have the 7/8 hitters hitting in front of them.

*(Unless they play for Tony LaRussa)

"By this rationale, should not the Jays’ hitters receive a bonus to their wOBAs since all opposing teams hit poorly against them?"

Yes

No.

The wOBA’s of the players themselves were never altered.

I imagine he meant WAR

and while the answer is technically yes, do that and you’re no longer measuring what we want to be measuring.

the wOBA's themselves no, but the average that they are compared against yes

so whether you think of that as a bonus to the player or a detraction against the league it works out to be the same thing, I think.

I realize now that I should have said they receive a bonus to their wRAA

not wOBA. I apologize but it was my parents’ fault for raising me stupid.

My parents never read my bed time stories about WAR either. It's why I don't call them anymore.
I suppose I'm confused...

by the argument that because a pitcher is better, the runs he creates as a result of his hitting are more valuable. Isn’t he more or less only creating an environment for the other team? Wouldn’t the relative ability of the opposing pitcher factor more into how the pitcher is hitting rather than his own? Is this just some gross misunderstanding of some stat being used herein?

Pitcher A never gives up a run. Pitcher B gives up a run per inning pitched.

Whose ability to hit is going to be more valuable?

I mean, if pitcher B is giving up a run per inning, for the sake of the hypothetical.

Then whatever runs pitcher B contributes basically make no difference. In reality, wouldn’t the low run environment of a Lincecum make pitcher B’s run production more valuable?

I popped you an e-mail about this to your posted address, I’ve been running off the rails at this point of your post. So some clarification of the logic at this point here would be great, I’m floundering.

Huh?
I think he is comparing the two pitchers as if they are facing each other, so that

Pitcher B would be facing Lincy.

In his scenario, if pitcher B gives up a run per inning then whatever B scores will more than likely not make a difference.

Especially if A never gives up a run. I was thinking more along the lines of reality, where Lincecum (A) creates a low run environment, then this makes offensive production by B more important.

As mentioned, low run-scoring environments mean that each marginal run is more valuable than in a high-scoring environment.

This runs counter to my logic process, but I think I get it, thanks.

No. I'm still not getting it, seems like Pitcher B's offensive production is more important.

I’m going to shut up now, and let the comment thread Q & A fix my brain.

You're making sense

as long as the league is full of Lincecums. However, since a batting pitcher will see a variety of opposition then the run environment created by opposing pitcher should be about average. Thus the only effect on run environment that needs to be considered is the pitcher’s own.

Here’s one way to think of it: A hitter’s value is well summarized by his wOBA compared to league average. If you consider only the 34 or so games in which a pitcher plays and calculate league average wOBA based on that, then for a terrible pitcher the league will hit better, on average and each hit will be less valuable.

If the other team's ability to score runs is reduced, then the runs produced by the pitcher at the plate become more valuable
More importantly (for a group of hitters who mostly suck at hitting)

the run value of an out is lower.

And Zwakamatsu, yes, the hypothetical pitcher is creating the run environment for the other team, but that’s still really important for that particular game. If that game has a lower run environment based on what the pitcher’s doing on the mound, then he is penalized less for striking out, and rewarded more for getting hits/walking/etc.

So run environment...

is always the sum of the parts eh? I guess I was viewing at individual run environments for two teams. I suppose it is still counter to my logic that just because there are less TOTAL runs per game, that every run, regardless of the team scoring that run, will be more valuable. If pitcher A allows 0 runs, and pitcher B lets up a run per inning, the runs scored by team B, including those generated by Pitcher B, should be much more valuable than those of pitcher A. I think this is probably me misunderstanding exactly what a run environment denotes, and how run environments are used. Or maybe it’s just one of those things that go against logic and I just need to accept it. I just don’t see how a singular run environment can be created for a game when the variables working against each team are so much different.

The average final score of Pitcher A's games is 2-1

The average final score of Pitcher B’s games is 10-9.

The runs produced by Pitcher A at the plate are more valuable than those produced by Pitcher B, because the runs produced by Pitcher A get his team closer to winning.

Sweet jesus thank you, seems simple enough once the light bulb turns on.

This made my head hurt. I imagine it gets frustrating explaining the simple things, thanks though.

Ok,

so. The point of this entire post was to show that, over the course of a whole season, the fact that the run environments of a better pitcher will, by nature, be lower, then his offensive production gets a boost. Is this, more or less, just true by convention? If that is the case, than I can accept that, and that my misunderstanding is built into the definition of run environment.

And Jeff, that makes a lot of sense, and seems intuitive. Marc, I think the statement that the expected total runs in a game will probably be lower just because one ace is throwing I think is confusing, because that is not nearly the case. I completely understand that less overall runs = more win value per run (or single or double or anything), but Felix is not facing “Johan” every time he plays. So just because one ace is throwing doesn’t mean the total expected runs for that game will be higher, but because of the varying talent levels the pitchers are facing over an entire season any variation on run environment for the year will be moot, and thus the environment is depicted merely by the ace.

Yes? No? Shut up? Any of the three seem valid.

Err...

Should have said “because one ace is throwing doesn’t mean the total expected runs for that game will be lower.”

"but Felix is not facing 'Johan' every time he plays."

True. But if Felix is pitching in a game, is the expected run total higher or lower than average? Forget who’s playing or who the other starter is: all you know is, oh, Lincecum’s starting (or Felix, or Halladay or whoever). Does the number of runs the Giants need to score in order to win the game go up or down?

Ugh....

Duh. Duh. Duh. I apologize for being such a pest about something so obvious. Thanks though, super super helpful to a semi-noob.

Single game environment

I think we all do something like this in our head, so it’s not completely counter intuitive – Felix vs. Johan Santana, you kind of ‘get’ that runs may be at a premium, and thus a lead-off double is a pretty big deal. Batista verus Kameron Loe at Arlington, a lead-off double is… well, it’s cool, but the game doesn’t hang on that run scoring or not. This is the same basic concept.

Jeff’s example above may help too – forget the 9 RA pitcher versus the 0 RA pitcher (this almost makes it seem like the 0 RA pitcher’s hitting is irrelevant, because his win expectancy is already 100%, but nevermind). Just think about any elite starting pitcher – when they’re starting, the expected total runs in the game will probably be lower, and that lowers the value of an out and increases the value of a…non-out.

You fellows are geniuses

I always said there was no need for the designated hitter.

This is the best article I've ever read on LL. :)
This is probably a question that might be hard to answer

The fundamental difference between the AL and NL is the DH.

Since you’ve shown that pitcher’s production at the plate doesn’t vary too much for individual pitchers, we can also probably assume that a team will not see too much variation if you look at their total pitcher production as hitters. If a team has a pitcher that is a good hitter, they will probably have a pitcher that is a bad hitter and it will probably all even out in the end since teams don’t really put value on a pitcher’s ability to hit. From Fangraphs, the total spread for the NL pitcher’s hitting is around 30 runs although this might change a tad with Matthew’s corrections. The spread in the AL between the best DH production and the worst at the team level is around 70 runs. AL teams gave around twice as many at bats to their DH than AL teams gave to pitchers.

This means that the AL and NL have fairly similar relative variance in runs produced at the DH/P position. I didn’t really expect that. I’m not totally sure what effect the pinch hitters would have on this variance.

I guess there really isn't a question in there
The other fundamental difference is that in the NL

the home team gets to make up whatever rules they want.

wOBA of 1.990

Awesome.

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.