I'm not sure how I missed this, but a few days ago, a user over at Beyond The Box Score ran a study to identify the fastest- and slowest-working pitchers in baseball. Turns out PITCHfx data comes with a time stamp, which I'd never known. And it's by looking at this time stamp that one can identify which guys work quickly, and which guys play for the Red Sox.
Here's the study, which looks at the 20 fastest and slowest workers among 295 qualified pitchers. A qualified pitcher threw at least 500 pitches in 2010 that weren't (A) thrown with runners on, (B) the first pitch of an at bat, (C) pitches following on-field delays, or (D) pitches with an obviously glitchy time stamp. The whole none on/men on issue may be significant, as some guys might work exceptionally slowly out of the stretch, but this is the only way to make sure pick-off throws don't skew the numbers.
Results? The fastest worker - to no one's surprise - is Chicago's Mark Buehrle, who averaged 16.0 seconds between pitches. The slowest worker was Rafael Betancourt, at 31.3 seconds between pitches. The slowest-working starter was Matt Garza, at 25.7. The fastest-working reliever was Sean Gallagher, at 17.1.
Interestingly, if you look at the 20 slowest, you don't find any Mariners. If you look at the 20 fastest, you find three. Doug Fister's at 17.5 seconds. Luke French is at 16.2 seconds. And David Pauley is right there, tied with Buehrle at 16.0 seconds. On average, the Mariners had the third-fastest pitching staff in baseball last season. (You'll never guess who finished last!)
I don't think this is a super meaningful statistic. The obvious follow-up is "are faster pitchers better? Are they worse?" and there's no clear evidence that one's pace makes a difference. So one might consider this something of an analytical dead end. However, I think there are two types of statistics with incomplete overlap. There are the numbers that mean something in terms of predicting future performance. And there are the numbers that mean something in terms of entertainment or watchability. I don't think David Pauley or Luke French really gain anything from working quickly, but their tempo sure makes them more watchable, and that's significant to us as fans. These are guys we've had to and may again have to watch, and it's better that they work quickly rather than slowly.
Everything about Jonathan Papelbon makes him a turd.
1 recs | 24 comments
In my experience....
You know…PONY and middle relief for the JV team…
I always worked faster. It kept me in a tempo, kept me from thinking too much. I don’t know what statistics may reflect, but I would assume it depends completely upon the pitcher and his style of work.
Bballpitcher2 - November 15, 2010
Is it dumb that my first thought was "fastball fastball fastball"?
This guarantees my evening free time will be spent trying to figure out fastball percentage by pitchers at the top and bottom of the list. Oh for some spreadsheet skills.
Kermit. - November 15, 2010
Perhaps the pitchers up there are thinking CONTACT CONTACT CONTACT!
Slurvey - November 15, 2010
As it turns out, fast bad baseball is infinitely better than slow bad baseball
seattlebruin - November 15, 2010
According to my rough calculations this means the average Red Sox/Yankees game loses nine minutes sheerly to this
in relation to two league average teams. They lose like eighteen minutes to the fastest teams in baseball, and I think it’s safe to assume that teams who are slow with no one on base will also be slow with runners on.
seattlebruin - November 15, 2010
Your 2010 Seattle Mariners! We sucked, but at least you got home before Ten O' Clock!
Slurvey - November 15, 2010
The offense also helped with that a lot
seattlebruin - November 15, 2010
I dunno, I like being at the park for like 4 hours no matter what.
Bballpitcher2 - November 15, 2010
So do I, but I'd sure as hell rather be walking around enjoying the stadium and then watching a fast, well-played ballgame
than standing behind first base imploring Miguel Batista to throw the fucking baseball
seattlebruin - November 15, 2010
Get there early and watch batting practice.
That’s what I do.
Two Rs and Two Ls - November 15, 2010
I mentioned this on Twitter a few days ago,
but something interesting is that all the starters who work quickly have ‘average’ stuff and don’t rack up strikeouts. Not sure what that really means but it makes sense.
200tang - November 15, 2010
Where the hell is Cliff Lee?
Matthew - November 15, 2010
You should ask him!
Jeff Sullivan - November 15, 2010
Hold on
Matthew - November 15, 2010
Does anyone speak Danish?
Matthew - November 15, 2010
WHAT?
Jeff Sullivan - November 15, 2010
In 2008, according to Mike Fast
Cliff Lee came in at a respectable 21.8.
JLC - November 15, 2010
That number factors in laughter time.
Also, at bats seem a lot shorter when there are only 1 to 3 pitches total.
CapSea - November 15, 2010
I may be in the minority here,
But I think a “shot clock” for pitchers would be just buckets of fun. I imagine Papelbon consistently spacing out and forgetting about it, so once or twice an inning he spazzes out and fires the ball 15 feet over the catchers head.
But seriously, nothing is worse than the Yankees’ haughty “baseball happens on OUR time” attitude. I think they feel like they’re doing all us provincials a favor: “Soak it up, you’re playing the Yankees, in all our solemn majesty.”
Manzanillos Cup - November 15, 2010
Nationals-5th slowest at 21.6
Goose - November 15, 2010
I have a copy of a Baseball annual Magazine from 1951.
The cover story is about how the games are getting too long and what we can do to hurry up the games. The author of the article was complaining that games were lasting longer than 2 hours and 30 minutes, and his proposed changes would get the game time back under 2 hours, like it was in the “good old days”
59 seasons ago…
ambrosia2112 - November 15, 2010
I know one commerical that can start coming again less and save us an extra 10 minutes a game.
CapSea - November 15, 2010
I'm all for this. Back in the "good old days" you could barely go to the bathroom and grab
a beer and the game was back on. The catcher was sometimes given some extra time (a backup catcher would catch the pitcher’s warm-up throws) if the starting catcher happened to be on base at the end of his team’s at bat. Otherwise, he was ready to go as soon as the last batter was out. There is no need (other than money) for this not to be the case today. Not everything from the “good old days” was bad. I swear I will never, ever, watch another Miguel Batista game. Life is too short and I am too old.
TrustBaseball - November 15, 2010
I mised the good ol' days where we scored five runs a game, made the playoffs, and the games took 3:20 to complete
Poochie - November 16, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.