Pitches per Run Vs ERA

1st I would think you would need to compare earned runs to earned runs or total runs to total runs. In other words, compare PP earned run to ERA or PP run to average total runs allowed. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges, IMO. I would think that the higher PP run would be a good thing and should correlate to a lower average runs per game allowed. I don't have stats to back it up, but that makes intuitive sense to me.

Originally Posted by bballman:

1st I would think you would need to compare earned runs to earned runs or total runs to total runs. In other words, compare PP earned run to ERA or PP run to average total runs allowed. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges, IMO. I would think that the higher PP run would be a good thing and should correlate to a lower average runs per game allowed. I don't have stats to back it up, but that makes intuitive sense to me.

 

I could easily do that, but I’m not a big believer in ER being more important than UER to begin with. Since I don’t give ERA a lot of weight as a useful metric to judge pitchers, while it occurred to me to use TRA(Total Runs Allowed) rather than ERA, I was looking at it from the perspective of comparing the two metrics to judge pitchers. IOW, which is the most valid way to do that. But, I can certainly see where you’re coming from, so I’ll go ahead and add that just to see how it looks.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor.../images/newhista.pdf

 

Doesn’t look a lot different to me.

I am with BBM on this.  :Looking at the chart it seems that you would want the guy who has the higher PP Run, translating to me that the offense would have to see a lot more pitches to score a run...but I am no no stat guy

Originally Posted by lefthookdad:

I am with BBM on this.  :Looking at the chart it seems that you would want the guy who has the higher PP Run, translating to me that the offense would have to see a lot more pitches to score a run...but I am no no stat guy

 

Heck, that’s what I thought right away because its intuitively obvious to t even the casual observer. Its also why I think ERA is not a very good metric, at least for amateur baseball which is what those numbers are for.

 

Its really a shame that people don’t realize that there are metrics which don’t equate between MLB and amateur ball. ERA is one for pitchers, RBIs is one for hitters, and the reason is there are things taking place in amateur ball that allow runs to score more often than they do in MLB. Errors are a big thing, but things like wild pitches and passed balls definitely take place at a higher rate in amateur ball.

 

Another thing affecting the numbers is the quality of scorers. Its just a fact that the overall quality of every facet of the game, including player skills, coaching skills, and umpire skills aren’t as high as they are in MLB, so its silly to assume SK skills are immune from the problem. That’s why I always try to confine myself to using numbers from HS when I’m talking HSB rather than using numbers generated from MLB.

 

I can't see the data on this, but dominant HS pitchers are going to throw a lot of pitches striking guys out, and terrible ones are going to throw a lot giving up walks in between getting their strikes crushed.  The guys who throw fewer pitches are going to be the more middling pitchers in general, I think, where you'll see some who are lucky despite giving up contact, or better at inducing poor contact, some who throw a lot of strikes but get hit hard most of the time.

 

You could probably look into this by seeing if P/PA correlates well with runs allowed, Ks, and BBs.  My guess is there won't be a ton of correlation with runs, but there will be with Ks and BBs.

jac is right.  Bum, Jr. always had high pitch count games.  This is because he was striking out everyone in h.s.  He ended up his senior year with 139 k's in 66 ip and a 0.85 ERA.  Stats, are you saying you'd rather have a contact pitcher than a h.s. pitcher like Bum, Jr.?  That makes no sense.

 

 

Originally Posted by Bum:

jac is right.  Bum, Jr. always had high pitch count games.  This is because he was striking out everyone in h.s.  He ended up his senior year with 139 k's in 66 ip and a 0.85 ERA.  Stats, are you saying you'd rather have a contact pitcher than a h.s. pitcher like Bum, Jr.?  That makes no sense.

 

You need to understand where these posts come from and the context they’re made. The post your friend is referring to was made back in Sept, and is only being responded to now because of some kind of personal vendetta to make me look like some kind of fool.

 

So what is it you think I’m saying that you find so repugnant? If its that at the HS level I like to see pitchers pitching to contact rather than trying to make batters miss every pitch, you’d be correct. Not that pitchers with great ability can’t have great success doing that, but rather MOST HS pitchers don’t have the ability to do that, and will hurt themselves and their teams trying to do it. How many HS coaches are telling their pitchers to try to K ever hitter as opposed to how many are telling their pitchers to pitch to contact?

 

As for whether I’d rather have a pitcher who’s in the top 1% of all pitchers rather than the average HS pitcher, that’s a pretty silly question.

Stats, look up the sabremetrics stat "PFR" (Power Finesse Ratio) and you'll see why pitching to contact is overrated.  High pitch counts often result from pitchers working the corners and avoiding damage.  Strikeouts happen when you work the corners or out of zone.

 

There is a direct, positive correlation between high strikeouts and high walk totals.  Pitch counts thus rise.

 

You show me a h.s. team with pitchers that can't get K's (weak pitching) and I'll show you that same team most likely has terrible infielders so when you "pitch to contact" you'll have issues.

 

Pitching to contact is so overrated and misunderstood!  Pitchers at the h.s. level should be taught to strikeout everyone the can, using their full arsenal.  Work the zone, control game, go up, down, in, and out.  Pitch to contact?  Bah humbug!  Focus on velocity and pitch development!

 

Don't get me wrong, this all changes when a pitcher moves up after h.s.  All of a sudden that same pitcher realizes he can't strike everyone out.  But guess what?  He's been practicing on controlling the zone and THEN when he gets to the upper levels hitters are having trouble getting good wood on him because he's working the corners.

 

That "pitch to contact" pitcher?  He's working the drive-through at Starbucks.

BTW Stats, Bum, Jr. h.s. coaches were telling him the same thing before he moved up to varsity.  "Pitch to contact."  It was like someone read this in a book somewhere so it must be correct.

 

After he K'd 15 and threw a no-hitter in his first varsity start they stopped with the pitch-to-contact-mantra.

I can honestly say I've never had a vendetta against anyone, nor have I ever found it necessary any expend any effort making anyone look foolish.  I have made my living using math for some time now, so I do spend time correcting the misuse of math in my areas off interest, which includes baseball.

 

FWIW, pitching to contact is a poor cue to use with pitchers.  The only direct control pitchers have over hitters is missing bats, so they should never attempt to pitch to contact.  They should, rather, focus on throwing the best strikes they can.  By doing so, dominant pitchers will miss a lot of bats and succeed as Bum Jr did.  Lesser pitchers will avoid walks and end up with more contact, but the goal is still to minimize contact, since that's the way to achieve success in the long run as a pitcher.

"...pitch to contact...."  When I have heard this at lower levels, it usually sounds like a phrase that is misused.  It is from a coach telling it to one of his starting pitchers that runs a high pitch count and doesn't finish games.  I think what the coach is hoping for is to keep the kid in the game.  But what the kid hears is "throw it down the middle, let them hit it and hope we get them out".

Originally Posted by Bum:

Stats, look up the sabremetrics stat "PFR" (Power Finesse Ratio) and you'll see why pitching to contact is overrated.  High pitch counts often result from pitchers working the corners and avoiding damage.  Strikeouts happen when you work the corners or out of zone.

 

I don’t have to look it up. I know very well what it is. Which is the better metric, MLB’s PFR which is K+BB/IP, or BBR’s K+BB/Batters Faced? I use the latter because I feel it’s a more precise measure.

 

There is a direct, positive correlation between high strikeouts and high walk totals.  Pitch counts thus rise.

 

And?

 

You show me a h.s. team with pitchers that can't get K's (weak pitching) and I'll show you that same team most likely has terrible infielders so when you "pitch to contact" you'll have issues.

 

You show me a HS team where all the pitchers get a lot of K’s(strong pitching), and I’ll show you a HS team who’s pitching staff is far far above average.

 

Our school teams always have weak pitching by your standards, but also always have superior infielders.

 

Pitching to contact is so overrated and misunderstood!  Pitchers at the h.s. level should be taught to strikeout everyone the can, using their full arsenal.  Work the zone, control game, go up, down, in, and out.  Pitch to contact?  Bah humbug!  Focus on velocity and pitch development!

 

Now you’re advocating some kind of dream world. HS pitchers in this area are seldom the one’s choosing what they throw or when they throw it. What you advocate and believe may be true for the very best of the very best, but when it comes to the “average” or “normal” HS pitcher, it won’t work.

 

Don't get me wrong, this all changes when a pitcher moves up after h.s.  All of a sudden that same pitcher realizes he can't strike everyone out.  But guess what?  He's been practicing on controlling the zone and THEN when he gets to the upper levels hitters are having trouble getting good wood on him because he's working the corners.

 

That "pitch to contact" pitcher?  He's working the drive-through at Starbucks.

 

Believe whatever you like, but I’ll say again that what you’re advocating won’t fly with more than 90% of all HS pitchers.

Originally Posted by Bum:

BTW Stats, Bum, Jr. h.s. coaches were telling him the same thing before he moved up to varsity.  "Pitch to contact."  It was like someone read this in a book somewhere so it must be correct.

 

After he K'd 15 and threw a no-hitter in his first varsity start they stopped with the pitch-to-contact-mantra.

 

You’re taking one example of a very dominating pitcher and trying to extrapolate it to include all HS pitchers and it will not work! Like so many people, you try to give the impression that all HS pitchers are dominating, and its simply not true.

Originally Posted by Go44dad:

"...pitch to contact...."  When I have heard this at lower levels, it usually sounds like a phrase that is misused.  It is from a coach telling it to one of his starting pitchers that runs a high pitch count and doesn't finish games.  I think what the coach is hoping for is to keep the kid in the game.  But what the kid hears is "throw it down the middle, let them hit it and hope we get them out".

 

The reality is, there is no “standard” definition for what pitching to contact means, and that allows all kinds of interpretations, some good and some bad. Would you like to try to define it in such a way that it can be measured?

What pitching to contact should mean is throwing strikes and avoiding walks.  The goal should be to accept contact in order to avoid walks, not to encourage contact.  If the focus is on throwing the best strikes possible, dominant pitchers will strike out more hitters while avoiding walks (think Schilling) and the less dominant pitchers will still maximize their success by avoiding walks (think Moyer or late career Maddux).

I don't think stats will ever truly understand this game.  IMHO.

I dunno, son didn't have really high strike out numbers in HS but rather high GO numbers, got a great scholarship and then was a high draft pick out of college. He also had like 60-70 DP's in 3 years, all while pitching to contact.

Maybe he might end up at Starbucks.

I don't get why this topic was revived in the first place, but I wanted to chime in because I am not sure I agree with some things said.  If you guys don't realize now that stats is into stats and likes to create discussion because that is what he does, then I don't know what.

All pitchers are different, but the one thing in common is that they have to get hitters out, and most managers and coaches want that done with the least amount of pitches thrown. 

You start throwing too many pitches while throwing gas,  you will have issues later on.

If you don't throw gas these days, you will not see the ML field (some exceptions apply).

 

I think obviously, you want lower pitch counts.  Everyone in baseball is looking at pitch counts now and are trying to keep them low.  Each pitcher has their strong points.  The problem you will run into with strike outs is running into a lot of 2 or 3 ball counts.  If that is the case, you will be throwing 5 or 6 pitches per batter.  If you throw a perfect game, that's not bad.  But if you give up some hits and walks along the way, you are either throwing a lot of pitches, or not going a lot of innings due to pitch counts.

 

If a pitcher has good enough stuff in HS to get a lot of strike outs, don't waste a lot of pitches.  Throw your stuff for strikes and get the K's with 3 or 4 pitches per batter.  If you can keep the ball off the meat of the bat with exceptional movement, go for the contact.  At some point you have to trust your defense.  

 

My son is a GB pitcher.  He gets his share of K's, but is not overpowering.  Overpowering works less and less the higher up the ladder you move.

Originally Posted by TPM:

I dunno, son didn't have really high strike out numbers in HS but rather high GO numbers, got a great scholarship and then was a high draft pick out of college. He also had like 60-70 DP's in 3 years, all while pitching to contact.

Maybe he might end up at Starbucks.

 

My guess is your son was a pretty typical top of the line pitcher in HS, but not exactly an overpowering stud as Bum’s son obviously was. IOW, he had good enough execution to do the job his coach asked of him on a consistent basis, and it made him a valuable asset to the team. I think that’s a lot more typical of good HS pitchers than those who average 2+Ks per inning.

 

I don't get why this topic was revived in the first place, but I wanted to chime in because I am not sure I agree with some things said. 

 

Look who revived it and ask him why. I had said all I wanted to say back in September.

 

If you guys don't realize now that stats is into stats and likes to create discussion because that is what he does, then I don't know what.

 

I admit I like to create discussion about the numbers, but only because there’s so much about the numbers that’s misunderstood.

 

All pitchers are different, but the one thing in common is that they have to get hitters out, and most managers and coaches want that done with the least amount of pitches thrown. 

 

You start throwing too many pitches while throwing gas,  you will have issues later on.

 

That’s pretty much the long and short of it.

 

If you don't throw gas these days, you will not see the ML field (some exceptions apply).

 

That’s the argument that always seems to creep into any conversation anymore, but there are still some of us who really don’t give a rat’s patoo about that next level, but would rather the coach and players concentrate on the success of the current team. The next level will take care of itself.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by bballman:

I think obviously, you want lower pitch counts.  Everyone in baseball is looking at pitch counts now and are trying to keep them low.  Each pitcher has their strong points.  The problem you will run into with strike outs is running into a lot of 2 or 3 ball counts.  If that is the case, you will be throwing 5 or 6 pitches per batter.  If you throw a perfect game, that's not bad.  But if you give up some hits and walks along the way, you are either throwing a lot of pitches, or not going a lot of innings due to pitch counts.

 

That’s a simple yet valid philosophy, and one that prevails at every level.

 

 

I agree.

 As I said all pitchers are different (ours sound like they use the same stuff).  Son can hit 95,96 (an hit over 90 late in HS), but when the velo goes up he is a bit out of control, so it all comes to execution while changing speeds but that can add up on pitch counts, so the sinker becomes a more valuable pitch for him for grounders, which means the hitter has got to hit to contact, but it has to be weak and produce less pitches which means more innings as a late reliever. As a starter it means more innings after 5 the fifth.

 

If anyone thinks that is easy, try it sometime!!!!

 

 

 

 

Well, first to comment on what Stats said, that TPM's son, who was an eventual second-rounder, wasn't as "dominant" in h.s.  That's just an inane comment.

 

DK sounds like Bum, Jr.s teammate in h.s. who threw upper 80's to near 90, RHP 6'4".  Not a lot of K's but a great sinker and a lot of low pitch-count games.  Drafted out of h.s. way ahead of Bum, Jr. who had a better year.  Why?  Well, size, but also because he had that good stuff with a sinker. 

 

bball man, you confuse velocity with strikeouts.  Yes, Bum, Jr. had velocity but you don't get strikeouts simply pumping fastballs for strikes.  You work the corners, you throw the curve, you pitch up, down, in and out.. like I said before.  This is called pitching, not throwing.

 

(BTW bballman, there is no such thing as a "Waste" pitch.  Every pitch has a purpose, and you don't have to always throw strikes to get a strikeout.  You make your strikes look like balls and your balls look like strikes.  Pumping 3-4 fastballs for a strike to get a strikeout is a pretty rare thing.)

 

The reason Bum, Jr. got a lot of strikeouts and had some walks as well is because he was PITCHING.

Originally Posted by TPM:

 As I said all pitchers are different (ours sound like they use the same stuff).  Son can hit 95,96 (an hit over 90 late in HS), but when the velo goes up he is a bit out of control, so it all comes to execution while changing speeds but that can add up on pitch counts, so the sinker becomes a more valuable pitch for him for grounders, which means the hitter has got to hit to contact, but it has to be weak and produce less pitches which means more innings as a late reliever. As a starter it means more innings after 5 the fifth.

 

I happen to believe much the same way, so why is it that so many are like BUM who seem to believe as long as the P is getting K’s, number of pitches doesn’t matter.

I understand that Bum, but it's usually the harder throwing guys who get the most K's.  My son is mid to upper 80's and works the zone as well.  Not a lot of walks, but because he isn't a burner (yet ), he's not a huge K guy.  Same as you said about Jr., just because you get a lot of GBs and contact outs doesn't mean you aren't pitching either.  I think the difference is, if you are pitching for K's, you will need at least 3 pitches to get an out.  If you are pitching for weak contact, you only need one.  Doesn't always work out that way for either pitcher, but overall, the contact leads to lower pitch counts and more innings on the mound.  

 

Don't think I'm saying Jr. is not a pitcher.  To get where he is, regardless of velocity, you have to be able to pitch.  Whatever he has done to this point is obviously working for him.

The number of pitches always matters, but Ks are the single most relevant stat for pitchers, because they're the only method of retiring batters over which the pitcher has direct control.

 

For the rest of this comment assume I will concethreat there are exceptions to every rule, and I'm not going to try to address potential exceptions for the sake of brevity.

 

Every pitcher should always, whether he realizes it or not, prefer throwing a strike that the batter does not make contact with on every pitch.  If the batter never makes contact, the pitcher always wins. Having said that, such perfection is essentially impossible, so understanding your abilities as a pitcher becomes a factor. With the right skill set you can take the Schilling approach, throw strikes on every pitch, tip your cap when they square you up.  Or maybe you only have the talent to be a nibbler but you're better than average at inducing ground balls, and you need to follow the Derek Lowe path. Or maybe you have no idea where the ball is ever going but you have amazing stuff so you go to the Mitch Williams school.  In each of these cases, the pitcher is always better off if the batter never makes contact.  That doesn't change because some types of contact are better to allow than others, and you never pitch with the goal of making sure the hitter makes contact, you pitch with the goal of minimizing the damage caused when the hitter inevitably makes contact.

I agree that the object should always be to not have the hitter make contact, but I am sure you noticed many do make contact.  Two ways contact sometimes isn't made, if the pitcher is too fast and the hitter can't catch up, or the pitcher is too slow and the hitter can't slow down (adjust). 

The only time it will count (the hit) is if it becomes a run and then you get into the ER or UER.  The issue would be how the contact is made and of course you do have to rely on the guys behind you.

 

The higher the pitcher moves up the smaller the zone and strikes become so much more difficult to achieve, that's when the pitches begin to add up even more.More pitches more stress on the arm.  And yes, every organization is concerned about pitch counts, especially to those young guys they have paid millions too. 

 

So much of this is just a moot point, until the pitcher actually reaches the next level.

JMO

 

Actually, most non-contact is not based on velocity but movement (e.g., a tailing fastball, cutter, curve or slider, etc.) and placement, sometimes off the plate, and sometimes on the black when the hitter is set-up, IMHO. 

 

I guess that was what I was trying to point out before but didn't state it well, TPM.  It seems when I advocate K's people assume I'm talking about blowing it by someone with a FB down the heart of the plate.  Not at all.  When a pitcher paints and uses movement to avoid contact, pitch count can rise.

bballman,

 

I think one of the reasons K’s are so highly regarded by so many is there’s a “feeling” or a “mystique” about them that a K is more manly than a GO, and that means the K pitcher is seen as superior in every way.

 

Those of us who’ve seen pitchers have great success without blowing the ball by batters realize there are many ways to have success, and the induction of Maddux and Glavine seem to validate that.

No, it's because the K is the only way the pitcher can retire a hitter by himself (and yes, I realize the catcher is tangentially involved).

Chicks dig the K.  

 

And I don't think one way is better or worse than the other.  Besides the likelyhood that the high K route will lead to higher pitch counts.  Either way, a pitcher needs to go with what works best for him.  There are plenty of HOFers that are in for getting outs any way they can as well as for amassing a ton of Ks.

Except that one way is better.  Hitters reach on Ks and runners advance on Ks far less than on balls in play.

bballman,

 

You’re correct that one way in neither better nor worse than the other, and that’s because all players have different skills and are in different situations.

 

But there is something that always enters the picture but people seem to be afraid to talk about. What a pitcher does when he’s not under the influence and guidance of a team coach is certainly very important because it gives his coaches the skills they can utilize in games. But, if for some reason a pitcher who believes the #1 is his best pitch and a K is his best option for success, but his coach or the guy calling the pitches thinks differently if he doesn’t go with what the coach determines is best, that pitcher ain’t gonna be getting’ a lot of mound time for that coach.

 

IOW, yes the pitcher is eventually the one who has to execute any pitch, there is a pretty substantial percentage of amateur pitchers who don’t have the authority to make the choice at will. What I’m saying is, a lot of the success or failure of a pitcher doesn’t really come from his great skill and knowledge.

I find it amusing that there are people who think Ks are worse than other outs for hitters while simultaneously thinking that they aren't better for pitchers.

 

For hitters who strike out less than 30-40% of the time, Ks are only slightly worse than other outs inherently, and given the large correlation between offensive ability an Ks for hitters Ks are actually a marker of success for a lot of hitters.

 

For pitchers, Ks are always better than allowing the ball to be put into play.  That's not the same thing as saying every pitcher should try to strike everyone out, but no pitcher should every be trying to allow contact, they should be looking to minimize contact within the context of the pitching skills they possess.  

 

It's counterintuitive, but pitching Ks and batting Ks both tend to be markers of success.

bballman chicks and scouts love the K.  How many ground ball pitchers get drafted?  None. They become ground ball pitchers in pro ball when they don't have the stuff for K's.  K's get everyones attention.

 

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that when a pitcher strikes out a batter, the chances are zero that he will reach base and when a batter puts a ball into play the chances that the batter will reach are much higher.  That is pretty obvious to everyone.  The only thing that is being discussed is that the chance you will have higher pitch counts is higher with a lot of strike outs.  Is the trade off worth it?  Possibly.  Depends on the pitcher.

 

I don't really see how Ks can be a marker of success for a hitter.  What the heck are you talking about there?  

Not entirely true.  I believe TPM stated her son was a GB pitcher and he got drafted.

He got drafted because has mid-to-upper 90's.  I believe got a high percentage of K's in college.

 

High school pitchers that are dominate and want to go to the next level K people.  This indicates velocity and pitchability.   It all changes in college with metal bats and dive hitters.  I realized a pattern experienced by Bum, Jr.  He had only a so-so college career but was dominate again in the summer collegiate leauges.  I realized college is full of "dive" hitters and in the college season he'd give up cheap hits that in the college summer (wood bat) leagues and pros are K's, popups, or broken bats.

 

I started to dislike college baseball when I saw him give an opposite-field HR to a 5'6" second baseman off the end of the bat.  College nearly ruined him, baseball-wise.  Thank God he pitched a majority of his innings in the summer against wood. 

 

The ground ball pitcher (and junk pitchers) actually has more success than K-type pitchers in college. 

 

You get K's by pitching and missing bats, not blowing it past people.  Even in h.s., most of the hitters could time Bum, Jr. but the velocity and movement were such that they would swing at a spot and the ball wasn't there at the point of contact.  H.S. hitters have holes in their swings and son would exploit them.  If you're not missing bats in h.s. you either don't have the velocity or you're doing something wrong, IMHO.

 

At the pro level, there are no holes in swings.  You better hit your spots or ride the Greyhound back home.  How are you going to hit spots unless you've got pinpoint control?  Advantage K-type pitchers in pros.

 

Ks are positively correlated with offensive performance up to a breaking point where they begin to be detrimental.  At the pro level, that's in the neighborhood of 30%, though I haven't looked it up recently.  Think Juan Pierre vs Adam Dunn, for an example of what I'm talking about.

 

If all you had to go on for pitchers was K/9, you should always choose the highest K/9.  For hitters, again if it was all you had to go on, you shouldn't choose the lowest K/9, you should choose guys around the breaking point for your level, or slightly below it.