Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Two points: one, you at first presented your "instincts" about Maddux as if they were facts you already knew. Read the language of your post.

Two, Kershaw's BABIP is 27 points below the ML average for his career. What's your take on that which obviously can't be explained by NL alone?

Again, you conflating. The facts I already know are that a pitcher's BABIP regresses to the mean and each pitcher has little to no control over their values. What I was wrong about was that Maddux's values were 9 points below league average. But that still doesn't mean he is able to control his BABIP. If you look up his teammates, they too all beat the league average BABIP. In other words, the ballpark, pitching in the NL, and the defense behind him was responsible for most, if not all, of his ability to beat it.

As far as Kershaw goes, it appears to be the same thing. I just looked up 5 or 6 of his teammates over the years in LA to check their BABIP values. Grienke, Urias, Buehler, Jansen, Baez, all of them are 20 to 40 points below league average BABIP. Again, this means it is their defense, the fact that they all pitch in the NL, and the ballpark that account for the differences, not some magical ability that Kershaw possesses.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Again, you conflating. The facts I already know are that a pitcher's BABIP regresses to the mean and each pitcher has little to no control over their values. What I was wrong about was that Maddux's values were 9 points below league average. But that still doesn't mean he is able to control his BABIP. If you look up his teammates, they too all beat the league average BABIP. In other words, the ballpark, pitching in the NL, and the defense behind him was responsible for most, if not all, of his ability to beat it.

As far as Kershaw goes, it appears to be the same thing. I just looked up 5 or 6 of his teammates over the years in LA to check their BABIP values. Grienke, Urias, Buehler, Jansen, Baez, all of them are 20 to 40 points below league average BABIP. Again, this means it is their defense, the fact that they all pitch in the NL, and the ballpark that account for the differences, not some magical ability that Kershaw possesses.

Is it also the case that pitchers regress to the mean in extra base hits and home runs against?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is it also the case that pitchers regress to the mean in extra base hits and home runs against?

No. They will regress to their own individual expected means, but not to the league averages. Bad pitchers serve up more meatballs than good pitchers. This is not contradictory to the discussion above.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

No. They will regress to their own individual expected means, but not to the league averages. Bad pitchers serve up more meatballs than good pitchers. This is not contradictory to the discussion above.

If a pitcher like Maddux was better at keeping the ball in the park, and/or could limit extra base hits better, then that seems at least some evidence he could in fact control where/how hard the ball was hit against him, even if not reflected in batting average itself. Do you agree?

Take a hypothetical at bat, a bad pitcher hangs a curve and the batter hits it over the wall. Maddux paints the corner with a slider and the batter gets a bloop single off the end of the bat. Same BABIP but different (in most cases) outcome.

[Bigdaddy]

In Sandy's own words:

"I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it."


And the whole idea of 'weak contact' is within the pitcher's control - Are they consistently ahead or behind in the count: are they grooving a ball down the middle of the plate, or painting the corners; are they disrupting a batter's timing??? Great pitchers consistently pitch ahead in the count, paint the corners and keep batters off balance - and induce weak contact.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

In Sandy's own words:

"I became a good pitcher when I stopped trying to make them miss the ball and started trying to make them hit it."

That's also when his BB/9 rate fell though. And when his strike zone grew.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If a pitcher like Maddux was better at keeping the ball in the park, and/or could limit extra base hits better, then that seems at least some evidence he could in fact control where/how hard the ball was hit against him, even if not reflected in batting average itself. Do you agree?

Take a hypothetical at bat, a bad pitcher hangs a curve and the batter hits it over the wall. Maddux paints the corner with a slider and the batter gets a bloop single off the end of the bat. Same BABIP but different (in most cases) outcome.

I don't know about doubles and triples. I missed that part of your question. I'd have to look at that. My gut would tell me that they likely regress. But HR rates definitely do not regress to league averages.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't know about doubles and triples. I missed that part of your question. I'd have to look at that. My gut would tell me that they likely regress. But HR rates definitely do not regress to league averages.

What we need, if it doesn't already exist, is a slugging average for balls in play stat.

On plain old SLG against, Maddux over his career was some 55 points below the average. That sounds meaningful? Especially since his BA against was 14 points better than average. A non-statistician would conclude from that he was limiting extra base hits pretty well.

[AndrewJerome]

Great stuff guys. This is a fun thread.

A few things:

Snowman, if that model could be created it would be pretty cool. Obviously it would take a lot of work. I have a practical question. Sorry, I don’t know all the terminology, and I really have no idea how a model like that works. If that model were to be created, how would information get processed through the model? For say 1953 or whatever year, would every stat for that year have to be manually input into the model?

The idea of how athletes evolve is interesting. Of course humans have slowly gotten bigger, faster, stronger etc over the past 130 years. However, for quality of play in baseball, I’m not sure it is as simple as every year we go forward the quality of play gets a little better. Obviously, there have been social changes that impact this greatly. Quality of play clearly went down during the war years of the early 1940s, and clearly went up in the late 1940s with integration. This is only a guess, but it seems to me, just brainstorming, that quality of play seems especially strong in the 1950s / early 1960s, and also from the late 1980s to around 2000. A high number of very elite players entered MLB in the 1950s. Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Jackie Robinson, Frank Robinson, Snider, Berra, Campanella, Banks, Matthews, Koufax, Gibson etc. The upper tier HOFers are seemingly endless for the 1950s and moving to the 1960s for the end of their careers. But it seems like there were far less upper tier HOFers starting out in the 1960s. Brock, Rose, Morgan types are not nearly as impressive as the 1950s list. Similarly, upper tier HOFers starting out near 1970 and early to mid 1980s are not nearly as impressive as the 1950s list. 1970s you have Reggie, Schmidt, Brett, early to mid 1980s you have Rickey Henderson, Ripken, etc. but no where near the top end talent starting out in the 1950s. But then in the mid to late 1980s you add Bonds, Clemens, Griffey, Randy Johnson, Maddux, Pedro, Arod, Jeter, Frank Thomas etc., just a lot of top tier HOFers and it would seem like very high level of play. I guess my question is how much impact do high end HOFers have on the level of play for a time period? The flip side of the argument would be that the “average” type players increased in skill greatly over time, and the “average” players in the league getting better over time could be more impactful than the amount of top end talent at any one time. Anyway, fun stuff to think about.

Finally, my understanding is that a high or low BABIP generally is a lucky/unlucky stat. An unusually high (and out of line) BABIP for a pitcher would entail bad luck where a bunch of line drives and grounders happen to get hits. And an unusually low BABIP for a pitcher would be good luck where line drives seem to be hit right at guys etc. How much of BABIP is “good situational pitching” or “good situational defense”? Who knows. But this being said, Maddux is a fascinating pitcher. His control is obviously elite and close to best of all time for control. And not just throwing strikes, but the ability to nibble at the edges of the strike zone. This makes it very hard to make solid contact and should equate to a lower BABIP. That’s just the eye test from watching him. Strikes that are on the corners are difficult to hit hard. It you rarely throw a meat ball and get lots of strikes on the corners then you’d think stats should follow the eye test, just because Maddux was so good with his control.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Again, you conflating. The facts I already know are that a pitcher's BABIP regresses to the mean and each pitcher has little to no control over their values. What I was wrong about was that Maddux's values were 9 points below league average. But that still doesn't mean he is able to control his BABIP. If you look up his teammates, they too all beat the league average BABIP. In other words, the ballpark, pitching in the NL, and the defense behind him was responsible for most, if not all, of his ability to beat it.

As far as Kershaw goes, it appears to be the same thing. I just looked up 5 or 6 of his teammates over the years in LA to check their BABIP values. Grienke, Urias, Buehler, Jansen, Baez, all of them are 20 to 40 points below league average BABIP. Again, this means it is their defense, the fact that they all pitch in the NL, and the ballpark that account for the differences, not some magical ability that Kershaw possesses.

Back to the original Grove vs. Koufax line, can you please use your statistics to explain Koufax's widely disparate home vs. away records??

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Back to the original Grove vs. Koufax line, can you please use your statistics to explain Koufax's widely disparate home vs. away records??

His away numbers are worse, for sure, but I don't know that I'd call them "widely disparate". There's an expected disparity for all pitchers when pitching at home and on the road. Part of the "home field advantage" in baseball comes from an umpire's subconscious bias in calling balls and strikes, just like in basketball with fouls. Even when they are trying their best to be neutral, it is somehow still human nature to call the games more favorably for the home team than the away team. The effect is small, but measurable over the course of a career. When you look at Koufax's career Home vs Away numbers, they don't really look all that out of line to me when you consider the fact that he pitched in a pitcher's park. Here's what I see. Note he had almost identical IPs for both. Also, ERA values are much more reliable over the course of a career with 1,000+ IP, so it's fair to look at those in the context of a career of this length, whereas it wouldn't be from season to season.

Home IP: 1158.0
Away IP: 1166.1

ERA Home: 2.48
ERA Away: 3.04

BB/9 Home: 2.9
BB/9 Away: 3.4

K/9 Home: 9.5
K/9 Away: 9.1

WHIP Home: 1.045
WHIP Away: 1.167

HR% Home: 2.2%
HR% Away: 2.1%

BABIP Home: 0.252
BABIP Away: 0.266

When I look at those numbers, the most interesting difference to me is the BB/9 rate. That's a significant gap, and one that definitely has an impact on his WHIP delta. Why was he walking more batters outside of LA? That's not a park effect. Some small disparity exists from umpire subconscious bias as I mentioned, but not that much, I wouldn't think. The differences in BABIP are probalby entirely explainable through park differences and his BB/9 & K/9 rates. I don't think there's much delta attributable to luck over that sample size, and the delta is narrow enough that it is within expectation. There is an expectation also though of a player's general discomfort level when on the road. People just perform better at home. I definitely acknowledge he was better at home than on the road, but I don't see anything that looks wildly out of line with expectations. The BB/9 rate is the most interesting part to me though. Pitching in Dodger stadium definitely helped too.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

His away numbers are worse, for sure, but I don't know that I'd call them "widely disparate". There's an expected disparity for all pitchers when pitching at home and on the road. Part of the "home field advantage" in baseball comes from an umpire's subconscious bias in calling balls and strikes, just like in basketball with fouls. Even when they are trying their best to be neutral, it is somehow still human nature to call the games more favorably for the home team than the away team. The effect is small, but measurable over the course of a career. When you look at Koufax's career Home vs Away numbers, they don't really look all that out of line to me when you consider the fact that he pitched in a pitcher's park. Here's what I see. Note he had almost identical IPs for both. Also, ERA values are much more reliable over the course of a career with 1,000+ IP, so it's fair to look at those in the context of a career of this length, whereas it wouldn't be from season to season.

Home IP: 1158.0
Away IP: 1166.1

ERA Home: 2.48
ERA Away: 3.04

BB/9 Home: 2.9
BB/9 Away: 3.4

K/9 Home: 9.5
K/9 Away: 9.1

WHIP Home: 1.045
WHIP Away: 1.167

HR% Home: 2.2%
HR% Away: 2.1%

BABIP Home: 0.252
BABIP Away: 0.266

When I look at those numbers, the most interesting difference to me is the BB/9 rate. That's a significant gap, and one that definitely has an impact on his WHIP delta. Why was he walking more batters outside of LA? That's not a park effect. Some small disparity exists from umpire subconscious bias as I mentioned, but not that much, I wouldn't think. The differences in BABIP are probalby entirely explainable through park differences and his BB/9 & K/9 rates. I don't think there's much delta attributable to luck over that sample size, and the delta is narrow enough that it is within expectation. There is an expectation also though of a player's general discomfort level when on the road. People just perform better at home. I definitely acknowledge he was better at home than on the road, but I don't see anything that looks wildly out of line with expectations. The BB/9 rate is the most interesting part to me though. Pitching in Dodger stadium definitely helped too.

If you know you are a little more hittable away from your home park, might you not be inclined to nibble a bit more?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Still interested in your take on Maddux having a slugging average against 55 points below average.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Still interested in your take on Maddux having a slugging average against 55 points below average.

Don't all good pitchers have below average slugging against though?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Don't all good pitchers have below average slugging against though?

I don't know, but if that's the case, doesn't that suggest a problem with your thesis (as I understood it) that for balls in play, all pitchers are pretty much the same and variances are just dumb luck (random) that will even out? And therefore it was a myth that some pitchers were better at pitching to contact.

So what's a guy like Maddux who doesn't strike out many batters doing with such a low SLG against? It seems meaningful? And walks don't come into the equation, so he isn't keeping SLG down by his lack of walks. That can only mean, I think, it has a lot to do with batters not getting as many extra base hits against him, which if true seems contrary to the thesis about pitchers not controlling where the ball goes after it leaves the bat.

BTW this is what you said that makes me think I am correctly characterizing your thesis:
The extent to which pitchers actually have this ability (referring to the ability to control the flight of batted balls) is miniscule at best. It's probably at least an order of magnitude less than people are thinking of when they make that claim. Maddux rarely walked hitters. He led the league in BB/9 9 times, and was probably in the top 3 15 times or more. This was his superpower.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Part of the "home field advantage" in baseball comes from an umpire's subconscious bias in calling balls and strikes, just like in basketball with fouls. Even when they are trying their best to be neutral, it is somehow still human nature to call the games more favorably for the home team than the away team. The effect is small, but measurable over the course of a career.

I would think an ump's bias would be such a small part, at best, of the home field advantage. There are many factors which would make a player better at home than on the road. Such as not being tired from traveling or from time change, being able to be at their houses and having those comforts of friends, family, pets, familiar surroundings, being before the home crowd and playing at a stadium they spent 1/2 of the season. To only mention ump bias, when there are other factors which obviously influence home field advantage more, is misleading.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I would think an ump's bias would be such a small part, at best, of the home field advantage. There are many factors which would make a player better at home than on the road. Such as not being tired from traveling or from time change, being able to be at their houses and having those comforts of friends, family, pets, familiar surroundings, being before the home crowd and playing at a stadium they spent 1/2 of the season. To only mention ump bias, when there are other factors which obviously influence home field advantage more, is misleading.

And if the talk of potentially one day having the balls and strikes called by machine ever comes to pass, that should significantly reduce the effect of whatever umpire bias there might actually be.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

And if the talk of potentially one day having the balls and strikes called by machine ever comes to pass, that should significantly reduce the effect of whatever umpire bias there might actually be.

The home team that controlled the machine would just program the bias in.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The home team that controlled the machine would just program the bias in.

LOL. Should have figured you'd be the first one to go there.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

His away numbers are worse, for sure, but I don't know that I'd call them "widely disparate". There's an expected disparity for all pitchers when pitching at home and on the road. Part of the "home field advantage" in baseball comes from an umpire's subconscious bias in calling balls and strikes, just like in basketball with fouls. Even when they are trying their best to be neutral, it is somehow still human nature to call the games more favorably for the home team than the away team. The effect is small, but measurable over the course of a career. When you look at Koufax's career Home vs Away numbers, they don't really look all that out of line to me when you consider the fact that he pitched in a pitcher's park. Here's what I see. Note he had almost identical IPs for both. Also, ERA values are much more reliable over the course of a career with 1,000+ IP, so it's fair to look at those in the context of a career of this length, whereas it wouldn't be from season to season.

Home IP: 1158.0
Away IP: 1166.1

ERA Home: 2.48
ERA Away: 3.04

BB/9 Home: 2.9
BB/9 Away: 3.4

K/9 Home: 9.5
K/9 Away: 9.1

WHIP Home: 1.045
WHIP Away: 1.167

HR% Home: 2.2%
HR% Away: 2.1%

BABIP Home: 0.252
BABIP Away: 0.266

When I look at those numbers, the most interesting difference to me is the BB/9 rate. That's a significant gap, and one that definitely has an impact on his WHIP delta. Why was he walking more batters outside of LA? That's not a park effect. Some small disparity exists from umpire subconscious bias as I mentioned, but not that much, I wouldn't think. The differences in BABIP are probalby entirely explainable through park differences and his BB/9 & K/9 rates. I don't think there's much delta attributable to luck over that sample size, and the delta is narrow enough that it is within expectation. There is an expectation also though of a player's general discomfort level when on the road. People just perform better at home. I definitely acknowledge he was better at home than on the road, but I don't see anything that looks wildly out of line with expectations. The BB/9 rate is the most interesting part to me though. Pitching in Dodger stadium definitely helped too.

In general, when referring to Koufax's disparate splits, people are usually referring to his numbers from 1962-66, the years that got him in the Hall and in which he pitched in Dodger Stadium. And that's because his splits those years (as a whole - there was one where they were pretty equal) are so different.

However, there's more to it than even that. And that's because in the LA years prior (1958-1961), he pitched in a home park that was absolutely horrendous for lefties. That's why he had a 4.33 ERA there. He also had a 4.04 ERA in Brooklyn. However, it was in those two ballparks where his lack of control was also prominently on display - 1.95 K/BB in LA at the Coliseum and 2.20 at Ebbets.

So what does all that mean? Well, it means that Sandy's unreal numbers at Dodger Stadium overwhelm the 7 years of mediocre (or worse) numbers in his other two home stadiums but raising them up enough to make it LOOK like there wasn't huge splits for him.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

In general, when referring to Koufax's disparate splits, people are usually referring to his numbers from 1962-66, the years that got him in the Hall and in which he pitched in Dodger Stadium. And that's because his splits those years (as a whole - there was one where they were pretty equal) are so different.

However, there's more to it than even that. And that's because in the LA years prior (1958-1961), he pitched in a home park that was absolutely horrendous for lefties. That's why he had a 4.33 ERA there. He also had a 4.04 ERA in Brooklyn. However, it was in those two ballparks where his lack of control was also prominently on display - 1.95 K/BB in LA at the Coliseum and 2.20 at Ebbets.

So what does all that mean? Well, it means that Sandy's unreal numbers at Dodger Stadium overwhelm the 7 years of mediocre (or worse) numbers in his other two home stadiums but raising them up enough to make it LOOK like there wasn't huge splits for him.

I believe there's a name for this phenomenon, when aggregate data shows one thing but breaking it down into distinct constituent parts (here, the Coliseum vs. the other home parks) shows something else. Simpson's Paradox maybe? Or it's something like it anyhow.