Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Home run rates definitely account for some significant portion of slugging deltas between pitchers. And any pitcher can attempt to encourage fly balls vs ground balls simply by aiming higher or lower in the strike zone, or with breaking balls. But there's a trade off between the two, as ground balls drop in for hits at a slightly higher percentage but fly balls drop in for extra base hits at a higher rate despite being caught for outs more often (not to mention more home runs). I suspect this is probably what's responsible for any amount of control a pitcher has over their BABIP, however small that is. But they still have no control over how often those fly balls drop in for hits or how often those ground balls squeeze through gaps or become infield hits, etc. My understanding is that the tradeoff effectively balances itself out though in the grand scheme of things (e.g., run production), but I'd have to do more research.

I think there's a parallel here on the offensive side in terms of game theory strategy that we're all seeing across the league as batting averages drop but are traded off for more home runs.

Exactly how this balance effects BABIP values, you could figure out. But fly ball vs ground ball rates is almost certainly the best predictor of it. This is why I prefer using SIERA for evaluating pitchers. However, we don't have the data needed to calculate it for the prior generations of pitchers unfortunately. But for today, it's the best ERA statistic that I'm aware of, and one of the metrics I use in my models. It adjusts for fly ball and ground ball rates.

[Peter_Spaeth]

55 points difference in SLG, over a career, seems to me (admittedly without research) to reflect more than just being better at keeping down HR. But even if that's a complete explainer, it still supports my thesis that some pitchers are more difficult to hit productively even if the aggregate amount of CONTACT tends to be the same across the spectrum.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

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

Yup. Machine just does what someone tells it to do. Which is why Captain Kirk was able to prevail in the Star Fleet Academy training simulation that was "impossible" to win and that had defeated everyone else: he reprogrammed the computer.

And I doubt a computer is going to pass the Turing Test any time soon.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yup. Machine just does what someone tells it to do. Which is why Captain Kirk was able to prevail in the Star Fleet Academy training simulation that was "impossible" to win and that had defeated everyone else: he reprogrammed the computer.

And I doubt a computer is going to pass the Turing Test any time soon.

It would be easy to code and calibrate machines and have the unit secure and tamper-proof, just like a safe. They could be checked and tested between, and maybe even during, each game. That is not an issue.

[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.