| RotoGuru Baseball Forum View the Forum Registry |
| |
| 0 |
Subject: 2001 Pitching Improved Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Wed, Apr 25, 10:42 Since I know many of you don't regular read the blurbs, I thought I'd repeat an interesting discovery I reported this morning: _______________________ With the revisions in the SWP formula this year, it has seemed like pitching points are down. But so far, that hasn't been the case. Through last night's games, the average pitching SWPs per game (both teams combined) has been 126.3, compared to only 121.6 through the same date last season. So total pitching points have actually increased by almost 4% so far. How can that be? The points for strikeouts were reduced from 5 to 3. Granted, there is no longer a +10 point credit for pickoffs - but I doubt if there were enough pickoffs to make much of a difference. I assume that pitching has been better in general, perhaps related to the high strike. I don't have any stats to support this, however; does anyone else have any overall statistical comparisons? (I think a valid comparison needs to compare this year's stats to last year though the same date, since pitching generally tends to improve after April. For example, while the average pitching SWP per game was 121.6 at this time last year, for the full season it increased to 129.7. So comparing this year's April stats to last year's full season stats would probably be misleading.) Although total pitching points are up, the points for the top pitching performances are down, however. So far, there have been 84 individual pitching performances of 100 SWP or more. That represents 14.4% of all games started. Last year, though the same date, the comparable percentage was 17%. And this year, the average 3-digit score is 123.3 SWP, vs. 124.9 at the same point last year. So while pitching has scored better overall, the top performances have been down vs. last year. It will be interesting to see whether those trends continue as the season progresses. At the other extreme, there have only been 8 pitching games of -100 SWP or worse this year. (Three of those occurred on one day - April 4th.) Last year, by April 24th we had 16 games in negative triple-digit territory. Perhaps that is part of the explanation for this year's general improvement. __________________________ As a related comparison, I looked at Swirve pitching points, since that formula has not changed. Average Swirve pitching points per game have increased 7.7% vs. the same period last year. The Swirve point formula is more generous (less of a deduction for hits and ER), so rather than looking at 100+ SvP games, I used a 120 SvP standard for a "stud performance" comparison. This year, there have been 98 so far, representing 16.8% of all starts. Last year's comparable percentage was only 13.1%. So this does seem to confirm a general improvement in pitching stats so far this season. | ||||||
| 1 | biliruben Sustainer ID: 3502218 Wed, Apr 25, 10:48 | The lack of a blown-save penalty should also be a factor. | |||||
| 2 | Sludge Donor ID: 1440310 Wed, Apr 25, 10:54 |
Guru - Perhaps run last year's and this year's stats through the formula from last year. Then repeat it for this year's swp formula. If you want statistical proof that they're different, run a two-sample test. | |||||
| 3 | VIDevilRays Leader ID: 0502611 Wed, Apr 25, 10:54 | Exactly what I was going to add biliruben. That minus 30 was huge! | |||||
| 4 | Motley Crue Donor ID: 4633167 Wed, Apr 25, 11:04 |
I agree with bilirben. That has to be it. But what Guru says about the number of high quality starts does indicate that pitching this year has been better so far. It would have to be the high strike zone. That is the only factor that I can see that changed from last year to this year that could have such a large impact on pitching quality. Think about what could cause this for a second. Weather? It could have an effect, but it has not been abnormally different from last year at this time. Pitching Depth? I would tend to say no, also, since that should be relatively constant from one year to the next. Worse hitters? Same answer as for the pitching depth question. Injuries? This could be it, too. I can't remember who was hurt offhand this time last season, though, can you? What does everyone else think? | |||||
| 5 | Ref ID: 1442849 Wed, Apr 25, 11:11 | I heard a pitcher say last month that the way to improve the game was to raise the mound and ban and test for steroids. | |||||
| 6 | Guru ID: 330592710 Wed, Apr 25, 11:22 |
Sludge - if I had the detail stats for last year, I'd have done that. But all I have is the daily SWP totals. That's why I asked if anyone else had the stats. biliruben - good point on the blown saves. I forgot that. That certainly accounts for some of it. The best apples-to-apples comparison I have is the Swirve points, as that formula hasn't changed. Since it shows total pitching points are up by 7.7%, I infer that the 4% improvement in SWP is attributable to a larger general improvement, partially offset by the net scoring changes. I suspect the strikeout change overwhelms the blown save impact. Other than Ks, pickoffs, and BS, were there other SW formula changes for pitchers? For some reason, I can't seem to find last year's formula. | |||||
| 7 | steve houpt ID: 53340234 Wed, Apr 25, 11:48 |
I've been tracking (just starters). 2000 ALL - 2001 thru 4/20 ERA____ 4.87 - 4.54 WIN %__ 34.6 - 35.0 LOSS %_ 35.2 - 35.2 No DEC_ 30.2 - 29.8 IP/GS__ 5.92 - 5.86 H/GS___ 6.30 - 5.97 BB/GS__ 2.35 - 2.12 KO/GS__ 4.09 - 4.31 SWP/GS_ 30.9 - 36.0 (this years formula) Largest change, K/BB ratio has gone from 1.74 to 2.03, which seems to have reduced hits (balls in play) and ERA. Still early though. | |||||
| 8 | Sludge Donor ID: 1440310 Wed, Apr 25, 11:52 | Sorry, Guru. I thought you were asking for an analysis, not the actual numbers themselves. | |||||
| 9 | Valkyrie Leader ID: 9047923 Wed, Apr 25, 12:10 | I think that the reduction in the number of walks and probably the psychological impact of the "high strike zone" has been a much larger factor than the scoring change. In Sandbox early hitters results are down about 12% accross the board. Unfortunately early sandbox pitching results are not very meaningful but they too are down about 5% from last year. Essentially Sandbox scoring has stayed the same. I think the hitters are just off to a slow start this year. Sorry I don't follow SW stats as closely. | |||||
| 10 | Perm Dude Donor ID: 582521316 Wed, Apr 25, 12:14 |
Valkyrie brings up an interesting point. Are hitting figures correspondingly down? Or is there points inflation going on? pd | |||||
| 11 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 1832399 Wed, Apr 25, 12:18 | I've definately noticed a difference. I remember that early on last year, especially the first month, quality starts were so hard to predict, they seemed random. This year, assuming the same thing would happen until it got a little warmer and some pitchers finally got their control down, I loaded up on closers, using to a wait and see approach on which starters to grab. I fell so far behind everone else in my division who were getting points by the ton from players like Russ and Ramon Ortiz and Hideo Nomo! I'm not going to speculate on the reasons, but there's no question there's a huge difference. | |||||
| 12 | Madman ID: 29246911 Wed, Apr 25, 13:37 |
I've been trying to track pitching stats this year, as well. I've got (almost) complete starting pitching data from this year, and a variety of stats from last year. However, I've been rather busy the last couple of days, and on top of that, ESPN still hasn't settled on a format for their boxscores . . . I'll try to post some "houpt-like" data later tonight or tomorrow. Suffice it to say that SW scoring is definitely up. Exactly how much of it is related to the new strike zone? I dunno. On average, starters have thrown 62.4% of their pitches for strikes this year. A rather remarkable percentage, I think. But let me run some data checks, and also see if I can't go back and run my programs to have them pull similar strike% data for 2000 . . . | |||||
| 13 | Craig ID: 23443311 Wed, Apr 25, 13:42 | I may be mistaken, but I thought there was a -5 for wild pitches, I can't confirm that though... | |||||
| 14 | Guru ID: 330592710 Wed, Apr 25, 14:40 |
No, there was no charge last year for wild pitches. BTW, although ESPN has been inconsistent with the boxscore formats linked to its scoreboard page, the "old" format boxscores have continued to be available (in spite of the fact that the links aren't always there). So if you know the old URL format, you don't have to worry about which version is linked to the scoreboard page. For example, here is the link for the "new" version boxscore for last nights Min-Bos game: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?date=20010424&gameId=210424102 And here is the "old format" version: http://espn.go.com/mlb/2001/20010424/boxscore/minbos.html | |||||
| 15 | Madman ID: 29246911 Wed, Apr 25, 14:51 |
Yes -- they've been duplicating boxscores . . . they've flipped between the two almost daily . . . unfortunately, I re-wrote my macros to take advantage of the new format . . . If everything were stable, my new program is more flexible and accurate. . . hahaha. Plus, their problems have been worse than just formatting. Check out Tim Hudson's pitch count on 4/17 for just one example off the top of my head. If that was an accurate pitch count, it would be the most unbreakable record in the history of mankind -- 8 pitches, 29 batters faced. I think they've gotten most of the "major" stats correct. But little stats errors have popped up from time to time. AAARGH. The biggest problem I'm facing right now is that I'm collecting more data this year than last. . . For example, I'm tracking batters faced and strikes this year. To properly evaluate any impact the strike zone may have had, I need this data from last year, as well . . . Which means I have to expand my old program, and re-run for April . . . Not a prospect that I'm looking forward to, I must say . . . Thankfully, ESPN has kept the 2000 boxscores around. | |||||
| 16 | steve houpt ID: 53340234 Wed, Apr 25, 15:22 |
Madman - I have not tracked individual starts. I use CNN League pitching stats as starter which has breakdown of teams and league by totals for starts. Started thru 4/13, added thru 4/20 this week. Was going to track periodically. League stats as starters To get 2000 or 1999 totals, change 2001 in URL, rest stays the same. | |||||
| 17 | biliruben Sustainer ID: 3502218 Wed, Apr 25, 15:36 | I don't know how far you want to go back, madman, but Sean Lehman's site has stats from 1998 back to the dawn of time. ;) | |||||
| 18 | steve houpt ID: 53340234 Mon, Apr 30, 11:48 |
NL starters 6.09 ERA last week [Maddux and Schilling for me - and a home stand for Colorado] has brought MLB's starting pitchers closer to last years numbers. 2000 ALL - 2001 thru 4/21 - thru 4/28 ERA____ 4.87 - 4.54 - 4.77 WIN %__ 34.6 - 35.0 - 35.2 LOSS %_ 35.2 - 35.2 - 36.1 No DEC_ 30.2 - 29.8 - 28.7 IP/GS__ 5.92 - 5.86 - 5.83 H/GS___ 6.30 - 5.97 - 6.12 BB/GS__ 2.35 - 2.12 - 2.15 KO/GS__ 4.09 - 4.31 - 4.24 K/BB___ 1.74 - 2.05 - 1.98 SWP/GS_ 30.9 - 36.0 - 33.2 AL SWP_ 27.8 - 31.9 - 31.5 NL SWP_ 33.7 - 39.7 - 34.6 Still early. | |||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | ||||||
| |||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | |||||||