FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Even then, GB% assumes all FBs are equal. Wagner’s a good example, when he’s at his best his GB% is very low, but his IFFB/FB rate is pretty spectacular. Somebody needs to come up with a good number that composites GB/FB with LD% and IFFB rates.

    Comment by deadpool — April 9, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

  2. I prefer GB-FB per contacted ball. That basically treats LD as if they are half GB, half FB. So, these are all equivalent:

    GB FB LD
    60 30 10
    55 25 20
    50 20 30

    Comment by tangotiger — April 9, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

  3. crazy stuff going on with Rick Porcello’s pitch f/x today in Detroit, including a 97 mph fastball with 18″ of break and 42″ pfx…check it out

    Comment by Joe — April 9, 2010 @ 1:55 pm

  4. With all due respect – why is it desirable to view a 60/30/10 split as equal to a 50/20/30 ?

    Aren’t those very different pitcher profiles (given sufficient sample size)?

    Aren’t LDs definitively the most damaging type of contact?

    Sincerely curious.

    Comment by Robin — April 9, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

  5. The question is purely on how to classify a pitcher as a GB or FB pitcher. There are no “LD” pitchers in MLB, as virtually all of them have a LD rate allowed of beween 17% and 23%. Basically, it’s impossible to sustain an LD rate higher than that (you’ll be out of baseball) or lower than that (hitters want to drive the ball to the gap, so they’ll adjust).

    Given that the LD rate settles at 20% for virtually all pitchers, the focus is therefore on the GB and FB. And if you have a pitcher that is 60/30/10, and we know his LD is going to settle in at 20%, then the question is: where are his GB and FB numbers going to settle?

    And I’m suggesting that a 60/30/10 pitcher will settle at 55/25/20. That is, he’ll maintain the GB-FB differential, rather than maintain the 60/30 ratio.

    Which is also Dave’s point here.

    Comment by tangotiger — April 9, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

  6. At one point, the rating for pitchers that tells us how hard they are getting hit will be calculated by actually measuring the velocity and trajectory of batted balls. Until then, does anyone know how far on the horizon will any kind of qualitative tag be added to batted ball stats? I’ve seen some stuff on’s gameday e.g. “sharp line drive”, “soft ground ball” but I haven’t seen that information work its way in the B-R’s of the world.

    Comment by LibertyBoy — April 9, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

  7. I think GB% is fine, since if you really want an overall measure of how hard a pitcher is getting hit, you might as well use xFIP, since not getting hit at all is a rather big part of how hard he’s being hit. GB% is good for analyzing a subset of a pitchers skillset, especially since for most mortals, a high K% means a low GB%. The rare guy who combines high K% with high GB% is special.

    I wonder about IFF%. Is that consistent year-to-year for guys? Or are the numbers just too small to get a clear picture. I’m going to need to look.

    Comment by JMHawkins — April 9, 2010 @ 5:43 pm

  8. Instead of treating line drives as 50% GB and 50% FB, why not distribute them according to a pitcher’s GB/FB ratio?

    For example, let’s say a pitcher’s GB:FB is 2:1 gives up 10 more LD than he “should have”. Instead of putting 5 of the LDs as GBs and 5 of them as FBs, put 6.67 of them as GBs and 3.33 of them as FBs.

    So, if you have a pitcher who’s 60/30/10 but bound to settle at 20 LDs instead of 10, I say you award him 53.33/26.67/20.

    Comment by catbaby — June 29, 2010 @ 11:33 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.201 Powered by WordPress