Cain’s No-No Aftermath
There was no suspense as to whether Matt Cain would be the one to finally take a spot next to Johnny Vander Meer in the baseball record books with a second no-hitter in consecutive starts. Mike Trout banged a single to left on Cain’s third pitch of the night Monday against the Angels. Although Cain and the Giants won, the typically consummate righty was far from his sharpest. Cain walked four Angels and allowed six hits and three runs in just five innings. From perfect to not even quality? More common than you might think.
Cain is far from the first pitcher to struggle following a no-hitter (or a perfect game, but for the sake of this exercise we’ll consider no-hitters as a whole). Of the 163 to throw no-hitters since 1922 (including playoffs), 44 have had an ERA of 5.40 (as Cain did Monday night) or higher.
There’s little to no reason to believe a pitcher should perform particularly better following a no-hitter. Still, it strikes as odd since 2003 — Kevin Millwood‘s no-hitter with the Phillies, to be specific — only four pitchers have given up an ERA lower than their full season mark in the start immediately following the no-hitter. It’s not as if the vagaries of the earned run are necessarily at play here either — just six of these pitchers bested their full season FIP.
In the PITCHf/x era, there have been six no-hitters to produce worse results by ERA than Cain’s start Monday night: Mark Buehrle (2009, perfect game), Francisco Liriano (2011), Johan Santana (2012), Phil Humber (2012), Edwin Jackson (2010) and Carlos Zambrano (2008). If something about a no-hitter — the effort exerted (physically or mentally), the sheer number of pitches thrown, etc. — causes a significant difference in stuff, we could be able to see it through the PITCHf/x data.
The result gap is most significant on the four-seam fastball, specifically looking at contact on pitches in the zone:
About 15% of fastballs in the zone are going from strikes (either called or swinging) to in play for hits or runs. This is a far bigger effect than seen on any other pitch.
Such was the case for Cain on Monday night; 38% of his fastballs were called for strikes during his no-hitter, a number that fell to 23.5% against the Angels. The swinging strike rate on the pitch also fell from 10% to 6%. He gave up hits or runs (including a sac fly) on 11.7% of his fastballs.
There would seem to be a number of possibilities for these changes that don’t involve a depreciation in stuff. Hitters scout in advance so they don’t get no-hit again. Pitchers can’t call upon the well of adrenaline that builds up in a no-hitter situation. Umpires don’t expand the zone as much outside of no-hit situations — just examples.
Either way, it appears that the fastball cannot be counted on to the same level as it usually can — particularly for called strikes — in the second time around following a no-hitter. The result? Johnny Vander Meer could be safe for the foreseeable future.
Jim Breen contributed research used in this piece.
Note: Kevin Millwood’s no-hitter came when he played for the Phillies, not against them. It was against the Giants.
Fixed, thanks.
The Giants bullpen was perfect last night for the last four innings, and that was the reason Cain got his 9th win. One of the benefits of having 3 starters averaging over 7 innings a start (Cain, Bumgarner and Vogelsong) is the health of the bullpen, and the Giants ‘pen has been very good all year long.
I have no idea what that graph is supposed to represent.
“As a whole, the group has allowed 70 earned runs in ”
In what? THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING ME!
Major issues with the post editor last night. Apologies.
Hmm interesting, I was having this very thought last night as I made the obvious decision to start Cain, “I wonder how PG/NH pitchers perform in the following start?” Good article, thanks Jack.
The concept of “adrenaline” and it’s effect on subsequent performance might be in the mix, I think.
Johan Santa strikes again!
I’d be curious to see how they fare after a PG/NO as compared to how they perform after an outing where they threw a similar number of pitches. Seems to be like that might isolate the difference between a guy just being worn down from a high pitch count vs the ancillary issues surrounding throwing a PG/NO that impact a pitcher the next time out (media, etc…)
Observing that the 4-seam fastball gets poorer results in the start after the no-hitter than it did in the no hitter tells us nothing interesting or useful. No-hitters are samples of extremely positive results for the pitcher, while for all we know the start afterward is just like any other random start; the “Follow-Ups” chart above may mimic the average baseline of pitchers in this sample. Do the same research for X pitch type compared to the Nth start before/after the no hitter and you may find similar results.
I totally agree with this point. Why do people who get super-lucky and draw an inside straight wind up with lousier hands the next time? Maybe because you’ve cherry-picked the luckiest outcome possible?
I also agree with the poster who said it was hard to understand the points made about the graph. In any case, I’d rather see a comparison of pitch quality (speed, movement, location) than pitch outcome. We already know it wasn’t another no-hitter.
I have often wondered if pitchers perform worse than usual after an outstanding performance where they pitched longer than usual. Thanks for providing an answer.
Specifically, I wondered if it was actually a poor decision for the team to have left Cain in so long with up to a 10-point lead.
Cain was clearly far worse due to being exhausted in his next start, and the Giants were fortunate to pull out a win despite his poor performance.
I will be interested to see how Cain fares in his next start, and I’d be interested in an analysis of how the other pitchers performed in their 2nd start following the great one.
A 10-”point” lead? Seriously though, you think any team is even going to consider taking out a pitcher who’s got a perfect game going? Particularly a perfectly healthy, 200+ inning every year workhorse who’d gone 120+ pitches many times in his career before (with no apparent negative impact on future performance)? Come on.
I’m not surprised that Cain was not sharp his next time out. He did extend himself in the perfecto, being conscious of it the entire game and trying to make every pitch perfect and therefore every one a stress pitch even with that 10 run lead. Then there’s the natural letdown on top of that and the fact that he was facing a better offensive club. Still though, he managed to pitch well enough to win. What will he do his next time out? Who the heck knows. But whatever he does, I doubt that what he did 2 starts ago will have anything to do with it.
i thought they were 10 goals ahead.
Deja Vu