Change Is Good
The change-up is my favorite pitch in baseball. I could probably come up with some kind of logical explanation for why I have more affection for that pitch than others, but in the end, it’s still more feeling than rational observation. I just love a good change-up.
I’m not sure MLB talent evaluators share my fondness for it, however. This afternoon, I was browsing through the Pitch Type leaderboards here on FanGraphs, and something jumped out at me. Here’s the starting pitchers who threw the highest percentage of change-ups in the majors last year.
Edinson Volquez, 31.8%
Cole Hamels, 31.5%
Johan Santana, 28.7%
James Shields, 26.3%
Jair Jurrjens, 26.2%
Besides throwing a lot of change-ups, those guys all have significant success in common. That’s a list of three all-stars and two of the breakout young pitchers of 2008. For them, quantity of change-ups was part of being an extremely good major league pitcher. Every team in baseball would gladly pencil any of these five into their rotation for 2009.
However, they also have something else in common – with the exception of Hamels, they were all deemed expendable to one degree or another at some point in their career.
Volquez worked his way up the ladder with the Texas Rangers, and while he was one of their top pitching prospects, they cashed him for Josh Hamilton when they had the chance.
Santana was famously a Rule 5 draft pick, selected by the Marlins and then traded to the Twins for Jared Camp.
Shields was a 16th round draft choice by the Rays back in 2000. Despite some quality performances in the minors, he was never considered one of their top prospects.
Jair Jurrjens was signed and developed by the Tigers, and like with Volquez, he was traded for major league talent, or at least the promise of it, in the form of Edgar Renteria.
Of the five, Hamels is the only one who was acquired at a high cost and stayed with his original franchise. The other change-up artists, among the best in the game, simply weren’t valued as highly as pitching prospects who build their resume with a dynamite breaking ball.
From guys like Josh Beckett, Kerry Wood, Scott Kazmir, Felix Hernandez, and now David Price, the pedigree for a great pitching prospect has been a high velocity fastball and a knockout curveball or slider. That’s the kind of repertoire that gets a young pitcher noticed and that teams simply don’t trade away. Those guys cost a ton to acquire, and they’re very rarely made available to other clubs.
But, it just isn’t all that uncommon for the change-up artist to develop into a better pitcher than the breaking ball guy. Right now, if the Rays had to keep either Kazmir or Shields going forward, I’m not so sure that they wouldn’t keep Shields.
As we look to the wave of future young arms reaching the majors, perhaps we should make a conscious decision to give the change-up artists a bit more due than they’ve gotten in the past?
15
I too am a huge fan of changeups. Watching Radke and then Sanatana all those years gave me a certain fondness for the pitch.
One thing I will point out though, is that Santana didn’t throw a changeup untill coming to the Twin’s organization. Developing that pitch is what turned him from a hard throwing lefty to the best in the game.
I wonder if some of the other pitcher’s have similar stories, as the changeup seems to be something pitcher’s develop when they don’t have the dominating slider/curve.
Johan Santana was originally drafted by the Astros, not the Marlins.
Yes, you’ll notice that the article specifically notes that the Marlins were the team that selected him in the Rule 5 draft, and then traded him on to Minnesota.
I think a reason for change-up artists being underappreciated/unheralded early on is that the reward of throwing the pitch well is diminished at the lower levels – even as far back as early teenage years.
A high school pitcher can be dominant with a fastball in the low-to-mid 80s and even a decent curve/slider. But his changeup is a pitch that any high school hitter can catch up to, and it’s the one chance that weak hitters will have to get lucky and touch him. He’s conditioned to avoid throwing it, especially if he’s victimized by typically poor high school defense.
This phenomenon would still play itself out in college and the low minors as well, I’d imagine. Even at those levels, some hitters cannot crush a straight 90 mph fastball. Thus throwing it becomes a disincentive.
When a changeup finally becomes most valuable to the pitcher is in the big leagues, where everyone can punish a 90 mph fastball.
Anecdotally, Stephen Strasburg has said he did not throw his change up last year because, as you suggest, it would be the only pitch college hitters could touch. He could dominate with his hard stuff and did not want to give average hitters a chance.
If Kazmir was more durable, had sounder mechanics, and was bigger physically, I think the Rays would be more likely to choose him over Shields. So the resolution of that issue is about more than which pitch each features.
The Twins actually reached an agreement with the Marlins before that Rule V draft that year because they knew the Marlins preferred Jared Camp over Johan Santana. So they picked Camp and immediately traded him to Florida after the Marlins selected Johan with the 2nd selection. In addition, the Marlins even kicked in $500K to make the deal happen.
Is there a link between durability and the changeup? Beckett, Felix, Kazmir and Wood have collectively spent a lot of time on the DL while the Santanas, Moyers and Glavines of the world just seem to take the ball every five days without too many hiccups. Has there been a study done on pitch-type frequency and injury? It seems intuitive that changeups would cause way less damage than a harder off speed pitch.
I suppose a better question to ask is what percentage of pitchers who throw good change-ups actually succeed, vs. the high velocity guys?
Are your five hand-picked guys 1% of the aggregate number of change-up artists? vs. just 20% of the high velocity guys?
Teams are going to pick the pitcher based on best chance of success. Or at least what they think is the best chance of success.
Might there be some selection bias going on here? Maybe a good changeup is hard to master, so the only players “allowed” to throw them are ones with above average skillsets more generally? I’m not sure if this makes sense, but might be worth considering.
mkd: I know just about as much about scouting type stuff as I do about the Polish fishing industry, but I hear that change-ups are indeed much easier on the arm.
And I think you’ve got a really salient point there, anon. I’m sure you’ve noticed how so many top pitching prospects seem to be developing a change as a “weapon” against opposite-handed batters. Apparently, it’s a very difficult pitch to teach, and pitchers need to have a feel for it to throw it successfully. I don’t imagine the types of pitchers that end up as first/second round draft picks have ever needed anything but their fastballs and breaking pitches to dominate amateur hitters.
Interesting that you left off 6-10, much more of a mixed bag:
Jamie Moyer
Kenny Rogers
Greg Maddux
Joe Saunders
CC Sabathia
Meanwhile, the curveball top 10 rivals the changeup:
Ben Sheets
A.J. Burnett
Ricky Nolasco
John Lackey
Mike Mussina
Josh Beckett
Brett Myers
Roy Halladay
Justin Verlander
Bronson Arroyo
Here is the real thing to consider… Regardless of type of pitch, the best pitchers are going to throw the most of any pitch… because they pitch more. The best pitchers have the most playing time, which means they throw more pitches.
Since they throw more pitches than the bad pitchers, the Best pitchers are going to lead the league in whatever types of pitch they throw
The point of this article was that the ability throw a quality change-up was undervalued
They are percentages, though.
How is that a mixed bag? You have one of the greatest pitchers of all time in Greg Maddux, the best pitcher in baseball in CC, a solid mid rotation starter in Saunders, and two guys that have had continued success over a long period of time in Moyer and Rogers.
Sure, the curveball list is also very good, but look at the top 2 guys Sheets and AJ, both very injury prone, partially because they throw a lot of curves.
Breaking balls generally cause stress on arms, especially elbows. This is why pitchers are generally considered risks if they are throwing above 25% breaking balls. Its also why King Felix was allowed to throw his slider only a small percentage of the time the first couple years he was in the majors.
I’ve heard that change-ups are very difficult to teach because if there’s any tell the pitch is going to get hammered.
Chnage-ups tend to be taught to lefties because a good one gives them a major advantage as starters against righties, in some cases changing the normal opposing batter lefty-righty splits to even or even favoring the lefties. Most lefties tend to have one, although they’re normally league-average pitches.
Just curious, Dave. But who has the best change-up that you have EVER seen?
It’s also worth mentioning Pedro here, since it was the change off the fastball that made him the dominant starter he was.
I think Pedro is probably to thank for Volquez’ change. He created quite the change-up fad in the D.R., as I understand.
Both Beckett and Kamir were also traded. Granted Beckett was traded for Hanley and Sanchez, but Hamilton may have been worth as much when the trade happened. Kazmir was traded for Victor Zambrano. That’s less desirable than any of the changeup artists mentioned (other than Santana).
I would never say Shields wasn’t that highly valued, at least not any less than Kaz.
Ineptitude does not equal undervalueing. Any GM at the time would have made a similar trade to the Kazmir for Zambrano trade
I think Dave is right to a certain extent that the change-up has been under-appreciated at least compared to the curveball. But I think it may be more than that – I think fastball velocity can be just as big a factor in over or under rating pitchers, especially up and coming prospects. Read Baseball America and you’d think that to be a frontline starter you must throw in the mid nineties (or at least 93-94 if you are a lefty) along with your other 2 average or plus secondary pitches, and be able to command them. Consider Brett Anderson of the A’s org. As recently as last year, they were pegging him as mid-rotation workhorse, even though since being drafted, he has commanded 4 average to plus pitches. This year his ceiling is tabbed as front of the rotation. Why? because his fastball has moved from about 90 to about 92. But he’s always had a fantastic change, and a plus curve and slider. I’d argue that he’s had the skills to be a a TOR guy from the beginning.
On the opposite end, how many guys have we seen that continue to get chance after chance simply because they light up the radar gun? Daniel Cabrera comes to mind immmediately, and I am sure we can name many others.
I agree with the comments above — the changeup reportedly is hard to teach, and there’s not much incentive to learn it in the lower levels. There’s another factor as well, which is probably pretty unimportant but I’ll throw it out anyway: the changeup isn’t an obvious pitch. It doesn’t stand out, especially to less-experienced eyes. It’s easy to notice the guys throwing gas: if you’re standing nearby you can’t miss the pop of the glove; if you’re watching TV there’s the radar gun. And it’s easy to pick out a dramatic curve or slider. These are sexy pitches, and they get commented on. But the essence of the changeup is that it isn’t distinctive. You don’t notice the guy throwing it, and it doesn’t get a lot of commentary on TV. There’s nothing sexy about it, except the results. Kids growing up to be major league pitchers aren’t going to be immune to this: they’re going to practice the dramatic pitches, the sexy pitches, the ones that get people talking.
Change ups and splitters, thats all I would want on my team.
There’s a good argument to be made that Lincecum’s breakout was in large part because of the development of his change-up. As for prospect rankings, of course velocity guys are going to be higher in the rankings. They’re much more likely to develop into frontline starters. There are a lot more guys that throw high 80′s than there are guys that throw mid-90′s, yet if you look at the frontline pitchers in baseball, most of them have good velocity. It isn’t that you HAVE to have the big fastball to be a frontline starter, rather, if you have a good fastball you’re more likely to turn into a frontline starter.
Pedro’s change-up was a strikeout pitch, not just a change of pace. It had nasty fade and drop that made hitters look ridiculous.
Why isn’t Harden on this list? He threw 28.8% changeups last year, maybe more like 33% if his “splitters” are actually changeups (I recall him saying at some point that he doesn’t throw a split, but that people have been thinking his changeup was a splitter for his whole career).
I’d like to know what % of Eric Gagne’s 2002-2004 pitches were change-ups.
David–
I’ve given you some crap over the years for the Papelbon/Nagoette comparison, but I just wanted to pop into one of your many great blog posts here and say you’re doing a hell of a job here. Your columns are well reasoned, well written, and often turn up some new, fascinating take on the game. Kudos.
I’d be interested to see what Dave says the correlation between CH% and WPA is. I’m definitely not a stats expert like many others posting, but I ran it and got a 13.4% correlation (the highest of any pitch).
On the other hand, the highest correlations of any of the pitching stats shown was Fastball Velocity (31.8%) and Curveball Velocity (29.7%) and then the difference between FB and CV velocity (22.1%).
This is a set of numbers that may not be telling us anything (or I may have run the calc incorrectly). But, if accurate, it makes me think in a different direction.