Don’t Anchor Tiny Tim
Last year, Matthew Carruth discussed the idea of anchoring, a process in which fans build their opinions of a player’s season around a good or bad stretch at one of the season’s bookends. It takes extreme contradictory performance, like that of CC Sabathia following his abominable first month to shift these opinions. Otherwise, inaccurate claims are bound to be made and the wrong perceptions of a player’s value and quality will persist. This season, anchoring has occurred for many with regards to Tim Lincecum.
For those wondering why analysts tend to place small sample size disclaimers in their articles, this is the underlying reason. Some people just cannot look at two starts or 15 plate appearances and understand that a change in skill or approach is not inherent. Sure, this possibility always exists but it could just be random given that the pre-requisite playing time for stability has not yet been reached.
Lincecum made his first two starts on April 7 and April 12:
4/7: 3.0 IP, 4 H, 3 ER, 3 BB, 5 K
4/12: 5.1 IP, 10 H, 4 ER, 3 BB, 5 K
All told, his 8.1 innings, 14 hits, 7 earned runs, 6 walks and 10 strikeouts did not exactly do its best to instill confidence. Then again, it was just two starts and thanks to Sabathia’s dreadful start in 2008 + insane dominance from May to September, we now have the perfect response when people get ahead of themselves. Lincecum had two bad starts, like, omg! Hey, Sabathia 08. End of discussion right there.
Around that point, articles surfaced about Lincecum’s release point (which was fine, a maximum of an inch, inch and a half off from last season, which is not significant, and more along the lines of normal home/road discrepancies in the PITCHf/x data), his delivery, and the possibility of injuries. One more bad start and you got the feeling he might get demoted to work on the windup or sent to the DL with a phantom injury.
Since he “figured it out,” Lincecum has tossed 30 innings, surrendered just 20 hits, allowed 6 earned runs, and boasted a K/BB of 40/6. Combine that with his opening starts and his seasonal line now sits at: 6 GS, 38.1 IP, 34 H, 13 ER, 12 BB, 50 K. He has a 3.05 ERA and 1.93 FIP. He has produced +1.7 wins in the early part of this season, tied with Johan Santana and Dan Haren for the throne of top non-Greinke pitcher to date.
Lincecum is fine–sorry, Mariners fans–and he is going to have another stellar season. As Dave noted not too long ago there is always going to be information to be gleaned from small sample sizes, but going nuts over two tremendous or abysmal starts from a pitcher is an ailment worthy of statistical surgery. True talent levels don’t just evaporate or disappear. They might shift or slightly argue with pre-season projections, but to think Lincecum truly had become a somewhat different pitcher or was no longer as dominant as last season based on two starts in early April is absolute lunacy.
23
Eric,
I am a little confused. I pointed out to a writer on this very site something seemed off. He looked into it and wrote up the release point was siginificantly off. So, my question is this, have I been looking at the release point data wrong (and was he)? Thanks for the help.
Mike,
Yes… I’m not at liberty to get into the extreme details, but the release points are not 100% accurate across all parks, so a pitcher needs to be compared to himself at home and then normalized for the road. According to my PITCHf/x data, Lincecum’s “drop” in San Diego was perfectly normal and expected given camera/field discrepancies. Again, don’t ask for the details as I cannot really explain the process, but his release has been fine the entire season.
Eric
To clarify further, he may have experienced a slight drop in his home release this season but nothing at all significant… something like an inch, inch and a half, which is a lesser length than my pinky, so nothing significant has changed.
Eric,
As always I appreciate the great work. I am little bummed however as I thought this might be the only logical reason behing Becketts sudden command issues. I guess the battle wages on, thanks.
I’ll look into Beckett and see what I can find. With regards to Lincecum’s release point, here is where potential discrepancies arise:
Last year, Lincecum’s vertical z0 was 6.17… this season, 6.15. His deviation may differ, which could explain RJs graphs, etc, but no his actual release point has not changed this year in any truly significant way. As I said, if anything, an inch or so, but that is not significant. When we get into like the 4-6 inch territory that is cause for concern.
One thing needs to be added here. Lincecum himself said that he found a problem in his delivery.
http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090415&content_id=4290128&vkey=news_sf&fext=.jsp&c_id=sf
He fixed it and has been his usual self since.
I appreciate the general thrust of the article. For example take a look at this guy http://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy/mlb/news?slug=ms-bythenumbers_050609 slamming Cain’s early start. Putting a lot of stock into one month…
Ken, not sure if you know anything about me or not… but I kind of have a baseball mancrush on Matt Cain, so that article is going to make my head explode.
I’ve actually just been coming by the site for a few months now (really love it btw, great job), so I hadn’t picked up on your Cain-love yet. I’m not quite at that level, but I think he’s a solid young pitcher with tons of upside. I know arguing on the internet is generally a fruitless endeavor, but I just couldn’t let that article go. It was patently ridiculous, especially coming from an “expert.” If you follow the comments, the way he contorts stats to fit his argument is pretty painful.
Eric,
if you love Cain then I am sure you and Cameron have had some heated arguments over him stating might be overrated. LOL fangraphs writers war a’brewin.
Sorry Mariners fans? It’s not Lincecum’s fault Bavasi & Co. were royal douchebags, so why would we wish ill-will upon one of the Pacific Northwest’s favorite sons? It’s not like we’re Phillies fans or something.
It was a joke, chill pill alert. I just know from Dave that everything Lincecum does is documented and everything Morrow does is compared to Tiny Tim.
Hey! No worries. I know you were joking – so was I. In retrospect, I should have added a disclaimer to the last sentence so you would know I was joking.
No worries at all. I actually should have known given your reputation here as a commenter. But with some of the comments we have been getting these days, who knows, haha.
Love the site. Love Lincecum. Came here looking for his game-by-game velocity. I know Lincecum struggled a bit (by his standards) against a Chicago lineup missing Soriano and Ramirez (May 5). I didnt see the game. Then, watching his game today, noticed his velocity was a bit lower than usual. Fifth inning, 92. Sixth inning, 88 and 89. Really labored against Mark Loretta and especially Kemp before putting him down looking. 6 of his 8 Ks were looking. Be interested to see what it’s been all season. Does a site like that exist?
Don’t know of any site, but I do know that prior to last Sunday’s game a high percentage of Tim’s strikeouts were swinging — and a lot of them came on change ups.
Sunday Tim was pitching backwards. He started a lot of hitters off with curves, sometimes got a second strike wtih a change up and came with lots of fastballs with two strikes.
Since Tim had been using a high percentage of secondary pitches with two strikes, he got a lot of surpise strikeouts with the fastball.
Found it here. Wow, it is down. Max velocity for his fastball and average velocity for all his pitches. I know his mechanics are supposed to make him immune to shoulder injuries and the arm fatigue most pitchers face — especially when throwing 80 innings more than the previous season early in his career (2007 to 2008) — but it doesnt look like it by taking a look at his velocity this season. Its a small sampling, but could be telling. This guy is the most exciting pitcher in the majors (Johan included). Would like to be wrong here. Someone knock me off this.
Tim’s velocity has been off a bit all season. But I haven’t noticed more of a decrease in velocity than usual. And I don’t recall seeing any fastballs below 89 mph, which has pretty much been his lowest in each of his three seasons.
I think this is worthy of watching, but I think it’s early for worry.
This article makes R.J. Anderson say “ouchie”. You make some great points, Eric, and I wonder where you see Cain headed from here. I agree about your bullish viewpoint on him but I guess that just like some of your other authors and posters straddle a fine line making big assumptions based on early season performance, Cain has had a fine start but should we expect it to continue?
I would LOVE to see Matt Cain become the pitcher he was predicted to be when he first came up. And his 2.33 ERA in his first season of five weeks did nothing to dispell that notion.
But although I was heavily chastised on a Giannts board for saying so, I posted after Matt’s very first ML start that his lack of true swing-through stuff might limit him to being “only” a #2 starter rather than the expected #1 ranking. Thus far in his career, Matt has been just above the average #2 in ERA+.
Matt struggled during his second season, but straightened himself out after being taken out of the rotation for one start, making a bullpen appearance instead. And Matt’s first five or six starts of 2007 would have been the stuff of legend if only the Giants had scored any runs and given him wins. I believe Matt yielded all of 12 hits in his first 30 innings that season.
Matt then struggled again for three months before turning things around at the end of July. Since then, he has become far more consistent — although not as much better as one would have hoped for.
Matt’s 3.00 ERA so far this season has been even better than teammate Tim Lincecum’s. But even back when he was just over two, it was obvious that he hadn’t really improved much.
Take a look at Matt’s peripherals. Despite his ERA’s being nearly a run lower than before, his peripherals are mostly going the wrong direction.
I hate to throw a damper on Matt, and I do think he will forge a fine career. But I just don’t see greatness for him. I see Lincecum’s ceiling as the Hall of Fame, top tier. I see Matt’s ceiling as making an All-Star team or two.
Strikeouts aren’t everything, but while both Cain and Lincecum are known as power pitchers, Tim has 80% more whiffs than Matt thus far in 2009. That’s a huge discrepancy. Tim’s K rate is the highest of his brief career. Matt’s is the lowest it has been since his brief rookie season of 2005. IIRC, Matt’s walk rate is also at a career high, while Tim’s has come down by a third since his rookie season.
Matt’s career has been based in part on an unsustainable BABIP against. As he is regressing to normality in that stat, his hits against have gone up appreciably. Matt has yielded six homers this season to Tim’s one.
Just as I expected Matt’s ERA to quickly rise when it was at only 2.18 or something two or three starts ago, I don’t expect his present 3.00 ERA to last,either. Matt’s peripherals are declining. Many are at career lows. If he doesn’t turn that around, his ERA will likely exceed 4.00 this year.
Matt is capable of turning things around. But don’t be fooled by his 3.00 ERA. The one thing Matt has truly shown this season, though, is that if the Giants actually get him some runs, he can win (3-1 compared to a pathetic 15-30 over the past two years when his run support barely exceeded three runs per nine. Now it is Barry Zito who isn’t getting the support.
Barry had four straight good starts before stumbling a bit today. But I think the Giants keep him around just to make Matt look better. :)
Good points above. I endorse good fb pitchers who pitch off of it. It seems as though he has a potentially great one with some arm side run. Gotta see more command, which will allow all else to fall into place. Pitch f/x has created some prominent cyber pitching coaches who unfortunately don’t understand commanding the fb as a hallmark to success. Lets hope Cain can get some old school instruction.
I like Matt’s fastball. He actually gets slightly more swing-throughs with the pitch than Lincecum. But I don’t think Matt’s secondary pitches compare with Tim’s, which results among other things in Matt’s yielding far more home runs.
Batters are doing better this season at laying off Matt’s pitches outside the strike zone, swinging at only 19.3% compared to 26.0% last season. His first-pitch strikes are down from 58.5% last season to 54.8% this year.
Matt has cut his fastball percentage from 65.4% to 60.2%, but he hasn’t seemed to get the desired results (aside from the 3.00 ERA, that is :). And the lower percentage of fastballs has likely contributed to a career-high walk rate.
I think Matt’s lack of swing-through stuff has caused him to be constantly searching over his career. Particularly since he has begun to be compared to Lincecum, Matt can just never seem to do quite well enough for Giants fans.
I give him credit for improving his consistency since the end of June, 2007, but the overall results haven’t really seemed to improve much. And right now, I think Matt has a lot more work to do than Giants fans who don’t see beyond the glossy 3.00 ERA realize.
My sense is that Matt himself realizes it. Hopefully he can fix things before the Giants fans catch on. If not, that will merely add more pressure to Matt.
I think a great deal of how Matt is perceived is based on fan expectations that were too high from the day Cain became a major leaguer.
His 2.33 ERA in a brief stint as a rookie didn’t help out much, either, even though his peripherals didn’t support the low ERA — sadly, much like right now.
Matt Cain has been propped up by an unsustainable 87.5% left on base percentage. By comparison, Tim Lincecum’s 70.3% means he his allowing more than twice as many off his base runners to score than is Matt. Career-wise, Tim’s 73.9% and Matt’s 74.3% are almost identical. Before this year, they were virtually the same.
The peripherals indicate Tim’s ERA is likely to go down, while Matt’s is likely to increase. In fact, they indicate the results for Matt could be less than pretty.
The good news is that anyone is capable of change. I hope Matt realizes he needs to make a few, and I’m pretty sure he does. And hopefully the fans will give him time to do so. He DOES have a lot of good fans such as you. His fans really love him. Hopefully they will increase in number.