Halladay And Verlander
After making his start today against the Rays, Justin Verlander has now taken the hill 24 times this year, throwing 2,674 pitches on the season. Roy Halladay has also taken the hill 24 times, and has thrown 2,623 pitches, 51 fewer than the Tigers ace, and yet he’s thrown 28 more innings than Verlander – 185 to 157.
Now, this isn’t meant to be a knock on Verlander – few pitchers can rack up the innings like Halladay. It does, however, illustrate one of the big advantages that that groundball strike-throwers have over dominating power pitchers who get a lot of outs in the air. Because Halladay keeps the ball on the ground, he’s gotten opposing hitters to ground into 19 double plays, while Verlander has induced just seven twin killings.
In addition, since Halladay throws so many strikes, each batter is dispatched more quickly. He has more three pitch strikeouts than Verlander, even though his overall strikeout rate is lower, and he rarely works into hitters counts. And, of course, since he walks fewer batters, he faces a lower number of batters per inning, allowing him to work deeper into games.
I bring this up because, when talking about the quality of a young pitcher (especially one in the minors), the first thing that is usually referenced is strikeout rate. As Bill James noted back in the 80s, a young pitcher’s K/9 tells us more of what we want to know about how well he’ll do in the majors than any other single statistic, mainly because it is the best proxy for quality of stuff.
However, while strikeouts are certainly a positive event for a pitcher, the Verlander approach to pitching is not the ideal, because it leads to extremely high pitch counts and shorter outings overall. Halladay’s economic approach to getting outs has given him the equivalent of four extra starts compared to Verlander, a huge difference in value for their respective teams.
The strike-everyone-out approach comes with an inability to work deep into ballgames. Even though Verlander is once again among the league leaders in pitches thrown, he’s only tossed one complete game and gotten through eight innings on three other occasions. For comparison, Halladay has eight complete games and has gotten through eight innings in five other starts.
It might not be as sexy, but getting groundball outs and limiting walks is a far more efficient way of pitching than trying to blow every hitter away. Strikeout rate is nice, but don’t let it be the only tool you use to evaluate a young pitcher – not only are Ks not the only way to succeed, they aren’t even the best way.
1
Great article, sheds some new light on strikeout guys. Also another testament to why guys like Mark Buehrle who have decent “stuff” but succeed so well. Their ability to get ahead and induce groundballs goes a long way that many seem to overlook.
Inducing groundball outs, limiting walks, AND striking guys out is far more efficient than trying to blow every hitter away. Inducing groundball outs and limiting walks without striking guys out makes you Joel Pineiro – certainly valuable, but not as valuable as a guy who can do the same AND make batters swing and miss.
Just wanted to make clear this is what you were getting at. Because on first glance, it sounds as if you favor the GB/low BB guy irregardless of strikeouts. On that I’d have to disagree.
The difference between Verlander and Halladay’s approach this season is the groundball and walk rates, not a “strike out everyone approach”. Their K-rates are almost identical.
Verlander: 8.33 K/9
Halladay: 8.17 K/9
I might postulate that due to Verlander’s “strikeout everyone approach,” he tries to get batters to swing and miss on more pitches, perhaps missing out of the zone with more balls, rather than Halladay, who does indeed strike guys out, but is around the zone more – he is not averse to pitching to contact to get a crucial GB. Verlander’s approach, if it is indeed his approach, would lead to more pitches overall. Even if the difference in their K rates is not huge, I could see how the approach would make a big difference.
And just a technical note, but irregardless is not a word. Regardless is just fine there.
Irregahdless of your opinion, guy, irregahdless is a word, guy. See? I just used it twice.
I think Halladay’s strikeout rate speak more towards the quality of his stuff and his ability to locate his pitches than the kind of approach he takes while facing hitters. I mean, sure, it’s nice if you get a guy to roll over on the first pitch and get a quick out, but you aren’t going to throw one down the middle at the knees to try to induce a ground ball, it’s either going to happen, or it’s not. Let’s not forget too, that the pitches you have at your disposal will also dictate what kind of pitcher you have to be in order to succeed. Halladay has the benefit of a hard sinker, cutter, and now a changeup to help him get (most likely groundball) outs, while Justin Verlander has a power fastball/curveball combination that he needs to blow hitters away with in order to be successful. Not everyone has the benefit of a great sinker, and I’d much rather have someone like a Justin Verlander than a Joel Piniero.
Irregardless is not a word.
“Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
Halladay has also recorded a K in a higher % of batters faced – 22.8% than Verlander -22.5%, though it’s essentially a wash.
“It might not be as sexy… getting groundball outs and limiting walks”
As a hardcore Braves fan and a person who thinks Greg Maddux might be Pitching God, I dispute this notion. It’s plenty sexy.
Maddux actually highlights what makes Halladay so good. Maddux too was able to both strike guys out and, of course, burn worms.
Does the difference in leagues have any bearing in this comparison? Seeing a pitcher every time around the order has to be an advantage right?
Facing pitchers might be inflating Halladay’s strikeout rate somewhat, but even when he was in the AL the point being made held true. Halladay gets through more innings with with the same number of pitches as Verlander (or less pitches, even.)
Halladay and Verlander are being used, I am guessing, because they are well known versions of each extreme. I’m sure this concept applies across the board however.
So if you use a “word” then it automatically exists? That is a poor excuse to butcher the English language. I want to use “herr” as a substitute for “hair”, is it a word now? Sad.
“Irregahdless of your opinion, guy, irregahdless is a word, guy. See? I just used it twice.”
I appreciate the way the autolinker says we’re talking about the Bill James who pitched in the early 20th century. That added a comedy moment to my evening.
I like the gist of this post: we shouldn’t let the fact that the optimal result of a PA, from a pitcher’s standpoint, is a K lead us to believe that racking up K’s is the only – or even the best – way for a pitcher to succeed. Guys who can consistently put the first pitch of a PA in the zone and not get punished for it are a rare breed, and Halladay’s the best of the best in that regard.
Having said that, I do have a minor quibble. I know that you don’t expressly mention K/9 in your post, Dave, but your article gave me the impression that Verlander’s been a better strikeout pitcher than Halladay this year. And their K/9′s bear that out: Verlander has the edge, 8.33 to 8.17. But on a per-PA basis, Halladay has actually struck out more batters than Verlander this year – Halladay’s K/PA is 22.9%, Verlander’s is 22.3%. Of course, that’s not a huge difference, and I’m not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here, but I don’t understand why a site that does work as great as you guys here at FG is still stuck on K/9. If you want to know how good a pitcher is at striking people out, the most telling stat to look at is the percentage of his PA’s that result in strikeouts. And that’s K/PA.
K/9, as your Verlander/Halladay comparison demonstrates, penalizes pitchers who face fewer batters per inning. K/9 also rewards pitchers who face a ton of batters per inning – Carlos Zambrano’s 8.39 K/9 looks study, but his 19.7% K/PA reveals that he’s only moderately good at striking people out; Dontrelle Willis’ 6.44 K/9 makes it look like he might be serviceable, but his 12.3% K/PA shows that he’s not a major league caliber pitcher.
Thanks, K.G. Maybe I can take this lesson and become a writer some day.
You couldn’t be more wrong here, as noted above Halladay actually strikes out more guys this year on a % faced basis.
Halladay actually tried to pitch to contact more for several years with the Jays (or so he said), but it backfired as his results just weren’t as good (2006 and 2007). It may have been a post-hoc explanation of a slightly sore arm or something, but only when Halladay raised his strikeout% did he become the Cy Young candidate pitcher again. I think this shows the “strike out everyone you can” approach actually works best, but some guys are better able to do it quickly. Verlander simply needs to strikeout more guys to be an ace, like he did in 2009. Only the rare few pitchers have enough “stuff” to burn worms and be among the league leaders in K’s – it’s no knock on Verlander to suggest he isn’t going to be one of them.
There is no evidence that high strikeout pitchers throw more pitches than low strikeout ones. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-kazmir-conundrum/
Besides, Halladay’s strikeout rate is actually higher than Verlander’s this year (22.9% to 22.3%); by far the biggest difference in their innings pitched is that Verlander has given up over 2 more walks per 9 than Halladay.
I agree. Halladay is NOT a “pitch to contact” guy, ala Maddux, Glavine, Tudor, etc. He’s simply a beast that pounds the zone with late-moving pitches that you cannot hit well, all the while mixed speeds and locations, remaining incredivly durable and conditioned to top an unparalleled work ethic and sound mechanics.
Yeah, strikeouts and balls in play have virtually identical pitch-to-out ratios. It’s the walks and double plays that make the difference.
That’s just on average, though. In addition to walking half the batters that Verlander does, Halladay since 2002 has thrown 4.3 fewer pitches per start than expected using the numbers in that article while Verlander for his career has thrown 4.2 more pitches per start than expected.
Interesting. I would guess a big part of that is the double play factor. Halladay has been a pretty extreme ground ball pitcher while Verlander has been a pretty extreme fly ball pitcher. So I owe an apology to Dave in this instance.
I think the important thing here isn’t high-K vs. low-K, it’s groundballs and low walks vs. strikeouts/flyballs and higher walks.
[1] The information doesn’t necessarily support the conclusion … as others have pointed out.
[2] Not all pitchers can pitch to contact or induce ground balls. Some guys stuff is so dominant that they don’t get enough contact.
Someone really needs to look into Adam Wainwright … especially the performances in July through September in 2009 and 2010, during pennant races. (that someone might just be me).
Amazing that this STUD goes seemingly unnoticed (even with a 3rd in CYA last year). While TL55 was fading in September, AW50 was dominant, leading his team to the division championship, and is doing the same thing this year.
Oh yeah, AW50 = 2305p/169.1 IP = 13.61p/IP
Halladay = 2505p/185 IP = 13.54 p/IP
It’s actually pretty damn impressive.
Adam Wainwright’s stats from July through the end of the regular season …
2009: 17 QS (11-3, 1.90) — 128 IP, 27 ER
2010: 7 QS (6-1, 1.28) — 56.3 IP, 8 ER
Total: 24 QS (17-4, 1.71)
Now, a weird bit of information. Last year every start after July featured AW giving up 2 runs or less, except for one 6 ER game against PIT.
This year, every start after July featured him giving up 2 runs or less except one 6 ER game v. NYM.
Adam Wainwright has been a machine in the second half the past 2 years while StL has been involved in close division races.
(Note: 2008 did not show the same trend).
But did Wainright have as good a FIP? Which we all know tells us how he should have pitched which is more important than how he actually pitched? ;)
I would laugh at this, and have fun with it … but, I’m afraid that’s how many people think.
It will come up when I mention AW50 as a Serious CYA candidate (just like last year).
I’ll be told that his ERA is under his FIP which means he’s lucky or benefits from a great defense.
I’ll also be told that dominating the last 3 months of the season, like no other pitcher, doesn’t really matter and is giving a pitcher credit for pitching well in a random situation.
The “stat guys” will also hate the “wins leaders” like Price, Wainwright, Jimenez, just because some mainstream writers will vote for them based on that criteria. They’ll ignore the fact that these guys have pitched as well in their quality starts as any other dominant pitcher. Seriously, look it up.
I love this site, but there are a few things that I tire of: [1] overlooking obvious aspects in analysis (like strength of opponent), [2] bias (it’s there, and not to subtle), and, [3] The frequency of articles on the same players/teams.
There has not been a single article on Adam Wainwright this season, and he *may* be the best pitcher in the league.
I am being upfront, that I developing a serious man crush on AW50, and it all started in 2006. The good thing is that he just keeps getting better and better. The bad thing is Roy Halladay is pretty much this generation’s “perfect pitcher” in the same mold as Greg and Pedro.
He has been lucky, but even his FIP is 6th in the majors over the past 3 years. Not that many here would say he’s the best, but they’d have to be stupid to not have him pretty high up there.
I agree about Wainwright. 2 BB/9, 8 K/9, > 50% ground balls, one of the best innings eaters in baseball – you’d think he’d get some more mention as one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball. Most fascinating to me is that his career ERA is *under* 3 and he has the lowest ERA in baseball over the past 3 years:
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=0&season=2010&month=12
How come this “issue” never comes up when everyone is ‘ball-washing’ Max Scherzer?
No, everyone goes on and on about his great stuff, ignoring the fact that he’s out of the game in the 6th and the league’s worst bullpen takes over.
Don’t look now, but even max is getting through the 7th in ~110 pitches or less in his “resurgence”.
Hey, look at that … he’s throwing his changeup more often and for the first time ever, it has a positive pitch value. Of course, max will tell you it all has to do with the “mechanical flaw” he discovered only mere hours after being demoted to Toledo.
Geez.
There was a mechanical flaw. His fastball velocity improved by 2 MPH once he returned from Toledo. There is a distinct difference from how he has pitched once he went to Toledo and how he pitched before he went there. The most noticeable difference is that his velocity jumped back up to previous norms.
Did Max Scherzer run over your dog or something?
No, I like Max. I just get tired of fans who only see the obvious, “He throws hard, and has a good slider, strikes out a lot of guys”, but fail to realize that he doesn’t pitch many INN per start, is a burden on the Bullpen, has poor mechanics, etc.
My commentary is in regards to the fans, not Max … especially all of the comments regarding the Edwin jackson trade. You would have thought Scherzer was actually Verlander by some of the comments.
I’m very happy he’s throwing more strikes and changing speeds, and having more success … that the increased success comes, in part, to an effective changeup is just icing on the cake for me.
Verlander needs to pitch smarter, like Halladay does. He does have the ability to throw 100mph in the 8th and 9th innings. Dialing back some of his fastballs to 93-94 might help him. Also, mixing in his curve changeup and slider more often than he does. There are games he will throw at least 15 fastballs in a row. He has alot of talent, but maybe his confidence in striking most or every batter out leaves him not as much as a cerebral pitcher like a Halladay. That said what is the consensus of Verlander as an Ace? Is he a top 5 – 10 – 15 pitcher in baseball?
Halladay pitches the way he does, because he can. He has the skill/ability to throw pitches that move to locations that are hard to hit well.
IMO, it’s a faulty assumption to assume that everyone else can.
Personally, I don’t see why more players don’t flatten out the bottom part of the swing and drive more bombs to the opposite field like Pujols. How hard can it be? Don’t swing at balls, and drive outside pitches to the opposite field. See what I mean?
Easy to say, difficult to do.
Hitting and pitching are completely different and your analogy is garbage. I think looking at Stl. pitchers under Duncan show that nearly every pitcher can learn to pitch to more contact.
Duncan takes pitchers and teaches them to pound the zone with late-breaking stuff. Stewart and the forkball, Eck and the slider, Pineiro and the sinker, Suppan and the 2-seamer, and on and on (Looper, etc) …. NONE of those guys threw with an average speed of 96mph, with a great curveball.
Amazing how much easier it is to “pitch to contact” when you throw 85-91 than when you throw 96. FWIW, Pineiro and Verlander are pitching with the same “effort”, so it’s not like Verlander is just “reaching back” and Pineiro isn’t. Verlander is just one of those guys that throws mid 90s, repeatedly, without extreme effort. It’s amazing.
I say it again, as a guy who pitched against said guys in college, and as a guy who coaches them in HS … there are guys, whose stuff is so good that they cannot pitch to contact (I had to change my opinion on this). Lincecum is none of those guys, so is Velrander. For them to “pitch to contact” they’d have to “groove pitches” due to their velocity.
The quality of pitchers that Dave Duncan “re-establishes” are not even close to the class of Justin Verlander. You just don’t want “contact” you want a specific type of contact … namely getting hitters to get on top of the ball … by throwing late-breaking pitches that either move down or toward the hands.
I’m not sure, at this point in time, I want Verlander to focus on “taking off some mph” and working on “running it on hitters”. I think learning that approach at the ML level would lead to JV “laying em in there” far too often. At the ML level, if you have good strengths, you go with those strengths. Verlander is a pretty good combination of flame-thrower and pitcher.
Considering [1] velocity, [2] durability, and [3] quality, he’s in a very select class.
Again, look at the “quality” of pitchers Dave Duncan has worked with in regards to pitching to “contact”. Carpenter and Wainwright are not in that group of guys.
Verlander is an ace, because he’s won the rookie of the year, pitched a no hitter, pitches in the American League with mostly a slow, old team behind him in the field, and he’s a 3 time all-star in 5 full seasons. That’s not including his rookie of the year season where he was 17-9, plus he had one pathetic season going 11-17 with a 4.84 ERA. Take out that season, and his ERA is on part with Sabathias without the benefit of pitching in the NL or having the same quality of fielders year after year.
I’d take him over Sabathia as an ace… but yes, he needs to pitch smarter. He’s got the most wicked stuff when he’s on, but lets mistakes(much like Beckett)screw up his game plan. This is why he’s not as good as Halladay. But he’s in his 5th season, so he’s still learning how to pitch in this league.
Verlander did dial back in 2008, he was able to throw more in the zone but the cost to his stuff was too high, thus he pitched poorly.
To Verlander’s defense he isn’t exactly blessed with great fielders behind him so maybe that’s another reason why he tries to strike out so many guys because he lacks confidence in his fielders. I know if I had Carlos Guillen, Miguel Cabrera, Brennan Boesch and Ryan Raburn(both always make routine flyballs an adventure) and an aging Inge on 2 bum knees playing behind me I would be a little skeptical about allowing them to have too much control over my stat line. Honestly if you watch the Tigers defense with a naked eye(I doubt Verlander looks at advance fielding stats so thats what you have to go by) you would think you were watching some minor league team or something. They botch more routine plays than any team I’ve ever seen.
It would be interesting to look at different types of strikeout rates as opposed to K/9innings
For example if you want to look at efficiency, how about K/100 pitches thrown? (I’m pretty sure some folks in the SABR world have advocated this, I’m not trying to pawn this off as my own idea)
Got tired of using Lee as a reference for pitching godliness, eh? ;)
I guess Halladay will work.
Relax, all right? Don’t try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they’re fascist. Throw some ground balls – it’s more democratic.
And line drive outs are minority parliaments – they end quickly.
Thanks, Crash….
I agree and all, but Halladay is the best, most effective pitcher since Maddux. Verlander is still a young guy… his numbers suggest he’s pitching much worse than he has the past two seasons.
Halladay throws harder than people give him credit for, and Verlander(with his fellow starting rotation being so pathetic)seems to put all of the pressure on himself to hit 100 mph 5 times a game. He’s had about 15 games that looked like possible no hitters, but gives up a homerun after 6 2/3 innings or in the 7th after walking a guy, and challenging the no. 4 hitter on the opposing team.
Halladay just doesn’t make those mistakes… and I’m sure he’s somewhat pissed that he should have 4 more wins and at least 3 less losses this season. He’s having to strike out more guys, cause the Phillies are injury prone, have Lidge close, and aren’t the defensive team for which he was hoping.
Lee ain’t no Halladay, and when all is said and done, he won’t be any Verlander either. Lee will never come close to winning 300 games… which Halladay has a very slight chance. Verlander actually HAS chance since he’s only 27 and has a chance to finish the season with 84-86 wins for his career. Halladay had 67 at that point, and will have to average 17 wins for 8 more seasons to get 300. I’d rather see Halladay, and then probably Verlander over most other pitchers.
Actually, you’d be surprised how similar in stats Halladay is to some of the other top guys in regards to how they pitch in their Quality Starts and non-quality starts. I encourage people to look it up, as you will come away with more appreciation for some of the other guys.
When Halladay is good, he’s really good. When he’s bad, well … he’s bad. He’s just not bad that often.
But, really, Halladay is not head & shoulders above Johnson, Jimenez, and Wainwright in their quality starts. The difference between the guys is the NUMBER of quality starts … and Halladay often gets to pitch later in games (driving his WPA and IP up). Halladay’s record is about what it should be (really). Johnson has a real complaint.
IMO, we should celebrate Justin Verlander for being the ace that he is. He’s a damn good pitcher than has been both high quality and very durable.
I don’t pull out the “because you never played the game at a high level” card very often, but I am now. I think “never playing the game at a high level” is one of the reasons every pitcher seemingly gets compared to Halladay and Lee by the stats guys … and then they don’t “measure up” and are cast aside as if they’re not great pitchers. That’s bogus.
No hitter is going to compare to Pujols. No player is going to compare in WAR (consistently) to Mauer and Utley. Halladay is going to out-efficient and out-quality everyone. They are special. Here’s the amazing thing … they are special even among the most elite baseball players in the world (think about that).
Personally, I’m ready for some articles that are about guys NOT named Halladay and Lee. Let’s learn something new.
This Halladay run support thing is getting old… folks need to look at when he’s getting support and when he’s not.
In his 8 losses:
5ER, 4ER, 3ER, 6ER 1ER, 6ER, 2ER, 5ER
(I only see two tough losses in there)
In his 13 wins:
5, 1, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1,0,0,2,1
(basically he should have won all these except the 5 run game which should have been a loss)
2 ND’s:
3runs (2ER) in 6.1IP, 0 runs
( so he should have 1, maybe 2 more wins here)
Overall, he’s lost most of the games he should have lost and won the games he should have won… he should have 1 less loss at this point in time and maybe 2 or 3 more wins. This is not very different than some of the other top pitchers in terms of support when you look at it on a game by game basis
Verlander has two complete games this season (one was an 8 IP CG loss). Otherwise, great article.
As a Tigers fan, I found this article very interesting because it not only details some of Verlander’s relative troubles (I think lots of pitchers would love to have his problems), but it also made me think about Rick Porcello and his 2nd-year struggles. Last year the kid wasn’t striking out anyone, but he was getting enough groundballs (and luck) to get by, and I had visions of him growing into a Roy Halladay type. But this year he still isn’t striking anyone out, and the groundballs have also seemingly evaporated. Now I’d be happy if he’d just go back to being a Joel Pineiro.
I guess the point is this: Yes, having low walk rates and getting groundballs is a good way to find success in the Majors. But it sure helps to have strikeout stuff when you need it. That’s what makes Doc so great…he can pitch to contact when the bases are empty, but when the inevitable seeing-eye grounder gets through, he can limit the damage by getting swings and misses or painting the corners.
I don’t know if there is anywhere you could find this information or not, but Verlander seems (to the naked eye) to have a lot of foul balls hit off him. It could go hand in hand with the Flyball tendencies since he pitches up in the zone. But aside from the BB %, I believe that is another factor in the difference in performance b/t Halladay and him. A non-centered swing on a ball down in the zone is more likely to be rolled over to an IF. A mishit ball up in the zone is either popped up (often times foul) or sent to the back stop.
There is a place you can find this:
http://pitchfx.texasleaguers.com/pitcher/434378/?batters=A&count=AA&pitches=AA&from=1/1/2010&to=8/11/2010
His fastball is fouled off 26% more often than the average fastball (25.1%, compared to league average of 19.93%).
Why not talk about the young dominate pitchers in the AL not named Lee or Verlander in Buchholz, Cahill, Danks, Liriano, Price, Niemann, etc… ? Maybe someone could talk about how bad horrible infield defensive range hurts the Indians pitchers. How about the Twins poor defensive range. How about how, K/9 quality in the minors is more of a product of poor batting skills than quality pitching. What should be looked at is GB/FB ratio and a pitchers K/9 ratio. Pitchers with a 1:1 GB:FB ratio and high K/9 ratio need to learn to keep their pitches down on a regular basis before making it to the major league level, but alas they are enamored by high strikeout potential.
Halladay was basically born to be a big time pitcher, outside of a few freak injuries (non arm related besides forearm tendonitis) he has been a model of health and consistency. His genetics combined with the greatest workout regiment and work ethic in the game have made him a formidable pitcher. Very few pitchers in today’s day can claim the same, there are other great pitchers in the league but none of them have the resume Roy currently possesses IMO.
Wainwright/Johnson/Ubaldo etc are great yes but they have quite a few years to go to be considered in Roy territory in terms of greatness, obviously. While some of the other’s mentioned (Buchholz, Cahill, Liriano etc) probably lack the overall physicallity, skills and tools to ever become as great (and efficient) over the span of their careers as Halladay.