Comments on: Is Pinerio’s Newfound Groundball Success Sustainable?

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:24:25 +0000

Just revisited this post. One major exclusion (per the 100 inning limit)….was Chris Carpenter in 2004. He came over to the Cardinals from the Blue Jays and posted an increase of 10.6%. The Cardinal magic with pitchers yet again. Not to mention the fact that they helped Carp become one of the most talented pitchers in the majors…after having a career era around 5!

By: acerimusdux

acerimusdux — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:13:15 +0000

Ground ball pitchers post higher BABIP, not lower. Though they do allow less runs (less XBH).

By: Nick Kapur

Nick Kapur — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 07:35:57 +0000

I think even more than looking at other pitchers who experienced a similar change, it’s important to look at the peripheral statistics of the specific pitcher in question and see if anything is different.

Which is to say that if the pitcher’s peripherals are in line with career norms, than it’s probably a fluke, regardless of what other pitchers did in the past.

But on the other hand, if something has changed in the underlying approach of the pitcher in question, then the change in outcomes is much more likely to be sustainable going forward.

In the specific case of Joel Pinero, as I have just pointed out in a post over at UmpBump, in at least one area something big has obviously changed, in that he is throwing way more fastballs than ever before – 71% this season, versus a well-established previous career norm of 59%.

Clearly, Pinero has completely changed his whole approach this year, so if his results have also changed, that is very likely to be based on the change in approach, and therefore at least somewhat sustainable, than to be a year-to-year fluke.

By: Havoc

Havoc — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:31:55 +0000

Actually, it’s “Piñeiro” :-p

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:10:09 +0000

It’s ‘Pineiro’ :)

Thanks! sfasdf

By: Eric Seidman

Eric Seidman — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:52:06 +0000

In case you cannot access my linked article, I looked at N+2, N+3, etc, and found that the number of pitchers with historical shifts such as this are few and far between, but the % of those that sustain rates as the years move forward is quite high.

By: Andy S

Andy S — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:39:19 +0000

It’s not THAT interesting, I mean, it’s been shown that groundball pitchers are more likely to post low BABIPs than air ball pitchers, thus likely leading to fewer runs scored.

By: Nathan S

Nathan S — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:17:07 +0000

It’s also pretty interesting that Jason Marquis’ groundball rate also jumped more than 10% this year (47.6 –> 57.7), and this has arguably his best season since he went 15-7.

By: Andy S

Andy S — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:53:05 +0000

I’m also interested in the year N-2 deltas.

“All of which is to say that if the pitcher can show such improvement in causing groundballs, then the improvement is most likely legitimate rather than a sample size fluke.”

I don’t think you can draw this conclusion so quickly (not sure if it’s wrong). I think it can only be drawn if we can see a similar mechanical change in those pitchers that Pineiro is echoing.

By: rwperu34

rwperu34 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:05:05 +0000

What about year N+2?