Article: Myth: Starting Pitcher Velocity

[Seth Stohs]

 

There is a correlation with velocity and strikeouts and with strikeouts and effectiveness.

 

While it's true not everyone has to have velocity to get strikeouts, it's just rare.  It's important to note that high velocity doesn't equal high strikeouts necessarily, I think the notion that we've busted some sort of myth is overstated.

 

Felix Hernandez average fastball was 92.1 mph in 2015. That's 0.1 faster than Kyle Gibson and slower than Santana or Pelfrey.

 

Dallas Kuechel's average fastball was 89.6 mph in 2015. 

 

Looking at the list, high velocity - greater than 94 avg, is rare. Those guys are typically really good, but it's also because they have the other things.

 

I didn't say there was no correlation between velocity and effectiveness. But, velocity by itself isn't it.

[Steve Lein]

 

 "As to the Twins, their low K/9 rates over the years are not due to poor scouting, bad luck, or a statistical fluke. It's an orginisational philosophy, and has been for years."

 

I'm not interested in creating a poopstorm, but I don't believe I've ever read anything from a Twins source

that supports the idea that the Twins have or even used to have an organizational philosophy that promoted low K/9 rates or even subpar velocity. I really wish someone would introduce some validated context to the theory that the Twins have been doing something intentionally that has led to their low team K/9 rates. I'm not of an opinion that there isn't an explanation for it. I just don't know what it is. Anyone? Buehler?

 

Is this taking the thread off course? If so, please disregard.

 

They fell in love with Brad Radke (who was an ace for several seasons) and tried to capitalize on what they thought was a unexploited pattern because of him:

 

Command and Control (to limit walks) over velocity (strikeouts).

 

The pitchers like Radke ended up being the outliers, not a vast resource to exploit.

 

In my opinion, this "philosophy" is very well-documented. You hear it from opposing scouts, every prospect website and scout talker on the planet, exec's who've been here before, probably even Terry Ryan himself...

 

The fact that they've targeted velocity early in drafts the last three seasons should be proof enough this existed, because it was such an obvious, and alternate to what every other team was doing (targeting RP's with velocity), change of course.

 

Also keep in mind, where the "aces" we've had since Radke (and Since Ryan became GM in '94) have come from. (Hint: it wasn't the Twins drafts).

 

 

 

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Here are the top K/9 for starters in MLB: Indians, Cubs, Nationals, Padres, Rays, White Sox.

And here are their MLB ranks for starter ERA- (ERA relative to league/park): 10, 2, 8, 25, 6, 12.  All top-half in rotation run prevention except for the Padres.  Try to filter the effects of defense (FIP-) and it looks even better, with even the Padres jumping up into the top half too.

 

Also, as a group these are not bad teams, and their rotations generally weren't the reason for any missed expectations.

 

Go to Fangraphs and sort team starter performance by FIP- or ERA- and then by K% -- they're not perfect matches, but they're close.  BB% is a good match too, but also note that high K% seems to correlate pretty well with low BB% too.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=13,a

 

If you're focusing too much on the BB% side of that correlation, as it seems the Twins have done at times, you are probably leaving a lot of effectiveness/predictability/stability on the table.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm still lacking a verifiable explanation for the Twin's low K/9 rate historically. Is it philosophical? Do the results truly confirm some action on their part, or is it attributable at least in part to other factors?

 

The tendency here is to just conclude that the results are evidence of a philosophical direction, and while I can see how the results point to either this or an ineptitude of some sort, I'm still skeptical. I lean towards judging their philosophy on something more than a perception of what their actions have been.

Not sure why you keep posting this question!

 

Twins pitchers all season long talked about how the organization wants them to use six pitches to get two ground outs, instead of six pitches to get one strikeout. So much more efficient that way!

 

It is a fine, fine idea which is completely removed from reality, because Twins pitchers do not have velocity, their pitches are easier to foul off or take for balls, so the end result is they one groundout on six pitches.

 

 

EDIT yes I realize the average pitches per plate appearance is closer to 4, but I'm just reporting what guys like Gibson and Perkins have been saying. Also, I think pitching is more of a head game than numbers game, see: King Felix, etc, but that's just me.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Hosken Bombo Disco

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I didn't say there was no correlation between velocity and effectiveness. But, velocity by itself isn't it.

Were a lot of posters claiming that velocity by itself was "it", to the extent that it was "myth" worth busting?

 

As I recall, most complaints about the Twins staff here have focused on K rate.  In fact, one of the more common criticisms of the Twins staff this year was that Pelfrey should be tried in the pen specifically because he had good velocity but failed to generate strikeouts as a starter.

[Dantes929]

Preaching to the choir here.    It is not about velocity but about stuff of which velocity is just a subset.    Its not that the Twins of the past pitched  to contact.   Its that they did it so poorly.    Blackburn and DeVries and many more all threw harder than Milone but a staff full of Milone would likely have decreased the ERA of those teams by about a run a game.   Not all 88-92 mph guys are created equal and should not be considered as such.     As far as playoff velocity goes, in the Giants WS years they were no better than middle of the pack in fastball velocity but also threw fastballs less often than anyone.    Milone would not be my first choice for a playoff pitcher but his playoff ERA is 1.5.   Ok, small sample size but playoffs are small samples.    Also his ERA against KC is 3.3, St. Louis 1.29 and against Texas 2.7.   Make the playoffs and I am happy to take my chances with anyone on the mound.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Felix Hernandez average fastball was 92.1 mph in 2015. That's 0.1 faster than Kyle Gibson and slower than Santana or Pelfrey.

 

Dallas Kuechel's average fastball was 89.6 mph in 2015. 

 

Looking at the list, high velocity - greater than 94 avg, is rare. Those guys are typically really good, but it's also because they have the other things.

 

I didn't say there was no correlation between velocity and effectiveness. But, velocity by itself isn't it.

 

I'm not sure how picking out a few guys makes your case here.  It seems clear that high velocity correlates very well with effectiveness - a few counter examples hardly makes that claim a myth.

 

You seem to be taking the stance that people have said ONLY high velocity arms can be effective and I'm not sure I've ever heard that argued by anyone.

 

Only that it sure helps a helluva lot at the thing that DOES matter.  (K Rate)

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm still lacking a verifiable explanation for the Twin's low K/9 rate historically. Is it philosophical? Do the results truly confirm some action on their part, or is it attributable at least in part to other factors?

 

The tendency here is to just conclude that the results are evidence of a philosophical direction, and while I can see how the results point to either this or an ineptitude of some sort, I'm still skeptical. I lean towards judging their philosophy on something more than a perception of what their actions have been.

 

I think you're looking too hard to find alternates to the easiest explanation: the Twins targeted high control pitchers for a long time.

 

In part it was a smart strategy: those pitchers could be had more readily and were more generally undervalued.  Plus, if you emphasized a good defense behind them you could squeeze out really nice results.  It was a Beane-like move that paid off for the team.   The problem (much like with Beane) is that if you go too far in on only one kind of player you can get yourself in trouble.

 

For too long we seemed like we only wanted that kind of arm, rather than just targeting the market's inefficiency.

[nicksaviking]

 

I'm not sure how picking out a few guys makes your case here.  It seems clear that high velocity correlates very well with effectiveness - a few counter examples hardly makes that claim a myth.

 

You seem to be taking the stance that people have said ONLY high velocity arms can be effective and I'm not sure I've ever heard that argued by anyone.

 

Only that it sure helps a helluva lot at the thing that DOES matter.  (K Rate)

 

I'd prefer the higher velocity, as noted several times including in Seth's OP, it allows for a larger margin of error.  However, watching games, it seems to me most pitchers get their strikeouts on breaking balls.  Kyle Gibson has fine velocity, but he relies on his sinker quite a bit, and sinkerball pitchers don't tend to get a lot of strikeouts. 

 

Funny thing is that Fangraphs rates Gibson's slider and changeup as easily his best pitches, it would be nice to see him whip those out more in two strike counts and see if the results change.

[nicksaviking]

 

 

I think you're looking too hard to find alternates to the easiest explanation: the Twins targeted high control pitchers for a long time.

 

I agree they did, but I'm not holding it against them anymore as I think they changed, at least when it comes to the draft.

 

But I am curious, Ryan has said many times that Deron Johnson and the scouts are really the ones who run the draft, and lately they have been getting harder throwing guys (the results can be a different topic of discussion) yet in free agency, the Twins still seem to favor the control guys.  It also seems that many guys who were drafted with high 90's heat or projections for high 90's heat have now fallen to low to mid-90's guys.  I don't think this is entirely unique to the Twins, and some of that could be due to age, as pitchers seem to lose velocity pretty early into their careers these days, but I wonder if there is any kind of disconnect between what the scouting department covets in a pitcher and what those that develop them ultimately want to see from them.

 

To clarify, I don't mean to ask if those who are developing pitchers want to get rid of strikeouts for PTC because I don't think they do, I more wonder if a strong focus on mechanics or asking guys not to throw max effort may impact college or projected velocity compared to what we see in the minors. 

 

Or maybe I'm just mus-remembering pre-draft velocity reports entirely.

[jharaldson]

 

Felix Hernandez average fastball was 92.1 mph in 2015. That's 0.1 faster than Kyle Gibson and slower than Santana or Pelfrey.

 

If I average the WAR of the top 10 guys in velocity I get 4.2.  If I start with Felix, #40 in velocity, and get the next 9 guys the average WAR is 3.1.  Velocity is not the only thing but I would rank it in my top 5 things to look for regarding effectiveness. 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=y&type=c,76,4,5,6,36,37,45,59&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=3,d&page=2_30

 

 

[Platoon]

I agree they did, but I'm not holding it against them anymore as I think they changed, at least when it comes to the draft.

 

But I am curious, Ryan has said many times that Deron Johnson and the scouts are really the ones who run the draft, and lately they have been getting harder throwing guys (the results can be a different topic of discussion) yet in free agency, the Twins still seem to favor the control guys.  It also seems that many guys who were drafted with high 90's heat or projections for high 90's heat have now fallen to low to mid-90's guys.  I don't think this is entirely unique to the Twins, and some of that could be due to age, as pitchers seem to lose velocity pretty early into their careers these days, but I wonder if there is any kind of disconnect between what the scouting department covets in a pitcher and what those that develop them ultimately want to see from them.

 This from a recent Bob Sacemento post from Florida: >>>>>>On Saturday, lefty Sam Clay started for the Twins going 4 innings, his fastball was continually 89-91 mph maxing out at 92 mph with a slider around 76-78 mph. I was sitting next to two AL East Scouts (one amateur, one pro), and they were comparing notes on Clay. Last year, Clay's fastball was continually 92-95 mph when he first joined the Twins. They jokingly said that's the Twin's for you, I asked them what they meant and they said happens alot with Twins pitchers. >>>>>>. I wish there was more background or context to that discussion. I don't think the Twins "tell" pitchers to lose velocity. But I do wonder if the overriding lesson from the pitching coaches is control, control, control, that the players drop a little velocity in an attempt to improve their control, and their standing in the eyes of their beholders? That would be a very normal response by a young athlete trying to improve his position in the pecking order.

[Mike Sixel]

In one of the thru the fences posts in the minor league area, Bob quotes scouts from other teams commenting on the Twins costing their minor league pitchers velocity.

[nicksaviking]

I wish I knew more about mechanics, most of my knowledge is anecdotal and rehashing what I have heard smarter people say.  But if it is something the Twins are doing, I'd have to think it's the reduced stride to the plate; the typical Twins stride certainly appears to be pretty minimal. IF (still just speculation) the Twins coach the stride out of pitchers I wonder what the reason is.  Is it believed to improve control? Do they believe it keeps pitchers healthier? Or is it simply a more effective way of limiting the leads of base runners?

 

And again, I don't think a reduced velocity or strikeout rate is the intention of the club, if there is a causation related to a Twins philosophy, it is almost surely just a side effect not the actual objective.

[Vanimal46]

It's probably not the end all be all to be a high velocity guy in the rotation, because no pitcher can continually blow hitters away with nothing but gas for 7 innings. That's certainly where pitch location, pitch selection, and overall "stuff" comes into play.

 

However, I'd like to see this study done with bullpens. I would think that's where velocity becomes a huge factor in their success. And that's still a huge problem that the Twins need to address. 

[Willihammer]

Yeah anyone who watched that 14 inning affair between the Rangers and Blue Jays - what a showcase of bullpen firepower. Just one 97 mph guy after the next.

 

The Twins are lightyears behind either of those teams.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Next season I expect to see guys like Pressley, Meyer, and Burdi, get significant opportunities, and hopefully we will get caught up with the rest of the league.

[ALessKosherScott]

I don't care if a guy throws 88 or 168 miles per hour as long as they get strikeouts. Greg Maddux didn't throw hard, but three other really good pitches and a change up that defined a generation. That's the definition in shelling this as a debate of stuff vs. velocity.

 

You're never going to get a guy like Pelfrey to get strikeouts though unless you can go back in time and teach him a second and third pitch, even though he throws hard. He simply doesn't have great stuff.

[dbminn]

 

And here are their MLB ranks for starter ERA- (ERA relative to league/park): 10, 2, 8, 25, 6, 12.  All top-half in rotation run prevention except for the Padres.  Try to filter the effects of defense (FIP-) and it looks even better, with even the Padres jumping up into the top half too.

 

Also, as a group these are not bad teams, and their rotations generally weren't the reason for any missed expectations.

 

Go to Fangraphs and sort team starter performance by FIP- or ERA- and then by K% -- they're not perfect matches, but they're close.  BB% is a good match too, but also note that high K% seems to correlate pretty well with low BB% too.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=13,a

 

If you're focusing too much on the BB% side of that correlation, as it seems the Twins have done at times, you are probably leaving a lot of effectiveness/predictability/stability on the table.

 

I guess instead of "correcting" reality at every possible point, I looked at which teams were successful (RA9-WAR).

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=c,4,5,11,7,8,13,-1,36,37,40,43,44,48,51,-1,6,45,62,-1,59,212,76&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=19,d

 

I especially have a problem with people's use of FIP to determine the "best" pitcher. Of course FIP is correlated to K. That is what Fangraphs deems important. But FIP is not a complete measure of performance. It is basically a predictive value that gives very little consideration to control pitchers. Strikeouts, walks and HR. That is not the entire game.

 

Maybe we should have a sequencing "myth" page too. A chunk of baseball is always going to be random variability - that's what makes it fun. But elite command pitchers can control more than K/BB/HR, and they can lead the league. Greinke didn't top the league in FIP, but I'd take his RA-9 WAR.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-three-keys-to-zack-greinkes-scoreless-streak/

 

 

A power pitcher that Ks a lot but doesn't have a ton of command may groove fastballs once behind in the count. A good hitter will get a lot more base hits in that case. (See Corey Kluber this year) "But his FIP was so solid!"

Edited October 13, 2015 by dbminn

[Kwak]

For many years the Twins have thumped their chest about not walking opponents, and have often issued the fewest in the AL.  "Throw the ball over the plate..." the common remark from announcers, coaches and managers.  The careers that ended because of "not enough strikes", these factors have driven home the bias of the Minnesota Twins toward pitchers.  Face it, high K rate pitchers are in greater demand (sort of like high HR hitters) and their salaries escalate.  The Twins have had a philosophy of "low payrolls" since their inception.  It should be expected that their strategy would be "low-priced" pitchers to reduce payroll.  Combine that goal with the fans' bias toward hitters v. pitchers for popularity only further emphasizes why the Twins took the path of PtoC pitchers instead of the high K/9 starting pitchers.  The expansion of team revenues have permitted the change to higher velocity pitchers for the Twins (and BB in general--though many teams typically favored the high V-type pitcher anyway).

[dbminn]

Thankfully, I've never seen Terry Ryan "thump his chest".

[stringer bell]

First of all, what a great conversation about an important topic. Velocity is not a be-all and end-all or Jim Hoey would have been a good pitcher and Mike Pelfrey would have been the Twins' best starter this year.

 

My opinion is that the Twins have overvalued walk suppression to the point that they've ruled out guys with strikeout potential. There has been an adjustment to that view, but the question is whether they've adjusted enough. Moving on with Rick Anderson is probably a key to adjusting their philosophy, but converting the guys in the starting rotation to strikeout machines is not happening.

 

As transition occurs, it will be interesting to see how the strikeout totals evolve. There is no place to go but up.

[dbminn]

 

First of all, what a great conversation about an important topic. Velocity is not a be-all and end-all or Jim Hoey would have been a good pitcher and Mike Pelfrey would have been the Twins' best starter this year.

 

My opinion is that the Twins have overvalued walk suppression to the point that they've ruled out guys with strikeout potential. There has been an adjustment to that view, but the question is whether they've adjusted enough. Moving on with Rick Anderson is probably a key to adjusting their philosophy, but converting the guys in the starting rotation to strikeout machines is not happening.

 

As transition occurs, it will be interesting to see how the strikeout totals evolve. There is no place to go but up.

 

Great points. I've been very happy with Neil Allen's emphasis on having a change-up or a wipeout pitch. I hope this can be done without significantly increasing walks.

 

Gibson's K rate went up significantly towards the end of the year. Unfortunately, he didn't command his pitches as well as early in the season. Duffey's curve is an obvious strikeout pitch but I think he's going to have to improve his changeup to continue to have success.

 

Velo is great but a starter still needs complementary stuff to be a complete pitcher.

[Jham]

For the record, Fangraphs has Blackburn's career avg. fastball velocity at 93.1 mph.  http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.aspx?playerid=4270&position=p&pitch=FA

Really, he's more of an example of needing more than pure velocity rather than pitching to contact....  I remember him being a lot better when his fastball was diving at 91 than straight at 94.

[SwainZag]

I would say for starters, their 2nd and 3rd pitches are just as important as being to able to throw hard.  

 

When Johan was striking out 9-10.5 guys per 9 innings, it wasn't because he threw hard it was because he had the best changeup in the game to go with being able to throw 92-94.  After we saw Liriano add the changeup to his arsenal he became a strikeout master as well

 

Duffey this season didn't strike out 8.2 guys per 9 innings based on his 90.5 MPH fastball.  He did that by getting ahead and using that superb curveball.

 

If anyone watched Game 1 of the Dodgers-Mets series, we saw a guy in deGrom who used his high velocity fastball combined with a slider and a curve to keep hitters off balance all day.  In the same game Kershaw obtained most of his K's on his nasty slider.  

 

Starting pitchers need an "outpitch" to rack up strikeouts.  High velocity of course helps.  When Kershaw has the ability to throw his slider as hard as Milone's fastball he certainly has an advantage.  

 

I do think that velocity comes in more handy in the pen, which the Twins have lacked.  When you have guys throwing so few pitches, the velocity really adds an extra notch, especially when guys have been seeing a starter throwing 91-93 all game long.

 

Just my two cents on the issue.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

For the record, Fangraphs has Blackburn's career avg. fastball velocity at 93.1 mph.  http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.aspx?playerid=4270&position=p&pitch=FA

Really, he's more of an example of needing more than pure velocity rather than pitching to contact....  I remember him being a lot better when his fastball was diving at 91 than straight at 94.

Not sure why, but Fangraphs only shows 33 recorded pitches for Blackburn, total, under the PitchF/X tab.  So I wouldn't exactly trust those speed readings.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I guess instead of "correcting" reality at every possible point, I looked at which teams were successful (RA9-WAR).

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=c,4,5,11,7,8,13,-1,36,37,40,43,44,48,51,-1,6,45,62,-1,59,212,76&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=19,d

 

I especially have a problem with people's use of FIP to determine the "best" pitcher.

Using RA9-WAR, the K/9 leading rotations that you noted ranked 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 28.

 

Using ERA- as I used, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25

 

By either measure, they were 5 good starting staffs plus the Padres.

 

What you claimed offered a better correlation with success than K/9 was BB/9.  The top 6 teams in BB/9 for 2015 ranked 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 14 in RA9-WAR.  Outside the Padres (who had some notable defensive issues), that's not a materially different correlation than that of K/9.

 

How about BB/9 in 2014?  The Twins starters ranked 6th in MLB, and 30th (dead last) in RA9-WAR.

[markos]

While it is rather obvious that high velocity is neither necessary nor sufficient for MLB pitching success, I don't think there is any question that it has some valuable as a predictor of success.

 

Since 2011, there are 677 starters that threw at least 100 innings in a season. Running a quick correlation with ERA- and FIP-, there is a correlation between velocity and success. It isn't terribly strong (.35 for FIP-, .23 for ERA-), but it is stronger than GB% and similar in strength to BB%. It lags rather far behind K% and other swing/chase metrics (O-Swing%, Z-Contact%, Contact%, SwStr%). As other people have already pointed out, getting strikeouts (or at least swinging strikes) is probably the more important skill than pure velocity.

 

Of the above sample, ~20% averaged at least 93 MPH with their fastball. As a group, the 93+ club was significantly above average (90 ERA-) and made up 27% of all the above-average pitchers (ERA- < 100). Basically, that group was 67% more likely to be above-average than the <93 group. Looking at elite seasons (ERA- < 80), the difference is even more pronounced. The 93+ group had 38% of the elite seasons, which means that a pitcher throwing 93+ is 245% more likely (assuming I did my math correctly) to have an ERA- of <80.

 

Even though we can all come up with examples of great pitchers without great velocity, in all actuality they are rare and difficult to predict ahead of time. Dallas Keuchel has been amazing while barely cracking 90 MPH, but two years ago no one was predicting he would be good, much less one of the best pitchers in baseball. And at this point nobody knows who the next Keuchel will be. That kind of ends up being the crux of the problem - it is very hard, perhaps impossible, to look at a high school or college kid sitting 90-91 and know that they will have the right combination of stuff, control, command, pitch-ability, deception, projection and moxie to consistently miss bats against major league batters. Sure, that kid might become an ace, but the probability is much, much lower than a kid throwing 95.

 

 

[bird]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, this "philosophy" is very well-documented. You hear it from opposing scouts, every prospect website and scout talker on the planet, exec's who've been here before, probably even Terry Ryan himself...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bird]

Steve,

 

You're probably right. If you have heard about this "philosophy" from opposing scouts, from every prospect website and scout talker on the planet, from execs who've been here before, great, I'll take your word for it. Personally, I can't recall ever seeing anything in writing describing this philosophy from a single source who heard it firsthand from the Twins.

 

What are your thoughts about why you haven't heard this philosophy described by someone employed by the Twins?