Velocity Is (Still) a Problem for the Minnesota Twins

[mikelink45]

28 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Looks like the Twins were dead last in avg fastball velo in 2020 while having a top 5 staff and 24th in avg fastball velo in 2019 while having a top 10 staff. 2019-2020 Twins pitching staffs had more WAR (according to fangraphs) than any other AL team and only behind the Dodgers in all of baseball while being 26th in fastball velo. Not sure that shows a great correlation.

Nice reflection - too true.  

[Tom Froemming]

39 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Looks like the Twins were dead last in avg fastball velo in 2020 while having a top 5 staff and 24th in avg fastball velo in 2019 while having a top 10 staff. 2019-2020 Twins pitching staffs had more WAR (according to fangraphs) than any other AL team and only behind the Dodgers in all of baseball while being 26th in fastball velo. Not sure that shows a great correlation.

I mentioned that toward the end of the article, but here are the numbers 2019-21 sorted by 95+ mph %. Of course there are some exceptions, but generally it's a lot of green at the top and a lot of red at the bottom.

Team	95+%	vFA (pi)	ERA	FIP	xFIP	WAR
CHW	24.9	94.8	4.22	4.13	4.17	41.2
NYM	22.7	94.9	4.24	4.32	4.33	46.7
CIN	19.3	94.3	4.08	4.22	4.15	46.1
NYY	19	93.9	3.18	3.66	3.84	61.1
COL	18.9	94.3	5.27	4.90	4.66	22.7
BOS	18.4	93.5	3.99	4.05	4.04	45.2
TBR	18.3	94.1	3.66	3.76	3.93	50.3
SDP	18	94.4	4.24	4.23	4.11	45.9
LAD	18	93.4	4.43	4.54	4.68	23.1
HOU	15.2	94.1	4.29	4.15	4.15	36
ATL	15	94.2	4.66	4.28	4.30	35.5
PHI	14.9	93.1	3.96	4.19	4.51	41.6
STL	14	93.7	4.11	4.27	4.32	32.5
KCR	14	93.3	4.91	4.79	4.72	21.9
TEX	13.8	93.8	3.81	4.09	4.03	47.4
MIL	13	93.7	4.57	4.51	4.24	32.5
CLE	12.7	93.6	3.91	4.33	4.51	30.6
PIT	12.3	93.6	4.83	4.62	4.71	24.4
WSN	12.2	93.3	4.40	4.54	4.51	27.7
MIA	11.6	93.4	4.63	4.58	4.48	31
TOR	10.5	93.6	4.96	4.81	4.74	21.3
DET	10.4	93.5	5.07	4.77	4.70	16.3
SFG	9.6	92.7	5.57	5.24	5.00	21.3
OAK	9.5	93.5	3.94	4.13	4.19	42.3
LAA	9.4	92.7	4.71	4.67	4.73	23.1
CHC	9.1	93.2	3.94	4.11	4.32	33.9
SEA	9	92.7	4.41	4.50	4.31	28.7
BAL	8.2	93.1	4.93	4.63	4.55	28.1
MIN	7.1	92.5	4.36	4.25	4.33	41.6
ARI	6.3	92.5	4.71	4.69	4.67	18.7

[Minny505]

3 hours ago, Parker Hageman said:

I think the real question you have to ask is if fastballs even matter anymore. 

Most competitive teams have started to go away from fastballs. The Rays pitchers threw fastballs in just 43% of their mix. Twins were 49% (up from 43% from last year, thanks Joe Ryan). Dodgers, Yankees, Braves and Astros were all also under 50% fastballs thrown.

The future of this organization is not fastballs. 

4 of those 5 teams were in the Top 10 in average velo. 

It's not throwing a high quantity of fastballs that matters. It's throwing high velo when you do throw fastballs that matters.

High velo on the fastball means high velo on most breaking pitches. High velo on those breaking pitches means harder to barrel or even swing-and-miss.

[Sousy]

4 hours ago, joefish said:

Watch the playoff bullpen arms. The teams still playing. Go get us some of them.

Is this where I can insert a Hansel Robles crack?

[chpettit19]

19 minutes ago, Tom Froemming said:

I mentioned that toward the end of the article, but here are the numbers 2019-21 sorted by 95+ mph %. Of course there are some exceptions, but generally it's a lot of green at the top and a lot of red at the bottom.

 

Team	95+%	vFA (pi)	ERA	FIP	xFIP	WAR
CHW	24.9	94.8	4.22	4.13	4.17	41.2
NYM	22.7	94.9	4.24	4.32	4.33	46.7
CIN	19.3	94.3	4.08	4.22	4.15	46.1
NYY	19	93.9	3.18	3.66	3.84	61.1
COL	18.9	94.3	5.27	4.90	4.66	22.7
BOS	18.4	93.5	3.99	4.05	4.04	45.2
TBR	18.3	94.1	3.66	3.76	3.93	50.3
SDP	18	94.4	4.24	4.23	4.11	45.9
LAD	18	93.4	4.43	4.54	4.68	23.1
HOU	15.2	94.1	4.29	4.15	4.15	36
ATL	15	94.2	4.66	4.28	4.30	35.5
PHI	14.9	93.1	3.96	4.19	4.51	41.6
STL	14	93.7	4.11	4.27	4.32	32.5
KCR	14	93.3	4.91	4.79	4.72	21.9
TEX	13.8	93.8	3.81	4.09	4.03	47.4
MIL	13	93.7	4.57	4.51	4.24	32.5
CLE	12.7	93.6	3.91	4.33	4.51	30.6
PIT	12.3	93.6	4.83	4.62	4.71	24.4
WSN	12.2	93.3	4.40	4.54	4.51	27.7
MIA	11.6	93.4	4.63	4.58	4.48	31
TOR	10.5	93.6	4.96	4.81	4.74	21.3
DET	10.4	93.5	5.07	4.77	4.70	16.3
SFG	9.6	92.7	5.57	5.24	5.00	21.3
OAK	9.5	93.5	3.94	4.13	4.19	42.3
LAA	9.4	92.7	4.71	4.67	4.73	23.1
CHC	9.1	93.2	3.94	4.11	4.32	33.9
SEA	9	92.7	4.41	4.50	4.31	28.7
BAL	8.2	93.1	4.93	4.63	4.55	28.1
MIN	7.1	92.5	4.36	4.25	4.33	41.6
ARI	6.3	92.5	4.71	4.69	4.67	18.7

The biggest r value amongst those variables is WAR compared to 95+% at .535 which is something, but certainly not statistically significant. The rest are in a range from -.278 (vFA to ERA) to -.487 (vFA to xFIP). Most are in the -.36 to -.46 range which shows there's really no strong correlation between 95+% or vFA and the results. 

I don't think anybody would argue it's not better to have velo if you can, but this data shows there isn't really an overwhelming correlation between velo and ERA, FIP, xFIP, or WAR. You can be successful without having huge velo even if it does give you a slight advantage overall.

[beckmt]

Some of the argument is about command and control.  Movement and ability to locate the fastball on the top edge of the zone is very important.  As many pitchers have proven lack of movement just means a lot of doubles and homers when the fastball gets caught up to. 

[Tom Froemming]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

The biggest r value amongst those variables is WAR compared to 95+% at .535 which is something, but certainly not statistically significant. The rest are in a range from -.278 (vFA to ERA) to -.487 (vFA to xFIP). Most are in the -.36 to -.46 range which shows there's really no strong correlation between 95+% or vFA and the results. 

I don't think anybody would argue it's not better to have velo if you can, but this data shows there isn't really an overwhelming correlation between velo and ERA, FIP, xFIP, or WAR. You can be successful without having huge velo even if it does give you a slight advantage overall.

I'd think you'd have a difficult time finding any MLB pitching statistics that have r values in excess of .7, but I've never tried to figure that out. I was thinking maybe K-BB%, but K-BB% to fWAR was .524 over that three-year stretch (though it was also -.525 to ERA, much better than those velo numbers).

[Parker Hageman]

3 hours ago, Tom Froemming said:

I would say the most-used pitch type matters, yes.

Was that at Brooks? Baseball Savant had the Rays at  55.3% fastballs and the Twins at 53.1%.

TruMedia.

Baseball Savant counts cutters as fastballs. TruMedia doesn't. Given the increased movement of cutters lately, I think that's more accurate to exclude them from the fastball pool. 

[Parker Hageman]

1 hour ago, Minny505 said:

4 of those 5 teams were in the Top 10 in average velo. 

It's not throwing a high quantity of fastballs that matters. It's throwing high velo when you do throw fastballs that matters.

High velo on the fastball means high velo on most breaking pitches. High velo on those breaking pitches means harder to barrel or even swing-and-miss.

This isn't to say that velocity doesn't help.

Fastball velo plays.

But more teams have recognized that more outs happen on non-fastballs. 

If you are going to miss bats and chase strikeouts, development begins to focus on movement. 

 

[Nine of twelve]

11 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

Must be Warren Spahn - greatest left hander ever, Milwaukee Brave and my favorite, but never got ranked the best, just won 20 games in each of 13 seasons.  If it was you were a lucky guy.

 

I'd slightly lean toward Steve Carlton over Spahn.

[mikelink45]

34 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I'd slightly lean toward Steve Carlton over Spahn.

Great pitcher, but Spahn is my man

 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Tom Froemming said:

I'd think you'd have a difficult time finding any MLB pitching statistics that have r values in excess of .7, but I've never tried to figure that out. I was thinking maybe K-BB%, but K-BB% to fWAR was .524 over that three-year stretch (though it was also -.525 to ERA, much better than those velo numbers).

Oh I'm sure it'd be real hard to get to one that is at .7, but the .3s that velo has to ERA, FIP, xFIP leaves a lot to be desired. Velo certainly helps, but I'm not ready to say it's a problem that the Twins don't hunt it. Lots of ways to get guys out, and pure velo doesn't do it. Control and mixing pitches are far more important than just throwing hard.

[old nurse]

The Cy Young claim might be bogus as there is no data to back that up. One oops

The White Sox had 4 starters listed who averaged 95. They started 69 games, averaged 5 innings per start. That is a lot of dependence  on a bullpen. 

[old nurse]

12 hours ago, Tom Froemming said:

I'd think you'd have a difficult time finding any MLB pitching statistics that have r values in excess of .7, but I've never tried to figure that out. I was thinking maybe K-BB%, but K-BB% to fWAR was .524 over that three-year stretch (though it was also -.525 to ERA, much better than those velo numbers).

It goes to show that it is not one thing like 4 seam fastball that makes pitching good to great. Still many people write articles looking at the one thing. 

[Trov]

Velo can make up for being a poor pitcher, but the best pitchers of all time had location, and an ability to change speeds.  If you mix up location and speeds with some movement that will be better than just speed alone.  The guys you mentioned about being traded away or let go all are pen guys, not starters as well.  They drafted a guy because he threw 100. 

I am not saying stay away from velo, but brining in a guy that throws heat only is not always a success story either. 

[terrydactyls]

Winning baseball game is so damn easy.  Just sign hitters that have 100 MPH exit velocity and pitchers that throw near or above triple digits and you will go 162-0 every year.  Don't worry about anything else.

[Tom Froemming]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

It goes to show that it is not one thing like 4 seam fastball that makes pitching good to great. Still many people write articles looking at the one thing. 

Not sure how this suggests velocity *only* makes pitchers good or great. I don't think it should be controversial to say you don't want to rank near the absolute bottom in velo, or really any kind of pitching metric, right? Also, simply "the Twins need better pitchers" would have made for a pretty short and boring article, don'tchathink? 

[old nurse]

18 hours ago, Tom Froemming said:

Not sure how this suggests velocity *only* makes pitchers good or great. I don't think it should be controversial to say you don't want to rank near the absolute bottom in velo, or really any kind of pitching metric, right? Also, simply "the Twins need better pitchers" would have made for a pretty short and boring article, don'tchathink? 

The tone of what you wrote and the evidence presented would leave one to believe that a 95 mph fastball was essential.  If it was not essential then why spend all that time creating the bait?

To call someone out is not making anything a controversy. Correlation and causation is not a controversy   I did not say to make it simpler, I asked you to be more complex in your approach. 

[Mike Sixel]

Those saying he's wrong.....show your work, please. It's one thing to criticize his work, it's another to show he's wrong.

There is clearly a correlation here. Whether he's right about it being important (not essential, not necessary, important) or not can be argued, but it would be great if those arguing against him held themselves to the same level of work they want out of him.