# Thread: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

1. ## Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

I always get annoyed when Reds hitters swing at the 1st pitch. Maybe it was reading Moneyball, where we see that seeing a lot of pitches and wearing down the other teams pitchers iimportant. Anyway, I checked out the last 11 games, and every time the Reds averaged seeing 17 or more pitches per inning, they won. Every time they saw less than 17 pitches per inning, they lost.

Here is the breakdown:

8/26 1-4 loss 14.7 pitches per inning
8/25 1-4 loss 11 pitches per inning
8/24 6-3 win 10 pitches per inning
8/23 3-7 loss 16.55 pitches per inning
8/22 14-0 win 19.75 pitches per inning
8/21 4-3 win 19.75 pitches per inning
8/20 5-1 win 18.5 pitches per inning
8/19 14-7 win 18.75 pitches per inning
8/18 3-7 loss 15.44 pitches per inning
8/17 1-2 loss 13.88 pitches per inning
8/16 7-2 win 17.78 pitches per inning

To arrive at these numbers, I added up the total number of opposing team pitches, and divided by the number of Reds innings hit. ( 9, or 8 for home wins)

I realize that this number will not always hold up. However, I do think it shows a correlation between being patient at the plate and working the other teams pitchers and winning. It also shows that a good starter on the other team can beat us by keeping his pitch count down. (See Morris on 8/25). Still, working the count and running up the other team's pitch count helps....

3. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

part of the correlation has to do with most middle relievers are guys who weren't good enough to start and are in the pen to try and hide their weaknesses.

how i enjoy having a team of guys who are mostly patient.

4. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Originally Posted by mbgrayson
every time the Reds averaged seeing 17 or more pitches per inning, they won. Every time they saw less than 17 pitches per inning, they lost.

8/24 6-3 win 10 pitches per inning

I realize that this number will not always hold up.
You were wrong and then you were right!

Nice work and very interesting. More pitches usually equates to more walks as well. The REDS are 5-5 in their last 10 games. In the 5 wins they had a total of 20 walks. In the 5 losses they had a total of 10 walks. They have gone 12-13 in August. In the 12 wins they had a total of 52 walks (4.33/game). In the 13 losses they had a total of 32 walks (2.46/game).

Patience is definitely a virtue in baseball.

5. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

More pitches mean you are obviously getting hits, walks and extending innings.

Pretty obvious.

6. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Originally Posted by Cedric
More pitches mean you are obviously getting hits, walks and extending innings.

Pretty obvious.
Thank you for not making me point that out.

7. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Originally Posted by Cedric
More pitches mean you are obviously getting hits, walks and extending innings.

Pretty obvious.
You'd think it were obvious to all.

But it's not. "Baseball people" get rich spouting nonsense to the opposite effect.

8. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Originally Posted by Cedric
More pitches mean you are obviously getting hits, walks and extending innings.

Pretty obvious.
There is more to it than that. It would take more time, but we could calculate number of pitches per plate appearance. That would eliminate the effect of hits and walks, and I bet that you will still see better 'pitches seen' numbers in wins than in losses, although not such a strong correlation.

The correlation also works with pitches seen to runs scored, and of course, runs scored to wins. During this period, the Reds have also won every game in which they scored 4 or more runs.

9. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

"every time the Reds averaged seeing 17 or more pitches per inning, they won. Every time they saw less than 17 pitches per inning, they lost."

8/27 0-8 loss 16.55 pitches per inning

The rule holds again, but it was close....

That last inning in today's game was a good example of lack of patience. Jamey Wright pitched only 8 pitches in the 9th inning. Both Ross and Clayton hit the first pitch, and made outs. Phillips got a single on the 6th pitch he saw. I know...there are also 1st pitch HRs.

If you can get a pitcher past 17 or so pitches in an inning, he may get tired enough to make a 'mistake'. In general, the more pitches you see, the better chance that one will be one you can hit.

10. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Hmmmm, do we need to bring Dan O back and reinstitute the rule from the minors, no swing until after the first strike??? [The answer, of course, is no, but patience is a virtue)]

Good analysis though folks.

11. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Originally Posted by mbgrayson
we could calculate number of pitches per plate appearance. That would eliminate the effect of hits and walks, and I bet that you will still see better 'pitches seen' numbers in wins than in losses
Well, I was wrong. When corrected for number of plate appearances, the correlation between 'pitches seen' and winning, and with runs, goes away.

8/27 0-8 loss 4.26 pitches per PA
8/26 1-4 loss 3.69 pitches per PA
8/25 1-4 loss 3.19 pitches per PA
8/24 6-3 win 4.07 pitches per PA
8/23 3-7 loss 4.03 pitches per PA
8/22 14-0 win 3.76 pitches per PA
8/21 4-3 win 4.16 pitches per PA
8/20 5-1 win 3.89 pitches per PA
8/19 14-7 win 3.85 pitches per PA
8/18 3-7 loss 3.76 pitches per PA
8/17 1-2 loss 4.03 pitches per PA
8/16 7-2 win 4.21 pitches per PA

The pitches seen per inning being higher happens in correlation to when runs are scored. The more runs scored, the more plate appearance = more pitches seen.

There is lots more fun to be had here. On average, do batters who get a hit see more or less pitches per plate appearance than those who get outs? Do we see more pitches in the inning where we score runs? Fun fun...lol

12. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

I posted this on another thread discussing the frustration with Reds swinging early in the count lately, but it fits into this thread better. Of note, the Reds were shut out today, but actually padded their NL lead in pitches per PA:

But in general, the Reds have been very patient at the plate this year. Some say Chris Chambliss is to thank for this trait.

How patient? Well, a look at the stats on MLB.com show they lead the NL, with 3.859 pitches per plate appearance (PA).

The Nats are 2nd, the Phils 3rd, and the Pads 4th. The Mets, who lead the NL in runs scored, are in the middle of the pack (3.776), and the SF Giants are dead last, with 3.579 pitches per PA.

In fact, the Reds actually padded their NL lead in pitches per PA today. Giants pitchers threw 149 pitches, and the Reds had 33 AB + 2 BB for 35 plate appearances for a total of 4.26 pitches per PA.

The Reds also lead the league in walks, and are 2nd to the Dodgers in OBP.

13. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Checking into this stat a little more, I found this interesting link.

Also there is this link, which discusses how the Yankees have seen ove 1200 more pitches than Seattle this year. This pitches per PA stat also explains why the recent Boston-New york game was the longest 9 inning game in MLB history time-wise.

14. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Great topic, mbgrayson.

I ran some quick data correlations for P/PA (pitches per plate appearance) and other offensive factors for the 2006 season so far. A preferred and more accurate sample size would be several seasons, but this was quick and easy and should give us a ballpark neighborhood of what offensive events correlate to P/PA better than others.
Code:
```P/PA Correlations to Offensive Events - 2006 Season

Offensive Event        P/PA Correlation

Hits                        .004
Doubles                     .218
Triples                    -.617
Home Runs                   .549
Total Bases                 .317
Extra Base Hits             .375
Hit by Pitch                .319
Walks                       .622
Strikeouts                  .522
Stolen Bases               -.154
Caught Stealing            -.252

Batting Average            -.009
On-Base Percentage          .442
Slugging Percentage         .347
On-Base Plus Slugging (OPS) .429
Runs                        .338
```
As can be seen, walks/isolated discipline skills and power skills (home run and doubles power) have much stronger correlations than factors such as hits and batting averages. Taking pitches and working the count in your favor will result in more mistake pitches that can be crushed, and more mistake pitches for your hitters will usually result in more extra base hits for your offense. Additionally, taking pitches will also result in more walks and strikeouts.

I've always advocated having offensive teams that run high P/PA numbers as those figures generally mean an offense will take more walks (have higher OBPs), have more power (higher SLG) and eventually score more runs than an average offense in P/PA. However, those offenses will also strike out more than an average offense and generally frustrate fans who do not understand how important OBP and SLG skills are.

15. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

But which comes first, the walks or a high correlation for P/PA? Wouldn't walks naturally have a higher correlation due to the fact that it takes at least four pitches to earn a free pass? If simply taking more pitches correlated to more walks, shouldn't we see a higher correlation to OBP?

If seeing more pitches per plate appearance raises the chance for a homerun, why wouldn't the correlation for hits, including triples be higher? Shouldn't there be a higher correlation with SLG?

16. ## Re: Pitches seen to wins formula (Plate patience pays)

Originally Posted by Reds Nd2
But which comes first, the walks or a high correlation for P/PA? Wouldn't walks naturally have a higher correlation due to the fact that it takes at least four pitches to earn a free pass? If simply taking more pitches correlated to more walks, shouldn't we see a higher correlation to OBP?

If seeing more pitches per plate appearance raises the chance for a homerun, why wouldn't the correlation for hits, including triples be higher? Shouldn't there be a higher correlation with SLG?
Interesting questions.

Generally hitters who take more pitches will take more walks and get themselves into better batting counts than hitters who take fewer pitches. It's not always the case, but it's pretty common. Scott Hatteberg is a prime example of that, which is why Beane liked him in Oakland. An average hitter will get into a hitting count around 35 percent of the time, but Hatteberg's made a career of getting into a hitting count over 43 percent of the time.

The big advantages, though, really aren't the individual plate appearance results, but actually the pitching staff management of the opposition. Chewing up pitches gets the starting pitcher out earlier and gets mediocre relief pitching into the game earlier. Getting those marginal relievers into a game is where an offense can really tee off on a pitching staff and win a game or even a series.

Typical bullpens may only have two or three stoppers in the bullpen, if even that. If you let their starter reach the 7th inning, you may only face those better stoppers. Get that starter out in the 5th inning, and there's a gap of a few innings between the starter exiting the game and the bullpen stoppers where your offense will be able to hit and [most times] crush marginal pitching.

Triples in today's game are mostly anomalies now as it is. As a group, they are either A) doubles stretched into triples by speedsters, B) misplays by outfielders or C) random balls hit into odd ballpark areas, such as right-center field in Fenway or whatever telephone company San Francisco calls their park nowadays.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

 Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball

Contact us: Boss | GIK | cumberlandreds | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | redsfan1995 | The Operator