Mike Leake, Best of the Bunch?

[RedsManRick]

It's interesting how much Arroyo's BABIP skill got once the Reds improved their defense. What's was the Reds' team BABIP allowed (1-DER) during Arroyo's time on the team? That's a better baseline for assessing his particular skill at limiting BABIP than league average.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Arroyo demonstrated some ability to limit BABIP throughout his career, perhaps on the order of 10 points.

[jojo]

"Some people totally get this pitcher wrong by looking at how many runs he actually gave up."

"That wasn't a hit. That was some bad fielding."~~Ichiro upon being congratulated on getting a hit in his first spring training at-bat with the Mariners

[TRF]

Except that didn't happen. The Reds were a bad defensive team in 2006-8, worst DER in the NL in 2008. In fact, those years were the bottom of the trough when it came to the Reds' defense. 2002-5 were actually better.

2006, the focus changed. I didn't say they magically became a good defensive team. By the end 2008, Dunn and Griffey were gone, Bruce was in RF, and GG's were in place in the IF or about to be.

I stand by what I stated. Arroyo as a Red in 2002-2005, especially during his 30's would have been stomped like a narc at a biker rally.

[IslandRed]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Arroyo demonstrated some ability to limit BABIP throughout his career, perhaps on the order of 10 points.

Yep. It's generally accepted post-McCracken that not all pitchers have the exact same baseline BABIP. But broken into seasonal slices, all pitchers do have a great deal of volatility in year-to-year BABIP. If someone's baseline BABIP is .290 instead of .300, his single-season BABIP can still vary 30-40 points in either direction based on pure randomness. It takes a lot of innings for the signal to emerge from the noise.

So here's the thing I think has been missed at times in the thread -- when people say Pitcher A can control his BABIP better than Pitcher B, they do not mean Pitcher A's BABIP is less volatile, they just mean his baseline is better. If a pitcher goes for eight seasons and he has three where his BABIP is more than ten points better than his team, and five where it's +- 10 points either way, that would be a reasonable statistical outcome if he starts with a modestly better baseline BABIP and then we introduce natural seasonal variance.

[jojo]

Yep. It's generally accepted post-McCracken that not all pitchers have the exact same baseline BABIP. But broken into seasonal slices, all pitchers do have a great deal of volatility in year-to-year BABIP. If someone's baseline BABIP is .290 instead of .300, his single-season BABIP can still vary 30-40 points in either direction based on pure randomness. It takes a lot of innings for the signal to emerge from the noise.

So here's the thing I think has been missed at times in the thread -- when people say Pitcher A can control his BABIP better than Pitcher B, they do not mean Pitcher A's BABIP is less volatile, they just mean his baseline is better. If a pitcher goes for eight seasons and he has three where his BABIP is more than ten points better than his team, and five where it's +- 10 points either way, that would be a reasonable statistical outcome if he starts with a modestly better baseline BABIP and then we introduce natural seasonal variance.

Actually, at issue from my perspective in this thread is why a baseline is what it might be.

[DannyB]

This guy thinks hes just lucky

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ak-than-bright

[_Sir_Charles_]

I find it odd that he automatically attributes his higher than average strand rate to luck. Why is it NEVER a skill the pitcher has? How about the fact that he has one of the best defenses playing behind him to help strand those runners. How about the possibility that he's got excellent control, movement and speed changes that helps make hitters make weaker contact? I find it irritating that when they can't explain something that goes against the norm...it's luck. Dig deeper.

[kaldaniels]

I find it odd that he automatically attributes his higher than average strand rate to luck. Why is it NEVER a skill the pitcher has? How about the fact that he has one of the best defenses playing behind him to help strand those runners. How about the possibility that he's got excellent control, movement and speed changes that helps make hitters make weaker contact? I find it irritating that when they can't explain something that goes against the norm...it's luck. Dig deeper.

I'm not closed minded, but the first thing I wonder is, "if he (whoever) is so good at stranding runners, why does he let them on base to begin with?"

[jojo]

I find it odd that he automatically attributes his higher than average strand rate to luck. Why is it NEVER a skill the pitcher has? How about the fact that he has one of the best defenses playing behind him to help strand those runners. How about the possibility that he's got excellent control, movement and speed changes that helps make hitters make weaker contact? I find it irritating that when they can't explain something that goes against the norm...it's luck. Dig deeper.

First, Leake shouldn't get credit for a defense that elevates his strand rate. That said, pitchers who suppress contact have been shown to be able to sustain a higher than expected strand rate. Pitch to contact pitchers, generally can't.

[_Sir_Charles_]

I'm not closed minded, but the first thing I wonder is, "if he (whoever) is so good at stranding runners, why does he let them on base to begin with?"

Good point. I'm not saying the article is WRONG...just that they automatically attribute it to luck.

[_Sir_Charles_]

First, Leake shouldn't get credit for a defense that elevates his strand rate. That said, pitchers who suppress contact have been shown to be able to sustain a higher than expected strand rate. Pitch to contact pitchers, generally can't.

IMO, a pitcher who tries to leverage his advantage should get credit for doing so. Leake's advantage is the leather behind him. That goes for all the Reds staff.

[jojo]

IMO, a pitcher who tries to leverage his advantage should get credit for doing so. Leake's advantage is the leather behind him. That goes for all the Reds staff.

Not being able to miss bats isn't the same thing as leveraging your defense.... This isn't snark, it's a very important distinction to make when so many seem so tempted to attribute swings in luck metrics to a pitcher's conscious attempt to induce contact in such a way as to aid the defense.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Not being able to miss bats isn't the same thing as leveraging your defense.... This isn't snark, it's a very important distinction to make when so many seem so tempted to attribute swings in luck metrics to a pitcher's conscious attempt to induce contact in such a way as to aid the defense.

I understand that you're not trying to be "snarkish", but I have a VERY hard time dismissing 4+ years of success to luck.

[Falls City Beer]

In a vacuum Leake is Roger Salkeld. They don't play in vacuums. Therefore, best to worry about Leake when he goes to a team with dog-ugly defense. Oh wait, I won't have to: he won't be a Red then.

[jojo]

I understand that you're not trying to be "snarkish", but I have a VERY hard time dismissing 4+ years of success to luck.

Then think of it as four years of VERY good defense.