Successful pitchers with low K rates

[TruffleShuffle]

OK, I was wondering this tonight after seeing Chien-Ming Wang's shutout win tonight despite striking out 1 batter, whether he really has a future as a good MLB pitcher, or whether he's just been lucky.

 

Wang's numbers the first 2 seasons of his MLB career:

 

Year      IP      ERA      BB      K       G/F
2005    116.1    4.02      32      47      2.96
2006    148.0    3.77      36      45      3.30 

 

The numbers are fascinating in that the ERA is good, but the K rate and the BB/K ratio is pretty awful. The ground ball to fly ball ratio also indicates that Wang is an extreme ground ball pitcher.

 

My question is, can a pitcher with a K-rate this low and a BB/K ratio this poor be consistently good over the course of a long career? I would have said no, but Wang has pitched more than the equivalent of a season with positive overall results. I'm just not sure if the G/F ratio is enough to compensate for the other poor ratios in the long run.

[texascub]

Kenny Rogers has had some low K numbers and bad K/BB rates and still had success.

[Wolverineman]

The most amazing thing about his success is he's doing it in front of the Yankees defense. Which is terrible just about everywhere. I would say its very likely that he cannot keep this up without at least reducing his walk rate some. And unless he's one of the very rare starting pitchers that can exert a lot of control on the balls put in play(i.e. continously keep a low BABIP in front of bad defenses) he'll need to be on a team with a very good infield defense. I wouldn't bet a penny on him keeping his current success up on that team without something changing(k rate, bb rate, improved defense).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Welcome!

[Rob]

Its extremely rare to find a pitcher that can handle more than a couple seasons of success without at least a league-average K rate. So rare, in fact, that I can't think of a single one off the top of my head. Tommy John might be the closest... but his K rate always hovered right around league average, even if a bit on the low end. And his walk rates were damn good.

[Outshined_One]

A pitcher with a low K/9 can succeed as long as he has a good BB/9 and good HR/9.

 

Wang's pretty much doing exactly that. Limiting the baserunners and the homers makes life easier on a guy who doesn't strike out very many.

 

That said, Wang is likely going to be a 3/4 starter over the course of his career.

[chuckywang]

What about Maddux in his prime?

[soccer10k]

The most amazing thing about his success is he's doing it in front of the Yankees defense. Which is terrible just about everywhere. I would say its very likely that he cannot keep this up without at least reducing his walk rate some. And unless he's one of the very rare starting pitchers that can exert a lot of control on the balls put in play(i.e. continously keep a low BABIP in front of bad defenses) he'll need to be on a team with a very good infield defense. I wouldn't bet a penny on him keeping his current success up on that team without something changing(k rate, bb rate, improved defense).

 

I don't think his walk rate needs to be reduced at all. His BB/9 is currently 2.19 and he currently has the second best GB/FB ratio in the ML behind Brandon Webb and Derek Lowe. I don't think he'll be an ace but I believe he'll be a solid starter in the ML for a number of years.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

What about Maddux in his prime?

 

If you define Maddux's prime as 1992-1998, his K/9 was 6.91 and his K/BB was 4.78. Definitely not what Truffle is talking about, he had a great K-rate during his prime.

 

To the point of the thread, Wang will succeed as a 3-4 starter, but a groundball pitcher who doesn't get too many Ks will definitely be more at the mercy of his defense and balls finding holes.

[TruffleShuffle]

What about Maddux in his prime?

 

If you define Maddux's prime as 1992-1998, his K/9 was 6.91 and his K/BB was 4.78. Definitely not what Truffle is talking about, he had a great K-rate during his prime.

 

To the point of the thread, Wang will succeed as a 3-4 starter, but a groundball pitcher who doesn't get too many Ks will definitely be more at the mercy of his defense and balls finding holes.

 

Maddux didn't have a great K rate, but it was certainly good enough, given his great control. I think Wang's career K rate is just so low (3.13 per 9 IP) that he cannot continue to have this same success in the future unless he figures out how to miss more bats.

[3finger]

What about Maddux in his prime?

 

If you define Maddux's prime as 1992-1998, his K/9 was 6.91 and his K/BB was 4.78. Definitely not what Truffle is talking about, he had a great K-rate during his prime.

 

To the point of the thread, Wang will succeed as a 3-4 starter, but a groundball pitcher who doesn't get too many Ks will definitely be more at the mercy of his defense and balls finding holes.

 

Maddux didn't have a great K rate, but it was certainly good enough, given his great control. I think Wang's career K rate is just so low (3.13 per 9 IP) that he cannot continue to have this same success in the future unless he figures out how to miss more bats.

 

There are always a few examples of pitchers with low K rates that have some success, but the odds are a guy like Wang will struggle. He's already 26, so his K rate is unlikely to jump significantly, and his strikeout numbers in the minors were mediocre.

 

Here are Wang's comps from baseball-reference.com by similarity score. Younger or more sensitive viewers should avert their eyes.

 

1. Oyster Burns (992)

2. Andy Replogle (990)

3. Ben Harris (989)

4. John McCarty (988)

5. Billy Gumbert (988)

6. Edgar McNabb (987)

7. Tom Carroll (986)

8. Tex Covington (984)

9. Bob Gilks (984)

10. Emil Frisk (984)

[Magnetic Curses]

OK, I was wondering this tonight after seeing Chien-Ming Wang's shutout win tonight despite striking out 1 batter, whether he really has a future as a good MLB pitcher, or whether he's just been lucky.

 

Wang's numbers the first 2 seasons of his MLB career:

 

Year      IP      ERA      BB      K       G/F
2005    116.1    4.02      32      47      2.96
2006    148.0    3.77      36      45      3.30 

 

The numbers are fascinating in that the ERA is good, but the K rate and the BB/K ratio is pretty awful. The ground ball to fly ball ratio also indicates that Wang is an extreme ground ball pitcher.

 

My question is, can a pitcher with a K-rate this low and a BB/K ratio this poor be consistently good over the course of a long career? I would have said no, but Wang has pitched more than the equivalent of a season with positive overall results. I'm just not sure if the G/F ratio is enough to compensate for the other poor ratios in the long run.

 

the answer right there on your chart.

 

his G/F ratio is near superhuman.

 

a pitcher, in order to sustain success in the major leagues, must either strike out a lot of guys or get a lot of ground balls--i prefer ground ball pitchers, they seem to be more durable as they throw less pitches and get a lot of poor contact (poor contact on early pitches is worse than a strikeout).

 

it doesn't matter if you have a poor defense around you, if you get 3 ground balls to every fly ball, you're gtoing to be very successful--check maddux's ratios when he was in his prime.

[3finger]

OK, I was wondering this tonight after seeing Chien-Ming Wang's shutout win tonight despite striking out 1 batter, whether he really has a future as a good MLB pitcher, or whether he's just been lucky.

 

Wang's numbers the first 2 seasons of his MLB career:

 

Year      IP      ERA      BB      K       G/F
2005    116.1    4.02      32      47      2.96
2006    148.0    3.77      36      45      3.30 

 

The numbers are fascinating in that the ERA is good, but the K rate and the BB/K ratio is pretty awful. The ground ball to fly ball ratio also indicates that Wang is an extreme ground ball pitcher.

 

My question is, can a pitcher with a K-rate this low and a BB/K ratio this poor be consistently good over the course of a long career? I would have said no, but Wang has pitched more than the equivalent of a season with positive overall results. I'm just not sure if the G/F ratio is enough to compensate for the other poor ratios in the long run.

 

the answer right there on your chart.

 

his G/F ratio is near superhuman.

 

a pitcher, in order to sustain success in the major leagues, must either strike out a lot of guys or get a lot of ground balls--i prefer ground ball pitchers, they seem to be more durable as they throw less pitches and get a lot of poor contact (poor contact on early pitches is worse than a strikeout).

 

it doesn't matter if you have a poor defense around you, if you get 3 ground balls to every fly ball, you're gtoing to be very successful--check maddux's ratios when he was in his prime.

 

Maddux had good G/F ratios, but also had much higher K rates than Wang has been able to achieve. Also, does anyone know if G/F ratios are usually repeatable (i.e., can we reasonably conclude that Wang will maintain this level of G/F success in the future?)

[Magnetic Curses]

OK, I was wondering this tonight after seeing Chien-Ming Wang's shutout win tonight despite striking out 1 batter, whether he really has a future as a good MLB pitcher, or whether he's just been lucky.

 

Wang's numbers the first 2 seasons of his MLB career:

 

Year      IP      ERA      BB      K       G/F
2005    116.1    4.02      32      47      2.96
2006    148.0    3.77      36      45      3.30 

 

The numbers are fascinating in that the ERA is good, but the K rate and the BB/K ratio is pretty awful. The ground ball to fly ball ratio also indicates that Wang is an extreme ground ball pitcher.

 

My question is, can a pitcher with a K-rate this low and a BB/K ratio this poor be consistently good over the course of a long career? I would have said no, but Wang has pitched more than the equivalent of a season with positive overall results. I'm just not sure if the G/F ratio is enough to compensate for the other poor ratios in the long run.

 

the answer right there on your chart.

 

his G/F ratio is near superhuman.

 

a pitcher, in order to sustain success in the major leagues, must either strike out a lot of guys or get a lot of ground balls--i prefer ground ball pitchers, they seem to be more durable as they throw less pitches and get a lot of poor contact (poor contact on early pitches is worse than a strikeout).

 

it doesn't matter if you have a poor defense around you, if you get 3 ground balls to every fly ball, you're gtoing to be very successful--check maddux's ratios when he was in his prime.

 

Maddux had good G/F ratios, but also had much higher K rates than Wang has been able to achieve. Also, does anyone know if G/F ratios are usually repeatable (i.e., can we reasonably conclude that Wang will maintain this level of G/F success in the future?)

 

good G/F ratio is generally the existence of a good sinking pitch. if one possesses a good sinker, then yes, they are repeatable.

[texascub]

What about Maddux in his prime?

 

If you define Maddux's prime as 1992-1998, his K/9 was 6.91 and his K/BB was 4.78. Definitely not what Truffle is talking about, he had a great K-rate during his prime.

 

To the point of the thread, Wang will succeed as a 3-4 starter, but a groundball pitcher who doesn't get too many Ks will definitely be more at the mercy of his defense and balls finding holes.

 

Maddux didn't have a great K rate, but it was certainly good enough, given his great control. I think Wang's career K rate is just so low (3.13 per 9 IP) that he cannot continue to have this same success in the future unless he figures out how to miss more bats.

 

There are always a few examples of pitchers with low K rates that have some success, but the odds are a guy like Wang will struggle. He's already 26, so his K rate is unlikely to jump significantly, and his strikeout numbers in the minors were mediocre.

 

Here are Wang's comps from baseball-reference.com by similarity score. Younger or more sensitive viewers should avert their eyes.

 

1. Oyster Burns (992)

2. Andy Replogle (990)

3. Ben Harris (989)

4. John McCarty (988)

5. Billy Gumbert (988)

6. Edgar McNabb (987)

7. Tom Carroll (986)

8. Tex Covington (984)

9. Bob Gilks (984)

10. Emil Frisk (984)

 

Just glancing through it looks like those players' careers averaged about 2 years, and Wang is already in year 2 and still doing pretty good. Also since almost all of those players played in the 1800's or early 1900's I think the comparisons are quite off.

[Rob]

Lew Burdette and Ted Lyons match the career path as well, I guess. Though even using those guys is a stretch, as both had better strikeout and walk rates than Wang.

 

Two successful pitchers on that path in 80 years kinda puts the odds against Wang though, I'd say. Especially when you consider how much the game has changed since those guys played.

[Shavo]

Wangs a stud. It shouldnt be HARD for him to KEEP THIS UP.

[UK1679666180]

The most amazing thing about his success is he's doing it in front of the Yankees defense. Which is terrible just about everywhere. I would say its very likely that he cannot keep this up without at least reducing his walk rate some. And unless he's one of the very rare starting pitchers that can exert a lot of control on the balls put in play(i.e. continously keep a low BABIP in front of bad defenses) he'll need to be on a team with a very good infield defense. I wouldn't bet a penny on him keeping his current success up on that team without something changing(k rate, bb rate, improved defense).

 

It's always good to see a Cubs and Rays fan here, welcome!

[Wolverineman]

Thanks for the welcomes. Anyway, after looking at Wang's #s a little closely, I think he might be able to keep what he's doing up. His peripherals seem to support his current ERA(which from my initial glance I just assumed wasn't true. Oops.), or at least very close to it. I'd probably change my opinion from "He can't keep it up" to "He more than likely cannot do any better than this without changing something about his game". Plus the additional disclaimer as pointed out here, that with putting so many balls in play, he'll probably end up with wild swings in performance. But he's certainly a bit more valuable than I originally gave him credit for.

[UK1679666180]

Low BBs, Low HRs, unusual ability to prevent high amounts of hits for the amount of contact. Some hitters have this ability to have their BABIP match or sometimes lower than their actual batting avg. (Barrett in '03).

 

If he maintains it, it'll be b/c his stuff is better than someone with a real low K ratio and any drop-off in stuff at this stage will put him in btm of the rotation territory.