Is patience a virtue?

[Sabermetrician]

Pitches per plate appearance reveal clues about hitters

 

The best way to quantify that ability is pitches per plate appearance, or P/PA. It's a number that hasn't made it into the baseball lexicon quite like OPS or some of the other sabermetrics standards, but one that's drawing notice from baseball decision-makers.

 

"It could be the sign of a tough out, or it could be the sign of a good hitter -- sometimes it's both," Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein said.

 

For his part, Abreu has some simple advice for those who want to be patient hitters.

 

"Don't swing if it's not your pitch," he says.

 

"As a catcher, I know it wears on pitchers," Varitek said.

 

There's some glipses of the article...It's a quality read, I think we all know that if the Cubs want to ever really be a quality lineup top to bottom they have to add more patient hitters...

 

Oh yeah:

 

The Bottom 10

5. Neifi Perez, Cubs, 3.31

 

http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050824&content_id=1181903&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[abuck1220]

don't you ever speak ill of our savior again.

[gflore34]

With the exception of Maddux' starts the oppostion M.O. has been to take pitches and its worked pretty well, why can't the Cubs learn from this? As simplistic and pathetic as it may be, taking pitches leads to more base runners which in turn leads to more runs. etc. Yesterday was a perfect example, the Braves were going to take and continue to take pitches vs Prior. Had Prior consistently thrown strikes he'd probably thrown a 2 or 3 hit shutout.

[JGalt73]

I posted this in yesterday's gamethread:

 

Batting Cubs see 3.61 pitches/PA (29th/30 in MLB)

Pitching we throw 3.84 pitches/PA (Tied for highest in MLB)

 

Pitches taken should be no surprise.

 

The pitches thrown is likely a function of league leading K's. It is interesting however, how the top three K leaders in each league have done in pitches/PA.

 

1. Cubs 7.94 K/9

2. Houston 7.41 K/9

3. Milwaukee 7.10 K/9

 

6. Angels 6.93 K/9

8. Baltimore 6.65 K/9

9. Oakland 6.54 K/9

 

Pitches per PA:

 

Cubs (Tied 1st MLB 3.84/PA)

Houston (3.72/PA 19th MLB)

Milwaukee (3.81/PA 3rd MLB)

 

Angels (3.79/PA 5th MLB)

Baltimore (3.78/PA 8th MLB)

Oakland (3.80/PA 4th MLB)

 

Houston is the anomaly in high K/9 and low pitches/PA (maybe facing the Cubs a lot helps!).

 

Anyone else surprised that the Brewers are 3rd in the league in K's?

[MembersOnlyJacket]

Oakland Athletics Batters (AL)

 

P/PA 1. 3.86

SO 14. 621

 

That's amazing. They lead the league in pitches per PA, but have struck out less than anyone in the AL. Pretty much the entire offense, outside of Kotsay, Kendall, and Payton, is grown out of their organization.

[biittner77]

Considering the league wide emphasis on pitch counts, it seems like common sense to try to run up the opposing starter's pitch count.

[T2E]

Considering the league wide emphasis on pitch counts, it seems like common sense to try to run up the opposing starter's pitch count.

 

The only thing is that there really is very little difference between say, the A's and the Cubs.

 

To get a starter to throw 100 pitchers, the A's would bring about 26 batters to the plate (100/3.86) and the Cubs would bring about 27.5 (100/3.61). One and a half batters a game really does not make that much of a difference in the long hall. I don't think that translated to more than a few runs difference per season.

 

Looking at actual production is more important than P/PA.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Considering the league wide emphasis on pitch counts, it seems like common sense to try to run up the opposing starter's pitch count.

 

The most effective way to run up a pitcher's pitch count is to quit making outs, no?

[jaydee]

vlad is a horrible hitter according to that

[Satch80]

The question is, does high P/PA have any coorelation with production? Obviously there have been very good first ball hitters like Nomar and very good hitters that see a lot of pitches, like Boggs.

 

I don't see the point of taking any pitch that is hittable for the sake of working the count. It may be the only pitch to hit. I have noticed that Pujols, a very very smart hitter often swings early in the count against Prior because he knows if Prior gets ahead he'll carve him up. The strategy the Braves used was actually counterproductive if they allowed Prior to get ahead over and over. They didn't hit Prior and we actually should have won that game if the mistakes weren't made.

 

However when a pitcher nortoriously nibbles, it make sense to force him into a hitters count and make him come to you instead of swinging at pitches off the plate. Likewise, pitchers without a quality 2nd or 3rd pitch can be waited out for a fat one.

 

I just don't think there's ever any good reason to bypass a hittable pitch for the sake of going deep into the count and most pitchers do try to get ahead early.

Guess I just don't see this as a black and white situation.

[ConstableRabbit]

The question is, does high P/PA have any coorelation with production? Obviously there have been very good first ball hitters like Nomar and very good hitters that see a lot of pitches, like Boggs.

 

I don't see the point of taking any pitch that is hittable for the sake of working the count. It may be the only pitch to hit. I have noticed that Pujols, a very very smart hitter often swings early in the count against Prior because he knows if Prior gets ahead he'll carve him up. The strategy the Braves used was actually counterproductive if they allowed Prior to get ahead over and over. They didn't hit Prior and we actually should have won that game if the mistakes weren't made.

 

However when a pitcher nortoriously nibbles, it make sense to force him into a hitters count and make him come to you instead of swinging at pitches off the plate. Likewise, pitchers without a quality 2nd or 3rd pitch can be waited out for a fat one.

 

I just don't think there's ever any good reason to bypass a hittable pitch for the sake of going deep into the count and most pitchers do try to get ahead early.

Guess I just don't see this as a black and white situation.

 

Good first ball hitters are good first ball hitters because they choose their pitches carefully, not because they happen to swing at the first pitch. That is, their first ball avg is high because they only swing at first pitches they like. If anything, they're more patient.

-Thank you Moneyball

[thedaymen]

 

To get a starter to throw 100 pitchers, the A's would bring about 26 batters to the plate (100/3.86) and the Cubs would bring about 27.5 (100/3.61). One and a half batters a game really does not make that much of a difference in the long hall. I don't think that translated to more than a few runs difference per season.

 

You can look at it that way, but its probably closer to reality to say that once a week the Cubs give a mediocre pitcher a break by beingtoo impatient and make the other's job a lot easier.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Team record by pitches per plate appearance

                        W    L     pct
1.     2.6              0    0   0.000
2.     2.7              0    1   0.000
3.     2.8              0    0   0.000
4.     2.9              0    0   0.000
5.     3.0              1    2   0.333
6.     3.1              1    0   1.000
7.     3.2              3    5   0.375
8.     3.3              4   11   0.267
9.     3.4              7    9   0.438
10.     3.5              5    4   0.556
11.     3.6              8    8   0.500
12.     3.7             11    5   0.688
13.     3.8              7    9   0.438
14.     3.9              3    3   0.500
15.     4.0              5    4   0.556
16.     4.1              2    1   0.667
17.     4.2              2    2   0.500
18.     4.3              1    0   1.000
19.     4.4              0    0   0.000
20.     4.5              1    2   0.333

Totals                  61   66   0.480

 

When graphed, this table does suggest a slight correlation between higher pitches per plate appearance and winning percentage.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Team record by pitches per plate appearance

                        W    L     pct
1.     2.6              0    0   0.000
2.     2.7              0    1   0.000
3.     2.8              0    0   0.000
4.     2.9              0    0   0.000
5.     3.0              1    2   0.333
6.     3.1              1    0   1.000
7.     3.2              3    5   0.375
8.     3.3              4   11   0.267
9.     3.4              7    9   0.438
10.     3.5              5    4   0.556
11.     3.6              8    8   0.500
12.     3.7             11    5   0.688
13.     3.8              7    9   0.438
14.     3.9              3    3   0.500
15.     4.0              5    4   0.556
16.     4.1              2    1   0.667
17.     4.2              2    2   0.500
18.     4.3              1    0   1.000
19.     4.4              0    0   0.000
20.     4.5              1    2   0.333

Totals                  61   66   0.480

 

When graphed, this table does suggest a slight correlation between higher pitches per plate appearance and winning percentage.

 

I wonder what it would look like with a larger sample, like all major league teams this year.

[neely crenshaw]

not to defend neifi but why in god's name would you not tyhrow him a batting practice fastball everytime up? i am sure most pitchers just set that sucker down the middle of the plate and say hit it! he is never going to hurt you. i mean how many breaking balls does the guy see? for sure if you got to 2-0 you are sending him fat city! how can you see any pitches if the are serving you up every at bat?

[Careless]

When graphed, this table does suggest a slight correlation between higher pitches per plate appearance and winning percentage.

does that really mean anything other than "when the opposing pitcher is wild, we walk more and tend to win"?

[Fred Hornkohl]

When graphed, this table does suggest a slight correlation between higher pitches per plate appearance and winning percentage.

does that really mean anything other than "when the opposing pitcher is wild, we walk more and tend to win"?

 

No, I don't think that's a fair assessment either, although I didn't test it statistically. Remember, striking out more will tend to raise P/PA too.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

This thread really has nothing to do with my question, but it contains Theo and it talks about patience.

 

Now that we have started to actually see a glimpse of the future, would you trade this team and its farm system for the unknown of not wasting a few seasons?

 

There is no right answer, of course. The Cubs might have won a World Series sometime in the past three years or this current team may never pan out.

 

I know I'd take the current setup. Never believed that we'd have won it all in Theo's first season, and with how much free agency sucks, I think we'd have failed in trying to buy a good team even if we had some money. A lineup of Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton and B.J. Upton just doesn't seem that good.

 

The main purpose of the rebuild was not to be good for just one or two seasons but a lot of seasons. And you can see how this vision could actually work out. I was, and still am, a believer.

 

Even the Ricketts family........despite having no money, they have put together one of the best front offices, with one of the best managers guiding one of the best young teams in baseball in a relatively short period of time.

 

Anyway, what do you choose? I guess you can cheat and say both, but pick one you bitches.

[SouthSideRyan]

How does one know to look for a post from 10 years ago to follow-up?

 

The answer is always both, and it's not cheating

[Guest]

Can you answer what the true financial position of the team was during those years? It's kind of important to my answer.

[Guest]

my answer is idgaf, those years are over and the team is positioned to be awesomely fun for a very long time and i am as happy as can be

 

water under the bridge

 

the one thing i will say is i'm not sure we could be this well positioned going forward without having committed to sucking as hard as we did. the real argument is whether the strong possibility of being really really good and really really young is worth throwing away a couple chances to be decent and take a crack at the playoff spin wheel...but again i don't care anymore. [expletive] is over.

Edited April 21, 2015 by David

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Now that we have started to actually see a glimpse of the future, would you trade this team and its farm system for the unknown of not wasting a few seasons?

 

Yep. If you gave me a chance to do-over with an unnamed, generic, saber-savvy young GM who was interested in a true parallel fronts approach, I'd take it.

 

If the Cubs miss the playoffs this year, and at worst that's an even-money proposition, they're 0-for-4. Coming back from 0-for-4 to a respectable ratio is not at all a gimme putt even with the kind of young talent this team has.

 

A good GM could have had this team humming along with a solid team, a solid farm system and some solid results the last three years (with a non-zero chance of a WS title in one of them) instead of going nutso on 1 of the 3 and now finally starting to see it bubble up in the other two.

[Gmoney08]

Im more interested in this whole thread. I forgot Prior was still a thing in 05. Was 05 the year a lot of doubt started to sprout up on this forum about Prior?

[Guest]

the prospect redundancy that this approach allowed them is really the only way to make an entire lineup full of really good young players happen without a [expletive] of luck

 

obviously there were other ways to skin a cat but given the circumstances i can't really say that i know if it was the right way or not

[Gmoney08]

Now that we have started to actually see a glimpse of the future, would you trade this team and its farm system for the unknown of not wasting a few seasons?

 

Yep. If you gave me a chance to do-over with an unnamed, generic, saber-savvy young GM who was interested in a true parallel fronts approach, I'd take it.

 

If the Cubs miss the playoffs this year, and at worst that's an even-money proposition, they're 0-for-4. Coming back from 0-for-4 to a respectable ratio is not at all a gimme putt even with the kind of young talent this team has.

 

A good GM could have had this team humming along with a solid team, a solid farm system and some solid results the last three years (with a non-zero chance of a WS title in one of them) instead of going nutso on 1 of the 3 and now finally starting to see it bubble up in the other two.

 

What was a realistic offseason the first couple years that couldve put this team in contention?

 

A lot of the guys everyone was clamoring for have been underwhelming.