Groundballs and the Bullpen: Do we need them?
In the Rockpile today, Poseidon's Fist linked an article by Dave Cameron of Fangraphs discussing the Rockies' postseason rotation. He breaks it down to Ubaldo-Cook-DLR-Hammel, leaving Marquis off of the rotation. But it isn't just "lol marquis is teh awfuls," he raises a really good point:
Marquis would give the bullpen something it doesn't have right now - a guy to come in and get a ground ball in order to induce a DP or a play at the plate.
He raises a good point. The bullpen we have going into the postseason is very strikeout-heavy, pretty much bereft of groundballers. But is that such a bad thing?
|
2.30 |
56.7% |
24.7% |
4.44 |
2.68 |
1.66 |
1.08 |
.282 |
1.41 |
|
|
2.00 |
55.6% |
27.8% |
4.75 |
3.31 |
1.44 |
0.64 |
.260 |
1.36 |
|
|
1.85 |
52.3% |
28.2% |
7.98 |
3.44 |
2.32 |
0.55 |
.232 |
1.24 |
|
|
1.41 |
47.7% |
33.8% |
8.77 |
7.01 |
1.25 |
0.70 |
.199 |
1.48 |
|
|
1.51 |
46.3% |
30.8% |
6.75 |
2.16 |
3.12 |
0.88 |
.290 |
1.39 |
|
|
1.32 |
44.7% |
34.0% |
9.35 |
4.10 |
2.28 |
0.99 |
.251 |
1.4 |
|
|
0.83 |
40.4% |
48.9% |
6.60 |
2.40 |
2.75 |
1.20 |
.287 |
1.4 |
|
|
1.03 |
40.4% |
39.4% |
6.23 |
1.48 |
4.20 |
1.78 |
.284 |
1.29 |
|
|
1.08 |
40.0% |
37.1% |
10.03 |
1.54 |
6.50 |
1.54 |
.299 |
1.37 |
|
|
1.25 |
39.5% |
31.6% |
9.00 |
4.50 |
2.00 |
1.29 |
.288 |
1.64 |
|
|
0.92 |
39.1% |
42.4% |
10.29 |
1.94 |
5.31 |
1.04 |
.202 |
0.93 |
|
|
0.59 |
32.8% |
55.5% |
9.77 |
2.84 |
3.44 |
0.89 |
.223 |
1.13 |
|
|
0.60 |
29.5% |
49.2% |
10.13 |
1.88 |
5.40 |
0.38 |
.201 |
0.92 |
|
|
0.54 |
27.1% |
50.5% |
9.30 |
4.76 |
1.95 |
0.91 |
.233 |
1.39 |
|
|
0.50 |
24.7% |
49.3% |
8.03 |
4.38 |
1.83 |
1.09 |
.280 |
1.58 |
It's interesting to note that the strikeouts and groundballs seem to be inversely correlated, but that's a different study entirely.
Contrast this bullpen with the guys in 2007, just based on GB%:
|
K/9 |
BB/9 |
K/BB |
HR/9 |
AVG |
WHIP |
||||
|
3.03 |
63.3% |
20.9% |
4.72 |
2.6 |
1.81 |
0.98 |
0.25 |
1.23 |
|
|
2.46 |
57.9% |
23.6% |
3.31 |
2.39 |
1.39 |
0.81 |
0.275 |
1.34 |
|
|
2.03 |
57.4% |
28.3% |
6.69 |
2.31 |
2.9 |
0.69 |
0.223 |
1.06 |
|
|
2.07 |
54.9% |
26.5% |
5.95 |
3.2 |
1.86 |
0.46 |
0.235 |
1.22 |
|
|
1.63 |
53.0% |
32.5% |
7.02 |
5.03 |
1.39 |
0.46 |
0.22 |
1.36 |
|
|
1.22 |
46.5% |
38.0% |
5.55 |
2.77 |
2 |
0.74 |
0.199 |
1.01 |
|
|
1.26 |
46.4% |
36.7% |
7.46 |
4.06 |
1.84 |
1.1 |
0.232 |
1.3 |
|
|
1.19 |
44.4% |
37.2% |
6.9 |
2.63 |
2.62 |
1.04 |
0.278 |
1.38 |
|
|
1.38 |
41.5% |
30.2% |
6.5 |
4 |
1.63 |
0.5 |
0.283 |
1.56 |
|
|
0.96 |
41.3% |
42.9% |
6.41 |
2.75 |
2.33 |
0.92 |
0.275 |
1.37 |
|
|
1.00 |
40.0% |
40.0% |
5.11 |
3.21 |
1.59 |
1.25 |
0.293 |
1.53 |
|
|
0.83 |
35.9% |
43.1% |
8.22 |
3.38 |
2.43 |
0.88 |
0.21 |
1.13 |
Click past the jump and we'll break these numbers down.
In 2009, our 3 most extreme groundballers are all starting pitchers. Which makes sense, more or less, it helps mitigate damage via the double play and it keeps pitch counts down by getting more balls in play early in the count.
In 2007, however, 3.5 of our 5 most extreme groundballers were in the bullpen, and only Aaron Cook was in the rotation. Morales' role in the postseason was somewhat mixed, so that's why he gets the .5 for pen and .5 for rotation.
So in a casual sense, yes, we'd like a groundballer in the bullpen. But it seems, for the rationale listed above, that the groundballers are better suited to the rotation, as they are more prone to giving up hits (at least in terms of Marquis and Cook), and typically with bullpen duty, you want to get the outs as lock-downingly as possible, as to mitigate potential inherited damage.
So let's get a quick look at how 2007 and 2009 stack up in summation.
|
2007 |
GB% |
K/9 |
tRA* |
|
Rotation |
45.71% |
5.61 |
4.96 |
|
Bullpen |
50.01% |
6.46 |
4.44 |
|
2009 |
GB% |
K/9 |
tRA* |
|
Rotation |
51.24% |
6.69 |
4.33 |
|
Bullpen |
38.48% |
8.02 |
4.06 |
You could probably just look at that little chart and say "well, the Rockies just are a better pitching team this year" and I wouldn't argue with you at all. But it does seem that in sacrificing GB% for K/9, we made our pen better, and by further emphasizing GB% in the rotation, it made it better there as well.
The two pitchers I'd like to single out kind of embody the balance between the two measures presented: Ubaldo Jimenez and Manny Corpas.
I don't think I need to say much about Jimenez. 7.98 K/9 and 52.3% GB and he throws 700mph and he runs on clean burning biodiesel.
Corpas, however (and I'll keep this somewhat brief, I want to touch on his season more after we're all wrapped up with 2009), strikes out a decent amount, has excellent control of the strike zone (as in he never walks anyone), and still throws his slider very effectively. He also has a career GB% of 51.4%.
His sinker/2seamer/whatever we're calling it lost something this year, and there's a distinct chance we could chalk some of that up to a damaged elbow causing him to overthrow or something (this really isn't my area of expertise). He got hit a lot harder than we'd like to see, but I really think he'll rebound in 2010. He still gets a good number of ground balls, still doesn't give up many fly balls, and actually posted a lower FIP in 2009 than '08 or '07.
Frankly, and I know he was kind of awful this year, but I do think the pen missed having Corpas just for the different toolset he brought along. I mean, clearly we didn't miss him TOOOOOOOO much, but we had to rely on guys like Flores to come strike one LHB out (and he did do that pretty well: 11K to 1BB v LHB) when we had a jam to get out of. Season-long, yeah, Corpas was trouble, but situationally, he might still be a good tool to have around. But again, next season.
As for the original issue, having Marquis in the pen WOULD present us with a groundballing option, but I'm not 100% convinced I want to bring him into tight situations, especially with how wild his last start was in general. If you want a situational groundballer, you need a guy who can come in and paint corners with either a nasty changeup or a strong sinker, locating low and getting the big double play outs. I don't see Marquis being able to do that.
Mopup guy? Sure. 3 inning relief? Sure.
Situational groundballer? ehhhhhhh I wish we had Corpas still.
0 recs |
13 comments
|
Comments
The way Hammel pitched the other night...
if Marquis pitches well in LA, Hammel will be the odd man out.
by margabelle on Oct 2, 2009 1:14 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
As long as Ubaldo, Cook, and JDLR are our top 3 I'm fine either way
Batters who walk to first usually come running home.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 2, 2009 1:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting...aside from walks
peripherals suggest Rincon has been awesome
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
by Andrew T. Fisher on Oct 2, 2009 1:24 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
but that's just the thing
why hit him if he’s just gonna walk you? That 7+ BB9 is just inexcusable
EXECUTE: It's the Clutch thing to do
by Andrew Martin on Oct 2, 2009 1:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My big problem with your final conclusion
is that you seem to be writing under the impression that every time a reliever is needed it’s a “tight situation.” The truth is most are not, and we already have our tight situation relievers accounted for in Street and Betancourt. The analysis needs to be more tailored for how Marquis would be used, which as far as I could tell would either be
A) as the primary long man if another starter runs into trouble or runs up their pitch count early,
B) as a 6th/7th inning bridge pitcher to allow Tracy to pinch hit for the starter if a good scoring situation arises after the fifth inning
C) as a DP inducer when the force is in play and less than two outs, probably only against RHB’s.
Only C would be a high leverage situation when he enters, and given what you’ve pointed out, I don’t know if there’s a better option for this role on the staff. Hammel as a reliever could fulfill A and B fine, but would be inferior in situation C.
by Rox Girl on Oct 2, 2009 2:52 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Well for starters
Marquis to the pen was more of a bridge into how completely different our bullpen looks this season as to Rocktober 1
as for A and B
Mopup guy? Sure. 3 inning relief? Sure.
It’s kind of assumed that the left-off starter is gonna be a long reliever.
As for C, that commentary is directed almost exclusively at Dave Cameron
Marquis would give the bullpen something it doesn’t have right now – a guy to come in and get a ground ball in order to induce a DP or a play at the plate. The Rockies have relievers who can do other things, but they don’t have a sinker specialist in relief. Marquis would provide an option for Jim Tracy if he finds himself in a situation where he needs a groundball in a high leverage situation.
Only C would be a high leverage situation when he enters, and given what you’ve pointed out, I don’t know if there’s a better option for this role on the staff. Hammel as a reliever could fulfill A and B fine, but would be inferior in situation C.
And that was kind of the point of the article, that we don’t have a groundballer in the bullpen. It’s all strikeout guys. Hence the 3 paragraphs about Corpas and how his absence is kind of apparent when you look at the numbers.
EXECUTE: It's the Clutch thing to do
by Andrew Martin on Oct 2, 2009 2:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just saw a new Passan article on Yahoo
It’s about the different paths the Rockies and Dbacks have taken since 07. Good read. It just got posted, so it’s got some typos.
by fatheadX on Oct 2, 2009 3:43 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
You have one team that’s executing routinely and winning.
EXECUTE: It's the Clutch thing to do
by Andrew Martin on Oct 2, 2009 3:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just noticed your signature.
I snickered out loud (truly, I did).
by holly96 on Oct 2, 2009 4:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The difference between the two clubs was evident: They just outexecuted us," Hinch said.
by biondino on Oct 2, 2009 4:51 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Inverse Correlation
Unless there’s some factor with the fly ball-rate, it only makes sense that strike out rates and ground ball rates seem inversely proportional. After all, a pitcher only gets a finite number of outs to pitch, and each ground ball out is an out that cannot be a strike out, and vice versa.
by Yokel on Oct 2, 2009 7:02 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Which is true
but GB% isn’t necessarily indicating outs. It’s just groundballs, so they could squirt through for hits as well.
At least, that’s my understanding of the number.
EXECUTE: It's the Clutch thing to do
by Andrew Martin on Oct 3, 2009 10:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point
Maybe it’s indicative of a stellar infield scooping up the ground balls. Or maybe it’s a function of the different pitching approaches: pitching to contact vs. pitching to make the guy miss. It is interesting how it appears they’re both all-or-nothing methods, though.
by Yokel on Oct 4, 2009 12:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

























