I really doubt that throwing too many 2-seamers is what's caused his HR rate to nearly triple.

That would be the outrageous 22.5% HR/FB.

Yikes, 16 HR in 76 IP. His career high is 18. Only 2001 and 2003 were remotely like this in terms of HR rate.

Whatever possessed him to think trading strikeouts for HR would be a good idea? :-)

That's a weird headline. His new approach has worked for a while and it almost certainly helped the Astros by letting him go deep in games. He's only now suffering.

That's a weird headline. His new approach has worked for a while and it almost certainly helped the Astros by letting him go deep in games. He's only now suffering

Has it really worked? His P/IP has actually been basically the same as his K/9 has dropped, with it actually rising slightly. Does pitching to contact mean a pitcher can throw more pitches? Because it doesn't seem to mean he is more efficient.

Recommended reading material for Roy Oswalt:

Gassko: The Kazmir conundrum

He's not going deeper into games, either.

Year/IP per GS
02 6.9
03 6.1
04 6.8
05 6.9
06 6.9
07 6.6
08 6.3

(2003 was an injury-shortened year.)

Actually, what he managed to do in 2005 and lost in 2007 was cut his walk rate:

Year/BB per 9
02 2.4
03 2.1
04 2.4
05 1.8
06 1.5
07 2.5
08 2.4

The Gassko is a good one. For those who didn't bother to read it, he shows that based on average pitches per event, you throw the same number of pitches no matter how many you K. That is, yes, Ks take more pitches than BIP but BIP result in hits. Basically, it's gonna take you about 14-15 pitches to get 3 outs by Ks and about 14-15 pitches to get 3 outs by BIP (while giving up a hit or two). He then looks at players who actually dropped their K rate and finds it's even worse -- none of their other rates changed substantially so they performed worse overall.

I think it's fair to say that it makes no sense to pitch to contact unless you can at least maintain and preferably increase your K/BB (i.e. you start throwing a lot more strikes even if some are hittable) or you drop your HR rate (which seems unlikely given more contact). I suppose you could radically shift your GB/FB as compensation as well. What would also make sense is to pitch to contact to the guys who aren't gonna hurt you much even if they make contact an step it up against the big boys.

All of which makes me wonder how many pitchers actually do pitch to contact vs. how many of them use that as a convenient excuse that their stuff isn't as good as it once was. If Oswalt is pitching to contact -- an he might be, he's a damn good pitcher -- you'd expect to see him step it up in situations where he really needs a K.

I don't know how many times a pitcher gets a 0-2 count and then throws the obligatory ball. By obligatory, don't mean gives the hitter something to chew on, but the rote crap pitch, "ok lets get this out of the way, the count's not supposed to be 0-2"...don't know if this is Oswalt's problem, but that pitch has absolutely no purpose.

Really? It seems to me that people will hack at that pitch pretty often as long as it isn't at their eyes or a foot outside. Then again, maybe I've just seen too many Geoff Jenkins at-bats.

It seems a pitcher should vary his approach for the hitter. If a guy is strikeout-prone, it's usually because he either sucks or puts a power swing on every pitch he offers at. Guys who are decent hitters despite being high-strikeout guys usually have a really high batting average on the balls they put in play, because the swing they generally take a more powerful swing. Guys who don't strike out much are either really good or (more often) guys who will downgrade their swing for the sake of contact. This will result in a few more bloop hits and infield hits, of course, but it takes away power. It seems like you ought to try to strike out the strikeout guys (since they're more likely to hurt you with contact anyway) and try to get quick outs with the contact guys.

Also, if Oswalt is going for grounders, could his shortstop and third baseman being Tejada and Wigginton rather than Everett and Ensberg have something to do with the problem? He also used to be an expert at pitching with the aim of getting flyballs to the big part of the ballpark. (True or not, his success at MMP with that approach is credited by some observers with turning around the perception that one can't pitch successfully at MMP, and in recent years the starters have been much more successful at home than on the road). Now they seem to be going down the lines and to straightaway LF/RF with their flyballs now, which, at home at least, means lots of HR.