I actually think there is some truth to what Kay is saying. However, a pitcher only has this luxury in blowouts. If the Yankees score only five runs in the first inning, I can't see a quality pitcher relaxing on that little offense. Maybe if it were 1908, though...

In today's game, I'm not sure eight runs is enough to register as a blowout.

Chris - What about the year Jason Marquis won 15 games and had a 6.21 ERA. Are you impressed with that?

Kay - No, not in the national league.

Chris - What if he did it in the American League?

Kay - Yeah. I would [be impressed].


What?!

Of course, Johnson lost 11 games. With a lower ERA he would have gone 20-8; still lower, 24-4. I can't believe I'm actually pointing that out :)

in the toughest division in baseball

Really, Michael! When did the Yankees move to the American League Central? I missed that.

My sarcasm meter may have thrown a rod. Is this a hypothetical conversation or did Kay really make these statements? I'll hang up and listen to your answer.

The game I went to in August, Johnson had a 7-0 lead and a no-hitter through 5 or 6. Then he started pitching to the score and the game ended 7-6. I am sure there is a way to prove, or more likely disprove the theory that pitchers pitch to the score. There probably is something to that theory, but I am guessing it would be relevant in < 5% of most pitchers' starts.

Is this a hypothetical conversation or did Kay really make these statements?.

Yes...happened.


I was listening to the Michael Kay show yesterday, and he was defending Randy Johnson's performance over the past two years for the Yankees. Despite the high ~5.00 ERA, he "knew" how to win games, as winning games is an artform. He said that after watching so many baseball games for so many years, he's convinced that pitchers pitch to the score, and don't try to get shutouts all the time. He said that Randy Johnson winning 17 games with a 5.00 ERA because of run support is better than another pitcher winning only 9 games with a sub 4.00 ERA with weak run support. Kay said that winning is an artform, and that Randy has proven that he knows how to win. To sum this up, Kay actually said that he'd rather take a pitcher who normally wins 8-7 than another pitcher who consistently loses 2-1.

PLEASE SHUT UP, Kay. I almost turned off the radio. Doesn't he realize that wins are the most inaccurate way to judge a pitchers' ability? The pitcher's #1 job is to concentrate on getting every guy out. Just because you're up 8-1, it doesn't mean that you can relax and suddenly give up six runs and let your bullpen finish the job so that your team wins 8-7 and you get your precious win. With a big lead, the pitcher's ultimate job is to shut the other team down the rest of the way so that you can help your team save the bullpen and your team can coast to a stress-free victory.

I just couldn't believe what I was hearing.

I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've had this argument with my father.

FWIW, Randy Johnson seems to disagree with Kay, considering that he demanded to be traded to a real baseball team after Arizona's league-worst offense led to a 16-14 record despite his ERA+ of 171 in 2004.

Some pitchers DO pitch to the score (provided they have the ability to change their approach)--by throwing more fastballs and strikes, in an effort to avoid any undeserved rallies. They avoid walks, and occassionally allow an extra long fly--with the bases empty.

The end result is negligible. Just because you are pitching with a lead doesn't mean you WILL give up more runs. You take a risk here and there with a few of your pitches, and maybe you get burned, or maybe you get a fast out (or a strike).

Why broadcasters have made the leap that throwing more fastballs and more strikes equal giving up more runs is the part that perplexes me the most.

I wonder why Chris didn't ask Kay, "So, what happened to RJ in '04? Or did he just recently learn to pitch to the score?"

You know what I'd really like to find for my team? A pitcher who knows how to pitch to the score when the score is 1-0.

It is fairly simple to test Kay's hypothesis that Johnson pitches to the score. Just check what he did in every start the Yankees won and see how often he either allowed an early lead to the other team or gave up a lead once he had it. I did a very cursory check and immediately found 12 games last season in which he either gave the other team an early lead or gave up leads the Yankees had gotten for him. On occasion, he gave up leads more than once in a game, and at other times, having yielded a lead, he left the game and the Yankees scored in the next inning to give him a win. Clearly, Johnson did not "pitch to the score"; it is a nonsense assertion.

There may be some truth to the statement that pitchers do alter their strategy when given a big lead, but it is likely that most pitchers do that. It has nothing to do with only certain pitchers pitching to the score. As a matter of fact, another part of that research would be how long Johnson stayed in games where he had big leads. Again, a very quick look showed that he often came out after 5 or 6 innings, as the other team began to cut into that big lead or after he had thrown too many pitches. Kay is talking nonsense and pandering to the ignoramuses in his audience.

He said that Randy Johnson winning 17 games with a 5.00 ERA because of run support is better than another pitcher winning only 9 games with a sub 4.00 ERA with weak run support.

When you get to value stats like WPA or what-not, this may well be right. Talent evaluation is another matter, but then there are better statistical evaluations of pitching talent than ERA.

Pitching to the score? This guy is a moron! Pitchers pitch for fat contracts, the lower their era's,the fatter their contracts are. What motivation would a pitcher have to just loaf around? These are professional baseball players not members of my softball team!

Don't ask me why, but after reading buddaley's post I went through the game logs. There were exactly three starts in 2006 where you could even remotely argue that Johnson gave up runs because he was pitching to the score. July 6 against Cleveland he allowed three in the eighth with a 10-1 lead. August 9 against Chicago he gave up two in the seventh leading 7-0. August 31 against Detroit he gave up a two run homer to Marcus Thames in the ninth with a 6-2 lead. Now, I'm not saying that he actually was trying to pitch to the score in these games. What I am saying is that if you believe in pitching to the score, you really only have three examples of it from Randy Johnson's 2006 season. And apparently, Joe Torre is not a big fan of pitching to the score, because he lifted Johnson on all three of these ocasions.

I've always assumed that the CW that good pitchers pitch to the score arose because those are the memorable games for those who cover the game. If Johnson wins in a 12-1 blowout, or loses in a 12-1 blowout, they lose interest in the game. But when the game is close... Ah, now that is interesting. The fans are on edge, the media are on edge, everyone is waiting to see how it turns out. If Johnson is up 5-0 early and suddenly gives up 4 runs, it turns what could otherwise have been a boring day at the park for Kay to an exciting one. And we all remember better the exciting stuff.

I'm not sure what's worse, that Kay actually believes this nonsense, or that both ESPN radio and YES pay him what I would guess to be six figures to misinform listeners and viewers.

Kay is actually right that pitchers with a big lead don't pitch for the shutout. but that is all he's right about. Most pitchers with a big lead will challenge hitters more and walk fewer hitters. But if anything, this will lead to lower ERAs, not higher. Pitchers in this situation give up more solo home runs, but less big innings.

W-L thus adds no useful information when you have RA+

Hey remember when Mussina was perfect through 6+ in Game 1 of the '04 ALDS, then realized he had a big lead, and let Bellhorn break it up and gave up 4 quick runs? Pitching to score!

Look, pitchers pitch to score sometimes, it happens. Maybe Randy does occasionally. But pitchers also generally try to get everyone out. There were several times where RJ was cruising this year and then suddenly lost it (like Moose back in that Game 1). That wasn't pitching to score, that was him losing it.

I had the 2006 play-by-play file from Retrosheet available for NY at home, so I thought I'd throw the numbers around and see what there is for Johnson.

OPSA = OPS Against
positive Run Differential = Yankees winning

 Run Diff     PA   OPSA
-4 or worse   14    802
    -3        11   1091
    -2        52    604
    -1        57    771
     0       107    822
    +1        22    943
    +2        56    592
    +3        13    891
+4 or better  53    529
    ALL      385    726

Unweighted regression suggests (a) there's a weak trend, and (b) it's a slight positive trend - that is, as the Yankees' lead increases so does Johnson's OPS against. But unweighted regression is wrong; it gives the 891 OPSA at +3 the same weight as the 822 OPSA at 0, even though we have 700% more observations at 0.

Weighted regression suggests (a) there's a weak trend, and (b) it's a slight negative trend. That is, in 2006 at home, Randy Johnson pitched better with a lead. This would be the opposite of what Kay says.

It also has the benefit of being rather intuitive. After all, how did the team get a lead? They got it by giving up fewer runs than they scored. And that tended to happen when Johnson was pitching well. In a nutshell, after Johnson had been pitching well, he tended to continue to pitch well. Doesn't get more intuitive than that.

That being said, the important conclusion from either regression is (a). Whatever trend existed was a very weak one. That makes it hard to conclude any definitive pattern exists. I could add to the data sample by pulling other years or even the road games, but I live in CT and it's 70 freaking degrees out in January. Do it yourself.

I could add to the data sample by pulling other years or even the road games, but I live in CT and it's 70 freaking degrees out in January.

The upside of global warming.

HIJACK

What are the seven skills for a seven skills player?

Thanksss

Let's see. Lust, sloth, envy... and if you're Mark Grace, love for fat slumpbusters... that's 4.

Are we sure Kay didn't mean pitching to go to Scores after the game?

For those who have never seen it, the classic article on Pitching to the Score

Srul, thanks for linking that.

Kay is observing a phenomena that does exist in very isolated, very specific circumstances, but is overstating it to the point of absurdity.

For example, one of the few times that "pitching to the score" comes into play is when a pitcher has a big lead on the scoreboard but falls behind 2-0 or 3-0 in the count. Especially if there is nobody on base, or there's two outs, with the big lead the pitcher is more likely to groove a fastball to ensure a strike than he is to try and hit the corner, or to throw a change or breaking pitch (as they are generally harder to perform and so increase the risk of a walk). The theory is making the hitter "earn" his trip to first with a hit, rather than upping the risk of a big inning by handing out free bases.

This form of "pitching to the score" probably increases likelihood of an extra base hit in that precise situation (since the further behind the pitcher in the count, the more the hitter is usually "sitting" on a grooved pitch and so the more likely he hits the ball hard) but what are we talking about, a dozen or so pitches over the course of an entire season, if that? Given all of the other variables in play, the effect is probably insignificant.

Yes, sometimes pitchers take the score into account when pitching. It's one of the many factors that pitchers must consider in the performance of their job. But it's not a "skill" that some pitchers possess and others don't.

i read greg spira's column and i do not get where he is coming from. seem to me that what he found would support the pitching to the score idea.

IF i am understanding what pitching to the score actually mean -

pitching to the score means that a pitcher decides whether or not to bother to try getting a hitter out depending on how far ahead he is. so if his team get him like 8 runs in an inning, he just toss the ball up there until the other team gets 6 or 7 runs THEN starts shutting down the other team again. it just sounds incredibly STUPID. it sounds TOO stupid. what pitcher go up there and think to himself - well, i'm up by 3. i'll just give up a run or 2???!!!

so i think the way you would have to decide if a pitcher really DID "pitch to the score" would be you would have to look at all his game logs. he would have to be giving up most of his runs when he's ahead and not give up runs first. AND the manager wouldn't be yankin him right quick the minnit he gave up a bunch of runs in the same inning.

but pitchers WANT the shutouts and the low ERAs and i just can't believe that any ML pitcher would just go ahead and let the other team hit the ball just because he's ahead so many runs.

pitching to the score means that a pitcher decides whether or not to bother to try getting a hitter out depending on how far ahead he is. so if his team get him like 8 runs in an inning, he just toss the ball up there until the other team gets 6 or 7 runs THEN starts shutting down the other team again. it just sounds incredibly STUPID. it sounds TOO stupid. what pitcher go up there and think to himself - well, i'm up by 3. i'll just give up a run or 2???!!!

It makes sense if you have enough runs to work with so you don't have to put as much stress on your arm, BC. But the key question is how many runs is enough before a pitcher can start coasting?

But the key question is how many runs is enough before a pitcher can start coasting?

And also how does one define coasting? I suspect that with the score 0-0, a pitcher doesn't think, "I can give up 3 today." But with a 7-run lead, he may think, "Okay, I can give up 3 and we're still up by a grand slam. No need to nibble." In other words, "pitching to the score" is not going to effect the ERA that much. I don't any pitcher thinks, "We're up by 7, so I can give up six runs with no problem!"

Pedro Martinez vs. Enrique Wilson with 5+ run lead = Pitching to the score

john

ok. suppose it is the first inning and jason marquis give up his usual 6 or 7 runs. now you are up. you usually go 6 innings and give up 3 runs (plus or minus an inning or a run). so you are ahead 7-0. now you are facing a decent hitting team and there's 2 guys on it who hit you like a BP pitcher.

i really don't think that you are gonna think - well good. now i can give up 6 runs. you STILL gonna try to get as many outs as you can. because big innings happen (ask roy oswalt game 3 WS)

now i definitely do think that most pitchers coast with the #7/8/9 hitters moren the rest not that i blame them. but i think that is true no matter what the score is.

I like how Kay uses Mussina as his example for bad pitching. He there ever been any explanation of Kay's irrational hatred of Moose?

Clark Griffith supposedly was superstitious about not getting a shutout, and IIRC his shutout total was a bit lower than expected.
I don't believe in 'pitch to the score' in modern ball, but it wouldn't surprise me if it cropped up in the early days of baseball.

#30 -

ok. i will try very hard to explain what i mean. i know that sometimes i am not clear enuf when i explain things.

now

IF pitching to the score means that IF a pitcher gets ahead by, say, 5 runs or more, then he will feel comfortable giving up, say, 1 less run. so he could win 4-3 instead of 4-0. or he gives up the runs only AFTER he gets ahead.

best i understand, the formula greg spira used does not work as good as it should if there are too many blowouts.

so if a pitcher does not allow runs and wins a lot of blowouts then he did not pitch to the score. and the formula won't work. and actual would be a lot lower than expected. (confession - i am not no math genius so please don't yell too much.)

am i making sense here?

Exactly. If pitch to the score ever existed, free-agency was the end of it.

oh drat i hit enter too soon

so anyhow, since in greg spira's study actual = expected, this mean to me that pitchers DID give up more runs in what could have been a blowout so they could have been pitching to the score.

according to him, the pitchers he named got lots of run support, so there could have been blowouts - it's not like the 05 astros

And apparently, Joe Torre is not a big fan of pitching to the score, because he lifted Johnson on all three of these ocasions.

Torre is just a party pooper, and takes the game far too seriously.

jloewy,

I believe Mussina brushed off Kay at some point during an interview, and Kay has beaten on Mussina ever since. Kay might be a little thin skinned, although Mussina certainly can come off as a bit cocky and superior during interviews (yes I know he's smarter than all the beat guys put together probably, but he doesn't have to show it quite so much).

(yes I know he's smarter than all the beat guys put together probably, but he doesn't have to show it quite so much).

I think he should.

HIJACK

What are the seven skills for a seven skills player?

Thanksss

Hitting for Average
Hitting for Power
Plate Discipline
Speed/Baserunning
Fielding Range
Fielding Reliability/Accuracy
Fielding Arm

I think...

I always assumed "pitching to the score" meant that with a big lead, 0 on, 2 out, the pitcher would be less inclined to nibble at the corners and more likely to keep the ball in the strike zone. If they can get the batter to fly out on one or two pitches, great. If the batter homers, then it's 8-2 rather than 8-1, and no big deal. This strategy makes a fair amount of sense.

pocket8pin

the pitcher is supposed to throw strikes. right?

and a groundout is safer than a flyout. if the batter homers you STILL have to face another guy. so you have to throw more pitches anyhow. so me i don't think giving up runs is ever a good idea. ask roy oswalt about his last game against the white sox last june when he thought he was safe with a 10-1 lead...

Kay might be a little thin skinned, although Mussina certainly can come off as a bit cocky and superior during interviews (yes I know he's smarter than all the beat guys put together probably, but he doesn't have to show it quite so much).

Part of the issue is also that Mussina has an extraordinarily dry sense of humor, and I'm not sure Kay follows it all the time. And, predictably/understandably, he gets upset when he realizes he's lost control of the interview.

Yes, I've run across Mussina, and he's a startling contrast to the 'geniuses' in the rest of the clubhouse.
A Stanford guy in a baseball clubhouse is like a supermodel in the fat girls sorority - the difference is so startling that it's tough for anybody to handle.

Mussina is just a very serious guy, and he seems to struggle with the banality that to some extent is required in overnight baseball reporting.

"(yes I know he's smarter than all the beat guys put together probably, but he doesn't have to show it quite so much)."

I'm willing to bet that most Primates would do that if they were in Mussina's position.

Cowboy Popup Posted: January 06, 2007 at 11:59 PM (#2275716)

"(yes I know he's smarter than all the beat guys put together probably, but he doesn't have to show it quite so much)."

I'm willing to bet that most Primates would do that if they were in Mussina's position.

- yeh

primates be whippin out Option SatScore

and a groundout is safer than a flyout. if the batter homers you STILL have to face another guy. so you have to throw more pitches anyhow. so me i don't think giving up runs is ever a good idea.

Think of the Robin Roberts/Fergie Jenkins approach to pitching. Those guys were naturally flyball pitchers. Yes, a groundball is "safer" than a flyball in that it won't be a HR and it's less likely to be a double, but grouders are also harder to turn into outs than flyballs. And some fly balls are popups - those are almost always outs. Roberts and Jenkins didn't get cute and didn't nibble and didn't like to waste pitches. They kept it simple, they kept it near the strike zone. Jenkins and Roberts did allow lots of HR - of course, they also pitched lots of innings. Per inning, it's not all that bad. But with the extremely low number of walks and fairly low number of hits, the number of runners on base for those HR wasn't that large and the damage was limited. They certainly didn't want to give up HR - it's just that they valued getting outs more than they valued preventing the HR, and they valued getting outs efficiently.

Roberts and Jenkins accepted that tradeoff and pitched that way most of the time - and both of them are (and should be) Hall of Famers. The "pitching to the score" we're talking about is pitching more like Jenkins/Roberts when you have a big lead. Now guys that don't do that the rest of the time probably aren't as good at is as Jenkins/Roberts (if they are, why aren't they doing it more?), but it's still the same tradeoff. A few solo HR, a few three-single innings - but if you don't walk people, it's hard to put together the really big innings. And with that, the ERA does not go flying into the stratosphere.

Michael Kay thinks he's smart. Mike Mussina is smart.

If you buy into the hierarchy of the jocktocracy at all, or even if you have to witness it on a regular basis, losing one's sole advantage must be a huge irritant.

Thank you for the insight Howie. I was always curious how someone like Mussina (very well educated, obviously very bright), fits in at the major league level (other than by being really good at pitching). Mussina is by far my favorite interview, I'll actually try to catch post game interviews on days he's pitched.

I'm willing to bet that most Primates would do that if they were in Mussina's position.

Oh, I long ago reached the conclusion that I would be one of the least popular ballplayers on the planet, with my combination of sarcastic, condescending, shy, short temperedness, and not suffering fools lightly. The problem is that I'm just no good at ####### baseball. What a shame. I missed my opporunity to be famous for my jackassery. Now the only people who know what a jackass I am are you people.

You people. Grrrr.

I love when Kim Jones asks Mussina a stupid question in the post-game interview, and he just stares at her for a second or two, just to properly convey his contempt. Reminds me of Marvin from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Reminds me of Marvin from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I am not kidding you about this, I've thought this about Mussina before. That's so . . . weird.

I remember when he first went to New York, I thought, "This is going to be a catastrophe." Not in the sense that he would actually be bad, but in the sense that he would piss reporters off so much that they would all turn on him. Instead, most of them seem a little intimidated. Remarkably few have been provoked into hostility by being made to feel stupid, which surprises me.

ok. suppose it is the first inning and jason marquis give up his usual 6 or 7 runs. now you are up. you usually go 6 innings and give up 3 runs (plus or minus an inning or a run). so you are ahead 7-0. now you are facing a decent hitting team and there's 2 guys on it who hit you like a BP pitcher.

i really don't think that you are gonna think - well good. now i can give up 6 runs. you STILL gonna try to get as many outs as you can. because big innings happen (ask roy oswalt game 3 WS)

No disagreement, BC. I don't think 7 runs in today's environment is enough for the average pitcher to start taking it too easy. I don't believe any pitcher wants to make the score close enough that they can lose it, despite what Michael Kay thinks.

now i definitely do think that most pitchers coast with the #7/8/9 hitters moren the rest not that i blame them. but i think that is true no matter what the score is.

I agree again with you.

I'm familiar with Spira's piece and what the villageidiom posts.

However, what Praise Jaha and Ryan in LA (with pocket8pin support) can be shown, but not in the manner it is being investigated.

For example, one of the few times that "pitching to the score" comes into play is when a pitcher has a big lead on the scoreboard but falls behind 2-0 or 3-0 in the count. Especially if there is nobody on base, or there's two outs, with the big lead the pitcher is more likely to groove a fastball to ensure a strike than he is to try and hit the corner, or to throw a change or breaking pitch (as they are generally harder to perform and so increase the risk of a walk). The theory is making the hitter "earn" his trip to first with a hit, rather than upping the risk of a big inning by handing out free bases.

This form of "pitching to the score" probably increases likelihood of an extra base hit in that precise situation (since the further behind the pitcher in the count, the more the hitter is usually "sitting" on a grooved pitch and so the more likely he hits the ball hard) but what are we talking about, a dozen or so pitches over the course of an entire season, if that? Given all of the other variables in play, the effect is probably insignificant.

Informally, what I did when a team got a 5 run lead in the first three innings is track the strikes thrown percentage. You will find (assumably) in a larger study that the percentage of strikes goes up substantially - nearly 10% on average. Sometimes that means the OPS against goes up, but a pitcher that "has his good stuff" and throw strikes that don't get it. His slider is more deceptive, his fastball has an extra foot on it, whatever.

But the story is in the strike percentage whether or not a pitcher is "pitching to the score". With PBP now avaialable at Retrosheet, I'm surprised this wasn't in "The Book".

Someone can do the heavy lifting - I'm just the idea man.

You will find (assumably) in a larger study that the percentage of strikes goes up substantially - nearly 10% on average.

And that should in turn cause a change in the behavior of batters, who will quickly get the message that "working the count" won't work. They might be more willing to jump on a pitch early in the count. And both effects cause fewer pitches to be thrown per at bat.

And that should in turn cause a change in the behavior of batters, who will quickly get the message that "working the count" won't work. They might be more willing to jump on a pitch early in the count. And both effects cause fewer pitches to be thrown per at bat.

That is an interesting way to look, but unfortunately, the mindset is the opposite. "We need baserunners". That means more patience, which should obviously backfire.

That last bit of disagreement can only be settled by data, which I don't have.

I think there will be fewer P/PA. I am merely saying that batters don't take that approach the first time through the order. By the second time, the pitchers have changed.

Do closers throw a higher % of strikes than other pitchers? They would naturally be "pitching to the score" in most situations - a 2-3 run lead, and really wanting to avoid walks.

Mussina was always my favorite O, and I'll never forgive the Orioles for letting him go. Even more fun than his post-game interviews is just watching him out-think hitters when he's in the zone.

Remarkably few have been provoked into hostility by being made to feel stupid, which surprises me.

Most know how stupid their questions are and have since their early days been uninterested in the answers. But the answers fill the paper, so there you go.