User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.4016 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Thursday, November 18, 2021Will the knuckleball ever make a comeback?
RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Posted: November 18, 2021 at 11:30 AM | 29 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: knuckleballers |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: Francisco Lindor is now underrated
(5 - 12:08pm, Aug 13) Last: cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Newsblog: The Orioles' advantage is hiding in plain sight (11 - 12:07pm, Aug 13) Last: The Honorable Ardo Newsblog: Fernando Tatis Jr. suspended, tests positive for banned substance (13 - 11:56am, Aug 13) Last: Ron J Newsblog: Rodolfo Castro loses phone while diving into third in Pirates’ loss (31 - 11:29am, Aug 13) Last: Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose) Newsblog: Mets Announce Old Timers’ Day Roster (7 - 11:06am, Aug 13) Last: The Duke Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for the week of August 8-15, 2022 (226 - 11:03am, Aug 13) Last: . . . . . . Newsblog: How Government Devastated Minor League Baseball (3 - 9:54pm, Aug 12) Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Newsblog: Pete Rose brushes off question about alleged sex with minor: ‘It was 55 years ago, babe’ (101 - 9:51pm, Aug 12) Last: Brian White Newsblog: 2022 MLB Field of Dreams Game: Four things to know with Cubs, Reds set to meet in Iowa (15 - 9:46pm, Aug 12) Last: AndrewJ Newsblog: ‘A League of Their Own’: There’s Still No Crying in Baseball — Just Room for Fixing Old Errors (64 - 7:40pm, Aug 12) Last: Misirlou cut his hair and moved to Rome Newsblog: Trevor Bauer Faces Sexual Battery Allegations in New Countersuit (13 - 10:24am, Aug 12) Last: cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE Newsblog: Quite a Sho: Ohtani ties Ruth, passes Ichiro in same game (19 - 8:47am, Aug 12) Last: Mefisto Newsblog: Jason Heyward, despite another year left on contract, won't be back with Chicago Cubs in 2023, Jed Hoyer says (36 - 10:21pm, Aug 11) Last: Sweatpants Newsblog: 2022 NBA Playoffs thread (4141 - 10:08pm, Aug 11) Last: rr would lock Shaq's a$$ up Newsblog: As they take the Field of Dreams, where do the Chicago Cubs stand in their latest rebuild? (2 - 7:18pm, Aug 11) Last: Brian C |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.4016 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Rough CarriganAnd when Wakefield went to the Red Sox and worked on his craft some more he converted some of those disaster outings into mediocre outings and made himself a valuable pitcher.
But I don't think it's any more true now than it ever was.
Scarred early by chasing Phil Niekro offerings to the backstop :)
I also think that a pitcher willing to do this would find, if they are moderately successful, that they'd be a prime candidate to be nabbed in the Rule V draft by a team willing to take a chance on stashing them in this sort of role for a year.
I mean, we all know about Wakefield, Candiotti, the Niekros, Wood, Hough, etc, but are there examples of knuckleball pitchers who just completely bombed in the big leagues? For that matter, are there very many who fail in the minors, and never get past AA or something? It doesn't seem like it. (The Red Sox did have one, Steven Wright, and he was actually pretty successful. They gave him one full year as a starter, and he went 13-6, 3.33 ERA, four complete games, 156 innings...then he struggled in early 2017, and although he pitched well again in 2018, he was pretty much off the radar screen for them.)
*Edited to add that I remembered "that Charlie guy from a few years ago." Turns out it was 13. Sigh.
Charlie Haeger wasn't very good
Steve Sparks had a few okayish seasons, but overall wasn't all that good (56-69, 4.88 ERA). 10.4 war in his career, almost half of it in the 2001 season, when he went 14-9, 3.65 for the Tigers.
Really what it boils down to is the the minor leagues are very much an up or out model and it's important to wash out loads of players every year.
Didn't make sense to me decades ago and makes less sense to me now.
In 2021, 43% of innings were thrown by "relievers" (a few of whom were starters following an opener but then some "starter" innings are really relief innings). It was an average of almost exactly 625 innings per team. Your top 3 (healthy) might cover 200 innings. That's 425 innings across the remaining 5 relief slots. Probably two of those guys are other "top" relievers for you throwing 100-110 between them, call it 300-320 innings across 3 relief slots. The mop-up garbage guys are there, there are just 10-20 of them ... having a knuckleballer on the roster all year just takes up one of those garbage slots which doesn't do anything but reduce the number of transactions, it's not clear it really helps you win.
The reduction in the size of the minors probably hurts the chances of a knuckleballer. Most knuckleballers are injured/failed prospects and teams should be less willing to burn a spot on a longshot experiment now. The next knuckleballer will probably have spent some time in the indy leagues unless maybe there's some genuine college fireballer who has been throwing a knuckler all his life out there.
193 -- Hendricks, Kopech, Ruiz (excludes 3 early-ish starts for Kopech covering 12 innings, look like legit starts)
110 -- Bummer, Crochet (their two lefties)
245 -- another 13 guys plus 3 position players (2 of those 13 were Kimbrel and Tepera)
Reynaldo Lopez seems to have been the modern equivalent of a swingman. He was hurt for the first half of the year, made 20 appearances, 9 of them starts (5 in Sept) but covering just 37 innings. He did OK giving up 18 ER (21 R) but 6/7 of those in one start. Looks like he had a 10th "start" following an opener (5 IP, 0 runs).
Give or take, you need a garbage specialist to take about 80 innings of relief and cover Lopez's 40 IP of starting to even save a roster spot. But if you've got a guy who can throw 120 innings effectively, that's now a #4 starter who might earn decent money in arb. (And if he's ineffective, what have you gained?)
The back end of the bullpen is just another example of the temp/gig economy -- minimum wage, high turnover.
Such a drama queen.
Actually, this should be something that we can actually quantify.
Almost all of our rate stats are based on measures of central location (totals, averages, ratios of totals or averages). Should, especially for pitchers, we be looking at measures that balance average level against volatility?
We all agree having a pitcher who is consistently below replacement is unacceptable. But what about a pitcher like Leyland is implying Wakefield was (I don't know if this is true from the data or not and don't feel like looking right now, but just go with me): a pitcher who was amazing sometimes (let's say P% of the time) and a disaster sometimes (1-P%). Given levels for amazing and disaster, at what point is the value of that player higher than what we think of as replacement level (which, let's be clear, is mostly based on an average)? Is it P=2/3? Or is it 1/3?
It seems like win probability should help us to answer that question. At a certain point, will a pitcher who gives you half their games with 90% win probability performance and half their games with 0% win probability performance might be better than a pitcher who gives you the same 45% win probability peformance every time out? This may depend on the quality of the rest of the team! Someone must have asked and tried to answer this question already ,right?
Such a drama queen.
--
he says in passing, this could go on all (k)night, mate.
That's a good question. If you think of starting pitchers, someone who would throw a 6-inning shutout 2/3 of the time, and completely blow up (say 6 runs in 2 innings) would be an example. That would give you a 3.85 era, so slightly better than league average but would probably lead to wins in 2/3 of the pitchers appearances, so much better than league average.
It's similar to the HOF arguments of "peak" versus "career", peak=pennants is the argument, and in this case the argument (in-season) is shutouts=wins.
This points out once more that the economics/analytics-based strategy/roster rules are biased in favor of having a whole bunch of FFT's (fungible flame throwers), which means all sorts of fun things about baseball are becoming rare if not extinct, including knuckleballers.
I've wanted to do an "anatomy of a bullpen" thing where I track some team's bullpen usage and transactions throughout a season for years but I'm too lazy to do it. Somebody could probably come up with a cool "Napoleon's march" sort of stat graphic for it but even a stodgy color-coded Gaant chart would probably work.
#21: I'm pretty sure I've seen stuff on that, at least in a back of the envelope way, like how we do "would it be better to just walk Bonds every time?" But mainly, that's what real-world baseball performance almost always looks like. You get occasional metronomic freaks like prime Pujols but most good seasons amount to something like 3 excellent months, 2 average months and one crappy month. Averae seaons are 2/2/2; bad seasons are 1/2/3.
Vlad Jr just had an awesome year. Still, in 43 of his games, he went hitless; another 29 where he went 1 for 4 or 5 without a HR (he seemed to have a lot where his only hit was a HR). (Some of those latter would have had walks to raise the OBP to a solid level or a double giving a decent SLG.) So that's almost half a season ... or at least a third of it ... when Vlad's lack of offense hurt his team. The key think is that's better than, say, Hosmer who went hitless in just over 1/3 of his games and had more than one hit in only just over 1/5. No surprise really for a sport in which reaching base say 36% of the time is really good.
Pitchers are more likely to be consistently "good". Quality starts used to be a pretty decent way to track that -- yes some quality starts aren't so great but there really aren't many of those -- but now with pitchers, especially the non-elite, not making it to 6 innings all that often, it needs to be redefined. But if we go back to 2010 (why not), 53% of all starts were QS so presumably the elite guys were around 80%.
I noticed the phenomenon you're considering of Shawn Estes' 2003 season with the Cubs. He was the #5 starter on a top staff. He pitched like one with a 76 ERA+. Still of his 28 starts, 11 were QS (40%). In those starts and a few other pretty good ones (e.g 7 IP, 4 ER or 5 IP, 2 ER) he gave up just 25 ER in 96 IP -- that's a 2.34 ERA in exactly half of his starts, 8-4 record (team 8-6). But that means the other half of his starts were 56 innings and 72 ER. He ended up 8-11, the Cubs 12-16 in his starts, probably about what you expect for a #5 starter on a good team.
I assume, but don't know, that Jekyll/Hyde performance is pretty common for #5 starters. The only real difference I see between that performance and one where Estes threw 5.5 innings and 3.5 ER every start (neat trick) is that the bullpen load is more stable in the latter ... but hard to say whether that's preferable to needing either 2 or 6 bullpen innings whenever Estes took the mound. That sort of start would obviously require the Cubs to score at least 4 and probably 5 to win (the bullpen will give up at least one run on average over 3.5 innings). The 2003 Cubs did that 41% of the time suggesting they would be expected to win 11 of consistent Estes 28 starts instead of 12.
In short, it probably doesn't matter. Maybe a Jekyll/Hyde #5 with a 76 ERA+ is as valuable as a consistent #5 with a 84 ERA+ but that's probably all there is to it.
Corbin Burnes just won the CYA with 18 QS in 28 starts (64%), the times we live in but not substantially worse than Johnson 2000. He also never gave up more than 5 runs (in a 4 IP outing). Two of the non-QS were of the 5 IP, 1 ER variety so quality by today's standards. Anyway, we can say he had 8 bad starts (29%) totally 37 IP with 30 ER plus 2 UER. He went 0-3, the team 4-4 which is good.
Anyway, even a CYA season might well feature 1/3 bad starts with an ERA over 6 across those starts (and 2/3 great). Presumably a good #2 guy is more like 60/40 excellent/bad.
Rivera 2001 appeared in 71 games with a 192 ERA+ (below average!). He gave up at least one run in 13 games so about 20% -- 15.2 IP, 24 R, 21 ER. What a bum! The Yanks still managed to go 5-8 in those games, he went 3-6 with 2 saves and 7 blown saves. Of the 4 non-save situations, 3 were extras at home and 1 tied 9th at home so there was never going to be a save situation.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main