Elias Q&A on the farm and player development

[now]

49 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

Here is Part 2 http://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2019/01/lets-talk-pitching-the-mike-elias-q-and-a-part-two.html

Lens stands out as Elias's word of choice for pitcher assessment.  Obviously minor league results are a mosaic of loads of arms, but the Astros trades for Verlander and Cole best show for me what lens they are going for.

Basic stuff - really old school DIPS.  I think contact managers like Kyle Hendricks do have some real skills, but I don't think they're going to be a priority for us.

Quote

Elias: When you are striking somebody out, you are dominating them. They are swinging and missing. It just speaks to the quality of your stuff and the quality of your skill relative to your competitors. It’s not perfect, but it’s probably the most stable and one of the most trustworthy stats in terms of how good a pitcher’s stuff and ability are at that point in time. 

This really is intriguing stuff. The focus on pitcher Ks seems so self-evident, in retrospect. Yet it seems no one put such a laser lens on it till the recent HOU org, or at least not with such demonstrable results. It's so bewitching to find a single stat like that to mark success, especially such a pure/simple stat as K rate. (I have always liked K/H best for a pitcher... used to be 2+ was elite, now that's commonplace and we're seeing 5+).

If K rate is indeed the grail, at least for pitchers, it raises some interesting followup questions:

- Is there a single all-important stat for hitters, to compare? I doubt low K rate is it, or it would disqualify sluggers like Ruth, Mantle (and, um, a certain Oriole...)

- Does low K rate for pitchers correlate well with overall grades such as (x)WAR?

- If you're driving the wedge of success with a single best lens, does it work best to start with the pitcher because, well, it all starts with the pitcher? Or does it work because the K rate is a better indicator of success for pitchers than for hitters?

Maybe these are questions for Sig Mejdal, or maybe he's already figured it all out... but the OH is my go-to community to ask such, with usually enlightening (or at least fun) answers. 

 

[bobmc]

2 hours ago, now said:

This really is intriguing stuff. The focus on pitcher Ks seems so self-evident, in retrospect. Yet it seems no one put such a laser lens on it till the recent HOU org, or at least not with such demonstrable results. It's so bewitching to find a single stat like that to mark success, especially such a pure/simple stat as K rate. (I have always liked K/H best for a pitcher... used to be 2+ was elite, now that's commonplace and we're seeing 5+).

If K rate is indeed the grail, at least for pitchers, it raises some interesting followup questions:

- Is there a single all-important stat for hitters, to compare? I doubt low K rate is it, or it would disqualify sluggers like Ruth, Mantle (and, um, a certain Oriole...)

- Does low K rate for pitchers correlate well with overall grades such as (x)WAR?

- If you're driving the wedge of success with a single best lens, does it work best to start with the pitcher because, well, it all starts with the pitcher? Or does it work because the K rate is a better indicator of success for pitchers than for hitters?

Maybe these are questions for Sig Mejdal, or maybe he's already figured it all out... but the OH is my go-to community to ask such, with usually enlightening (or at least fun) answers. 

 

@Can of Corn and @DrungoHazewood have been spouting this for years when "pitching to contact" and ground ball pitchers were the rage.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, now said:

This really is intriguing stuff. The focus on pitcher Ks seems so self-evident, in retrospect. Yet it seems no one put such a laser lens on it till the recent HOU org, or at least not with such demonstrable results. It's so bewitching to find a single stat like that to mark success, especially such a pure/simple stat as K rate. (I have always liked K/H best for a pitcher... used to be 2+ was elite, now that's commonplace and we're seeing 5+).

If K rate is indeed the grail, at least for pitchers, it raises some interesting followup questions:

- Is there a single all-important stat for hitters, to compare? I doubt low K rate is it, or it would disqualify sluggers like Ruth, Mantle (and, um, a certain Oriole...)

- Does low K rate for pitchers correlate well with overall grades such as (x)WAR?

- If you're driving the wedge of success with a single best lens, does it work best to start with the pitcher because, well, it all starts with the pitcher? Or does it work because the K rate is a better indicator of success for pitchers than for hitters?

Maybe these are questions for Sig Mejdal, or maybe he's already figured it all out... but the OH is my go-to community to ask such, with usually enlightening (or at least fun) answers. 

 

My opinions...

- No, there's nothing comparable to K rate for hitters.  It's more of a combination of contact, power, and eye.

- High K rate correlates very well with metrics like WAR, although I'm not as sure how to gauge things since the league rates have approached a K an inning.  It used to be below-average rates were troubling, and you basically couldn't have long-term success under 4.5 per nine.  But that was when 6 or 7 was good.  Used to be a 2:1 K:BB ratio was good.  Now you can have a 5.23 ERA with a K:BB ratio of 4.  

- K rate is a much better indicator for pitchers than batters.  Batters can strike out because (at least historically) there was a strong positive relationship between power and strikeouts.  Power is much important than Ks, so you'd almost always take the Ks if it comes with power.  Today I'm not as sure of the strength of the correlation, since an average player strikes out like 125 times per 600 PAs.  With pitchers a K is an out 99.99% of the time, so the more the better. There is no natual limiting force, so Ks always go up - there are very few exceptions in any 10-year period since 1870.  Used to be there was a slight drag on Ks for batters when they were embarrassing, but that's long gone.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 minutes ago, bobmc said:

@Can of Corn and @DrungoHazewood have been spouting this for years when "pitching to contact" and ground ball pitchers were the rage.

I think we can be fairly confident that Elias is never going to tell us he's hunting for bargains in the guys who have 5 K/9.  He's going to agree with Can and me, that when Andrew Cashner sees his K rate fall off the table that's a red flag, not an opportunity.

[LookinUp]

9 hours ago, Luke-OH said:

I think Lowther is a better comp for a guy who could come from relative obscurity to having a major role.

Harvey was a top 50 prospect in baseball.

Or even Akin.

[now]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

My opinions...

- No, there's nothing comparable to K rate for hitters.  It's more of a combination of contact, power, and eye.

- High K rate correlates very well with metrics like WAR, although I'm not as sure how to gauge things since the league rates have approached a K an inning.  It used to be below-average rates were troubling, and you basically couldn't have long-term success under 4.5 per nine.  But that was when 6 or 7 was good.  Used to be a 2:1 K:BB ratio was good.  Now you can have a 5.23 ERA with a K:BB ratio of 4.  

- K rate is a much better indicator for pitchers than batters.  Batters can strike out because (at least historically) there was a strong positive relationship between power and strikeouts.  Power is much important than Ks, so you'd almost always take the Ks if it comes with power.  Today I'm not as sure of the strength of the correlation, since an average player strikes out like 125 times per 600 PAs.  With pitchers a K is an out 99.99% of the time, so the more the better. There is no natual limiting force, so Ks always go up - there are very few exceptions in any 10-year period since 1870.  Used to be there was a slight drag on Ks for batters when they were embarrassing, but that's long gone.

Thanks, I was hoping for your take.  

Still, though I agree with your explanation, it seems a kind of riddle or paradox that K rate would be such a clear indicator of pitching success, but lack a symmetrical application on the hitting side.

Your point about correlation with sluggers' power does make sense; and I guess that wouldn't translate (or would it?) to high K pitchers correlating with high HR pitchers. I also wonder if it has something to do with the opposite approach too, that you can defend against the K by slap-hitting and weak contact but it's still going to be advantage, P.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, now said:

Thanks, I was hoping for your take.  

Still, though I agree with your explanation, it seems a kind of riddle or paradox that K rate would be such a clear indicator of pitching success, but lack a symmetrical application on the hitting side.

Your point about correlation with sluggers' power does make sense; and I guess that wouldn't translate (or would it?) to high K pitchers correlating with high HR pitchers. I also wonder if it has something to do with the opposite approach too, that you can defend against the K by slap-hitting and weak contact but it's still going to be advantage, P.

I think what we've started to see is that many of the high-K hitters strike out so much that it drives down their batting averages to the point where they're not as productive.  That hasn't really happened in the past because you can still hit .270 or .300 if you strike out 125 times, but if you strike out 200 you have to BABIP well over .400 just to hit .275.  Nobody is a .400 BABIP player, not really.  When Melvin Mora hit .340 he had a .371 BABIP.  To hit .340 with 175 strikeouts you'd have to hit .510 on balls in play.  That's impossible.

So we may be at or even above the natural limit and now there is, finally, a drag on batter Ks.  Offenses will decline with enough guys hitting .200, no matter how much power they have.  Batters may drive a leveling off of overall Ks, as teams avoid the really high strikeout guys, but still pursue the highest K pitchers.

[Just Regular]

This talk about Hitter K's mattering less than Pitcher K's reminds me of something else as I imagine the Astro-ification of our process.  Between 2016 and 2017, their batters made a big strikeout improvement which was a big talking point during 2017's postseason.  Here's a long Posnanski piece from the middle of that year.

https://www.mlb.com/news/astros-keep-homer-numbers-up-strikeouts-down/c-246227620

I enjoyed the bit about the batters daily reports on how they performed with respect to whether they should or shouldn't have swung at each pitch.

[now]

2 hours ago, OrioleDog said:

This talk about Hitter K's mattering less than Pitcher K's reminds me of something else as I imagine the Astro-ification of our process.  Between 2016 and 2017, their batters made a big strikeout improvement which was a big talking point during 2017's postseason.  Here's a long Posnanski piece from the middle of that year.

https://www.mlb.com/news/astros-keep-homer-numbers-up-strikeouts-down/c-246227620

I enjoyed the bit about the batters daily reports on how they performed with respect to whether they should or shouldn't have swung at each pitch.

Wow, that is a revelation and it does dovetail almost perfectly with Elias's comments on pitcher Ks.

"when we looked at players we wanted to add … we wanted players who could do damage with a lot more contact hitting, swing at the right kind of pitches."

And, another revelation at odds with conventional wisdom on OBP skills, he adds (and proves) that batters' behavior at the MLB level can be changed.

Hmm... Re-sign Jones and Schoop? (Just kidding)

[Can_of_corn]

Twins might be annoyed if they sign Schoop.

[now]

18 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Twins might be annoyed if they sign Schoop.

Oh right, forgot that.

On another note, I wonder how high Elias is on Kremer in our system now.