BA's Jim Callis perspective on Bedard

[davearm]

Of course it's flawed.

Throwing an 0-2 curve in the dirt to see if the hitter will chase it is not nibbling.

Throwing an 0-2 fastball eye-high to see if the hitter will chase is not nibbling.

Throwing an 0-2 fastball in on the hands to set up the slider away is not nibbling.

Those are all pitches thrown out of the strikezone intentionally.

Nibbling is trying to paint a corner to get a borderline pitch called strike three.

By your analysis, every ball thrown on 0-2 is a case of nibbling. That's completely untrue and misleading.

[RShack]

This is how each rates in 0-2 Strike%:

48.1% - 56.8%

59.3% - 54.8%

55.8% - 53.5%

55.1% - 55.1%

So they have the same exact % over the last three seasons combined. At least Bedard isn't trending downward. If anything, Bedard is getting better at this (his % was actually close to 59% last year prior to his injury). If I'm a Cubs fan I'd be worried that Zambrano is nibbling more now than he did in the past.

Bottom line (to me at least), if Bedard has issues with nibbling on 0-2 then Zambrano certain does as well.

Good post. I really enjoy it when people use stats like you just did.

About the 2-strike nibbling... isn't it funny how it's something that people notice, yet the actual diff between good-and-bad is actually pretty small... and then, once people notice it, some people keep on seeing it even when it isn't there anymore...

[RShack]

Of course it's flawed.

Throwing an 0-2 curve in the dirt to see if the hitter will chase it is not nibbling.

Throwing an 0-2 fastball eye-high to see if the hitter will chase is not nibbling.

Throwing an 0-2 fastball in on the hands to set up the slider away is not nibbling.

Those are all pitches thrown out of the strikezone intentionally.

Nibbling is trying to paint a corner to get a borderline pitch called strike three.

By your analysis, every ball thrown on 0-2 is a case of nibbling. That's completely untrue and misleading.

Well... that's a very good point too... I should just shut-up until you guys get this sorted out...

[davearm]

Whatever you say.

Another question for you. You're a Cubs fan who apparently hates the Orioles and obviously doesn't like Orioles fans. Why do you even bother to post on this message board?

You may be pissed off at me for whatever reason, but you're smart enough to know that I'm 100% correct here.

[Sports Guy]

Whatever you say.

Another question for you. You're a Cubs fan who apparently hates the Orioles and obviously doesn't like Orioles fans. Why do you even bother to post on this message board?

Because...He is our National League "expert"!

[davearm]

#1, I'm not pissed off at you.

#2, you aren't 100% correct.

Let me rephrase this. The knock on Bedard was that he didn't attack the hitters on 0-2. Some people may use the term nibble, but that isn't exactly the correct term either - so even I was wrong to use that term. It had reached the point a few years ago where you could almost see the hitters put the bat on their shoulder on an 0-2 pitch from Bedard because they knew the next pitch would be low and about 3-inches off the plate (I can remember a late night game in Seattle in which this was the case).

That was one frustration I had with practically all Orioles pitchers during Ray Miller's last tenure as PC. If an Orioles pitcher had an 0-2 count on the batter, it was almost guaranteed that the next pitch would be low and outside off the plate. Call that nibbling, or call it not attacking hitters. Either way, that is what Bedard used to do.

And my question still applies.

You can rephrase all you want 1970. It doesn't change the fact that the analysis you provided does nothing to address the question you contend it does.

[Fairfax Bird]

You can rephrase all you want 1970. It doesn't change the fact that the analysis you provided does nothing to address the question you contend it does.

I think Dave has something with this nibbling thing. Bedard threw 16.2 pitches per inning, but walked only 57 people in 182 IP. Zambrano threw 17 pitches per inning, but walked 101 people in 216.1 IP. Looking at game logs Bedard seemed to have too many pitches thrown in a lot of games where he went 6 or 7 IP.

Here is where Dave is wrong. He said Bedard is prone to stretches of games where he doesn't look like a #1. Looked at the last 11/2 and saw no evidence of this. He was as solid as a rock. Threw in a bad performance and at most two in a row during that stretch.

Zambrano on the other hand has gone threw several stretches where he looks more like a #3-4 than a #1.

Given that Bedard has improved every year in the league. That he has been pretty dominant in the last year and a half and that he performs in a MUCH harder division than Zambrano I would say that Bedard is by far more worthy of the label "bonafide ace."

I'll take the nibbling if in the end that means the batter is out, as compared to Zambrano, who is not nibbling, just walking 4.5 runners per 9 IP.

Of course Dave will look at it objectively and argue that the last 11/2 years for Bedard don't count and that the divisions are about equal if you take away New York and Boston.

[Fairfax Bird]

That's all well and good, except you seem to be overlooking the fact that Bedard throws a much higher percentage of strikes than does Zambrano - and he threw a higher percentage of 0-2 strikes in each of the last two seasons than did Zambrano.

I'm not saying that. I am saying that he throws a lot of pitches. For a guy who walks few and averages less than a hit per inning, he surely throws a lot of pitches compared to Zambrano.

[Sports Guy]

I'm not saying that. I am saying that he throws a lot of pitches. For a guy who walks few and averages less than a hit per inning, he surely throws a lot of pitches compared to Zambrano.

He also pitches a lot of games against teams like Boston and NY...Teams that foul off a lot of pitches, take a lot of pitches and get pitchers to work deep into counts and these guys do that better than anyone.

[davearm]

If you say so.

SG, I agree that it is time to take your advice, for this is truly a waste of time.

Well if all you're going to do is roll your eyes when a fundamental flaw in your analytical method is pointed out, then yes, we are all wasting our time here.

For a guy that claims not to be pissed off, you sure seem to have your panties in a bunch over this. :shrug:

[Mackus]

Well if all you're going to do is roll your eyes when a fundamental flaw in your analytical method is pointed out, then yes, we are all wasting our time here.

For a guy that claims not to be pissed off, you sure seem to have your panties in a bunch over this. :shrug:

1970's analysis doesn't 100% direct the question of how much a guy "nibbles" on 0-2, but it also is not useles as you seem to be claiming it is. I doubt Bedard or Zambrano throw curves in the dirt, shoulder-high fastballs, or brushback pitches significantly more often than the other on 0-2 situations, so while the percentages might be off by some small margin of error to account for the differences in these "wasted" pitches between the two, the general conclusion that they each "nibble" about the same amount on 0-2 counts is an accurate one. We can't know exactly what percentage of 0-2 balls are wasted pitches and what percentage are "nibbles", but the idea of using the overall numbers to compare their 0-2 gameplan is a valid one, just not 100% exhaustive. Its certainly more accurate than objectively saying that on or the other "nibbles" more or less based on observation and scouting reports.

[davearm]

1970's analysis doesn't 100% direct the question of how much a guy "nibbles" on 0-2, but it also is not useles as you seem to be claiming it is. I doubt Bedard or Zambrano throw curves in the dirt, shoulder-high fastballs, or brushback pitches significantly more often than the other on 0-2 situations, so while the percentages might be off by some small margin of error to account for the differences in these "wasted" pitches between the two, the general conclusion that they each "nibble" about the same amount on 0-2 counts is an accurate one. We can't know exactly what percentage of 0-2 balls are wasted pitches and what percentage are "nibbles", but the idea of using the overall numbers to compare their 0-2 gameplan is a valid one, just not 100% exhaustive. Its certainly more accurate than objectively saying that on or the other "nibbles" more or less based on observation and scouting reports.

The bolded statement is the critical piece of information here, and the thing that immediately kills any effort to infer "nibble" rates from ball rates.

Bedard may or may not nibble more than Zambrano (or any other pitcher), but that's never going to show up in the data. Not all balls are created equal, and it's statistically impossible to separate one kind from another given the (lack of) information in the data.

The only chance we'd have to make something out of this type of analysis would be to actually watch tape of each guy pitching, and attempt to categorize every ball thrown as a "nibble" pitch, a "chase" pitch, a "setup" pitch, an "intended strike that missed" pitch, etc. Even that effort would be hopeless, since we'd never know the pitcher's intention.

The only thing tha we can say with any degree of certainty is that Bedard has better control than Zambrano, as evidenced by his higher strike and lower walk rates.

[Frobby]

Here is Bedard, IMO.

* Outstanding when he's on his game.

* Terrific breaking pitch complemented by a fastball with enough gas that you have to be ready for it, making the breaking pitch that much better.

* Susceptible to running up pitch counts by nibbling more than attacking. This seems to be much improved in 2007.

* Susceptible to runs of 6, 8, 10 (or more) starts where he just isn't on his game, and is average at best. He didn't have one of these in 2007, but he has every other year.

* Susceptible to missing time with injuries. This struck again in 2007.

These various "susceptibles" have held him back in the past. If you think he's over them, then a sky-high evaluation is understandable, and terms like "bonafide ace" are warranted.

I'm apparently more skeptical than most that these various issues are dead and gone.

I think at this point there are only two valid criticisms of Bedard:

1. Arguably injury-prone.

2. Tendency to high pitch counts which sometimes causes him to be pulled an inning before you'd really like.

I'm not going to quibble about whether his tendency to high pitch counts is caused by "nibbling" or other reasons. He's 6th in MLB in P/PA (among qualified starters), and 35th in P/IP. I'd like to see that a little lower.

However, what you are failing to acknowledge is that Bedard has gotten steadily better every year he has been in the big leagues:

ERA: 4.59, 4.00, 3.76, 3.16

K/BB: 1.70, 2.19, 2.48, 3.88

BAA: .270, .260, .258, .212

OPSA: .769, .694, .690, .614

P/IP: 19.4, 17.4, 16.8, 16.2

With that trend line I have to believe Bedard is one of the top pitchers in baseball going into 2008.

[Fairfax Bird]

I think at this point there are only two valid criticisms of Bedard:

1. Arguably injury-prone.

2. Tendency to high pitch counts which sometimes causes him to be pulled an inning before you'd really like.

I'm not going to quibble about whether his tendency to high pitch counts is caused by "nibbling" or other reasons. He's 6th in MLB in P/PA (among qualified starters), and 35th in P/IP. I'd like to see that a little lower.

However, what you are failing to acknowledge is that Bedard has gotten steadily better every year he has been in the big leagues:

ERA: 4.59, 4.00, 3.76, 3.16

K/BB: 1.70, 2.19, 2.48, 3.88

BAA: .270, .260, .258, .212

OPSA: .769, .694, .690, .614

P/IP: 19.4, 17.4, 16.8, 16.2

With that trend line I have to believe Bedard is one of the top pitchers in baseball going into 2008.

Great numbers, and agree he is a bonafide ace.

[Say O!]

I'm not saying that. I am saying that he throws a lot of pitches. For a guy who walks few and averages less than a hit per inning, he surely throws a lot of pitches compared to Zambrano.

Let's not fail to consider the league effect of effectively replacing a pitcher with a DH.

Thanks for the analysis, Frobby and 1970. If you don't mind, I'd like to see how Bedard compared to other "top-tier" AL starters like Haren, Lackey, Santana, Beckett, Sabathia in terms of IP/Start and Avg # of pitches per start. My hypothesis would be that the difference between Bedard and these pitchers is not statistically significant.