Pitching Progress: An Effort in Finding Incremental Gains, Vol. I

My very favorite thing about baseball is that it’s like a dog; no matter what transpires one day, it’s always there for you the next. [Editor’s note: Until it dies.] The constancy acts something like a drug, for those of us that are addicted to its remedies. Quite simply, life is better with baseball. But for as much as we love its presence in our lives, that same gift also leaves us prone to overreaction and emphasizing isolated events with more weight than they deserve. In a world that instantly reacts publicly to every pitch via Twitter, nearly every analytical statement has to begin by adding the caveat of a nearly-universally understood moniker known simply as ‘SSS’ (Small Sample Size). It’s not that this caution is misplaced, it’s quite the opposite really. Baseball is a game of failure, first and foremost, so any positive or significantly negative deviation from this reality should be digested only in samples large enough to have a meaningful correlation to comparative analysis. In short, individual games are meant for entertainment, entire seasons are meant for analysis.

It is this set of facts that make what we’re trying to accomplish with this new series equally exciting and intimidating. The excitement comes from trying something new, and anticipating everything that can be learned from the process. The intimidation enters as I ponder ignoring conventional wisdom, and instead attempt to find incremental gains in the daily minutia of individual performance. Starting this week on a weekly basis we’ll be tracking starting pitchers on an every start basis. We’ll track their velocity, movement, location and results, searching for the moments that tipped their season towards improvement or regression. In short, we’re going to embrace small samples as we attempt to gain insight into inflection points, both in the positive and negative forms. Keep an eye out for specific statistics in the charts below, as I’ll point out items of note in each performance. Buckle up as we wallow into the unknown, searching for something that hasn’t happened yet.

Jake Arrieta (April 4th, vs. Los Angels Angels)
Result:  1 GS, W, 7 IP, 0 ER, 2 H, 6 K, 1 BB, 89 pitches

Velocity/Usage/Movement:

Location:

Observations:

While the results of Jake Arrieta’s Opening Day performance may look like vintage Jake, the path he took to get there was actually quite different than his typical outing. The first interesting tidbit resides in the 54 combined two-seam and four-seam fastballs he threw, in he which didn’t generate a single swing-and-miss. This may not seem odd on the surface—fastballs are generally used to pitch to contact—but keep in mind that his two-seam sinker generated whiffs in nearly 8 percent of his offerings last year.

Second, he started right-handed batters with a fastball 76 percent of the time, and left-handed batters 83 percent; well above his 2015 marks of 58 and 55 percent last season. Considering the vertical break on his fastballs was actually about two inches sharper than his average in 2015 (indicating his movement was excellent), my theory is that he was intentionally pitching to contact in his first start. The result of this is fewer strikeouts than normal, but also greater efficiency. Further, he went to his signature slider just 17 times, relying much more heavily on straight stuff. This number is well below the roughly 30 percent average he carried last year, which when could combined with Joe Maddon conservatively pulling him after just 89 pitches, could be an indication of lesser usage this year in an effort to protect his arm and save himself for later in the season.

Finally, Rian Watt smartly pointed out that Arrieta’s previously excellent changeup became, well, “disgusting.” The average vertical break on his three changeups threatened six inches, which is simply off-the-charts. Could this be a weapon he uses with more frequency than the 4% he offered it last season? If it can continue to make the best hitter on the planet look like this, I’d certainly love to see it:

Jon Lester (April 5th, vs. Los Angels Angels)
Result:  1 GS, W, 7 IP, 1 ER, 4 H, 4 K, 0 BB, 93 pitches

Velocity/Usage/Movement:

Location:

Observations:

Contrary to Arrieta, this outing was classic Jon Lester. His pitch-usage spread was very similar to his 2015 averages, with the exception being the nine times he threw changeups, well above his five percent usage rate from last season. The eye-test certainly appeared as if Lester came out for his first start much stronger than last year, and I believe his velocity (nearly touching 95 mph) and zone profile above prove this to be true. When Lester is on, he attacks the lower portion of the zone with regularity, rarely straying up. Take a look at the above profile, and the compare it to last season’s below. Small sample size or no, it appears as if Lester immediately found his groove:

John Lackey (April 7th, vs. Arizona Diamondbacks)
Result:  1 GS, W, 6 IP, 6 ER, 8 H, 4 K, 1 BB, 84 pitches

Velocity/Usage/Movement:

Location:

Observations:

Already with a touchy relationship with the fan base, Lackey would undoubtedly like a do-over for his debut in a Cubs uniform. It was apparent from the first pitch—the one Jean Segura hit about 390 feet for a home run—that his command wasn’t sharp. Sure enough, he would go on to leave 25 pitches in the middle and upper portions of the strike zone (compare to 19 and 17 for Lester and Arrieta, respectively), making it very difficult to succeed. While Lackey is known for being unafraid of working up in the zone, it becomes a problem when nine pitches are left high and inside, indicating an inability to finish pitches.  One glance at his profile during his successful 2015 campaign tells you everything you need to know, as just 3.65 percent of his pitches landed in this area :

Additionally, while Lackey’s slider usage has steadily edged up over the years, he relied on it much more frequently than he has even in recent years. The fact that he threw just 19 four-seam fastballs is especially surprising, considering his usage rate last year was 46 percent. It’s a bit perplexing that he would stray so far from his fastball, until you take a look at his usage by inning:

In his rough first inning in which he allowed three runs, Lackey threw 19 of his 49 fastballs. This apparently caused him to lose faith in his ability to locate it, and he began to rely more heavily on his slider. However, successful usage and placement of his fastball is necessary to set up an effective slider, so keep an eye on his fastball usage and command early in his next start for an indication of whether or not he’ll find more success.

Jason Hammel (April 8th, vs. Arizona Diamondbacks)
Result:  1 GS, L, 6 IP, 1 ER, 4 H, 6 K, 3 BB, 89 pitches

Velocity/Usage/Movement:

Location:

Observations:

In a game that was soured by a devastating injury to Kyle Schwarber, a small silver lining was found in “good” Jason Hammel showing up. I wrote in January about Hammel’s need to use the upper portion of the zone to induce popups, and he did this relatively effectively in his first start, inducing two popups in the process. However, it is important for his success that he stays out of the middle third of the zone, and the 15 deliveries that ended up in that area are what caused some of the louder contact. He’ll need to cut down on this number in future starts—and instead focus on the upper and lower portions—to maintain success over the course of the season.

Like Lackey, he relied heavily on his slider—but with significantly more effectiveness—generating six whiffs with his slide-piece alone. We should keep an eye on Hammel’s velocity, however, as his first outing fastball averaged 91.8 mph, a drop from the 93.5 mph his early outings last season averaged. Interestingly, he generated just two whiffs with the pitch, which could be an indication that he was intentionally using it to pitch to contact in a similar fashion to Arrieta, who he mentioned as an inspiration during the offseason. On the other hand, the combination of his lesser velocity and movement when compared to Arrieta means far more fastball are put in play, rather than fouled off. This highlights Hammel’s need to limit walks and induce grounders, and you can be certain he wants to cut back on the three free-passes he allowed in this outing.

Kyle Hendricks (April 9th, vs. Arizona Diamondbacks)
Result:  1 GS, W, 6 2/3 IP, 2 ER, 4 H, 4 K, 1 BB, 99 pitches

Velocity/Usage/Movement:

Location:

Observations:

In his first start, Kyle Hendricks was everything and more that the Cubs need him to be. He overcame the five-inning barrier, nearly finishing the seventh inning. He limited baserunners and pitched to contact with effectiveness. His pitch usage was extremely straightforward, with 92 of his 99 pitches being either sinkers or changeups. His sinker alone generated 39 SNIPs (Strikes Not In Play)—totaling nearly 64 percent—a huge sum for a velocity-challenged starting pitcher. Combine that with the six SNIPs generated from his changeup, and nearly 50 percent of his combined fastball-changeup offerings ended up as a strike that the opposition failed to put in play.

It’s very interesting to observe the limited nature of horizontal break in Hendricks’ elite changeup, as it generates just two inches of arm side fade, while dropping sharply to the tune of nearly five inches. Because of this lack of lateral movement—and also his excellent arm action on the pitch—it must appear nearly identical to his sinker, which also drops around five inches in similar fashion.

I particularly enjoy watching Hendricks pitch, as his fast-paced approach and desire to induce weak contact makes for a wonderful viewing experience. However, his approach and lack of velocity mean that to find success he must stay down in the zone. If he doesn’t, the contact will get loud and the BABIP will escalate quickly. The 64 pitches in the bottom-third and below of the zone are a great start, and an excellent indication of success in the early portion of the season.

Lead photo courtesy Jennifer Stewart—USA Today Sports.