Red Sox sign David Price
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
This quote is from a few weeks back, but I'm still seeing it to be true. It's not every time, but when Price keeps his hands up (along with the leg), the ball is still up in the zone. This (likely, though I don't have the vids/gifs to prove it now) means that it's taking a split second longer for his hands to drop down and go through the rest of the motion - leaving the ball up. It's very subtle when it happens, and harder to pinpoint still, because it's all about timing. If you move your hands/arm very quickly from their top-most position down, back and over, you can time it to compensate and keep the ball down - but when you don't, your body is being flung forward and you can't hold onto the ball any longer... HR's and hard contact galore.
That doesn't mean that the happy medium is somewhere between where his hands are and resting on his knee, but it feels obviously to me that Price is really struggling on timing his arms for his fastball. Some of those off-speed pitches yesterday were so nasty, it's obvious he CAN do it properly, he's just struggling to do it consistently.
I need to take a longer look at how this affecting his arm angle, but he may also be getting behind the ball and dropping his arm angle, leading to flatter FB's.
Yeah--the first inning runs are frustrating (fully 20% of all the earned runs he's allowed this season), but his BABIP is still a bit high, and if that comes down a little in the second half, I like where he is.
Isn't this always the knock on Ace pitchers though, I remember when the Sox faced him and so many other elite starters the dialog was get to them early before they find out what's working each start because you won't hit them later. The Papi/Manny teams always seemed to jump on those starters early then just try to drive up pitch counts to get into relievers early in the 7th... Am I way off on this, it seems statistically to be backed up in a quick ERA search by innings so I don't really consider it too frustrating but it may just be an outliner that will equalize with more innings pitched.
xFIP is actually lower now than it was last season. (3.16 vs 3.24). 5.19 K/BB ratio.
He's due for a monster second half as long as he stays healthy and that absurd HR rate normalizes.
He's due for a monster second half as long as he stays healthy and that absurd HR rate normalizes.
20% isn't really that high, in any case. If a pitcher averaged 7 IP, (pretty close to Price), and we were to assume a perfectly average distribution of runs, he'd be around 15% of runs in any given inning. But it does seem to connect to Valek's point, and to an intuitive sense -- a given player is likely to get a bit better as he gets on, at least until he tires, by naturally warming up, getting into a groove. (I wonder if pro golfers tend to be a tick higher above par on average on first holes.)
It's very possible that it's a normal thing and over his career, his first inning ERA is higher than any other inning except the 9th.
Looking at his splits at b-ref, his OPS allowed drops each month of the season--so there is something to be said about him having a good second half.
Looking at his splits at b-ref, his OPS allowed drops each month of the season--so there is something to be said about him having a good second half.
Scoring is always highest in the first inning. Here's a graphic I made a while ago showing percent of total runs by inning:
Typically scoring in the first inning is maybe 20% higher than the other innings, simply because that's the only inning where you're guaranteed to have three of your best hitters go to the plate.
The most interesting thing to me those graphs in the article show is the clear advantage to the home team in first inning scoring. I don't have a hypothesis for that.
I'd guess that most, if not all teams, would be aware of this, so then I wonder if (or if not, then why?) teams are trying to address that. That seems like a way to really find a small advantage- if you could get your starter pitching like it's already the 2nd inning would the reduction in runs there be cancelled though by an uptick in that most starters would be pitching the 5th inning already tired like it's approaching 80 pitches?Scoring is always highest in the first inning. Here's a graphic I made a while ago showing percent of total runs by inning:
Typically scoring in the first inning is maybe 20% higher than the other innings, simply because that's the only inning where you're guaranteed to have three of your best hitters go to the plate.
An even more interesting tidbit is the huge advantage the visiting team has in the eighth inning. Is this just the visitors being more aggressive trying to avoid extra innings?
For a team like the Yankees 2016 or Royals in 2014, I wonder if using one of your 3 closers to
pitch the first inning, on days your 4th and 5th starters were going would be a good strategy?
In a vacuum, maybe. In reality I highly doubt it would work, as relievers have their own routines during the regular season and that would undoubtedly screw them up royally.
I think you should take another look at what Iayork wrote at the bottom there. I don't think it matters who is pitching, the effect is from having 3 of your best hitters up, guaranteed. Every other inning has a distribution of hitters who may or may not be your best. That's where it comes from, not some first inning jitters or not being warmed up properly.
I was thinking more about relievers being flawed human beings who might have difficulty getting into a routine which would allow them to pitch in the first inning. Setup guys and closers often don't even head to the bullpen until the 6th inning or so; while rationally it shouldn't make a difference if they pitch in the 1st or the 8th, in reality I think it would be difficult for them, during the regular season at least.
I think you are looking at the 9th inning, where the home team often doesn't bat.
I'm out and won't be able to check until later today, but didn't Lou Pinella start relievers a few times like 10 years ago? I forget the reason and how turned it out but I think it was him....
Joe Maddon had to use 9 pitchers in Game 4 of the 2013 ALCS because Hellickson got knocked out/hurt early, and Joe just rolled one reliever per inning the rest of the way. They lost 3-1, but giving up 3 runs in that situation kinda worked.
Not exactly the same as Hellickson was a starter, but there's a close example.
Not exactly the same as Hellickson was a starter, but there's a close example.
Or perhaps the starter is also concerned about how he is going to get into the sixth or seventh.
The reliever who was going to do the first inning only does not have this worry.
I believe Zimmer did that managing the Sox. Dick Drago started, followed by all relievers. A more recent Sox manager had to do it as well with no viable starter.
“@EvanDrellich: Price said he needs to execute better, that he's tired of saying it as people are tired of hearing it.”
“@brianmacp: Price: "You're tired of hearing it and I'm tired of saying it, but I'm not executing."”
“@brianmacp: Price: "I didn't throw a good fastball in to a righty the entire game."”
“@brianmacp: Price: "You're tired of hearing it and I'm tired of saying it, but I'm not executing."”
“@brianmacp: Price: "I didn't throw a good fastball in to a righty the entire game."”
The accountability is refreshing and all, being used to Buchholz all these years, but at the end of the day, put up or shut up. Was that whole lifting hands as the knee came up thing just bullshit? Because he seems to be back to not lifting his hands
This would seem to be a great argument for actually having your best one inning guy start the game. It is the only way you can guarantee he'll face three of the opponent's toughest hitters. What makes an inning higher-leverage... a three-run game in the ninth against 6-7-8 in the order or a 0-0 game in the 1st against the top of the order?Scoring is always highest in the first inning. Here's a graphic I made a while ago showing percent of total runs by inning:
Typically scoring in the first inning is maybe 20% higher than the other innings, simply because that's the only inning where you're guaranteed to have three of your best hitters go to the plate.
As long as we continue to track stats like saves and complete games, this will be a tough thing to implement. Maybe you do it for your two worst starters who have very low probabilities of ever completing a game? Has there been any work done on the odds of needing your closer based on the perceived 1-5 rank of your starter? I would guess pretty close to a normal distribution as it will depend greatly on who the other team throws as well.
The Yankees just have his number this year it seems.
Against NYY: 17.1 IP, 26 H, 7.79 ERA, 8/5 K/W
Against others: 3.83 ERA, a 1.14 WHIP, with a K/W ratio of 5.8 to 1
Luckily, they won't be in postseason.
Price hasn't exactly been disappointing, but he's right on the edge. Statistically, he's having his worst season in the past 6-7 years. Which puts him in that camp where, when you watch him, you're sort of hoping the wheels don't fall off, instead of feeling that he's got a chance to be truly excellent.
But would that just hurt the hitters or your best pitcher's production too? Have there been studies on this?
Also, bringing in your best pitchers late when the game can be won is an advantage that you'd be willingly forfeiting by losing your two best relievers in the first inning every game.
Amazing that they have the ability to affect his pitch location too.
Part of last night can definitely be chalked up to bad babip luck like the liners barely out of reach, etc. But man, he was missing spots like Henry Owens at times. I noticed the hand thing being completely abandoned as well. The velocity was present though so is there really a cause/effect with the hands and location?
The 1-2-3 of the opponents batting order surely plays a role, but my guess, bolstered by the theory of "get to a good pitcher early before they figure it out, is that the first inning for any given starter, but especially a good one, might always be his worst, when viewed over time. So having your ace start in the 2nd inning might simply move the outlier inning form the first inning of the game to the second inning of the game.
Alternately, if I am the manager of the opposition and hear that your plan is to start the game with your awesome one inning reliever, I might alter my batting order to suit -- either by leading off with those player who might have a history of good luck against a pitcher, or by leading off with my regular 7-8-9 and consider the inning a zero without "wasting" AB's by my best hitters.
What does David Price have to do to get some shit around here? Does he have to take a literal crap on the mound? He's been absolutely terrible and I'm kinda tired of being told otherwise. I'm not saying you're doing this here but let's call it how it is.
That's not really true. He's not having his 2015 season all over again, but he's hardly been terrible.
Thing is, his rate stats are nearly the same as last year. His K rate is up to 9.8 from 9.2. His BB rate is exactly the same. His K/BB rate is slightly better.
The two rate stats that are different are that his hit rate is up to 9.1, from 7.8 last year, and his HR rate is up to 1.1, from 0.7 last year. Obviously it would be better if they weren't, but those aren't huge changes either. His FIP is 3.40 this year, indicating he's getting a bit unlucky with his results.
I understand the frustration, but there's not much wrong with him, really. And traditionally he's pitched better in the second half, so a small improvement in his rate stats could lead to big improvements in results.
Price has also had big swings in ERA+ before. Look at these numbers: 98, 144, 108, 150, 115, 115, 163, 103. There's not much atypical about this year compared to some in his past.
I don't think he's been a train wreck, except Price is being paid to be "himself."
Among the many arbitrary definitions of "Ace," one of my favorites is adapted from a Bill James piece on Steve Carlton many years ago. I understand that Price is taking some tough losses, but he's being paid to hang tough losses on the other guy.
Even Steve Carlton had seasons with below average results (1971, 1973 for prime seasons).
My concern is he's trying to muscle the ball a bit to get that added velocity back and it's effecting his command and ability to spot his FB. Because he's completely forgotten about the hands thing so either the velocity is just ticking up because of the warmer weather or he's doing something else to get it that may lead to reduced effectiveness in the short term and an injury in the long term.
Someone pregame yesterday said that the velocity peaking around this time is normal for him, but I wouldn't know how to verify that.
Rather than overall season-to-date numbers, I prefer to look at the gamelogs, sorted by ER, to get a view of a starter's season. For example: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=priceda01&t=p&year=2016
Price has had 14 competitive or better starts and 6 not good ones; he's also shown the ability to go deep into games. It if was 16 and 4, I probably wouldn't subjectively feel the way I do. He's not that far off from being an ace.
FWIW, I'm not trying to go EV here, but there's some legitimacy to throwing out a couple of bad starts to see what the pitcher in question is going to be like in most of his starts that season. I'm not suggesting we ignore the bad starts, since they're part of what actually happened, and bad starts will happen in the future. But it's a way of differentiating between guys who have different performances - in Price's case, mostly good sprinkled with some crap, or in Porcello's case, exceptionally consistent (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=porceri01&t=p&year=2016)
I think it's standard procedure to throw out the best two and worst two of any sample, to get the true outliers out of the way, and then what you're left with is what that pitcher really "is".
Best two starts:
- June 19 vs Sea: 8.0 ip, 8 h, 1 r, 1 er, 0 bb, 7 k
- July 10 vs TB: 8.0 ip, 4 h, 0 r, 0 er, 1 bb, 10 k
Worst two starts:
- Apr 21 vs TB: 3.2 ip, 8 h, 8 r, 8 er, 2 bb, 5 k
- June 24 at Tex: 2.1 ip, 12 h, 6 r, 6 er, 0 bb, 1 k
Total for those four starts: 22.0 ip, 32 h, 15 r, 15 er, 3 bb, 23 k
That would leave Price with the following line, minus those four starts:
108.0 ip, 100 h, 49 r, 48 er, 25 bb, 118 k, 4.00 era, 1.16 whip, 9.8 k/9
Going into this season, his era, whip, and k/9 numbers, compared to those 2016 totals minus the four outlier games:
CAREER pre-2016: 3.09 era, 1.13 whip, 8.6 k/9
2016 minus outliers: 4.00 era, 1.16 whip, 9.8 k/9
The k/9 number is very good. The whip is a little disappointing but not too bad. The era is awful, compared to his career numbers going into this year.
I don't agree that he's been terrible or that he won't improve, but he's been the definition of "disappointing" unless you said "yes! we needed a guy with a mid-4s ERA and a league avg WHIP!" on 12/4. And it's not just some bad luck.
Of course it's not just luck. No one is saying that. But his FIP is nearly a full run below his ERA. That shows that there is a measure of bad luck involved. And the post above shows that outside of 2 outlying starts, his WHIP is right about near his career number.
And I think most of the posters would agree that it's been disappointing, so I'm not 100% sure who you're arguing with. I started this by responding to the post that said he's been absolutely terrible.
Granted it was a game thread, but plenty of folks were citing BABIP last night. Just leaning on BABIP and XFIP isn't very helpful when talking about a guy who is missing location in the zone, something neither formula accounts for. His plot last night looks like the Milky Way with the center in the middle of the strike zone.
He's traded FB for LD and hard contact is way up. That's exactly what our eyes are seeing.
No he hasn't been terrible, but he has most definitely been disappointing.
Last edited:
Standard procedure for outliers is to just pick the samples so far outside the cluster of the rest of the data that they are unlikely to be representative of the overall data. If the data is perfectly grouped, then there are no outliers. If the data is all over the place, there are no outliers. Just throwing out two good and two bad is not helpful if the worst or best are not that far from the rest of the samples. If you start having more than a few outliers, you have to start questioning your data.
And I'm going to guess that his team and the team's fans were pretty disappointed with them.
[QUOTE No he hasn't been terrible, but he has most definitely been disappointing.[/QUOTE]
This is the way I feel too. The dude is paid a boatload of money to be an ace. I don't just want quality starts from this guy against poor offensive teams. I would like to see some shutouts. Last night was a prime example.
This is the way I feel too. The dude is paid a boatload of money to be an ace. I don't just want quality starts from this guy against poor offensive teams. I would like to see some shutouts. Last night was a prime example.