Do sinker-ballers pitch better on short rest?
by Travis G
on Oct 14, 2008 6:00 AM EDT
in Analysis
Suffering from listening to Joe Buck and Tim McCarver (is there a worse announcing tandem?) as they call the NLCS, McCarver said that ground-ball pitchers are better on short rest. This is a long held axiom in baseball, but is it actually true? (This is partly motivated by the fact that I hope he's wrong.)
The following are stats of some of the top ground-ball pitchers in the game. Short rest is three or fewer days between starts. Normal is four days. Extra is five or more days.
Short rest: 1.29 ERA (7 ip)
Normal rest: 3.99 ERA (390 ip)
Extra rest: 3.54 ERA (226.1 ip)
He's done slightly better on extra rest. The one start on short rest is too small a sample to draw any conclusions on.
Short rest: never
Normal rest: 3.19 ERA (800.1 ip)
Extra rest: 3.31 ERA (514.1 ip)
Extra rest slight hurts his ERA, but nothing to write home about.
Short rest: never
Normal rest: 3.64 ERA (234.2 ip)
Extra rest: 4.96 ERA (138 ip)
The first sinker-baller that does pitch significantly better on less rest - or rather, he pitches worse on extra rest.
Short rest: 4.78 ERA (32 ip)
Normal rest: 3.69 ERA (948.1 ip)
Extra rest: 4.32 (579 ip)
Lowe is the only pitcher who we can draw some kind of conclusion from based on his relief pitching (381 relief innings in his career) as well as his starting. The others' relief innings are negligible (all under 50 ip).
Back-to-back days: 4.22 ERA (70.1 ip)
1-2 days of rest: 2.94 ERA (204.2 ip)
3-4 days: 1.78 ERA (80.2 ip)
5+ days: 3.20 ERA (25.1 ip)
Inconclusive overall. If anything, he pitches worse on short rest.
Short rest: 3.47 ERA (48.2 ip)
Normal rest: 3.74 ERA (1108.1 ip)
Extra rest: 2.97 ERA (596 ip)
Halladay pitches nearly a run better on extra rest. Nothing conclusive regarding short rest, but he's another sinker-baller that pitches better on extra rest, with which the old axiom would seem to disagree.
Short rest: 2.61 ERA (20.2 ip)
Normal rest: 3.66 ERA (1310.1 ip)
Extra rest: 3.18 ERA (685.1 ip)
Read Halladay's conclusion.
So it seems that McCarver's axiom is false. Sinker-ballers, who would seem to benefit from a tired arm, do not pitch better on short rest. If anything, they pitch better on extra rest. Four of the six pitchers actually pitch better on extra rest. Only two pitched best on short rest (Wang and Hudson), but that was just 27.2 ip combined.
The next step is to compare sinker-ballers to other types of pitchers. Since sinker-ballers don't pitch any better (in general) on short rest, what about relative to fly-ball pitchers? But that's a study for another day.
0 recs |
5
comments
Email
PrintComments
sinkerballers
As a former pro-pitcher, I could never master the sinkerball. In fact, the number of times I tried throwing it, kinda’ just sat there—as big as a beachball waiting to get clobbered. Although I didn’t throw one, a number of my pitching mates did, and some quite well. In fact, at least one that I know of is kind of the guru of sinkers.
Though I never threw one well, I recall many discussions with those who did, and the topic of rest did come up. I only recall one pitcher saying that his ball broke more with a fatigued arm. Today, as a coach, I don’t teach the sinker—preferring instead to teach kids fastballs, changeups and curves. However, I think I disagree with McCarver on this one.
When I played and had ample rest, I tended to rush—I’d open up abit quickly, my arm wouldn’t be in the proper slot and as a result the ball would sail high. When fatigued the same situation would usually occur. Rarely does a pitcher get tired and start missing down.
Regardless of the kind of specialty pitch you may through, success is predicated on balance and repeating a solid delivery. Having a tired arm, or a fatigued core will affect any pitcher—breaking down his delivery. The elbow and arm drops, balls flatten out and suddenly lose their dynamic break.
Another point to be made is that sinkerball pitchers don’t just throw sinkers. Wang might throw 80 percent sinkers, but he’s got to spot his fastball. As mentioned earlier, fatigue affects all pitches that are thrown. Even if you bought into McCarver’s notion, fastballs would be flat, up and inconsistent—leading to walks, hits and runs.
No, I think sinker success has less to do with fatigue, and more to do with solid, repeatable mechanics—including grip, finger pressure and release.
"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will
by Ronster22 on Oct 14, 2008 3:44 PM EDT 0 recs
cool
I’ve never really heard an explanation for WHY sinkerballs might be more effective thrown from a tired arm. Any ideas?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Oct 15, 2008 8:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Tired arm scenerio ...
There are some who believe that when throwing sinkers (which is a velocity pitch) less is actually more. As read above, I disagree for a variety of reasons. However, the idea of a sinker is simply to mimic a fastball until it nears the plate and then darts downward. That said, velocity is a prerequisite, and a tired arm, or compromised mechanics (as a result of fatigue) would a) lessen velocity, b) decrease or flatten the dramatic nature of the pitch.
So when someone like McCarver suggests sinkers are more dramatic when the pitcher is fatigued is wrong. Solid, repeatable mechanics is the key to success with throwing any and all pitches.
"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will
by Ronster22 on
Oct 16, 2008 10:50 AM EDT
up
0 recs
New FanPost
