Do pitchers get rattled after a long homerun?
As I often do, I was thinking about baseball one day, specifically sluggers, and wondered if the act of ‘slugging' (hitting a ‘tape-measure' homerun) was any better than a run-of-the-mill homer.
I endeavored to study this. HitTracker was invaluable, as it measures the distance of every homerun hit; and BRef of course, because it compiles homerun logs for every player: the inning, the pitcher, etc.
So I looked at how pitchers fared after the tape-measure shots (termed ‘no-doubt') as compared to everything else (‘plenty' and ‘just enough' as determined by HitTracker). Would pitchers fare worse after a humiliating longball? Would there be any kind of ‘rattle effect'?
ERA and WHIP were the two stats I used to determine if pitchers improved or regressed after a homerun. I know they're not the end-all, be-all of pitching stats, but they're easy to figure out and are readily available in the game logs/box scores (as opposed to FIP or LD%).
Since I knew it would take many hours of research, I studied only three players, but was sure to take one each from a hitter's park, a neutral park and a pitcher's park. After all, if I only studied Mark Teixeira, he would have a greater percentage of ‘no-doubters' than most other hitters because Yankee Stadium is rather conducive to ‘no-doubters' (defined as: "the ball clears the fence by at least 20 vertical feet AND lands at least 50 feet past the fence"; so a 370 ft. shot to rightfield in Yankee Stadium may be a ‘no-doubter' yet a 380 ft. shot in Petco may not).
The three players were Mark Teixeira, Prince Fielder (from the neutral Miller Park) and Adrian Gonzalez (from the pitcher's paradise known as Petco Park). The study included all homeruns through July 20.
The number of ‘no-doubters' was directly linked to the ballpark: Tex had the most, followed by Fielder and then A-Gon. I didn't go purely by distance because I was more interested in any kind of ‘rattle effect' a homer that appeared long would have on a pitcher. A longball that gets out by plenty in rightfield can appear longer than a ball that just clears the centerfield fence.
There were 21 ‘no-doubters' hit by the three sluggers and 50 ‘normal' homers.
The results
After a ‘normal' homer was hit, pitchers pitched to a 4.53 ERA and 1.46 WHIP. And now for the surprise: after a ‘no-doubt' homer was hit, pitchers actually fared better: 4.15 ERA and 1.41 WHIP. That was the opposite conclusion I expected. The results are even more pronounced when measuring by distance: 4.28 ERA and 1.33 WHIP after 400 ft. (or longer) shots, 4.56 ERA and 1.56 WHIP after 399 ft. (or shorter) shots.
Now I know half a season's stats from three hitters isn't the biggest sample size, but I hope to increase the data field in the future and perhaps come to a more definitive conclusion. But still, it is intriguing and points to the possibility that pitchers bear down after a humiliating homer as opposed to getting rattled.
Other interesting tidbits
Pitchers were immediately pulled after 14% of ‘no-doubt' homers; on all other homers just 4% of the time. What value that has, I'm not sure.
For both types of homers (‘no-doubt' and all others), the average inning of occurrence was the same: two outs into the fifth inning (4.7). Perhaps that is the most frequent time at which starters begin to tire (though the data includes relief innings).
(The Excel file)
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Someone needs a girlfriend.
In all seriousness, there are a few too many variables and too few constants to make this even remotely statistically significant.
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 8:21 AM EDT reply actions
It's not as surprising to me
You have to figure, most tape measure shots probably come on “mistake” pitches. The hitter knows and the pitcher knows it. It’s just one of those things where the pitcher probably just bears down again, knowing he made a mistake and moves on. But the ones that barely clear the fence, are line drives, etc. likely have more impact because they weren’t necessarily a “mistake” pitch. I think it would be more catastrophic to a pitcher if one of their good pitches was hit for a HR, no matter how far, than if a hitter takes advantage of a bad pitch and hits it a mile.
I agree with Jerk
Dude you need a hobby. You are trying to derive obscure stats based on an infinitesimal sample size to determine something that actually probably fluctuates pretty wildly from pitcher to pitcher. When a pitcher gets rattled is when they give up first at-bat walk, a single and a single etc etc. Its more nerve racking I am assuming to have the other team just keep sending runners around the wheel as opposed to giving up a monster shot. After the homerun the bases are clear and your not pitching from the stretch. As for the distance thing, dude you would need years of data to derive anything worthwhile.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 2:59 PM EDT reply actions
I appreciate you doing this type of stuff because it really is very interesting to me. However I agree with msford that the results aren’t really that surprising. I mean most “normal” home runs are probably hit on pitches that the pitcher doesn’t think is too bad of a pitch, and therefore he’s more likely to get rattled afterward out of frustration and loss of confidence.
Those saying he needs a girlfriend or a hobby: Think about what you’re saying; YOU are on here reading and commenting on the article.
by Rumplestiltskin02 on Aug 4, 2009 3:08 PM EDT reply actions
In our defense..
…I’m reading and commenting while I’m at work, not pouring over Fangraphs pages for information that isn’t even statistically significant.
Among the things that aren’t taken into account are:
-How many runners were on base when the HR was hit
-Game situation (inning/score/etc)
-The pitcher’s pre-homer ERA
There are countless other factors that aren’t taken into account either, and even if they are, it’s practically impossible to quantify the “bear down” factor with any sort of reliability, and determining any sort of correlation/causation is even more difficult.
Plus, there’s an internet full of porn out there, no need to waste time with fruitless endeavors.
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Lame
What do you want? Another post on if we should/should not have traded for Jarrod Washburn. Quit complaining.
"We're only going to score 17 points?" ~ Tom Brady
I could live with this...
…if there was some kind of provable conclusion or even remotely relevant information involved.
All due respect to Travis, this is worthless information.
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
The object of a post should be to drive discussion
And Travis’ post did just that, so mission accomplished. Don’t blame the other posters for disagreeing with Travis – that’s part of the dialogue, right? Of course, how they disagree may say something about their personality, but then, so may their user name…
by waw on Aug 4, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Do the Yankees play better the day after Derek Jeter gets laid?
Discuss….
We probably have a large enough sample size to extrapolate a quantitative answer.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Which exactly are the games that take place
and he HASN’T gotten laid the day before.
I think the Yankees are 0-0 in those contests.
If I was Derek Jeter for a week
I would return his body with every possible venereal disease known to man and probably a few the CDC hadn’t ever seen before.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly...
…whatever the Yankees record is since 1996 is also their record on days after he gets laid.
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Here is another fascinating topic
Why do I see some ugly player’s wives? I don’t get it. Even the ugliest player should be able to pull a stripper wife.
Discuss.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
See thats what I mean
Maybe stupid really is the common denominator. Put me in Kansas City as a middle relief inning eater and I am sure I could at LEAST pull a top flight stripper, medium grade model, smoking how stewardess, pretty good looking weather girl.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
You don't marry those gold-digging whores
You marry the faithful girl you trust and have known for years to take care of your kids.
Then you go and find your hot road beef.
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
hypocritical - it seems you're criticizing me
for spending too much time on this, then criticizing me for not spending enough time on it. make up your mind!
Not quite
I’m saying it’s literally IMPOSSIBLE to come up with any reasonable conclusion even if you had a team of people working around the clock for a hundred years.
As I said before, there are too many variables at play.
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
and i vehemently disagree
there is enough info on the web to get a pretty definitive conclusion on the topic. HitTracker goes back 5 years, so we’re talking about 10,000+ HRs.
Silliness
You can’t ever PROVE that the distance of a HR has any correlation on a pitcher’s ERA afterwards.
It’s not a provable theory for a variety of reasons:
1) It doesn’t take into account a pitcher’s ERA before the HR
2) It doesn’t take into account a pitcher’s typical ERA at a given point in the game as a reference.
3) It ignores game situations. Inning, score, etc.
What you’re essentially doing is making all HRs equal and just figuring out what happens immediately after, which is essentially pointless without reliable control data.
All that really tells you is WHAT happens, not WHY.
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you that there will be parts missing
but statistics always tell you what instead of why.
If A-Rod hits 4 home runs today, that’s what we’ll be told by the statistics.
The why may be because Kate Hudson is just that good, but there’s no way to come up with that through stats.
but dont you get
with 10,000+ HRs that all those situations you name would pretty much even out?
the bigger the sample size, the less those little things matter.
as far as ‘what’ vs. ‘why’, again, if you get enough data, the correlation grows. if i somehow studied ALL hitracker’s HRs and the tape-measure HRs made pitchers throw to a 4.00 ERA, 1.30 WHIP,while the ‘lucky’ HRs forced a 5.50 ERA, 1.60 WHIP, would you still think there was 0.00 correlation? i cant believe you would.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Even if there was a statistical correlation, that doesn’t mean the distance of the HR is the cause.
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
you're right
that it does not inherently mean causation, but c’mon. if a large sample size bore out a significant difference, you would attribute it entirely to coincidence?
Take a class on scientific method sometime.
Research that has 9 million variables and no constants is worthless.
Your theory is unprovable because there is no realiable control to test it against.
I could research every game ever played and figure out that when the wind is out of the NW pitchers have an ERA of 4.50, but when it’s from the SE their ERA is only 4.25.
Does that mean that a NW wind is causing pitchers to have a higher ERA, or is it just a coincidence?
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 5, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
now you're just being thick
it’s one thing to say 71 HR doesn’t show anything, but to say 10,000 (or 9 million) doesn’t at least point toward a conclusion is just silly.
but you love to play Devil’s Advocate, don’t you?
Not necessarily the case
If we send 100,000 soldiers to Iraq and 10,000 of them become sick, does that mean that there is something wrong with Iraqi food? Without knowing a lot more about the situation there’s really no way to know for sure.
You can say that numbers support a possible correlation, but there are definitely too many factors for you to just say one leads to the other.
There’s your devil’s advocate for ya.
Yeah
I am at work drinking coffee and taking a 5 minute break. Not that I don’t appreciate Travis’ effort (A+ for effort yaaaay!), but the bottom line is you are trying to draw a conclusion that would be almost impossible to draw even if you had years upon years of stats let alone 3 blokes over half a season.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry about interrupting the discussion, I think your points are interesting
I just like to post the picture of Tomko’s wife whenever applicable, and HappyDragon gave me the perfect opportunity.
About the home run idea, I have always thought that home runs usually end rallies. The team celebrates, the bases are empty, the pitcher tends to bear down, and there can already be one or two outs in the inning.
You rarely see a rally begin with a home run.
Also, one thing that I forgot
the guys most likely to hit tape-measure home runs tend to be in the middle of the order.
So, say there are no outs and the home run is hit by the cleanup hitter. The team then proceeds to get 2 on with 2 out, the guy in the RBI position is your #9 hitter. Less likely to succeed.
oh no
feel free to post pics like that whenever you feel like it. :D
on another website where this was discussed, an ex-college-pitcher said he got rattled more from ‘just barely’ HRs bc they pissed him off. a mistake that gets launched he can move on from, but not from what he considers an ‘lucky’ HR.
That makes sense
you tend to see the pitchers react more to home runs that get hit into like the first few rows, especially at the stadium.
I remember 4 or 5 times this year seeing Pettitte give up what he thinks is a fly ball, only to have it sail just over the fence. That’s when you really see him get upset. When he gives up one that is just crushed, he tends to just silently bear down because he knows it was totally his fault.
Hey if you wanted to discuss it
based on peoples opinions that would be great. When you start throwing stats out to even suggest you see a pattern with the tiniest of sample sizes you open yourself up to criticism. It’s like predicting how Joba is gonna pitch for the rest of his career based on half an innings worth of numbers.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I wish the Yankees outfield was as defensive as you
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
No
You’re sorry anyone questions you at ALL. You don’t like me because since day one I called you out on picking the Rays as the AL East 2009 champs. I really don’t care who you are, but when you make the ridiculous assertation that what your using to pool your data from can actually give you ANY insight to your question is ridiculous and I will call you out. It’s silly. If you simply stated your OPINION, well that would be fine and dandy. But I HATE when people try and cull data to try and paint a picture about something that can in no way be determined from that data set.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Dude, enough with that
do you know how boring a site this would be if every single mod and participant just said “the Yankees are the best team ever and are going to win every game they play”? This is what separates us from the Red Sox.
Travis picked the Rays to win the division, which is ENTIRELY REASONABLE given how they played last year.
Breaking his balls over this for an entire season might be a tad excessive, no?
Even if him picking the Rays was so mortally offensive to you that you can’t move on, then why can’t you just not respond to Travis’s threads? I’ve seen you on here a lot, usually participating well and contributing, so Travis obviously puts in a lot of work into a website that you enjoy, so just leave it alone.
I know you can defend yourself Travis and don’t need me to say that, I just figured it might be good to get it from someone not directly involved.
Did you bother to read anything I wrote?
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes
the points on this article are another thing. As to that, it clearly is a ridiculously small sample size. Pointing that out is not at all unreasonable.
My point was that this has to be like the 19th time I’ve heard you mention that he picked the Rays to win the East in the preseason.
I was hoping at some point this could be let go so we don’t have all of this high school like drama and bitching.
Thank you
it would be boring as hell if we all picked the Yanks to win the division. i dont want that.
i called his criticism ‘unreasonable’ bc i said my study only ‘points toward a possibility’. i thought i was clear that this isn’t definitive.
Dude I'm fine with you picking the Rays
especially since I’m sure you’re so upset that the Yankees are now in first. :)
Not to get off topic BUT
I mentioned the fact you DISLIKE me because I called you out. But if you wanna harp on it, here are the REASONS I called you out.
In hopes that you will make a better decision next season.
There was absolutely nothing indicating that the Rays would be a superior team this season. Not with the Yankees acquisitions. What brilliant moves did the Ray make offseason to clearly indicate they were superior to the rotation the Yankees had assembled and the offense they had? None.
What amazes me is that Baseball Prospectus picked the Yankees and you didn’t And you run a Yankees fan blog. It astounds me.
So with ALL things being equal I call your prediction ridiculous. You moderate a Yankees fansite and the one year the Yankees throw EVERYTHING but the kitchen sink into the team you choose Tampa. I would say the same exact thing if the moderator of the Red Sox chose the Rays over their team, they have the team that COULD win the AL East as well. Picking your own team when your team is as good if not better than the other two isn’t being a homer, its called being a well informed fan. I think you want to fashion yourself as a journalist. You’re not. Nothing wrong with picking against the Yankees when there is another team that clearly is the favorite, but it wasn’t this year. You can say whatever it is you want to say to defend yourself but I frankly think a moderator of a Yankees website in 2009 not choosing the Yankees to win the series is kind of a pinstriped Benedict Arnold.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sorry but
this post is ridiculous. Nothing personal! But really, all you are doing is bashing Travis for stating an opinion (and I’m sorry, but that is all that a prediction is, is an opinion) that differs from your own. You then make it personal by calling him a ‘Benedict Arnold’, and complaining he doesn’t like you. Your opinions are equally valid, and I value them both equally (which is to say, not much, but of course I mean that in the nicest possible way…)
C’mon, guys! Save the animosity for the Boston fans. They deserve it, plus they are such easy targets :-D
by waw on Aug 4, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
If you cannot handle heat
You should probably not run a fansite from a team that resides in the Bronx, New York, New York.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on Aug 4, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
While you're wishing for things...
…how about letting me rattle the hell out of Megan Fox?
by New York Sports Jerk on Aug 4, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
You both can go use your hand sandwich,
the way they are hitting him today, which is good for a Halladay vs. Yanks start, I’ll go head and wish me some Megan Fox, some Cool Whip and a box of Sour Patch Kids.

by 




















