Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing' Set For Sunday

Luck Be A Lady: A Look at the Rays' Starting Pitching

Breakout or luck? Only time will tell.  (Photo by J. Meric/Getty Images)

Going into the season, I stated multiple times that the Rays were going to need to get lucky to make the playoffs. That's not a knock against the talent on the Rays, but merely an observation that luck influences the final standings to a considerable degree. That is why we play the games - a team may look like a 90-win club on paper, but they could end up with anywhere from 80 to 100 wins through luck alone. Luck can come in many forms too. It could be having your roster remain relatively injury-free; it could be hitting extraordinarily well with runners in scoring positions; it could be stranding a high number of opposing runners on base. The list could go on, but the main point is that you have to be good and lucky to make the playoffs, especially in a division race against the Yankees and Red Sox.

The Rays have been good this year, no doubt about it. They currently hold the best record in baseball at 14-5 and the best run differential as well - 113 runs scored (tops in baseball; take that Phillies!) to 63 runs allowed. They've also gotten very lucky, though. Our pitching staff is currently out-performing its Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) by 1.17 runs and is stranding batters at an incredible 83% rate, both of which are by far the best in baseball.

Who's benefiting the most from this good luck? Find out after the jump.

Star-divide

*For more information on Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP), Left On Base Percentage (LOB%),or home run per fly ball rate (HR/FB), please visit the Saber Library.

I'm only looking at starters because our relievers have only around 5-10 innings each on the season, while our starters at least have four starts under their belts (minus Wade Davis). Without a doubt, our starters have all benefited from good luck with balls in play and with runners on base. Garza and Price have also gotten lucky with home runs, while Niemann, Shields, and Davis have let up more home runs than they should have. The most interesting case for me is Matt Garza: while it appears that he's getting lucky, we could also be seeing a breakout. Pitchers do have some control over their BABIP and LOB%, with elite pitchers being able to limit hits on balls in play and strand more runners than league average. For example, last season Chris Carpenter limited hitters to a .272 BABIP and stranded 79.5% of runners. This is an extreme example, though, so expect some regression from Garza (and Price, for that matter) regardless of if this is a breakout year for him or not.

Obviously, this run of luck is pretty excellent for the Rays. Even if the Rays play like a true-talent 90-win team for the rest of the year and the Red Sox play like a true-talent 95-win team, the Rays have enough wins in the bank to edge out the Sox, 94 wins to 92. This is the type of math that thoroughly depressed me last year, but now it's working in the Rays' favor. The Sox are sinking - slowly sinking at the moment, but they're one losing streak away from taking on too much water to be able to recover.

And on the other hand, this good luck means our staff is bound to regress at some point and man, that's going to stink. Whenever that happens, expect lots of newspaper articles about how Maddon is working the staff too hard and the pitchers are falling apart as a result. Watch out, don't fall into their trap! If any of our starters has a bad start, in the words of Douglas Adams, DON'T PANIC! They are playing over their heads right now and as fun as it is, the run can't last forever.

Comment 70 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

A few notes on luck:

Defense can create BABIP luck. While it may look “lucky” having the best defense in the league can cause a pretty wide gap between a pitcher’s expected BABIP and actual BABIP. This also plays a role in a higher LOB% because of more outs being turned in (especially with double plays). Last year the Mariners were 81 runs better than average defensively. That means they saved their pitchers about a half-run a game. So if we figure we’re about that good defensively (we were at +70 in 08) then a lot less of our luck is actual luck. Additionally, BABIP luck is very defensively influenced. If you look at the UZR team lead you’ll see the BABIP team lead as well. So I wouldn’t expect our pitchers to have league average BABIPs. I’d expect closer to the .280.290 range.
-Any regression in luck is bakc to the mean. I.E. don’t fall in to the gambler’s fallacy where our luck “corrects” itself. Going forward we’d still expect our luck to equal Boston’s, New York’s, Washington’s, etc. We’ve “banked” this luck. We aren’t due for bad luck.

by rglass44 on Apr 26, 2010 6:07 PM EDT reply actions  

ehhhhhhhhh

*Defense can create BABIP luck. While it may look "lucky" having the best defense in the league can cause a pretty wide gap between a pitcher’s expected BABIP and actual BABIP. This also plays a role in a higher LOB% because of more outs being turned in (especially with double plays). Last year the Mariners were 81 runs better than average defensively. That means they saved their pitchers about a half-run a game. So if we figure we’re about that good defensively (we were at +70 in 08) then a lot less of our luck is actual luck. Additionally, BABIP luck is very defensively influenced. If you look at the UZR team lead you’ll see the BABIP team lead as well. So I wouldn’t expect our pitchers to have league average BABIPs. I’d expect closer to the .280.290 range.
*Any regression in luck is bakc to the mean. I.E. don’t fall in to the gambler’s fallacy where our luck "corrects" itself. Going forward we’d still expect our luck to equal Boston’s, New York’s, Washington’s, etc. We’ve "banked" this luck. We aren’t due for bad luck.

by rglass44 on Apr 26, 2010 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

Hmm...I hope I wasn't misleading with the regression talk.

Because that’s exactly true. They’re due for regression, meaning they should perform more like their projections as opposed to how they’re doing now. That’s not due for implosions or anything, but just that things won’t be as incredibly rosy as they are now.

And yes, defense influences things as well. We have an incredible defense so our pitchers could out-perform the normal BABIP, but not by a heck of a lot. .280-.290 sounds about right, and almost all of them are way below that at the moment.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 26, 2010 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

I actually hate the term 'regression' in the context that it is used on this site. It is really mean reversion.

However, a you said, this doesn’t mean we are somehow due for below average results just to counteract what is supposedly above average data points (league averages can be an okay proxy, but it isn’t specific/personalized enough IMHO).

We should expect whatever the pitchers average outcomes given his skillset going forward. If our current datapoints are above this average, then our current average will begin to decline.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 26, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

....because we're using the term correctly?

Regression to the Mean

The trick is determining what mean to regress players towards. It can be different for each statistic and player, but the research is pretty clear with the three stats listed above at least.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 26, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

It is just personal preferance

I prefer mean reversion since it has a less negative feel around it. As in when you talk about regression it just feels like it is a downward thing, however mean reversion is a bit clearer that it works both ways. But like I said it is personal pref and for this audience it probably makes little difference.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 26, 2010 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

And I know I wasn't real clear in my original post

Either way it doesn’t matter, just personal preference.

The times I really do cringe when I hear it is when say someone hits a home run and a poster will scream out regression.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 26, 2010 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

Makes sense...reversion is probably easier an easier term to grasp for people that don't understand stats, too.

Reverting to their underlying talent level, as it were. Not a bad way to think of it.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 26, 2010 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions  

The term has multiple definitions

The confusion comes from people being more accustomed to the psychological meaning vs. the statistical meaning. Every other meaning that I’m aware of has some sort of negative connotation to it. Other than statistics there is no concept of “upward” regression.

I think matthan’s point is a valid one. But yes, as you’ve all pointed out it is being correctly used here (not that you needed another person to validate that).

by Mulva on Apr 26, 2010 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Is that asking too much? I hope not.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 26, 2010 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

No, it's not, but...

It’s a tough balance. This is a site where statistical analysis is king; but this is also a baseball site. It’s obvious that advanced statistical analysis is not the norm in baseball fandom – sometimes some compromises have to be made to make a certain way of thinking attractive to others.

I’m not even necessarily saying the use of the word “regression” is one of those compromises; but it’s something to think about.

Please note I’m not suggesting anything like “dumbing down” because that’s the last thing I’d suggest. But some things can be tweaked without lowering the bar.

I like pie

by ramedy on Apr 26, 2010 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

I hope this doesn't come across as testy.

We’ve already made some significant strides to make the site and statistics more accessible to readers. We’re not going to water down our content to appeal to the lowest common denomincator. We link all over the site to the Saber Library and attempt to spell out the statistics we’re using, so if you have questions feel free to check out that site or ask.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 27, 2010 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions   2 recs

To piggyback off this

as one of the lowest common denominators on this site, I’ve found that the library has been immensely helpful. Also, as Steve points out, don’t be afraid to ask questions. I get a little trigger happy at times and bombard the regulars with questions, but they always are willing to help explain something or at a minimum point me towards a resource.

As you can always expect come from behind victory is when you least expect it.

by Buc Wild on Apr 27, 2010 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

I admit to being statistically challenged

I have no problem understanding either regression to the mean or reversion. It is not that hard of a concept. Though I agree that reversion sounds better to a person like myself.

I understand the value in the concept of regression however, sometimes I think it is overused. Players do improve, or worsen without regressing. Some pitchers are better, or improve at not giving up home runs than other pitchers. Coaching, player focus, or practice can have an effect on team that results in an overall improvement or decline without regression back to some historical norm. It is certainly understandable though in the context of the current winning streak to talk about overall regression since they are on pace for three times as many wins as losses.

by terp12 on Apr 27, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions  

Coaching, player focus, or practice can have an effect on team that results in an overall improvement or decline without regression back to some historical norm.

This is true. The issue, though, is spotting it. It’s hard to say which player “showing up in the best shape of his lide” or “with a newfound concentration” will capitalize on it. So you assume they’ll all be what they were before (except how aging has a normal influence).

by rglass44 on Apr 27, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

Spotting it

That is it! That is where the scouting part of baseball comes in to aid the statistical part. But I don’t think if you use the scouting part properly, you have always need to assume regression/reversion. For example, you see a change in Upton this year don’t you? He just looks different at the plate. He obviously has worked on his mechanics and his approach to hitting. It is more than just his shoulder healing, he looks like he has actually changed his game for the better.

by terp12 on Apr 27, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly

The great thing today is you can do a ton of “scouting” through stats/pitchFX/etc. Like teh Upton hitting to all fields thing or a pitcher’s change in release point or whatever. Not everyone can see everything, but the more data we’re offered the more complete a picture we get.

by rglass44 on Apr 27, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Upton was good before his shoulder surgery

I’m not denying mechanical changes may have an impact on his performance. Every player makes tweaks all the time. More times than not they regress/revert closer to their expected performance.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Apr 27, 2010 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions  

So you don't expect any significant improvement or decline from year to year?

In general I would say you are right, but significant changes seems to happen often enough to make that one of the less reliable assumptions in statistics.

True also about Upton, not a great example on my part. I would like to see tape of him before his injury, last year, and now to actually see if there was a difference in his approach. I have seen a lot of guys, while injured change their motions to compensate for an injury, sometimes causing more problems.

by terp12 on Apr 27, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Absolutely change happens

Look at Jason Bartlett, monster 2009, projections weigh that the heaviest while not throwing out prior seasons, sure enough he isn’t repeating 2009. He should certainly bounce off these miserable numbers, but time and again this is the norm far more than sustained giant improvements.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Apr 27, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

It really doesn't matter either way, as I said it is just personal pref

However one of my pet peeves is when someone screams regression when something bad happens. That is a different topic altogether though.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 27, 2010 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions  

I read this thing by tom tango about defense's effect on BABIP

Apparently the best defenses lower their teams’ BABIPs by like 7-8 pts

by benderbrodriguez on Apr 26, 2010 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

Actually never mind

The article wasn’t by Tom Tango (it just referred to something by him) and it said that defensive teams have a standard deviation of .0069 influence on BABIP. Assuming our team is in the top 5% of defenses, the xBABIP for our pitchers would be a much friendlier 286.
http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2006/09/fielding-is-only-small-part-of-babip.html

by benderbrodriguez on Apr 26, 2010 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hence why I didn't.

The main focus is on LOB%, BABIP, and HR/FB. Of course it’s early, but this mostly just reminding people that our pitchers have looked incredibly dominant and that’s awesome, but they’re not likely to keep performing at this high a level.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 26, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

It's not predictive, but it's still descriptive

If ERA outperforms FIP in a small sample, it still implies you got lucky, even if it says little about what to expect in the future.

by ChiBurbRaysFan on Apr 26, 2010 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

No it isn't

The key is to know what you are looking at…as with any statistic.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 26, 2010 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

I do agree with your general premise that every team needs a bit of luck

However don’t mistake luck with human error. Sometimes humans screw up a projection. That doesn’t make it luck.

I think that is the way with the Red Sox. They simply aren’t nearly as good as what people thought pre-season. They’ll still be a decent team. However at this point we shouldn’t consider it lucky if they play .500 ball. Heck if they play .575 ball I’d consider it lucky for them and unlucky for us.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 26, 2010 6:57 PM EDT reply actions  

I disagree, at least on the part about the Red Sox not being as good.

They’re just as good a team as they were when the season started. Just like how we’re getting good luck right now with pitchers throwing above their ability levels, a lot of their players are under-performing all at once. Don’t sell them short just because they’re going through a rough stretch…especially this early on in the season.

Similarly, what would you say about the 2009 Rays? We got really unlucky last year, but many advanced metrics pegged us as one of the best teams in baseball. The Sox are in a similar situation, at least at the moment.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 26, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree that they are just as good as they were at the start of the season

What I am saying is that they were overestimated at the start of the season.

Theoretically speaking I’m saying that whether a team is lucky or unlucky is based around their record based upon true talent level adjusted for schedule. What we are basing it on are human estimates (which are pretty accurate, but nowhere near perfect). These projections could have easily missed a variable that comprises what their true talent level.

FYI I’m not saying any of these projection systems are wrong, bad, or unusable. They are going to have outliers though. I’d say a graph of the errors (say actual W-projected W) would be a bell curve with a mean of a very respectable number…but there will be outliers. A starting point that all outliers are luck is not a good place to start.

I think there are quite a few things the projection systems will miss or under represent. For example how piss poor their catcher defense is. And their staff was vastly overrated.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 26, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

True, projection systems can't catch everything.

I think the only way to tell if the Sox were truly overestimated at the beginning of the year is to see how their team performs by the end. At the moment, I think Beckett, Lackey, and Lester will all perform better than they have so far….their BABIPs and LOB%s are really, really unlucky at the moment.

I would say that the Sox are probably worse than the 94 win team most projection systems were spitting out. Maybe 92-90 win, but that’s just my own personal feel.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 26, 2010 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think they are as poor as they are playing

However I thought they were around a mid to upper 80 win team. That is my benchmark for this Red Sox team.

I thought they’d have very poor catcher defense. That Ortiz is washed up. Martinez is overrated as a hitter (especially if he isn’t catching). I didn’t think Beltre would get some magical boost playing at Fenway. I thought Beckett was declining. I thought Bucholz has the heart of a girl.

Now I do think Lester and Lackey will be just fine. I think Lester has the skills to currently be a #1, and Lackey more like a #1a.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 27, 2010 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions  

So what are the thoughts on Niemann?

He just seems to mess with fire. Do you think he is the one to go for Hellickson next year?

IMHO he makes the most sense, given his true value vs what his market perception will be…

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 26, 2010 7:40 PM EDT reply actions  

I like Nieman

Big body, solid motion this early. He may will never be dominant like Randy Johnson (to pick another really tall pitcher) but he has far more opportunity to learn how to actually pitch by mastering his mecahnics early.

Another tall one, who seems to have recently turned it “around” is Mark Hendrickson. He looks far better than he ever has – at a far older age than Nieman. Being 6-9 has it’s advantages in some sporting situations; pitching and serving in tennis comes to mind…

Right now I’d say Shields has more to worry about wrt to Hellboy – but it’s probably going to take an injury or waiting to the offseason for Jeremy. But that can change fast, and Big James has the advantage (disadvantage?) of being a proven 200 IP guy…

by tampa_edski on Apr 26, 2010 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think it all depends on how much it costs to keep Garza.

Garza for a reasonable price + no serious injuries = Niemann traded.
Garza too expensive + no serious injuries = Garza traded.
Obviously if, god forbid, somebody blows out their shoulder or elbow it could all change quickly.

That said, if it’s not too expensive, why not keep 6 valuable starters on the team?

by ChiBurbRaysFan on Apr 26, 2010 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Shields or Niemann.

I don’t agree with the trade Garza camp. Who cares if he’s going to be expensive? It’s a worthy investment for someone of his caliber.

by Suttree on Apr 27, 2010 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

I've seen Hellickson pitch a few times now

and in my view he if more advanced than Price, Davis or Niemann were while they were at AAA. I’ll be amazed if he does not have immediate success at the MLB level.

This doesn’t answer your question, but I’m completely sold on Hellickson being a fantastic pitcher in the bigs. I don’t know how you fail with that command of that repertoire.

by Mulva on Apr 26, 2010 9:21 PM EDT reply actions  

Long time no talk guys.

But nice analysis. Let’s hope the good luck continues.

by Cory Alexander on Apr 26, 2010 11:48 PM EDT reply actions  

LUCK

There is no such thing as “luck”. The better they are the “luckier” they are. Was that 473 foot bomb on opening day by Longo “luck”? I want to see Navarro hit a “lucky” shot like that. How about David Prices first shutout. I would like to see the #4 guy on ANY rotation do that. Let’s not say that these guys are great ball players, who are maturing nicely into their perspective positions. God forbid we say 2 years ago wasn’t a fluke. Let’s just call it luck. Even though SI.com predicted the Rays to win the world series let’s just say that they are “lucky”. What an idiot, fire this guy. He be a Red Sox fan.

by gambonimafia on Apr 27, 2010 7:08 AM EDT reply actions  

Not a very good way to introduce yourself on this site.

Tone it down significantly or you won’t last. If you’re not willing to look at objective evidence and want to writing full of unsubstantiated cliches then this probably isn’t the place for you to get your “analysis” from

Tools Whore

by Tyler on Apr 27, 2010 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions  

That sure dampened my spirits a little bit.

Seems right now the pitching staff is erring on the lucky side, which means there will probably be some regression/reversion in the future. Meh.

As you can always expect come from behind victory is when you least expect it.

by Buc Wild on Apr 27, 2010 8:24 AM EDT reply actions  

They will regress to their true talent, which in the case of Garza and Shields is significantly above-average

The jury is out on Niemann, Davis, and Price as they don’t have the longer track record, but it’s not like these guys are going to become Kyle Lohse.

If you ain't first, you're last.

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Apr 27, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

IMHO our main worry in terms of something different that we haven't been seeing

Would be how strong our pen has been. They are going to falter a bit, but once JP comes back the true talent of the pen will be much higher.

Either way, I don’t think we have that much to worry about.

However aren’t the samples pretty small for all of these? I mean how many fly balls or men left on base have these pitchers really had? One more homer or one more inherited runner scoring would change these numbers fairly dramatically.

Go Gators!!

by matthan on Apr 27, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

Which is why I picked the starters...they have four starts done now. Those numbers will still vary, but the relievers are really tough to look at yet.

And also, the Rays are huge outliers…the next closest team only outperformed their FIP by something like .7 runs.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 27, 2010 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, sorry to be a downer.

It’s just meant to temper expectations a little. I don’t want people freaking out when our starters come back to earth and only perform above-average as opposed to like aces.

I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.

by Steve Slowinski on Apr 27, 2010 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yea, I realized they have to "fall back to Earth" at some point

just makes it more real when someone puts it in print.

As you can always expect come from behind victory is when you least expect it.

by Buc Wild on Apr 27, 2010 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

What's good, though

Is that we’re due for some regression right when we hit the Athletics and the Royals, so hopefully we won’t feel it too hard for a little while. Me rikey that.

by Zach Attack on Apr 27, 2010 8:33 AM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Founded in 2005, DRaysBay is home to, "Progressive statistical analysis and reasoned argument."

Please read our Community Guidelines.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Spts-shelton_small
Which Red Sox Fan Are You?
Spts-shelton_small
The Opportunity of the Century
Ryu_small
This one goes out to all the chicken littles
Small
MLB needs to help bring All-Star game to Bay Area
Small
Who's That in My Old Seats?

Recent FanPosts

Untitled4_small
The Rays Should 'Retaliate' By Winning
Whelk_small
Rays 7, Sox 4; Immediate Reactions
Images_small
Post-Game (Over)Reactions here
Small
Proposal: Rays play a series in Durham each year
Ag_-_hector_gomez_-_63_small
Visiting Tampa Bay from Colorado
Images_small
Immediate Reactions: Rays Win, But Likely Lose Another Guy

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Brandon Guyer out for season
Other Side of the Coin: Rodney's Fortune on Called Strikes
Does anyone have any information on Josh Sale? He doubled in a run in his...
Orlando Hudson released
Rays sign Garko to minor league...
Baseball Card Fans...check out my Ebay Auctions
Cameron Seitzer Growing Up Baseball
Longo injury apparently is apparently not good
Hak-Ju Lee, SS, Rays (Double-A Montgomery) Lee had a breakout year in...
Rays to sign Hideki Matsui to minor league deal

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Friends of the Site

DRB Suggestion Box

Drb4_medium

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Slowsky__1__small Steve Slowinski

Images_small Jason Collette

Brad_small BWoodrum

Price_small Erik Hahmann

Analysts

Small td32

Rutg_uakjmedjwh9ndzd4lkll_small Imperialism32

100_1952_small MrNegative1

Steak-with-crown_small CBJones

Whelk_small Whelk

Scaled_php_small mr. maniac

Tampa_theatre_small jcmitchell

Me_small John Gregg

Small SGrauer