Wade Davis's Rough 2010: A Pitch F/X Look at What's Changed
To categorize Wade Davis's 2010 as anything but a disappointment thus far would be foolish. Wade Davis's 2010 has not been what anyone was hoping for or expecting. Thus far, in 134 IP, Wade has put together a 4.29 ERA, 5.10 FIP, and 4.96 xFIP. The projection systems all had pegged Wade for greater things in his rookie year, with FANS expecting a very optimistic 3.77 FIP, Bill James forecasting a 4.26 FIP, and even the pessimistic CHONE coming in at 4.71 FIP. Wade's 5.1 FIP is particularly disappointing after one considers the 2.90 FIP he put together in a short major-league stint of 36 innings at the end of last season.
When looking at the great triumvirate of pitching (strikeouts, walks, and ground balls), it's fairly clear where Wade's fallen off the track:
|
2009 (AAA) |
2009 (Majors) |
CHONE 2010 |
2010 |
|
|
K/9 |
7.94 |
8.92 |
6.91 |
5.69 |
|
BB/9 |
3.4 |
3.22 |
4.08 |
3.42 |
|
GB% |
37.5% |
39% |
37% |
40.2% |
His Walks and Groundball rate are roughly comparable to what the past and projections would indicate. The strikeouts, however, vanished completely. He struck over a full batter less per 9 than even CHONE forecasted, and didn't even sniff his AAA strikeout rates. The obvious question is where the strikeouts vanished. Wade's swinging strike rate fell from an above-average 8.8% last year (albeit in a small sample) to a 9th worst in the majors 5.7% this year. Let's take a look at where the swinging strikes have gone.
|
Type |
09 Selection |
10 Selection |
09 SwStr% |
10 SwStr% |
|
FA |
66.2% |
72.5% |
8.6% |
5.2% |
|
CU |
12.6% |
14.1% |
6.7% |
4.5% |
|
SL |
8.7% |
11.2% |
15.4% |
12.0% |
|
CH |
5.4% |
2.1% |
0.0% |
2.2% |
|
FC |
7.1% |
N/A |
4.8% |
N/A |
The difference between the 09 and 10 Wades is fairly clear. Although the pitch selection looks roughly the same, the effectiveness is extremely different. Wade's swinging strike% has dropped drastically on his fastball, curveball, and putout slider. The reason isn't inherently obvious either. The movement's roughly the same, and Wade's actually gained velocity on all his pitches.
|
09 Zone% |
10 Zone% |
|
|
Fastball |
46.3% |
48.9% |
|
Curveball |
49.3% |
48.7% |
|
Slider |
34.6% |
36.4% |
His pitch usage in terms of location is virtually the same. There isn't much of note here.
|
2009 |
2010 |
|
|
O-Swing |
19.8% |
26.1% |
|
Z-Swing |
69.8% |
66.0% |
|
O-Contact |
60.3% |
76.0% |
|
Z-Contact |
85.7% |
91.7% |
This produces some more surprising results. Wade's actually inducing more swings on pitches outside the zone, and is sneaking more pitches in the zone by for called strikes. The problem here is that when hitters do swing, they're making far better contact than in previous years. Last year Wade was effective with a well below-average O-Swing rate because when hitters did swing, they missed a whopping 40% of the time.
It's difficult to pinpoint why exactly Wade's not striking hitters out like he was last year. There's most likely several different reasons, but the biggest culprit is probably simply the league's adaptation to him, now that they have video and good scouting reports. We've seen Jeremy Hellickson put up a crazy FIP of 2.76 thus far, with him striking out hitters at a probably unsustainable rate of about 8.5 per 9 innings. New pitchers have a unique ability to dominate because of the lack of information that hitters are so accustomed to, and the impact of this is difficult to understate.
Wade's had a rough year as far as strikeouts not because he can't get hitters to chase, but because when they do he can't put them away. Hopefully he can make adjustments just like them and keep them on their toes going forward. One thing is certain though, he needs to be using his slider as his put away move in pitcher-friendly counts for now: his curveball and changeup certainly aren't getting things done.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Do you really think it wise to do in succession
a posst game exploiting Miemann, a Rays rotation thread, and now a Wade Davis thread?
A bit of the same don’t you think?
follow me on twitter @sternfan10
Is it wise for authors to write an introduction or an opening chapter?
Or should they just immediately begin presenting their research? I don’t know; it’s up to the author, I think.
from Cubs Stats and Twitter @BradleyWoodrum
One thing I find interesting is the disappearance of the cutter.
Was this something deliberate, or has his cutter just stopped cutting (thus Pitch F/X thinks it’s just a four-seamer [FA]). Either way, maybe its possible that the cutter created just enough problems to make his FA and SL really hurt.
Good stuff PGP. Hopefully Davis sorts this out soon.
from Cubs Stats and Twitter @BradleyWoodrum
I suspect that pitch f/x simply misclassified it as a cutter last year
It’s velocity and spin numbers were virtually identical, so I think it’s just the fastballs with a couple inches less of horizontal movement (they had nearly identical vertical movement)
by PGP on Sep 7, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
An excellent argument.
What it lacks in coherence it makes up for with extra ’x’s.
from Cubs Stats and Twitter @BradleyWoodrum
I think we may have a budding writer on our hands
he can make any argument sound convincing!
R.I.P. Scott Kazmir 2005-2008

by 




















