Continuing From This Afternoon
Earlier today we took a look at Felix and saw that, contrary to popular belief (in some circles), throwing more fastballs did not increase the effectiveness of his offspeed stuff last season. Quite the opposite turned out to be true. As his fastball frequency climbed, his swinging strike rates dropped for both his fastball and his secondary pitches, and along with them went his K/BB. Based on this information, it seems Felix was at his best when mixing his pitches around 55/45 or 60/40, and that 2008 represented a step in the wrong direction with respect to his development.
A point was raised by DCMariner in the comment thread that perhaps these numbers were reflecting an underlying trend where Felix would throw more fastballs when he didn't have his best offspeed stuff. Makes sense - if you don't have a good feel for your slower stuff, you're more likely to stick with your harder stuff. I thought it was an idea worthy of further investigation, so I went back to the spreadsheets and blah blah blah here are the results:
| Group | Pitch | Frequency | Velocity | pfx_x | pfx_z |
| FA% > 70 |
FA | 72.1% | 94.9 | -7.1 | 7.9 |
| SL | 10.2% | 87.1 | 1.1 | -0.9 | |
| CU | 7.0% | 82.4 | 6.0 | -6.4 | |
| CH | 10.8% | 88.1 | -7.7 | 3.9 | |
| FA% < 70 |
FA | 62.1% | 94.7 | -7.1 | 7.7 |
| SL | 12.2% | 87.3 | 0.8 | -0.8 | |
| CU | 9.5% | 82.1 | 5.8 | -6.6 | |
| CH | 16.2% | 87.5 | -7.7 | 3.8 |
Looking at that table, I'm not seeing any significant differences in velocity, horizontal movement, or vertical movement for any of Felix's pitches. His changeup is a little bit faster in the upper group, but we're talking about a difference of less than 0.7%, which may not even be real. It's possible that Felix was throwing more fastballs because he didn't have a good feel for his offspeed stuff, but if that's true, there's no indication here. His slider, curveball and changeup look pretty much the same.
Another table:
| Group | Pitch | Strike% |
| FA > 70 | FA | 64.8 |
| OFF | 62.5 | |
| FA < 70 | FA | 63.7 |
| OFF | 63.2 |
Here we see that, when Felix is throwing more fastballs, he's throwing it for more strikes (11 more strikes per 1000 pitches, to be precise), while his offspeed stuff misses the zone just a little bit more. This might be a sign of having a better feel for his fastball, but then the differences are slight, and it could also be a sign of using his breaking pitches as strikeout stuff more often when he's building more off of his heater. (That is, he may have missed the zone a little more often on purpose.) So, again, nothing definitive.
I'm not going to sit here and try to make the case that, by throwing fastballs more often, Felix makes all of his pitches worse. The numbers may lean in that direction, but they don't prove anything, and there are more variables to take into consideration than I can count. No, what I'm trying to say instead is that, at least as far as 2008 is concerned, there's no evidence that throwing more fastballs in any way helps Felix achieve more success. The numbers suggest that he's at his best when he's more evenly mixing his pitches, and absent any evidence to the contrary, I think it has to be worth giving a go. He won't always have a good feel for his offspeed stuff, but it's not like he always has a good feel for his fastball, either, and more important than the way Felix feels on the mound is the way the hitter feels at the plate.
Mix your pitches, Felix. A better mix, with less predictability, can take you an awful long way.
Related but separate note: in the last thread, johnbai mentioned game situations, and the idea that Felix is more likely to coast on his fastball when there's less pressure on his shoulders. Seemed like a good thing to check out, so here's a chart showing his fastball frequency plotted against pLI (a player's average leverage for all game events, available on Fangraphs):
There's a correlation there, but it's a pretty weak one. So while game situation does play a role in determining Felix's pitch distribution, it's far from the only factor.
25 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Stuff like this is why I firmly believe
That the M’s Blogosphere is in the elite of the elite.. Very nice
by seattlesundevil on Jan 14, 2009 10:15 PM PST reply actions
Well... I dunno if I'm convinced
I think you should do it all over again, but this time look at the location of every slider, curveball and change up…
Was there a difference in the locations in the >70% fastball days vs. the <70%.
If you could prove that he was locating his breaking stuff with equal precision… then I would totally and forever believe you. Plus, I like the heat chart.
Really cool analysis...
I wouldn’t dig into the pitch data any further… the main thing that I would look at from here is the opposition in each start.
I agree with your conclusions…. if you want to solidify them maybe regress the called strike data against the OBP of the teams involved (as an instrument for team patience) or something like that… But on its own it makes a strong case…
Yep
the main thing that I would look at from here is the opposition in each start
Yep – this seems like the last major factor to control for. Is there any evidence that Felix attacked different teams in different ways?
Here you go
Starts with FA% > 70, opponents’ average wOBA:
.335
Starts with FA% < 70, opponents’ average wOBA:
.333
I don’t think there’s anything there. Interestingly enough, three of Felix’s highest fastball games were against the Rangers, who had arguably the best offense in baseball. Whoops a doodle
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
Can you break it down by starting game temperature?
Maybe he throws more fastballs when it’s hot out because of his fiery latin temperament.
by Matthew on Jan 15, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I think humidity is the key here
Either that or the angle of the sun; if we’ve got the dates of his starts and the latitude of the stadia, theoretically you could get an approximate angle to the sun for each inning (or thirds of games if you want to be lazy). It’s possible that he goes to the fastball more when the sun is in his eyes, because he’s not able to pick up the target and doesn’t want to risk bouncing a curve.
of course, we won’t know anything until you ALSO control for batter handedness…..
And you also have to control for the equinox and solstice
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
On night games near the lunar perigee, the extra gravitational force exerted on the Earth by the Moon
keeps Felix’s fastball further up in the zone. So Jeff really needs to introduce an orbital correction factor.
I think quality of lefty bats in the lineup
would be more important than team average wOBA. But i don’t want to beat this to death.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 15, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
Without going into the specific daily lineups Felix faced
Starts with FA% > 70, average LHB OPS:
.770
Average AL LHB OPS:
.768
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
Further
Felix FA% against righties:
69%
Felix FA% against lefties:
62%
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
Okey then.
It’s amazing how deep you can get into a negative result when you really want it to come out positive. Pretty much describes the last year for me.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 15, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
One last thing on this subject
Felix FA% > 70, %pitches against LHB:
58%
Felix FA% < 70, %pitches against LHB:
60%
There’s probably a little something here, but it’s very very slight, and doesn’t account for the differences we see.
Felix FA% > 70, FA% vs. LHB and RHB:
vs. LHB: 70%
vs. RHB: 75%
Felix FA% < 70, FA% vs. LHB and RHB:
vs. LHB: 59%
vs. RHB: 66%
It seems that, in Felix’s high fastball starts, he was just throwing more fastballs to everybody, and it had little to do with the composition of the lineup.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
I think with one season's data and no access to Felix's and his coaches' heads
it will be hear impossible to draw any strong conclusions on account of you’re dealing with very small differences. I mean, we’re talking a difference of 5-10 fastballs over some 26-30 batters faced.
Intuitively, I would say that DC mariner must be onto something. If his command is spotty and it’s been drilled into his head that command of the fastball is the keystone that everything else rests upon then certainly his FB heavy starts will be the worst. The frustrating thing here is that his command of his FB has never been as good as that of his breaking pitches, but I feel like we finally have a coaching staff that is willing to take a look at something like this post without experiencing the human equivalent of kernel panic.
One of the things I keep thinking about is Felix seems fixated on velocity and not movement when trying to get hitters out. The thing is, even when he can’t spot his curve or slider precisely it’s got such motion that I can’t imagine anyone doing much to it except by chance. Similarly his change, aside from upsetting a hitter’s timing, has some serious bite to it. And this is why I would think that when he doesn’t have his best command he should be going to the pitches that can be effective even if he’s missing the zone, rather than trying to spot FB after FB, which, although very fast, can still be hit a long way.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 15, 2009 8:41 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Thanks Jeff for all the additional work put in.
The question is still whether poor selection leads to shitty Felix or if shitty Felix leads to poor selection. As mentioned there are countless variables that can constitute “shitty Felix” that would be near impossible to account for. I’m not even going to pretend like this is a question one can tackle, but in the absence of any other solution coming from Felix or the coaching staff the easiest answer is too just spend 10-15 games in a row focusing on selection. This should give us a clue which way to causality goes. Of course I don’t think the team should fool around if it has real answers, but it would atleast appease my curiosity, which I assume is around #1,235,031 on their priority list.
What's most important here is that poor selection does not seem to lead to better Felix
And while far from serving as proof, the evidence points to greater success with a more even mix.
Do it! Do it! Do it now!
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
Definetely agree with this.
My underlying question though is if shitty Felix with poor selection is better than shitty Felix with good selection. In other words, we know “good felix” with good selection is better than “shitty Felix” with bad selection. But maybe Felix is innately maximizing what he has to work with, whatever it may be that particular day. Our problem is quantifying the “what he has to work with” to run a regression. Maybe theres a break component that you covered. Maybe theres a location component. Maybe theres an injury component. Each of these may play a small, but statisically significant role. I feel like kind of a dick because I’m just playing the contrarian, and my gut sides with what you’re saying. I guess I’m just pointing out the converse so we can stay academically honest and thorough. I also kind of feel like I’m overanalysizing all this but I figure if there is any place on the web to geek out and flex my unused econ/statistics degree its LL.
No, it's always good to be contrarian
That’s what makes research advance. It’s just that I think I’ve taken this one pretty much as far as it’ll go.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
Oh yeah, what you've posted more than enough to chew on.
If my lazy ass wanted to know more I would do it myself. The fact that instead I am perusing hockeyfights.com should indicate my level of satisfaction.

by 












