Jarrod Washburn & Preventing Home Runs

by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 1, 2009 3:10 PM PDT in Seattle Mariners Stats

Washburn HR/Ball In Air, 2009: 4.3%
League Average HR/Ball In Air: ~6.5%

(I'm using HR/BIA instead of HR/FB to, as stated at StatCorner, "avoid confusion between exactly what constitutes a flyball versus a line drive or pop up amongst different scorers.")

Hey, 4.3% vs. 6.5% is really good, right?

Washburn HR/BIA, 2006-2009, Home: 5.1%
Washburn HR/BIA, 2006-2009, Road: 6.2%

Surprise! Washburn has benefited from being a lefty in a pitcher's park that's death on right-handed bats, to the order of about seven home runs. Not a ton, but still seemingly significant.

As evidenced by that road figure, Jarrod Washburn has no unique ability to prevent home runs. I guess you could argue 6.2% vs. 6.5% if you really wanted to, but that argument doesn't go anywhere for a whole bevy of reasons. The home run part of his game so far this year is an anomaly and the biggest part of why his solid 3.75 FIP is misleading. The most important component of FIP is home runs, so anyone who's been able to limit them will have a better number. When the homers go up, the FIP goes up in a hurry.

For what feels like the millionth time: yes, Jarrod Washburn has improved a little bit in 2009, but he's only improved from being pretty bad to being not very good. It's worth noting that he's also chopped a chunk off his walk rate despite throwing just as many balls as ever (62% balls in 2009 vs. 62% balls in 2007; 6.0% walks in 2009 vs. 7.4% walks in 2007). That, to me, seems about as unsustainable as his home run rate.

Add a handful of homers and walks to Washburn's performance and he starts to look really mediocre really quick. Does he have value? Absolutely, and I imagine he'll be able to help the Tigers a little bit down the stretch. But while a lot of us are familiar with how the statistics work, it can be difficult to discern between luck and skill when you're watching a game, and anyone who's disappointed by the trade return or who wanted to see Washburn stick around for another few years has fallen into that trap. Perception isn't always reality. Not with Jarrod Washburn. And though I liked the way he worked quickly and pitched to the ballpark, at the end of the day, his performance on the field will not be missed. He just isn't a special pitcher.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Attempt at a response...

I guess you could argue 6.2% vs. 6.5% if you really wanted to, but that argument doesn’t go anywhere for a whole bevy of reasons.

Over three and a half years, .3% does not seem insignificant. That is a lot of balls in the air.

I am not arguing that Washburn is good or that the Mariners should have kept him, but I am skeptical that we really understand what causes variations in HR/BIA and whether it really is all luck or not. And I don’t think anyone will have a good handle on it until there is better data about batted balls (as with Hit/fx).

Intuitively, it makes a lot of sense that a pitcher like Washburn, who is good at mixing pitches, would give up fewer home runs than someone like, say, Garrett Olson. How much a difference that makes, I don’t know, but it has to make some difference.

by b_rider on Aug 1, 2009 3:25 PM PDT reply actions

0.3% - even if true - comes out to about half a home run per season

That that 0.3% could be false due to any number of reasons, like sample size or the fact that two of the other three ballparks in the division are pitcher-friendly.

We don’t have a very good understanding of what causes HR/BIA variation. But we do have a good understanding of whether or not standout figures are sustainable. They’re not. Even if the low home run rate was Washburn’s doing, the evidence suggests that it’s going to stop.

by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 1, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually

In a few curious cases – like, say, Tim Lincecum – there does appear to be some ability to prevent fly balls from leaving the yard. But that’s incredibly rare, and we’ve no reason to believe that Washburn ought to be placed in that select group.

by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 1, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions

How do you discern the difference?

What is it about looking at Lincecum’s numbers leads you to believe it’s a skill rather than lots of luck?

by Aaron Campeau on Aug 1, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions

4.0% over 717 balls in the air

Could be a sample size thing. Could also be a ballpark thing, since Matt Cain comes in at 4.6% over his career.

by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 1, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions

As calculated below

p-value, i.e. probability of observing a 4% or lower HR/BIA rate over 717 balls in air, given that the pitcher’s “true” HR/BIA rate is 6.5% (league average): 0.023, i.e. 2.3%

This, unlike Washburn’s case below, does give some evidence against the hypothesis that Lincecum’s HR/BIA rate is actually league average.

by cyberwulf on Aug 1, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions