Doug Fister Before and After
I have noticed comments here and there bemoaning Doug Fister's performances since he returned from the disabled list. What I didn't notice were any numbers supporting the gripes so I decided to compile them.
Fister has accumulated almost as much time on the mound at this point pre and post injury. His core rates are very similar. He's throwing strikes just as often. He's actually getting more whiffs and more strikeouts. His walks are up a tick but amount to a difference of just four over his ten starts. The grounders are down, which is a legitimately bad trend, but it has yet to hurt him in the home run department. In the areas that matter most for future success, Doug Fister has been largely the exact same pitcher all season long.
What is different are the final four columns and the last two are heavily influenced by the first two. Fister ran a .235 BABIP before landing on the disabled list. It has climbed to .371 since he came back. Over the 238 batters faced since his first start back, that BABIP difference amounts to an extra 25 hits falling in. That's enormous. Those 25 would have been outs make up most of the difference in innings pitched by the way. Similarly, more of the base runners that's he allowed (thanks in part to those 25 hits) have come around to score.
I am not claiming that .235 is Fister's true-talent BABIP or that he should strand 80% of his base runners going forward. I am merely pointing out that the differences between the pre and post-injury rates and theorizing that said gaps are what is fueling the notion that Fister has gotten worse. It is really hard to escape the influence of runs scored on our psyche. Fight it.
31 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thank you, Matthew!
This kind of post epitomizes why I love this site. I mean, the sarcasm and wit and snarky comments are great entertainment… But its this kind of analysis that really makes the site stand out. Separating luck from skill and showing the analysis is a huge (and welcome) break from the standard in-your-face-sports-talk-radio opinions that are so commonplace.
Recommended course of action:
Put your memories from Doug Fister before in one hand, put your memories of more recent Doug Fister in your other hand, and then clap! Clap like you’ve never clapped before!
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 18, 2010 11:32 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Will this bring him back to life?
Or will we need a lot more children clapping?
by seattle_since_81 on Aug 18, 2010 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions
If Fister's BB% is sustainable then is it reasonable to think he can produce ~ 4.5 FIP?
Do we think his low BB% is sustainable?
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 18, 2010 11:34 AM PDT reply actions
Fister as a big league starter:
181.2 innings, 35 uBB, 6 HBP, 100 K. Based on both command and hittability, yeah, seems sustainable to me.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 18, 2010 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
This is why I love baseball (and other sports too).
Fister was a guy that very few people were talking about as he came up through the system (casual fans, not the informed blogosphere). And yet here he is as a useful starter for the M’s.
"Seems to me if you bought your Sunday beer on Saturday night, this becomes a complete non-issue."
Now that I think about it
What the hell?
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 18, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I like how this year he's added a 9-point jump in ground balls.
Maybe next year he’ll start striking people out
And though it looks from above that his GB rate might be regressing
he’s actually getting more sink on his fastball post DL stint so it might be the post DL GB rate that’s the anomaly.
'Just kidding guys I've had this mid-90s slider the whole time'
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 18, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The only reason Fister doesn't use it is because he's making the league minimum
and thus cannot afford to buy all those flower bouquets necessary.
by Matthew on Aug 18, 2010 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Yeah I was just sceptical of his elite control skills because they seem like they can be kind of fluky
A guy loses a little feel or anything and he goes from perfect control to above-average control and he no longer can cut it as a MLB pitcher.
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 18, 2010 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
He was interesting to me simply because of his name (childish, I know).
But as fun as it is to watch a Felix or Pineda come up through the ranks, it’s always fun (for me personally at least) to see someone like Fister turn a corner and become a useful piece.
"Seems to me if you bought your Sunday beer on Saturday night, this becomes a complete non-issue."
This is still "voodoo" to me...
I’ve asked this before, but I’m still bamboozled: How do you guys determine that a change in someone’s performance is sustainable vs. an anomaly? I get that if you have 3+ seasons of data with a clear pattern or break showing a “before” and “after”, that’s evidence. But with something like Fister’s 2009 (a relatively recent change) what are you relying on to determine its not just a fluke? BABIP? Just a “feel” thing from direct observation? Is 1.75 seasons of starting just a large-enough sample-size?
It's just a combination of big league track record and observation
Basically, we have no reason to believe that Fister’s walk rate will suddenly spike.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 18, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think he's saying that it'd spike, just that it would regress
to above-average but not insane. That’s important, because his above average HR rate may make it tough for him to be all that effective with only above average walks. It’s possible, but there’s a very fine line between the Brad Radkes of the world and the Brad Bergesens.
I hope Doug is on the team in two years, because I want to buy my dad a #58 jersey with "Fister" on the back.
It would be the best 58th birthday present ever.
I don't think we should be calling it "a legitimately bad trend" that his groundball rate is up.
Especially if it means his strikeouts are up. While I don’t know if we could ever tell if the two are related, or even if they’re both just a matter of random occurrence, if he’s gaining strikeouts with the loss of groundballs, then that’s probably a good thing. We know little enough about pitching, especially what it takes for any one pitcher to succeed, to assume that a higher groundball rate is good for Doug Fister.
Of course, his walk rate is up as well, so that’s where it all falls down. Increased strikeouts are great, but if they come along with a higher walk rate, he’s probably not gaining anything. In fact, he might actually be losing something in the tradeoff..
by nathaniel dawson on Aug 18, 2010 4:26 PM PDT reply actions
All he's saying is that he'd rather Fister be posting a GB% over 50
that’s it.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 18, 2010 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions
And my question would be "why"?
How can we say that it would be a legitimately good thing for Doug Fister? I would think at best all we can say is that we don’t know one way or another if this would be what’s best for him.
by nathaniel dawson on Aug 18, 2010 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Haven't we had this discussion before?
Matthew was just trying to make a simple point. Groundballs are good, and Fister’s groundballs have gone down, and that, in isolation, is bad.
Don’t make too much of a single sentence. Even if Matthew is off, it doesn’t change the point of the post.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 18, 2010 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes.
There’s a reason it was one sentence amongst a paragraph rather than the thrust of the overall post. By itself, you prefer more ground balls.
Oh, I loved the post.
I’ll always read good, thoughtful, intelligent baseball analysis. I sometimes object to the absoluteness I read, when with baseball, hardly anything could be considered absolute.
Back page now. On with life.
by nathaniel dawson on Aug 19, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions

by 




















