Low pitch count pitchers

.

What kind of a pitcher is a low-pitch-count pitcher? It seems that if he’s dominating he racks up lots of Ks, but that takes more pitches. If he’s offering up stuff that looks enticing enough for the batter to take a cut, but is sharp enough to neutralize the connection, well that’s sly and edgy.

Who are a few of the more famous low-pitch-count pitchers?

Is it a talent, or the product of knowhow? In other words, is he a guy who simply comes to the majors and does it? -- or is he more likely to be a veteran?

.

[KCBOOMER]

Randy Jones was well known for his low pitch counts.

[gyb13]

2003 leaders:

#P/PA
3.3 D.Graves
3.4 D.Wells (also 2nd in 00)
3.4 R.Halladay
3.4 S.Ponson
3.5 T.Ohka

#P/IP
13.7 R.Halladay
14.0 M.Mulder (also 5th in 01)
14.2 D.Wells (also 2nd in 00)
14.3 S.Ponson
14.4 T.Hudson (also 5th in 02)

[SmedIndy]

Not to be a wet noodle, but since the question was answered - can we start another thread on historical and / or current low pitch count guys?

[gyb13]

wet noodle, consider it done!

there are a lot of interesting things here - there are great pitchers who are effective (and ineffective) both ways...

for example, it seems like batters are hitting Graves early and often this season... others, like Hudson, Wells, Mulder, usually are efficient with their pitches... maybe looking at players' trends over their career can tell us about how they get the job done...

[Ytown Tribe fan]

All-time leaders would probably be pitchers from the late 1880's through the dead-ball era who had ridiculously low BB and K totals, and didn't give up a lot of hits either. Guys like Addie Joss and Monte Ward come to mind. These guys are the anti-Nolan Ryans.

I figure, if you don't walk batters, don't give up a lot of hits, and don't strike them out either, you aren't throwing too many pitches.

That all changed with Ruth when even the best pitchers had to work a lot more carefully and walk totals went up; and when batters all wanted to swing like Ruth and K totals went up as well.

.

Halladay, in his 10-inning complete game shutout Sunday (win #19), threw 97 or 99 pitches.

Originally Posted by Ytown Tribe fan

I figure, if you don't walk batters, don't give up a lot of hits, and don't strike them out either, you aren't throwing too many pitches.

Do you deduce that from the stats pages? Or how far back do pitch-count records go?

It seems as if a low-PC style would extend a guy’s career -- you know, less miles on the chassis. But the legends seem to be well stocked with fireballers.

A low-PC style is certainly less dramatic than a “K” artist style, something like the difference between a lawnmower and a machette. Or the difference between a Maddux and a Clemens, maybe?

.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Well, most higher-pitch-counts are from walks and strikeouts. An extreme pitcher of that type, like Nolan Ryan, would throw tons of pitches trying to strike out each batter, and often walking them.

A pitcher who isn't wild and isn't overpowering will have the batters making contact a lot more. If he doesn't give up a lot of hits either, then he must be getting ground- and fly-ball outs.

Dead-ball era pitchers (at least the really good ones) were much more reliant on defense, since the ball rarely left the park and batters relied on contact and speed to get around the bases.

Without checking boxscores, I would guess that Monte Ward or Candy Cummings threw half as many pitches as Ryan in a typical start.

[gyb13]

Originally Posted by Ytown Tribe fan

All-time leaders would probably be pitchers from the late 1880's through the dead-ball era who had ridiculously low BB and K totals, and didn't give up a lot of hits either. Guys like Addie Joss and Monte Ward come to mind. These guys are the anti-Nolan Ryans.

using lee's SBE, i ran a search for pitchers with:

2000+ IP (durability)
< 9 baserunners/9 IP (which takes care of walks and hits)
low strikeout rates

the ONLY pitcher that comes under that criteria:

STRIKEOUTS/9 IP               SO/9 IP   BR/9 IP     IP     
1    Addie Joss                 3.56     8.94   2327.1   

if i expand it a little more, to allow for <10 baserunners/9, i get 10 pitchers:

STRIKEOUTS/9 IP               SO/9 IP   BR/9 IP     IP     
1    George Bradley             2.29     9.91   2404.1   
2    Tommy Bond                 2.78     9.83   2779.2   
3    Babe Adams                 3.11     9.97   2994.2   
4    Monte Ward                 3.36     9.40   2461.2   
5    Addie Joss                 3.56     8.94   2327.1   
6    Three Finger Brown         3.90     9.77   3172.1   
7    Larry Corcoran             4.15     9.95   2392.1   
8    Christy Mathewson          4.71     9.64   4780.1   
9    Ed Walsh                   5.27     9.16   2965     
10   Walter Johnson             5.34     9.85   5914.2   

and among active pitchers (thru end of 2002 season), and allowing up to <11 baserunners/9:

STRIKEOUTS/9 IP               SO/9 IP   BR/9 IP     IP     
1    Greg Maddux                6.34    10.33   3750     
2    Mike Mussina               7.08    10.61   2453.2   
3    John Smoltz                7.90    10.76   2553.1   
4    Roger Clemens              8.65    10.92   4066.2   
5    Curt Schilling             8.74    10.23   2417.2   

.

gyb -- Nice work. I think we’re tracking the same raccoon.


Re. Low Pitch Count Pitchers

This is weird because it looks more at style than “bestness.”

Originally Posted by Ytown Tribe fan

I figure, if you don't walk batters, don't give up a lot of hits, and don't strike them out either, you aren't throwing too many pitches.

Premise:

Low walks reduces those four pitches. Low hits reduces plate appearances. Low strikeouts reduces three pitches to where one may suffice....

It strikes me that a low WHIP x K/9IP would reveal a low-PC pitcher.


Random Survey, sorted by product:

Notes: NOT comprehensive
       No accounting for foul balls

     * jumped era ~ 40 yrs.

                WHIP    x     K/9    =    prod.

Candy Cummings  1.23         1.08         1.33
JBagby (‘12-23) 1.29         2.17         2.80
Jim Galvin      1.21         2.73         3.30
Clark Griffith  1.31         2.54         3.33
Babe Adams      1.09         3.11         3.39 *
Addie Joss       .97 whoa!   3.56         3.45
D. Phillippe    1.11         3.21         3.56
J. Tannehill    1.19         3.08         3.67
CYoung          1.13         3.43         3.88
Kid Nichols     1.22         3.34         4.07
Shocker         1.26         3.30         4.16
Ward            1.32         3.21         4.24
Alexander       1.12         3.81         4.27
Randy Jones     1.25         3.42         4.27 *
Doc White       1.12         4.10         4.59
Hooks Wiltse    1.13         4.11         4.64
Firpo Marberry  1.32         3.58         4.73
Hubbell         1.17         4.20         4.91
Plank           1.12         4.50         5.04
Tim Keefe       1.14         4.57         5.21
Ed Walsh        1.00         5.27         5.27
Spahn           1.19         4.43         5.27
Robin Roberts   1.17         4.52         5.29
Ruffing         1.34         4.12         5.52
Sal Maglie      1.26         4.50         5.67
John Tudor      1.20         4.97         5.96
Dave McNally    1.21         4.98         6.03
Kaat            1.26         4.89         6.16
Amos Rusie      1.35         4.64         6.26 *
Bobby Shantz    1.26         4.98         6.27
Mike Flanagan   1.33         4.84         6.44
Dean            1.21         5.32         6.44 *
Grove           1.28         5.17         6.62 *
Smokey Joe Wood 1.09         6.20         6.76
Erskine         1.33         5.14         6.84
Sutton          1.14         6.09         6.94
Maddux, eo ‘02  1.12         6.34         7.10
Wilhelm         1.12         6.43         7.20
Ford            1.21         6.17         7.47
DWells, eo ‘02  1.25         6.10         7.63
Blyleven        1.20         6.70         8.04
Carlton         1.25         7.13         8.91
Clemens, eo ‘02 1.18         8.65        10.21
Orosco          1.33         8.21        10.91
Ryan            1.25         9.55        11.94

* jumped era ~ 40 yrs.

Observations:

1. In general, the product of WHIP and K/9 has increased steadily since the founding.

2. Guys have jumped eras both forward and back, but mostly forward.


Interpretation:

Pitchers’ pitch counts tended to be less initially and is now more today (i.e. these days).

Aside: This strikes me as a move away from, not toward, efficiency.


Questions:

1. Could it be that the overall trend toward higher-PC games is exactly what’s made necessary the relief roles we see today?

2. How closely related is the increase in strikeouts to the increase in home runs?


Toward the edge of the topic:

I think it was pwdennis who said something like: “If Pedro’s out, you’ve got to account to him the performance of the guy who has to fill in” (although surely with more elegance).

IF it is true that the replacement is less than the starter, then could the increased specialization of reliever roles we’ve seen evolve since the days of Wilhelm be little more than managements’ attempts to solve the increased pitches per game problem?

If so, has the experimentation been successful? Or, where are we now in the evolution of the reliever?


Finally:

I’m scratching this out by hand (well, digitally). Anybody got a dbase that will catch the product of WHIP x K/9? A more complete view of pitch counts through history -- or at least of the top low-PC guys -- may be revealing.

.

[Firpo Marberry]

Where do foul balls factor into this?

I believe batters purposefully foul off more balls today than was ever the case when I was a kid in the '60s and '70s. It's become a near art form: Pitch looks close, flick out the bat.

This would add to pitch counts, and enhance the need for a bullpen, right?

.

Originally Posted by Firpo Marberry

Where do foul balls factor into this?

I believe batters purposefully foul off more balls today than was ever the case when I was a kid in the '60s and '70s. It's become a near art form: Pitch looks close, flick out the bat.

Firpo -- I think you’re right on. Didn’t Williams once foul off something like seventeen pitches in a single at bat? That’s the equivalent of one or two IP... and doggone Teddy’s still in the box!

Unless there’s some pitch count stat going way back, I think what we’re stuck with that’s measurable is what can only be implied in walks, hits, plate appearances, and strikeouts.

How far back do pitch count stats go?

Originally Posted by Firpo Marberry

This would add to pitch counts, and enhance the need for a bullpen, right?

Right.

IF it is so that pitch counts have risen steadily since the beginning, then this is telling us that in the bat v. ball balance the pitcher is losing ground due to simple increase in wear and tear. If this were a dual, the reliever is the starter’s second; the hitter has no second (or the hitter has eight seconds, depending how you look at it).

So, yeah. The increase in foul balls is probably a greater contributor to historical pitcher wear than seems at first glance, requiring more guys to share the load, committee style.

Is such a foul ball trend quantifiable? Or are the stats lost? If the stats don’t exist, then, as said, we’re left with only implications.

.

[Firpo Marberry]

My only way to defend the foul-ball-as-batter's-weapon is anecdotal.

Back in the Game of the Week days, I recall Willie Mays fouling off five consecutive pitches and the announcers were making a huge, huge deal out of this. OK, even today that's a lot of fouls, but just for the hell of it one night I was watching a random game on ESPN and the amount of batters who hit three or four, and sometimes five, fouls in an AB was such that if someone fouled off five it wouldn't warrant much of a remark from the yapping heads.

Also, when Boggs was at his best it seems there was frequent discussion about Wade's ability to purposefully foul off pitches. Not Mays-like, where Willie was taking a cut and fouling them back, but little bat flicks sending the ball into the stands or turf down the foul lines. These days, it seems the majority of veteran hitters can do that. No one player is singled out for having this ability anymore.

And it's not just lightweights like Boggs. I watch Bonds and it seems to me smart pitchers try to jam him. Pound him inside. And Bonds' approach seems to be, turn on those mothers as quick as you can, and if it's too far inside, big deal, it's just a long foul. He's sure enough about his ability to make contact that it seems almost a losing proposition to sneak inside heat past him. When Bonds is healthy and on, he just turns on those inside fastballs and makes contact nearly all the time. It's just a matter of fair or foul. And Barry can hit a lot of fouls balls in an AB, enough to put godfather Willie to shame.

I think in the "old days" on two strikes guys choked up, protected the plate. Today, they just use the bat flick as their way to fend off the maybe-strikes they don't like.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

But the old-timers still talk about guys like Joe Sewell, who would foul off pitch after pitch, drive the pitchers nuts.

I doubt it's changed much since his day.

I'm sticking to the theory that pitch counts increased dramatically after the dead-ball era, with increased strikeouts and walks, and have been increasing ever since. That may be the main reason innings pitched has been decreasing since 1876.

[SmedIndy]

Willie Keeler, et. al was the reason the foul-strike came into being.

So that's not it...foul balls have always been vexing.