Strike percentage

[CoogansBluff]

I think it's wrong to say that strike PCT is meaningless. I think it's a stat that we don't commonly use and therefore don't know how to read it the way we do other stats.

Did this research, fwiw.

I took the top 10 starting pitchers in MLB in each of the following six pitching stats and then averaged the ERAs of those 10.

For example, the top 10 MLB starting pitchers in strikeouts per 9 IP have an average ERA of 2.87. Obviously, being good at that stat means you're probably a very good starting pitcher.

BB/9 – 3.22 ERA
Strike percentage – 3.15 ERA
HR/9 – 3.04 ERA
SO/9 – 2.87 ERA
H/9 – 2.73 ERA
WHIP – 2.66 ERA

While strike percentage is not the most important stat, there clearly is a very good correlation between a good strike PCT and a good ERA. The average ERA is 3.82. The best 10 pitchers in strike PCT are all above average, and four are among the best 12 starters in the game.

I'll go one step further - In the course of a single game, when you're in the 2nd or 3rd inning, the strike PCT might be more meaningful than walks and strikeouts because you have more data (pitches vs. at-bats).

 

[humpty]

Good info. But I still like whip better.

 

[Rocketech1]

I have found that the most effective pitchers on my DDs teams the past few years have had a strike% around 65% and the least effective around 50%. The later group had a strikeout to walk ratio of 1 to 1 or worse and threw around 20 pitches per inning. The pitchers with the better strike% threw on average 3 s/o to 1 walk or better and only 14 pitches per inning. Not surprising they also had low ERA and WHIP. All the stats are important and should be looked at in their entirety to get the best gauge for how each pitcher is doing. If you have a decent sample size you start to see a correlation between stats and how effective or not each pitcher is.

 

[GOINGDEEP]

I'm a big stats guy. But the level of competition is the biggest factor in what they actually show. A guy hitting .800 in the local men's league would hit about .050 in MLB. I won't bore you with how I feel about the pitching side. Stats are worthless unless comparing apples to apples.

 

[humpty]

It's all relative.

 

[cuzmail]

Noting that the "same" perfect game could apply to two very different pitching performances. One could have been a very good batting team just getting fooled like mad with great location and speed control. But the second instance, with the SAME stats, COULD be just an amazing defense supporting the pitcher that aint that great....)

I was thinking much simpler than that. 1 pitch generates a weak hit and out. 3 pitches = 3 outs. No K's in those stats and a perfect game.

 

[cuzmail]

I'm a big stats guy. But the level of competition is the biggest factor in what they actually show. A guy hitting .800 in the local men's league would hit about .050 in MLB. I won't bore you with how I feel about the pitching side. Stats are worthless unless comparing apples to apples.

Not to mention the apples to apples with the people taking score.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

I think it's wrong to say that strike PCT is meaningless. I think it's a stat that we don't commonly use and therefore don't know how to read it the way we do other stats.

I didn't say it was totally meaningless - it just isn't a reliable gauge by itself of a pitcher's performance. ERA is the most important gauge and everything else is secondary at best.

Let's take a closer look at the correlation between Strike% and ERA based on the stats for the 81 pitchers shown on TeamRankings.com. The median ERA is 3.51 for the 81 pitchers.

- Cliff Lee has the top Strike% with 70.8 and his ERA is 2.93 (10th). Clayton Kershaw has the best ERA at 1.88 and his Strike% is 66.5% (12th). Looks okay on rankings even though there are big differences in stat values and an inverse relation between them.

- The ERA rankings for the 12 best Strike% are 10, 4, 37, 23, 49, 15, 7, 48, 11, 36, 19 and 1. Not good - 4 of the 12 pitcher's ERA didn't correlate well with their Strike%.

- The Strike% rankings for the 12 best ERA are 12, 16, 13, 2, 45, 60, 7, 49, 63, 1, 9 and 33. Not good - 5 of the 12 pitcher's Strike% didn't correlate well with their ERA.

If there was a strong correlation, there should be some sort of consistency and the other stat should at least be ranked in the top 24-30.

There really isn't that big of a difference in the cumulative Strike% between the top and bottom - the difference between 62% and 66% is only 4 pitches out of 100 (less than 1 per inning). There is a much bigger difference in the ERA's between the top and bottom - 3.00 vs 4.38.

 

[cmustangsfp]

I was thinking much simpler than that. 1 pitch generates a weak hit and out. 3 pitches = 3 outs. No K's in those stats and a perfect game.

That's how it is with one of my DD's. She pitches slower than her younger sister by a few MPH, but her arm has a weird twist to it that causes her balls to spin a lot. When batters do make contact it is usually a high fly ball or a weak grounder (and it usually takes a wicked bounce). She is concerned about her speed, but I say if the hitters can't make good contact, don't worry about it. So her K numbers may not be up, but she wins games.

 

[chinamigarden]

I didn't say it was totally meaningless - it just isn't a reliable gauge by itself of a pitcher's performance. ERA is the most important gauge and everything else is secondary at best.

Let's take a closer look at the correlation between Strike% and ERA based on the stats for the 81 pitchers shown on TeamRankings.com. The median ERA is 3.51 for the 81 pitchers.

- Cliff Lee has the top Strike% with 70.8 and his ERA is 2.93 (10th). Clayton Kershaw has the best ERA at 1.88 and his Strike% is 66.5% (12th). Looks okay on rankings even though there are big differences in stat values and an inverse relation between them.

- The ERA rankings for the 12 best Strike% are 10, 4, 37, 23, 49, 15, 7, 48, 11, 36, 19 and 1. Not good - 4 of the 12 pitcher's ERA didn't correlate well with their Strike%.

- The Strike% rankings for the 12 best ERA are 12, 16, 13, 2, 45, 60, 7, 49, 63, 1, 9 and 33. Not good - 5 of the 12 pitcher's Strike% didn't correlate well with their ERA.

If there was a strong correlation, there should be some sort of consistency and the other stat should at least be ranked in the top 24-30.

There really isn't that big of a difference in the cumulative Strike% between the top and bottom - the difference between 62% and 66% is only 4 pitches out of 100 (less than 1 per inning). There is a much bigger difference in the ERA's between the top and bottom - 3.00 vs 4.38.

On the other hand ERA is strongly influenced by the strength of your defense. If you have a slow team who has a hard time getting to the ball, the ball gets by and its a hit, which leads to earned runs. On the other hand a fast defender who gets to that ball but it glances off her glove, it might go down as an error...

No statistic is foolproof.

Strike percentage is one that the pitcher has the most control over. I know that other team can swing at bad pitches and the ump could have a big strike zone... But the good pitcher takes advantage of that.