The Need for Speed
Let's talk about the fastball. The fastball is what made Walter Johnson the Big Train. The fastball is why Nolan Ryan is NOLAN RYAN!. The fastball made Colt Griffin millions as a first round pick. The fastball is why Daniel Cabrera still has a spot in a major league rotation and it's why Brian Bannister risks his career every start. The fastball makes scouts stand up and take notice and makes fans stand up and cheer. The fastball is the mythmaker of pitching. But how important is it really?

You'd probably say that a good fastball is nearly essential to pitching in the major leagues, and I'd be inclined to agree with you. Barring the handful (fingerful?) of knuckleballers and the occassional Jamie Moyer who float around the bigs, it's hard to find successful pitchers without some redeeming aspect to their fastball - be it speed or movement. But that's not very precise. And if you've read almost anything else I've written, you know I like to try to quantify things. Blame it on the Math degree that collects dust in my closet.
I wanted to measure the value of fastball speed - or how much was an additional mile per hour worth to a pitcher. So I took the full set of fastballs captured by Pitch F/X from 2005 (those pitches identified as a variety of fastball or over 88 mph). For every one of those pitches, I categorized it according to the speed of the pitch and calculated the linear weights run value to find the average run value for each speed category. The results are shown in this graph:
Of particular interest is the linear fit trend line which seems to do a fairly good job of matching the actual results - especially between 87 and 97 miles per hour. It's a little hard to see in the picture, so let me relay it here: y = .0002x - .0292. The key number is that .0002 which means that, in general, each additional mile per hour on the fastball adds .0002 runs per fastball thrown. That equates to .018 runs of ERA (technically, RA) for every mile per hour on the fastball.
Imagine two nearly identical starters. Say they each average 6 innings per start, and throw exactly 100 pitches in those starts. Of those 100 pitches, 60 are fastballs. The only difference between them is that Starter A throws an 85 mph fastball and Starter B average 95 mph. All else being equal, we'd expect Starter B to have an ERA .18 runs better than Starter A.[1].
Obviously nothing every works out that easily in real-life, but there does appear to be a distinct advantage to throwing the ball faster. And while there is likely a selection bias here, I think it might actually dampen the real effect. We've all see pitchers who throw the ball harder get many more chances to succeed than a soft tosser. That would drive down the average value of the faster pitches, thereby lessening the observable effect of speed.
Another possible concern is that the linear weights values I used are slightly off. You'd expect the average run value across all measured pitches to sum to 0, but the sample I have (all pitches, not just fastballs) sums to about -2.75. That suggests that at least some of the weights are off (which makes sense since I didn't calculate them myself for my sample - I just took numbers off the Web). The discrepancy in run values could confuse the results of this study if they don't cancel out across the sample size (roughly 390,000 fastballs).
In some ways, I'm not really surprised there's an advantage to throwing a faster pitch. To think otherwise, you'd have to believe that nearly every decision maker in baseball history has been mistaken. That said, I have to admit I expected a minimal advantage to throwing faster, especially considering the apparent selection bias favoring those pitchers with lesser fastballs. This definitely explains why pitchers like Daniel Cabrera still have jobs, and pitchers like Colt Griffin or Matt Anderson can go so high in the draft.
[1] Starter B gains 10 mph * .0002 runs per mph or .002 runs for each fastball over Starter A. Over 60 pitches, that's a .12 run difference. Since each pitcher only lasted 6 innings, the .12 run difference would be .18 over 9 innings.
0 recs |
4
comments
Comments
Selection bias.
Nice article, Dan. You touched on this a little, but I think it’s an important point: there are many pitchers who can throw 88-90 in the minors, but who are not nearly good enough to stick in the majors. The guys who throw 88 in the majors are probably there despite their fastballs, rather than because of the pitch.
Thus, I would argue that the advantage of throwing harder is even more pronounced, because you’re comparing the the pitchers who throw 95 with the guys who throw 88 and also do something else well.
by Peter Bendix on Jul 10, 2008 10:16 AM EDT 0 recs
That is a tiny amount. WAY too little. I am afraid the selection bias is huge, Dan, and that you are not, by any means, capturing the relative values of the various speeds fastballs, all other things being equal. And if all other things are not equal, the results are meaningless.
The only way to do it is to use the “delta method” which we use for aging curves and just about anything else where we run into a similar selection bias.
You have to look at the same pitcher and computer the run value for one speed of his own fastball versus another speed of his own fastball and then sum these differences weighted by the harmonic mean (or the lesser of the two) of each pair of observations.
For example, take all of Cabrera’s fastballs. If the difference between his 94 mph ones and 93 mph ones is .001 runs, and there are 20 of each, then put .001 * 20 into your bucket. Keep doing that for all pitchers and divide the result by the total of the “weights” (in this case, it is 20). I’d probably group all of his fastballs into 2 groups and then take the difference in run value between the two groups and divide that by the average speed difference between the 2 groups.
You are still going to have some problems. For one thing, you have to make sure that all the pitches you are comparing for each individual pitcher are the same kind of fastballs. You can’t compare a 94 mph 4-seamer and a 90 mph 2-seamer. Also, pitchers may vary the speed purposely, such as taking something off on a 3-0 count.
In any case, the difference between an 85 mph and a 95 mph fastball only being .18 runs per 9 innings, all other things being equal? No. The selection bias is just too great to get any meaningful results here.
by mgl on Jul 10, 2008 1:40 PM EDT 0 recs
Selection Bias
While this graph may suggest that a faster fastball makes a pitcher worse, I suspect that is not the case. As the previous comment mentioned, there is likely a selection bias. If a pitcher is mediocre and has an 85 mph fastball, its not likely they’ll last long in the MLB. On the other hand, if another pitcher is equally mediocre but has a 95 mph fastball, he may last longer in the MLB because managers are hoping that their potential comes to fruition. Thus, assuming 2 players have poor average run values, the one with the 95 mph fastball will last longer in the MLB.
Jason Shafrin
healthcare-economist.com
by HealthcareEconomist on Jul 10, 2008 1:48 PM EDT 0 recs










