Slicing PITCHf/x By Leverage - Mariano Rivera
Over the past few months, Harry Pavlidis has been slicing and dicing the strike zone in order to explore how pitchers locate the ball in different situations. I'd like to add another dimension to the exploration - leverage index.
For those who aren't familiar with the concept, leverage index provides a numerical value of how critical a given situation is. Created by Tangotiger, leverage index technically measures the "swing in possible change in win probability" but essentially represents how important an at-bat could be in determining the winner of the game. A key point is that leverage index represents the importance of the event at the time it occurred, not looking backwards after the game is complete.
Leverage index is expressed as a ratio comparing the importance to that of the average situation (1.0). Anything above 1.5 is considered a high leverage situation (of extreme importance), and anything below .7 is considered low leverage.
How does this all apply to Harry's slices?
The thought is that pitchers may pitch differently based on the importance of the situation. We've all heard that pitchers in a blowout (a low leverage situation) will be more likely to throw pitches down the middle of the plate to let the batter put the ball in play. Correspondingly, in a high leverage situation, a pitcher might be more apt to avoid the center of the plate.
My first foray into the effects of leverage on pitching covers Mariano Rivera. I chose Rivera for two major reasons.
First, he only throws one pitch, the cutter, which allowed me to ignore the possibility that pitchers mix up their pitch selection based on the situation (I'll explore that more in future articles).
Second, as a closer, he pitches in a fairly good mix of situations; although they do tend to be higher leverage than the average pitcher.
Here's the breakdown of the leverage situation for Rivera's pitches in 20081.
Just over 50% of his pitches were thrown in high leverage situations, while the rest were split fairly evenly between medium and low leverage situations.
Let's apply Harry's slicing methodology to Rivera, with the added dimension of leverage index.2
In general, it does appear that Rivera tends to get a little bit more of the plate in low leverage situations than in others.
It was somewhat suprising to see the percentage of fat pitches in high leverage situations. I can think of a few reasons why that might be the case. In many high leverage situations, a walk might be just as poor an outcome as a hit, so the pitcher wants to avoid being too fine with his pitches. Another possibility, is that Rivera is confident in his ability to generate poor contact (based on the movement of the cutter) that he's willing to pitch to the center of the plate.
While one pitcher does not a pattern make, it seems this style of analysis might be a fruitful one. We know pitchers pitch differently in different circumstances and this might be a window into how.
I'd like to look at how pitchers behave in aggregate as well, but that approach is fraught with concerns about selection bias - in that weaker pitchers (those who might have more difficulty keeping the ball in the strike zone) understandably tend to have an inordinate share of low leverage appearances. So this analysis may have to wait until some corrections are made.
I plan on applying the same approach to some other pitchers, but I'd love to hear feedback on what I can do to improve the analysis or the charts.
As a final treat, I'll leave you with a scatter plot of all Rivera's pitches by leverage index in 2008. Red is high leverage, blue is medium, and grey is low.
1. The Win Expectancy and Leverage Index data is licenced from http://www.InsideTheBook.com
2. Technical note: I'm using Harry's original slices, found here. I know he's changed the size of the slices since then, but I haven't updated my queries.
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not as big as I would like
LI n Fat Side Edge Off Wide Other High 504 64 86 115 88 53 98 Medium 191 21 42 41 32 18 37 Low 229 30 48 45 42 20 44
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 8, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
The samples should be a bit bigger once I start looking at starters
Of course throwing more pitch types in there could cause problems too.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 8, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
LI by Slice across the entire db
is what I meant.
by Harry Pavlidis on Mar 8, 2009 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
No pretty graphs this time, but here's the breakdown across all pitches in 2008
LI n Fat% Side% Edge% Off% Wide% Other% High 125173 0.211 0.195 0.154 0.107 0.060 0.274 Medium 244782 0.218 0.198 0.159 0.106 0.058 0.262 Low 286240 0.220 0.198 0.157 0.103 0.057 0.265
Roughly 20% of pitches were high leverage, 37% were medium and 44% were low.
There’s definitely a pattern there in terms of avoiding the play in high leverage situations.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 9, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry.. not all pitches
Just FA, FC, CH, CU, SL, SI, KN according to Sportsvision’s pitch types.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 9, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Good analysis
I just don’t find the results earth shattering. Seems to me that:
- He pounds the zone in low leverage situations.
- He tends to stay off the middle of the plate and pick at the edges a bit more when he’s in a higher leverage situation.
I would guess that this is the case with most good relievers if we looked at them as a whole.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
That was my thought too
But sometimes it’s nice to confirm the conventional wisdom too.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 10, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Can we somehow account for base situations?
I’m just thinking about walks. They are more costly without runners on base. And with runners on base, the leverage goes up. So higher leverage situations are the ones where walks are less costly, in general, and therefore pitchers aren’t as worried about throwing balls…
I think what we want is to separate the score/inning leverage from the base/out leverage, somehow.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Makes sense
I’m not sure of the best way to do it at the moment though.
Base/out leverage is probably the swing in possible WPA/LI – and maybe score/inning leverage would be LI/BOLI?
I’d have to think more about that, but it seems to be the right approach.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 10, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I think I've seen an article on base-out leverage hanging out on THT or InsideTheBook over the past few months. Not sure, though.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Found it
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/leverage_index_by_base_out_states/
From 2006 actually.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 10, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Now, let's say "we" do a table like that for score/inning leverage.
How do you combine the two leverages to come up with the overall leverage, the one we’re used to looking at on Fangraphs? Multiply?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I think so...
Tango seems to imply that might be how it works with his example about the bases loaded in the bottom of the third being equivalent in boLI and LI.
In that situation, siLI should be 1 or LI/boLI. As long as the relationship is linear, we should be ok with that formula, right?
On a side note, I really like the names siLI and boLI.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 10, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions

by 


































