Royals Pitchers Are Too "Nice"

by juano on May 1, 2008 1:38 PM EDT

It seemed to me like the Royals are not pitching inside much, so I looked at the stats to see what they would tell me. It turns out the Royals pitching staff is last in the league in hit batters with 3. They are also 2nd from the bottom in walks, good control is a good thing, right?? However, I also scanned through to see what other teams are doing, of course Texas leads the league in walks and HBP, NOT coincidentally, they are last in the majors in ERA, they clearly have some control issues. I found this to be really interesting, though…there are two staffs in the bottom 1/3 of the majors in walks allowed, but in the top 1/3 in HBP, indicating that they have good control, but are aggressive inside. These two teams are Oakland and Arizona, which NOT coincidentally, lead the majors in ERA.

The lesson for the Royals is clear…hitters are far too comfortable and the staff ERA is rising.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The lesson is not clear at all

I’ve had this debate on this site before. Giving up free bases with HBP’s is bad strategy. Making hitters feel “uncomfortable” by making them “move their feet” and/or “intimidating” them is overrated. I have not been able to find ANY correlation between high HBP’s and effective pitching.

Here is last year’s AL pitching staffs:

Team HBP Rank ERA Rank
BOS 62 5 3.87 1
TOR 55 10 4 2
CLE 56 9 4.05 3
MIN 51 11 4.15 4
LAA 51 12 4.23 5
OAK 43 13 4.28 6
KC 41 14 4.48 7
NYY 60 7 4.49 8
DET 68 3 4.57 9
SEA 62 6 4.73 10
TEX 70 2 4.75 11
CHW 59 8 4.77 12
BAL 72 1 5.17 13
TBD 63 4 5.53 14

I see no positive correlation between high HBP’s and low ERA’s. In fact, it looks like the correlation is quite the opposite. Good pitchers throw strikes and give up free bases as little as possible.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on May 1, 2008 2:01 PM EDT reply actions

Crap, that table looked a lot better before I hit "Post"

Maybe this will look a little better. Just comparing the HBP ranks and ERA ranks in the AL from 2007:

Team Rank Rank
BOS 5 1
TOR 10 2
CLE 9 3
MIN 11 4
LAA 12 5
OAK 13 6
KC 14 7
NYY 7 8
DET 3 9
SEA 6 10
TEX 2 11
CHW 8 12
BAL 1 13
TBD 4 14

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on May 1, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions

in fact

by those rank, its a negative correlation, and a fairly big one at that.

-0.551648352

its just a correlation and not a true logically argument, but I seriously doubt free base runners helps an MLB team.

by ZeppelinDZ on May 1, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions

NL too?

NYRoyal,

Could you run this for NL teams too? I think the Cubs staff pitches inside quite frequently. They don’t hit batters often, but they make a point of changing the hitters line of vision, moving their feet, and letting them get comfortably in general. Now, again, they don’t hit batters, but tell me where the Cubs pitching staff ranks in the NL?

- TL

by timlacy on May 2, 2008 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions

Ok, here's the 2007 NL

This is a bit more of a mixed bag:

TEAM HBPrk ERArk
SD 12 1
CHC 8 2
ATL 14 3
ARI 6 4
SF 13 5
LAD 16 6
NYM 6 7
COL 8 8
MIL 11 9
WAS 14 10
STL 10 11
HOU 5 12
PHI 4 13
PIT 1 14
FLA 1 16
CIN 3 15

The 5 teams with the highest ERA are also the the 5 teams with the most HBP. The 6 teams with the best ERA were ranked 12, 8, 14, 6, 13 and 16 in HBP. Again, no positive correlation between high HBP and low ERA.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on May 2, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks!

I knew I was remembering correctly with regard to the Cubs. What your data says is that, depending on the philosophy of the pitching coach or organization, HBP/inside pitching might correlate with solid staff. It can’t just be wildness, however.

But, you’re right overall. There’s no general correlation. – TL

by timlacy on May 2, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions

And here are the HBP ranks and ERA ranks for the Royals over the last 15 years

The methodology here is a little different. I took the Royals team ERA’s and team HBP’s and and then ranked them (ERArk 1 = lowest team ERA for the Royals in the last 15 years; HBPrk 1 = highest team HBP in last 15 years)

Again, the results are mixed:

Year HBPrk ERArk
1993 11 1
1994 15 2
2007 13 3
1995 14 4
1996 8 5
2001 4 6
2003 3 7
2004 7 8
1998 6 9
2002 10 10
1999 2 11
2000 12 12
2005 1 13
2006 5 14
1997 9 15

4 of the 5 lowest team ERA’s were teams with the lowest HBP’s. Overall, there is again no positive correlation between high HBP’s and low ERA.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on May 2, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions

i think pedro always hit a bunch of guys

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on May 1, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Isn't it kind of early

To make any conclusive statements like suggesting there’s a correlation between HBP and pitching well? What do the numbers last year say?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on May 1, 2008 3:15 PM EDT reply actions

The numbers I posted above are last year's numbers

And they show that high HBP’s don’t help a team’s pitching.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on May 1, 2008 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, it seems that most HBPs would indicate

low control. You’d want to brush them off the plate, not hit them…that’s as good as a walk. But how about a correlation between inside pitches and low ERA?

by Bornin85 on May 1, 2008 4:08 PM EDT reply actions