I am not sure that this study really addresses whether a pitcher does or does not change how he pitches based on the score. It rather addresses whether or not a pitcher’s performance is influenced by the opposing pitcher’s performance (in terms of run support). I am suspicious that the results are just typical of most simple statistical studies of very complex independent events – that is, a return to the mean is to be expected.

We know there is situational pitching. Certainly that is not in dispute, is it? Otherwise why are there ever IBBs? Why pitchouts? Why relief pitchers – the ultimate situational pitching decisions made.

We know situational pitching is influenced by the score. So does situational pitching not have any influence on outcome whatsoever? I think this study does not show that because it doesn’t really capture data that would show if this is or is not something that happened.

Even if you could think of a way to study how score influences how a pitcher pitches, you have the difficulty of teasing out those times when a strategy was executed successfully, and those times in which it was not. Each of these subtle changes are usually a series, but are only easily studied as independent events. It makes my head hurt to think about how you could tease this info out of baseball stats.

I certainly don’t have the time nor data to conduct a proper study, but it would seem to me that if one had the time and data one could look at whether pitch selection was influenced by score, and what effect pitch selection had on pitcher effectiveness. Or perhaps you could study whether BB vs. balls-put-into-play ratios change based on score – I suspect it would go down if the pitcher has a significant lead as he would be more likely to challenge hitters. But how you could tease this data out, I just don’t know.

And I am not proposing that pitchers pursue non-optimal strategies, only that situational pitching is real, otherwise there would not be any IBBs. And score certainly is part of the mix of the situation considered – “Do we pitch careful to this guy and not worry if we walk him?” certainly would never be said if you have a 6 run lead.

Situational pitching could include trying to work the power hitters differently if it is a one run lead.

So optimal strategy, given any particular pitcher/hitter combination, could and seemingly is influenced to some extent by the score. It is not too much of a stretch to posit that there are many decisions made as a pitcher goes through a lineup which take into account the score of the game at that particular point. And therefore, why not expect, that if it is early in the game, particular runs influence those choices more profoundly?

This is a bit different than the “pitch to the score” tone of the link you sent, but I need to digest it before shooting my mouth off too much (which might be too late to prevent anyway!!)

I think there was one pitcher who turned up as a “pitch to score” guy and it might have been Roger Clemens. Tough to remember. I’ll see if I can dig it up.

But yup: doesn’t happen. Pitchers do their best all the time, more or less.

Ah, here’s a good study on this by Greg Spira.

How many times I have seen a pitcher try to pitch too fine after he falls behind, especially when the opposing starter has the reputation of being the better pitcher? Hundreds.

How many times have I seen truly great starters just relax into the game when they have a comfortable lead – challenging the opposing fastball hitters with fastballs, also not worried about throwing a breaking pitch with a 3 ball count when they would be much tighter with it in a tight game? Probably hundreds again.

A study which disspells the notion that a pitcher pitches differently with a lead would be one I would love to read.

Speaking about an average starting pitcher on an average team, if his teammates are hitting well, he is more likely to pitch well.

This is not true.

Really. There is no evidence that pitchers are significantly affected by the score of the game. Truly great studies have been done on this, and it’s just not there.

My observation is that pitchers are very much influenced by how their teammates are batting. Speaking about an average starting pitcher on an average team, if his teammates are hitting well, he is more likely to pitch well. Conversely, if their teammates seem to be baffled by the opposing pitcher, they tend to not pitch as well. I suspect this is strongly true for starting pitchers, and less true for relievers. It is one reason real pitchers duels are so rare, and is one thing which makes an ace an ace- an ace seems less influenced and can stay strong in a game even if his team has fallen behind. The less accomplished pitcher just seems to press when he falls behind, contributing to the eventual loss rather than steadily producing at his best. That is what we admire when we see a well pitched game sometimes – a pitcher who just keeps plugging along making his best pitches even if he is behind, going against the typical psychological flow of trying to be perfect in hopes of not falling further behind. Eventually his offense might figure out something and then we admire the gutty performance on a day when he might not have had his best stuff.

So keeping a run off the board and keeping the starting pitcher from worrying about pitching from behind is likely more important while the starters are in, but the run that is scored later in the game which psychologically might represent the momentum shifting (a purely psychological happening…baseball games do not actually have any real inertia) means in later innings the offense run is more valuable because it either puts another nail in the coffin for the team in the lead, or it appears to be a momentum shift for the team which is behind. Late inning, a great defensive play which saves a run just keeps things mostly at status quo, not really contributing as much to the psychological story of the game, except it might add retrospectively to the seeming inevitability of the outcome the game is marching towards.

So, early in the game, defense saving a run more valuable since it helps the psychology of the starter. In later innings, I suspect offense runs are more valuable since it helps signal the psychological momentum of the game for both the team in the lead and the team behind, and which I believe then influences performance on the field.

rlharr on December 7th, 2009 2:41 am

Be careful with the Pythag example! It makes a difference whether you assume the team scores more runs than the opposition or less.

For a team that scores LESS runs, yes, they are better off adding runs on offense than subtracting with defense (according to Pythag).

For a team that scores MORE runs, however, they are better off subtracting runs with defense than adding on offense (according to Pythag).

A couple of other commenters have also alluded to this, but rlharr puts it best.

A run saved is NOT the same as a run scored due to Diminishing Marginal Returns, as shown by rlharr’s example. You can easily show this in a spreadsheet: if a team is outscoring its opponents by 10%, then runs saved are roughly 10% more valuable than runs scored (in terms of how much the team’s win percentage increases). If a team is outscoring its opponents by 20%, then runs saved are roughly 20% more valuable than runs scored. Etc. And vice-versa if the team is being outscored by 10%.

That addresses the question of runs scored vs runs saved. Derek also raises a more complex and detailed question: what about power? To answer that, one needs a model of how power translates into runs … OBP * SLG would be an example of a simple such model, but might be too simple and too imprecise (i.e. SLG% is not synonymous with power, though it is correlated with it). I haven’t worked out an example, though I suspect that power has diminishing marginal returns too (if nothing else, because pretty much EVERYTHING in life exhibits diminishing marginal returns), but I don’t have a worked out example.

For runs scored vs runs saved though, it’s very easy: just put the numbers into the Pythagorean formula. A run scored is not the same as a run saved (unless the team is a Pythag .500 team, i.e. gives up the same number of runs as it scores).

A good pitcher on a bad (or average) team is going to feel added pressure to put the team in position to win that’s true. I don’t see how it matters if the team is bad at run production or run scoring.

It’s not at all clear that a good pitcher on the horrible defense capable offense team will feel less pressure and be more likely to realize his potential. If you’re on a bad or average team with high expectations you’re going to feel pressure and you’re going to find losing frustrating. How many times have we seen a pitcher fall apart after a key error or a double play that wasn’t turned? Bad defense can absolutely get in a pitcher’s head.

If you have great run prevention and poor offense you are likely an average or worse baseball team but you make your pitchers look even better than their true talent (at least their ERA not their record). Even a dumb jock type pitcher has a good idea if his defense is helping him or not on balance.

Conversely a pitcher on a team with a transcendent offense may look worse than he is (in terms of ERA not record) because when he gets a big lead he’s instructed to pound the strike zone and make the hitter put the ball in play. I realize we have better tools than wins and earned runs to evaluate pitching skill but they illustrate my point.

For real baseball teams who are trying to maximize their wins (not their gate receipts) it is pretty obvious that a win is a win and all the reasonable arguments to the contrary seam to apply to unrealistically good run scoring or run prevention.

I’m interested in the psychology of being a fan of a run prevention first vs. offense first team. I love watching brilliant pitching performances and athletic defensive plays. A great pitcher like Felix is more likely to have a really memorable game if his awesome defense can save his bacon once or twice in an otherwise dominant game.

I’d much rater watch a few dozen 2009 Mariners games than an equivalent number of games from the average .500 team because I’d be more likely to see that kind of performances that entertain me. I appreciate that lots of casual and fervent fans feel the other way or have no preference and appreciate 10-9 games as much as pitchers’ duels. I am sure I watched more of the Mariners last year because I thought we were seeing improvements in player evaluation and roster construction that could lead to a contender in 2010. Not many people want to watch a bad team with a crazy manager and an inept front office that has no hope of contending for years and years.

Who cares if the defense holds the ball, and initiates the action? The pitcher would have no reason to throw the ball if there were no batter at the plate. You may as well say the batter initiates the action by stepping in and out of the box. That is pointless metaphysics. Either point gets us nowhere, in terms of strategy and analysis.

Set aside the pitcher and batter on one hand (the left), and the act of fielding on the other (the right). Broadly speaking, the right hand is always responding to what happens on the left hand, not vice versa. There are subtle shadings of the reverse (a hitter taking advantage of a shift, etc), but the defense has to react to what occurs in the pitcher-batter duel.