The Stats: Stretching Nathan Out

by PhoenixV on Aug 7, 2008 4:52 AM EDT Comment 15 comments

I thought it would be interesting to check out Nathan's stats broken down by number of IP, so here they are (courtesy of Retrosheet and a little tinkering with R). I've lumped all Nathan's four full seasons (2004-2007) as a Twin together in the following.

In his first four seasons with the Twins, Nathan has never pitched more than 2.0 innings and he has never had an appearance in which he failed to record an out.

Note: "SO%" and "BB%" mean strikeouts per batter faced and walks per batter faced, respectively.

Update 08/07/2008 04:52 ET: Added ERA column.

Stats

Overall pitching line as a Twin

G	IP	BFP	ERA	oppAVG	oppOBP	oppSLG	SO%	BB%
274	282.1	1104	1.94	.181	.242	.269	32.2%	7.2%

When pitching less than one inning

G	IP	BFP	ERA	oppAVG	oppOBP	oppSLG	SO%	BB%
17	9.0	52	13.00	.395	.500	.605	17.3%	19.2%

When pitching precisely one inning

G	IP	BFP	ERA	oppAVG	oppOBP	oppSLG	SO%	BB%
236	236.0	907	1.56	.172	.228	.252	32.6%	6.4%

When pitching more than one inning

G	IP	BFP	ERA	oppAVG	oppOBP	oppSLG	SO%	BB%
21	37.1	145	1.69	.169	.236	.269	34.5%	8.3%

Conclusions

First of all: Gardy has experimented very little with Nathan's role. 86% of his appearances as a Twin have been of the 3-outs variety.

Obviously, his numbers when pitching less than one inning are pretty horrible due to the fact that those appearances are mostly ones in which he has struggled (we can see that a sudden lack of control has probably been the main culprit in these situations).

The real lesson learned here is that Nathan pitches almost equally well when being "stretched out" as he does when he simply goes one inning. When pitching one inning Nathan has faced an average of 3.8 batters; that average is 6.9 when pitching more than one inning. Thus, it seems that Nathan can actually handle double his usual workload without experiencing a drop in performance. Nathan is on pace to log only 66.1 IP this season, which is about 4.2 IP less than his average totals from 2004-2007.

Now, the sample size for the "more than one inning" numbers is pretty small, so this is not a definitive result. A more thorough study would also look at Nathan's performance when entering the game with runners on base, and maybe adjust the numbers according to the leverage index.

But I'm still pretty certain that Gardy's decision to let Nathan handle longer outings in the future is a very good one - and not only because the rest of the Twins bullpen consists of little schoolgirls.

via www.ohmvfiredept.org

2 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

nice

nice pic

Its interesting to see that Nathan has come in a couple more times for a When pitching more than one inning than a When pitching less than one inning save

by DedicatedFollowerOfFashion on Aug 6, 2008 6:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much

Unsurprising. Less than one inning usually means he lost the game, like you said.

His workload is always pretty low. He can certainly handle a safe bump up without problem.

"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane

by AdamOnFirst on Aug 7, 2008 2:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

More datapoints?

First of all, great work as usual – I always enjoy your posts.

I think the “less than one inning” thing is complicated, as you said, by the fact that most of those appearances end in either walk-off hits or him getting pulled, but there are situations in which Nathan is brought in for the super-cheap save opportunity when another reliever gives up a run to make it a 3-run game with an our or two in the ninth. Do you know if Nathan has many of those, or whether it would be feasible to differentiate between the two?

I think it might be more useful to compare when he comes into the game (start the 9th, during the 8th, etc.), rather than how many innings he throws – the appearances that are less than one inning because he got shelled should really be part of the 1-inning dataset, because it’s reflective of his performance in that same situation.

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Aug 7, 2008 11:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the constructive criticism

Since Nathan doesn’t have a lot of outings which have lasted less than one inning, the easiest thing to do is probably just to parse through his Retrosheet game logs (go to “Pitching Record” and click on the “Daily” links) and identify the games in which he has gotten the “super-cheap saves”.

I agree completely that it would be much more interesting to break his performance down by the inning in which he entered the game. However, running those numbers would take 5 times as much work because that would require parsing through the individual event files instead of just using Retrosheet’s already-compiled game logs. So that study will have to wait a bit.

by PhoenixV on Aug 7, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK. So Nathan's 33.

First, let’s point out that studying these outings doesn’t tell us much about Nathan’s ability to pitch multiple innings more often. We can’t predict the effect on him. But when Dan Quisenberry was once asked by manager Dick Hoswer if he could pitch another inning in a tie game, he replied, “I hope so. I’m only 32.”

In other words, at 33 Nathan should be able to do this at least a half-dozen times annually.

I think it might be more useful to compare when he comes into the game

Exactly. Fortunately, Nathan has pitched very few of minus- and plus-1 innings, so it’s easy to research.

Digging through game logs does refute the below highlighted remark, and once again makes an argument against statistics without narrative, which is what game logs and boxscores potentially are.

Obviously, his numbers when pitching less than one inning are pretty horrible due to the fact that those appearances are mostly ones in which he has struggled

That’s false. Rarely were his outings of less than an inning because he struggled and was replaced, which has happened only about a half-dozen times in his Twins’ career. Usually, he replaced a faltering starter or reliever in the 9th and finished the game with one- or two-thirds innings of work. Although he might not have pitched brilliantly in all of those games, the fraction of an innings outings were not commonly the result of him pitching badly, but because of some other pitcher getting the hook.

The most frequent Nathan outings of less than an inning happened in 2004, when he did it 9 times. He faltered in three of them and apparently left with an injury in another. He replaced struggling pitchers with outs on the board the remaining times.

Also, a pattern set in ‘04 that continues is that when Nathan pitches two, it is always in an extra-inning game.

In 2005, he pitched less than an inning 6 times, and three times he replaced pitchers with outs on the board. He did have a couple of rocky outings among those, but it’s subjective as to exactly how bad he was. I’d say he was rocked in two of them.

In ‘06 he never pitched less than one inning. He entered in the 8th twice (bringing his career total to 4 games of 1-plus innings when entering in the 8th) and then pitched the ninth. He also twice pitched two innings when the came went overtime that season.

In 2007, all his games of less than an inning were mid-inning rescues of other pitchers. Three times he pitched more than an inning because of ties in regulation, and three times he entered in the 8th.

Twice this year he has replaced a struggling pitcher in the ninth. He entered in the 8th once, bringing that career Twins total to 8 games.

by Johnny Safron on Aug 7, 2008 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the correction

Obviously, his numbers when pitching less than one inning are pretty horrible due to the fact that those appearances are mostly ones in which he has struggled

That’s false. Rarely were his outings of less than an inning because he struggled and was replaced, which has happened only about a half-dozen times in his Twins’ career. Usually, he replaced a faltering starter or reliever in the 9th and finished the game with one- or two-thirds innings of work.

Thanks for going to the trouble of looking that all up. I think, though, the larger point that Phoenix made stands – the less-than-1-inning numbers look especially terrible because there simply aren’t many innings, and those few innings include times when Nathan pitched poorly enough to be pulled from the game. I think, in general, folding the 1-inning and less-than-1-inning numbers together would probably give a more accurate picture of how effective Nathan’s been in 1-inning appearances.

First, let’s point out that studying these outings doesn’t tell us much about Nathan’s ability to pitch multiple innings more often. We can’t predict the effect on him.

This is definitely true. I think the risk from Nathan pitching multiple innings is less about the second inning and more about how he does in the next game and how well he’s able to maintain his performance over the season. That’s not so easy to research, and even if it were researched, it’d be a pretty inexact science – who’s to say that a late-season swoon is fatigue and not simply bad luck?

"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

by BeefMaster on Aug 7, 2008 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In general, then...

I think, in general, folding the 1-inning and less-than-1-inning numbers together would probably give a more accurate picture of how effective Nathan’s been in 1-inning appearances.

I think we can safely say, based on game logs, box scores, videotape or impressions taken of newspapers photos of Nathan with Silly Putty, that he’s pretty damned effective. And we can wager a guess that if he pitched 1-plus a little more often, he would still be pretty damned effective. Maybe more effective. Maybe so effective that he could get a high-ranking cabinet position, or at least a spot on the boards of a few Fortune 500 companies.

by Johnny Safron on Aug 7, 2008 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

I found firefighter boots online for $117, so I think either the Owls Head – Mt. View Volunteer Fire Department is getting screwed by suppliers, or someone isn’t playing on the ups with the city council.

by Johnny Safron on Aug 7, 2008 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nathan

He’s Good.

Less than 2 ERA as a Twin? Nice.

by Chaddens on Aug 7, 2008 1:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

chad bradford

Twins are desperate for relief help and today Chad Bradford was traded to Tampa Bay, which means the Twins didn’t put in a claim on him when he went through waivers. Anybody have any idea why not? His salary is not super cheap, but the club has made it clear this year that they can and will take on salary. And Bradford is having a pretty good year—he would help a lot, I think, reducing the reliance Crain and Guerrier, and the need to “stretch” Nathan. And Tampa is giving up a PTBNL, which probably means it’s an inconsequential player.

What am I missing?

by cooldude on Aug 7, 2008 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Marcel

Here’s the Marcel in-season projection for the rest of Bradford’s 2008 season:
20 G, 17.0 IP, 3.68 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 9/5 K/BB, 1 HR.

That would be a very nice addition to the Twins’ bullpen but maybe not a significant upgrade over what one of the guys from AAA could reasonably be expected to provide (although Bradford is probably a safer play). I like Bradford – there’s a chapter devoted to him in “Moneyball”, which is the biggest plus of all – but I don’t have a problem with the Twins front office letting him slip through the cracks.

by PhoenixV on Aug 7, 2008 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs