Sergio Mitre, Chad Gaudin, and the competition of not being traded

With the recent acquisition of Javier Vazquez, the Yankees have added even more depth to an already rich pitching staff. This means that the pinstriped careers of Sergio Mitre and Chad Gaudin are in jeopardy. Both Mitre and Gaudin spent time as the Yankees’ fifth starter in 2009, and had varying levels of success. Outside of a one-hit performance against the White Sox in August, Mitre was knocked around. Gaudin performed admirably, but in the Yankees’ rotation, he seemed to tire as he reached the later innings. If the trade rumors are true and materialize, the pitcher that stays could conceivably win a spot out of camp as an extra bullpen pitcher / spot starter. Now, my question is: which pitcher should stay? Gaudin had better production last year, but there are obviously other things to consider: could Gaudin net a bigger package in return than Mitre? Is there any statistical evidence to lead us to believe that Mitre will pitch better in 2010? How could the Yankees save money?

The first thing I’d like to do is roll out some PITCHf/x numbers on these guys (since that’s what I like to do). I’ll start with Mitre.

	Speed	Max Speed	pfx_x	pfx_z	spin_angle
SI	90.97	93.9	-10.51	3.19	252.86
CH	83.51	85.7	-10.08	3.63	250.02
SL	78.52	80.9	8.29	-2.93	70.95

	Pitch#	Pitch%	Swing%	Whiff%	Wide Zone%	Chase%	Watch%	Zone Whiff%
SI	610	69.7%	43.9%	9.3%	57.9%	19.8%	39.1%	6.5%
CH	141	16.1%	56.7%	37.5%	52.5%	25.0%	18.9%	40.0%
SL	124	14.2%	31.5%	35.9%	46.0%	35.9%	56.1%	24.0%
	875	99.7%	44.2%	17.8%	55.3%	22.5%	38.0%	14.7%

	SLGCON	RSv	RSv/100	xRSv	xRSv/100
SI	.634	-10.40	-1.71	0.86	0.14
CH	.485	1.10	0.78	0.73	0.52
SL	.389	0.58	0.47	-0.67	-0.54
	.585	-8.72	-1.00	0.92	0.11

Sinkers, sinkers, and more sinkers. Mitre’s overall lack of success is reflected in the poor run values, but the expected values paint a different picture. The xRSv numbers are the defense independent variant on the standard run values and are based only on the batted ball type. Sergio’s 57.8% 2009 groundball rate is spectacular, and it is in line with his career mark of 59.7%. Groundballs are good at preventing runs (since they can’t become home runs), so it’s reasonable to believe that, with some better luck, Mitre could find some more success with his sinker if he maintains a similar ground ball rate. The other thing that struck me while looking at these pitch results was the whiff rate on Mitre’s offspeed pitches. I figured that, being a sinkerballing, pitch-to-contact kind of pitcher, Mitre would have a swing-and-miss rate well below the league average, but this isn’t really the case (2009 MLB average is around 19.5%).

Above is a graph representing the pitch height of each sinker that Mitre threw in 2009. We can see that most of his sinkers were about 2 to 2.5 inches off the ground, which is in the lower half of the approximated 1.5 inch – 3.5 inch strikezone. I must say that watching many of Mitre’s outings, he seemed to be missing location side-to-side within the strikezone a lot, which is oftentimes even more dangerous than missing outside of the strikezone. He did undergo Tommy John surgery in 2008, so maybe some more rehab time would sharpen his command.

In conclusion: I don’t see a whole lot that’s bad. He got lots of groundballs, could generate whiffs with his breaking pitches, and got burned on balls in play. I’m not saying that he’s going to be the best pitcher in the league or anything, but I do think that he has something to offer.

	Speed	Max Speed	pfx_x	pfx_z	spin_angle
FF	90.32	94.2	-4.71	7.34	212.34
FT	89.68	93.4	-9.46	3.20	251.27
SL	79.61	84.1	6.88	2.40	110.44
FS	85.90	89.8	-7.68	0.86	262.42

	Pitch#	Pitch%	Swing%	Whiff%	Wide Zone%	Chase%	Watch%	Zone Whiff%
FF	1272	50.6%	39.4%	14.2%	58.1%	16.4%	43.3%	12.2%
FT	178	7.1%	47.2%	10.7%	47.8%	29.8%	30.6%	6.8%
SL	793	31.6%	49.6%	36.1%	49.1%	37.2%	36.5%	22.7%
FS	269	10.7%	48.0%	18.6%	45.4%	31.0%	27.0%	13.5%
	2512	99.1%	44.1%	22.2%	53.1%	26.5%	39.0%	15.1%

	SLGCON	RSv	RSv/100	xRSv	xRSv/100
FF	.587	-4.27	-0.34	-0.80	-0.06
FT	.489	-2.99	-1.68	-0.99	-0.55
SL	.457	9.45	1.19	7.65	0.96
FS	.350	1.61	0.60	1.33	0.49
	.506	3.80	0.15	7.19	0.29

Gaudin works with four pitches --- two kinds of fastballs, a slider, and a hard changeup (I’m calling it a splitter here). Gaudin only got an average amount of groundballs (43.7%, ~42% league average) but got a substantial amount of swings and misses (22.2%) – despite only averaging 90.31 mph on his four-seamers. The whiffs contributed to his 8.5 K/9. His slider proved to be a valuable pitch for him, saving 9.45 runs over the course of the year and causing batters to swing and miss 36.1% of the time.

I noted earlier that Gaudin seemed to have trouble after reaching a pitch limit. I was recalling three September starts against Toronto, Tampa Bay, and Los Angeles. To me, it seemed as if his move to the bullpen in the middle of the year disturbed his stamina for his return to the rotation at the end of the year. I decided to investigate his fatigue with a velocity chart for his starts as a Yankee, and what I found was inconclusive:

I do suspect that whatever the cause of the problems Gaudin ran into at the end of last year was, it is fixable with an increased amount of time in a starting rotation.

So, which one would you keep? If you base your argument on 2009 performance, the decision is pretty obvious. For some extra fun, I’d like to look at their respective 2009 seasons in terms of ERA and my three favorite ERA predictors --- tERA, FIP, and xFIP.

	ERA	tERA	FIP	xFIP
Sergio Mitre	6.79	5.38	5.30	4.00
Chad Gaudin	4.64	4.15	4.16	4.36

Gaudin is better in all categories except for xFIP. This is because xFIP normalizes home run rates, while tERA and FIP do not. Mitre’s HR/FB rate was an absurd 21.7%, significantly above the league average of around 11%. I’m thinking this would be an aberration that would likely regress in the future, but HITf/x would be particularly handy here to see how hard Mitre was hit.

Last year, I never thought that I would arrive at this conclusion, but I actually think the Yankees should keep Mitre and trade Gaudin. Considering Mitre’s extreme groundball tendencies, his abnormally (and quite possibly fluky) high home run rate, and his extended TJ recovery time, I think he’s a good comeback candidate for 2010. Gaudin may very well be more appealing to clubs since he is younger (Gaudin will be 27, Mitre 29), had a better 2009, and isn’t coming back from a major surgery. Also, by trading Gaudin, the Yankees would save money by paying Mitre his $0.85 million contract for 2010 instead of paying Gaudin, who already made $2 million last year. And we also have to remember that the pitcher who stays would probably only be filling a “sixth starter” role, due to the depth of the Yankees’ staff. I may feel differently about this in relatively short order depending on what actually happens in 2010, but for now, I'm leaning towards keeping Mitre.

Gameday PITCHf/x data is from MLB Advanced Media; it can be easily accessed via this tool. Other statistics are from Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference.

Swapping Brandons

On Monday night, the Blue Jays and Mariners hooked up on a trade for the second time this offseason --- the previous week, they had been involved (along with the Blue Jays and Athletics) in the Roy Halladay-Cliff Lee blockbuster. This trade featured only three players and obviously didn’t get as much publicity. The Mariners sent 2006 first-round pick Brandon Morrow to the Jays for reliever Brandon League and 20-year old minor league outfielder Johermyn Chavez. The big-leaguers involved have quite a few similarities --- both Morrow and League are hard-throwing, right-handed pitchers with great stuff who have not yet been able to have sustained success. Also, they’re both named Brandon. Just for fun, I would like to look at both of these pitchers with PITCHf/x. Let’s start with Morrow.

Brandon Morrow

Morrow was the 5^th overall selection in the 2006 amateur draft. In his three major-league seasons, Morrow has both started and relieved, compiling a 3.97 ERA, 9.29 K/9, and a 5.83 BB/9 over 197 2/3 innings. He’s a four-pitch pitcher, and there’s nothing “soft” in there. Here’s his stuff.

Brandon Morrow Pitch Data

Pitch	Average Speed (mph)	Max Speed	pfx_x	pfx_z	spin_angle
FF	94.91	99.7	-3.31	11.35	196.07
SL	86.64	90.5	2.65	0.79	109.50
CH	88.42	91.3	-7.05	6.87	226.35
CU	81.40	83.6	2.54	-5.21	69.07

Hard fastball, hard slider, hard changeup (it’s more or less a splitter), hard curveball. The changeup (or splitter)/fastball and slider/curveball combinations seem to run together sometimes, so there may be a few changeups classified as fastballs (or vice versa) or curveballs classified as sliders (or vice versa). The stuff itself is impressive, as are the whiff rates (especially for the fastball and slider):

Pitch	Pitch#	Wide Zone%	Swing%	Whiff%
FF	874	52.6%	44.6%	17.9%
SL	204	46.6%	54.4%	47.7%
CH	125	52.8%	48.8%	11.5%
CU	42	21.4%	31.0%	23.1%
	1245	50.6%	46.2%	23.1%

Morrow has expressed the desire to start in Toronto, and the Blue Jays seem willing to honor that request. His average fastball velocity dropped from 95.79 in the bullpen to 94.36 in the rotation. Although that’s a significant drop, 94.4 mph isn’t too shabby ---- only four qualified starters in 2009 had faster fastball velocities.

Brandon League

Like Morrow, League has the ability to miss bats. Before I look at that more closely, here are the graphs and charts for League’s repertoire.

Brandon League Pitch Data

Pitch	Average Speed (mph)	Max Speed	pfx_x	pfx_z	spin_angle
SI	95.37	98.8	-11.41	2.98	255.51
FS	85.47	88.3	-5.89	-2.75	292.90
SL	89.55	91.4	-2.47	2.39	232.36

There were a few stray pitches that looked like kind of like sliders, so I labeled them as such. But for the vast majority, League works with sinkers and splitters, both of which have some serious vertical “drop.” The movement and velocity combination is enticing enough, and, as I mentioned earlier, it led to some serious whiffing:

Pitch	Pitch#	Wide Zone%	Swing%	Whiff%
SI	720	64.0%	51.4%	10.3%
FS	370	30.8%	49.5%	68.3%
SL	11	27.3%	36.4%	75.0%
	1101	52.5%	50.6%	29.8%

The 29.8% total whiff rate is spectacular, and the 68.3% mark on the splitter is beyond ridiculous. in fact, his offspeed offering was the most unhittable pitch in the majors last year. When he wasn’t avoiding contact, League was getting groundballs at a 55.7% rate (actually down from 66.7% in 2008, but still excellent) --- but he didn’t get great results with his 4.58 ERA. However, he did have a 3.80 tERA and 3.58 FIP last year, and if he can retain his peripherals, he could improve his numbers vastly due to the ability of the Mariners’ defense and the .... pitchers'-ballpark-y-ness (?) of Safeco Field.

To some, this deal may seem like a steal for the Blue Jays --- a 2006 first rounder with ace-type stuff for a reliever and a 20 year old outfielder? And who knows; if Morrow turns into the Jays’ ace for years to come and League and Chavez fizzle out, it will be a steal. But we must remember that Morrow has been an injury risk in his time in the majors, and that on paper League is a great fit for the Mariners' back-end bullpen due to his pitching style. And if Chavez becomes a useful player or trade chip, the deal could become that much better for the Mariners.

Gameday PITCHf/x data is from MLB Advanced Media; it can be easily accessed via this tool. Other statistics are from Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference.

Hughes' postseason struggles

A few weeks ago, I used PITCHf/x to look at Phil Hughes’ interesting 2009 season. I was asked to do a follow-up on Hughes’ less-than-stellar postseason. I’d like to share a few of the things I found.

Obviously, Phil didn’t get the kind of results in the postseason as he did in the regular season:

Regular season: 1.40 ERA, 1.83 FIP, 11.4 K/9

Postseason: 8.53 ERA, 4.83 FIP, 9.95 K/9

What’s strange is that while he got absolutely tattooed, he still had a high strikeout rate. Here is his “stuff” (on the left is from his regular season bullpen stint, on the right is from the postseason):

Pitch	Average Speed (mph)	Max Speed	pfx_x	pfx_z	spin_dir
FF	94.64 94.32	97.3 96.3	-4.98 -4.54	10.33 10.40	205.80 203.47
FC	89.26 88.92	92.6 91.9	1.10 1.17	5.27 5.68	166.79 167.33
CU	77.49 77.53	80.4 79.1	7.27 6.25	-7.86 -9.44	42.78 33.73

Hmm. That’s not much different. It would make sense that if a pitcher all of a sudden starts getting hit hard, it would correlate with some sort of change in raw stuff, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. There’s a slight loss in velocity, but I don’t see how that could have much of an effect overall. Below are the pitch results. Swing% is swings / total pitches; Whiff% is swinging strikes / swings; Wide Zone% is the vertical strike zone set by the PITCHf/x operators and a two-foot horizontal zone (one foot off of the center of the plate); Chase% is swings out of the wide zone; Watch% is takes inside the wide zone.

Pitch	Pitch#	Pitch%	Swing%	Whiff%	Wide Zone%	Chase%	Watch%
FF	554 87	66.3% 62.1%	52.2% 42.5%	27.0% 32.4%	56.7% 48.3%	26.0% 35.1%	31.8% 42.9%
FC	107 23	12.8% 16.4%	56.1% 70.0%	33.3% 12.5%	65.4% 65.2%	21.7% 6.3%	32.9% 20.0%
CU	166 30	19.9% 21.4%	34.9% 63.3%	19.0% 42.1%	44.0% 56.7%	25.9% 42.1%	41.1% 35.3%
	830 140	99.4% 99.3%	49.0% 51.4%	26.8% 30.6%	55.1% 52.9%	25.3% 30.6%	33.5% 36.5%

I’m still not seeing what could cause that much of a decrease in effectiveness. The cutter is the only pitch that didn’t see an increase in whiff rate from the regular season. There is a decrease in Wide Zone% --- I’ll get to that in a minute. Before I get to some thoughts on what might’ve been wrong, I’d like to show a final set of numbers comparing his regular season and his postseason. SLGCON is slugging on contact, or total bases / balls in play. Runs Saved is linear weights based on pitch outcomes (ball, strike, single, double, strikeout, etc); RSv/100 is Runs Saved per 100 pitches. Expected Runs Saved is calculated the same way as Runs Saved, except that it is based on batted ball types (groundball, flyball, line drive, pop up) instead of outcomes; xRSv/100 is the rate stat.

Pitch	Pitch#	SLGCON	RSv/100	xRSv/100
FF	554 88	.406 1.111	2.57 -3.88	1.82 -0.23
FC	107 22	.263 1.000	4.56 -1.61	2.83 -0.76
CU	166 30	.296 .429	0.61 2.50	-0.99 1.69
	830 140	.357 .842	2.40 -2.14	1.37 0.13

So it’s clear that something happened. Hughes turned from exceptional to horrible, although you wouldn’t be able to tell from his peripherals. I had a few thoughts as to what might have been Hughes’ problem in the postseason, so let’s get to those.

The first thing I’d like to look at in terms of graphs is his pitch location on hits in the postseason.

Nothing earth shattering here; it looks like he hung a few curveballs and left a few fastballs too low.

Moving on! One thing noticeable in the pitch results is that Hughes had a lower zone percentage, especially with his fastball, in the postseason. So, is it possible that he was falling behind in the count and then getting hit hard after falling into “hitters’ counts”? Let’s take a look:

Stint	FPS%	Ahead%	Behind%
Regular Season	62.4%	46.9%	14.4%
Postseason	60.6%	45.5%	12.1%

That doesn't really explain a whole lot. In addition to falling behind hitters at a similar rate as he did in the regular season, he maintained an excellent first-pitch strike percentage. So that theory is essentially debunked.

In his postseason games, I remembered seeing him “nibble” at the strike zone more than he did in the regular season, and I wondered if what I remembered seeing had any bearing on a) whether this was actually happening and b) if this had any effect on his performance (for example, his “nibbling” on the corners might’ve cost him some close calls from the umpire). I figured I could test this out by taking the average distance of each pitch from the center of the plate, and the mean that I got would be the “Nibble Score.” In order to filter out balls way out of the zone, I used the wide zone plus three extra inches on each side of the plate. Also, for here, I only used fastballs. This next graph shows the Nibble Score in a variety of different count situations, dictated by run expectancy. Negative numbers indicate a count favorable to the pitcher; positive numbers indicate a count favorable to the hitter. The count-based run expectancy is 0 on the first pitch of an at-bat.

The sample size is small for the postseason stint, so I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from the graph. There doesn’t seem to be that much of a difference between the overall nibble-ness (0.55 in the regular season, 0.58 in the postseason), in which I’m working with a larger sample size, so I’ll put that theory to rest now.

The last thing I wanted to look at (for now) was Hughes’ release point by pitch. It’s pretty clear that the curveball is coming from a higher slot, and it makes me wonder if hitters were able to sit on his fastball after seeing the lower release point. But still, the curveball is coming from a bit higher in the regular season plot, and he obviously had great success. For what it's worth, here are the charts.

So, I couldn’t find any statistic that gave any clear answer as to why Hughes struggled so mightily during the postseason. He was getting ahead on hitters, he had good velocity, and he had the ability to miss bats. Because of this, I’m not overly concerned about Hughes. However, I looked at some video of the postseason earlier today, and in the (small) sample that I looked at, it seemed as if Hughes was missing location within the zone --- Jorge Posada had to move his glove a lot. This isn’t quantifiable by any metrics we have now, but that could be the most important thing --- pitching to the situation. Although we can use PITCHf/x to give us a good indication of what happened, it can’t tell us what the pitcher intended to have happen, and I think that in this case, this was what burned Hughes the most.

Gameday PITCHf/x data is from MLB Advanced Media; it can be easily accessed here and here. Other statistics are from Fangraphs.