Ollie's Afternoon Via PITCHf/x

by James Kannengieser on Apr 10, 2009 12:00 PM EDT

I'm still figuring out my way around this awesome PITCHf/x stuff, so bear with me. R.J. at DraysBay and Beyond the Boxscore put up a nice post yesterday about PITCHf/x, which can be used to analyze anything from pitch movement to how good an umpire is during a given game. Data can be pulled from Gameday or from Brooks Baseball. Here's Oliver Perez's strike zone plot from yesterday's game (click image to embiggen):

It looks like Ollie's biggest issue was too many pitches on the heart of the plate and not enough on the black. That is generally the problem for pitchers who can't make it to the 5th inning. The low corners in the strike zone are both barren. Also, it doesn't look like he was getting squeezed too much by the home plate umpire. There were a few pitches up in the zone which should have been strikes, but nothing worth complaining about. Let's have a look at his release point:

This is the hitter's view of Ollie's release point. I expected it to be more erratic, given his reputation and propensity for changing his mechanics at a moment's notice. Outside of that one tiny outlier, he was pretty consistent. So there's one positive. Finally, here is the breakdown of his pitches:

Pitch Type	Number Thrown	MPH
Fastball (4-seam)	68	89
Slider	17	78.41
Changeup	13	84.3
Curveball	1	74.8

A 4.7 mph difference between fastball and changeup? That's not going to cut it at the major league level. Also, according to Fangraphs, Ollie threw his changeup just 2.6% of the time last season, so yesterday was out of the ordinary. I'm going to assume Ollie is still getting in shape and his fastball velocity will increase as the season goes on, because an 89 mph fastball for a pitcher with control issues is not very good. For comparison purposes, Reds closer Francisco Cordero's fastball averaged 95.35 mph yesterday. The PITCHf/x tool should prove to be pretty useful this season, and it gives us some fun graphs to look at as well.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Alright, every post relating to Oliver Perez from now on, I'm posting Derek Lowe.

DEREK LOWE

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Apr 10, 2009 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Great idea James,

AA needs way more pitch f/x analysis. I just wanted to point out tho, be careful taking pitch f/x literally when it comes to labeling pitches. Well the system has improved since the start of pitch f/x, eg Moyer’s fastball not being listed as a changeup, it’s still not cut and dry. Saying that Ollie’s changeup differential was only ~5 MPH is faulty because pitch f/x probably picked up some slow fastballs and labeled them change ups. This can be shown in the data as, according to pitch f/x, Ollie fastest changeup clocked in at 87.8, when a guy is throwing an avg 89 fastball, it’s clear that the fastball movement/lack of movement “tricked” the system. Including the Horizontal x Vertical movement chart gives you a better idea on what pitches were actually thrown.

by Sokojoe on Apr 10, 2009 12:41 PM EDT reply actions

Thanks for the heads up

I did notice that 87.8 pitch on his chart. God help us if his fastball averages 89 mph this year.

by James Kannengieser on Apr 10, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Notable pitchers who threw ~89 last year

Paul Maholm 89.6
Brandon Backe 89.5
Joe Blanton 89.3
Derek Lowe 89.2
Brian Bannister 89
Randy Wolf 88.8

All these pitchers were pretty bad in their own way, except one subtle exception. (BOOM!, that’s how you do Derek Lowe callback [referred to as a LoweBack] squid92.)

by Sokojoe on Apr 10, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions

89 with nothing

Of course that one successful pitcher can sink the ball. Maybe Ollie can learn a 2-seamer during his 4 off days…

I expect his velocity would pick up 2-4 mph’s over the next 2 weeks. But if he can’t hit the corners as evidenced by f/x, it won’t make a bit of difference.

I’m looking forward to 3 months of Peavy, Halladay, etc watch. Oy.

by whynot on Apr 10, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Or Oswalt.

And I think regardless of Ollie, we should keep an eye on those guys.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Apr 10, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Eh

I hate to be debbie downer but I just don’t see anyway it happens. Halladay we probably have a chance on just because we’d be one of the few teams who could afford his extension, but could we afford to give up the pieces they’d ask for, plus give him a new contract, at age 32 btw, and fill other holes? Really it’s the same question with Peavy, and Oswalt, Oswalt is gonna one a pretty significant raise and Peavy has a huge raise already built into his contracts. Taking on any of their contracts would put a major hole in our ability to fill upcoming holes.

by Gina on Apr 10, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Maholm had a decent year

4.15 FIP; his other underlying numbers don’t seem too out of whack. But yeah, Ollie’s got issues.

by jasondg on Apr 10, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions

I thought Maholm was pretty decent last year

FIP was 4.15, I’ll take that

by James Kannengieser on Apr 10, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, Maholm was decent

Wolf had a 4.17 FIP and Blanton had his uses; I wasn’t cherrypicking, these were the guys closest to throwing 89, the pharsing “bad in their own way” was poorly choosen as they weren’t “bad” just not Derek Lowe (few pitchers are) but they’re not getting paid $13 million dollars either. One last point, Blanton, Wolf, Maholm all throw fastball, change, slider, curveball which helps offset their medicore fastballs, Perez doesn’t have that safety net. So, if he’s missing, he’s in trouble.

Inning Pitches Strike% Total Pitches
1……… 10 …..70.00%.. 10
2……… 16 …..62.50%.. 26
3……… 25 …..52.00%.. 51
4……… 25 …..52.00%.. 76
5……… 23 …..47.83%.. 99

by Sokojoe on Apr 10, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Wolf wasn't actually that bad

But Lowe is also a contact pitcher with high ground ball rates. So is Paul maholm, idk about the rest of them. I’m pretty sure Blanton and Wolf aren’t but Wolf has better developed breaking balls and off-speed stuff. Where as Ollie’s calling card has been his ability to miss bats.

by Gina on Apr 10, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions

he still missed bats, though

even with the decreased velo. He was just wild, and the 3 run Votto bomb was the killer blow.

by jasondg on Apr 10, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah that's actually a good point

And one reason I’m not totally freaked out about him yet. If he had had a game where he gave up fewer runs but had way way fewer k’s then I think there would be a lot more to worry about. Right now I’m mostly worried about his complete inability to stay focused for w/e reason.

by Gina on Apr 10, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Exactly

And what was really impressive was that he was missing bats before he lost his command, and before his velo started to creep back up. He must have something really deceptive in his delivery, because those first two innings, he was hitting his spots and missing bats with 87 mph fastballs. Usually I’d attribute this to being “wildly effective,” but that didn’t seem to be the case, he was really hitting his targets and spotting the ball. I just wonder if he’ll ever get it in his head that focus and mechanical consistency are more important for him than pure arm-strength. You’d think its pretty easy to demonstrate just looking at how he performs outing to outing, or even within an outing like the one yesterday, but we’ve been hoping for two seasons now and he’s yet to really demonstrate that he understands.

by Mark Himmelstein on Apr 10, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think

he considers “pure arm strength” to be more important than focus, mechanics, etc. He just can’t focus. It’s a big problem — and I thought he had it under control in ’07, for the most part. Maybe it just seemed that way, since his ’07 ERA was pretty much unsustainable.

by jasondg on Apr 10, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

I was oversimplifying, but I do think he sometimes tries to overthrow and blow hitters away, when he should be trying to slow himself down and try to re-establish a rhythm. I was actually curious watching his start, why did Dan Warthen not go talk to him once? There were plenty of spots where it seemed appropriate, and the advice seemed simple: “slow down”.

In 2007, I think the biggest thing he benefited from was tremendous outfield defense. There were days when he had Gomez, Beltran, Chavez out there and it really saved him some ER. It made him seem more focused sometimes because there were fewer situations that had the potential to shake him up.

by Mark Himmelstein on Apr 10, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions

I think

and this is just a guess, but the Pitch F/X might have confused Ollie’s fastball for a changeup on a few occasions, since his velo was so erratic. He definitely threw a few pitches that looked like fastballs that registered 84-85. The funny thing is, that was early in the game, when he was actually commanding the ball pretty well to both sides of the plate and getting outs.

by Mark Himmelstein on Apr 10, 2009 1:21 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah that would be my guess too

Because his career data for his change up has it averaging in the low 80s. Definitely not this high.

by Gina on Apr 10, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions

With respect to this nice graph

Does it take into account how the umpire was lined up on the plate? I’m not the only one that noticed that the ump lined up to the inside of the batter, regardless if the batter was left or right handed. Why would an umpire do this? Doesn’t this provide a less than perfect view of how the ball comes across the plate and lands in the catcher’s glove?

Separately, if Ollie’s velocity is down due to being out of shape, does anyone know what in the hell he was doing during the off-season while he was waiting around for an offer? Don’t pitchers have facilities made available to them, not just to keep their overall body in shape but to work on their mechanics? If Ollie had these facilities available to him and didn’t make the effort to get better, then I say the hell with him.

" WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU'VE WITNESSED A GRAND HANDSHAKE PARADE? "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Apr 10, 2009 1:51 PM EDT reply actions

From what I understand he showed up to camp in shape

But didn’t work out at all with team Mexico. What I don’t understand is why the mets allowed to him to continue participating if their pitching coach wasn’t returning our training staffs calls.

by Gina on Apr 10, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Absolutely

I was pretty appalled when I heard that, you’d think they’d have pulled their $13 million investment right there. I guess they didn’t want to tarnish what was generally an improved WBC experience, but if team Mexico can’t handle the responsibility of handling the situation professionally, then the Mets absolutely must intervene.

by Mark Himmelstein on Apr 10, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Lou,

pitch f/x uses the baseball defined strikezone but records if the ump called it a ball or strike. The system can “blow” calls for batters of differing heights but it’s consistant when it comes to plate width. So, as long it is calibrated correctly (a problem in the first year of the system,) it’s a great record keeper. As far as your concern of the ump, pitch f/x would show that the ump was blowing calls, not using his defined strikezone. By the way, I agree, the ump was giving the inside vs righties (outside vs LH) which favored Arroyo’s backdoor slider.

by Sokojoe on Apr 10, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions