Consistency Factor revisited
In honor of Oliver Perez week, I figured I would try to wrap up this case study on consistency. For anybody who missed it, I took a shot at quantifying start to start consistency, or Consistency Factor (CONF), for pitchers a few weeks back in this post. It was enlightening but the results just didn't seem quite right. So I've made some tweaks, basically utilizing Bill James Gamescore to evaluate each game started instead of WPA.
A brief refresher for those who missed the original post or forgot what it was all about: Basically I evaluated a pitcher's starts individually (using Gamescore) and then took a Standard Deviation of those 30-something starts. The higher that #, the higher the range a pitcher regularly pitches within thus the lower his consistency. So lower = better. However, this # does NOT relate to how effective a pitcher is. A pitcher can have the worst CONF but still be very good, all it means is that he doesn't pitch consistently from start to start.
I compiled the CONF #'s from 2008 as well as the last 3 seasons totaled for every qualifying NL starter. However, before we dive into all of those #'s, here's a nice visual breakdown of this idea using, who else, Oliver Perez:
So as you can see, each point represents a start measured in Gamescore (high=good low=bad), the gray area represents 1 Standard Deviation away (in both directions) from Oliver's Mean (which happened to be a Gamescore of 51.65). In english, the blue points are each start, the gray represents the average range where he usually pitches and the red baseline is the level of his average start in 2008.
Now let's take a look at another pitcher for some perspective. How about Tim Lincecum:

First of all, Lincecum's Mean or average start is obviously higher (Gamescore: 62.06), the guy did win the Cy Young. (For reference, a Gamescore of about 50 represents Replacement Level) More importantly for us, Lincecum's starts are packed much more densely within his average range than Oliver's. Only a handful of starts fall outside of the gray area whereas Perez has many more fall outside. As a result, Lincecum's Average Range is smaller, which represents less variation and higher consistency.
As far as the most important figure that we can draw from these graphs, its that Standard Deviation I mentioned that makes up the gray Average Range. This is the figure that represents Consistency Factor. For Lincecum it's 13.18. For Perez, it's 17.08. The league average is around 16.

So now that we can kind of visualize where these #'s come from, lets look at the results. I grouped all NL starters (who pitched at least half a season in '08) by team and I've got all the teams here so lets look at them by division, East first of course:
Well theres a few interesting things we can see here:
- We already knew that Johan was awesome, now we know hes consistently awesome
- Apparently Maine & Redding are very consistent as well, although Perez, Livan & Pelfrey are not
- However, Oliver Perez: not that inconsistent...at least not as much as many of us would think
- Brett Myers on the other hand...ugh
- However, Cole's about average and guy's like Moyer & Blanton are really only valuable because of their consistency
- And damn, we all know Josh Johnson is going to be great but hes already pretty damn good (though to be fair this was based on only half a season of starts)
- Another surprise, Daniel Cabrera wasn't bad at all in '08
Onto the NL Central:
- The Cubs have a remarkably consistent staff...
- ...except for Carlos Zambrano who is officially THE least consistent starter in the NL
- Surprisingly consistent seasons from the 2 young Reds rookies especially Volquez, not so much from their 2 vets though
- As usual Paul Maholm is quietly very good
- And a shockingly consistent season by Todd Wellemeyer and that came in only his first season in the rotation
And finally the NL West:
- 2 more young guys with surprisingly consistent seasons in LA, not so much for Hiroki Kuroda
- What's the only difference between the Giants rotation and a roulette wheel? Tim Lincecum
- SI product Jason Marquis, very nice
- Surprisingly high from Webb, even more from Garland who is known for his consistency
- And a perfect example of what I said earlier about consistency not always equaling performance, Kevin Correia the NL's most consistent crappy pitcher (Gamescore Mean: 43.63...ugh); looking at these #'s, it's amazing he is still in a Major League rotation today
And last but not least, here are the rankings of the best and worst performers of 2008:
- Redding on the Top 5 (3 Year) list, I didn't expect that
- And John Garland on the Bottom 5 (3 Year) list, I bet people would have had him pegged as super consistent not the other way around...
- Another supposed "Mr. Consistency", Derek Lowe finds himself on the Bottom 5 (3 Year) list
- And yes, Oliver would have been on that list too but I excluded that bizarre stretch in '06; because basically I'm just trying to evaluate him in his time with the Mets
So I hope this has been enlightening. At the very least I figured it would break up the interminable dross that we've witnessed in the FanPosts recently. Just as last time, I apologize for the mathematics and such but thats the breaks.
I set out to disprove the myth of Oliver Perez as "Mr. Inconsistency" and I think I've done that. That title definitely goes to Carlos Zambrano. Perez is definitely on the higher end but even if I included all of the #'s, he's not as bad as the media portrays. I think a lot of that mindset derives from how he can be so inconsistent in-game or inning to inning rather than game to game, which definitely is no myth. That would be another interesting case study but thats another story for another day. As far as what this means to his overall performance, not too much because hes been pretty terrible this year anyway. But at least he's been consistently terrible...
9 recs |
19 comments
Comments
just for kicks here's Johan's '08 Consistency Factor spray chart

It’s a thing of beauty. Look at how few starts fall outside his miniscule Average Range. The guy is INCREDIBLY consistent. He’s really just incredible.
by robcast23 on Apr 30, 2009 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Cabrera was bad in 08
He was just consistently bad. And I know this is only NL but I’d be interested in seeing Wakefields numbers. It seems like he’s either an ace or AAAA pitcher depending on how the wind or the moon or something that day.
by Gina on Apr 30, 2009 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i'm thinking about doing the AL
depends on how much people like it.
as for wakefield, you were right. ’08 CONF: 18.58. pretty high but still only 7th worst if he were in the NL. wakefield is actually a very interesting case because hes actually somewhat consistent but his bad days are really bad and his good days are extremely dominant.
oh and when i say cabrera “wasn’t bad” i’m only talking about consistency. like i said, i’m not making any assumptions about the levels of performance, only the level of consistency.
by robcast23 on Apr 30, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wakefiled
knuckleballs flutter, so maybe it literally does depend on the wind? I don’t really know, but it’s possible
by cjmulrain on Apr 30, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The wind does have a lot do with it.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on May 1, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just when I was ready to give up on FanPosts
Great job, really interesting read. (rec’d obviously)
by Sokojoe on Apr 30, 2009 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great post
There’s so much interesting data here. I wonder if there’s any predictive quality to a pitcher’s volatility. On its own, there might not be, but it could be a really interesting factor for pitchers who have various other red flags.
by Meddler on Apr 30, 2009 6:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Since you are way better at this than I am
Could you compare the most consistent and least consistent to their mean game score? What I’m curious about is who on the inconsistent side ranges from great to mediocre, good to bad, and mediocre to awful. On the consistent side, who is consistently good, consistently mediocre, and consistently bad.
The names make some of this obvious, but I’m wondering if Redding gets called up, or they try to made deal for a Harang or Arroyo, what type of performances we could expect from them.
Great job!
by Reg Dunlop on May 1, 2009 8:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Top & Bottom 10 w/ Mean Gamescores
___________
As far as the Top 10, you can see that 7-8 of them consistently pitch well. Correia and Marquis just had consistently bad years. In the Bottom 10, only 2-3 of the pitchers were inconsistent but good (Zambrano, Kuroda, maybe Vazquez) and none were that good. So I guess we can start to conclude that there is a correlation between consistency and effectiveness.
As for Arroyo and Harang, both had bad years in ’08 with Mean Gamescores around 48. But looking at the database i put together, while Arroyo has been going down for the last 3 years (56, 49, 48), Harang has been steady and just randomly had a bad year (54, 57, 48), probably indicating a nagging injury. Both are off to pretty good starts so far this year.
And no thats not a typo, Livan’s Mean Gsc was in the 30’s. Lowest I saw and it wasn’t close. And the worst part is that was part of a slow decline so we can’t even claim injury (starting in ‘03: 56, 55, 50, 45, 44, 39) , meanwhile hes a cuban 34 (meaning 44) and clearly has diminished stuff. i’m hoping for the best but i don’t think this story has a happy ending…
by robcast23 on May 2, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been lobbying for Harang for a while.
If the Reds need to make some trades this season, he should be one of the first guys we go after.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
by squid92 on May 2, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harang
IIRC, the injury was probably related to Dusty’s horrendous mismanagement. On May 22, Harang threw 5 1/3 vs. the Padres, allowing 10 H, 2 BB, 5 R, and striking out 7 on 103 pitches. It was the fourth consecutive start he’d thrown over 100 pitches, and 7th out of 8. 3 days later, Harang came out of the pen to throw 4 innings of relief. He struck out 9 batters (a season high for him) on 63 pitches. From accounts I’ve read, he was also throwing much more heat in this game than usual. (Pitch F/X data, anyone?) He made his next start on May 29, essentially pitching on 3 days’ rest, and got lit like Times Square (4 INN, 10 H, 6 ER). His season went downhill from there.
by BobbyV_Incognito on May 3, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Enigma wrapped in a mystery
Your results are surprising. Of course, I’m eyeballing it, but it looks like Perez pitched to approximately the same number of game scores over 70 that Lincecum did. He also pitched five games over an 80, where Lincecum only had one. I guess the two below 20 kind of make you forget that when he’s good, he’s really good.
by TBlz on May 1, 2009 3:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep, that's Ollie in a nutshell.
The games when he’s on are jaw-droppingly awesome; the days he’s bad are just atrocious. He’s a perfect metaphor for manic depression.
by BobbyV_Incognito on May 1, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is great
But I wonder if there’s any reason to prefer more consistent pitchers? I mean, given two pitchers with the same average GS, would a team actually be better off with the one who put up the same GS every game, or the one who put up a wider range of GSs, sometimes better and sometimes worse? Seems relatively obvious that, when shopping for pitchers, we should always prefer the one with the higher average GS — but does consistency actually help? This would be an interesting thing to try to work out.
by anonymous on May 1, 2009 5:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ah, interesting
Just saw this article in the older post’s comments. Worth a look.
by anonymous on May 1, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is interesting
i don’t know if i completely buy it because you need to assume a lot and fix a lot of values which obviously cannot be done in real life, but i liked this part:
Consistency seems like a good trait. A consistent player looks like he knows what he’s doing, like he’s put it all together, like he’s a “professional.”Basically, values about pitcher’s consistency and therefore ability is based on perception which is, pretty often, fallible.
although ultimately i would say that the author is wrong about desiring inconsistency for the same reason that many sabermatricians are often wrong, he doesn’t think about the human aspect. what i mean is the psychological edge that the rest of the players gain when they know what they’re going to get (or at least they think they do) when a consistently good pitcher is starting. Ronny always says that when Doc would pitch, the team called it “win day”. regardless of whether or not he had his good stuff, the team would be in a better mindset to perform. and though it seems a little too “positive thinking can achieve anything”, it has been tested and proven that mindset can have a large effect on performance, in any arena, not just sports.
by robcast23 on May 2, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to see backup about the assertion
that players gain when a good pitcher is on the mound. The backup would have to show up in runs scored and we all know that Johan gets screwed regularly, while vintage 06 Trachsel gets like 7 runs per game with his 5 ERA. I just don’t see how, at this level, a player’s mindset (happiness) can really affect their play. OK, the latter was a bit hyperbolic, but seriously a player has less than half a second to react to a pitch, I just can’t see much going on in your head besides reaction. I mean ARod OPS’d 1038 during the Madonna/getting divorced scandal. To try to get a feeling of what players go through click this AWESOME link.
If I was presented data that players play better when good pitchers are on the mound, I would believe it, but I think Darling and others who have similar sentitments don’t give enough credit that “Win day” happens because Doc is on the mound, not because players are happy with Doc on the mound, just my opinion.
by Sokojoe on May 4, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 







































