How is pitcher "effectiveness" best measured?

I think its difficult to just look at a few statistics and make conclusions about "effectiveness". Pitching performance is highly complex and stats don't necessarily measure everything such as attitude, resiliency, confidence, competitiveness, level of competition, environmental factors (conditions of field, temp, does she pitch in relief or as a starter, who's her catcher #3?, does she only pitch in pool play, etc).

With that said: there is definitely a correlation between "effective" pitchers and low ERA, low WHIP, high K/BB ratio, and # of pitches per inning.

CoogansBluff said:

ERA is #1 because that reflects the goal of every pitcher. WHIP is next because it is a similar method that allows you to compare and conjecture if a pitcher was lucky or not. (ie, 2B-HR-out-out-out is 2 runs, while HR-2B-out-out-out is only 1).

Click to expand...

I don’t understand your logic about WHIP. WHIP has nothing at all to do with runs.

But then you must struggle to put those stats into the context of 'strength of schedule.' In reality, there is no pitching stat that is as good as OPS is for hitters because hitters bat against everybody, whereas pitchers might be given very different assignments (ie, strength of schedule).

Click to expand...

At least you noted what a “struggle” it would be to put the numbers in the context of strength of schedule. I already admitted my failure at it, so what’s your magic formula?

Rocketech1 said:

I think its difficult to just look at a few statistics and make conclusions about "effectiveness". Pitching performance is highly complex and stats don't necessarily measure everything such as attitude, resiliency, confidence, competitiveness, level of competition, environmental factors (conditions of field, temp, does she pitch in relief or as a starter, who's her catcher #3?, does she only pitch in pool play, etc).

With that said: there is definitely a correlation between "effective" pitchers and low ERA, low WHIP, high K/BB ratio, and # of pitches per inning.

Click to expand...

I always like to begin with defining a problem, so how do you define pitching “effectiveness”?

Scorekeeper said:

I don’t understand your logic about WHIP. WHIP has nothing at all to do with runs.

Click to expand...

WHIP is highly correlated with runs allowed. A pitcher's job is to prevent runs. Inherent in that is preventing base runners and getting batters to make outs, which is basically what WHIP is. A pitcher's ERA is not as 'trustworthy', IMO, as a batter's OPS, for example, because luck can play a larger factor in ERA. WHIP provides a check and balance to ERA.

Another issue is that you didn't define effectiveness. Are you asking for a bottom-line 'how many runs did you allow' or 'how well did you pitch?' ... Which is more effective - A pitcher who allows 2 runs and 2 hits, or one that allows 1 run on 10 hits? Which pitched better?

Scorekeeper said:

At least you noted what a “struggle” it would be to put the numbers in the context of strength of schedule. I already admitted my failure at it, so what’s your magic formula?

Click to expand...

Don't have one.

Scorekeeper said:

I always like to begin with defining a problem, so how do you define pitching “effectiveness”?

Click to expand...

Maybe its different in other age groups but for 12U travel ball, I would start at:

a) win/loss record when she pitches because at the end of the day, this is the most important stat of all of them. Does the team win games when she is in the circle compared to her peers?

b) how many earned runs does she give up in a regulation game on average (ERA); Less than 3.0 ERA and you are going to win your fair share of games, assuming your team can score more than 3 runs each game on average which is very doable.

c) How many walks and hits does she give up each inning (WHIP); If you have a WHIP less than 2.0 you are going to be effective.

d) How many S/O per BB does she have (SO/BB); If your strikeout to walk ratio is 2/1 or greater this is another sign of effectiveness. I don't see the high number of strikeouts in travel ball that I saw in rec all-stars or tournament teams. I would say that 2 or 3 strikeouts for a 5 inning game is the norm (most tournaments have time limits and we never see 7 innings unless its the championship game).

e) How many pitches does she throw per inning. Somewhere around 15 pitches per inning is a good stat. 20+ is a lot less effective and tells me she either doesn't have good command of the strike zone, she is facing a tough hitting team, and/or her defense is making some errors allowing the inning to continue.

Lastly, the intangible is actually seeing how the pitcher performs in games to really gauge effectiveness. You are never going to be able to 100% quantify live game effectiveness with just stats alone but I know if you asked the coaches they could easily rank the effectiveness of each pitcher on their staff.

I don't have a magic formula either, but I look at how hard a team is hitting against a pitcher. Here are two examples.

1)P1 starts game. First batter get on due to a "swinging bunt". Second batter bunts her to second. Third batter hits a blooper over the first baseman's head, runner scores. Fourth batter strikes out. Fifth batter hits grounder back to the pitcher. P1 gave up two hits and one run during that inning, but I would consider her effective because nothing was hit hard. I like my chances for the rest of the game.
2)P2 starts game. First three batters hit lasers that are caught by the outfielders; two to left and one to center. Three up, three down, but I am very nervous going into the second inning and beyond.
I don't currently have a way to "measure" this, but it is something I take into consideration when making decisions. If there is a way to measure it, I am all for it.

On the flip side, I also look at this for our hitters. If one of our hitters hits a laser that is caught by the other team, I can't do anything but give her a high five for hitting the ball hard. Hopefully the same hit will find a hole next time.

Rocketech1 said:

I think its difficult to just look at a few statistics and make conclusions about "effectiveness". Pitching performance is highly complex and stats don't necessarily measure everything such as attitude, resiliency, confidence, competitiveness, level of competition, environmental factors (conditions of field, temp, does she pitch in relief or as a starter, who's her catcher #3?, does she only pitch in pool play, etc).

With that said: there is definitely a correlation between "effective" pitchers and low ERA, low WHIP, high K/BB ratio, and # of pitches per inning.

Click to expand...

I like how Rocketech put it...I think there are just too many variables to just go off stats. I simply define "effectiveness" as is the pitcher performing at a level that gives us a chance to win. The main thing I am looking at during the game and over time is hard hit balls. For me pitching stats are good to look at for tendencies and general information, but that is about it. The defense behind the pitcher makes all the difference in the world and affects those stats tremendously.

fastpitch26 said:

I don't have a magic formula either, but I look at how hard a team is hitting against a pitcher. Here are two examples.

1)P1 starts game. First batter get on due to a "swinging bunt". Second batter bunts her to second. Third batter hits a blooper over the first baseman's head, runner scores. Fourth batter strikes out. Fifth batter hits grounder back to the pitcher. P1 gave up two hits and one run during that inning, but I would consider her effective because nothing was hit hard. I like my chances for the rest of the game.
2)P2 starts game. First three batters hit lasers that are caught by the outfielders; two to left and one to center. Three up, three down, but I am very nervous going into the second inning and beyond.
I don't currently have a way to "measure" this, but it is something I take into consideration when making decisions. If there is a way to measure it, I am all for it.

On the flip side, I also look at this for our hitters. If one of our hitters hits a laser that is caught by the other team, I can't do anything but give her a high five for hitting the ball hard. Hopefully the same hit will find a hole next time.

Click to expand...

Very good points right here and I think there are plenty of coaches out there that overlook this in regards to pitchers. Throw an error in the mix and all the sudden P1 doesn't look good at all but that's just not the case!

Scorekeeper said:

Why? The ML numbers the public sees don’t differentiate that way, and there are some pretty good and pretty bad teams there relative to “average”.

.

Click to expand...

True, but it's nowhere near that variance that a school team or travel team might see. Plus, MLB uses a 5-man rotation, so it's too random to have a huge SOS difference over 30 starters. Not saying you might not discover some interesting things by researching the quality of batters faced, but nowhere near as significant as you might see in lower levels.

The difference between the best MLB team (#1) and worst MLB team (#30) is negligible compared to the difference between the best (travel ball team) and the 30th best travel ball team. The variance in quality of opponent in a youth sport setting whether it be Travel Ball A/B/C, Rec ball, High School Ball, Middle School ball simply can't be compared to MLB in any meaningful sense.