Much of the focus in this still young season has been on higher launch angles, the three true outcomes, and a handful of newly minted sluggers who have quickly made an impact on the game. This week, let’s take a look at the players who have done the most damage on contact this year, analyze how they’ve done it, and assess what might lie in store for them. First, we’ll look at the AL.
Baseball has long been a game of tradition, and one rightful criticism of our “national pastime” has been its tendency to be slow to change. One of the most welcome enhancements of some fans’ enjoyment of the game has been the introduction of Statcast in recent years. No, it’s not for everyone, but its existence — and most of all, its availability for free to the populace — adds another avenue of potential involvement for the fan base, while also offering countless opportunities for study of any aspect of our game from a nearly infinite number of perspectives.
Previously
Changeups: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Curveballs: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Cutters and Splitters: MLB Starters.
Four-Seamers: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Sinkers: MLB Starters.
Sliders: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Two-Seamers: MLB Starters.
Over the last few weeks in this space, I have been painstakingly grading the individual pitches of every 2016 ERA-qualifying starter. Unfortunately, Clayton Kershaw didn’t pitch enough innings to be included. He is special enough to deserve his own article, however.
Previously
Changeups: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Curveballs: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Cutters and Splitters: MLB Starters.
Four-Seamers: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Sinkers: MLB Starters.
Sliders: AL Starters.
Two-Seamers: MLB Starters.
This series seemingly began eons ago, but here we are: the final installment of our pitch-specific evaluation of 2016 ERA title-qualifying MLB starters. The best may have been saved for last, as today we examine NL starters’ sliders.
Previously
Changeups: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Curveballs: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Cutters and Splitters: MLB Starters.
Four-Seamers: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Two-Seamers: MLB Starters.
With May running out of days, it’s about time we laid to rest our series evaluating the individual pitches of 2016 ERA-qualifying starting pitchers. By the end of the week, we’ll be done. I’m splitting up the final two articles in a slightly unorthodox manner in order to make them run about the same length. There were so many good sliders in the NL last season that they deserve their own article later this week. Today, it’s the sinkers in both leagues, plus the AL sliders.
Previously
Changeups: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Curveballs: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Cutters and Splitters: MLB Starters.
Four-Seamers: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Our series evaluating the individual pitch offerings of 2016 ERA qualifiers grinds on. Actually hoped to be finished by now, but I’ve been writing a little bit more over at ESPN Insider (shameless plug), slowing down my progress here. We’re going to double up today, and tackle both AL and NL two-seam fastballs.
Previously
Changeup: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Curveball: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Cutters and Splitters: MLB Starters.
Four-Seamers: AL Starters.
We’re over halfway through this analysis of 2016 ERA’ qualifiers individual pitches, based on their relative bat-missing and contact management performance. Once complete, those 2017 sample sizes will be nice and plump, and the focus will turn to this season. Today, NL four-seam fastballs are on the docket.
Previously
Changeup: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Curveball: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Cutters and Splitters: MLB Starters.
May has arrived, and sample sizes are beginning to mount. We’ve still got a little ways to go in our review of 2016 qualifying starters’ pitch quality before turning our attention solely to 2017. We’ve already looked at changeups, curves, cutters and splitters; today, it’s the four-seam fastball’s turn. We’ll begin by looking at 2016 ERA qualifiers from the American League.
Previously
Changeup: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Curveball: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Our series focusing on the evaluation of 2016 ERA-qualifying starters’ pitches grinds on. Today, we kill a couple of birds with one stone, with a look at the best cutters and splitters from both leagues.
Previously
Changeup: AL Starters / NL Starters.
Curveball: AL Starters.
We’re almost three weeks into the regular season, with sample sizes mounting but still not to a level worthy of significant analysis, Eric Thames notwithstanding. We’ll take the opportunity to continue our look back at 2016 pitch quality. We looked at AL ERA qualifiers’ curveballs earlier this week; today, we turn our attention to the senior circuit.