Blake Snell Isn’t Fair Anymore
Blake Snell has turned into one of the very best pitchers in baseball, and in order to understand how and why, we can start by just looking at the most recent batter he faced. A couple days ago, in the bottom of the seventh, Snell struck out Rowdy Tellez. The first pitch was a slider for a ball, at 88 miles per hour. The second pitch was another slider for a ball, at 89. The third pitch was a slider for a foul, at 87. Then came a fastball for a ball, at 96. Then a curveball for a whiff, at 82. Then a curveball for a foul, at 81. Finally, a fastball for a called strike, at 98. Tellez was gone, and Snell was replaced by Chaz Roe, having thrown exactly 100 pitches.
It’s not that Snell is only just beginning to emerge. His turnaround began in the middle of last year, and he hasn’t looked back. It’s last season that now looks more like a breakout. This season, however, Snell is a contender for the AL Cy Young award, even despite a DL stint that threatened to derail his progress. And while Snell was strong in the first half, before his bout of shoulder fatigue, he’s come back nearly unhittable. Between halves, he’s chopped more than a run off his ERA. He’s chopped a run and a half off his FIP, and he’s done basically the same with his xFIP. He’s added ten points to his strikeout rate while trimming his walks. Blake Snell is like a dominant closer who throws for six innings.
In one way, it’s not hard to see where Snell has improved. Yet his most recent changes are far more subtle. And they might well be the last changes he has to make for a long time. All that’s left for Blake Snell is to stay healthy.
Snell’s stuff tells a story of its own. He debuted in the majors in 2016, and, from the beginning, he’s offered a fastball, a slider, a curveball, and a changeup. Here’s how quickly those pitches have been thrown:
It’s not difficult to spot the common trend. Everything Snell throws, he’s throwing harder than he used to. We’re accustomed to focusing on average fastball velocity, and, since 2016, Snell has added a tick and a half. But it’s also worth looking at the rest of the repertoire. Snell has added two ticks to his changeup. And he’s added five ticks to both his slider and his curveball. Five miles per hour, for Snell’s breaking pitches. There’s not an absolute relationship between velocity and effectiveness, but given the entire rest of the picture, I think we can say pretty conclusively that, for one reason or another, Snell is throwing his best-ever pitches. His mechanics are in sync, and one can assume he’s worked to increase his arm strength.
As Snell’s stuff has gotten better, he’s gotten harder to hit. Proper results have followed. Snell, again, started showing more consistent flashes last year down the stretch. Nevertheless, there’s the matter of Snell’s particularly dominant second half in progress. Here’s his big-league career, expressed in terms of whiff rate:
So what’s happening now, that’s allowed Snell to become so unhittable? This is where we get to go under the hood. A big part of pitching is having good stuff. That much is obvious. But another big part of pitching is making sure hitters can’t guess what you’re going to throw. Aroldis Chapman’s fastball wouldn’t be Aroldis Chapman’s fastball if he announced it every time before he threw it. No pitcher ever does that, but emerging patterns can be predictable. And so, before we move further, there’s something to understand about Snell: Every pitch he throws is terrific. Not literally every pitch, but every pitch type. He throws those four different kinds of pitches, and here are their league-wide percentile ranks in run value per 200 innings:
I know the run-value numbers can be kind of noisy, but the real takeaway ought to be that Snell throws four different quality pitches. Fastball, 79th percentile. Slider, 80th percentile. Curveball, 97th percentile. Changeup, 90th percentile. That’s a sign of a pitcher who’s essentially complete. Good hard pitch, good offspeed pitch, good breaking pitches. So now think of how pitchers traditionally use fastballs. You tend to see more fastballs when a pitcher is behind in the count, and fewer fastballs when a pitcher is ahead. That’s all elementary stuff. Here’s how Snell’s fastball rates break down by count, splitting 2018 into halves:
This, I think, is the final key. This, I think, can explain why second-half Snell has been so much better than the already effective first-half Snell. When Snell has found himself behind in the count, he’s dramatically reduced his rate of fastballs thrown. When ahead in the count, he’s increased his rate of fastballs thrown. And then, when even in the count, Snell has reduced his rate of fastballs thrown. The end result is something that looks more like a balance; the end result is a guy pitching like he knows he has four good pitches. Recall the Tellez sequence from the beginning of this article. First-pitch slider. A 1-and-0 slider. A 2-and-0 slider. A 3-and-1 curveball. Snell wasn’t entirely predictable before, but now it’s all even more of a guessing game. Which makes it easier to get the most out of your pitches.
Here are the pitchers with the biggest reductions in fastball rate when behind in the count:
| Pitcher | 1st Half | 2nd Half | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blake Snell | 61% | 36% | -25% |
| David Price | 57% | 36% | -21% |
| Sam Gaviglio | 70% | 53% | -17% |
| Jhoulys Chacin | 57% | 41% | -16% |
| Brian Johnson | 61% | 46% | -15% |
| Anthony DeSclafani | 83% | 70% | -13% |
| Fernando Rodney | 85% | 72% | -13% |
| Andrew Cashner | 72% | 60% | -12% |
| Lucas Giolito | 76% | 65% | -12% |
| Dan Straily | 64% | 53% | -11% |
It’s Snell in the lead. Here are the pitchers with the biggest increases in fastball rate when ahead in the count:
| Pitcher | 1st Half | 2nd Half | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tanner Roark | 53% | 67% | 14% |
| Jesse Chavez | 33% | 46% | 13% |
| Richard Rodriguez | 61% | 73% | 11% |
| Cole Hamels | 28% | 39% | 11% |
| Blake Snell | 38% | 48% | 10% |
| Mike Wright | 52% | 62% | 10% |
| Matthew Boyd | 41% | 51% | 10% |
| Nathan Eovaldi | 36% | 46% | 9% |
| Dallas Keuchel | 43% | 52% | 9% |
| Zack Godley | 16% | 25% | 8% |
Snell shows up again. And here are the pitchers with the biggest reductions in fastball rate when even in the count:
| Pitcher | 1st Half | 2nd Half | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Arrieta | 67% | 53% | -14% |
| Dylan Covey | 69% | 58% | -12% |
| Sam Gaviglio | 64% | 53% | -11% |
| Alex Cobb | 57% | 46% | -11% |
| Blake Snell | 62% | 51% | -11% |
| Nathan Eovaldi | 46% | 35% | -11% |
| Luis Castillo | 65% | 55% | -10% |
| Julio Teheran | 66% | 56% | -10% |
| David Price | 47% | 37% | -10% |
| Matt Harvey | 62% | 53% | -9% |
There should be no disputing that Snell has been using his pitches differently. The changes are far too big to be an accident, and while it might be because of Snell, or because of the catchers, or because of the coaches, or because of the front office, Snell has gotten to benefit, and opponents have had to suffer. In traditional fastball counts, Snell has taken to pitching backwards. In traditional non-fastball counts, Snell’s been throwing more fastballs, showing hitters something higher in the zone. And then, in even counts, Snell hasn’t favored his fastball so much, because there’s no reason to. You don’t have to favor your fastball when all four of your pitches are good. Hitters *want* most pitchers to favor their fastballs. Snell is finally pitching like he knows it.
This isn’t a guy I’d describe as having pinpoint command. Even now, from time to time, Snell will find himself in trouble with walks. But his individual pitches are the best they’ve ever been, and his usage of those pitches is also the best it’s ever been. At any given time, Snell has four dangerous weapons stuffed in his back pocket, and you never really know which one he wants to use. Pitchers are frustrating, because peaks can be fleeting; injuries are always present as a looming concern. But the healthy Blake Snell is clearly one of the very best pitchers around. There’s so little room left for him to improve.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.




Something I don’t understand though. How come his WAR is only 4.4 when he is so utterly dominant in all these under the hood stats (and so obviously dominant in the sparkly stats)? Not that 4.4 isn’t great, but Sale has 6.3, DeGrom 8.3, Scherzer 6.8, Kluber 5.3. What’s holding back the WAR from being in the truly dominant group?
A large part of his success is due to a suppressed BABIP and a high strand rate, neither of which WAR would be impressed by. It’s also partially because he’s thrown so many fewer innings than Kluber, Scherzer, and DeGrom. He’s basically four or five starts worth of innings behind the three of them.
Which also goes to show how outstanding Sale has been in even less innings than Snell.
Thanks, I didn’t realize strand rates were figured into WAR. That’s good to know.
Strand rate is not figured into fWAR. By using FIP instead of ERA, it’s intentionally left out.
Strand rates and babip luck aren’t factored into fWAR. But they are why Snell’s ERA is so much better than his WAR. He has a pretty high walk rate for a top pitcher, so his FIP suffers, and thus his WAR.
FIP looks at HRs, BB+HBP, and Ks. That’s all. That’s why “contact manager” pitchers who don’t strike a ton of people out and don’t have ultra low HR rates get relatively worse FIP and thus fWAR.
So, strand rate/babip are not factored into WAR but are naturally reflected in ERA, so when you have an ungodly strand rate of 88.9% and a ridiculously low .237 babip you will see the divergence.
Snell is a great example of the fact that, while WAR is certainly valuable, it should be taken with a grain of salt when evaluating players.
Or, maybe it’s Snell we should take with a grain of salt. I know I sound like it’s 2008, but pitchers really don’t sustain the babip and strand rates he has.
Dude, no one talked like that in 2008))
People that hate “advanced” stats (are they really that difficult?) will just dig their heels in when Snell goes 15-11 and 3.09 ERA next season. They’ll say his location was worse, his sequencing was worse, the league adjusted to him, whatever it takes to pretend you shouldn’t regress things like extreme LOB rate and extreme babips.
Mariano Rivera basically pitched like God, with the advantage of being a reliever, for his entire career and only had a 80.5% LOB rate. Snell’s is 88.9%. If his babip regresses from .237 to even .260 and he loses half the margin in LOB rate over possibly the most effective pitcher of the last century, the ERA will reflect what statheads say is the higher end of his true talent level. And only a small portion of people that hate WAR, hate analytics, and hate regressing any stats at all will concede that underlying statistics are important indicators of true present and future performance.
Just to emphasize this, I pulled up the list of the highest strand rates for a single-season pitcher who were qualified from 2000 the present. Blake Snell has the _single highest strand rate_ during that time.
There are two ways to look at that. One one hand, the pitchers he beat out were awfully good themselves: Kershaw, Pedro, Greinke, (and JA Happ and Mike Fiers, who were each worth less than 2 fWAR). Getting a good strand rate is probably more than half luck, but the correlation between being a good pitcher and having a year with an elite strand rate is still pretty good. I think it’s because of the fact that those were all high-K guys.
The other way to look at it is that all of those guys dropped at least a little bit the next season–6.4% for Kershaw, 10.7% for Pedro, 14.6% for Greinke. It’s definitely not a repeatable skill, even though it’s seemingly a prerequisite to be a good pitcher to get it.
Strand rate is half being a great pitcher and half sequencing. It’s just a measure of how many hits and HRs you give up with people on base in the end — so obviously great pitchers do well at it. But they’re trying to get every hitter out. I’ll buy that a pitcher can dial it up or use their most effective pitches when they need them the most. But to become that substantially better than you pitch with the bases empty is heavily influenced by sequencing (luck).
One area he can improve, which he is not directly responsible for, is innings per start. He’s averaging just under 6 this year. No wonder he’s been so effective.
Wait.. did I just make the argument for continuing to limit his innings per start? Where am I?
Depending on how ‘valuable’ is defined, I think a case could be made for Snell for MVP, not just the Cy Young Award. He basically kept the Rays in the race for a place in the postseason until the last week of the regular season–without him they wouldn’t even have been close. Sure he’s had some luck with BABIP and men left on base, but if ‘valuable’ is defined as performance rather than ability, it doesn’t matter.
Watched him last year, basically he had a lot of deep counts and walks, particularly in a first half when the Rays had all sorts of pitching woes (injuries, bad bullpen) to boot. Guys could wait for him to pitch to them.
This year he has gotten stronger sure, but his command has improved a ton. If he goes 7 in his last start and doesn’t give up runs the CY vote will be interesting.
The Cy Young vote is pretty much over now. It’s his.
Of 360 Qualified pitcher seasons the last 5 years, Snell’s 2018 has the 7th lowest BABIP. .. 98th percentile.
Two of the seasons ahead of him were Greinke in 2015, and Cueto in 2014. (Both very painful seasons for anyone who used them as a guide for fantasy the following year)
Snell has been fantastic this season no doubt. He has moved himself into the top-10 SP rankings. But stats like xFIP are there for a reason. Snell’s 2018 xFIP is 46th-best in the same five year period. It isn’t close to touching the dominance of 2014-15 Kershaw or 2017 Kluber or even 2018 DeGrom.
Take the batted ball luck out of the equation and he’s right there with 2015 Gerrit Cole, 2017 Jimmy Nelson, and 2018 German Marquez. All fine seasons. But none truly elite.
Worth noting that only one pitcher appears twice in the 30 lowest BABIPs of the last 5 years. Arrieta did the repeat in 2015-2016 before regressing to normal in 2017-2018. Elite BABIP is not a repeatable skill. It’s luck. Plug in a “normal” .285 BABIP for Snell next year, and he’s a top-20 pitcher. But he’s no Cy Young winner.
As long as the Rays have one of the best defenses in the league (a trend I don’t really see stopping anytime soon) Snell isn’t going to sniff “average” BABIP. The reason Arrieta’s was so low in those years was because of the great Cubs defenses; he’s now on a team with a historically awful defense, and as such his BABIP has risen. It’s a pretty easy correlation. Blake has problems with walks, which is why is xFIP is higher than you’d suspect, but on “stuff” terms lumping him with Marquez, Nelson, or 2015 Cole is disingenuous. Rays pitchers always get dinged because of the traditionally good defense and ballpark adjustments. The rockers hitters are to the rays pitchers.
right, he’s no Cy Young winner….. next year.
BUT the facts are that he has done what he has done this year. Award voting shouldn’t be based on what folks think should have happened. And fortunately the voters don’t vote like that. They vote on what actually DID happen.
I agree that actual results and RA9-WAR should really be the primary, though not only, factor in the CYA voting… that said, FIP is technically a thing that happened, or at least calculated on real events (Ks, BBs & HBPs, and HRs).
Right. But most voters don’t look at FIP like it’s all that important.
Also look at him and Verlander…..
FIP- Verlander 2.85 Snell 2.98
xFIP- Verlander 3.08 Snell 3.16
so 2 pretty close races there
ERA- Snell 1.90 Verlander 2.60
Snell of course with a huge advantage there.
Fwiw, I would vote for him for Cy Young this season. Awards like that are about results not xResults. And he won those games. He delivered that ERA.
But going forward, he’s moved himself into the conversation for top-20 SP, not moved himself into the conversation for top-5.
top 20 may be too far down, but yeah top 10-15 is fair.
Some pitchers seem to be able to induce fly outs to the infield at higher rates than other pitchers. (low Babip). It’s full of noise, but the trend is there for a some if you look hard enough.
A lot of people in this discussion keep indicating he is going to be “worse” next year when his BABIP regresses, which is indeed likely. But that’s missing the point of Jeff’s article, which is that Snell is much better now than before. His FIP is now below 3. His WAR/200 in the 5-ish range… otherwise known as a top 10-15 pitcher in baseball. He’s great right now, and that’s really the only point to be made.
Not to mention, I am sure there is also some argument to be made that by being as unpredictable as he is, he may very well have a current true-talent BABIP below league average, but that’s just speculative on my part.
One thing folks need to consider with Snell is his numbers the 2nd half. Sure he’s got a 1.11 ERA, with a .227 babip and a 93.4% strand rate…. So you think totally unsustainable
But he also has a 2.04 FIP and a 2.26 xFIP. His FIP is #3 in MLB behind deGrom and Corbin. His xFIP is #2 behind only Corbin. His 37.8% k% is #2 behind only Verlander.
So his advanced numbers the 2nd half of the season are good. Very good.
Agreed, stever20, and people are pointing to his higher walk rate than the undisputed aces in the league, but he has trimmed that from 3.55% in the 1st half to 2. 07% in the 2nd half. Everything has been unbelievably good in the 2nd half after a very good 1st half. The injury and his usage have kept his innings too low to be a big enough sample, but when he’s been on the mound he’s been a top 3 pitcher in the 2nd half. I’d be very surprised if he did not win the Cy Young, only Verlander has a legit case in the AL.
My guess is that those eye-popping results are partially (if not largely) a factor of his IPS being limited since he was “hurt” with “shoulder fatigue”.
In 19 starts leading up to his injury on 7/12, he averaged 6.1 IPS, versus 5.4 since. I think the first half usage is more indicative of what we should expect from a healthy Blake Snell in 2019, and with that will likely come some level of regression as he faces lineups for a third time more frequently and perhaps “breaks down” as he accumulates more innings without a break.
Not saying he won’t be effective, but he likely won’t be the top 2/3 SP once his usage is more in line with his ability.
In September he’s had 5 starts going 30.2 ip. So 6.13 IPS. He’s got a 1.88 FIP and 1.84 xFIP. 38.1 K% in September. He’s got a 1.17 ERA even with a .262 babip. So he’s actually gotten better each month.
Very fair point, but against what level of competition?
Looking at game logs, it’s looking like mostly regulars in opposing lineups with 1-2 exceptions. There are also starts against Baltimore and Toronto, who are fielding lineups largely comprised of “AAAA” hitters to begin with.
And I think we all recognize that September samples are the least reliable. Just ask Byron Buxton. Outside of the expanded rosters watering down lineups, there’s also the fact that opposing teams, good and bad, have “less to play for”.
There’s also the argument that limiting him in July-August has helped him to maintain / improve his production in September, which there is really no way to verify.
I love Snell. He’s been awesome, and he pretty much won me a fantasy championship. But I think I’ve been converted to the camp that thinks he will not be as effective next year, that’s all.
he might not be as effective next year as this year- but still be extremely good. In a way it’s like Kluber last year. Everyone knew what he did the 2nd half of the season wasn’t going to continue. But that shouldn’t discount what he did do. Awards should be based on reality and not what should have happened.
Yep, agreed. He’s my Cy Young for sure.
You were right about him > Severino all along!
The more I read here, the more I think, are we looking at next year’s Robbie Ray?
Snell actually has a HIGHER LOB % (88.1% vs 84.5%) and LOWER BABIP (.238 vs .267) than Ray did in 2017, and Ray, as was highly speculated going into this year, proved to be an obvious victim of regression.
Now Snell is also pitching a bit more to contact than Ray had (31.1 K%, 8.9 BB% vs (32.8 K%, 10.7 BB%), and he’s limiting hard contact more effectively, but not to such a tremendous degree (2.1%+ in Soft, 2.7%+ in Med, 4.7%- in Hard). It might be helpful to know how much of that Medium contact is skewing to the left or right.
Ray pitched to a LD% of 19.5% versus Snell’s 18.7% this year. The difference is more in GB% and FB%.
Anyways, I think in watching both, Snell clearly has better shown better command than Ray of 2017, and is doing a better job of limiting damaging contact. I’d expect his BABIP is closer to his xBABIP than 2017 Ray’s, so would not project the extreme regression that others had on Ray coming into this year, but the point has been taken by me.
He’s been much better, but probably not as good as the surface results would indicate.
This comment is interesting to me personally as I drafted Ray in ’17 and Snell in ’18 for a low cost and to great effect (I know, no one cares about my fantasy team). But it got me looking into their respective great years. First of all, no one may have the “true talent” Snell has shown this year. A 1.90 ERA/.96 WHIP is amazing, so I’m fully in agreement that as good as he is, he’s likely not to repeat this year’s results. This is Kershaw/Koufax territory.
However, as far as Ray goes, you pointed out that his issues are command and damaging contact, i.e. walks and HRs. Snell has had the command issues in the past and they could rear their head again, but he’s never had the HR issues that Ray has. I would chalk that up to pitching in AZ but the humidor seems to have worked except for him. Also, Ray’s very reliant on his FB, while mixing in 2 breaking balls, the slider and curve. Snell has 4 quality pitches, those 3 plus the change, and I think that helps him vs. RHBs. I believe that Snell will be better next year than Ray was this year.
Two things:
First – are we seeing a dramatic increase in slider velocity across the game? While velocity is ticking up across the board anyway, it seems as though slider velocity is (anecdotally) ahead of the curve here. It feels as though I’m seeing far more high 80’s sliders than I used to – even Kershaw, who’s fastball frequently drops below the 90mph, has still seen his slider velocity stay up.
Second – Blake Snell is awesome.
He’s certainly going to win the Cy Young, and he deserves it. Awards should be based on what happens, not what should of happened. The HR leader isn’t xhrs, and final standings aren’t decided based on baseruns. That is why they play the game. With that said: What is his K rate with runners on base? Is that factored into xfip? Lets say theoretically someone could just turn to high gear with runners on base, is that measured? I’d be interested in seeing the average pitchers runners on base/scoring position K rate and his K rate, then seeing if maybe he has a larger change in those scenarios.
Also German Marquez is putting up an all word close to his season. 2021 first Cy Young winner from the rockies