2015 Starting Pitcher Ball-in-Play Retrospective – AL Central
The 2016 season is in its early stages, though sample sizes obviously remain way too small to take very seriously. So let’s just sit back and enjoy the 2016 games for now, and continue our ball-in-play-based analysis of 2015 starting pitcher performance. Two more to go. Last time, we looked at the AL East. Today, the AL Central is on tap.
First, some ground rules. To come up with an overall player population roughly equal to one starting rotation per team, the minimum number of batted balls allowed with Statcast readings was set at 243. Pitchers are listed with their 2015 division mates; those who were traded during the season will appear in the division in which they compiled the most innings. Pitchers are listed in “tru” ERA order. For those who have not read my previous articles on the topic, “tru” ERA is the ERA pitchers “should” have compiled based on the actual BIP frequency and authority they allowed relative to the league. Here we go:
| AVG MPH | FB/LD MPH | GB MPH | POP % | FLY % | LD % | GB % | ADJ C | K % | BB % | ERA – | FIP – | TRU – | |
| Sale | 85.93 | 89.75 | 81.38 | 3.5% | 31.8% | 22.1% | 42.6% | 97 | 32.1% | 4.9% | 85 | 68 | 61 |
| Carrasco | 88.70 | 92.53 | 86.33 | 2.0% | 27.8% | 19.0% | 51.2% | 98 | 29.6% | 5.9% | 91 | 71 | 69 |
| Verlander | 87.42 | 89.65 | 87.67 | 6.3% | 39.2% | 19.9% | 34.6% | 77 | 21.1% | 6.0% | 84 | 87 | 69 |
| Kluber | 88.05 | 91.96 | 84.76 | 2.8% | 33.1% | 21.7% | 42.4% | 105 | 27.7% | 5.1% | 87 | 74 | 75 |
| Price | 87.95 | 90.96 | 85.42 | 4.0% | 32.5% | 23.1% | 40.4% | 98 | 25.3% | 5.3% | 61 | 69 | 76 |
| Salazar | 89.76 | 92.12 | 87.89 | 2.2% | 35.2% | 18.7% | 43.9% | 102 | 25.8% | 7.0% | 86 | 90 | 81 |
| C.Young | 87.62 | 90.88 | 85.31 | 8.6% | 49.3% | 16.6% | 25.5% | 85 | 16.6% | 8.6% | 76 | 113 | 82 |
| T.May | 88.41 | 90.14 | 87.90 | 4.0% | 35.6% | 21.4% | 39.0% | 100 | 22.4% | 5.3% | 100 | 81 | 83 |
| Milone | 87.23 | 91.32 | 84.67 | 5.5% | 29.9% | 23.0% | 41.6% | 84 | 16.8% | 6.6% | 98 | 107 | 84 |
| Quintana | 88.10 | 91.28 | 86.50 | 1.9% | 27.8% | 23.2% | 47.1% | 100 | 20.5% | 5.1% | 84 | 79 | 86 |
| An.Sanchez | 87.65 | 90.75 | 85.37 | 5.0% | 34.1% | 21.0% | 40.0% | 98 | 20.9% | 7.4% | 124 | 118 | 89 |
| K.Gibson | 88.70 | 93.34 | 86.39 | 2.4% | 24.4% | 19.8% | 53.4% | 92 | 17.7% | 7.9% | 96 | 99 | 91 |
| Samardzija | 87.98 | 90.32 | 87.00 | 4.0% | 35.8% | 21.2% | 39.0% | 102 | 17.9% | 5.4% | 124 | 105 | 94 |
| Danks | 87.01 | 90.87 | 83.60 | 4.4% | 36.3% | 21.1% | 38.2% | 92 | 16.2% | 7.3% | 117 | 112 | 94 |
| Ventura | 89.81 | 93.03 | 86.97 | 2.1% | 25.1% | 20.6% | 52.2% | 109 | 22.5% | 8.4% | 102 | 89 | 96 |
| Bauer | 88.53 | 91.45 | 87.42 | 5.6% | 35.1% | 20.1% | 39.2% | 106 | 22.9% | 10.6% | 113 | 108 | 97 |
| Volquez | 87.96 | 90.60 | 86.38 | 1.6% | 31.3% | 21.1% | 46.0% | 100 | 18.2% | 8.5% | 89 | 95 | 99 |
| Rodon | 89.00 | 91.92 | 87.77 | 2.4% | 27.4% | 23.4% | 46.8% | 114 | 22.9% | 11.7% | 94 | 97 | 105 |
| E.Santana | 90.42 | 93.12 | 88.94 | 5.5% | 32.1% | 21.5% | 40.9% | 111 | 17.9% | 7.9% | 100 | 104 | 108 |
| Pelfrey | 88.37 | 91.68 | 87.35 | 1.8% | 24.6% | 22.6% | 51.0% | 102 | 12.0% | 6.3% | 106 | 100 | 109 |
| Duffy | 89.32 | 91.75 | 89.42 | 6.5% | 30.0% | 24.7% | 38.8% | 111 | 17.4% | 9.0% | 102 | 110 | 112 |
| Hughes | 90.27 | 91.99 | 88.99 | 4.5% | 35.9% | 24.2% | 35.3% | 133 | 14.4% | 2.5% | 110 | 117 | 124 |
| Simon | 90.55 | 94.43 | 87.21 | 4.1% | 30.6% | 21.7% | 43.6% | 123 | 14.3% | 8.3% | 126 | 119 | 129 |
| Guthrie | 89.09 | 90.88 | 87.84 | 3.3% | 36.5% | 25.8% | 34.4% | 126 | 12.7% | 6.6% | 148 | 140 | 132 |
| AVERAGE | 88.49 | 91.53 | 86.60 | 3.9% | 32.6% | 21.6% | 42.0% | 103 | 20.2% | 7.0% | 100 | 98 | 94 |
Most of the column headers are self-explanatory, including average BIP speed (overall and by BIP type), BIP type frequency, K and BB rates, and traditional ERA-, FIP-, and “tru” ERA-. Each pitchers’ Adjusted Contact Score (ADJ C) is also listed. Again, for those of you who have not read my articles on the topic, Unadjusted Contact Score is derived by removing Ks and BBs from opposing hitters’ batting lines, assigning run values to all other events, and comparing them to a league average of 100. Adjusted Contact Score applies league-average production to each pitchers’ individual actual BIP type and velocity mix, and compares it to league average of 100.
