How the Cubs Fare Against Power Pitching
The wheels started spinning for me Friday afternoon. I was absentmindedly scrolling through numbers, looking for anything relevant to the NLCS, when I came upon something on the Baseball-Reference Cubs splits page. I’ll show you the exact thing I saw:
Go ahead and squint. You’ll make it out. You see categories, designating power and finesse pitchers. Then you see the Cubs’ hitting statistics. They’ve been much, much worse against power pitchers, and while everyone is much, much worse against power pitchers, the Cubs still look worse if you adjust for that. That’s what the last column shows. I made a note to try to write this up. See, the Cubs are playing the Mets, and a lot of the Mets happen to throw super hard.
As it happened, Buster Olney wrote about something similar the other day, because Olney writes an awful lot, and he’s greatly informed. But I am a stubborn person, so I’m writing this anyway. I’m not one to give up an idea without a fight. There was something nagging at me about the Baseball-Reference numbers — the site doesn’t have velocity information, so it classifies pitchers by their strikeouts and walks. That can work as a decent proxy, but I wanted to go further. According to those splits, the Cubs have really struggled against power pitchers. But how have they done against actual power pitchers, where we can classify by pitch speed? There are a few ways to examine this.
Firstly, and quickly, let’s designate an arbitrary threshold. How’s 95 miles per hour? That’s fast, so let’s use that as a cutoff. This year, against pitches at least 95 miles per hour, the Cubs posted the third-highest swing-and-miss rate in baseball. That’s not real good, but then, this year, against pitches below 95 miles per hour, the Cubs posted the highest swing-and-miss rate in baseball. The Cubs swing and miss. It’s what happens in between all the times they swing and hit. It’s no secret that the Cubs have been strikeout-prone.
Meanwhile, against pitches at least 95, the Cubs slugged .357. Against pitches under 95, the Cubs slugged .402. Without any context, that seems like something, but the former ranked the Cubs 18th, while the latter ranked them 20th. So again, here, it’s like there’s nothing to see. Baseball overall slugged .370 against 95+, and .408 against pitches under 95.
I don’t think this is all that satisfying, though. Those are measurements of performance against the fastest pitches, but that’s not the same as a measurement of performance against the fastest pitchers, because not every hard-throwing pitcher throws everything in the upper 90s. So the next step took a little time, but I pulled all individual pitching performances against the Cubs this year, and I linked the pitchers to their average fastball velocities from our own leaderboards. That way you can directly split however you want, with pitch-speed information.
I decided to create four groups:
- pitchers who threw 95+
- pitchers who threw between 92.5 – 94.9
- pitchers who threw between 90.0 – 92.4
- pitchers who threw below 90
I calculated how the Cubs did against each group, then I calculated a weighted average for the pitchers in each group, based on their overall season lines and on how much they pitched against Chicago. So you’re going to see, in the table below, the Cubs’ average, OBP, and slugging, and then the weighted average numbers for the groups as well. Those are marked with an x for some reason. I also threw in BABIP just for the hell of it. This is the Cubs’ BABIP against each group, not each group’s weighted-average BABIP.
| Group | BA | OBP | SLG | xBA | xOBP | xSLG | BABIP |
| 95+ | 0.212 | 0.292 | 0.326 | 0.233 | 0.300 | 0.348 | 0.294 |
| 92.5 to 94.9 | 0.237 | 0.316 | 0.394 | 0.252 | 0.319 | 0.391 | 0.298 |
| 90.0 to 92.4 | 0.252 | 0.331 | 0.410 | 0.260 | 0.324 | 0.415 | 0.306 |
| Below 90 | 0.271 | 0.337 | 0.443 | 0.269 | 0.328 | 0.434 | 0.324 |
If you prefer, for simplicity, here’s OPS, with the pitchers’ average OPS in parentheses:
- 95+ miles per hour: .618 (.647)
- 92.5 – 94.9 miles per hour: .710 (.711)
- 90.0 – 92.4 miles per hour: .741 (.739)
- Below 90 miles per hour: .780 (.762)
At either extreme, you can see some slight potential effects. Against the fastest-throwing group, the Cubs came away as a below-average team offense. Against the slowest-throwing group, the Cubs came away as an above-average team offense. Against the middle groups, the Cubs were just about exactly average, even remarkably so. You’ll note, of course, that the fastest-throwing group is just a lot better than the slowest-throwing group. You’ve got a difference of 115 points of OPS, in part because the first group has more relievers, and in part because the first group is just more talented. But as far as the Cubs are concerned, their own OPS split shows up as 162 points. Taken at face value, it is an indication that the Cubs might struggle to a greater amount against the most powerful arms.
One caveat would be that we have limited samples. The Cubs had 851 plate appearances against the fastest-throwing group, and 1,009 against the slowest-throwing group. So there are error bars, as you split the data, and you’ll notice there’s nothing interesting about the middle two groups. I also didn’t control for the hitter identities, so there’s no guarantee the Cubs are represented by the same bats in each group. Basically, the right conclusion ends up being “if there’s an effect, it’s small,” which is the least interesting sort of conclusion. I recognize that, but here we are.
Why might the Cubs struggle a bit against the hardest throwers? Maybe they have slightly more complicated swings. Maybe they have uppercuts that leave them more vulnerable to high heat. Maybe it’s nothing. If Kyle Schwarber struggles against good velocity, the Mets don’t seem to think so. It makes only so much sense for there to be such thing as a team-wide trait, anyway. The Cubs have better hitters and worse hitters; they’re likely better and worse against all pitchers.
After the research, we can’t rule anything out. The Cubs might indeed be worse than average against power pitchers, and better than average against finesse pitchers. That would help to explain their struggles against the Mets, against Noah Syndergaard and Matt Harvey. Probably the best explanation, though, is that Syndergaard is really good, and Harvey is really good too. Some nights, it doesn’t really matter who’s at the plate. And unfortunately for the Cubs, it’s not about to get easier.
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.
Of course it’s a huge disadvantage to be down 2-0, but they could have salvaged arrieta after one inning to throw again in game 3. Losing and burning Arrieta is pretty much season over 🙁
This is a stupid thing to say.
I don’t get why they wasted Arrieta either. A 3-run lead is pretty much insurmountable in the postseason.
I’m assuming this comment is trolling but no manager pulls a star like Arrieta after giving up 3 R in the 1st. Managers don’t manage to win, managers manage to keep their jobs. Sure, winning is the biggest part of keeping their job but nothing loses a job as quickly as making an “unconventional” move and having it backfire. Pull Arrieta and then the Cubs score 3 in the bottom of the 1st or 2nd and them some reliever gives up a bundle of runs and now the manager is left looking like a dummy. It’s why Price was sent out in relief in game 4 of the LDS and (using the best example I could think of) why Randy Johnson was sent out to pitch the 5-7 innings of game 6 of the 2001 WS despite having a 15-0 lead.
It’s just what managers do and that just the practical side of it. From an actual strategy standpoint, you can’t punt games in the post-season because each single game is worth so much more. Arrieta gave them their best chance to win that game at that point. Gotta stick with him. (it’s worth pointing out that after those 1st 3 hitters, his line was very Arrieta-like: 5 IP, 1 H, 1 R, 2 BB and 8 K)
I can see where the poster could think this way, and it isn’t “stupid.” But, using comments like “stupid” are pretty “stupid.” Anyway, even though I can understand this posters sentiment after the game is over, I still feel that you have to play to win every game in the postseason. 3 runs is nothing for a power hitting team like the Cubs.
I think the whole narrative so far could just fit in 1 single tweet:
“Probably the best explanation, though, is that Syndergaard is really good, and Harvey is really good too. . And unfortunately for the Cubs, it’s not about to get easier.”
#nohomo
http://deadspin.com/daniel-murphy-disagrees-with-the-gay-lifestyle-1689309224
With such a lead in the series, the Mets should win. But these are the Mets. So maybe it will be the Cubs. But they’re the Cubs.
Which unlucky team will take the prize? Or more accurately, which one will choke bigger and better?
Living up to your username I see.
I mean, what are the chances that, when it comes to the Cubs and Mets, one team comes back from a fairly large disadvantage to beat the other? Like that could ever happen, you’d need some black cat voodoo to pull that off.
I wouldn’t write the Cubs off just yet. Hammel is very capable and we know Maddon will throw EVERYBODY in these next two games. Mets have been hot, but the offense is really not that scary once you get past the fact that Grandy and Murphs have played out of their minds.
You could also say that the mets are winning all of these games with a majority of the lineup slumping. What happens when they wake up?
I was actually referencing the ’69 Miracle Mets and their incredible late season defeat of the Cubs. The Cubs had a black cat cross in front of their dugout while playing the Mets and they fell apart, allowing the Mets to take the NL East (the division the Cubs belonged to at the time). Basically I was trying to make the same point you were, even when the odds are against a team, they very well could still win. It would be ironic in this case due to a similar story in history between these two teams.
“Why might the Cubs struggle a bit against the hardest throwers?…If Kyle Schwarber struggles against good velocity, the Mets don’t seem to think so.”
Interesting piece, Jeff. I’ve got no data backing this up, so it is to be taken with a huge grain of salt, but with Schwarber in particular the Mets are making it look like a potential issue is quality offspeed pitches from pitchers capable of the fastest pitches (as opposed to just the good velocity itself).
To that end, I wonder if there’s an adjustment factor with less experienced hitters (in general, not just the Cubs) who haven’t fully refined their approaches against the top flight power pitchers. It seems to me like picking up high-80s/low-90s with movement when you’ve got high-90s on the mind would be the hardest of hard scenarios, very obviously providing less time to adjust than a low-90s pitcher who mixes in mid-80s.
I think what they’re doing with Schwarber is not letting him see enough fastballs to get his timing on them. I imagine Schwarber has a pretty good personal times-through-the-order bonus against the fastball, but that’s purely conjecture.
With hitters who don’t have as much of a wOBA times-through-the-order bonus vs. Fastballs, it would make sense to simply keep throwing them. This is probably true of older hitters in general, both for reasons of experience and reaction time.
Is this not true of all teams though? Nearly everyone hits worse against 95+, but are the Cubs worse than expected (rest of MLB) against them?
I think that’s what the article says, that the Cubs are indeed worse than expected:
“and while everyone is much, much worse against power pitchers, the Cubs still look worse if you adjust for that”
Yes.
Yeah, though there’s no significance test here, it looks like Cubs vs. Power might be a real effect. Not as big as the “Mets have good pitchers effect,” but a real effect, nonetheless.
how far off are the cubs from the rest of the league in how they do against hard throwers?
like you said…”while everyone is much, much worse against power pitchers”
can we quantify how much worse the cubs are vs the rest of the league?
geez…that’s what i get for forgetting to submit the comment… brent beat me to this point.
oh…and this article…
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-mets-are-following-the-kyle-schwarber-trend/
“The Cubs, this year, had the second-best slugging percentage in the league against fastballs 96+”
Question: What is SLG (or OBP or BA or OPS) against a “pitch?” Is that when it is put into play? I am always confused when it comes to stats on individual pitches and of course they are worthless without including balls and strikes.
Hey New Yorkers congrats on being up 2-0. But stop drinking your own Kool-aide. The Cubs pitchers led the NL in strikeouts not the Mets. In fact, they set a new league strike out record. The Mets have struck out 20 Cubs in the NLCS. The Cubs have struck out 18 and the Mets had 2 less turns at bat. If 20 strike outs are great for Met pitchers why isn’t 18 great for Cub pitchers. Lester and Arrietta didn’t even have their A stuff and to listen to Mets fans and the media no pitchers in the history of game pitched better than Dark Knight and Thor – by the way, what are you 12 years old? What does Batman and the God of Thunder have to do with pitching a baseball. You’re ahead because Murphy is hitting miracle fluke homer runs. He has never had 5 games like this in his life and never will again. The game accommodates guys playing out of their minds which is fair but at least have enough awareness to understand why you are winning.
Sour grapes, huh?
A few points:
1) The Mets pitching staff during the regular season isn’t the same as the playoff rotation, so team-wide strikeout totals are irrelevant. In case you haven’t noticed, Jonathan Niese and Bartolo Colon aren’t starting playoff games.
2) You do realize that the Mets’ wRC+ as a lineup is more than 10 points higher than the Cubs, right? Talk all you want about Murphy, the Mets lineup is better up and down the order.
I might print this and put it on my wall.
Hey Njujorska 2-0 Happi pond. But Kool-Aid drinking stopped. The Mets led the NL in the fight against promaljaje not the Mets. In fact, they set a new record for the attacks. The Mets are 20 bears in the CNP. Panda’s 18 and the Mets twice a week for at least another guest. 20 If Pierre is ideal for the blind mice Matt why don’t 18 Super Cub pitcher. Lester and his things I hear Arrieta and Mets fans and the media that do not have a pitcher in the history of the stations games better than the Dark Knight and Tor-by the way, are you 12 years old? What is God’s Batman and Thunder-it has something to do with throwing a baseball. You are in a less favourable position because Murphy Hit Vonders luck Run Homer. 5 game like this in my life and I didn’t miss. Players game prompts their minds, what is right, but at least you have enough sense to understand why you are winning.
Said by the guy whose team went home run crazy against a depleted pitching staff in the LDS.
If you don’t understand what I am getting at, I’m saying the Cubs and their fan did the same thing in the LDS that you are complaining about the Mets and their fans in the LCS.
Here’s the best thing I have ever read about people complaining about their problems or a situation: 20% don’t care and 80% are glad you have those problems or are in that situation.
Every team is lucky, except the Cubs … oh wait, they’re unlucky. Damn it all to hell.
The Mets record is the Mets record. All this disavowing the the first half of the season. The Mets had their starters all year and the Cubs flat out beat them 0-7. The Mets won 12 straight to start the season but no Met fan disavows that. Virtually very contender improved in the second half. The Mets played in the Weak East and they have a couple of fluke NLCS wins in freezing weather. It will be good enough to get you to WS but for love of God stop all this ridiculous NY Trump style “we have the best everything” silliness.the Cubs staff has the best pitching numbers across the playoffs thus far but the Mets have the wins and that’s all that counts. The rest is just NY BS.
Cub fans are just getting back what they put out in the LDS.
No sympathy from the rest of the world.
Judging from all of your comments here and elsewhere, sure looks like sour grapes from you as well, CircleChange11.
First of all “sour grapes” refers to diminishing a goal or objective by saying one does not value the objective or goal when it becomes clearly unattainable. Cubs fans would still very much like to go to the World Series. So it is not a matter of sour grapes. It is simply a matter of being factual.
The shortcoming that is being pointed out to Met fans is the overblown claims about Met pitching. The Mets are up 2 games because of their little known – and deservedly so – second baseman not because their pitching is other worldly. We’re on a website that deals with the objective assessment of baseball performance, so let’s be objective.
Murphy is fluke but that’s okay. Be happy you are on the right side of a fluke and leave it at that. How big of fluke – a giant massive world consuming fluke:
According to the data mined from PITCHF/x via Baseball Savant, major-league hitters swung at 14,318 pitches that were as low or lower than Arrieta’s curveball to Murphy. Seventy-four percent of the time, they swung and missed, because simply putting the bat on the ball down there is difficult. Sixteen percent of the time, they fouled the ball off. Only 10 percent of swings — 1,457 to be exact — ended up resulting in a ball in play.
So it’s rare enough to take a pitch that low and hit it fair, but Murphy didn’t hit it, he elevated it. And that’s pretty amazing too.
Of the 1,457 balls in play on swings at pitches no higher than 12.76 inches off the ground, 73 percent resulted in ground balls. Even hitters who made contact at swings in these locations almost always hit it on the infield, which makes perfect sense given how low these pitches are. Only 12 percent of balls in play on these low swings resulted in a fly ball or a popup, and that’s 12 percent of the subset of swings that put the ball in play to begin with. As a percentage of total swings at pitches that low, only 1.2 percent resulted in a fly ball or pop fly.