Jake Arrieta Is Probably Okay

Last night, the Cubs saw their ace, Jake Arrieta, give up four runs in five innings in their Game Two loss to the Mets. Given how recently he seemed completely impossible to hit, it was bit jarring to see Arrieta struggle, and multiple observers noted during the game that his velocity appeared to be down from what he was throwing during the regular season. Jesse Rogers post-game recap on ESPN was even headlined “Jake Arrieta’s velocity dip spelled doom for Cubs…”

In discussing the issue with various Cubs after the game, Rogers noted that Joe Maddon saw it as well.

“In the game there, if that [radar] gun was correct on the field, he might have been down a mile an hour or two, that’s what I saw,” Cubs skipper Joe Maddon said. “And when that happens, the breaker, the commitment to the breaking ball is not as definite from the hitter’s perspective, because they’re able to see everything better.”

Arrieta himself noted that he knew his stuff wasn’t as good.

“I knew the high-end velocity wasn’t necessarily there tonight,” he said. “Threw quite a few changeups to offset that.”

He’s not kidding. After throwing just one change-up total in his previous two postseason starts, Arrieta fired off 10 change-ups against the Mets last night. The change-up isn’t a pitch he features much, as only about 5% of his total pitches this year were changeups. The fact that 11% of the pitches he threw were change-ups last night does suggest he didn’t trust his normal repertoire as much, and was looking for ways to get outs without his best stuff.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Including the postseason, Arrieta has now thrown 249 innings, so it’s natural to think that perhaps he’s wearing down after carrying a very heavy workload. And any time there’s a decline in velocity, it’s easy to jump to conclusions, especially if the results are worse than you’d expect as well. But, in this case, I wouldn’t be too quick to conclude that last night was proof that Arrieta is wearing down.

Most importantly, there’s the weather to consider. It was cold in New York this weekend, and game time temperature was just 45 degrees. As Mike Fast (among others) has previously shown, there is a very strong link between velocity and temperature.

fastball_speed_vs_temperature

Fast noted that his research showed a one mph difference in fastball speed for every 37 degree change in game-time temperature. Obviously, there hasn’t been that large of a difference in temperature between his last two starts, but game-time temperature was 68 degrees in Pittsburgh when Arrieta shut down the Pirates, and 73 degrees in Chicago for his start against the Cardinals. The game over game temperature decline from Arrieta’s last start was 28 degrees, so we probably shouldn’t be too surprised that his velocity was down relative to the last time he was on the mound.

Indeed, per Brooks Baseball, Noah Syndergaard’s velocity was also down last night, though not quite as visibly. In his start against the Dodgers, the Mets young flamethrower averaged 98.7 with his fastabll; last night, he averaged 98.3. The drop was a bit more noticeable on his curveball, when went from 82.4 to 81.2. Syndergaard was still throwing very hard last night, but the cold weather did seem to bring his velocity back down to earth a little bit as well.

So part of the velocity decline can be credited to the weather. And some of it is likely just random variation. While fastball speed is something that stabilizes very quickly, pitchers don’t throw precisely as hard in every single start all season long. In fact, Arrieta has already had a few big velocity declines like this earlier in the year.

On July 2nd, in a start against the Mets, Brooks’ recorded Arrieta’s sinker at an average of 97.2 mph. In his outing against the Cardinals five days later, it was just 95.2. Same thing in September; 96.6 against the Diamondbacks, then 94.7 against the Phillies. While Arrieta’s sinker velocity last night was his lowest of the season, a two mph drop from game to game isn’t unprecedented for him, and in each of the previous cases where he saw a big drop, he continued to pitch well and regained his velocity in subsequent starts.

And speaking of pitching well, it should probably be noted that he threw the ball far better than four runs allowed in five innings would suggest.

On the night, Arrieta faced 21 batters, and only six of them reached base, a .285 OBP allowed, and one of those six came when Joe Maddon ordered an intentional walk of Daniel Murphy. Ignoring the intentional walk, batters who swung the bat against Arrieta got on base at a .250 clip against him, only a few ticks north of the .236 OBP he allowed during the regular season. It’s not like he was constantly pitching out of trouble.

And he struck out 38% of the batters, so, even without his best stuff, it’s not like the Mets were consistently making contact against him. In reality, Arrieta started the game with two very poorly located pitches to Curtis Granderson and David Wright, and then Daniel Murphy hit a highly improbable home run on a curveball that was nearly in the dirt. Murphy didn’t exactly crush it, and to any other part of the ballpark, it’s a flyout, but because he hooked it right down the line, Arrieta ended up giving up three runs before he recorded an out.

But after that, he set down six straight, including four strikeouts, and then gave up his fourth run when a walk was followed by a couple of stolen bases and a single. This is one of those days when a 7.20 ERA doesn’t tell the story. If Arrieta had spread out his mistakes over his five innings of work instead of bundling them into the first and third innings, he probably only gives up a run or two. While he didn’t have his best stuff, the Mets only put up four runs against him because they were able to sequence their positive events in the most effective order possible.

Maybe some of that was because Arrieta didn’t have his best fastball last night, but more likely, that’s just baseball. It happens.

We can say that Arrieta didn’t have his best stuff last night. We can say that Arrieta gave up four runs last night. Both of those things are true. But I don’t know that we can connect those two facts that easily, and it’s probably an overstatement to say that Arrieta’s missing velocity doomed the Cubs in Game Two. Daniel Murphy hitting a ridiculous home run, and the Mets pitching staff being really freaking good are probably more of an accurate story to be telling this morning.

If Arrieta gets another chance to pitch in this series, it’s probably wise to bet on him both throwing harder and getting better results than he did last night. One start with a velocity dip (on a very cold night) where the opponents strung their hits together probably isn’t enough reason to get really worried about Jake Arrieta.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

88 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
JCA CPA CA
10 years ago

Game would’ve looked pretty different had that improbale home run happened. He’s fineeee

Also, when did you change your tag line to Managing Editor of Fangraphs? Congrats

Andrew
10 years ago
Reply to  JCA CPA CA

Game would’ve looked different without the Murphy dinger? True.

Similarly, as the old saying goes: if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

The Point
10 years ago
Reply to  Andrew

You’ve missed me, Andrew.

Phillies113
10 years ago

Is the dip in velocity in cold weather related to just the physics of pitching in cold weather, or is it more to do with the personal comfort level of the pitcher himself? It was noted that Arrieta was pitching without long sleeves last night; would he have been ever (ever!) so slightly more effective had he been more comfortable?

Also worth noting, even if Arrieta pitched better, it’s hard to win games when your offense only gives you 1 run all night. Syndergaard was dealing last night.

Harriet
10 years ago
Reply to  Phillies113

You’d have to think he chose short sleeves because he’s more comfortable being cold than having something on his arms; it’s not like something stopped him from being warmer, if that’s what he wanted.

CircleChange11
10 years ago
Reply to  Harriet

I pitched in college in the Chicagoland area.

We refused to wear sleeves, basically just to show the other team we weren’t cold and could tough it out.

Then … we’d come in the dugout and do whatever we could to warm up.

IMHO, the real effect of the cold is that once in a while the ball would slip out of your hand because it would be difficult to keep the grip in your fingers and the ball gets slick (I reworded that sentence like 5 times, and it still sounds funny).

CubsTime
10 years ago

Okay?! Jake Arrieta is the best pitcher in the universe. He was the Ace of the 2015 BaseRuns champion Chicago Cubs. For you to call him “probably okay” is an embarassment to this website, Dave. He is amazing, not “probably okay”

Clock
10 years ago
Reply to  CubsTime

you’re “probably okay”

Roger
10 years ago
Reply to  Clock

Not so sure about that

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
10 years ago
Reply to  Roger

And if?! Jake Arrieta was better broom in svoem. It was the 2015 Champion Chicago Cubs BaseRuns. Called “probably OK” to humiliation found on this site, Dave. This is a big step, “maybe wrong”

A bored readership
10 years ago
Reply to  CubsTime

florida wrong troll, is that you?

borigh
10 years ago
Reply to  CubsTime

I’m assuming you’re being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in this response, since that’s obviously not what Dave was talking about. So, in the spirit of playfulness, I’ve got to ask:

After winning that BaseRuns Championship, did you guys hold a parade, or just collect the trophy?

Dovif
10 years ago
Reply to  borigh

Only trophy Chicago got the last 100 and next 100 years

King of the Byelorussian Square Dancers
10 years ago
Reply to  CubsTime

“probably okay” is content-less phrasing, it conveys a mild-to-negligible assertion about an unspecified subject.

Had the headline been “Jake Arrieta was not Tired, probably; Blame Cold, Baseball, Mets and Daniel Murphy” then CubsTime’s panties would remain unbunched, maybe.

Snarfle
10 years ago
Reply to  CubsTime

Setting the over/under on words read of actual article at 30. You’d think this would be the exact article CubsTime would want to read. Ambiguity over the use of the word “okay” seems to be the issue here. May have been alleviated by reading the article. Still, 30 words isn’t a lot. Tough call.

JK
10 years ago
Reply to  Snarfle

I was thinking of offering under 25.5 words at -130.

CubsTime
10 years ago
Reply to  CubsTime

Imposter. But what is true is that Arrieta has just had and unlucky couple of starts. The home run by Heyward was a fluke (sullivan posted about it) and so was the Murphey home run. Both were on pitches that batters normally miss and both barely got out.

Arrieta should be 3-0 this postseason.

Dovif
10 years ago
Reply to  CubsTime

And the cobs should be 168-0 this year … I get u

Snarfle
10 years ago
Reply to  CubsTime

Could be 3-0, sure, but should be? I dunno. The Murphy homer was both 1. impossible to expect and 2. a great piece of hitting. Sometimes great hitting beats great pitching. I’m sure there were pitches the Mets “should” have smacked for hits and did not. Anyway, time for me to stop negotiating with the excesses of your fandom. Let’s go enjoy the rest of the series, shall we?

Ky
10 years ago

“the Mets only put up four runs against him because they were able to sequence their positive events in the most effective order possible.”

This is how the pundits justify their predictions looking so terrible? Before the series, all everyone talked about was the Cubs, and now they’re down 2-0 and we have more articles about the Cubs’ errors and Mets’ luck than about the Mets simply being the dominate team. Young pitching always beats young hitting, especially when the young hitting is smoke and mirrors and the pitching is the real deal. Looking forward to sweeping the Royals next. #LGM

Brian
10 years ago
Reply to  Ky

Oh Jesus, you sound as bad and as cocky as Cubs fans. As for “young pitching always beats young hitting” – provably false. Should be amended to “young pitching sometimes beats young hitting, and vice versa.”

Roger
10 years ago
Reply to  Brian

Bad commenting always beats no moderating

Roger
10 years ago
Reply to  Roger

Or as Casey Stengel once said, you have to have a moderator, because if you don’t you have a lot of passed trolls.

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
10 years ago
Reply to  Roger

“Mate in four points against them, because they are positive series of events as the most efficient way possible.”
This is how scientists are trying to justify the terrible prognosis? Before the line, everyone is talking about the Cubs, are now 2-0 and we have service deficiencies in despair and happiness for the Mets Mets than just the dominant team. Young throws better than the old, impressive, especially when you hit the Smoke and Mirrors, and the attack is the real thing. I look forward to continuing to sweep royalty. # LGM

KG
10 years ago
Reply to  Ky

Explain how the Cubs offense is smoke and mirrors? Is it the home runs? Because the Mets are benefiting greatly from a guy who averages about 10 homers a year hitting 5(!) in 7 postseason games. I love the Mets staff, but to call a solid young lineup “smoke and mirrors” is baseball ignorance.

borigh
10 years ago
Reply to  Ky

What are you talking about? On this very sight, I saw at least Jeff say he thought the Mets were slight favorites – on the basis of article somewhere around here analyzing the playoff teams’ rosters, in which the Mets ranked 2nd (after the Dodgers).

If you’re annoyed that someone outside of fan graphs picked the Cubs, don’t take it out on FanGraphs. (By the way, I’m also a huge Mets fan – people have definitely been talking about ‘our’ pitchers.)

borigh
10 years ago
Reply to  borigh

*on this very site*

Alice Cooper
10 years ago
Reply to  Ky

Especially since Jake Arrieta put up those great second half numbers on sequencing as equally as fluky in the opposite direction.

Sometimes Lady Luck comes back to bite you in the ass, Cubs.

Otter
10 years ago
Reply to  Alice Cooper

I agree with Dave, Arrieta’s probably totally fine. But agree that his luck was due to end at some point. Arrieta’s second half was built on a .205 BABIP, 88.2% LOB%, and HR/FB of 4.5%. No one can sustain that a for a long time.

Arrieta’s still great. That hasn’t changed. Just a bad time for regression to kind of, sort of happen.

Hashtag Pundit
10 years ago
Reply to  Ky

I don’t think you know how hashtags work.

Andrew
10 years ago
Reply to  Ky

I hope you realize that most writers actually had the Mets favored. And the predictions at Fangraphs had them favored too. I don’t think anyone expected the game last night to be so one-sided because the Cubs are still a good team, but just about everyone had the Mets with a slight edge on the Cubs.

Damaso
10 years ago
Reply to  Ky

There goes that sweep, shitsnaps!

Gerry Tallman
10 years ago

I really don’t like the fact that playoff baseball (in particular the north east US) has temperatures so cold. These are the most important games of the season and (bad/cold) weather has become one of the biggest factors in them.

vivalajeter
10 years ago
Reply to  Gerry Tallman

I saw a great post on twitter, maybe from David Laurila, about the scheduling absurdity. The Jays play in a dome, and it’s a day game. The Cubs are playing in a cold weather city, outdoors, and it’s a night game. Makes no sense, aside from TV Ratings.

Terry Gilliam
10 years ago
Reply to  Gerry Tallman

There’s the television. It’s all right there – all right there. Look, listen, kneel, pray. Commercials! We’re not productive anymore. We don’t make things anymore. It’s all automated. What are we *for* then? We’re consumers, Jim. Yeah. Okay, okay. Buy a lot of stuff, you’re a good citizen. But if you don’t buy a lot of stuff, if you don’t, what are you then, I ask you? What? Mentally *ill*. Fact, Jim, fact – if you don’t buy things – toilet paper, new cars, computerized yo-yos, electrically-operated sexual devices, stereo systems with brain-implanted headphones, screwdrivers with miniature built-in radar devices, voice-activated computers…

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
10 years ago
Reply to  Terry Gilliam

This is TV. It’s all right there at all. Look, listen, time koleva, please. Advertisements! We inefficient. We did nothing. It’s all automatic. What do we do now? We potroljaii, Jim. Yes. OK then. Bui much, you’re a good citizen. But if you do not pay for many things, if not, what are you, then, please? Something? Mental * * II. In fact, Jim, if you all do not buy things – new car toilet paper, io-io, distribution equipment electrical sexual computers, stereo headphones with a brain, a computer with a small screwdriver, voice …

CircleChange11
10 years ago
Reply to  Gerry Tallman

It’s absurd. I recall thinking that in 2006, watching Placido Polanco play 2B in Michigan in November.

tz
10 years ago
Reply to  CircleChange11

Wasn’t that the year the Tigers pitching staff had like a .700 fielding percentage in the WS? I think the cold, plus all the days off, makes postseason baseball a different breed of ball.

JK
10 years ago
Reply to  Gerry Tallman

And the Stanley Cup Final is played in June.

The Secret Life of Arrieta
10 years ago

“If Arrieta had spread out his mistakes over his five innings of work instead of bundling them into the first and third innings, he probably only gives up a run or two.” This applies to 60% of MLB pitchers, no? Also, somehow avoiding “bunching them” during the regular season (which some might call a bit o’ luck, yes?) led to his freakish success. I know he’s a very good pitcher, but c’mon.

Ghibli
10 years ago

That is the titular point of this article.

Too Much Tuna
10 years ago
Reply to  Ghibli

**Snicker** You said point.

Andrew
10 years ago

Right, exactly. This start is not indicative of anything. What we know is that no one can do what Arrieta did over the second half, except he did it. And yesterday he didn’t. At a certain level, that’s the best our analysis can do. There are a million reasons why Arrieta shouldn’t have been this good–LOB%, BABIP, HR/FB% are just a few. But he was that good. And yesterday is not a reason he can’t still be that good.

swingofthings
10 years ago

Just as sequencing and other factors like BABIP fell dramatically in Jake’s favor for at least the second half of the year, they did the exact opposite yesterday. The truth is, go figure, somewhere between a 1.77 ERA and a 7+ ERA.

chuckb
10 years ago

Hence, why he’s probably ok.

I know you’re a very good reader, but c’mon.

CK
10 years ago

Also have to mention that Murphy should’ve been called out on the checked swing that was really strike 3 before hitting the HR. The same ump at 3rd called a strike on Schwarber’s check swing in the 1st inning that looked the same to me. And Montero’s check swing in the 2nd inning that was about 1/4 swing and no where near a strike.

Z
10 years ago
Reply to  CK

Murphy was also about 10 feet from hitting a homer earlier in the at bat. It’s a of a stretch to say Arrieta only made a couple “mistakes” and then had one fluke HR happen.

CK
10 years ago
Reply to  Z

His pitch to Murphy hit for a HR wasn’t a mistake pitch. That was an amazing hit by Murphy. Who does that? My point was that he shouldn’t have even had to make the pitch. If called correctly, Murphy would’ve been called out for swinging at strike 3.

vivalajeter
10 years ago
Reply to  CK

I just watched a replay, and they didn’t show the side angle. They didn’t show any chirping from the bench either. What makes you think it should have been called a strike?

joecoolps
10 years ago

It’s not rocket sugery, take Arrieta out after the first inning and throw him in game 3. It’s one thing to lose, but another to lose and use up arrieta.

Borigh
10 years ago
Reply to  joecoolps

I might be wrong, but I think the Cubs weren’t aware of their inevitable defeat after the first inning.

Depending on win expectancy, maybe they should’ve been, but no manager is ever actually doing that, down 3 after 1.

Borigh
10 years ago
Reply to  Borigh

Ah… Rocket surgery.

Gotcha. Jokes.

CircleChange11
10 years ago
Reply to  Borigh

I might be wrong, but I think the Cubs weren’t aware of their inevitable defeat after the first inning.

If they weren’t, they should have been. =)

Dave R.
10 years ago

I have a question about Arrieta that I’m surprise hadn’t been addressed. I thought, going into the game, that the Mets had a chance to hit him, just as the Cardinals had, because Arrieta had been benefiting from what appeared to be a very good streak of lucky, namely a BABIP over August and September that were very low, under .200. Before that, he had been a good but not great pitcher. So, as a Mets fan, I held out some hope that his “luck,” if that’s what it was, would run out. Although a gambler would have been inclined to keep betting on Arrieta’s streak.

I thought that played out Sunday in what was, admittedly, a small sample size. The Mets’ BABIP against Arrieta was .300 (3 for 10); if not for Cespedis’ groundball hit (bad luck for Arrieta, good luck for the Mets), they would’ve been 2 for 20 (.200), closer to Arrieta’s August and September numbers. So, that little difference in BABIP cost him a run.

Am I looking at Arrieta’s August and September numbers accurately? Was his BABIP for those months unsustainable? Granted, he also limited home runs.

steex
10 years ago
Reply to  Dave R.

“Although a gambler would have been inclined to keep betting on Arrieta’s streak.”

A knowledgeable gambler wouldn’t bet based on that at all. What you describe in your comment is gambler’s fallacy (i.e., the idea of betting on black because there have recently been a lot of reds), something a gambler wouldn’t do. However, a knowledgeable gambler also wouldn’t bet on a streak (i.e., betting red because there have recently been a lot of reds).

What a knowledgeable gambler WOULD do is bet based on all of the information available. If there is an observable long-term trend of a roulette wheel hitting red more often than black, he would bet red on the suspicion that the wheel has some kind of mechanical inconsistency causing that to happen.

Similarly, a bettor believing that Arrieta has improved his skills rather than lucking into his improved performance may bet accordingly. Someone who doesn’t believe Arrieta has the underlying skills to perform as well as he had the last few months would bet based on expected performance rather than predicting a terrible performance to counterbalance his recent excellence.

Dave R.
10 years ago
Reply to  steex

Okay, so let’s ignore that gambler comment of mine, even though I’d argue that there’s a big difference between betting on a game of skill (baseball) and a game of chance (roulette).

How about the rest of the observation? Is there any way Arrieta improved from the first four months of the season to the last two months to the point where he could decrease his BABIP by over 70 points. Was there any way that was sustainable?

And is this relevant?

steex
10 years ago
Reply to  Dave R.

I may have misinterpreted your original comment in my first response, so apologies for that. For some reason I interpreted it to be suggesting that he was due for some terrible starts to make up for earlier great starts, but upon re-reading, I don’t think that’s what you were saying (and thus wouldn’t be gambler’s fallacy anyhow).

At any rate, I do think it’s reasonable to say that his true skill isn’t the way he performed in August/September, so it would be perfectly sensible to expect him to perform at his true talent level rather than at an unsustainable level previously shown.

jpg
10 years ago
Reply to  steex

This is wrong on so many levels. One of the tenets of gambling is to NEVER bet against a streak or trend. Dave R is right that a smart gambler would bet on Arrieta to dominate on a start-to-start basis. Same with a football team that starts the year 7-0 against the spread. Gamblers are going to ride it until it’s broken. The logic is that it’s much more difficult to pinpoint when the streak is going to end. And gambler’s fallacy absolutely doesn’t apply in this case. We’re not talking about the 50/50 odds of flipping coins or red/black on a craps table. We’re talking about a Arrieta, a human being pitching baseballs in a sport where there are countless vaiables at play.

steex
10 years ago
Reply to  jpg

As noted above, I believe I misinterpreted the comment. However, gambler’s fallacy does not apply only to 50/50 games and absolutely could apply in this case. The fallacy is simply the belief that something happening more than expected now means it will happen less than expected in the future or vice versa. If someone is suggesting that Arrieta is due for a bad start because he’s had a bunch of great starts (as I misinterpreted Dave R.), that would be gambler’s fallacy.

A smart bettor does not bet according to streaks. They may very well bet a team that has some kind of streak going due to their analysis or an identified skill. Your example of a team going 7-0 against the spread may very well reveal a repeatable “skill” of sorts (or possibly misjudging of that team’s ability by the betting public and/or oddsmaker), and you bet it for that reason, but not solely because it is a streak.

Likewise, if one were to bet on Arrieta to dominate, it would be because he thinks Arrieta skill makes him likely to dominate in that start. That may be the same skill that made him dominate in successive starts leading up to the game in question, but the bet will not be placed because he dominated in those other starts.

jpg
10 years ago
Reply to  jpg

Well my comment was based on Dave R.’s original response and your initial reply. That’s why I mentioned that the gambler’s fallacy was incorrectly applied, which you addressed in your second comment. And smart bettors absolutely base bets on streaks. Obviously not all streaks are created equally. Some are a product of team/player skill. Some are more based on luck. But I can pretty much guarantee that smart gamblers were betting heavily on the Cubs on days Arrieta was pitching down the stretch rather than betting heavily against him because “he was due to lose”. That happens to be what Dave R. touched on in his original comment and he was absolutely right.

steex
10 years ago
Reply to  jpg

Makes sense, sorry for the confusion.

What I was struggling to elucidate is that smart bettors really only incidentally bet on streaks, in a sense. It would be ridiculous to bet against Arrieta because he was due to lose. However, it’s really betting on Arrieta because the underlying skills suggest he’s very good, which would’ve been true even if he got completely lit up in his previous outing. It just so happens that the skills that make him very good also made him have a fantastic streak.

Dave R.
10 years ago
Reply to  jpg

Thanks for your replies, but I’m kind of regretting making the gambler comment because it overshadowed my original question, which I guess could be put this way: Was Arrieta, based on opposing BABIP for August and September, riding a lucky streak? If so (and it seems likely), it was due to end, although guessing when it would end would have been risky business.

cornflake5000
10 years ago

As a Cubs fan, I do wonder if he’s starting to tire out. He shut out the Pirates, but did have some shaky moments. He gave up four runs in less than 6 innings to the Cards, but won. He had that incredible run, but it looks like he’s starting to regress. I hope he’s got more left in the tank, but this season’s been a fun ride. Thanks Jake!

chuckb
10 years ago
Reply to  cornflake5000

He’s thrown a lot of innings, so it’s not implausible that he’s getting worn out, but the wind was blowing out at about 93 mph in that game against the Cardinals.

Noah BaronMember since 2016
10 years ago

The biggest misconception about this whole series is that the Cubs have a better offense than the Mets.

If anyone bothered to take a quick look at each team’s lineup it becomes quite obvious that the Mets offense is far superior. They have 6 hitters (Grandy, Wright, Duda, Cespedes, d’Arnaud, Conforto) with wRC+’s exceeding 130 on the season. And that doesn’t even include Daniel Murphy (at 110)! Finally Flores has a 95 wRC+.

The Cubs, meanwhile, have 3 hitters with wRC+’s exceeding 130 (Rizzo, Bryant, Schwarber). Then they have a few decent hitters in the 100-110 range (Fowler, Soler, Montero). And then they have Castro, who’s pretty similar to Flores offensively. Finally they have Baez, who is a pretty dreadful offensive player because of his strikeouts.

It’s hard to see how any analytical person thinks the Cubs have a better offense, unless you haven’t paid attention to the Mets since July.

In my opinion the two teams’ pitching is actually a lot closer than their offenses.

CircleChange11
10 years ago
Reply to  Noah Baron

This post makes a lot of sense.

It’s also based heavily on facts.

I like it.

I agree as well. The narrative coming in (and one that I repeated in social media to my cub fan friends), was the young flamethrowers of NYM versus the Young Sluggers of CHC.

I, personally, had no idea the Mets offense was that much better than the Cubs. That’s on me.

Concerned Reader John
10 years ago
Reply to  Noah Baron

I think labels tend to stick. During the first half the Mets offense was very bad – wRC+ of 85. As a result, people began to discuss how the Mets were contending in spite of their offense. But in the second half, the Mets offense has been great – with a wRC+ of 114. It can be difficult for people to believe that their offense could have proved so dramatically with a few moves and a bit of health. It’s also possible people still aren’t totally convinced the offense is real – that it’s small sample size theater. The truth is I don’t know, but those are two possible explanations.

David K
10 years ago
Reply to  Noah Baron

One might argue that the Mets may have inflated some of these stats with more games against weaker NL East foes than the Cubs had in their tougher NL Central division.

jpg
10 years ago
Reply to  Noah Baron

The Mets offense is better but “far superior” is a bit of a stretch.

Full Season Non-Pitchers

Mets: .249/.319/.412, wOBA .317, wRC+ 105
Cubs: .253/.332/.415, wOBA .325, wRC+ 104

Pretty even. But as we all know, the Mets full season numbers are misleading. For one, they were dragged down by the fact that they were a historically bad offensive team in the first half mostly because the likes Plawecki, Mayberry and Campbell were getting everyday at bats while guys like Wright and d’Arnaud were on the mend. They had a pretty awful bench too. Then there’s the additions of Johnson, Uribe and Cespedes via trade, Conforto from the minors and Wright and d”arnaud from the DL. So we’re looking at a drastically different team. So…

2nd Half Non-Pitchers

Mets: .264/.336/.459, wOBA .341, wRC+ 121
Cubs: .259/.339/.443, wOBA .338, wRC+ 113

I’d say that’s small but clear edge for the Mets. Both teams had top five or so offenses in the second half. The Mets were by pretty much any calculation the best non Blue Jays offense in the second half. But at the same time a half season sample isn’t the biggest.

All in all though, you’re right. Like CircleChange11 says, the narrative doesn’t match reality. The Cubs, at best, are almost as good on offense as the Mets.

Concerned Reader John
10 years ago
Reply to  jpg

Curious as to why you chose to use non-pitching statistics when comparing two National League squads?

jpg
10 years ago

Because the pitcher hitting stats aren’t really relevant right now. Hendricks, because he’ll have a short leash, may not even get an at bat in tomorrow’s game.

Z
10 years ago

It’s probably at least worth mentioning that the Mets pitchers are relatively good hitters, though.

Even if they’re going to get maybe 15 ab’s in the series.

Concerned Reader John
10 years ago

Starting pitchers still get about 2 PAs in the postseason, just like the regular season. Hendricks got 2 PAs in his last start and had 64 PAs in 32 starts. I think it’s probably preferable to include the pitchers.

Hurtlocker
10 years ago

Arrieta has thrown 100 more innings this year than any other year, likely he is tired.

swingofthings
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

The entire point of this article was to present an alternative explanation to that, and it concluded that there isn’t really strong evidence that he IS tired. He might be, but that’s an assumption right now.

Only GLove, No Love
10 years ago
Reply to  swingofthings

And he was sub recent par in his last start against the Cards. And in the post game interview after the WC game I am pretty sure he mentioned being either tired or a little off…

Are there no fans of Occam here?

Small sample size madness
10 years ago

Please stop quoting K% and OBP on a 1 game sample, or a 5IP sample. This would be ridiculous “analysis” for ESPN, yet alone a SABR site. Using this data to suggest his performance was inline with the rest of the year is not statistical analysis.

Also if using Syndergaard as a comparison point, it’s probably worth mentioning he was working on 2 days rest.

David K
10 years ago

“Also if using Syndergaard as a comparison point, it’s probably worth mentioning he was working on 2 days rest.” — are you referring to the ONE INNING he threw in relief 3 days earlier that was probably his “throw on the side day” anyway?

Small sample size madness
10 years ago
Reply to  David K

Yes… you know the game where he warmed up four times and reportedly threw 80-100 pitches from the 2nd inning on between the pen and the game.

Or do pitches in the game only count now?

Ollie
10 years ago

Threw 50 or so actual pitches. People reported the number of times he threw the ball as around 100 but that included just tossing/playing catch.

swingofthings
10 years ago

It certainly is analysis. Arrieta did the things he’s done all year yesterday. Just because it’s a small sample doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It doesn’t hold much predictive value but it certainly suggests (not proves, suggests) that his real performance was not that off.

The Orioles
10 years ago

Now THAT’S the Jake we remember! Complete meltdown with runners on base, cruising with the bases empty.
We’ve missed you, buddy!

Jake Arrieta's FIP
10 years ago
Reply to  The Orioles

I remember all those years of looking up at Arrieta’s ERA. Been a while.

JK
10 years ago

All one of those years, eh? Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

Jake Arrieta's FIP
10 years ago
Reply to  JK

Sorry. xFIP. 3 years.

RadermecherMember since 2018
10 years ago

Welcome back to the real world cub fans.

Mark Davidson
10 years ago

This comment section is exhausting.