Pitch Location & Groundballs

Last week Baseball Analysts published my article Generalities in Pitch Location, which led Tangotiger to ask the following question:

“…how often does Brandon Webb and his brothers get a GB on balls thrown down and balls thrown up the zone. That is, are they “true” groundball pitchers, who can get batters to hit the ball on the ground, because they can. Or, are they groundball pitchers, as a byproduct of them throwing the ball low?”

First let’s take a look at ground ball percentage by pitch location on a major league level.

MLB GBP Location.png

I don’t think there are too many surprises here. The lower the pitch, the greater the chance that it will be hit on the ground. So, let’s look at what Brandon Webb‘s (extreme groundball pitcher) chart looked like the past two season, compared to say Barry Zito’s (extreme fly ball pitcher).

Webb GBP Location.png

Starting with Webb, we can see that no matter where he throws the ball, there’s a pretty good chance it will end up being a groundball. Zito on the other hand, will have a greater chance of inducing a fly ball despite the location of the pitch.

Zito GBP Location.png

Now if you were to calculate a so called, “expected” groundball percentage based on the pitch locations of balls hit into play for a particular player and the league average groundball percentage for that particular pitch location, you’d see that Webb has an expected GB% of about 48%, while Zito’s is 44%.

All in all, a pretty similar “expected” groundball percentage based on pitch location and major league averages, but in reality the two couldn’t be further apart. Webb’s actual GB% the past two years is about 66% with Zito’s being around 39%.

It would seem, at least in the case of these two pitchers, that their ability (or lack there of) to induce groundballs is not entirely a function of where they throws the ball, but probably reliant on several other factors.

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.




David Appelman is the creator of FanGraphs.

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
missionhockey21
19 years ago

I would tend to agree with your last statement. If inducing the groundball was as simple as targeting specific locations, then baseball would be a much simpler game to figure out as a pitcher. A pitcher with the kind of godly GB/FB that Webb shows also shows through his charts (and just any viewing of him actually pitching), that he can break the taboo often times with getting away with a pitch higher in the zone for various factors be it more knowledge of the hitter he’s facing, pitch selection plus pitch location, velocity, etc to more often see a bouncer or a roller than the average pitcher.

With these being two very good pitchers, I wonder if there is anymore of a visible impact for pitchers of a lower success rate. Such as Mark Mulder who is peripherals aren’t near as good as Wood’s for his last successful year in 2005 where he posted a GB/FB close to 2.80 IIRC. Obviously he isn’t on the same level as Wood in his ability to induce the grounder (especially since that was quite a spike from his career average), but there is a difference of talent there and I wonder if it would be more apparent for him.

Either way, interesting article David.