The Consistently Inconsistent Ricky Nolasco
There are few pitchers in baseball as interesting (or, if you’re a Marlins fan, frustrating) as Ricky Nolasco. Consider this fluky little statistic, for instance:
2008, K/BB ratio: 4.43
2009, K/BB ratio: 4.43
2010, K/BB ratio: 4.43
Based on that, we’d like to call him Mr. Consistency. Except, if you’ve watched him pitch, he’s been anything but. In 2008, he was pretty darn good, throwing 212 innings and posting a 3.52 ERA in a breakout season. While he sustained most of his underlying performance last year, his ERA shot up to 5.06, as his BABIP rose to .336 and his LOB% was a crazy low 61%. Most of us had him pegged for a bounceback year, as his luck was bound to improve, but it hasn’t been the full return to form we expected. His BABIP is still .324 and now he’s giving up more HR/FB too, so his ERA (4.66) once again doesn’t come close to his xFIP (3.73).
Despite having good stuff and strong peripherals, he’s more Javier Vazquez than Roy Oswalt at this point. Like Vazquez, Nolasco simply allows more runs to score than we’d expect based on his numbers.
Five years ago, Dave Studemund introduced a formula to predict LOB% from a pitcher’s xFIP. As you can see in the chart, there’s a pretty strong correlation between the quality of a pitcher and how many runners he leaves on base.
Nolasco, a good pitcher, should have posted a LOB% of about 74.2 percent over the last three years, based on Studes’ formula. In fact, if you look at the average LOB% for all pitchers with a K/BB ratio of 3.00 or higher in that time frame, the average is 74.6%, and Nolasco has the fourth highest K/BB ratio of that entire group.
Instead, his actual LOB% since 2008 is 69.1%, the second lowest in baseball among qualified starting pitchers. He’s ahead of only Brian Bannister, and he’s stranded about the same amount of runners as Livan Hernandez and Nick Blackburn. Clearly, he’s better than those guys.
What’s the deal? Well, his high BABIP is almost entirely concentrated in situations with runners on base. With the bases empty, his career BABIP is .290, but if you put a runner on, its .326. Most pitchers are better from the wind-up, but this is an extreme split. The league average BABIP with the bases empty is .295 versus .304 with a man on base.
The sample is too small to say this is evidence of Nolasco doing something wrong, as we’re still just dealing with 600 innings of data, but it’s something to keep an eye on. Vazquez has almost 2,600 innings in the big leagues and has a career LOB% of just 70.9%, significantly lower than the 73.8% that is predicted based by his xFIP. It is at least within the realm of possibility that these two share a common trait that cause them to perform worse out of the stretch.
Only time will tell, but it’s an area worth looking into.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Maybe he caught whatever is making Scott Baker worthless. They seem to have similar issues this year.
It’s the homers. Another peripheral tease.
No, its the BABIP.
PA per HR, bases empty: 26.1
PA per HR, runners on: 40.0
He gives up fewer homers with runners on base than with the bases empty. It’s the 35 point jump in batting average on balls in play that keeps him from stranding runners.
Carlos Carrasco seems to have the same disease.
Nolasco for his career has a 5.31 K/BB with the bases empty and a 2.45 K/BB with runners on.
The MLB averages in 2009 were 2.33 and 1.72 respectively.
I’m too dumb and/or lazy to work out the exact effect of selection bias in the latter stat but intuitively it seems that the average pitcher should have a split smaller than the league split, while Nolasco’s is gigantic. Vazquez has a similar problem.
Base sealers are 32/52 against Nolasco, so at least in that respect he and his catcher are doing something right.
You can’t look at it by using Nolasco’s split versus the average split, because the populations aren’t the same. The “runners on” group has more bad pitchers because (obviously) bad pitchers are more likely to pitch with runners than good ones. You have to average out each player’s individual splits to get a better view.
That’s procedural, though. Your main point still stands.
Haven’t we seen this happen repeatedly enough with different pitchers that it is clear something different is going on when certain guys pitch from the stretch vs. the wind-up?
Maybe the reverse is going on with somebody like Matt Cain, who consistently outperforms his peripherals?
that’s what I was going to ask, maybe he just sucks out of the stretch.
Considered that myself, but then the question is: “Shouldn’t the Marlins notice this?” If that were the problem and the club were the Red Sox, they would probably say: “Well, pitch from the wind up and let the guys steal- beats getting clobbered at the plate.” I’d be kind of surprised if the Marlins couldn’t figure out that was the best way to handle a problem like that.
I always though Nolasco was a great comp for Vazquez. They’re both very similar – flyball pitchers with HR issues, decent control, good K/9 (great in Vazquez case), not power pitchers (both throw around 91 MPH). Both of them throw a ton of sliders and curves, with Nolasco going to a SF and Vazquez throwing a change. It’s like Nolasco is a clone of Vazquez. They’ve even got very similar builds.
Considering how similar they are, I wonder if there’s something about their particular skillset (low velocity high FB good K/9) and their pitch selection that leads to these results.
What I’ve noticed by checking out Pitch f/x stuff from last year (same problems then too), aside from things you’d expect (more fastballs with runners on due to the running game) is that he is a bit more nibbly with runners on. Tries to paint the corners more, doesn’t pound the zone like he does with the bases empty. This could be part of the reason for the increased walk rate/decreased strikeout rate.
Whether this is a mechanical issue out of the stretch or not is difficult to tell. We can’t equate “windup/stretch” to “bases empty/runners on” because there are other factors involved (eg. defensive positioning, pitch selection). Difficult to tell without a trained eye for the thing.
Five years ago. You have one heck of a memory, Mr. Cameron.
I just miss “Ten Things” that much.
I seem to recall Atlanta thinking they had found a mechanical issue with Vazquez out of the stretch, and they thought they had fixed it.
At this point, it could be something mental.
Maybe he’s one if those guys that cruises when things are going well and gets rattled, unnerved, puckers up, etc … Or maybe he tries too hard with guys on, or gets less aggresive, etc.
Those things are hard to tell.
The numbers tell us simply that he doesn’t pitch as well once runners get on. The BABIP data just illustrates the problem, further but doesn’t tell us “why”.
Thinking about this some more …
Some pitchers, especially righties, focus on being “quick to the plate” out of the stretch.
Looking at the SB/CS numbers, teams are running on Nolasco which indicates a lack of respect for the catcher. But the CS numbers are good which likely indicates that Nolasco holds runners well, throws more FB’s with men on, or is quick to the plate, or a combination of those.
More FB’s with men on is good for the hitters (when they do not take the pitch when the runner is stealing).
But, when pitchers try to be quick to the plate the can also “rush”, which means the front leg us faster getting into position than the throwing arm is. That results in the release point not being optimal for good movement on breaking pitches and/or keeping the ball down.
I haven’t watched Nolasco to see if this is the case, but it would be noticeable to an attentive fan that looks for things like pitch placement and movement.
Another thing worth looking at is an approach change with runners on. Some pitchers will nibble, trying to avoid serious contact. Others however will do the opposite and avoid marginal strikes for fear of walking a guy, or they try to pitch to contact trying to induce a DP. This can result in a version of “laying it in there”.
Another aspect (yes, another one) would be trying to avoid low breaking pitches (potential wild pitches) which are generally good “chase” pitches or “put em away” pitches.
The pitcher could also be throwing pitches thing high and around the plate looking to give the C a good “pitch to throw on”. Not many ML hitters have trouble with 90mph fastballs fitting that description.
Nolasco’s case could be one or all of these. But, given that he was the FIP darling recently (ERA almost 2 pts higher than FIP) and that his letdown with runners on continues this year, it seems obvious to me that it’s more than just “bad luck” or randomness.
I’d be curious as to whether any of the 17 Marlins fans see this tread and could comment on what they see b/c it is a curious case.
Dave you should look at Michael Jong’s articles on Nolasco from the windup vs. the stretch:
http://marlinmaniac.com/2010/01/05/is-nolascos-problem-the-stretch/
http://marlinmaniac.com/2010/01/08/update-on-nolasco-and-the-stretch/
http://marlinmaniac.com/2010/01/25/nolasco-stretch-vs-windup-2-the-pitch-fx-returns/
http://marlinmaniac.com/2010/02/04/nolasco-pitch-fx-pitch-locations-by-count-type/
He looks at Pitch f/x data to see if Nolasco’s splits are significant, or just a sample size aberration. It’s hard to come up with a conclusion, but there is a ton of information and plots in those articles, so you should be able to get a sense.
Thanks for the mention Nick. I’ll be trying that again this year, maybe closer to the end of the season. Three years of data may be more helpful.
Anyone have a link showing how xFIP predicts LOB%?
Click on “a formula” in the article.
A quick check on pitch values shows similarities between Nolasco and Vazquez. Both have good breaking pitches and below average fastballs as someone previously noted. 2008, Nolasco’s best year, was the only year in which be had a positive wFB. Similarily, Vazquez’s best years (2003, 2009) occurred when he had abnormally good (by his standards) fastball values.
Players generally throw fastballs more when they are in trouble and both Nolasco and Vazquez have less than stellar fastballs and subsequently “unlucky” results. And Matt Cain who consistently outperforms his FIP and xFIP has a consistently good fastball (wFB of 12, 14, 11, 4, 29, 10)