The Rays’ Kind of Fastball
A couple weeks ago, the Rays signed Everett Teaford to a minor-league contract. Even if you noticed it, you forgot it, because people tend to forget all these minor-league acquisitions, and if you remember Teaford for anything, it’s not for being good. After being not good for the Royals, Teaford spent last year in Korea, where he had a league-average ERA. I don’t know if he changed something; I don’t know if the Rays saw something. But I know I can look at Teaford’s PITCHf/x page on Brooks Baseball, and he’s flashed something of a live heater. The vertical-movement column shows a pitch’s movement relative to a pitch thrown with no spin. The league-average four-seamer comes in just shy of 9 inches. Teaford’s been a little north of 10. That’s where you start talking about rise.
And when you talk about rising fastballs, you’re talking about something of great interest to Tampa Bay. They don’t actually rise, of course — they just don’t sink as much as normal fastballs. And while Teaford might not throw a single pitch for the Rays in the regular season, his fastball, at least, looks like it could fit in. The Rays have something going on, and while they’re not the only team with the idea, they seem like the most aggressive in the implementation.
This is the Rays’ 2015 depth chart, as hosted on MLB.com. You can count 17 pitchers, including the injured Matt Moore. Now, let’s examine those 17 pitchers. Specifically, let’s examine their four-seam fastballs. I noted before that the average four-seam fastball has a vertical-movement reading just below 9 inches. Of the 17 Rays, 11 of them come in above 10. In all, 14 of 17 are above-average. The only pitchers below: Kirby Yates, Burch Smith, and C.J. Riefenhauser. Yates is below by a negligible amount. Smith only just recently arrived in the organization.
Why does vertical movement matter? It’s correlated with different results. Last year’s data breakdown for four-seam fastballs:
| Vertical Movement | Contact% | Foul/Swing% | GB% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1+ standard deviation | 81% | 42% | 27% |
| 0 – 1 standard deviation | 83% | 42% | 35% |
| -1 – 0 standard deviation | 84% | 42% | 37% |
| -1 or below | 85% | 40% | 42% |
The “rising” types generate the most whiffs, and the fewest groundballs. This is intuitive; the less a fastball sinks, the more likely a hitter is to swing underneath it. And this gets to the next thing, maybe the more important thing: rising fastballs tend to be thrown higher in the zone, or beyond it. The Rays are a high-fastball organization. Considering they recently signed Ernesto Frieri, it doesn’t look like that’s stopped just because a few people have left the system.
Last season, Rays pitchers threw 56% of their fastballs at least two and a half feet off the ground, which is approximately the vertical middle of the strike zone. This was the highest rate for any team in baseball. The Nationals finished second, but they’ve also lost prolific high-fastball throwers in Tyler Clippard and Rafael Soriano. They’ve been open to moving Jordan Zimmermann. The league average, by the way, was a hair under 48%.
And 16 of 23 Rays topped the league average. Cesar Ramos didn’t, and he’s gone. Jeremy Hellickson didn’t, and he’s gone. Juan Carlos Oviedo didn’t, and he’s gone. Brandon Gomes didn’t, and he was designated for assignment. Of the 16 Rays who topped the average, 15 topped it by a fairly broad margin. Jake Odorizzi led the way, at 71% high fastballs. Even Alex Cobb and Chris Archer elevated heat, even though they primarily feature sinkers. Even a running fastball can work as an elevated fastball, according to the Rays’ apparent belief.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that, last season, the Rays’ pitching staff finished with baseball’s highest rate of fly balls allowed. This was at least partially by design, and with the fly balls came pop-ups. The Rays posted one of the better HR/FB rates in the American League. Some of that would be the ballpark. Lastly, the Rays tied the Indians for the league’s highest strikeout rate. This wasn’t all about the fastballs, but it was a significant factor.
In September, I wrote about some adjustments that Drew Smyly had made after getting dealt. The Rays wanted to get Smyly elevating his fastball more often, and sure enough, that’s what he did, and his numbers were excellent. Jim Hickey also talked about this, with David Laurila. One quote:
“I think you can [be effective up in the zone] because of what the hitters are trained to do. Hitter are constantly trained to hit the ball down, hit the ball down, because we always try to pitch the ball down, pitch the ball down. I don’t think hitters work that much on hitting elevated fastballs, pitches up in the zone.”
We can play with some individual splits. Smyly:
- Tigers: 50% high fastballs
- Rays: 66%
- Rays: 61%
- Tigers: 54%
- Astros: 59%
- Rays: 63%
- Padres: 43%
- Rays: 53%
Sometimes, the Rays make a tweak. Other times, they seek out other guys who already throw fastballs up, like Frieri, like Grant Balfour, like Heath Bell. Obviously, sometimes, it doesn’t work. An interesting thing about Balfour is that his high-fastball rate has dropped for four consecutive seasons. Last year he was barely higher than average. And, last year, he was bad. The Rays thought they had something they ultimately didn’t.
What the Rays don’t have is an automatic championship-winning strategy. That much is apparent from the lack of any championships. But they do seem to have some kind of strategy, a strategy involving high fastballs, and it’s a strategy they’ve certainly thought all the way through. It’s interesting enough to see a team with a distinctive philosophy, and making it all the more interesting is that the Rays are focusing on high fastballs while the rival Red Sox are lined up to have one of the more extreme groundball staffs in recent memory. The Rays are banking on the same thing opponents bank on when they face Mike Trout: the hitter is so geared up to hit low, he might not be fully prepared to hit up. Perhaps it won’t work forever, but as long as the strike zone keeps dropping, pitchers are going to try to take advantage of that, by pitching low, and, in the Rays’ case, by pitching high.
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.
This is excellent work. I think a lot of future innovation will be less oriented toward improving the accuracy of our projection systems and more oriented toward specific skills players have that could be leveraged in order to make them more effective.
The Rays, whether through their use of changeups or use of high fastballs, seem to be embracing this approach. It’s also interesting that the Pirates have adopted an opposite philosophy (pitch in, generate ground balls) with good success. Different players have value to different teams.
Agreed. Top notch stuff Jeff, thanks!
A pitch thrown with no spin is a knuckleball. I think you mean a pitch thrown with no spin and no seams on the ball.
Actually that’s a common misconception! Knuckleballs actually have to rotate a handful of times before getting to the plate to get the characteristic “knuckling” motion. It’s caused by the flow separating over different parts of the baseball. If there’s no spin at all, then there won’t be any asymmetry in the flow. This means that there won’t be any pressure differential, and thus there won’t be any force to cause the ball to knuckle!
Pure crappola. I caught four knuckleballers and they all used different strategies except the one who threw a true dead spin knuckleball–because he could. That is where the term flutterball originated. It flys like a moth until it take a final break before the plate.
No one can throw a pure dead-spin knuckleball, because it doesn’t exist. A knuckleball is unpredictable because the location where the boundary layer separates changes on the way to the plate, causing the ball to move in an unpredictable manner. If the ball really didn’t rotate at all, then the location of the boundary layer separation would be the same all the way to the plate, and the ball would only move in one direction.
A ball with literally no spin would still have seams, and depending on their orientation when the ball was released, there could still be a difference in friction between different faces of the ball, causing unpredictable movement. The main idea is that the ball spins very slowly or not at all, so that at any given point, the orientation of the seams is not predictable, meaning the friction with the air and movement is not predictable.
The knuckleball knuckles because the seams trip boundary layer separation on one side of the ball. This drastically changes the pressure for a time, which pushes the ball away from this separation. As the ball rotates, the location of this boundary layer separation changes, causing the ball to knuckle.
If the ball didn’t rotate, then the ball could move away from a ballistic trajectory, but it wouldn’t be able to knuckle. I was not clear enough.
One thing I would want to know though is whether a ball thrown with actually no spin would even stay that way. Would the uneven pressure cause the ball to start to rotate, which would then start to reverse the pressure difference?
Yeah, it’s a pretty confusing term. I think what we really want to say is a ball thrown such that after release, the only force acting on it is gravity.
I’m not sure the Rays do this because the hitter is geared up to hit the low ball. Though that may be an added bonus, I would think the Rays do this for very Sabermetric reasons.
High fastballs lead to fly balls. Fly Balls have a lower BABIP.
High fastballs lead to strikeouts. Hitters have a very low average on strikeouts 🙂
I fail to see a distinction between doing something because you have studied hitters and know their general tendencies and doing something “for sabermetric reasons.”
“Fly Balls have a lower BABIP.”
Once you include HR and slugging (BAbip is as arcane and useless as batter batting average), fly balls have around the same value as ground balls.
Lead to more K? Yes.
Lots of other factors are important however. To pitch up in the zone, you generally need/want lots of velocity (there are exceptions like Collmenter). You also want high spin rate as this article nicely explains. You also want good command. If you have poor command pitching up (and inside) in the zone is dangerous. With poor command you generally want to pitch down in the zone to minimize the impact of your mistake locations. Again, though that depends a lot on your velocity. Bad command with good velocity and pitching up in the zone can lead to good results. Bad command without premium velocity, pitching up in the zone is usually a recipe for disaster.
Rising fastballs may not actually rise, but in theory there’s nothing saying they couldn’t right? With enough backspin, a fastball launched at a perfectly horizontal trajectory could actually have enough lift to rise a bit before friction slowed it down and it fell again. What combination of rotation and velocity would be required for this to happen?
no – gravity will act always, no matter what
but not necessarily in the first 60 feet?
Gravity acts on planes too.
planes accelerate. baseballs don’t
They don’t have to be constantly accelerating to have lift though. Once they reach a certain speed, they could just maintain that speed and the lift from the air keeps them up. I’m asking what speed and rotation that is for a ball – the state where the ball has enough lift to completely counteract gravity. I’m not denying that after that point, the ball would begin to slow down and eventually fall, but prior to that there would be a period of time where it literally rises.
If I understand correctly, the amount of backspin needed to create that much lift is practically unattainable. I think the Mythbusters did something to test it.
Yes. The Mythbusters did bust this myth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1VClnk3l-k
Yeah, I would presume that the spin/velocity is more than the human body is capable of generating. I just wonder if it’s a little more or a LOT more.
You are of course correct. From memory, it is not out of the question, but probably beyond human limits. If you do a Google search you will probably find some numbers.
Another very interesting fact: Clayton Kershaw has one of the risiest rising fastballs in baseball, but his fastball has had either average or above-average ground ball rates over the past few years. I’m sure this has something to do with his usage. Kershaw throws his fastball more toward that bottom of the zone, almost never looking for whiffs with a high fastball. This clearly shows that location is as important if not more important when it comes to the batted ball types a pitch will generate.
They really like the high fastball because it’s the perfect foil for the big drop change. Add in a curveball that starts high and finishes low and you have their ideal repertoire. James Shields was the prototype, but Alex Cobb does it even better. If Smyly can add a change you’re talking about an animal.
Jake McGee has never thrown a curveball in his life. Maybe it has nothing to do with a curveball.
That’s not true. He used to have a very good one prior to TJ. Maybe we’re talking about starters that need more than one pitch. Maybe you’re the type of person that deals in absolutes and cannot parse the difference between ideal and reality. Maybe you should read more and post less.
Sandy.. I watched almost every single game the last two years and Jake McGee has thrown about 4 curveballs. He should learn a wrinkle but to rip into “who is zobrist” that way is uncalled for, especially since hes basically right.
Interesting strategy, given that the A’s have been hoarding flyball batters, under the assumption that they can hit groundball pitchers better. Not sure I buy into either strategy (having all flyball hitters or all flyball pitchers), but would like to see each team’s research behind it.
I think Koji Uehara might actually be the ideal poster boy for this. He has peripherals that put him squarely in the class of Kimbrel/Jansen/Chapman, and yet he’s a righty with a fastball that usually doesn’t clear 89. What he does have is a ton of rise, and then he has just one other pitch that offers a change of pace and much less rise.
Here’s a link to a heatmap of Uehara’s fastball. Definitely a lot of high pitches.
Regarding dead spin knucklers, in my experience pitching and hitting, they do not project a fluttering appearance. They just travel a nice, non-deceptive trajectory toward the plate. Rotation is essential for flutter.
Do knuckleballs really knuckle or is it an illusion? Good question. When they flutter, it sure looks like they move. Thanks to pitch f/x, high speed cameras, physics and some smart people, the question has been answered. If you’re interested, here’s a good source of knuckleball links:
http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/knuckleball.html
This link has an amazing gif of a Dickey knuckler that most definitely is fluttering:
http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/DickeyPitch103a.html