Is Javier Vazquez Unclutch?

Throughout his career it has been intimated that Javier Vazquez has the stuff of an ace but the track record of a back of the rotation starter. He has excellent peripheral numbers (3.45 K/BB), a better than league average ERA (107 ERA+) and averages well over 200 innings per season. Above average performance and lots of innings should be a winning combination, but Vazquez has always seemed to underachieve when it comes to his won-lost record. His four postseason appearances haven't been pretty either.

Plenty of Yankee fans are worried that he doesn't have the make up to pitch in New York. Vazquez bombed in the second half of his only season with the Yankees and served up perhaps the most infamous home run in Yankee history. But all of that was more than 5 years ago and the latter was the result of one pitch. Ozzie Guillen ran him out of town in Chicago after calling him out for not being a big game pitcher, but Guillen was supposedly responsible for ousting Nick Swisher too and that worked out pretty well for the Yankees.

Does Javier Vazquez's performance get demonstrably worse under pressure, or has he been a victim of marginal teams and bad luck? Is his reputation as someone who shrinks as the expectations grow deserved, or is it the conflation of a few unrelated events?

As I attempt to take a deeper look into these questions, I'm going to go back to something Tom Tango said during his Q & A with Mike Silva last week. In the process of justifying FIP as a useful statistic, Tango pointed out that there is a strong correlation between the best pitchers in the league over a long period of time when ranked by FIP and ERA.

Those familiar with the two stats might take that for granted at this point, but it's fairly remarkable considering all the things that FIP totally disregards that factor into ERA: singles, doubles, triples, runs allowed, etc. What's more intriguing, he contends, is what the significant gaps between FIP and ERA over the long term can tell us:

Tom Glavine’s career FIP is about 0.50 runs worse than his career ERA. This signals that Glavine does something extra, either he can sequence his events better (leaves alot of runners on base for example), or he has better control on his balls in play. And Javy Vazquez’s ERA is about 0.30 runs worse than his FIP, which signals something different, that perhaps he gives up alot of doubles, or doesn’t sequence his events well, etc.

Overall, two-thirds of pitchers will have their FIP and ERA be within 0.20 runs of each other, and almost all will be within 0.40 runs of each other.

That’s the power of FIP: that it’s designed to tell you one specific thing, and it tells you a second, perhaps even more important, thing.

So what's that thing? That's the million dollar question.

One interesting fact is that Vazquez has been extremely consistent in under performing his FIP throughout his career. He's only had an ERA lower than his FIP twice in his 12 professional seasons and only then by the slimmest of margins.

Even in his career year with the Braves last season, his FIP was lower than his ERA (his low FIP was one of the reasons Keith Law included him on his Cy Young ballot). I think we can agree that this not just the result of random chance: there is something about the way that Vazquez pitches that causes him to have an FIP lower than his ERA.

So what is it about Vazquez's pitching that could be causing this? Let's look at the career FIP/ERA differentials for Vazquez, Glavine as well as Andy Pettitte:

Above, Tango says that almost all pitchers will have an FIP and ERA within .4 of each other, so keep in mind that we are looking at two outliers extreme outliers here in Vazquez and Glavine. This is the main reason I chose to include Pettitte, who is closer to the norm.

If you're a Yankee fan, I bet you're a little surprised that Pettitte's differential is closer to Vazquez's than Glavine's. Pettitte has the reputation of being able to bear down and pitch better when it matters and seems to induce a lot of double plays, both of which would lower his ERA but not FIP. But the numbers indicate that he's not as great at controlling his outcomes as many assume.

As Tango mentioned above, one thing that might inflate ERA independently of FIP is giving up a lot of doubles. (Numbers are normalized over 200 IP to account for different career lengths):

Vazquez and Pettitte give up more two-baggers than Glavine does, but four over the course of 200 innings doesn't seem like enough to account for a shift in 3/4 of a run in ERA. Furthermore, Vazquez and Pettitte give up doubles at a nearly identical rate, but the latter has an FIP significantly closer to his ERA. There's something else at work here.

The other possibility that is mentioned above is "sequencing". Maybe Vazquez gives up hits in a way that hurts him. For example, starting an inning with a walk before a double often results in a run scored and a man on second. Conversely, a double before a walk likely means men on first and second without a run scoring. Vazquez gives up his fair share of home runs as well, and they are obviously more harmful with men on base (something that doesn't show up in FIP but does in ERA).

A quick and dirty way of teasing this out of the data is to look at a pitcher's stats with men on base. The numbers below are shown in tOPS+, which compares a pitcher's performance in a given scenario to his performance in other situations. (A score of 100 means is a pitcher is average in that situation while anything lower means they were better and higher means they were worse)

One caveat: the bases loaded data is by far the smallest sample size of the bunch. Vazquez has faced 163 batters with the bases loaded while Glavine and Pettitte have 428 and 237, respectively. That said, there is a major difference between Vazquez and the other two (particularly Glavine) when it comes to their performance with men on base and especially with the bags packed. And those situations are the ones that separate FIP from ERA the most.

Now let's look at how each pitcher performed based on the score of the game, again using tOPS+:

The smallest sample size in this case is "> 4R", but even for Vazquez that includes 811 plate appearances. Pettitte has the most favorable distribution, pitching his best when the game is close and his worst when it is out of hand. Vazquez, however, is just about average in tight games but much better when the lead or deficit is greater than 4.

Now let's put the last two items together. Baseball-Reference's Leverage stats take into account the occupancy of the bases as well as the score of the game, as does FanGraphs Clutch stat:

This tells a slighty different story about Pettitte but affirms what's becoming a trend for Vazquez - he doesn't perform as well in high leverage situations as he does in lower ones.

Does WPA agree?

Yes. It appears that Vazquez has not given his team as good of a chance to win as either Pettitte over Glavine over the course of his career, but this is to be expected to a certain degree because WPA is tied more closely to ERA then FIP. In a sense, we already knew this.

=====

So what do we make of all this?

=====

It's tempting to use these stats to claim that Vazquez can't handle pitching in New York. His data seem to trend very uniformly (remarkably so) from good to poor as the leverage increases. However, why didn't he cripple under the weight of the New York media in the first half of 2004 when he had a 3.56 ERA in 118 2/3 IP and won 10 games?

To say that he can't handle New York not only gives too much weight to a small sample size but requires a jump that conflates the pressure of in-game situations to be analogous to the demands of pitching for one franchise or another. Does the weight of overall expectations have the same effect on performance that increases in in-game leverage do?

Well, maybe. As 'Duk from Big League Stew pointed out in September, Vazquez's best seasons in terms of ERA+ have come with teams that were out of contention and his worst years came with teams in playoff races:

Three of his top ERA+ years came in the anonymity of Montreal and one came for the 2007 White Sox, who went 72-90. This year's ERA+ of 139 equals his career-best with the 2003 Expos, but while the Braves stuck around as a potential contender for longer than expected, they didn't occupy striking distance space for long.

Meanwhile, Vazquez's worst ERA+ years — with the exception of his first two seasons — all came with contenders: the '04 Yankees, the '05 D'Backs and the '06 and '08 White Sox.

So what is he doing wrong? As we saw when trying to identify some differences between A.J. Burnett's good and bad starts last week, it's extremely difficult isolate any one underlying factor or find a specific reason that Vazquez's numbers go bad as the leverage of the game increases. Javy's K/BB ratio slips from 4.34 to 3.26 to 2.57 as the leverage rises from low to medium to high. His batting average, on-base and slugging percentages all ascend with the gravity of the situation as well.

Even if you grant that Vazquez gets worse under pressure and will pitch worse just by virtue of being a Yankee, he's still likely to be better than league average and throw more than 200 innings. It would be extremely difficult to do that and not add significant value to a team regardless of how his performance is distributed by leverage.

And of course, there's a big difference between "hasn't" and "can't". I'm willing to say that Vazquez certainly hasn't pitched well under pressure in his career, but not that he can't. He clearly had a great year in Atlanta and some of that has been attributed to an improved change up, giving him a second pitch to miss bats with in addition to his curveball. FanGraphs shows that his curveball was what stood out last year, but his change up looked to be improved as well.

It's certainly not impossible that Javy has a good year and surprises his doubters (and even some of his supporters). Vazquez might be frustrating to watch at times in 2010, but the beauty of the situation is that our expectations for him shouldn't be that high to begin with. Not too many teams have the luxury of acquiring a very good pitcher and hoping that he's just average.

Link Lineup

Here are a couple of links to help move you towards gametime in an orderly manner:

Tim Marchman identifies that Joba Chamberlain is actually a better pitcher when he is inducing more flyballs. He wonders if the Yankees could try to teach him to pitch that way, but I don't think that would be the wisest move for a right hander pitching in the New Yankee Stadium.

Is Yogi Berra a "Black Swan" of baseball? (h/t BBTF)

You probably already knew that Tony Bernarzard was batshit insane, but this really takes the cake...

The Binghamton Mets clubhouse nearly turned into a scene out of WWE Raw recently, when VP for player development Tony Bernazard removed his shirt and challenged the Double-A players to a fight during a postgame tirade, multiples sources told the Daily News.

Cliff from Bronx Banter told you "the Serg might work".

Brett Tomko is upset by his demotion:

"I don't think I got a fair shot," he said. "I pitched great in spring training and didn't make the team. I pitched great in the minors, got called up and didn't get much of a chance. I understand other guys are pitching great. But it could have been different. I can't see the point in coming back."

Obviously, Matt was not.

Ever wonder what the differences between John Dewan's +/- system and UZR are? Get it from (one of) the horse's mouths.

The Shyster wonders about the potential ramifications of DNA testing in the Dominican are, and once you read a couple of them, it might make rethink whether or not it's such a good idea.

It's "probably unliklely that Roy Halladay will be dealt"? Shocker. Thanks for nothing, Rosensquirrel.

"A-Rod"... "Clutch"... in the SAME HEADLINE?!??1!?

More details on the epic 1926 tilt between the Hebrews and the Klan.

"Pro Surf Championship to be held in Hal Streinbrenners hair in 2010"

Number of Days Until Spring Training: Scott Brosius (#18)

Scott Brosius was only a Yankee from 1998-2001. However in his four seasons with the team he became a Pinstriped Hero. Every year he was on the team the Yankees won the AL Pennant. Not to mention the 3 World Series titles that came during those years…

Brosius arrived in the Bronx in 1998 from the Oakland Athletics in a trade that sent away one of most maligned Yankees ever, Kenny Rogers. Most Yankees fans were ecstatic to see Rogers sent away so anything that Brosius provided would be Sicilian gravy. In his first season with the club, Brosius provided a very generous helping of that said sauce — batting .300 with 19 HRs and 98 RBI. For his efforts he was named an All Star but most importantly to Yankees fans, he was the MVP of the 1998 World Series. Against the Padres, Scott hit .471, 2 HRs and 6 RBI. Both of these HRs can in Game 3 of the World Series and one of them was off of perennially choking closer Trevor Hoffman to give the Yankees a 3-0 Series lead.

Another memorable World Series moment provided by “Brosius The Ferocious” (obviously a John Sterling creation) occurred in Game 5 of the 2001 World Series. With two outs in the bottom of the ninth and the Yankees down two runs to the Arizona Diamondbacks, Scott crushed a 1-0 B.H. Kim slider into the left-field seats of the Yankee Stadium to drive home Jorge Posada and tie the game. The previous night, when Brosius had went 0 for 2 against Kim, New York first baseman Tino Martinez launched a two-out, two-run home run to tie the game as well. It marked the first time in World Series history that this had ever occurred.

In four World Series appearances, Brosius had a .314 BA/.333 OBP/.529 SLG with 4 HRs and 13 RBI.

He was a slick fielding third baseman, a master of the bare-handed scoop for balls slicing down the third baseline. In 1999, he won the AL Gold Glove for his glovework at 3rd.

Brosius’ “clutchiferousness” is one of the reasons why current 3B Alex Rodriguez is maligned by Yankees fans. Fans could always count on the trusty but unsexy Brosius to plate a go ahead run or make a game-saving defensive play. Yet the sexy, regular season monster A-Rod cannot seem to buy a big play in October. If you ask me and most other Yankees fans, we would take Scott over A-Rod every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Coincidence or not, the Yankees have never been to a World Series with A-Rod manning the Hot Corner.

Brosius retired after the 2001 World Series and now is the head baseball coach at his alma mater Linfield College in Oregon. In 2005 he was inducted into the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame. In 2007, he appeared at his first Old Timer’s Day at Yankee Stadium. Hopefully he will become a mainstay in the future.

Thank you, Scott! We miss you!

Examining Sabathia's Clutchiferousness

I'm not a huge believer tagging someone as clutch and others as non-clutch, especially in baseball. Coming from a research background, it's troubling that you are nearly always working with a small sample size. You also have to take into account that baseball is the most random of sports, and that trying harder doesn't necessarily produce better results (see: A-Rod).

But I think there is a fundamental difference between clutch pitching and clutch hitting. The pitcher is the proactive while the batter is reactive. For the first part of the pitcher/hitter interaction, the batter is actually on the defensive; he is trying to protect the plate. Only after the ball is put in play does the burden of defense shift back to the fielding team. So, pitchers have more control of the situation, and more control means more responsibility for the outcome. And as the old baseball cliche goes, "good pitching beats good hitting".

That said, watching Sabathia in the postseason has been less than awe inspiring. In the 2007 ALDS against the Yankees, Sabathia walked 6 guys in 5 innings, after walking just 37 in 241 innings during the regular season. But CC was let off the hook by Chein Ming Wang who pitched even worse, allowing the Indians to win that game. Against the Sawx in the ALCS, he walked 7 guys in 10.1 innings, and rounded out his postseason line by giving up 15 runs, walking 13, and giving up 21 hits in 15.1 innings for a WHIP of 2.21. Yikes.

It wasn't just 2007. In his postseason career (only 25 innings) he has given up 33 hits, 22 runs, and walked 22 for a WHIP of 2.20. He's got a postseason WPA of -0.74. I know, I know, small sample size, but that is a pretty alarming trend developing.

You may want to offer up what he did with the Brewers this year, taking the ball on short rest and carrying them into the playoffs. In September, he had three awesome starts (25 IP/3ER), and two okay ones (14IP/7ER), and one that was pretty bad (5.2IP/4ER). In his only postseason start, he gave up 5 runs and walked 4 in 3.2IP.

Why would a guy who walks about a guy every three innings throughout his regular season career, nearly triple that rate in the postseason? If a top quality control pitcher were to fold under pressure, the first thing I would expect to go would be that control. You get nervous, lose your rhythm and can't find the strike zone. I'm not a world class golfer, but I've played in Club Championships, State Am's, and DII College tournaments that I felt were pretty important. I have not only felt some nerves, but had them negatively affect my performance. The golf swing, probably like the pitching motion, has little room for error and is best performed under relaxed conditions and a calm mind.

I'm not labeling CC a "choker" or anything like that, I just think it's worth pointing out that so far, he hasn't been able to perform in the postseason. Bad sportswriters like to brand guys with the tag of "clutch" or "anti-clutch" like its some indelible part of their character. David Ortiz, Reggie Jackson, Mariano Rivera, and Curt Schilling are forever enshrined in the Hall of Clutch, just as A-Rod, Bill Buckner, and Mitch Williams are portrayed as choking dogs.

For A-Rod and CC, there is still time to turn it around. A great season leading up to the playoffs could calm some nerves. A few small breaks from the get-go could inspire some confidence, which could snowball into success. A few big moments in October can swing the perception from goat to hero.