• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

2020 Starting Pitching Discussion

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
It's nearly impossible to compare pitchers now to the ones in the 90's.

For example, you point to Nagy's low K/9, but he was typically in the top third of the league during his better years. In 1995, his 7.03 K/9 ranked 19th of 75 qualified starters. In 2019 that same figure would rank him in the bottom 10 starters in the league. The 19th ranked pitcher in 2019 was Aaron Nola with 10.19 K/9.


Nagy's value in the 90's was fairly similar to MadBum's in the 10's. So, it's not entirely accurate to paint him as somebody relying on run support to be successful.

Civale is Civale, he'll create his own mold. We know what he has in his arsenal, and we know the improvements he needs to make to stick in the majors. Now we just have to wait and see if he actually does it.

Hope CATS reads your post, because it is a great example of how much and how fast pitching has changed over the last couple decades.

Old time pitchers could not compete in todays game. Sure the greats (Koufax's, Ryan's, Gibson's, etc.) would probably get on the hill today, but they wouldn't be the same dominant force they were in their day. But the more average guys like Nagy, probably would have trouble even sniffing the mound. The skill level of the "average" MLB pitcher has just increased by that much. They throw harder, they spin the ball better and they face hitters with far greater bat speed and power.
 
Hope CATS reads your post, because it is a great example of how much and how fast pitching has changed over the last couple decades.

Old time pitchers could not compete in todays game. Sure the greats (Koufax's, Ryan's, Gibson's, etc.) would probably get on the hill today, but they wouldn't be the same dominant force they were in their day. But the more average guys like Nagy, probably would have trouble even sniffing the mound. The skill level of the "average" MLB pitcher has just increased by that much. They throw harder, they spin the ball better and they face hitters with far greater bat speed and power.
Does this suppose that great pitchers from other eras would not take advantage of modern techniques, conditioning, nutrition, etc? Is the concept that they were not physically equiped?

Edit: would they be unable to generate more spin and/or throw harderif they were born in this era?
 
Does this suppose that great pitchers from other eras would not take advantage of modern techniques, conditioning, nutrition, etc? Is the concept that they were not physically equiped?

Edit: would they be unable to generate more spin and/or throw harderif they were born in this era?
I think he’s saying that their pitching strategies and training strategies wouldn’t properly prepare them to be major league pitchers.
 
I think he’s saying that their pitching strategies and training strategies wouldn’t properly prepare them to be major league pitchers.
If so, I agree, too.
 
Even after this year, we’ll still know next to nothing about Civale and Plesac. They’ll barely have 100 career innings under their belt which is far lower than the threshold for the stabilization of most pitching statistics.
Not disagreeing, but what is that threshold, exactly?

And I stand corrected - Civale is not going to throw 160 innings this year. I forgot it's a short season. 70 is more realistic. However, I'm not sure that after 120-130 innings against major league hitters we'll still know "next to nothing".

After Kluber's first year in the majors (plus 3 games the previous year) he had thrown 67.1 innings with a 5.35 ERA. That was at ages 25 and 26. He broke out the following year.

Last year Civale was 24 and threw 57.2 innings with an ERA of 2.34, although his FIP and xFIP were much higher. He was much more effective than Kluber at a younger age. But is that because hitters were not familiar with him, as Jup suggested? If that's the case Kluber should have been worse his second year, right?

Same with Nagy. His first year in only 45 innings his FIP was 5.11. The next year he started 33 games with a FIP of 3.77. His third year he started 33 games and his FIP was down to 2.77 and he made the All-Star team. It seems that hitters getting more familiar with what he threw didn't help them, just like with Kluber. I'm hoping the same holds true for Mr. Civale and Mr. Plesac.
 
Not disagreeing, but what is that threshold, exactly?

And I stand corrected - Civale is not going to throw 160 innings this year. I forgot it's a short season. 70 is more realistic. However, I'm not sure that after 120-130 innings against major league hitters we'll still know "next to nothing".

After Kluber's first year in the majors (plus 3 games the previous year) he had thrown 67.1 innings with a 5.35 ERA. That was at ages 25 and 26. He broke out the following year.

Last year Civale was 24 and threw 57.2 innings with an ERA of 2.34, although his FIP and xFIP were much higher. He was much more effective than Kluber at a younger age. But is that because hitters were not familiar with him, as Jup suggested? If that's the case Kluber should have been worse his second year, right?

Same with Nagy. His first year in only 45 innings his FIP was 5.11. The next year he started 33 games with a FIP of 3.77. His third year he started 33 games and his FIP was down to 2.77 and he made the All-Star team. It seems that hitters getting more familiar with what he threw didn't help them, just like with Kluber. I'm hoping the same holds true for Mr. Civale and Mr. Plesac.
Your application of these stats is not correct. It’s not that hitters never “figured them out”. They improved! From 2013 to 2014, Kluber increased his whiff% by a substantial amount, mostly due to the development of his slurvey pitch. He also almost cut his HR/FB ratio almost in half during his breakout year (it returned to normal levels in years since).

This is all we’re saying, Civale and Plesac were effective last year, but they won’t continue to be without substantial improvements in some key areas.

I’ve already posted about the stabilization threshold multiple times, but here it is again:

In short, you need at least two years worth of starts (300+ innings minimum) before you’ll see numbers like BABIP and HR/FB stabilize (which then stabilizes ERA, FIP, xFIP, and any other number that derives from the aforementioned stats).

So, no. After a little more than 100 innings I don’t think we’ll know much at all about Plesac or Civale’s long-term outlook.
 
Last edited:
Your application of these stats is not correct. It’s not that hitters never “figured them out”. They improved! From 2013 to 2014, Kluber increased his whiff% by a substantial amount, mostly due to the development of his slurvey pitch. He also almost cut his HR/FB ratio almost in half during his breakout year (it returned to normal levels in years since).

This is all we’re saying, Civale and Plesac were effective last year, but they won’t continue to be without substantial improvements in some key areas.

I’ve already posted about the stabilization threshold multiple times, but here it is again:

In short, you need at least two years worth of starts (300+ innings minimum) before you’ll see numbers like BABIP and HR/FB stabilize (which then stabilizes ERA, FIP, xFIP, and any other number that derives from the aforementioned stats).

So, no. After a little more than 100 innings I don’t think we’ll know much at all about Plesac or Civale’s long-term outlook.
I was responding to Jup's statement about Civale's success being due to "the league not having time to get a fix on what he does and how he does it. That simply won't be the case this year."

IOW, Civale's success last year was due not to his pitching ability but batters simply being unfamiliar with "what he does and how he does it". I responded by saying that wasn't the case for Kluber or Nagy. They didn't get worse their second or third years as hitters saw more of them, they got better.

The difference is Civale was better as a rookie than Kluber or Nagy. Is it possible he's already developed the pitches he needs?

Both you and Jup agree that if Civale and Plesac pitch at exactly the same level as last year they will have worse results. You said neither of them will be "effective without substantial improvement in key areas". Not minor improvements - "substantial" improvements. You both seem to agree that neither of them was anywhere near as good as their 2019 numbers indicate and if they trot out the same crap they threw last year it won't be pretty. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration - sorry.

But then you said Civale pitched "great" in 17 innings against the Twins and Yankees where he only allowed one home run. If he pitched great against the two best offenses in baseball last year and probably in many years, why wouldn't those same pitches work this year? Why would he need "substantial" improvement?

In Civale's first nine starts he allowed 11 earned runs and three of those starts were against the Yankees and Twins, the highest scoring teams in the majors. If he throws the same stuff this year you’re saying he won’t be effective? Why not?

You’re also saying that if he throws another 60-70 innings this year with the same results as last year we’ll still know “next to nothing” about whether he has a succesful future in the bigs. If he limits the opponents to two earned runs or less in 18 of his first 20 starts we'll still know "next to nothing"?

Under that logic if a pitcher had an ERA of 6.60 after his first 20 starts we should just keep trotting him out there until he gets to 300 innings, then start tracking his progress. We don't know anything until the numbers stabilize, right?.

I prefer to look at what the guy is throwing. Here’s a quote from a Justin Lada column:

“What Civale does well is spin the fastball (2268 - 85th percentile), which helps his 93 mph fastball play up. He did touch 95 at times, something we didn’t see in the minors from him. His curveball spin is in the 96th percentile and gets 12% better than league average on his vertical drop on it. He limited hard contact well, finishing with a 2.4% barrel rate, the top 1% of the league [in 2019]...It’s a mid-rotation type arsenal just lacking above average velocity.”

I guess we’ll see if he’s improved his pitches this year and if the league smacks him around if he doesn’t.
 
I was responding to Jup's statement about Civale's success being due to "the league not having time to get a fix on what he does and how he does it. That simply won't be the case this year."

IOW, Civale's success last year was due not to his pitching ability but batters simply being unfamiliar with "what he does and how he does it". I responded by saying that wasn't the case for Kluber or Nagy. They didn't get worse their second or third years as hitters saw more of them, they got better.

The difference is Civale was better as a rookie than Kluber or Nagy. Is it possible he's already developed the pitches he needs?

Both you and Jup agree that if Civale and Plesac pitch at exactly the same level as last year they will have worse results. You said neither of them will be "effective without substantial improvement in key areas". Not minor improvements - "substantial" improvements. You both seem to agree that neither of them was anywhere near as good as their 2019 numbers indicate and if they trot out the same crap they threw last year it won't be pretty. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration - sorry.

But then you said Civale pitched "great" in 17 innings against the Twins and Yankees where he only allowed one home run. If he pitched great against the two best offenses in baseball last year and probably in many years, why wouldn't those same pitches work this year? Why would he need "substantial" improvement?

In Civale's first nine starts he allowed 11 earned runs and three of those starts were against the Yankees and Twins, the highest scoring teams in the majors. If he throws the same stuff this year you’re saying he won’t be effective? Why not?

You’re also saying that if he throws another 60-70 innings this year with the same results as last year we’ll still know “next to nothing” about whether he has a succesful future in the bigs. If he limits the opponents to two earned runs or less in 18 of his first 20 starts we'll still know "next to nothing"?

Under that logic if a pitcher had an ERA of 6.60 after his first 20 starts we should just keep trotting him out there until he gets to 300 innings, then start tracking his progress. We don't know anything until the numbers stabilize, right?.

I prefer to look at what the guy is throwing. Here’s a quote from a Justin Lada column:

“What Civale does well is spin the fastball (2268 - 85th percentile), which helps his 93 mph fastball play up. He did touch 95 at times, something we didn’t see in the minors from him. His curveball spin is in the 96th percentile and gets 12% better than league average on his vertical drop on it. He limited hard contact well, finishing with a 2.4% barrel rate, the top 1% of the league [in 2019]...It’s a mid-rotation type arsenal just lacking above average velocity.”

I guess we’ll see if he’s improved his pitches this year and if the league smacks him around if he doesn’t.
I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm saying, but I'm done explaining myself. I feel that I have already done so thoroughly.
 
I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm saying, but I'm done explaining myself. I feel that I have already done so thoroughly.
I think I understand. You're saying analytics prove that numbers like HR rate don't "stabilize" until a pitcher has faced 1,320 batters, which equates to roughly 300 innings. That's what the Baseball Prospectus guy says. So we can't get excited about Civale giving up two home runs in his first 54 innings because he'll need to pitch six times that many innings before the numbers will be relevant.

That's what the analytics says. But is it relevant to simply look at what a guy is throwing - the velocity, command, depth of break, and pitch variation and get a good idea of his future success based on his stuff? And what if after 10 starts he's in the top 1% in barrel rate? Could that be an accident? Unlike BABIP there's zero luck involved in that. Ok, he only faced 227 batters. He needs to face over a thousand more before we know anything according to BP.

If he can throw a 92 mph fastball with a spin rate in the 85th percentile and consistently put it on the black while mixing in a curve that has 12% more break than average does that mean anything? Will those pitches be as effective as they were last year or will he need "substantial improvement in several key areas" just to keep up? I understand his sample is too small, but given the quality of his pitches and the success he's had so far against the best offenses in baseball, I'm a little more optimistic that this guy is on track for a pretty good career.
 
By the way, I'm not as high on Plesac. Last year his ERA against Detroit and KC was 1.71 in over 31 innings. The best teams he faced were Houston and the Yankees (three starts). His ERA was 5.40 in 16.2 innings. I think it makes a difference who the batters are so I like to break it down like that. Overly simplistic, yes, but I think there's some value in looking at it like that. At least Plesac won't have to face the Yankees or Astros this season.
 
I was responding to Jup's statement about Civale's success being due to "the league not having time to get a fix on what he does and how he does it. That simply won't be the case this year."

IOW, Civale's success last year was due not to his pitching ability but batters simply being unfamiliar with "what he does and how he does it". I responded by saying that wasn't the case for Kluber or Nagy. They didn't get worse their second or third years as hitters saw more of them, they got better.

The difference is Civale was better as a rookie than Kluber or Nagy. Is it possible he's already developed the pitches he needs?

Both you and Jup agree that if Civale and Plesac pitch at exactly the same level as last year they will have worse results. You said neither of them will be "effective without substantial improvement in key areas". Not minor improvements - "substantial" improvements. You both seem to agree that neither of them was anywhere near as good as their 2019 numbers indicate and if they trot out the same crap they threw last year it won't be pretty. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration - sorry.

But then you said Civale pitched "great" in 17 innings against the Twins and Yankees where he only allowed one home run. If he pitched great against the two best offenses in baseball last year and probably in many years, why wouldn't those same pitches work this year? Why would he need "substantial" improvement?

In Civale's first nine starts he allowed 11 earned runs and three of those starts were against the Yankees and Twins, the highest scoring teams in the majors. If he throws the same stuff this year you’re saying he won’t be effective? Why not?

You’re also saying that if he throws another 60-70 innings this year with the same results as last year we’ll still know “next to nothing” about whether he has a succesful future in the bigs. If he limits the opponents to two earned runs or less in 18 of his first 20 starts we'll still know "next to nothing"?

Under that logic if a pitcher had an ERA of 6.60 after his first 20 starts we should just keep trotting him out there until he gets to 300 innings, then start tracking his progress. We don't know anything until the numbers stabilize, right?.

I prefer to look at what the guy is throwing. Here’s a quote from a Justin Lada column:

“What Civale does well is spin the fastball (2268 - 85th percentile), which helps his 93 mph fastball play up. He did touch 95 at times, something we didn’t see in the minors from him. His curveball spin is in the 96th percentile and gets 12% better than league average on his vertical drop on it. He limited hard contact well, finishing with a 2.4% barrel rate, the top 1% of the league [in 2019]...It’s a mid-rotation type arsenal just lacking above average velocity.”

I guess we’ll see if he’s improved his pitches this year and if the league smacks him around if he doesn’t.
If Civale is a multiple-time cy young award winner, I'll eat my shorts. Expecting someone who hasn't been great to improve the way Kluber did is like expecting a sixth round QB to be Tom Brady. He's the exception. It's not a likely outcome.

Based on what he's done in the minors, and in the majors, we have a pretty good idea of what Civale is. Some good ERA numbers in a few starts doesn't change that evaluation. If another team was dumb enough to value that over his actual talent, I guarantee we'd ship him out in a second for the haul we could get.

Unless he makes massive improvements, he's certainly not even a quality third arm in the rotation, let alone someone in the stratosphere of Kluber.
 
By the way, I'm not as high on Plesac. Last year his ERA against Detroit and KC was 1.71 in over 31 innings. The best teams he faced were Houston and the Yankees (three starts). His ERA was 5.40 in 16.2 innings. I think it makes a difference who the batters are so I like to break it down like that. Overly simplistic, yes, but I think there's some value in looking at it like that. At least Plesac won't have to face the Yankees or Astros this season.
You're 100% correct. Evaluating pitchers based off ERA is overly simplistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ_
I was responding to Jup's statement about Civale's success being due to "the league not having time to get a fix on what he does and how he does it. That simply won't be the case this year."

IOW, Civale's success last year was due not to his pitching ability but batters simply being unfamiliar with "what he does and how he does it". I responded by saying that wasn't the case for Kluber or Nagy. They didn't get worse their second or third years as hitters saw more of them, they got better.

The difference is Civale was better as a rookie than Kluber or Nagy. Is it possible he's already developed the pitches he needs?

Both you and Jup agree that if Civale and Plesac pitch at exactly the same level as last year they will have worse results. You said neither of them will be "effective without substantial improvement in key areas". Not minor improvements - "substantial" improvements. You both seem to agree that neither of them was anywhere near as good as their 2019 numbers indicate and if they trot out the same crap they threw last year it won't be pretty. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration - sorry.

But then you said Civale pitched "great" in 17 innings against the Twins and Yankees where he only allowed one home run. If he pitched great against the two best offenses in baseball last year and probably in many years, why wouldn't those same pitches work this year? Why would he need "substantial" improvement?

In Civale's first nine starts he allowed 11 earned runs and three of those starts were against the Yankees and Twins, the highest scoring teams in the majors. If he throws the same stuff this year you’re saying he won’t be effective? Why not?

You’re also saying that if he throws another 60-70 innings this year with the same results as last year we’ll still know “next to nothing” about whether he has a succesful future in the bigs. If he limits the opponents to two earned runs or less in 18 of his first 20 starts we'll still know "next to nothing"?

Under that logic if a pitcher had an ERA of 6.60 after his first 20 starts we should just keep trotting him out there until he gets to 300 innings, then start tracking his progress. We don't know anything until the numbers stabilize, right?.

I prefer to look at what the guy is throwing. Here’s a quote from a Justin Lada column:

“What Civale does well is spin the fastball (2268 - 85th percentile), which helps his 93 mph fastball play up. He did touch 95 at times, something we didn’t see in the minors from him. His curveball spin is in the 96th percentile and gets 12% better than league average on his vertical drop on it. He limited hard contact well, finishing with a 2.4% barrel rate, the top 1% of the league [in 2019]...It’s a mid-rotation type arsenal just lacking above average velocity.”

I guess we’ll see if he’s improved his pitches this year and if the league smacks him around if he doesn’t.
Lots of stuff here, but I will try to comment the stuff more directly associated with my post.

In my case I would say you are conflating a couple things. Saying that hitters will have a much better idea what he does and how he does it, is just a fact. I never said he or Plesac would have better or worse results, just that they will not be a "mystery" to the hitters in the league for much longer. That is independent of whether the strategy and arsenal they deploy can continue to be successful.

CB's (true 12-6) have been around for a long time. They have been and will remain hard to hit. It is the dynamics of the pitch itself. Sliders (true ones - not slurves) move very little, it is the dynamics of a pitch thrown with "bullet spin". They are hard as hell to differentiate from FB's, the dynamics of the pitch itself. They have always been and will continue to be hard to identify from FB's. They get missed because of the speed differential not because of the movement profile, given they hardly move at all (spin dynamics without the gravitational effect).

So once a hitter knows you throw a CB or SL, doesn't necessarily mean he will be effective hitting them. But he is one step closer knowing what you do and how you do it than he was before there was a book on you. There are natural dynamics that make the pitches deceptive or hard to hit that will remain, it depends on how you deploy those dynamics that will determine the success rate with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LL3

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top