Lack of Dominance in Chart Form

All the cool kids have started reproducing graphs from fangraphs showing win expectancy -- basically how an individual's actions affect the team's chances of winning. They're mildly interesting, and do give you a quick snapshot of the roller coaster of emotions that can occur in a game.

But something about them bothers me. In many cases, it seems like they're being attributed more value and worth than they really have. In most cases, the graph is simply stating the obvious, but because it's wrapped in numbers, it's supposedly superior to observation or it's enhancing analysis of the game. I don't quite see it. Every now and then, it does show a hidden play -- like a 6th-inning Jose Vidro GIDP -- but for the most part the key plays are the ones that even your baseball-hating gf could tell you were important. (Case in point -- you mean ARod's 9th inning Grand Slam was important???)

Now this isn't to say that I'm anti-stats, just that often what they're telling you is the same thing that anyone can see with their eyes. The example that sticks out in my mind is SBF from Nats320 talking about Ryan Zimmerman's defense last year (which I can't find on google, of course). SBF isn't much for stats, but he's got a good eye, having been around the game for a while. He said that Ryan Zimmerman was sensational going to his right or to his left, but that it was the shots hit right at him that he had a hard time fielding, especially liners. Well, Baseball Musings does a pretty sophisticated defensive analysis which tries to measure how well players do in certain situations relative to others. Here's what they found for how Zimmerman does with line drives. If it's hit right to him (the middle of the 'vector' axis), he does poorly, turning fewer of those balls into outs.

The numbers and the scouting eye say the exact same thing.

Now there are certainly cases where they won't match up. And the numbers give you the advantage of "being near" and "seeing" players the scouts can't get to. But there's a lot of overlap.

If I had an editor, this is where they'd urge me to hit ctrl+a then the delete key, because that's all throat clearing for what I wanted to get to: John Patterson.

We've seen his lack of dominance with our eyes. But do the numbers agree?

Thanks to the greatest invention since John Crapper and Willis Carrier, Baseball-Reference.com, we have access to pitch-by-pitch data. The results of each individual pitch can let us know how he's doing, and whether he's pitching better than the results seem to indicate he is.

If you want to follow along, here's Patterson's page. Just click on the "Pitch Data Summary" link right below his pitching stats.

Year   Strk%  1st%  StS%  StF%  StI%
2005     64%   59%   16%   30%   27%
2007     54%   39%   11%   24%   36%

Year   SOc% Cntc% 3-0%  0-2%
2005   38%    78%   5%   20%
2007   25%    85%  11%    9%

What the hell are we looking at?
--Strk% is the percentage of strikes thrown. You can see that he's throwing 10% fewer, and has tossed almost as many balls as strikes.
--1st% is first-pitch strikes, and this is where he's really collapsed. He's behind 61% of the batters he faces.
--StS% is the % of swinging strikes.
--StF% is the % that are fouled off -- looks like he's throwing fewer 'tough' pitches
--StI% is the % that were put in play in fair territory. Batters are simply having an easier time getting his balls into play: 50% more often than in '05
--SoC% is the % of his Ks that are called. Usually you get a called strike when you fool someone.
--Cntc% is how often batters make contact when they swing. He's missing fewer bats with his pitches. When they swing, they're hitting it.
--3-0% is the percentage of his plate appearances that end up at a 3-0 count. Ouch. His lack of command really shows up here.
--0-2% is the same, but with 0-2 counts. He's not throwing enoguh strikes to get himself into a good position.

Sum it all up, and the stats paint a picture of a pitcher with command problems, who's falling behind batters and getting hit when he leaves fat strikes over the plate.

Does that profile look like John Patterson? It does to my eyes.

He can get by without velocity, especially early in the season. I worry less about that than I do his inability to control his curve or his slider. Until he's able to throw them for strikes, batters can sit on his slower fastball. But once (if?!) he gets those working, it won't matter if he's throwing 82 -- as anyone who saw Livan almost no-hit the Nats can attest.