I keep reading about Andrew Cashner being a ground ball pitcher. In the sense that every pro pitcher is a ground ball pitcher, it is true. He's been just average at each professional level, for the league (non age-adjusted).
For each stop on the way to where ever he ends up in 2010, here's how Mr. Cashner fared in terms of actual ground ball rate and league adjusted (100 being average, each point above or below is 1% above or below average, a la OPS+).
2008
GCL Cubs (Gulf Coast League, Rookie)
Batters Faced: 4
GB%: 0%
GB+: 0
Boise Hawks (Northwest League, Short Season A)
Batters Faced: 85
GB%: 49%
GB+: 97
Daytona Cubs (Florida State League, Advanced A)
Batters Faced: 39
GB%: 53%
GB+: 112
2009
Cactus League Cubs (Spring Training)
Batters Faced: 5
GB%: 50%
GB+: 112
Daytona Cubs (Florida State League, Advanced A)
Batters Faced: 171
GB%: 49%
GB+: 104
Tennessee Smokies (Southern League, Double A)
Batters Faced: 277
GB%: 49%
GB+: 107
Mesa Solar Sox (Arizona Fall Leauge)
Batters Faced: 85
GB%: 45%
GB+: 99
Grand Total
Batters Faced: 666
GB%: 48%
GB+: 104
OK, so he is above average so far. Barely. But can we stop calling him a ground ball pitcher?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Is Andrew Cashner a Ground Ball Pitcher?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have to hardcore disagree with you on this. Andrew Cashner isn't a traditional GB pitcher because he's more of a strikeout pitcher. But when it comes to GB% v FB+LD% he is above league average by a fair amount while being well above league average in K's as well. That'd make him a GB pitcher on balls in play for sure. Ergo, one could very easily call him a GB pitcher and not be off base.
His ground ball rate, on balls "in play", including HR, is just 4% better than average. 104 = 4% better than average. Is that a "fair amount" better than average?
His 2HR allowed in 120IP without a particularly high Pop Up rate disagrees with you.
On top of that, the average GB% is 43.2% in A+ last year he had a 48.8% GB%, which isn't a 104, actually, it's (48.8/43.2)*100 which is which is 113. Secondly, his AA GB% was 46.4% which is (46.4/43.2)*100 which is 107. So actually, yes, it is a fair amount better than average.
And, I'm just saying, only 37 pitchers had greater than or equal to a GB% of 46.4% last year in the majors and 20 managed higher than a 48.8%. Of those 20 only 8 of them had as high or higher of a K rate as him. And far as I can tell K% and GB% seems to follow people throughout their careers.
About those rates - mine are relative to the league, not the whole level. They are also three-year averages for the baseline, not single seasons.
What this points out is a possible limitation/bias with my approach, that may or may not be a better limitation/bias than a single season baseline. Should a pitcher be compared to current peers or recent peers?
I also think your point about the HR rate and lack of pop-ups is a good one. One of the questions that I have/keep hearing is how rates translate from level to MLB. I've been doing some analysis (not to the league, just level so far) and a later step is to look for other factors that help predict GB rate beyond GB rate itself. HR rate misaligned with PU rate is something I'll look at - thanks!
Thanks. And no problem, Cashner is my favorite Cubs prospect. So I had to defend him.
And yeah, I agree with you that it's hard to say what is more worth comparing. But to me his most recent peers are better because it compares him to those that he'll be around.
But yeah, with the HR rate vs Pop Up Rate, either Cashner is eating a whole box of Lucky Charms before every game or his GB% should always be pretty good, even with moving to the majors. The only thing that might get into his way as becoming a high #2 or possibly an ace even is how his third pitch comes along because he doesn't have the control to get away with being a two pitch pitcher, even with his nasty stuff.
Post a Comment