Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 52: Oakland’s All-Rookie Rotation/Baseball’s Ever-Rising Strikeout Rate

Episode Date: September 28, 2012

Ben and Sam discuss whether the A’s all-rookie rotation bodes well for their future, then talk about whether the average strikeout rate has risen too high.

Good morning and welcome to episode 51. That's wrong. I'm going to start over. Good morning and welcome to episode 52 of Effectively Wild, the Daily Baseball Perspectives podcast. Thank you. It's great to be here. In New York, New York, where I am approximately 12 hours away from the opening, the grand opening of a 7-Eleven one block away, which I could not be more excited about. I am Ben Lindberg, and in Long Beach, California, you are Sam Miller. Do you have a 7-Eleven anywhere near you? Yes, I do. Okay. How near?

I would say it's about a mile and a quarter. I have not actually been to it, but I've been to other 7-Elevens. So you would drive if you were to make a late-night 7-Eleven run? I would probably bicycle. I try not to drive anywhere within two miles. I try to drive everywhere beyond two miles. I'm not strong. Well, I'm very excited because I've been living for the past year or so

a three-avenue trek away from the closest 7-Eleven. And as someone who keeps odd hours, I appreciate— And an empty refrigerator. Yes, I appreciate all 24-hour diners and convenience stores and really anything that's open when I am awake. Baseball. Yeah, so that was kind of my topic, 7-Eleven, but my other topic is strikeouts. And I'll be talking about the Oakland A's rotation. Wait, strikeouts? Strikeouts. Strikeouts, okay.

Somebody told me that you were going to be talking about something else. Was it RJ? I had a tipster. Was it RJ? It was. Yeah. He suggested a topic and I didn't take it. Okay. Do you want to start?

Well, I was all ready to talk about your other one, but... Sorry. That's okay. I'll start. I am going to steal, actually, another person's writing. Rob Neier wrote on Wednesday about the fascinating fact that the Oakland A's currently have five rookie starters in their starting rotation. They are likely to go into the postseason with five rookie starters in their starting rotation. They are likely to go into the postseason with five

rookie starters in their starting rotation. And the question that I have, if all I knew about this team was that they are playoff bound and they have five rookie starters, I don't think I could possibly be more excited about their future. That to me would say dynasty. And I just wonder if you think, knowing that the A's have, I think, the second best starting rotation performance this year, and that they have done it largely behind this group of rookies, do you think that this does suggest a, well, I'm going to be provocative and say dynasty, but do you think that this is a particularly notable fact for their future?

Or is it just a group that will be broken up and victims of attrition and all that sort of thing? Well, Colin Wires wrote something at BP recently about how we should think about a team's future differently based on its age. And he found that a team that is successful and young, we should be a little more optimistic about its future than a team that's successful and old, which makes sense. So I would certainly say it's a point in their favor. I think the A's in recent years have had a very heavy rookie presence in their rotation. If I recall correctly, they set some sort of record for

starts by rookies or innings pitched by rookies either last year or the year before. I'm just vaguely recalling this from maybe a BP annual. So I don't know how new it is for them. Well, I mean, let's assume that that's true. Let's assume you're remembering correctly. That's awfully telling, right? I mean, they set some sort of record for rookie starters, and five years later, they have five rookie starters. So obviously, none of those previous pitchers. We should almost pause the podcast while I go and look up that factoid. We should almost pause, but not quite pause.

Okay. Simply talk very slowly. We'll speak like we're underwater until you you find it i'll see if i can find it and if not i'll put it on the blog post uh but i guess you kind of have to look at who the rookies are um and also why they are in the rotation which is in part because of injuries more so than uh seizing a rotation spot purely by their own performance or promise. Not that any of them has really looked overmatched or anything or is out of place at all.

They've been fine. But I guess just the fact that it's five rookies, if you know nothing else, I think is probably a good sign. But it's not exactly five Steven Strasburgs. So, and then I guess the A's kind of have a history of trading their pitchers pretty quickly. So who knows how long these guys will be around? I mean, unless they move or something, I kind of doubt that these five guys will be the backbone of the rotation for the next six years or anything. I mean, maybe. You're right that it isn't exactly a high-pedigree group of rookies. Jared Parker is the only really top prospect in the group and maybe Straley.

And I think you could almost maybe make the case that you would perhaps rather have a group of five 27-year-olds than five rookies because while the rookies might be having some success they don't quite have the track record they you probably are less confident that those guys are going to be good for the foreseeable future there's perhaps more injury risk for them being younger so yeah I don't know that it's quite as optimistic as my initial instinct was the other. I mean, also Travis Blackley is, uh, sort of a fraud in that group. Uh, so we are cheating a bit. Um, but, uh, I don't know. I, do you think that the A's, um, just knowing what you know about them and knowing what you know about this season and knowing what you know about the low-cost starting rotation that they have succeeding for them, do you think that they are a good bet or a bad bet to win 89 games this year? I'll say good, I guess.

I wouldn't have expected them to be as good as they've been this year. I don't think they're going to take a huge step backwards or anything. Obviously, there can be injuries and there can be random fluctuations that happen in records. And so, I don't know, if you really look at it, maybe the odds are against almost any team winning that many games in any one season. But I think it's more the start of something than a one-year blip. But I think we managed to speak slowly enough that I found that factoid. So entering Wednesday, A's rookies had combined for 93 starts, which was tied with the 1983 A's for the second most in Oakland history.

The record is 116 set in 2009. So three seasons ago, the A's had roughly, it'll be, I guess, under, it'll be fewer than 10 more starts by rookies, but they will finish the season with fewer starts by rookies than they had three seasons ago uh okay so i'm sorry uh that thing that you just read that's current that's not from that was written one day ago that was written one day ago so they entered wednesday's game with 93 starts by rookies. 93 starts by rookies. And the record is 116 set three years ago. Okay.

So, yeah, now they're at 103 it looks like to me. So, interesting. Okay. Well, all I really wanted to know was your answer to the 89 question, and now I got it. Yeah, I kind of hedged after I gave it. question and now I got it. Yeah, I kind of hedged after I gave it. You kind of hedged, but you hedged more in general terms. I believe that you were clear about your intentions with the Oakland Athletics. I think that the listeners know where you stand. Yeah, my intentions are honorable with respect to the A's. With respect to the A's alone. Yes. Okay, so my topic about strikeouts pertains to

the A's. This has kind of been the week of strikeout records. All in this past week, we've had Zach Granke setting a record with 13 strikeouts in five innings, and then the angels as a whole tie the famous the famous most strikeouts in five innings record and we thought it would never be broken and the angels as a whole in that game tying the all-time record of 20 strikeouts we've had the tampa bay rays breaking the al single season record for pitcher strikeouts we have have had the Oakland A's setting the AL season strikeout record for hitters. And we've had Doug Pfister setting the AL record with nine consecutive strikeouts. We've also had the Pirates breaking the Pirates strikeout record, which is not quite as exciting. Let's not forget one more thing.

Craig Kimbrell, I don't think you said that. I kind of blanked out while you were talking. Let's not forget one more thing. Craig Kimbrell, I don't think you said that. I kind of blanked out while you were talking, but Craig Kimbrell is at the moment looking like a lock to break the all-time strikeouts per nine record, which gets broken every year these days. But what's notable about that is that he was at like 13 per nine

halfway through the season, and he's now at 16.6 per nine, which you know means that he's done some bananas things. Yes. What innings minimum is that? Oh, whatever. Who cares? Okay. So anyway, these things are obviously not a coincidence.

Strikeouts are up quite a bit this year. Obviously, strikeouts have been rising slowly and steadily now since the beginning of the game, more or less. In 1871, the average was 0.7 strikeouts per nine. It has slowly and steadily risen to the point where it is now 7.6 per nine, the MLB average. And that is up half a strikeout per nine innings from last season, which is a big jump. I haven't looked to see if it's the biggest jump. I'm guessing there was some other year where it might have been bigger, but it is a very big jump. And it took really a lot longer than that for, I mean, the first year when strikeouts per nine, the average was seven was three years ago, 2009. So in three seasons, it's gone more than halfway from seven to eight. Um, the strikeout record hits or the average hit six in 1994. And it then took all the way until 2009 to get to seven.

So you can't really extrapolate from this one year that seems to be kind of crazy. So who knows whether it will rise like that again next year, but you could possibly say that it's accelerating, or even if it's not accelerating, it's clearly just continuing the trend that we've seen really or even if it's not accelerating it's clearly uh just continuing the trend that we've seen really for the whole game's history and of course there are many theories and many explanations for why this is happening but i just wonder we talked a couple days ago about how we consider almost any change in baseball a good change or something that makes

baseball more interesting do you think that that is the case with strikeouts do you think that we're getting to the point where it's too much do you think there could be a point where it's too much do we need to do something about it uh yeah i think i have two probably two opinions about this uh as a person who has to comb through numbers trying to find interesting things to write and factoids all the time, I like the strikeouts. The strikeouts. What's that? I love the strikeouts as well uh from that perspective um and um yeah i mean there's something about a dominant pitcher that i think is the easiest thing to write about and probably the easiest

thing to gif about as well um and so to me it's been great for content uh for product. As far as from a fan perspective and an enjoyment perspective, I guess, yeah, I think I still feel the same way. I think I still like to see dominant pitching performances more than anything. But there is something that, I mean, I'm going to quote Rob Nair for the second time in this show, but Nair wrote i would guess june about ernie frieri yes um he called ernie frieri the canary in the coal mine right um and basically suggested that frieri's strikeout rates were so insane and frieri is not a great pitcher he was a guy who was just acquired for alexia marista and was like the sixth man out of the bullpen for the Padres before that. And he was striking out 18 per nine and had, you know, he's now down to like 13 or 14. But, you know, that's still 13 or 14 would have been an all time record a few years ago.

There is an element of offense and pitching balance that has it is sort of baseball's constant challenge to keep that balance somewhat fair to each side. And the way that pitchers are used these days, the way that pitchers seem to be overtaking hitters, and also the strategies that both sides use that are more focused on the strikeout, that both sides use that are more focused on the strikeout, I think all contribute to a somewhat stagnant offensive environment that does not bother me in the least right now, but it could get there. Craig Kimbrell's numbers, which I'm looking at right now, are a beautiful and glorious thing, and they are beautiful and glorious because Craig Kimbrell is a stud I love Craig Kimbrell you don't want to look at Kevin Jepson's numbers and be floored by them because Kevin Jepson you know is a very limited pitcher and does not deserve to have amazing numbers so I think that the more you see guys like I I don't know, like Jason Grilly maybe. Like you probably haven't heard anything about Jason Grilly all year.

I mean you might have because you are you. I have noticed that he is striking out too many batters. But that is – yeah. Yeah, he's striking out 14 batters per nine. He was striking out 15 per nine at one point. Jason Grilly, I mean he's 35 and he's Jason Grilly and this is what he's doing. And so I think there's a, there's a risk there, but it's not there yet. Right now I'm still having fun. Yeah, I guess I am too. Um, but it's strange if you look

at like the classic years where offense was down, like 1968, uh, MLB average ERA fell by 0.35 runs but strikeout rate went down um it wasn't so much more strikeouts it seems as it was uh I guess weaker balls in play or uh and now we're seeing all these strikeouts and and i can i'm sympathetic to the idea that baseball is a game that is more exciting when the ball is put in play um i think you're right that there is something very exciting about watching a pitcher just blow someone away when he does have Craig Kimbrell type stuff. But I mean, do you think, can you pinpoint a rate where you think this would have gotten to the point where baseball would be boring, that we would just be desperate for someone to put the ball in play and run somewhere and and to see a ball go somewhere i mean if it gets to a strikeout per inning is the league average which

is kind of in my experience been the hallmark of a good strikeout pitcher if that becomes the average strikeout pitcher um is that too much? Or will we not know until we see it, maybe? Boy, that's a hard question. I don't think I can pinpoint it. And I think that it's probably not as much the strikeouts as if the strikeouts brought league-wide offense down. I think what you don't want is you don't want a 2-0 lead in the second to feel insurmountable. And as long as you feel like offense gives you nine innings of enjoyment,

then I don't think there's a real problem. You just don't want games being basically cut short by a kind of depressing, low offensive environment where you just can't make up runs. I will also say that I think the most boring play in baseball is a sacrifice fly. And one of the most exciting plays in baseball is the strikeout with a runner on third and less than two outs. So in that sense, I do love the strikeout as well as an aesthetic and strategic part of the game. And, I mean, people are still hitting home runs. People are hitting more home runs than last year. So that's happening. But I guess the other hit types must be a little less frequent.

And there's certainly something to be said for the excitement of a triple or an infield hit uh those things are exciting in their own way and as much as i like home runs and strikeouts i think there would come a point where i would be sick of both of them and would want to see some variety. Of course, it's not, I mean, it seems almost like this inexorable rise, but there are things that you could do, presumably, to slow it down or even reverse it if it got to a point where there was some sort of consensus that baseball had become less interesting.

So I guess there's always kind of the fail-safe of lowering the mound or decreasing the size of the strike zone or whatever you want to try. It's not as if we can't go back if we need to. Do you know that there have been six pitchers who have struck out four batters in an inning this year? No, I noticed that a couple had recently. Phil Hughes maybe did it and someone else. Yeah, I think yesterday Cranky and Kimbrell both did it. And it happened twice in the 80s. Well, maybe we'll get to five finally.

It happened twice in the 70s. It happened twice in the 70s. It happened twice in the 60s. Assuming that I... Oh, I'm sorry. Those are just in the AL. But what my... Oh, so there's actually been eight this year. Well, what we need is for Will and Rosario

to get traded to the Braves and then Craig Kimbrell pitch to Will and Rosario and have him have many pass balls and maybe we will see five strikeouts in an inning. And that would be the latest sign of the strikeout apocalypse. That would be amazing. All right, Ben. Okay, that's the week.

We'll be back on Monday. Have a nice weekend.