Jun
15

This is not normal: the David Robertson edition

By

Relievers are tricky little buggers. Their appearances are by nature short and frequent, and they accrue statistics in drips and drabs. As a result, even the most overused relievers typically have statistically insignificant samples of data by this point in the season, and within those samples of data sometimes we see a little bit of crazy. That’s what’s going on with David Robertson so far in 2011. Four things in particular stand out:

6.2 BB/9 rate, 87% LOB rate, 0.0 HR/FB%, .368 BABIP

Regression is a word that gets tossed around quite a bit, but it’s reasonable to expect Robertson to experience some regression in each of these areas. Some of this will work in Robertson’s favor, and some will not. Let’s start with the good.

“Good” Regression

6.2 BB/9 rate. Robertson’s control hasn’t always been the best at the major league level, but in the minors he averaged 3.6 BB/9. This is a good mark, although he was an advanced college arm when he came into the system, so perhaps the most relevant marks are his 4.4 BB/9 and 3.7 BB/9 in his two final years at Scranton. David has struggled with his command in the big leagues, averaging about 5 batters walked per nine innings throughout his career. For most relievers this would be intolerable, but David frequently makes up for it by preventing subsequent batters from putting the ball in play by striking them out. Regardless, Robertson probably isn’t a 6.2 BB/9 guy going forward unless something’s wrong with him. We can probably expect him to cut down on the walks just a bit, which is always a plus.

.368 BABIP. Most people are familiar with BIP theory so we won’t go through the primer. A .368 BABIP is not normal, and there’s no good reason to expect Robertson to sustain a batting average on balls in play this high. The Yankees defense isn’t horrific – it’s rather good in the outfield – and Robertson is clearly a major league pitcher capable of getting guys out. Robertson can’t be a pitcher good enough to sustain a very high strikeout rate, which he clearly is, and simultaneously be so hittable so as to render his BABIP of .368 normal.

Batted ball profile aside (and it checks out just fine), I ran a Play Index query seeking single season totals for pitchers with over 100 IP, a K/9 of over 9 and a BABIP of over .350 from 1919 to 2011 and came up with two pitchers: Darryl Kile in 1996 and Randy Johnson in 2003. If you set the parameters for just relievers and a lower the minimum IP require to 50, you net 50 pitchers with a strikeout rate of over 9 and a BABIP higher than .350. In other words, it’s very rare, the stuff of flukes, and likely to sort itself out over time if given a long enough runway. Robertson has always been a high BABIP guy, but .368 is a touch too high, even for him. Figure that fewer balls in play will be converting to hits, and figure that Robertson will get better results in this regard. Count this one as a plus.

“Bad” Regression

Not enough home runs: 0% HR/FB, 0 HR/9, 0 HRs, however you’d like to put it. Robertson’s isn’t a particularly ground-ball heavy pitcher as it is, which means a fair amount of batted balls are going into the air when he’s pitching. Eventually, these fly balls are going to leave the park. From time to time pitchers have been known to go a long time without yielding home runs. In fact, since 1901 33 pitchers have thrown at least 50 innings in relief without yielding a single home run. This sounds like a decent number until you realize that in that time frame there have been 3,835 pitchers to throw at least 50 innings in relief. Those 33 pitchers are well into the 99th percentile of home run rates, and only 1 of those pitchers ever repeated his feat (Greg Minton, who didn’t allow a single home run between 1979-1981 pitching as multi-inning reliever for the San Francisco Giants).

Robertson has given up roughly 8 home runs for every 100 fly balls throughout his career, which means he should have given up at least one by now (1.44 to be exact). Spitballing it, he’s likely due for 3 or 4 HRs by the time the season concludes if his HR/FB ratio regresses to normal and he continues getting FBs at a 35% rate. It’s not the worst thing in the world, but it likely will happen and it likely will happen with inherited runners on base, given that that’s usually when he’s brought in. Count this one as a minus.

Strand rate: 87.2%. In his career Robertson has been a 77% strand rate pitcher, meaning he’s stranding about 10% more this year than in the past. Relievers don’t normally maintain strand rates north of 85%. It’s very rare. Mariano Rivera comes in around 80%, as do Joe Nathan, Billy Wagner and Francisco Rodriguez. Plenty of pitchers sit lower.

Robertson is a very good pitcher with the ability to get loads of strikeouts, so his ability to maintain a high strand rate is in some sense believable. At the same time, he’s not likely to maintain this high of a rate for the remainder of the season or the entirety of his career. Could he? Sure. Anything could happen. Robertson could also throw another 25 innings with a BB/9 over 6, a K/9 over 14 with a BABIP of .350, even though only one other pitcher in baseball history has managed to pull that off before (Kenley Jensen, this year) and no pitcher in baseball history has ever done it over 50 innings. But in the absence of some intervening explanation as to why we should expect this to happen, I’m far more comfortable going forward with a reasonable expectation of regression based on probability.

Categories : Death by Bullpen
  • Esteban

    Oh noes. A weekday post from a weekend writer. Think of the children!

    So what’s gonna give first? Hopefully it’s better babip and better control and not more homeruns and worse strand rate. Maybe his control is helping in an effectively wild way?

    • Mike HC

      RAB is evolving

    • Dan Novick

      Mike had written 35 of the last 36 posts…he needed a break.

      Joe and Ben, on the other hand….

      • The Guns of the Navarone (a mushroom cloud layin’ mothafucka, mothafucka!)

        This is not normal: The Mike did not write this post edition.

      • Esteban

        slacking off

      • Joe

        What are you trying to imply here?

      • http://www.secondavenuesagas.com Benjamin Kabak

        If you’d like to study for the bar for me, I’d be happy to trade. Joe’s on vacation this week.

        • 28 this year

          is it the coors light bar exam or the real bar exam? Slight difference

          • Gonzo

            I took the LSD test and passed with flying colors.

        • Esteban

          No excuses! We demand content!

        • Cris Pengiuci

          Sure Ben, we’ll study for you …. Trust us! After all, look at what we do all day while at work!

          • http://www.secondavenuesagas.com Benjamin Kabak

            +1

        • jsbrendog

          good luck man.

        • Monteroisdinero

          Ben Kabak-General Counsel for the NY Yankees.

          Go get ‘em Ben!

          • jsbrendog

            randy levine gives him hope.

        • Dan Novick

          Tough to read intent on the web…I hope my comment wasn’t interpreted as criticism. And no, I’m not asking for my money back.

          • Frigidevil

            There is an incredible need for a universal sarcasm font.

  • Gonzo

    You always assume that I am making a point that I am not. It’s constant and annoying. I am saying you said something that is factually incorrect.

    You made this statement about what Mike wrote:
    “He then goes on about the inner-workings of an organization he has no part of… speculating that they have no succession plan or even candidates capable of succeeding Cashman. That because their title is not “Assistant GM” they clearly do not have the skill-set to be a GM.”
    I am saying that he goes into why he doesn’t think there is an in-house GM candidate more than just “no Assistant GM’s.” You are mistaking my correction for taking the opposite position as you. I am simply correcting you factually and irrefutably. You always do this. It’s almost comical. Maybe one day it won’t be annoying and I’ll start to laugh.

    • Gonzo

      Wrong thread. Oops! That was for none other than Ted Nelson, or as I like to refer to him as, Theoretical Ted Nelson.

      • jsbrendog

        i just skip every post he writes, have for a couple months now

        • Gonzo

          Sadly, I’m going to have to. He just has no idea what I am saying. It’s so weird.

          • http://twitter.com/tsjc68 tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside the Elder

            He has no idea what ANYONE is saying. He consistently puts words in other people’s mouths and argues against strawmen and red herrings. And he does it with righteous indignation, to boot.

            Having a discussion/argument with him is pointless, because he’ll rail against you for pages and pages about how wrong you are for saying that thing you DIDN’T just say.

            Persona non grata.

  • http://Facebook.com/andrewjcalagna Drew

    Looks like RAB should be in the makers for another weekday writer. hint hint hint

  • MikeD

    There’s alway a lot of conjecture each season on who is the most valuable Yankee, or who would be the most difficult to replace. I nominate Robertson for 2011. If he goes down, the Yankees are in a lot of trouble right now.

    • jsbrendog

      without granderson they’re even more screwed.

      he is the league mvp as of now imo/

    • Clay Bellinger

      He’s been big, but Grandy and CC have been better.

      • MikeD

        I probably should have softened it slightly. CC and Granderson are obvious. Robertson is taken for granted. If he goes down with the bullpen in its current shape, well, I don’t want to think about it!

  • Carl

    Line-up looks AWESOME tonight. WTF

    • jsbrendog

      off topic

  • I Voted 4 Kodos

    Usually when a guy walks as many people as Robertson does, I hate watching them pitch, For some reason, though, I love it when D-Rob comes in. I think it’s a combination of the absolutely insane k rate combined with the fact that, on the surface, he doesn’t seem like a guy that should miss as many bats as he does.

    • MikeD

      I think because after a while you begin to accept his style of pitching and that he will not let the runners score, even if he’s walking too many. I always had faith in El Duque when he would fall behind batters, or seemingly walk batters on purpose to get to the next hitter. Once he stops being successful at the high-wire act, your opinion will change, but it’s working, so I’m fine with it, too.

  • sleepykarl

    Robertson has seemed to toy with a cutter some, a pitch some think cuts down HR/FB ratios. Of course i am not saying this means he will stay at 0 for the year, but could improve upon his career totals.

  • Jarrod

    It may just be a figment of my imagination but Robertson has appeared to start slow each year for the past couple.

    On that basis is it possible that a return to long term averages is not on the cards given his sharp start to this season? Meaning he is not playing catch up this year.

  • Voice of Reason

    How is it possible to write about David Robertson’s abnormal statistics without mentioning his ridiculous K rate? He’s always gotten a ton of Ks, but 14.7/9 is right up there with his BB/9, BABIP and HR/FB.