The Z Files: Prepping For the Stretch Run, Part Two

Written by

Updated on August 16, 2018 9:24AM EST

Last week, some hitting data was investigated to help frame category management. I've been asked if I was going to repeat the study for pitching. The answer is, almost, but not quite.

It's cliché but the axiom, "bully hitting, manage pitching" holds true even as other aspects of the game change. When micro-managing the hitting categories, at-bats are paramount. If allowed by the rules, playing favorable matchups is important. However, especially once injuries kick in, thinning reserves and the available pool in general limits the upgrade between players for the fringe active roster spots. Perhaps better said, the weekly hitting upgrade incurred isn't as significant as managing the pitching side of the ledger where two-start weeks make a huge difference, along with the ability to use a dominant middle reliever in lieu of a one-start arm with a poor matchup.

So, instead of presenting quarterly stats like last week, today's discussion will focus on managing ratios, looking at what it takes to make a serious move in ERA and WHIP. Long-time readers know this is a personal crusade, as many feel the accumulation of innings stifles movement in the ratio categories.

We happen to be at the three-quarter pole, facilitating the math. I'll show my work with ERA, the same conclusion can be drawn doing the analogous exercise with WHIP.

Let's use a 0.05 difference in ERA. Regardless of what your current mark is, to drop it by .05, your pitching needs to be 0.2 better, assuming a similar pacing

Last week, some hitting data was investigated to help frame category management. I've been asked if I was going to repeat the study for pitching. The answer is, almost, but not quite.

We happen to be at the three-quarter pole, facilitating the math. I'll show my work with ERA, the same conclusion can be drawn doing the analogous exercise with WHIP.

Let's use a 0.05 difference in ERA. Regardless of what your current mark is, to drop it by .05, your pitching needs to be 0.2 better, assuming a similar pacing of innings. That is, if you presently sit at 3.90, your pitching needs to post a 3.70 mark the rest of the year to drop it to 3.85 by season's end. If you're at 4.20, it takes a 4.00 the rest of the way to end at 4.15.

Hopefully two questions come to mind. First, how many points can be gained with a .05 drop in ERA? Next, is a drop of .20 in ERA over the last quarter of the season plausible? Let's investigate each using real-life data from some 15-team mixed leagues.

Below is the ERA difference in adjacent teams from six leagues I either play in or administer. The bolded entries are within the targeted .05 ERA difference:

A	B	C	D	E	F
0.05	0.08	0.42	0.32	0.35	0.19
0.13	0.20	0.18	0.02	0.01	0.16
0.19	0.04	0.03	0.13	0.03	0.11
0.20	0.03	0.04	0.04	0.05	0.28
0.01	0.03	0.03	0.11	0.04	0.05
0.03	0.12	0.02	0.01	0.05	0.01
0.03	0.06	0.00	0.07	0.09	0.05
0.00	0.10	0.01	0.06	0.08	0.02
0.07	0.08	0.02	0.13	0.00	0.05
0.01	0.10	0.03	0.08	0.01	0.01
0.17	0.21	0.01	0.16	0.09	0.02
0.01	0.05	0.07	0.07	0.07	0.04
0.07	0.05	0.24	0.01	0.08	0.02
0.11	0.13	0.09	0.19	0.33	0.02

Obviously, everything depends on where you're situated in the standings, but that's the same for any category. The important point is in each league, there are multiple places to gain points with an .05 ERA drop. In some, such as C, E and F, there are multiple points to be had.

So, let's say you're fortunate enough to be within .05 of the next team. What's the likelihood of recording an ERA that's 0.2 better than its current level? Our friends at OnRoto, host service for Tout Wars, have a ToyBox feature that allows standings to be generated for any period of the season. Below is the ERA for each team (using the Mixed Auction and Mixed Draft) in each of the first three quarters of the season, along with their yearly mark:

Mixed Auction

Q1	Q2	Q3	Year
3.15	3.24	3.20	3.20
3.66	3.21	3.65	3.56
3.74	3.33	3.73	3.57
3.78	3.99	3.20	3.60
3.21	3.94	3.80	3.65
3.84	3.34	3.91	3.69
3.74	3.29	4.16	3.74
3.45	4.08	4.00	3.83
3.71	3.84	4.39	3.91
3.88	4.05	3.88	3.91
3.61	4.05	4.18	3.93
3.16	4.45	4.68	4.01
4.27	3.39	4.29	4.09
4.51	3.91	3.99	4.17
4.15	4.51	4.90	4.50

Mixed Draft

Q1	Q2	Q3	Year
3.34	2.57	3.60	3.15
3.02	3.28	3.66	3.34
3.25	3.85	3.34	3.50
3.81	4.16	3.00	3.61
3.86	3.71	4.10	3.89
4.07	4.68	3.20	3.94
3.97	4.19	3.82	3.94
4.17	3.72	4.08	3.99
4.29	3.71	3.99	4.01
2.91	4.43	4.70	4.06
4.22	3.77	4.12	4.07
4.36	3.86	4.09	4.09
3.91	3.74	4.70	4.14
3.30	4.67	4.60	4.15
4.16	3.91	4.48	4.17

In both instances, 13 of the 15 squads posted an ERA in one individual quarter at least 0.2 lower than their total at the three-quarter pole. Some of this may have been due to roster management, replacing injured or disappointing arms with an upgrade from reserve or free agency, a trade or, in many cases, simple variance. Regardless of the reason, it's quite plausible to register an improved ERA over the last quarter of the season, perhaps while not even trying.

Chances are, you don't want to rely on Lady Luck to get the job done; you want to be proactive. Prudent streaming over the final six-plus weeks of the season is one option. Judicious use of middle relievers goes hand in hand with playing favorable matchups. How much can a dominant non-closer affect your ratios?

Sticking with 15-team mixed formats, if you replace seven starts recording a 4.50 ERA with a middle reliever sporting a 3.00 ERA, you'll drop your ERA by .02-.03. This is essentially benching your seventh starter each week in lieu of a setup man. For the record, there's at least 34 non-closers that have thrown at least 45 innings so far, toting an ERA 3.00 or lower.

Changing the parameters to subbing a 4.60 ERA from your last starter with a 2.80 ERA from a reliever, the improvement is .04-.05. Obviously, there's no guarantee your chosen reliever performs at the expected level, but there are metrics to use (K%, BB%, HR%) to maximize the probability you choose wisely.

The caveat to all this is the potential points loss in wins and especially strikeouts. You're replacing a cruddy hurler, so the wins potential is low. You may even vulture as many wins as you're benching. The above calculation assumes avoiding seven five-inning starts, or 35 frames. Considering this is a lesser pitcher, you may be losing 29 or 30 whiffs. The added reliever was estimated to throw 17 stanzas. Electing someone with a high strikeout rate could garner around 20 punchouts, so you're short 10 or so. The category math is how many points can be gained in ratios versus lost in wins and strikeouts. Again, it all depends on where you are in the standings, but the same is true when you're attempting to move up in homers, runs and RBI while not costing as many points in steals and batting average, as an example.

Overlooked in the discussion so far is the strong possibility your competitors help you gain points by worsening their ratios. If almost all teams enjoyed a quarter of the season with a low ERA, that means at least some of the other periods featured an ERA above their seasonal mark. This will occur by variance in the last segment, shrinking some of the above gaps. As such, with the same .05 improvement in ERA, you could end up gaining more than one or two points. This is amplified now that we're at the point of the campaign where the diligence of some of your foes declines. For various reasons, subpar pitchers will be left active or reserves with favorable setups won't be activated. In some cases, injured or demoted pitchers are left in the lineup, helping you make up ground in wins and whiffs.

To sum up, I've long preached ratios are still in play. This is the first time I've looked at the actual plausibility of attaining the necessary improvement using quarterly league numbers. To be honest, I feel more strongly than ever that eschewing standings gain in ERA and WHIP is a monumental mistake.