Want to Win a Couple More Games Per Season?

This has been something I've thought about for a long time, since I saw John "the Count" Montefusco hit a home run and reinforced by Don "Caveman" Robinson, then brought to mind again last season when Russ Ortiz re-joined the Giants: most pitchers are missing something by not working on their hitting as well as their pitching. Are you competitive enough to want it, to get that extra win or two?

If Only I Could Hit


Using the lineup analysis data that ties run production as a function of OBP and SLG, I tried some numbers out to see what would happen to a pitcher if he could hit as well as the worse position player. For this experiment, I used the Giants pre-season lineup that I noted should produce 4.27 runs per game and compared it with a lineup where the 9th hitter could hit as well as Omar Vizquel was projected to hit. Thus, the .467 OPS pitcher/PH/double-switch (pitcher alone is much lower) is now a .671 OPS hitter. That's roughly a 200 point increase in OPS.


First, I assumed that the pitcher was good enough to keep runs allowed to 4.27 runs and thus would be a .500 pitcher with our projected offense, or 81 win season for a team like that. Improving the pitcher to Omar level would boost runs scored to 4.61, or an extra 0.34 runs per game. That would change a .500 pitcher, or 16-16 win/loss in 32 starts, decision in each game, to a .538 pitcher, or 17-15 win/loss. Only two games, or really, just changes one game from a loss to a win, but on a team-wide level, that makes a .500 team with 81 wins to a 87 win season and competitive for the division title (though usually just short by the end).


Second, I assumed a good pitcher that would win at a .600 winning percentage, which working through the math in reverse, means that he has a 3.49 ERA when the team is scoring runs at a 4.27 pace. Again, boosting the runs scored by 0.34 runs per game results in a loss turning into a win, changing a 19-13 starter to a 20-12 starter. That changes a 97 win team to a 103 win team.

Overall Result

It does not seem like much, but, like a baseball season, if you are around long enough, it makes a difference. Over a ten year career, that's the difference between a, say, 120-120 record or a 130-110 record (that is the equivalent of an 88 win season). You go from an average pitcher to one who is not that bad, pretty good even. Or a good pitcher at 130-110 to a great pitcher 140-100 (that is equivalent of a 94-95 win season for a team). Or a great to an elite at 150-90.


Seems like it's only a little gain for such a big jump in OPS - and I will admit that jumping from 200 OPS points is a big jump and probably beyond the abilities of a lot of pitchers - but there are many pitchers who don't hit well AND don't work at it, and they brush that off like it's nothing, as long as they pitch well, that is all that they care about. Well, would they like to win a couple more games per season?


And I know that sabermetrically, wins are not the greatest measure of a pitcher's value, but a win is a win when you look at the final standings of the year. And most pitchers are not going to go chapter and verse about their DIPS ERA if they won a lot of games. Shouldn't their pride at least get them off their butts and take batting practice more seriously and learn how to hit better? It might change only one loss into a win, but that's a two win swing and can move a pitcher from one level of winning to the next level.