After holding the Detroit Tigers to one run over six solid innings in the Orioles’ home opener on April 4, Jake Arrieta followed up with the briefest outing of his career against the Texas Rangers on Saturday. Arrieta cruised through the first two innings of the game before the wheels fell off in the third, culminating in an eight run performance over three and two-thirds innings pitched.
Judging by the box score, it would appear that Arrieta’s stuff abandoned him over his five days of rest. Shortly after the game, however, manager Buck Showalter commented that he “thought Jake had really good stuff. Too good of stuff to have that type of outing.” Showalter continued by all but accusing backup catcher Jake Fox of poor game-calling, adding, “he had some sequences that got a little out of whack and got them on him.”
How much of Arrieta’s early exit can be attributed to Fox’s pitch sequencing? For some clues, we can turn to the data from pitch f/x.
First, let’s take a look at the basic pitch types and results from Arrieta’s first outing (with Matt Wieters behind the dish) on April 4th:
| Type | Count | Selection | Strike | Swing | Whiff | Foul | In Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 50 | 50.5% | 64.0% | 50.0% | 4.0% | 20.0% | 26.0% |
| SL | 22 | 22.2% | 63.6% | 40.9% | 9.1% | 13.6% | 18.2% |
| SI | 17 | 17.2% | 64.7% | 58.8% | 5.9% | 29.4% | 23.5% |
| CU | 6 | 6.1% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| CH | 4 | 4.0% | 25.0% | 25.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
And compare the data to that from his start on Saturday (with Jake Fox as his battery-mate):
| Type | Count | Selection | Strike | Swing | Whiff | Foul | In Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 33 | 42.9% | 66.7% | 36.4% | 12.1% | 15.2% | 9.1% |
| SL | 23 | 29.9% | 65.2% | 43.5% | 13.0% | 8.7% | 21.7% |
| SI | 14 | 18.2% | 57.1% | 35.7% | 7.1% | 21.4% | 7.1% |
| CU | 6 | 7.8% | 83.3% | 83.3% | 33.3% | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| CH | 1 | 1.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
We can deduce a few things from the outcomes. First, the four-seam fastball actually seems to have been more effective in Saturday’s start than it was in his debut. Arrieta threw the pitch for strikes at a similar rate, froze batters more often and induced three times as many swings and misses with the pitch in start two as in start one. Accordingly, the pitch was put into play only 9.1 percent (!) of the time vs. 26 percent in the first start. Curiously, the four-seamer made up only 42.9 percent of Arrieta’s pitches (down from 50.5%) despite the fact that it was exceptionally effective.
The difference was largely made up by an increased reliance on the breaking ball. Arrieta’s slurve* accounted for about 38% of his pitches thrown (up from 28% in start one) despite the fact that it was put into play ~25% of the time. Despite its ineffectiveness, the Jakes seemed to keep returning to the breaking ball.
However, outcomes can be deceiving. To be sure that the quality of the pitches actually changed from start to start, we need to look at the velocity and break charts. As before, the data from start one is listed first, followed by that from start two:
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity | Vertical | Horizontal | Spin Angle | Spin Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 50 | 50.5% | 93.1 | 9.60 | -2.79 | 196 | 2,042 |
| SL | 22 | 22.2% | 86.7 | 2.00 | 4.65 | 114 | 999 |
| SI | 17 | 17.2% | 91.9 | 7.75 | -7.21 | 223 | 2,090 |
| CU | 6 | 6.1% | 76.2 | -8.68 | 8.73 | 46 | 1,981 |
| CH | 4 | 4.0% | 86.6 | 7.87 | -4.13 | 201 | 1,711 |
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity | Vertical | Horizontal | Spin Angle | Spin Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 33 | 42.9% | 93.0 | 10.85 | -3.33 | 196 | 2,302 |
| SL | 23 | 29.9% | 85.9 | 0.97 | 5.90 | 102 | 1,178 |
| SI | 14 | 18.2% | 92.1 | 8.99 | -7.37 | 219 | 2,305 |
| CU | 6 | 7.8% | 79.2 | -8.32 | 6.97 | 41 | 1,856 |
| CH | 1 | 1.3% | 88.3 | 8.84 | -7.01 | 218 | 2,143 |
The f/x data bear out the outcomes. The four-seam fastball indeed saw more vertical and horizontal movement in start two without sacrificing velocity. The spin was tight and fast. The “slider” was solid, though very flat despite the horizontal cut. The “curve” had less movement altogether. More troubling, there was less changing of speeds among all of Arrieta’s secondaries. There was probably some misfortune involved, considering the fact that both the whiff rate and the rate of balls put into play both increased significantly from start one to start two.
Still, the data indicate that Arrieta had one of the best fastballs of his brief Major League career on Saturday. If that was the case, why did Jake Fox rely on Arrieta’s secondaries to the extent that he did? It is not unreasonable to assume that Wieters would have adjusted and relied on the fastball.
One particularly curious sequence came in the third inning. After running a 3-1 count against the number nine hitter, Mitch Moreland, Arrieta proceeded to throw two consecutive breaking balls. Moreland ended up walking, which loaded the bases and turned over the lineup for Texas. The Rangers proceeded to score six runs in the inning, ultimately dooming Arrieta’s start.
Still, the sequencing alone can’t account for everything. Let’s consider Arrieta’s pitch location from start to start.
Here, too, we don’t see any evidence of reduced effectiveness. Arrieta’s location tightened up significantly from start one to start two. It’s possible that Arrieta was “effectively wild” in start one, or that his command within the zone was less than optimal in his second start. What we can assert from the data, however, was that Arrieta was throwing over the plate with good stuff on Saturday, despite the horrid line.
The last factor that comes into play is the umpire. Just because pitches were thrown in the strike zone doesn’t mean that they were called for strikes. Consider the called strike zone chart for both games:
In Arrieta’s first start, about two or three of his 99 pitches were called balls despite being charted as clearly within the strike zone. In his second start, spanning only 77 pitches, balls were called on six pitches in the strike zone. In start one, four or five pitches outside the zone were called for strikes. In start two, this happened only once. There does seem to be some evidence to suggest that Arrieta was squeezed a bit on saturday.
Ultimately, Jake Arrieta’s disastrous pitching line from Saturday’s start was caused by a host of factors: bad luck, a less-than stellar breaking ball, questionable game-calling and an inability to execute in key situations. I won’t go so far as to assert how much of the blame should be doled out to Fox’s game-calling, but it does seem that Wieters is a bit more in tune with the nuances of his staff. Because of all these factors, we can expect a rebound for Arrieta in his next outing.
*For the purpose of this analysis I’ve combined the slider and curve into one pitch. There might be slight differences in how the two pitches are thrown, but Pitch f/x likely has some trouble distinguishing the two.
All data and graphs provided by MLB Advanced Media by way of Texasleaguers.com
