What a difference a year makes.
Josh Beckett‘s 2010 season was an absolute disaster. Just three years after building up a ton of good will after leading the Red Sox to their second World Series title in four seasons, it evaporated almost over night. Then again, that tends to happen to pitchers who sign four year $68M extensions, and follow it up with an injury-riddled campaign featuring a 6-6 record and 5.78 ERA.
Not suprisingly, the cantankerous Boston sports media and always fickle Red Sox Nation blasted Beckett for his performance. They claimed he lacked motivation, and had lost the “fire in his belly” needed to compete at a high level. Of course, that’s all rubbish. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from watching Beckett pitch in Boston for the last 5+ seasons, it’s that he’s a fiery competitor of the John Lackey variety. Ok, maybe that’s not entirely true. Rather than placing blame on his defensive support for his own mistakes (perhaps that’s a bit unfair), he internalizes the blame. Does that lead to emotional outbursts that occasionally have adverse affects on his performance? Yes. But at the same time, Beckett takes accountability for everything that occurs on the field while he’s pitching; which quite frankly, is refreshing.
Instead, Beckett’s primary issue in 2010 was plain rotten luck. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that Beckett was a victim because he wasn’t. Some of his struggles were certainly his doing. That said, his xFIP was 1.92 runs lower than his ERA, and he received incredibly poor luck on batted balls. How poor was his luck? Despite producing a batted ball profile that indicated an xBABIP close to .300, he managed to allow 34% of his batted balls to fall in for hits. Clearly, the Red Sox’s sub-par defense had a profound effect on his ability to not only string outs together, but also prevent runs. In the end, this contributed mightily to his unusually high ERA.
As I was saying before, some of Beckett’s struggles were of his own volition. For example, Beckett posted a 3.17 BB/9 rate, his highest such rate since 2003. Much of this was caused by his sudden “difficulty” (and I use that term loosely) in executing first pitch strikes. Between 2007 and 2009, Beckett consistently registered first pitch strikes around 63% of the time. In 2010, that rate dropped to 58.4%; the second lowest rate of his career. Not surprisingly, as Beckett was forced to pitch from behind, his walk rate started to climb. As an additional side-effect, he was forced to pitch over the plate a little more frequently; thus giving hitters ample opportunity to make solid contact with his four seam fastball. This, in turn, contributed to him producing an abnormally high 14.2% HR/FB rate.
This season, Beckett’s perceived results have been much different. Through 14 starts, he’s posted a league leading 1.86 ERA, and has cut his HR/FB rate down to 3.9%. As a result, he’s been named as the early season favorite to win the Cy Young Award. Interestingly enough, his xFIP (3.69) is strikingly similar to his 2010 mark (3.86), which indicates he’s likely not nearly as good as he appears. His unusually low BABIP (.217) to go along with his unsustainably low HR/FB rate seem to support this theory. In all likelihood, we’ll see some performance regression over the course of the season.
All of that said, I don’t want to give you the impression that the 2010 Beckett and 2011 Beckett are identical creatures. They’re not. For example, while Beckett’s 2010 and 2011 O-swing rates are nearly identical (28.7% in 2010 vs. 27.7% in 2011), his 2011 O-contact rate is significantly lower than 2010’s (69.0% vs. 61.3%). With hitters whiffing at his offerings thrown outside of the zone, Beckett’s likely displaying better “stuff” this year than last. This theory is further supported a swinging strike rate that’s improved from 8.2% to 9.7%.
To really get a sense for how good Beckett’s stuff has been, let’s take a look at his 2010 and 2011 pitch f/x data.
2010 pitch f/x data (compliments of Texas Leaguers)
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity | Vertical | Horizontal | Spin Angle | Spin Rate |
| FF | 763 | 36.1% | 93.6 | 9.37 | -6.92 | 216 | 2,352 |
| CU | 385 | 18.2% | 76.0 | -6.71 | 6.94 | 47 | 1,572 |
| FT | 377 | 17.8% | 93.0 | 6.11 | -9.68 | 237 | 2,326 |
| FC | 345 | 16.3% | 90.6 | 6.00 | 0.63 | 172 | 1,252 |
| CH | 242 | 11.4% | 87.8 | 3.09 | -8.27 | 250 | 1,724 |
| FA | 3 | 0.1% | 92.9 | 2.75 | -10.04 | 254 | 2,121 |
2011 pitch f/x data
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity | Vertical | Horizontal | Spin Angle | Spin Rate |
| FF | 488 | 34.8% | 92.9 | 7.94 | -5.08 | 213 | 1,913 |
| FC | 264 | 18.8% | 89.9 | 4.59 | 1.64 | 158 | 1,047 |
| CU | 225 | 16.0% | 75.6 | -8.67 | 8.38 | 44 | 1,934 |
| FT | 218 | 15.5% | 92.8 | 5.07 | -9.56 | 242 | 2,186 |
| CH | 207 | 14.8% | 88.3 | 2.05 | -8.28 | 256 | 1,678 |
For the most part, Beckett’s two season pitch selection profile is pretty similar. His four-seam fastball is still his primary pitch, particularly in first pitch counts. In 2011, he started throwing his cutter and change-up a little more frequently; mostly at the expense of his two-seamer and curveball. Still, these changes are slight, and likely have had little effect on his overall performance.
The biggest differences in the data that I can see comes with respect to vertical/horizontal breaks and spin rates. For example, the spin rate on his curveball has increased by 23%, which is the primary reason behind the pitch’s improved depth and break. While batters are “watching” his curve with greater regularly; when they do swing, they’re whiffing at a higher rate. As a result, his curve has been significantly more effective, becoming the true “out pitch” it was when he dominated the American League in 2007.
His two and four-seam fastball have also shown great improvements this season. The vertical and horizontal breaks with both pitches seem to be much tighter. As a result, this has led to more pitches being called for strikes on the edges of the zone; thereby improving it’s effectiveness. According to Fangraphs pitch type value metric, his fastball was largely ineffective in 2010, clocking in at -14.5 runs. This season, it’s been worth +8.6 runs.
Overall, Beckett’s offerings seem to markedly tighter, crisper, and have greater depth. He’s inducing whiffs at a higher rate, and appears to be coaxing weaker levels of contact as evidenced by his 14.6% pop up rate. If he can continue to keep batters off balance with his deep repertoire, there’s no reason why he shouldn’t continue pitching at an ace quality level. Still, despite his improvements, it’s probably best we adjust our expectations slightly. As well as he’s pitched, his stuff isn’t on par Pedro Martinez. As a result, he won’t likely be able to maintain his sub-2.00 ERA. Unless he improves his strikeout and walk rates, we should probably expect him to pitch closer to his 3.69 xFIP going forward. Even still, that’s nothing at which to sneeze. Beckett’s returned to form, and I’m more than content to sit back and enjoy the ride.
What kind of numbers do you think Beckett will finish with this season? Do you expect him to continue on his Cy Young pace, or do you expect regression? Leave your thoughts in the comments section below!