Grading Waldrep's Stuff

21 starters have thrown atleast 200 splits this year (cut off to get Schwelly in the list). He ranks 5th with a .232 xwOBA on that pitch. He has a 42% whiff rate on it. The xwOBA ranks 5th and the whiff rate ranks 2nd. The guys ahead of SS the second in xwOBA are all guys who are known to have excellent splits. Gilbet Logan, Yamamoto, Gausman...So yes his split is top tier.

Waldrep of course hasn't been up long enough to throw that many as he's only at 64 on the season.

But he has a 0.138 xwOBA on the splitter with a 54.3% whiff rate. That would rank him 2nd in both of those for the pitch. Stuff+ on the pitch lines up with the results on the field.
 
Hudson2 said:
So Waldrep is progressing. That's the best part is he's learned a new pitch and it's working. Maybe some more tweaking here and there and he can be a 3-4. Glass half full so far.
Click to expand...
I just want to see him finish strong and look viable for the 2026 rotation. If the team can enter the offseason with Sale/Schwellenbach/Strider as a top-three, Waldrep and Ritchie as legitimate options behind them, and López and (maybe) Holmes as elite swingman types, they can then focus on signing just one top-flight starter (Cease?) and spending their remaining resources on OF/SS.
 
thewupk said:
21 starters have thrown atleast 200 splits this year (cut off to get Schwelly in the list). He ranks 5th with a .232 xwOBA on that pitch. He has a 42% whiff rate on it. The xwOBA ranks 5th and the whiff rate ranks 2nd. The guys ahead of SS the second in xwOBA are all guys who are known to have excellent splits. Gilbet Logan, Yamamoto, Gausman...So yes his split is top tier.

Waldrep of course hasn't been up long enough to throw that many as he's only at 64 on the season.

But he has a 0.138 xwOBA on the splitter with a 54.3% whiff rate. That would rank him 2nd in both of those for the pitch. Stuff+ on the pitch lines up with the results on the field.
Click to expand...
The discrepancy between, on the one hand, the granular pitch characteristics data Enscheff posted and, on the other hand, that xwoba data, Stuff+, and the reflections of scouts, is intriguing. We need a much larger MLB sample; but, if the discrepancy holds over that larger sample, it’ll be fascinating to parse why.
 
Last edited:
jpx7 said:
The discrepancy between, on the one hand, the granular pitch characteristics data Enscheff posted and, on the other hand, that xwoba data, Stuff+, and the reflections of scouts is intriguing. We need a much larger MLB sample; but, if the discrepancy holds over that larger sample, it’ll be fascinating to parse why.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is the nuance folks refuse to understand because it doesn't fit the "deadly split" narrative. The pitch does not have good movement metrics, which is an undeniable fact. It's also a fact that the batted ball results are what they are. The difference is one fact isolates the pitch, while the other fact has many contributing factors such as sequencing, location, unfamiliarity, sample size and contrast with other pitches.

We will see what happens after the league has seen that split a bit, but the data shows his good pitches are the curve and the cutter. The fact the split gets the out after the curve/cutter sets them up does not mean the split is "deadly"....it means the sequence ending with the split is "deadly". It certainly wasn't as "deadly" before it was playing off these new pitches. In fact, it was the exact same pitch with almost the exact same movement profile....but now it suddenly works.

Either way, his new pitches are the key to him being an impact arm, and he's by far the most interesting player to follow for the rest of 2025.
 
Sequence or not, that splitter has been his calling card since Florida and before. His problem has never been that pitch. I personally don't care if it rotates and starts spitting on the batter, it is fact that hitters are clueless against it when he is ahead in the count. That has been the point of contention all along. I wouldn't call it deadly, but objectively effective WITH the new command and pitches is a viable thing. It can be a combination of things.
 
Deester11 said:
Sequence or not, that splitter has been his calling card since Florida and before. His problem has never been that pitch. I personally don't care if it rotates and starts spitting on the batter, it is fact that hitters are clueless against it when he is ahead in the count. That has been the point of contention all along. I wouldn't call it deadly, but objectively effective WITH the new command and pitches is a viable thing. It can be a combination of things.
Click to expand...
I think you are saying the same thing. any good splitter is affective if it is sequenced correctly. And with his new cutter and good curve, it is being used correctly. I think one of his last starts, he threw like 2-3 splitters total the 1st time through.. then unleashed it the 2nd time through.. that is awesome imo..
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I think you are saying the same thing. any good splitter is affective if it is sequenced correctly. And with his new cutter and good curve, it is being used correctly. I think one of his last starts, he threw like 2-3 splitters total the 1st time through.. then unleashed it the 2nd time through.. that is awesome imo..
Click to expand...
Exactly. He's getting whiffs on it for a reason.
 
Deester11 said:
Sequence or not, that splitter has been his calling card since Florida and before. His problem has never been that pitch. I personally don't care if it rotates and starts spitting on the batter, it is fact that hitters are clueless against it when he is ahead in the count. That has been the point of contention all along. I wouldn't call it deadly, but objectively effective WITH the new command and pitches is a viable thing. It can be a combination of things.
Click to expand...
What was his xwoba and whiff % on the splitter when he was ineffective overall?
 
I find it a little odd that some folks are having such a hard time understanding a pitch that isn't remarkable itself can be effective when part of a sequence including other pitches, some of which are remarkable themselves.

And now that the discussion has moved into the realm of arguing semantics, I'll leave interpretation of the movement data to the reader. That data is freely available for all to see and compare to the movement data of other pitches thrown by other pitchers.
 
Enscheff said:
I find it a little odd that some folks are having such a hard time understanding a pitch that isn't remarkable itself can be effective when part of a sequence including other pitches, some of which are remarkable themselves.

And now that the discussion has moved into the realm of arguing semantics, I'll leave interpretation of the movement data to the reader. That data is freely available for all to see and compare to the movement data of other pitches thrown by other pitchers.
Click to expand...
Eh..I don't see semantics. I see people observe the EFFECTIVENESS of a pitch. (Thank you for true data pulls) Elite, crappy or not. A few scouts I know say his pitch (split) is insane. Not that it's otherworldly but that batters can't pick out if he's throwing the split or sinker. On that I'll give you...it's all interpretation. Call it sequence. Call it tunneling. Call it command. No matter what, the stats on the swing and miss on the pitch say he gets mlb hitters out with it. IF as you point out..the other pitches are true, he's still viable. We need more sampling to stop the half in, half out group..
 
I mean if we can isolate the effectiveness of the pitch now when it's apparently in good sequence with other quality pitches...

Seems like we could isolate it when it wasn't in sequence with good pitches and see just how shitty it was on its own?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top