Is Steven Matz Bad?
As a native New Yorker hailing from Long Island and a 2nd round pick of the Mets in 2009, Steven Matz definitely feels the pressure. His career began with Tommy John surgery and multiple other injuries, however he still made it to the majors as a heralded prospect and got off to a very good start in his first 2 years. With Matz’s arrival, the Mets seemed primed to have a dominant homegrown rotation for years to come. Not quite, as it turns out. The rotation was afflicted by multiple injuries and general ineffectiveness.
As a former collegiate pitcher, I can speak from experience when I say: pitching is hard, and pitchers break quite often.
Matz exemplifies this saying in every way. As mentioned, he had Tommy John surgery the year after he was drafted, and has had a medley of injuries since. A torn lat, blisters, back spasms, forearm tightness, you name it. He’s only started 30 games twice in his 6 full seasons in the bigs.
His ERA was last under 4.00 in 2018, and even then, barely, as it was 3.97. After 2016, he looked as if he would be a strong #3 starter, with the upside potential of a #2 starter. This is incredibly valuable, especially from the left side. However, the trend he’s on now gives him the look of a #4 starter/innings-eater.
This leads us to one of Matz’s biggest problems: consistency.
| Season | Team | W | L | G | GS | IP | K/9 | BB/9 | HR/9 | BABIP | LOB% | GB% | HR/FB | EV | ERA | FIP | xFIP | WAR |
| 2015 | Mets | 4 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 35.2 | 8.58 | 2.52 | 1.01 | .300 | 91.4% | 45.5% | 11.8% | 87.5 | 2.27 | 3.61 | 3.56 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | Mets | 9 | 8 | 22 | 22 | 132.1 | 8.77 | 2.11 | 0.95 | .313 | 77.0% | 51.1% | 13.7% | 88.7 | 3.40 | 3.39 | 3.30 | 2.5 |
| 2017 | Mets | 2 | 7 | 13 | 13 | 66.2 | 6.48 | 2.57 | 1.62 | .329 | 66.9% | 47.1% | 17.1% | 88.4 | 6.08 | 5.05 | 4.58 | 0.3 |
| 2018 | Mets | 5 | 11 | 30 | 30 | 154.0 | 8.88 | 3.39 | 1.46 | .267 | 74.9% | 48.8% | 16.6% | 89.1 | 3.97 | 4.62 | 4.13 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | Mets | 11 | 10 | 32 | 30 | 160.1 | 8.59 | 2.92 | 1.52 | .301 | 75.5% | 47.1% | 17.4% | 88.9 | 4.21 | 4.60 | 4.33 | 1.6 |
| 2020 | Mets | 0 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 30.2 | 10.57 | 2.93 | 4.11 | .341 | 58.6% | 32.6% | 37.8% | 91.5 | 9.68 | 7.76 | 4.15 | -0.7 |
| Total | – – – | 31 | 41 | 112 | 107 | 579.2 | 8.57 | 2.79 | 1.49 | .301 | 74.6% | 47.5% | 17.5% | 88.9 | 4.35 | 4.49 | 4.01 | 5.2 |
Matz’ ERA has been as low as 2.27 in 2015 and as high as 9.68 this past season. This level of inconsistency is as maddening as it is perplexing. His injuries have definitely impacted his general effectiveness, however, even when healthy, Matz has been wildly inconsistent. The overall trend is still decidedly down. So I’m going to dig into the stats and see if there is some light amid this darkening trend.
The first stat that immediately jumps out at me is Matz’s FIP. He has not had a FIP under 4.00 since 2016.
FIP is a strong barometer of a pitcher’s true talent level because it takes the defense and luck out of the equation, for better or for worse. Some pitchers are blessed with pitching in front of a strong defense, and others have the Mets defense. Since Matz’s debut in 2015, the Mets are last in DRS (Defensive Runs Saved). This makes Jacob DeGrom so much more impressive, but this isn’t about him right now. Even with the handicap of the Mets defense being accounted for, Matz has outperformed his FIP, so even though a better defense would help, that is not the main culprit.
The main culprit? The home run ball.
Matz simply cannot keep the ball in the yard.
| Year | HR/9 |
| 2015 | 1.01 |
| 2016 | 0.95 |
| 2017 | 1.62 |
| 2018 | 1.46 |
| 2019 | 1.52 |
| 2020 | 4.11 |
| Career | 1.49 |
Since Matz has been in the Show, the landscape of baseball has changed completely. The baseball and hitter’s approaches have changed simultaneously.
This change in hitter’s approach has been well-documented and at this point is accepted as the new status quo.
Before this boom in home runs, baseball was effectively in a dead ball era. Pitchers were throwing harder every year and defenses were more athletic and positioned better than ever. Bullpens began trotting out flamethrowers after the 6th, the 2015 Royals being the poster child.
The hitters adaptation was as much a product of their environment as it is the baseball. Batters are not trying to shorten up and just “put the ball in play”. Defenses are better than ever, and shifts are more widely used than ever. Ground balls don’t squeak through like they used to. The definitive goal of hitters in this era is to hit the ball hard, and in the air, as Ted Williams preached in 1971 when he wrote “The Science of Hitting”.
These days it’s described as “launch angle” and “letting the kids play”. And the kids want to hit bombs and flip bats. So be it. If you don’t like it, pitch better. With this change in philosophy sweeping the league, it’s no wonder the team home run record is being broken year after year, 2020 the exception due to global pandemic reasons.
These changes in approach are only partially to blame, as the bigger reason is the change to the baseball. The ball began to notably change after the 2015 season.
Commissioner Rob Manfred himself has even admitted the ball is noticeably different and has “less drag.”
If players on both sides of say the ball is different, the science says it’s different, and the commissioner says its different, we know that something has changed.
Given the changes in the ball and in Steven Matz’ rates of home runs allowed, I assumed Matz’s stuff had regressed significantly since his first 2 studly years. That assumption was wrong.
He lost a tick off his fastball from 2015-2019, from 94.9 MPH to 93.3 MPH. But he actually gained a tick in 2020 (94.5 MPH), albeit in a short season. Either way, it hasn’t been a precipitous drop in velocity or spin rate or movement. This is good, as a pitcher with numerous injuries and inconsistent results, this is often the red flag. This makes our job and Matz’s job much easier.
So, the stuff is there, we have to dig deeper for an answer. I turned to the pitch mix and well, the pitch mix could use some tweaks.
I touched on the change in hitter’s approaches, but not on how pitcher’s approaches have had to change too. Low-spin sinkers are out of style now, as batter’s are swinging with intent to get balls in the air, and sinkers are easier to do this with as they sync up with the plane of the swing. High spin 4 seamers up in the zone combat the change in swing intent, and are heavily favored now.
Our boy Matz, does not have a high spin 4 seamer. He has sparingly thrown his 4 seamer (24 times since 2015) and its spin is in the low 2000 RPMs, same as his sinker. A good high spin 4 seamer sits 2400+RPM- Justin Verlander’s, for instance, averages 2500 RPM.
So the first step is to reduce the use of the sinker, which to his credit, he has. 2019 (50.6%) and 2020 (53.7%) were his two lowest usage seasons so far. However, hitters still had over a .270 batting average and a .440 slugging percentage against the pitch. So a more dramatic overhaul is needed.
According to Baseball Savant, the closest comparisons to Matz in terms of velocity and movement are David Price, Chris Sale, Mike Montgomery, Ross Detwiler and Manny Banuelos (2019 versions). A high variance of outcomes indeed. We’re going to focus on Price and Sale, as they were the only of the 5 with FIPs under 4.00.
So let’s examine the pitch mixes.
(2019 Pitch Mixes, Sale and Price didn’t pitch in 2020)
| Pitch Type | Chris Sale | Steven Matz | David Price |
| 4-seam | 35.8% | N/A | 27.5% |
| Changeup | 15.6% | 20.1% | 26.5% |
| Sinker | 10.2% | 50.5% | 26.2% |
| Cutter | N/A | N/A | 17.3% |
| Curveball | N/A | 14.8% | 2.5% |
| Slider | 38.4% | 14.5% | N/A |
The disparity is clear. Matz’ usage of the sinker has to be reduced. He uses it more than both Sale and Price combined. My suggestion is increasing his usage of the Changeup and Curveball. They have his highest whiff percentages, 32.6% and 30.3%, respectively.
So my strategy boils down to, use your best pitches more, your worse pitches less, not exactly rocket science.
However, it is still not that easy, as Matz’s changeup was clobbered at a .510 slugging percentage in 2019 yet had the highest whiff % in 2020. Again, pitching is hard.
Matz has already started to make adjustments, as his K/9 was a career high in 2020. Interestingly enough, his 2nd highest whiff % was on the sinker, the 2nd highest of his career.
So for as many answers we have seemingly found in the data, there are still many more questions. What we do know for sure is that Matz gives up a lot of homeruns, whether it be because of missed location or pitch mix.
From the information above, here are my suggestions:
- Decrease sinker usage, to about 35%-40%. Matz has a higher velo on his sinkers than both Sale and Price, and 2020 proved it could be a viable weapon. However, batters slugged over .600 against it in 2020, he has to locate it better. With better command and the tick up in velo, it should at least be a league average pitch.
- Replace lost sinker usage with the changeup and curveball. In 2019, the changeup and curveball respectively were 27% and 26.6%. Both of which were his highest whiff %s.
- Use the slider as Price uses his cutter. Matz has actually gained velocity on his slider since his debut. When he’s used it sparingly, it has been effective. However, when he threw it at a career high rate in 2018, it was hit well to the tune of a .459 slugging percentage. So if he uses it sparingly (10-13%) to steal strikes and keep hitters guessing, his other pitches should play up and it should be a serviceable pitch.
With these adjustments, I believe Matz should be able to keep the ball in the yard more frequently and keep his strikeout rate gains if not even increase them. The ball is not changing, and Matz’s style of pitching is about 3 years outdated. The old Mets regime was not very analytically inclined, in contrast the new regime pledged immediately to become more analytical and the moves they have made this offseason reflect that. Matz still has all the stuff that made us dream on his potential in 2015 and 2016. The Matz we see in 2021 should be very interesting.
