Huston Street, a notable name in baseball, particularly as a relief pitcher, offers a fascinating case study when examined through the lens of Statcast data. This analysis delves into the wealth of information provided by Statcast, from pitch mechanics to batted ball outcomes, to paint a comprehensive picture of Street’s performance during the Statcast era (2015-2017). We will explore his pitching arsenal, movement, and effectiveness, providing an in-depth look at what made Huston Street a compelling player.
Huston Street Baseball Player: Statcast Statistics Breakdown (2015-2017)
Statcast, MLB’s revolutionary tracking system, provides granular data on player performance. For Huston Street, this data is available from 2015 onwards. Let’s examine key Statcast metrics to understand his profile as a pitcher.
| Season | Age | Pitches | Batted Balls | Barrels | Barrel % | Barrel/PA | Exit Velocity | Max EV | Launch Angle | LA Sweet-Spot % | XBA | XSLG | WOBA | XWOBA | XWOBACON | HardHit% | K% | BB% | ERA | xERA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 31 | 1027 | 178 | 8 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 86.8 | 111.7 | 17.2 | 34.3 | .210 | .337 | .273 | .262 | .312 | 24.7 | 22.4 | 7.8 | 3.18 | 2.80 |
| 2016 | 32 | 401 | 79 | 8 | 10.1 | 7.6 | 88.5 | 110.8 | 14.2 | 40.5 | .282 | .529 | .408 | .372 | .398 | 35.4 | 13.3 | 11.4 | 6.45 | 6.13 |
| 2017 | 33 | 57 | 11 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 84.8 | 99.4 | 17.4 | 36.4 | .224 | .258 | .187 | .244 | .269 | 18.2 | 20.0 | 6.7 | 0.00 | 2.51 |
| Player | 1485 | 268 | 16 | 6.0 | 4.3 | 87.2 | 111.7 | 16.3 | 36.2 | .231 | .386 | .307 | .292 | .336 | 27.6 | 19.7 | 8.8 | |||
| MLB Avg | 7.0 | 4.8 | 88.5 | 122.4 | 12.3 | 33.2 | .245 | .405 | .316 | .315 | .368 | 36.5 | 22.2 | 8.4 |
Note: All figures in this table cover the period 2015-present.
This table summarizes Huston Street’s Statcast hitting statistics. Key observations include:
- Barrel Rate Variability: Street’s barrel percentage fluctuated significantly, peaking in 2016 at 10.1% before dropping to 0% in 2017, albeit in a very small sample size of batted balls. This suggests potential changes in his pitching approach or effectiveness over these seasons.
- Consistent Exit Velocity: His average exit velocity remained relatively stable around 87 mph, slightly below the MLB average, indicating his pitches, while not overpowering in terms of velocity, were still hit with reasonable force when contact was made.
- Launch Angle Sweet Spot: Street consistently induced a high sweet-spot percentage, meaning batters were frequently hitting the ball within the optimal launch angle range for hits, but his overall batting average against (BA) and expected batting average (xBA) remained manageable in most seasons.
- Strikeout and Walk Rates: His strikeout rate (K%) was generally around or slightly below the league average, while his walk rate (BB%) was also in line with MLB averages, suggesting a pitcher who relied on inducing contact rather than overpowering hitters.
Huston Street’s Pitch Arsenal: Slider, Sinker, and Changeup
Huston Street primarily utilized a three-pitch mix during the Statcast era, relying heavily on his slider and sinker.
- Slider (47.4%): His most frequently used pitch, the slider, was likely his primary strikeout offering and a key component in keeping hitters off balance.
- Sinker (47.4%): Used equally as often as his slider, the sinker is a fastball variant designed to induce ground balls and weak contact. This pitch likely formed the foundation of his approach to control the game and manage batted ball outcomes.
- Changeup (5.3%): Used sparingly, the changeup served as a change-of-pace pitch, likely deployed to disrupt hitters’ timing and create further unpredictability in his pitching sequences.
Image: Generic MLB headshot icon representing Huston Street’s pitch arsenal.
+ View Huston Street’s Pitches in 3D
It’s important to note that while “Fastball” is listed in the original data as a pitch category including 4-Seam, 2-Seam, Cutter, and Sinker, and “Breaking” includes Slider, Curve, etc., for Huston Street’s arsenal, we see a clear reliance on Slider and Sinker as his main offerings according to the provided percentages.
Batted Ball Profile of Huston Street
Analyzing Huston Street’s batted ball profile provides further insights into the type of contact he typically allowed.
| Season | GB % | FB % | LD % | PU % | Pull % | Straight % | Oppo % | Weak % | Topped % | Under % | Flare/Burner % | Solid % | Barrel % | Barrel/PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 36.5 | 27.0 | 29.2 | 7.3 | 33.1 | 41.0 | 25.8 | 1.1 | 28.7 | 37.6 | 20.8 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.1 |
| 2016 | 38.0 | 22.8 | 29.1 | 10.1 | 34.2 | 30.4 | 35.4 | 3.8 | 22.8 | 27.8 | 25.3 | 8.9 | 10.1 | 7.6 |
| 2017 | 36.4 | 18.2 | 36.4 | 9.1 | 36.4 | 45.5 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 36.4 | 36.4 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Player | 36.9 | 25.4 | 29.5 | 8.2 | 33.6 | 38.1 | 28.4 | 1.9 | 27.2 | 34.7 | 22.4 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 4.3 |
| MLB Avg | 44.4 | 23.8 | 24.7 | 7.1 | 37.2 | 37.5 | 25.2 | 3.9 | 32.6 | 24.8 | 24.4 | 5.9 | 7.0 | 4.8 |
Note: All figures in this table cover the period 2015-present.
Key takeaways from Huston Street’s batted ball profile:
- Ground Ball Tendency: While slightly below the MLB average, Huston Street induced a significant percentage of ground balls (GB%), consistently around 36-38%, supporting the effectiveness of his sinker.
- Line Drive Consistency: His line drive percentage (LD%) remained remarkably consistent across the years, hovering around 29%, suggesting a stable element in the type of contact he allowed.
- Pull vs. Opposite Field: Hitters tended to pull the ball against Street slightly more often than hitting it to the opposite field, but the percentages were relatively balanced, indicating he didn’t have extreme tendencies in terms of where batted balls were directed.
- Barrel Management: Despite fluctuations, his overall barrel percentage was around the MLB average, showing he was generally effective at preventing the most damaging type of batted ball contact.
Similar Pitchers to Huston Street:
Image: Generic MLB headshot icons for similar pitchers to Huston Street: Justin Verlander, Pat Neshek, Luke Hochevar, Marco Estrada, Glen Perkins.
The list of similar pitchers provides context. Players like Justin Verlander (in 2015, according to the original data context) and Pat Neshek, known for different pitching styles, being listed as similar suggests the algorithm is based on statistical output rather than purely stylistic comparisons.
Huston Street’s Pitch Movement Analysis
Pitch movement is a critical aspect of pitching effectiveness. Statcast breaks down movement into Total Movement (with gravity) and Induced Movement (without gravity), offering a nuanced view.
| Total Movement (in inches, w/ gravity) | Induced Movement (in inches, w/o gravity) |
|---|---|
| Year | Pitch |
| 2017 | Changeup |
| 2017 | Sinker |
| 2017 | Slider |
| 2016 | Changeup |
| 2016 | Sinker |
| 2016 | Slider |
| 2015 | Sinker |
| 2015 | Slider |
| 2015 | Changeup |
Note: Years are in reverse order.
Understanding Pitch Movement Metrics:
- Total Movement: Reflects the actual movement of the pitch, including gravity’s effect.
- Induced Movement (IVB): Isolates movement created by the pitcher, removing gravity’s influence, compared to average pitches of the same type and velocity.
Huston Street’s pitch movement data suggests:
- Sinker Movement: His sinker consistently shows less vertical drop and horizontal break than comparable pitches, indicated by negative “vs. Comparable” values for both VerticalDrop and HorizontalBreak in Total Movement. This could suggest his sinker was more about velocity and location than extreme movement.
- Slider Movement: Similarly, his slider also shows less vertical drop and significantly less horizontal break compared to comparable pitches. The “vs. Comparable” values are consistently negative, particularly for HorizontalBreak.
- Changeup Movement: His changeup, in contrast, shows a positive “vs. Comparable” value for VerticalDrop in 2017 and a slightly negative value in 2016 and 2015, suggesting it had somewhat average to slightly above average vertical movement compared to other changeups.
Image: Los Angeles Angels team logo, representing Huston Street’s team during the Statcast period.
[+ Show More Seasons] + View Complete Pitch Movement Leaderboard
Run Values by Pitch Type for Huston Street
Run Value quantifies the impact of a pitch type on run scoring. Positive values are favorable for pitchers (less runs allowed), while negative values are unfavorable.
| Year | Pitch Type | Team | RV/100 | Run Value | Pitches | % | PA | BA | SLG | wOBA | Whiff% | K% | PutAway % | xBA | xSLG | xwOBA | Hard Hit % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Slider | 3.4 | 1 | 27 | 47.4 | 8 | .125 | .125 | .113 | 33.3 | 37.5 | 33.3 | .284 | .321 | .266 | 0.0 | |
| 2017 | Sinker | 1.4 | 0 | 27 | 47.4 | 5 | .250 | .500 | .390 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .178 | .217 | .278 | 50.0 | |
| 2017 | Changeup | 25.2 | 1 | 3 | 5.3 | 2 | .000 | .000 | .000 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | .078 | .089 | .072 | 0.0 |
Note: Years are in reverse order.
Note: Positive numbers (red) are good, and negative numbers (blue) are poor.
Huston Street’s Run Values by pitch type in 2017 (limited sample size):
- Slider: A positive Run Value per 100 pitches (RV/100) of 3.4 and a total Run Value of 1 suggests his slider was effective in preventing runs, despite a relatively high expected batting average and slugging percentage against it (xBA, xSLG).
- Sinker: Also with a positive RV/100 of 1.4 and Run Value of 0, indicating the sinker was also contributing positively to run prevention, although with a higher batting average and slugging percentage against it compared to the slider.
- Changeup: An exceptionally high positive RV/100 of 25.2 but with a very small sample size (only 3 pitches). This high value is likely not statistically significant due to the low usage.
+ View Complete Run Value Leaderboard
Statcast Pitching Run Value: Swing/Take Breakdown
This section analyzes Huston Street’s pitching performance based on swing decisions by hitters, categorizing pitches into “Heart,” “Shadow,” “Chase,” and “Waste” zones.
| Runs |
|---|
| Year |
| 2008 |
| 2009 |
| 2010 |
| 2011 |
| 2012 |
| 2013 |
| 2014 |
| 2015 |
| 2016 |
Note: Run values are cumulative over the season.
Key observations from Swing/Take Run Values:
- “Shadow” Zone Success: Huston Street consistently generated positive run values in the “Shadow” zone, indicating his ability to induce weak contact or takes on pitches located just off the plate.
- “Waste” Zone Efficiency: He also consistently minimized run value in the “Waste” zone, meaning pitches well outside the strike zone were not contributing negatively to his run prevention.
- 2016 Outlier: 2016 stands out with a significantly negative overall run value (-11), driven by negative values in “Heart” and “Chase” zones, suggesting a less effective season in terms of swing/take outcomes compared to other years.
Image: Colorado Rockies team logo, representing Huston Street’s team earlier in his career.
+ View Complete Swing/Take Leaderboard
Plate Discipline Metrics for Huston Street
Plate discipline metrics reveal how well Huston Street controlled the strike zone and induced swings and misses.
| Season | Pitches | Zone % | Zone Swing % | Zone Contact % | Chase % | Chase Contact % | Edge % | 1st Pitch Strike % | Swing % | Whiff % | Meatball % | Meatball Swing % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 1,027 | 39.3 | 69.8 | 75.5 | 32.7 | 59.3 | 39.2 | 55.7 | 47.3 | 30.2 | 5.3 | 75.9 |
| 2016 | 401 | 42.1 | 66.9 | 89.4 | 33.6 | 66.7 | 39.7 | 61.9 | 47.6 | 19.4 | 8.0 | 87.5 |
| 2017 | 57 | 42.1 | 75.0 | 94.4 | 24.2 | 37.5 | 26.3 | 60.0 | 45.6 | 23.1 | 10.5 | 83.3 |
| Player | 1,485 | 40.2 | 69.2 | 80.1 | 32.7 | 60.7 | 38.9 | 57.6 | 47.3 | 27.0 | 6.2 | 80.4 |
| MLB Avg | 48.7 | 67.0 | 82.0 | 28.5 | 57.8 | 42.6 | 61.0 | 47.2 | 25.0 | 7.3 | 76.3 |
Note: All figures in this table cover the period 2015-present.
Key observations on Huston Street’s plate discipline:
- Zone Percentage: Street consistently pitched in the zone less often than the MLB average, indicating a strategy of working on the edges and avoiding the heart of the plate.
- Whiff Rate: His whiff percentage was consistently above the league average, suggesting he was effective at generating swings and misses, particularly in 2015 with a 30.2% whiff rate.
- Chase Rate: His chase rate was slightly above the league average, indicating a decent ability to induce hitters to swing at pitches outside the strike zone.
- First Pitch Strike Percentage: His first-pitch strike percentage was consistently below the MLB average, suggesting an area for potential improvement in getting ahead in counts early.
Percentile Rankings: Huston Street Compared to the League
Percentile rankings place Huston Street’s performance relative to other MLB pitchers in various Statcast metrics.
| Year | xwOBA / xERA | xBA | xSLG | xISO | xOBP | Brl | Brl% | EV | Hard Hit% | K% | BB% | Whiff% | Chase Rate | FB Velo | FB Spin | CB Spin | Extension |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 88 | 86 | 80 | 67 | 86 | 74 | 64 | 86 | 96 | 64 | 43 | 90 | 82 | 8 | 57 | 14 | |
| 2016 | 7 | 50 | 4 |
Note: Rankings are percentile based, higher is generally better for pitchers.
Huston Street’s percentile rankings highlight:
- Elite Expected Performance in 2015: He ranked in the high percentiles (80s and 90s) in xwOBA/xERA, xBA, xSLG, xOBP, Exit Velocity (EV), Hard Hit%, and Whiff%, indicating a very strong season in terms of expected outcomes and batted ball quality allowed.
- Decline in 2016: A dramatic drop in most percentile rankings in 2016, particularly in xwOBA/xERA (dropping to the 7th percentile), xSLG (4th percentile), and across many other categories, aligns with the higher ERA and less effective season reflected in other Statcast data.
- Velocity and Spin Limitations: Consistently low percentile rankings in fastball velocity (FB Velo), fastball spin (FB Spin), and curveball spin (CB Spin) suggest Huston Street relied less on overpowering velocity and spin compared to league average pitchers, and more on location, movement, and deception within his pitch mix.
+ View Complete Percentile Rankings Leaderboard
Expected Home Runs (xHR) Analysis for Huston Street
Expected Home Runs (xHR) data adjusts for park factors to estimate how many home runs a pitcher “should” have allowed based on batted ball trajectories.
Adjusted xHR (Park Factors Considered)
| Year | Team | Avg HR Trot | Actual HR | xHR | HR-xHR | Doubters | Mostly Gone | No Doubters | No Doubter % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 21.7 | 5 | 5.5 | -1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 40.0 | |
| Player | 21.7 | 5 | 5.5 | -1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 40.0 |
Note: Adjusted xHR accounts for park dimensions and environmental effects.
Standard xHR (Park Dimensions Only)
| Year | Team | Avg HR Trot | Actual HR | xHR | HR-xHR | Doubters | Mostly Gone | No Doubters | No Doubter % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 21.7 | 5 | 5.4 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 20.0 | |
| Player | 21.7 | 5 | 5.4 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 20.0 |
Note: Standard xHR accounts for park dimensions but excludes environmental effects.
Huston Street’s xHR data in 2016 indicates:
- Home Run Rate Alignment: In 2016, his actual home runs allowed (5) were very close to his expected home runs (around 5.4-5.5 in both adjusted and standard models). This suggests his home run rate was largely in line with what was expected based on the quality of contact he allowed.
- “Doubters” vs. “No Doubters”: The breakdown of home runs into “Doubters,” “Mostly Gone,” and “No Doubters” provides a qualitative assessment of the home runs allowed. In 2016, he allowed a mix, with a higher percentage of “Doubters” and “Mostly Gone” than “No Doubters,” indicating some home runs were potentially borderline or influenced by park dimensions.
[+ View Standard Expected Home Runs] [+ View Standard Expected Home Runs By Park] + View Complete Expected Home Runs Leaderboard
Year-to-Year Changes in Huston Street’s Statcast Metrics
Analyzing year-to-year changes reveals trends in Huston Street’s performance and potentially the impact of age or adjustments.
| Metric | 2015 | 2016 | +/- | 2017 | +/- | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fastball Velocity | 89.1 | 88.8 | -0.3 | ↓ | 87.9 | -0.9 | ↓ |
| Offspeed Velocity | 82.0 | 81.0 | -1.0 | ↓ | 80.5 | -0.5 | ↓ |
| Breaking Velocity | 83.7 | 83.4 | -0.3 | ↓ | 82.5 | -0.9 | ↓ |
| Exit Velocity | 86.8 | 88.5 | 1.7 | ↑ | 84.8 | -3.7 | ↓ |
| Launch Angle | 17.2 | 14.2 | -3.0 | ↓ | 17.4 | 3.2 | ↑ |
| Barrel % | 4.5 | 10.1 | 5.6 | ↑ | 0.0 | -10.1 | ↓ |
| Hard Hit % | 24.7 | 35.4 | 10.7 | ↑ | 18.2 | -17.2 | ↓ |
| LA Sweet-Spot % | 34.3 | 40.5 | 6.2 | ↑ | 36.4 | -4.1 | ↓ |
| xBA | .210 | .282 | 0.072 | ↑ | .224 | -0.058 | ↓ |
| BA | .226 | .337 | 0.111 | ↑ | .143 | -0.194 | ↓ |
| xwOBA | .262 | .372 | 0.110 | ↑ | .244 | -0.128 | ↓ |
| wOBA | .273 | .408 | 0.135 | ↑ | .187 | -0.221 | ↓ |
| xSLG | .337 | .529 | 0.192 | ↑ | .258 | -0.271 | ↓ |
| SLG | .357 | .565 | 0.208 | ↑ | .214 | -0.351 | ↓ |
| K% | 22.4 | 13.3 | -9.1 | ↓ | 20.0 | 6.7 | ↑ |
| BB% | 7.8 | 11.4 | 3.6 | ↑ | 6.7 | -4.7 | ↓ |
| Swing % | 47.3 | 47.6 | 0.3 | ↑ | 45.6 | -2.0 | ↓ |
| Whiff% | 30.2 | 19.4 | -10.8 | ↓ | 23.1 | 3.7 | ↑ |
| In Zone % | 39.3 | 42.1 | 2.8 | ↑ | 42.1 | 0.0 | |
| Out of Zone % | 60.7 | 57.9 | -2.8 | ↓ | 57.9 | 0.0 | |
| Out of Zone Swing % | 32.7 | 33.6 | 0.9 | ↑ | 24.2 | -9.4 | ↓ |
| First Pitch Swing % | 25.1 | 31.4 | 6.3 | ↑ | 26.7 | -4.7 | ↓ |
| First Pitch Strike % | 55.7 | 61.9 | 6.2 | ↑ | 60.0 | -1.9 | ↓ |
Huston Street’s year-to-year changes reveal:
- Velocity Decline: A consistent decrease in fastball, offspeed, and breaking ball velocities from 2015 to 2017, typical for aging pitchers.
- 2016 Performance Dip: A significant increase in Exit Velocity, Barrel %, Hard Hit %, LA Sweet-Spot %, xBA, BA, xwOBA, wOBA, xSLG, and SLG from 2015 to 2016, coupled with a decrease in K% and Whiff%, strongly indicates a decline in performance in 2016.
- Partial Rebound in 2017 (Small Sample): Some metrics show a move back towards 2015 levels in 2017 (e.g., Exit Velocity, Barrel %, Hard Hit %, xBA, xwOBA, xSLG), but the extremely small sample size in 2017 (only 57 pitches) makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about a full return to form.
+ View Complete Year to Year Changes Leaderboard
Statcast Fielder Positioning Against Huston Street
Shifts in fielder positioning can impact batted ball outcomes. Here’s a look at shifts against Huston Street.
| vs RHH | vs LHH |
|---|---|
| Year | Alignment Type |
| 2016 | Shifts |
| 2017 | Shifts |
Note: Shifts are through the 2022 season, Shaded starting from the 2023 season. Shift: three or more infielders on one side of second base. Shade: positioned outside typical slices.
Fielder positioning data for Huston Street:
- Shift Usage: Shifts were used more frequently against left-handed hitters (LHH) than right-handed hitters (RHH) when Street was pitching, particularly in 2016 (28% of PA vs. LHH shifted).
- wOBA Impact: In 2016, when shifts were used against right-handed hitters, the wOBA against was significantly higher (.424) compared to when shifts were used against left-handed hitters (.187 in 2017, albeit in a small sample). This is counterintuitive and might be due to the quality of hitters faced in shifted situations rather than the shift itself.
Pitch Tempo Analysis for Huston Street
Pitch tempo, the time between pitches, can influence hitter rhythm and pitcher effectiveness.
| Bases Empty | Runners On Base |
|---|---|
| Season | Team |
| 2010 | |
| 2011 | |
| 2012 | |
| 2013 | |
| 2014 | |
| 2015 | |
| 2016 | |
| 2017 |
Huston Street’s pitch tempo data reveals:
- Tempo Consistency: His pitch tempo remained relatively consistent across the years, around 19-21 seconds with bases empty and 23-27 seconds with runners on base.
- Slower with Runners On: As expected, his tempo slowed down when runners were on base, giving him more time to manage the game situation.
- “Fast” and “Slow” Pitch Percentages: The percentages of “fast” and “slow” tempo pitches provide further granularity, showing the variation within his overall tempo.
+ View Complete Pitch Tempo Leaderboard
Huston Street Pitch Distribution
Detailed pitch distribution charts, often available on Statcast platforms, would provide a visual representation of where Huston Street located his pitches within and outside the strike zone, offering a final layer of insight into his pitching strategy. Unfortunately, this data is not presented in a table format in the original article.
Pitch distribution data would typically be visualized, showing frequency of pitches in different zones.
Conclusion: Huston Street’s Statcast Profile
Huston Street’s Statcast data paints a picture of a pitcher who, particularly in his earlier Statcast years, demonstrated strong performance, especially in limiting expected run production and generating whiffs. His primary arsenal of slider and sinker, while not characterized by extreme velocity or movement, was effective in inducing ground balls and weak contact. The data also highlights a performance dip in 2016, followed by a very limited 2017 season, likely influenced by age and potential injuries. Analyzing Huston Street through Statcast provides a comprehensive, data-driven understanding of his strengths, weaknesses, and career trajectory during the Statcast era.
