Hurray for Pitchers!

Looks like it is going to be a fun year watching a host of young pitchers.

We all know about Syndegaard and Ohtani, and so far both are as exciting to watch as promised.  Ohtani is especially fun because he has a nasty-*** splitter that is almost impossible to read.

But how about that new kid, Jordan Hicks, in St. Louis?  He is even faster than Chapman, and he has never pitched above A+ ball prior to this season.  He routinely tops out over 100 mph.

And from a totally different planet there is Andrew Triggs of the A's who is back from injury and throws a garbage-can-lid-like curveball from a three-quarters delivery that moves as much as any knuckle-curve I have ever seen.

I am happy to see Harvey pitching instead of throwing.  Now they need to teach Syndegaard how to pitch to protect his arm.... 

Did you see Colon pitch last night?  The movement AND location on his fastballs was outrageous!  He was Greg Maddux great on Maddux's best of days.  So effortless, yet so much movement that the Astros were mesmerized.  I mean, he kept one of the better hitting lineups completely dead, throwing a perfect game into the 8th.  At almost 45 years old!

And Verlander was none too shabby himself.

Great fame for fans of great pitching.

I love Colon.  I wish he was on the Mets, although I don't know where he would fit in.  He is a walking lesson about how to pitch.

What is neat to see is he has gone from a pure power arm to a pitcher's pitcher and made the adjustment so well.  He got beat up pretty badly last year, but it look so far like he has figured out the mechanics.

Last year I attended a talk by Paul DePodesta and he talked about how the Mets came to the decision to sign Colon.  Colon's ERA over the past few years was usually up near 5, and teams don't typically even consider someone like that.  But the team determined that ERA was not a helpful stat with Colon because every 3rd or 4th game he'd get shelled for 6 or 7 runs in two or three innings.  But two out of three starts, he'd be brilliant and give your team a chance to win.  He'd rather have a 4.80 ERA guy who gave you a chance to win 2 out of 3 starts than a 4.80 ERA guy who was giving up 4 runs in 7 innings every time and not giving your team the same chance to win.

ml1 said:
Last year I attended a talk by Paul DePodesta and he talked about how the Mets came to the decision to sign Colon.  Colon's ERA over the past few years was usually up near 5, and teams don't typically even consider someone like that.  But the team determined that ERA was not a helpful stat with Colon because every 3rd or 4th game he'd get shelled for 6 or 7 runs in two or three innings.  But two out of three starts, he'd be brilliant and give your team a chance to win.  He'd rather have a 4.80 ERA guy who gave you a chance to win 2 out of 3 starts than a 4.80 ERA guy who was giving up 4 runs in 7 innings every time and not giving your team the same chance to win.

Wow, that’s really interesting. I guess as long as you can recognize when the bad game is rearing its ugly head and maybe have a long man ready, it works. 

jimmurphy said:

ml1 said:
Last year I attended a talk by Paul DePodesta and he talked about how the Mets came to the decision to sign Colon.  Colon's ERA over the past few years was usually up near 5, and teams don't typically even consider someone like that.  But the team determined that ERA was not a helpful stat with Colon because every 3rd or 4th game he'd get shelled for 6 or 7 runs in two or three innings.  But two out of three starts, he'd be brilliant and give your team a chance to win.  He'd rather have a 4.80 ERA guy who gave you a chance to win 2 out of 3 starts than a 4.80 ERA guy who was giving up 4 runs in 7 innings every time and not giving your team the same chance to win.

Wow, that’s really interesting. I guess as long as you can recognize when the bad game is rearing its ugly head and maybe have a long man ready, it works. 

 He also eats up a ton of innings which is helpful to have in a 4th or 5th starter.  It keeps the bullpen fresh.

Josh Hader is the latest to be lighting up the record books this year.  Eight strikeouts in 2 and 2/3 innings.  He has been absolutely unhittable his last few outings.  

these days hitters strike out so much I'm having a hard time getting excited about K records.  As a team the Mets are averaging over 10 Ks per 9 innings, as are Houston and the Yankees.

ml1 said:
these days hitters strike out so much I'm having a hard time getting excited about K records.  As a team the Mets are averaging over 10 Ks per 9 innings, as are Houston and the Yankees.

 True.  I was waiting for someone to say this.  This is the first time in Baseball history where there are more strikeouts than hits on a MLB wide basis.

Still, Hader is pretty amazing.  The ball hidden somewhere in all those arms and legs unfolding towards the plate, the same arm motion for a 95 MPH fastball as for an 85 MPH slider or changeup.  Awesome stuff to watch.


From The Wall Street Journal:

Never before had MLB seen a full month with more total strikeouts than hits. There hadn’t even been a month where the gap between the two was less than 100. April 2017 was the closest the sport had come to strikeouts overtaking hits, with a difference of 138.

Until now, that is.

Heading into Monday’s slate, the final 11 scheduled contests on the April schedule, hitters had whiffed 7,163 times. They had collected just 6,808 hits. Nearly 35% of all plate appearances this season have ended in a walk, strikeout or home run, up from less than 29% 10 years ago.

it's a few things, but appears most of all to be that almost no one in MLB now cares if hitters strike out.  From the hitters themselves to hitting coaches, managers and GMs.  And also the fact that there are so many pitchers who are capable of throwing nearly 100 MPH, along with at least one other killer swing-and-miss pitch.

ml1 said:
it's a few things, but appears most of all to be that almost no one in MLB now cares if hitters strike out.  From the hitters themselves to hitting coaches, managers and GMs.  And also the fact that there are so many pitchers who are capable of throwing nearly 100 MPH, along with at least one other killer swing-and-miss pitch.

 I agree.  I think managers and GMs are willing to trade strikeouts for more home runs, even as they pay lip service to the importance of contact.  It is sexier for baseball's more casual viewers and makes for great headlines.  Add to this the fact that managers are using more pitchers on average so that the third at bat (or sometimes the second at bat) the hitter is facing a new and fresh pitcher--often throwing 98 MPH along with a cutter or slider, knowing they only are going to need enough gas for six to nine batters at most.

the metrics show that strikeouts are a good tradeoff for HRs.  Not only that, with teams shifting so much, for a lot of sluggers, the sensible approach it to swing hard with an uppercut to hit something in the gaps or over the fence.

ml1 said:
the metrics show that strikeouts are a good tradeoff for HRs.  Not only that, with teams shifting so much, for a lot of sluggers, the sensible approach it to swing hard with an uppercut to hit something in the gaps or over the fence.

 I think the mentality in the NBA is similar with the 3-point shot.  They've decided that more 3-point attempts are a good trade off despite the field goal % being significantly higher on 2-point shots.

yahooyahoo said:

ml1 said:
the metrics show that strikeouts are a good tradeoff for HRs.  Not only that, with teams shifting so much, for a lot of sluggers, the sensible approach it to swing hard with an uppercut to hit something in the gaps or over the fence.

 I think the mentality in the NBA is similar with the 3-point shot.  They've decided that more 3-point attempts are a good trade off despite the field goal % being significantly higher on 2-point shots.

 I fear baseball is going to get as boring as the NBA where everyone clears out for one "star" to handle the ball and take the shot.  I rarely watch pro basketball anymore.   No fluidity for most teams.

that's the entire concept of baseball.  Eight guys "clear out" for one guy to take his place at the plate.  It's hard to imagine MLB getting any slower.  If anything, the Ks will speed the game up.

Baseball can be fixed  --- do not allow a team to have more than 10 pitchers on their roster.  This would force the starters to go deeper into games as well as take away the option of bringing a pitcher in for one or two batters.  This would cut down on the k's and increase batting averages.

As for the length of the games, cut the commercial breaks to 2.5 minutes every half inning.  That by itself would save almost 30 minutes a game.  

They will never reduce commercials.  That's where they make the money.  How about if a relief pitcher has to finish the inning unless he is injured, in which case he must be placed on a 10 day IR.  No more R/L/R switches.

Half the commercials are for other shows on the network.  but agree they will never reduce the time allotted.

I have nothing to add. Just wanna note how fitting it is to have contributions to a Hurray for Pitchers! thread by someone apparently named Mike Scott.

Train_of_Thought said:
I have nothing to add. Just wanna note how fitting it is to have contributions to a Hurray for Pitchers! thread by someone apparently named Mike Scott.

Hated *that guy* back in the day!

Train_of_Thought said:
I have nothing to add. Just wanna note how fitting it is to have contributions to a Hurray for Pitchers! thread by someone apparently named Mike Scott.

 So says the Big Train.

jimmurphy said:

Train_of_Thought said:
I have nothing to add. Just wanna note how fitting it is to have contributions to a Hurray for Pitchers! thread by someone apparently named Mike Scott.

Hated *that guy* back in the day!

 But we got Danny Heep for him. Grrr... :-(

Train_of_Thought said:
I have nothing to add. Just wanna note how fitting it is to have contributions to a Hurray for Pitchers! thread by someone apparently named Mike Scott.

 lol.....