SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 19, 2019 8:03:05 GMT -5
Mel Hall.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 19, 2019 8:19:22 GMT -5
Vazquez should have been a football player.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,702
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Sept 19, 2019 12:58:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 19, 2019 16:29:02 GMT -5
Funny. The minors have been doing all of the pace of play changes this year with the pitch clock and the 3 batter minimum. But in AAA, the length of games have increased rather dramatically despite this because of the major league ball which has increased home runs by 57% in one year. If you have a BP sub, you can read here: www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/53533/high-and-tight-the-pace-of-play-in-triple-a/So if they really care about game length? Seems like the easy solution is to switch to the AA and below baseballs. But noooooo, that will never happen because they care about stupid video game offenses more than game length. It'll probably be about 10 years before they start talking about shortening the game to 7 innings.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2019 14:24:55 GMT -5
The Cubs are single-handedly taking 60% of the interest away from the NL races.
I happened to catch the end of the first Cardinals / Cubs game on ESPN+ and there was a single pitch that may have turned that pennant race around. You might know that the Cubs scored 3 times in the bottom of the 9th to tie it, but lost in extras -- always a ball-breaker.
The Cubs got the first two guys on and then Carlos Martinez gets behind Kyle Schwarber 3-0. Announcers talk about how this could be a huge inning, and discuss whether Schwarber is going to get the green light. It turns out that he was 0/7 in his career when putting the ball in play on 3-0, which is terrible. No way he should have the green.
Martinez throws him a slider down and in and out of the zone. WTF?
Schwarber swings and misses. And ends up striking out.
Translation: Maddon for some reason has been giving the green light to Schwarber. Mike Schildt (I had to look that up) and the Cards analytic staff knows that. If Maddon guesses that the opposition is onto him and gives Schwarber the take sign, it's ball four.
The rest of the inning was such high-leverage that you can guess it would have played out the same, and the Cubs walk it off instead of tying it.
Maddon as a manager reminds me of the politically-correct wing of the Democats, who have liberal beliefs but think just as rigidly as conservatives. He was an early adopter of analytics, but he doesn't seem to think things through.
|
|
kevfc89
Veteran
Posts: 5,220
Member is Online
|
Post by kevfc89 on Sept 21, 2019 17:30:35 GMT -5
wow Kimbrel has been putrid for the Cubs. Today he comes into the 9th with a 1 run lead and gives up back to back homers on his first two pitches to put them behind, as the Cubs collapse continues.
career high 9 homers given up in just 19 innings pitched. Last year was his previous career high allowed, 7 but in 62 innings...
Theo's made some moves the last few years that haven't worked out very well. As their postseason chances continue to nosedive, I could see them having a slight shakeup this offseason. Their farm system is terrible, their starting pitching is shaky and old, and their core hasn't really emerged from 2016 to be quite as good as everyone expected. Maddon for sure may be on the way out as his contract is up.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2019 22:21:19 GMT -5
wow Kimbrel has been putrid for the Cubs. Today he comes into the 9th with a 1 run lead and gives up back to back homers on his first two pitches to put them behind, as the Cubs collapse continues. career high 9 homers given up in just 19 innings pitched. Last year was his previous career high allowed, 7 but in 62 innings... Theo's made some moves the last few years that haven't worked out very well. As their postseason chances continue to nosedive, I could see them having a slight shakeup this offseason. Their farm system is terrible, their starting pitching is shaky and old, and their core hasn't really emerged from 2016 to be quite as good as everyone expected. Maddon for sure may be on the way out as his contract is up. Kimbrel is signed for two more years at a minimum $14.3M AAV. It may be more since he was signed late. He now has a -1.37 WPA, 24th worst in MLB, but his first appearance was in Cubs' game #81. If you pro-rate it to a full season, it would be the worst.
I'd like to know whether that was Theo's idea, Jed Hoyer's, or both.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Sept 22, 2019 5:01:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 22, 2019 7:31:34 GMT -5
Kimbrel is signed for two more years at a minimum $14.3M AAV. It may be more since he was signed late. He now has a -1.37 WPA, 24th worst in MLB, but his first appearance was in Cubs' game #81. If you pro-rate it to a full season, it would be the worst I'd like to know whether that was Theo's idea, Jed Hoyer's, or both. Whoever's idea it was, you could see this coming all the way. Keuchel notwithstanding, the track record on guys who don't sign until after the comp pick expires is pretty miserable. Meanwhile, Drew f'n Pomeranz is blowing 96 from the left side and striking out 15 per nine as a reliever for the Brewers. You want a good reliever, go get a bad starter.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 22, 2019 10:03:43 GMT -5
Well he wasn't blowing that for Boston. His velo, from memory, was up the second half of his first year after a slow start but was down again the next year. He might have been injured in Boston or could have had the dreaded "it's his mechanics" disease...but coupled with his poor command, he was always walking the tight rope.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 22, 2019 10:37:44 GMT -5
Well he wasn't blowing that for Boston. His velo, from memory, was up the second half of his first year after a slow start but was down again the next year. He might have been injured in Boston or could have had the dreaded "it's his mechanics" disease...but coupled with his poor command, he was always walking the tight rope. I don't think the point was that it necessarily had to be him. I completely agree. I'll take a guy like Cashner for half the price on a one year deal instead of someone like Joe Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 22, 2019 15:49:45 GMT -5
Verlander is going to get his 20th win. Formality that he wins Cy Young. He is getting himself in the Clemens, Randy, Pedro class of best pitchers in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 22, 2019 15:56:53 GMT -5
Kimbrel is signed for two more years at a minimum $14.3M AAV. It may be more since he was signed late. He now has a -1.37 WPA, 24th worst in MLB, but his first appearance was in Cubs' game #81. If you pro-rate it to a full season, it would be the worst I'd like to know whether that was Theo's idea, Jed Hoyer's, or both. Whoever's idea it was, you could see this coming all the way. Keuchel notwithstanding, the track record on guys who don't sign until after the comp pick expires is pretty miserable. Meanwhile, Drew f'n Pomeranz is blowing 96 from the left side and striking out 15 per nine as a reliever for the Brewers. You want a good reliever, go get a bad starter. The weirdest thing in baseball is that there's a job called "reliever" which consists almost entirely of guys who weren't good enough to be "starters," but then relievers keep getting judged as if there's some special talent to relieving, other than being better than the other guys who weren't good enough to be starters. They've even put some of these failed starters in the Hall of Fame!* If you remember they're just failed starters who throw 60 innings a year, it becomes completely unmysterious that their performances are hardly predictive at all and "bullpen aces" all of a sudden turn to pumpkins. *Yes, yes, Mariano Rivera should be in the Hall, but that's about it. The others, like Hoffman and Lee Smith, just managed to sustain their not-quite-good-enough-to-start performance level for a long time. ADD: Geez, I just discovered Bruce Sutter made it into Cooperstown rockin' 19 career fWAR. He had about three very good seasons.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 22, 2019 16:44:26 GMT -5
Whoever's idea it was, you could see this coming all the way. Keuchel notwithstanding, the track record on guys who don't sign until after the comp pick expires is pretty miserable. Meanwhile, Drew f'n Pomeranz is blowing 96 from the left side and striking out 15 per nine as a reliever for the Brewers. You want a good reliever, go get a bad starter. The weirdest thing in baseball is that there's a job called "reliever" which consists almost entirely of guys who weren't good enough to be "starters," but then relievers keep getting judged as if there's some special talent to relieving, other than being better than the other guys who weren't good enough to be starters. They've even put some of these failed starters in the Hall of Fame!* If you remember they're just failed starters who throw 60 innings a year, it becomes completely unmysterious that their performances are hardly predictive at all and "bullpen aces" all of a sudden turn to pumpkins. *Yes, yes, Mariano Rivera should be in the Hall, but that's about it. The others, like Hoffman and Lee Smith, just managed to sustain their not-quite-good-enough-to-start performance level for a long time. ADD: Geez, I just discovered Bruce Sutter made it into Cooperstown rockin' 19 career fWAR. He had about three very good seasons. I partly agree... I think Lee Smith and Hoffman are both pure accumulation guys. They played a long time and got in for having tons of saves. But relievers are not unique in getting in for having solid but largely unspectacular careers. Personally, I think Mussina is an example of a decent pitcher who accumulated stats, especially in his Yankee years, that got him in without deserving it. (The 8 years with the Yankees got him over 120 wins with an ERA+ of 114, zero All-Star appearances, and two 5th place Cy Young votes). But I disagree about relievers conceptually. Yes, there are washout starters, but starting and relieving are really different skills. Relievers need to be able to warm up quickly, come in with men on, throw multiple games in a row.... these are all things not all pitchers can do... even some great starters. And closing definitely requires a mental edge that many pitchers lack. Edit: Sutter is a stretch. He was better than you credit him... he had 6 really good seasons. Won a Cy Young, finished top-3 two other times.... and he helped popularize the splitter. But... yeah... hard to see him as HOFer.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 22, 2019 17:11:52 GMT -5
The weirdest thing in baseball is that there's a job called "reliever" which consists almost entirely of guys who weren't good enough to be "starters," but then relievers keep getting judged as if there's some special talent to relieving, other than being better than the other guys who weren't good enough to be starters. They've even put some of these failed starters in the Hall of Fame!* If you remember they're just failed starters who throw 60 innings a year, it becomes completely unmysterious that their performances are hardly predictive at all and "bullpen aces" all of a sudden turn to pumpkins. *Yes, yes, Mariano Rivera should be in the Hall, but that's about it. The others, like Hoffman and Lee Smith, just managed to sustain their not-quite-good-enough-to-start performance level for a long time. ADD: Geez, I just discovered Bruce Sutter made it into Cooperstown rockin' 19 career fWAR. He had about three very good seasons. I partly agree... I think Lee Smith and Hoffman are both pure accumulation guys. They played a long time and got in for having tons of saves. But relievers are not unique in getting in for having solid but largely unspectacular careers. Personally, I think Mussina is an example of a decent pitcher who accumulated stats, especially in his Yankee years, that got him in without deserving it. (The 8 years with the Yankees got him over 120 wins with an ERA+ of 114, zero All-Star appearances, and two 5th place Cy Young votes). Mussina pitched 3500+ innings. Smith pitched fewer than 1300 and Hoffman fewer than 1100. Only one of those three guys really "accumulated" stats. (Pointing to the relievers' saves begs the question - that stat only has any meaning insofar as it's used to judge relievers, and even then it's a lousy stat.) Yeah, and pinch-running, pinch-hitting, and coming in as a defensive replacement are all specific skills - for guys who would be starting position players if they were better at baseball. Also Kimbrel has made me a pretty big skeptic of the "mental edge" thing. That dude wilts under anything other than the pristine laboratory conditions of a clean 9th inning, but somehow this shows that he has a mental edge? I won't deny it exists for some guys, but you know what would be even better than having the mental edge to be a reliever? Having the ability to be a starter! We're not really disagreeing here, but again I'll just note some question-begging: the fact that he did well in some Cy Young votes just goes to show how over-valued relievers can be.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 22, 2019 17:26:42 GMT -5
I partly agree... I think Lee Smith and Hoffman are both pure accumulation guys. They played a long time and got in for having tons of saves. But relievers are not unique in getting in for having solid but largely unspectacular careers. Personally, I think Mussina is an example of a decent pitcher who accumulated stats, especially in his Yankee years, that got him in without deserving it. (The 8 years with the Yankees got him over 120 wins with an ERA+ of 114, zero All-Star appearances, and two 5th place Cy Young votes). Mussina pitched 3500+ innings. Smith pitched fewer than 1300 and Hoffman fewer than 1100. Only one of those three guys really "accumulated" stats. (Pointing to the relievers' saves begs the question - that stat only has any meaning insofar as it's used to judge relievers, and even then it's a lousy stat.) Yeah, and pinch-running, pinch-hitting, and coming in as a defensive replacement are all specific skills - for guys who would be starting position players if they were better at baseball. Also Kimbrel has made me a pretty big skeptic of the "mental edge" thing. That dude wilts under anything other than the pristine laboratory conditions of a clean 9th inning, but somehow this shows that he has a mental edge? I won't deny it exists for some guys, but you know what would be even better than having the mental edge to be a reliever? Having the ability to be a starter! We're not really disagreeing here, but again I'll just note some question-begging: the fact that he did well in some Cy Young votes just goes to show how over-valued relievers can be. I wasn’t disagreeing on Sutter. It might also be fair to split current closers from older ones. You look at even a guy like Sutter, but certainly a guy like Goose, for example, and they were throwing over 100 innings a year at times. That’s different from Kimbrel, who has all sorts of delicate rules. And why not pinch runners or hitters if they play a ton? Those aren’t really positions, but if a guy pinch ran 90 times a year, scored a ton, got extra bases a lot, stole a ton of bases etc... I’d say he is very valuable.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 22, 2019 18:05:35 GMT -5
Mussina pitched 3500+ innings. Smith pitched fewer than 1300 and Hoffman fewer than 1100. Only one of those three guys really "accumulated" stats. (Pointing to the relievers' saves begs the question - that stat only has any meaning insofar as it's used to judge relievers, and even then it's a lousy stat.) Yeah, and pinch-running, pinch-hitting, and coming in as a defensive replacement are all specific skills - for guys who would be starting position players if they were better at baseball. Also Kimbrel has made me a pretty big skeptic of the "mental edge" thing. That dude wilts under anything other than the pristine laboratory conditions of a clean 9th inning, but somehow this shows that he has a mental edge? I won't deny it exists for some guys, but you know what would be even better than having the mental edge to be a reliever? Having the ability to be a starter! We're not really disagreeing here, but again I'll just note some question-begging: the fact that he did well in some Cy Young votes just goes to show how over-valued relievers can be. I wasn’t disagreeing on Sutter. It might also be fair to split current closers from older ones. You look at even a guy like Sutter, but certainly a guy like Goose, for example, and they were throwing over 100 innings a year at times. That’s different from Kimbrel, who has all sorts of delicate rules. And why not pinch runners or hitters if they play a ton? Those aren’t really positions, but if a guy pinch ran 90 times a year, scored a ton, got extra bases a lot, stole a ton of bases etc... I’d say he is very valuable. I was agreeing that we weren't disagreeing on Sutter. And I think you can also make a case for a couple of the old-timer (or older-timer) relievers too because, yeah, they at least pitched a decent amount of innings. I'd say of the 8 relievers who are in the Hall: -Rivera deserves to be in. -Smith and Hoffman, no. -Eckersley, sure, but only because he pitched most of his innings as a mostly successful starter. (He actually only really had 6 good years as a reliever.) -Sutter, no. -Wilhelm, yeah, probably; he pitched a solid 2250 innings with a career ERA- of 68. -Gossage, probably not; 1800 innings with an ERA- of 80. But a case could be made. -Fingers: yes, based on the name; no, based on the performance (1700 innings, 83 ERA-.) For context, Mussina pitched 3562 innings with an 82 ERA- and Schilling was 3261/80. Those are your borderline HoF starters.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 22, 2019 19:22:02 GMT -5
Mussina and Schilling both should be solid HOFers. Schilling obviously has the personality thing keeping him out. But they were both extremely good for a huge number of seasons. Just think about how rare that is today with most pitchers flaming out by 30. And Schilling was one of the best in the postseason. I remember watching him strike out the first 8 guys (I think) in the first playoff game of 1993 against the Braves, when the Phillies and their fans didn't really know if they belonged there. He looked like a Nolan Ryan/Pedro combination. And he still pitched until age 41. And Mussina has to be there so I can say I hit a double off a hall of fame pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Sept 22, 2019 20:15:59 GMT -5
Mussina and Schilling both should be solid HOFers. Schilling obviously has the personality thing keeping him out. But they were both extremely good for a huge number of seasons. Just think about how rare that is today with most pitchers flaming out by 30. And Schilling was one of the best in the postseason. I remember watching him strike out the first 8 guys (I think) in the first playoff game of 1993 against the Braves, when the Phillies and their fans didn't really know if they belonged there. He looked like a Nolan Ryan/Pedro combination. And he still pitched until age 41. And Mussina has to be there so I can say I hit a double off a hall of fame pitcher. I can’t stand Schilling, but he was spectacular for a good amount of time. He deserves it. I feel dirty. Mussina is a WAR-driven HOFer. He did amass 270 wins, which will be increasingly a rare number. But while it is true he pitched a long time, his post-30 career was more workman-like than stellar. 3.87 ERA, 116 ERA+, 1.209 WHIP. All fine, but hardly HOF. His last 5 years with the Yankees he won 71 games with a 4.14 ERA (ERA+ of 107). Winning % in those years of .623, just a tick below his career winning percentage. Never an All Star in the 2nd half of his career. As I’ve likely said before, he fails the eye test, too. I cannot imagine anyone seeing him and feeling like this is a great, especially since he was often a 2nd or even 3rd starter on his own team.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 24, 2019 3:07:56 GMT -5
Mussina and Schilling both should be solid HOFers. Schilling obviously has the personality thing keeping him out. But they were both extremely good for a huge number of seasons. Just think about how rare that is today with most pitchers flaming out by 30. And Schilling was one of the best in the postseason. I remember watching him strike out the first 8 guys (I think) in the first playoff game of 1993 against the Braves, when the Phillies and their fans didn't really know if they belonged there. He looked like a Nolan Ryan/Pedro combination. And he still pitched until age 41. And Mussina has to be there so I can say I hit a double off a hall of fame pitcher. I can’t stand Schilling, but he was spectacular for a good amount of time. He deserves it. I feel dirty. Mussina is a WAR-driven HOFer. He did amass 270 wins, which will be increasingly a rare number. But while it is true he pitched a long time, his post-30 career was more workman-like than stellar. 3.87 ERA, 116 ERA+, 1.209 WHIP. All fine, but hardly HOF. His last 5 years with the Yankees he won 71 games with a 4.14 ERA (ERA+ of 107). Winning % in those years of .623, just a tick below his career winning percentage. Never an All Star in the 2nd half of his career. As I’ve likely said before, he fails the eye test, too. I cannot imagine anyone seeing him and feeling like this is a great, especially since he was often a 2nd or even 3rd starter on his own team. Are you serious? He's not a deserving HOFer because from ages 35 to 39 he started 150 games and threw 894 innings and was a solid third starter ... instead of being retired?
his post-30 career was more workman-like than stellar. 3.87 ERA, 116 ERA+,
And from ages 31 to 34 he was 9th in MLB in ERA- (minimum 600 IP), while also ranking 5th in MLB in IP. As he started his decline he was, on average, a borderline 1/2 starter over four seasons while literally never missing a start. That's pretty fucking stellar.
BTW, Juan Marichal had a 110 ERA+ after age 30. Bob Feller had a 103. Fergie Jenkins had a 108. Can I stop now?
I cannot imagine anyone seeing him and feeling like this is a great
I always thought he was.
since he was often a 2nd or even 3rd starter on his own team.
Let's look into that.
1992: more WAR than the next three starters combined 1993: #3 starter 1994: just missed the '92 trick 1995: nearly as much value as the 2 and 3 1996: ace 1997: ace 1998: ace 1999: more value than the 2 and 3 combined 2000: ditto 2001: ace over Clemens. Clemens wins the CY, but Mussina has a better W/L record for each and every number of runs of support.
2002: ace over Wells, El Duque, Pettitte, and Clemens. 2003: ace over Wells, Clemens, and Pettitte
So if by "he was often a 2nd or even 3rd starter on his own team" you actually meant "he was the ace of his team 10 years in a row and 11 out of 12, and was either far and away the ace, or the ace of a tremendously strong staff," you are correct. And gee, you just think that maybe that has something to do with him being able to then pitch five more years and still be above average, when almost everyone else his age was retired?
The best measure I can find for how good a pitcher was is his bWAR/GS of his 5 best years. Mussina ranks 22nd of all the pitchers who started their careers in 1961 or later. The only guys who were better than Mussina at his peak who are Hall-eligible and aren't in or on the ballot are Dave Cone, Brett Saberhagen, Kevin Appier, Johann Santana ... and Luis Tiant.
When you combine that with his huge career length, he's one of the greatest 25 pitchers of all time.
You're actually not talking about Mike Mussina. You're talking about some vague idea of who Mike Mussina was based on how much sportswriters wrote about him. That's entirely excusable ... until someone introduces you to the actual guy.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 24, 2019 7:24:37 GMT -5
I will never tire of Yu Darvish @pitchingninja gifs.
What's even better is in the replies, when someone says that the 92-mph secondary isn't a changeup, and then Yu Darvish himself replied that it is.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 25, 2019 1:34:59 GMT -5
Aside from two very close home-field advantage battles, there's just one pennant race left. But it's epic.
The A's lead the Indians by a game, and the Rays are in the middle with an extra game played and Thursday off.
Numbers in () are xwOBA on the season. * is with the new team. ~ is a SSS.
A's:
At LAA (Frankie Montas (.278) vs. Andrew Heaney (.319)) ESPN
At Sea (Mike Fiers (.335) vs. Felix Hernandez (.364)) At Sea (Sean Manaea (~.288) vs. Justus Sheffield (.311)) At Sea (Tanner Roark (.342) vs. Marco Gonzales (.310)) At Sea (Homer Bailey (.295*) vs. Justin Dunn (~.453))
That sets up Montas, who has far and away been their ace, for the W/C game. He's coming off an 80-game PED suspension yonight, so if he's rusty they have Fiers as a plan B.
Rays:
vs NYY (Charlie Morton (.276) vs. Jonathan Loaisiga (.313)) ESPN
off At Tor (Tyler Glasnow (.233) vs. J.T. Zeuch(~.361)) At Tor (Ryan Yarbrough (.293) vs. Trent Thornton (.330)) At Tor (Blake Snell (.262) vs. Clay Buchholz (.374)) (! Love to see him knock the Rays out of the playoffs)
Morton lined up for the W/C, Glasnow for game 1 if they advance.
Indians:
At ChW (Shane Bieber (.297) vs. Ross Detwiler (.397)) At ChW (Aaron Civale (.268) vs. Dylan Cease (.321)) At Was (Zach Plesac (.352) vs. Austin Voth (.279)) ESPN+
At Was (Adam Plutko (.323) vs. Patrick Corbin (.299)) FS1 At Was (Mike Clevinger (.265) vs. "Max Scherzer" (.251))
But if Was has clinched home field (and maybe even if they haven't) Sherzer goes the next day in the W/C game. Could be Stephen Strasburg (.263), Anibal Sanchez (.315), or Joe Ross (.359))
This looks impossibly tough for the Indians.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,911
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 25, 2019 1:44:40 GMT -5
I will never tire of Yu Darvish @pitchingninja gifs. What's even better is in the replies, when someone says that the 92-mph secondary isn't a changeup, and then Yu Darvish himself replied that it is. That might not be a changeup, but it's certainly not a fastball. It might be pitch X where X : screwball :: slider : curveball.
And in fact, while a really large velo difference between FB and change is best, a small difference is better than the average of 10 - 11 mph. The smaller the difference, the better, so a -4 changeup with tremendous movement is a heck of a good pitch.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Sept 25, 2019 3:39:38 GMT -5
Great game by the Diamondbacks and Cards. DBs tied it at 1 in the ninth. Both teams scored a run in the 13th and the DBs won it in the 19th with a walkoff bases loaded single.
The loss went to Brebbia who threw 21 pitches, 19 for strikes. Cards Flaherty had a nono going into the 7th.
There were 48 strikeouts in the game.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Sept 25, 2019 8:40:30 GMT -5
And in fact, while a really large velo difference between FB and change is best, a small difference is better than the average of 10 - 11 mph. The smaller the difference, the better, so a -4 changeup with tremendous movement is a heck of a good pitch.
Yeah, the tremendous movement is the key here. The fastball and that change-up thingamajig have incredibly different shapes. If someone has a fastball with below average movement it's more of a problem if the speed is converging with the changeup. But, uhhh... that's clearly not an issue there.
|
|
|