I’m Just Saying
Pitch F/x missed the third inning, so the data below won’t match official totals. Point is still the same.
Aardsma: 19 pitches, 19 fastballs
Morrow: 16 pitches, 14 fastballs
Corcoran: 14 pitches, 14 fastballs
The Mariner relievers combined to throw 49 pitches today. 47 of them were fastballs. Toss in Silva, and the Mariners threw 135 pitches today – 90.3% of them were fastballs.
I get that Silva’s sinker is his only major league pitch. I get that Aardsma throws hard. I get that Corcoran’s sinker is his only major league pitch. I get that Morrow throws hard. I know, they were going with their best stuff.
But 90% fastballs? Really? Did Kenji decide that if Wak was going to second guess him for calling for a secondary pitch in Minnesota that he’d just go drastically the other way?
I’m thrilled that we’re 6-2. But can we get a few breaking balls tomorrow, please?
Pre-emptive note: If you’re going to submit a comment that says something to the effect of “just enjoy the win and be a fan!!!!!!”, don’t bother. There’s a thread right below this for “woo, we’re 6-2” jubilation. This one’s for those of us who can simultaneously enjoy the win and also think that there might be a better approach to try winning tomorrow.
i was thinking the same thing but didn’t want to be a spoil sport for our great start. if washburn pitches like this, it’s batting practice upper deck bombs for the middle of the Angel’s lineup tomorrow, and we’re down something like 6-0 in the 2nd inning.
had the funny thought though, that as erratic as our bullpen can be, they may throw all fastballs, but that can still look like 5 or 6 different pitches… (ie- “whoops, duck!”, “whoa! jump”, and “that one just hit the backstop at 99″…)… definitely keeps a batter off guard.
I noticed it with our relievers. Joh might be thinking that if these guys can’t get a fastball over the plate then no way a secondary pitch will get over. It looked like Morrow threw one of his two breaking balls to get that last ground out which I thought was excellent timing, believe it was 3-2 or 2-2 count.
Well, I suppose you could say that they can’t throw a pitch they don’t have.
There is an old story about a catcher and a pitcher meeting at the mound, and the pitcher insisting he wanted to throw a curve. The catcher responded, “But you don’t have a curve.”
And the pitcher just said, “I KNOW! He’ll never expect it.”
No idea if its true, but I imagine after a few weeks the scouting report for the M’s bullpen is going to be one word long. Or maybe 4: “Fastballs. No, really. Fastballs.”
Stack on top of it the fact that we’re not talking about Mariano Rivera-quality location here. For Morrow the catcher might as well just put the glove down, and wait for the ball to come.
But a “live” fastball isn’t an easy pitch to hit, and if it can be thrown for a strike, you can succeed with it. Big “if” though.
85% for Silva still seems a bit high, but I wouldn’t be that surprised if 75-80% turns out to be an optimal range for him.
As for the relievers, considering that they aren’t Mariano Rivera, they will probably need to tone it down from 95% fastballs at least a little. I wonder if it has a lot to do with it being early in the season and not having a lot of faith in their off-speed stuff. Do relievers throw side sessions very often, or are they mostly relying on working things out during the game?
Can’t wait for Felix’s next start.
I have a similar question to the one above, if the bullpen pitchers don’t have or don’t have confidence in anything but their fastball, is there the possibility that it can be developed/trusted during the season (preferably not during late inning games)? Or do they have to go down to AAA to get it to work?
I tend to think that most batters find the fastball the easiest to hit, especially if they know it’s coming. Although if it’s only going to be in the strike zone 20% of the time, I guess they could just watch it, even if it is 96 mph.
Unlike Felx or Bedard, none of these guys have great stuff. Therefore, the strategy is throw strikes and don’t beat yourself. Makes sense to me.
They’re not exactly hitting the mark with the “throw strikes” part of your equation, AuburnM.
I tend to think that most batters find the fastball the easiest to hit, especially if they know it’s coming. Although if it’s only going to be in the strike zone 20% of the time, I guess they could just watch it, even if it is 96 mph.
Ignoring all other variables a straight changeup should be easier to hit if you know for sure it’s coming. May not fly quite as far, but more time to react and more time in the strike zone.
Anecdotally that seems to be the case as well. Many pitchers do ok with primarily a fastball and poor location. Pitchers who succeed based upon the changeup are extremely rare and all have great location.
The result (6-2 record) has been nice but the process of getting there (i.e. bullpen) has given me the heebie-jeebies.
And I would say Morrow has very good stuff. But his command is so wonky.
I don’t feel very optimistic going forward playing against lineups with good and patient hitters.
Our bullpen performance, and thus a lot of our Ws, have been purely down to extreme statistical improbabilities. If they keep walking guys like that, bad stuff is going to happen, and often. It’ll get worse, too, once guys figure out that they don’t even have to think about swinging. Unless Morrow and Aardsma and Corcoran figure something out, we’re going to see games with six or seven consecutive walks.
I hereby retract my former statement about approving with the new team philosophy of always going with your best pitch.
There is something as too much of a good thing…
I can only hope Wak & crew realize this and are just setting other teams up for the switch.
Think of it as a season-long ‘establishing the fastball early’ rather than just in a single game.
We can hope, can’t we? :/
That presumes that the fastball is, in fact, a guy’s best pitch. Hopefully they realize that for someone like Felix, this isn’t the case. If so, then the new philosophy is at least progress, even if it still makes you predictable.
Aardsma on sunday:
“That’s one philosophy I’ve always had. No matter who it is at the plate, if they’re not catching up to it, why change? If I’m throwing sliders and it’s working, why throw a fastball? Why throw anything else?”
I kept hoping for a slider to Cust when Aardsma was trying to finish the series against Oakland. The fastballs eventually worked, but you gotta figure better hitters will get wise and start crushing those.
Until the batter’s start hitting it why throw something the pitchers doesn’t have confidence with? Mixing up the pitches keeps a hitter off balance, but throwing a pitch he cannot hit is effective too.
Remember, though, that this team has lost 2 one-run games and won 3. The maximum likeliness of the coin flip. What I’m trying to say is it’s not like we’re getting that statistically lucky, at least in terms of the result.
Yes, we’re sitting on a fine line of how few BBs have scored vs how many have been allowed by the relief staff.
We have a very good K/BB ratio (top 5 or so), we’ve allowed the 2nd least number of hits (DEFENSE, baby!), and have had the 3rd lowest WHIP.
So, statistically, it there really hasn’t been that much luck involved.
Heck, I’m much more worried about the hitting. Bottom 6 in OBP and SLG. Ichiro coming back will add to the former, but not the latter. The only reason we’ve scored as many as we have is because of incredible hitting with RISP. Our OPS is currently 250 points higher with RISP than overall. Now THAT will not continue.
Have a look at the LOB% here. Care to try that statement again?
(Also note the FIP column vs the ERA column — there are a lot of pitchers with no runs attached to their names, but that’s not going to last).
I don’t know, I think the high OPS with RISP may not be an aberration for the whole season. Maybe not 250 points higher, but I can see 100 or so once things even out. Beltre and Griffey haven’t really done much of anything yet, Griffey’s amazing ground out to the right side notwithstanding… I think the offense should be able to to score 800ish runs this year.
I’d like to think that there’s a diabolical plan out there, so that the day the other team’s meetings all start and end with “fastballs, just fastballs”, everyone gets set up with a slider for a swinging strike followed by a change up for a called strike, followed by a fastball out of the zone for a swinging strike and the other teams all go back to the drawing board because they have no clue what these Mariners are going to do next. I’d like to think that, but I don’t, really.
Here’s a thought concerning the hitting tactics: does Wak know that it’s possible to pinch hit?
I can see that pinch hitting for Griffey wasn’t possible tonight, given that he was the designated adulatee of the evening, but how about for Branyan against the left hander?
Surely by now in his career Branyan’s ego wouldn’t be crushed by this particular stratagem.
Give me 100 statistics with an infinite sample size, and 5 of them will fall outside of the expected. Will Carlos Silva give up nearly 4 HRs a game? Will 60% of Brenden Morrow’s runners score? Nah.
However, in that comment I wasn’t trying to say that the number of runs scored (and therefore ridiculously low team ERA at the moment) wasn’t altered by a low sample size (aka “luck”), but rather that the result, and a 6-2 record wasn’t a result of luck, but rather play, actually, pretty well, defensively and in terms of pitching.
Interestingly, at least to me, is that the VAST majority of Wak’s lineup changes in the game haven’t been pinch-hitting, but rather for fielding in the final 2 innings. But that is to be expected in games where you lead, seeing as how most teams look to protect a lead, rather than increase it. A very Mike Holgren thing to do, actually.
Wak has made 1 pinch hitting change this season. Lopez in for Balentine, while behind 5-4 against Oakland.
However, he has made 4 defensive substitutions, if you include Balentine pinch-running for Griffey, and then replacing him in the field, which is basically a two-fer.
However, it should be noted that with Ichiro returning the number of Griffey out, Balentine ins should go down. More than likely it will be the rarer Griffey out, Chavez in when Felix is pitching against a RHSP.
What leaving Branyan in might imply is that Wak considers Sweeney going to first a big enough liability to not offset the offensive difference they might offer. Especially considering the opposing manager can just go out there and grab a righty anyways. If you put out Sweeney to pinch hit for Branyan the Angels are just going to go get Shields one batter earlier.
And to be honest I think I’d rather have Oliver face Branyan than Shields face Sweeney… Because Shields is kinda “good” and Oliver kinda “sucks”, especially since Oliver turned 60 last week.
Wakamatsu has said he wants to give guys a chance to hit in situations that would normally demand a pinch hitter, at least early in the season. He twice left Sweeney in against a RH (and got hits both times) and he left Johnson in (and got a crucial hit). So now it may be reinforcing itself, but who knows. At least Wakamatsu isn’t locked into stagnant thinking (“roles” etc), which is a refreshing change from his predecessors, and he’s still trying to figure out a team that wasn’t fully assembled until late in Spring Training (and in fact won’t be until Ichiro takes the field). He’s going to make decisions we’ll be second-guessing, but I’m willing to give him some rope for at least the first few weeks.
It likely will regress further than that.
Year, Team, OPS, RISP OPS
2007 Red Sox .806, .829
2004 Red Sox .832, .873
2001 Mariners .805, .839
1996 Mariners .850, .880
There may be a team that had an OPS 100 points higher with RISP over the course of a season, but I didn’t find one with a quick check. There have been plenty of teams with an OPS that’s the same or lower with RISP (including the 2005 WS champion White Sox and several of the high-scoring Rangers teams).
The M’s bullpen was more lucky than good last night. Giving up three hits and five walks in three innings and not surrendering a run? That’s not going to happen often.
Morrow seems to have regressed since last year. He has no confidence in anything but his fastball and even with his kind of stuff that’s not going to be enough.
I agree Dave. Even if it just a “show me” pitch, you need to at least put the possibility of another pitch in the back of the hitter’s mind.
Good discussion. Do we know the extent to which Joh is “calling the game” so far this season? Are his calls being changed by the pitcher? Is he just the intermediary between the manager and the pitcher, without his own authority to call the game?
Not to be negative, but what’s the saying, “The other shoe will drop…”
It’s been fun and all, but one of these times they’re going to issue a couple of walks and then someone’s gonna hit a three run shot to win the game for the other side…
I’ve loved the great start, and the bullpen high-wire act has been exciting, but I’m dreading the implosions we are going to have to sit through…
I have a feeling the Aardsma quote mentioned above (basically, “if it’s working, why change?”) is the crux of the matter. Right now the non-stop barrage of fastballs attack is working. When the staff starts to get roughed up–and they will–I think we’ll see a change.
Dave,
I don’t understand the logic in your plea? If fastballs get the hitters out why throw other pitches? The goal is outs, right? Somedays you need a secondary pitch for obvious reasons and somedays you don’t. I guess yesterday was one of those days we didn’t need the alternative pitches? That is unless you’re suggesting that if more secondary pitches were thrown, somehow the outcome would be better? I am not sure how to predict that, they won did’nt they? Again, unless your suggesting that if they threw more sliders or breaking balls or change ups we would have won in say 9 innings with a score of 2 – 0?
In the end and perhaps this was your point, that still eludes me, they will certainly have to change their approach (like all teams) as they face teams a second and third time and as hitters begin to catch up to pitchers.
msb wrote:
I paid particular attention to this quote after we first saw Dave’s criticism of Aardsma’s over-reliance on the high fastball (point 2 in “Some Thoughts from Week One“) and again reading this post.
I don’t really have a problem with Arrdsma’s philosophy, particularly at lower levels of baseball, but there is a limit to everything. The batter won’t catch up to it until he does, and Major League hitters will usually make that adjustment within the confines of a single at bat. I think this is part of Dave’s point – yeah, use what’s working, but you still have to mess with the hitter’s timing and can’t let them sit on any one pitch too long.
It’s already happened when Morrow walked three Twins and then Batista gave up two hits immediately after.
The odds are against this bullpen being successful if they continue the way they are.
I’m wondering if this philosophy is coming mostly from Wetteland (the story msb linked to mentions him) or Adair?
The bullpen is the biggest reason the M’s have the highest percentage of FBs thrown in the AL, but guys like Silva are doing their part as well. Washburn’s up considerably over the past two seasons, and while Felix is down from ’08, he’s still above his ’07 (or ’06) rates.
This may end up helping certain pitchers (maybe Batista, possibly Aardsma), but it will hurt others (certainly Jakubauskas, Felix, Lowe).
After watching the game with this 90% fastball statistic in mind, it was really pretty painful to watch.
IowaMarinersFan, I’ll try to field this question for you, because it has to do with what I was going to post. The big point here is once tendencies develop, and hitters start to see these tendencies, then throwing 90% fastballs just probably isn’t going to work. Maybe for Silva because he tends to stay low in the zone when he’s on, and his fastball has a lot of sink, but for guys like Aardsma he has a good fastball, but good hitters can crush a poorly placed, good fastball. The fact that so far our relievers have been walking the world and throwing all fastballs has worked so far, but it could definitely cause a problem moving on. It is not merely enough to say “it’s working don’t fix it,” because there is a good chance we are going to get hosed on this often. And plus, the two curveballs I saw Morrow throw were nasty, it’s not like his fastball is his only good pitch. When you throw 96-97 constantly, even though it’s pretty hard to hit a fastball moving that fast, the offspeed stuff can be that much more devestating.
Aardsma seems to have brought it with him
It never ceases to amuse me when someone shows up and says “it worked, so it must’ve been the right thing to do!” as if it’s some amazing, groundbreaking new idea that we’ve never thought of.
Really, results-based analysis is bad. Stop it.
Jeff:
Have you heard of the Hundredth Idiot Principle? I read it in a book someplace and it definitely applies. Here’s the quote:
“One hundred idiots make idiotic plans and carry them out. All but one justly fail. The hundredth idiot, whose plan succeeded through pure luck, is immediately convinced he’s a genius.”
IowaMarinerFans-
You are confusing Dave’s analysis, which is done for predictive purposes, with a review of results. Dave’s not unhappy with the results (see the first comment), he’s just pointing out (as most here have too) that even though it worked this time, and has for the most part through the first 8 games, it is not a recipe for success in the future. I hope that makes sense to you.
msb,
Huh – well unless I’m going crazy, I read something about Wetteland teaching his charges that message: go with the FB if you’re getting results. I can’t find it, so perhaps I imagine it – though the FB% of the bullpen really does seem to suggest an overall plan.
Humans are wired to over-value results over process — it’s the root of a lot of dumb human behavior from asset bubbles (“past results are not predictive of future returns” but it’s the only part of the prospectus most people look at) and Ponzi schemes to superstitions (“I won the game the last time I wore these socks”) and criminals getting caught (“I got away with it the last time…”).
It’s not surprising, really: when our distant ancestors were only concerned with finding food and avoiding getting eaten, “whatever worked the last time” was a pretty good strategy… especially for a creature that wasn’t capable of formulating anything more sophisticated. And even though it probably had fatal limitations as a strategy even then, that didn’t matter as long as it worked long enough for a few to reach breeding age.
But hopefully we’re a little smarter now. At least [THIS IS NOT A BOARD DAMMIT]. In the wider human world, there’s plenty of evidence we’re no better than protosimians climbing the same tree over and over in search of fruit.
re: Wetteland, maybe this?. It is really more of a general piece of advice, not coaching …
“I tell kids, ‘Find the one thing you know you do best, and keep it. Hone it. Then you can add on if you want, but always keep that one thing strong,’ ” Wetteland said.
Wetteland’s advice works better when you’re a young Mariano Rivera and you have a superb out pitch that no one can hit and you can throw it to spots smaller than a pinhead consistently for over a decade. For someone who is walking over a batter an inning, I’d be working on other stuff, too.
the impression I had was that this was Wetteland’s advice to younger pitchers on work ethic, not Wetteland’s advice to major league pitchers on how to pitch a game.