Justin Grimm Is Rebuilding Himself
“When I signed here,” said Justin Grimm, leaning forward over the back of one of the teal folding chairs that dot the home clubhouse at Safeco Field, eyes intent and slightly wide, “I just came in with the attitude like, you know what, I don’t know shit. I’m going to learn everything I can about myself and what works for me, and I’m going to start over from square one.”
It’s been a year of beginnings for Grimm, who was released by the Cubs — his club for the past five seasons — on March 15th, signed with the Royals three days later, put up a 13.50 ERA in 16 disastrous appearances for Kansas City, and was released for the second time in less than four months on July 7th. To cap it all off, Grimm and his wife Gina — an All-American gymnast at UGA, where the two met — welcomed a baby boy, their first, on May 25th.
“When I was released [by the Royals], I was on the disabled list,” Grimm said, “and the Mariners came in and were like, ‘Hey, come rehab in Seattle, we want to sign you.’ I saw it as an opportunity to go out and get better. I knew I was better than the numbers I was putting up. I knew they could help me get back to where I was.”
The early returns are promising. In five appearances for the Mariners, Grimm has allowed just a single run in 4.2 innings. His velocity is up, his walks are down, and his confidence is starting to recover. The difference, as is typical in these situations, has been a combination of a fresh mental approach to the game and some very specific mechanical and pitch-mix adjustments, made courtesy of the Mariners’ coaching staff.
Brian DeLunas, Seattle’s bullpen coach, had noticed that Grimm’s fastball had a tendency to “spray” left and right up in the zone, which meant that, on nights when his other key pitch — the curveball — wasn’t playing either, hitters were able to sit fastball, accepting walks when the heater wasn’t touching the zone and crushing it when it was. Grimm needed a third pitch.
“So,” said “DeLunas, “we went out and looked at video, and did some work on the numbers, and had him throw some different stuff and figure out what was going to work for him, and found out that he actually threw a really good slider. It was something that he felt with his hand speed and his effort this year, he could get it into the zone consistently. That kind of opened up a little bit more for him, where he uses the slider to get into good counts and puts guys away with the curveball.”
Thus, after nearly eliminating the pitch from his repertoire in 2016 — the data indicate he threw just two all year — Grimm’s slider was back. Just over one in every five pitches Grimm has thrown for the Mariners has been a slider, and batters are missing nearly half the ones at which they swing. If you’re looking for a single reason Grimm’s been able to generate so many more swings and misses during his time with Seattle than he was in Kansas City, look to the slider.
But also look to how he’s throwing it. The reason Grimm dropped the pitch in the first place, three years ago, was that he felt his max-effort delivery didn’t allow him enough control over the pitch. This season, sage at 30 years old, he’s found a delivery that works the same for his entire repertoire and gives him more options when he falls behind in counts.
DeLunas’s laid-back, highly physical coaching style — even talking to me, restricted by the low ceiling and close walls of Safeco’s dugout tunnels, he backed me up and demonstrated each element of Grimm’s new delivery himself, exacting step by exacting step — was, apparently, just what Grimm needed to cut through the clutter of his up-and-down season and previous biases — and to make a change.
“Growing up,” says Grimm, “you always hear ‘Don’t get so rotational, don’t be rotational.’ And all that means is just you’re firing your front side too soon. If you don’t do that, though, it’s okay to get rotational. That’s a big change I’ve made. It’s something that you see Charlie Morton do — and Bauer, how he opens up his front side, and gets that really big chest. For years, that approach sounded so negative to me, because I took it the wrong way. But it’s all about the timing.”
Consider, for example, this slider that Grimm threw for the Cubs in August 2015:
And compare it to this slider Grimm threw this past Tuesday for the Mariners:
The difference is, to my eye, stark. Grimm’s body, whipping out of control in the first video, is subdued but no less powerful in the second. “Really,” says Grimm, “it’s just about keeping that front side closed, and getting the timing of when it fires right. I feel like now I have a good feel of that, and there’s a couple cue points that I can go to.” The tools were always there, in other words, it’s just that now they’re used in a different way and to a different effect. That’s growing older. That’s getting better.
“When I was younger,” continued Grimm, “the message was always ‘Your stuff’s really good, so just go let it play.’ And instead of understanding what that actually meant, I would just hear it as it as, ‘Oh, your stuff’s good, you’re going to be fine.’ And so you get your pat on the butt and you go on your way. But I got so tired of hearing that. Like, okay, if I’m going to be fine, why am I blowing up every eighth outing? Back in Chicago, and Kansas City, I was losing a lot of sleep over the fact that it was happening, versus going to work to figure out why it happened.”
I think we underrate, as a baseball-writing community — or, at least, I do personally — the degree to which big leaguers are adjusting their game all the time to changing bodies, changing circumstances, and changing opposition. We know that baseball is all about adjustments, of course, but still tend to get an image in our heads of who a guy is, then have a hard time re-calibrating our expectations of his capacity in the face of something new. And most big leaguers’ anodyne interview answers, in which they blandly confess to nothing much at all, reinforce an image that hides much more change than it reveals.
But change still happens, all the time, sometimes subtly and sometimes rather more dramatically, game by game and pitch by pitch. Grimm’s change, this second half of the season in Seattle, has been notable. He has taken from himself the best parts of what he was and added the best of what he can be now. He has become, seven years into his big-league career, a different kind of pitcher. He has become, at the same time, a father. He has grown up in the game and grown with it.
“This year,” he said, “has obviously had a lot of change. I had a newborn, and adjusting to that has been a lot, plus I had some setbacks this year with injuries and other stuff. But, you know, life goes on. I’m just happy to be healthy now and think that over this past couple months, I’ve found more of myself and who I am. That’s all you’re really looking for.”
Rian Watt is a contributor to FanGraphs based in Seattle. His work has appeared at Vice, Baseball Prospectus, The Athletic, FiveThirtyEight, and some other places too. By day, he works with communities around the world to end homelessness.
I really like Justin Grimm and hope he’s found a way to revive his career.
Outstanding paragraph: “I think we underrate . . .”
I’m glad it resonated!
It sure did resonate. It’s very relatable for us non-ballplayers too.
It’s false but popular.
The popularity of the Rian’s sentiment (“all the little things matter more than we know”) proves how unlikely it is to be true, as fans won’t choose to underrate something that they want to be important. And fans, especially fans that don’t use math, reaaly enjoy believing that all the little things matter.
The majority of sports fans love the romanticism of imagining that every single visual anecdote matters. This is especially true for any anecdote that is highly visible, or on any subject that reinforces popular stances on armchair psychology, hard work, etc. This is why so many regressive and traditional fans wax poetic about the grit and hustle and mental toughness of all their romanticized heroes: usually producing the absolute worst and most backwards sport observations.
The idea that fans and authors under estimate the mini-battles and micro-adjustments in the game is pure jock-sniffing romanticism from people who haven’t worked at high level in sport: the reality is much the opposite. Many athletes simply train in the morning, eat lunch and go home: a 8-2 work day, including lunch, is not rare at all. Imagine the difference of how most Louisville fans imagined that Rick Pitino spent his days, and how he actually does: it’s much the same across sport. Fans and journalists (especially industry friendly self-promoting ones) far overhype the hours that go into game prep, and the amount of money that is made on overhyping the cat-and-mouse tactical game is absurd.
Of course sports journalists who are paid to make content, and the fans who sit around dreaming about the sport as a hobby, far over estimate the importance of “every little thing”: thus we have over a century of examples where the sports media tries to over analyze every meaningless anecdote, inventing cottage industries around nonsense concepts like clutch hitting and the power of a manager’s steely-eyed glare.
Analysts and fans that aren’t good at math aren’t able to make meaningful sporting insights: so, like most baseball broadcast teams, they prattle on about whatever the dimmest of the dim can observe visually. That’s why nearly every white, 55 year old+, american male baseball broadcaster is much the same: not understanding the math, nor understanding how the game is played, but endlessly romanticizing all the jock-sniffing narratives that Matt Matheny is all about. Nearly every pair of regressive baseball broadcasters would love this article and the sentiment that all the little things are super important. The likes of Hank Harrelson, Matt Matheney and Tim Kurkjian would point out how this article is what the game is really about: not silly stat nonsense.
Narrative, pure narrative: and the ESPN/Fox style audience loves it.
*Looks at gif*
*Looks at identical gif*
*Reads “The difference is, to my eye, stark.”
*Looks at both gifs 25 more times, sees no difference*
This article really reinforced to me that I will never be a Pitching Nerd type of baseball fan. Hats off to those of you who are!
To be fair, the massive difference in camera angle doesn’t help.
Look at where his right foot ends up after his delivery in both. Look at his placement on the mound when he finishes his delivery. He has much better body control in the second gif.
It’s pure fluff.
Sometimes you chat to a pitching coach for 10 minutes and want to make a fluff article about a reliever who has pitched an unremarable 17 innings this year.
But with fangraphs editors wanting lots of zippy magical content that finds the super amazing neat part of every single baseball tidbit: we get these Tim Kurkjian style articles. See every single Sunday ‘easy reading’ article on fangraphs, it’s all the exact same fluff, tons of plugs for coaches, tons of human interest stories, tons of hyping up hard work and preparation, tons of meaningless anecdotes put forward as driving micro-trends: all of it as mindless and industry-friendly as ESPNs College Gameday with Lee Corso.
There is no ‘pitching nerd type’ of baseball analysis going on here. This is laughably unserious insight. The author is simply taking a few minutes of casual talk with a coach, and plugging it into the ‘paint-by-number lazy analysis article’ formula: (1) anecdote, (2) a couple of GIFs, (3) some lazy half-argument that the anecdote might be related to whatever micro-trend has recently happened (with no reference to math, as any serious empiricism would likely dismiss the anecdote as non predictive and the micro-trend as small sample size noise).
This content is very poor imo.
The author could not be more wrong, generally, that anecdotal, visual changes are underrated by sports journalists/fluff content producers.
To the contrary, fluff sports content is absolutely loaded with formulaic, meaningless, traditional eye-test anecodtes. It’s similar to the ‘so and so is in the best shape of his life’ narratives from spring training.
These multimedia, formulaic fluff presentations at fangraphs are all the same by the new authors: (1) a little human interest background (oh really, his wife is a gymnist, neat); (2) player friendly and industry friendly memes (a plug for the coach, etc.); (3) video clips, always! (clearly a fangraphs editorial emphasis); plus (4) “something obvious visual anecdote that math-dumb people can see.”
Another key feature of these types of articles is (5) no serious math. Accordingly, it never matters what anecdote is observed- any visual change can be pretended to be ‘the key’ to whatever has changed. Although I love Jeff Sullivan’s work, see his Lucas Giolito article from this pre-season- same formula. There was no math to demonstrate that any of the observed mechanical changes were predictive of anything- but just that Giolito changed his motion a bit and was getting different small sample size results.
There is no serious reason to think that Grimm puffing out his chest is a key to his improved performance. This is a pitcher with 17 IPs this season. The same critique (“this is lousy, forced, unserious and anti-intellectual content”) goes for the legion of similar articles showing a photo from this year compared to a photo from last: with a more open stance (or less) and a lower bat angle (or higher): all of which are put forward, without a serious empirical argument, as being part of a key change.
In pro front offices, this sort of unanchored, uncontextualized, anti-empirical nonsense is useless- or worse counterproductive. Such a poor imitation of serious minded sport insight: churning content out of any 17-inning relief pitcher whose coach will bullshit for a few minutes. For fluff content creation, it brings in the clicks.