The 100 MPH Man
Well, that was quite a show, eh? Seven innings of just unbelievable, dominating stuff. Even the four hits felt like flukes as the opposing hitters just played self defense and hoped to slap the ball the other way. Pitch F/x doesn’t give out many legit 100 MPH readings, but it did it on multiple occasions, and the fastball averaged over 97 MPH for the night. Contrast that with a nasty change-up around 90 MPH and a knee buckling 82 MPH curveball, and you have major league hitters looking foolish with regularity.
Yes, that May 3rd start by Ubaldo Jimenez, where he just shut down the San Diego Padres, was a thing of beauty. Wait, were you thinking of something more recent?
Hey, look, I was as impressed by Stephen Strasburg as anyone else last night. But, in the rush to hyperbole, I noticed that it’s become common to talk about how Strasburg’s stuff is just so much better than anyone we’ve ever seen. That would be true if Ubaldo wasn’t walking around the planet right now.
Here’s his velocity graph from Brooks Baseball from that game against the Padres.
There’s 120 pitches in there. He hit 99.8 on the 117th pitch of the night. He struck out 13 hitters on the evening, by the way. While he issued three walks, he was also not facing the Pirates Triple-A line-up, so we’ll call that even. All in all, it was a very similar start to the one that went down in D.C. last night.
This isn’t to diminish Strasburg’s debut in any way, shape, or form. He was remarkably good, and will continue to be, I’m sure. But I think that it’s important that we recognize that the stuff isn’t once in a lifetime. It’s not even once in 2010. Strasburg has a great arm, but so does the Rockies ace, even if he comes with just a wee bit less hype.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Strasberg’s start reminded me of the first time I saw U-Ball very early on. Great stuff but still learning how to use it. Strasberg, though, is ahead of where U-Ball was at this point in Jimenez’s development curve and will be better if his arm holds up.
Watching that game last night instantly took me back to Kerry Wood’s 20K game back in 1998. The ridiculous fastball but more than anything was that hammer curve. I remember thinking how whenever he threw a curveball the baseball looked like a wiffle ball. I’d never seen anything like it before or since, until last night…
Settle down there champ. THIS is a whiffle ball pitch. http://www.purplerow.com/2010/6/2/1497511/ubaldo-jimenez-is-better-than-you
U-Ball is an awful nickname. Isn’t Ubaldo enough?
I totally second that sentiment. It’s the easy, uncreative route to nicknames these days, although U-Ball is singularly awful (along with I-Rod, who already had a perfectly good nickname in “Pudge”).
could call him Baldy! U-Ball sounds to much like U-Haul.. and I am sure the fans in colorado dont want that connection.
I kind of like U-Ball, although Ubaldo is a great name.
how bout the big Unit 2 or dos en espanol.
Yeah, I feel like the rush to hyperbole is justified when you’re comparing a 21yo’s first major league start to a 3-year veteran pitcher having a Cy Young season.
I get the urge to counter all the hype, and it certainly is getting out of hand, but so far Strasburg has done nothing to prove it wrong. But the simple fact that you can compare these two pitchers and not seem crazy is pretty impressive for Strasburg.
He’s not Jesus, but let’s not get carried away making him out to be just ok, either.
Ok fine, but Strasburg did this in his first ML appearance, and Jimenez has been one of the most talked about players in baseball this year. They are both receiving an appropriate amount of hype, I think. On May 4 we were all talking about Jimenez.
Nice job keeping things in perspective… I know Driveline Mechanics is not high on Strasburg being able to keep this up, do you get into pitcher mechanics at all? Basically they predict Strasburg’s velocity will diminish over the next couple years eventually leading to a major shoulder injury. They drew parallels to Mark Prior.
IIRC, Dave doesn’t think very highly of mechanical analysis. I could be wrong.
No, he doesn’t, and with good reason. John Smoltz, who I mentioned in a comment below, did the elbow-above-the-shoulder thing that’s supposed to mean imminent arm explosion and that seemed to work out okay for him.
Right, so because one person had bad mechanics and had a long career that negates all mechanical analysis. I’m not saying I agree with Boddy on this one, just that it’s a topic clearly open to discussion.
No arguing against straw men, please and thank you. I used an example to illustrate a larger truth — that our ability to predict injuries based on mechanics is in its infancy and that ostensible red flags for injury should not be treated with the kind of gravity they sometimes are. I’ve read nearly every mechanical analysis Driveline has posted, and I think there’s value in there somewhere. It just seems that signal/noise is a little lower than most scientific enterprises would tolerate.
I don’t generally like mechanical analysis, but to be fair Smoltz has battled arm problems his entire career. He was after all moved to the bullpen for that very reason.
He’s pitched through pain admirably and lasted a very long time, it hasn’t been smooth sailing like his teammates Maddux and Glavine.
Then why mention Smoltz? It’s not arguing against a strawmen if one of your supporting arguments against mechanical analysis is “look at Smoltz”.
All Boddy is saying is “I don’t like Strasburg’s mechanics”. His prediction of velocity loss and injury is no different than a scouting report on a pitcher’s stuff. Although I know that Kyle has and is doing research to back up his theories.
Obviously there is a need to take it with a grain of salt, but you can’t ignore it and it’s definitely a negative review of Strasburg’s potential.
“It’s not arguing against a strawmen if one of your supporting arguments against mechanical analysis is ‘look at Smoltz’. ”
It is if you ascribe a ridiculously absolutist opinion like “because one person had bad mechanics and had a long career that negates all mechanical analysis” to someone who said no such thing. I said Dave is justified in not thinking very highly of mechanical analysis. “Not very highly” could mean weighting the opinions of mechanical analysts 5% when trying to project a player, and I think that’s somewhere in the neighborhood of correct.
Like I said, there is value somewhere in mechanical analysis, it’s just extraordinarily difficult to prove causation when it comes to something like this. For one thing, most pitchers get injured. For another, those pitchers that make it through long careers without injury probably have genetics to thank more than anything else. I’m all for getting and applying as much information as possible, but I think skepticism is warranted here and you seem to agree.
Strasburg WAS an “Inverted-W” (both elbows point to the sky) guy (ala Mark Prior and Anthony Reyes”, but his mechanics have changed to more of a “horizontal-W” (both elbows point toward 1st base side), more akin to jake Peavy, with the big difference being Strasburg doe snot turn his front shoulder toward 3B side like Peavy does (over-rotation resulting in throwing across his body).
Translation: Strasburg isn;t the injury concern he once was in regards to his arm mechanics.
Chris o’Leary has some good pictures of the change at his website.
Mechanics guys, which I consider myself to be (former college pitcher, current principal and pitching coach), always have concerns about everyone. Not everyone is Clemens, Schilling, or Maddux. Dan Haren has some mechanical flaws (small), as does Verlander (small), as does Jimenez (small). This should not be confused with the mechanical concerns associated with Prior (remember when it was said he had “perfect” mechanics?), Carpenter (inverted-L), and Harden (lots of big things wrong).
I don’t see the point in unnecessarily building up or tearing down Strasburg. His performance is what it is. It reminded me very much of Wood’s 20-K game where he was deucing and flaming the Astros at will (some good hitters on that team too).
In actuality, the game against the Pirates was baseball’s version of what happens in boxing …. matchup a very talented gold medal winning prospect against a serviceable, marginably good vet, who has no chance of winning, so the prospect can look as good as possible, gain confidence, and get everyone to the ticket counter for his next start.
I don’t see anything that should cause one to think that Strasburg won’t be good or healthy. Granted he won’t be *this* good, but that’s obvious. Did Todd van Poppel ever have a 14K, 0 BB game against anyone that wasn’t a high school team?
I think it’s obvious that Strasburg isn;t the typical pitching prospect, whether we’re talking stuff, composure (one of the question marks, pre-draft), polish, or experience (he ain’t Brien Taylor coming out of high school and never pitching from the stretch).
I would put Strasburg’s stuff and mechanics more in the “Verlander group” then I would the “Prior group”.
People have predicted major injuries to both Verlander (mechanics are actually pretty good, IMO) and Lincecum (he’s a unique situation). Both have been durable, but all pitchers eventually suffer some type of injury, so when that happens … the talking heads will jump all over it, completely disregarding the number of 200 IP seasons these guys have racked up already.
I’m just going to sit back and enjoy watching Strasburg do what he does, without trying to vault him as the next Ryan or whoever, and also while not looking to nitpick his performance. It all works out over time. He did look great … and there’s no need to have a “battle of the best” between he and Ubaldo, just as we don’t HAVE TO decide who is better: King or Grienke (even though we did last year). Enjoy the talent for what it is.
Trade him for Oswalt while his value is high!
Ubaldo is a 26 yr old 5 year vet. SS is a 21 year old rookie. The game vs the padres has been Ubaldo’s peak performance to date (not to say he may not put together another no-hitter or perfect game without Joyce there, but he’s on the top of his game). The game vs the Pirates was Stras’ 1st start. The thing that makes this start great is that one can see the amount of potential growth that can be acquired by Stras, immediately making him a greater commodity than Ubaldo if we are merely comparing the two starts, and that makes a world of difference in assessing Stras’ stuff as more “remarkable”.
I just realized that this was not in reference to the no-hitter but still…same thing
Sometimes players grow. Sometimes players decline. Youth is no guarantee of improvement. Strasburg could blow his arm out next week, not pitch again for a year, and come back throwing low-90s heat.
However, youth provides a greater likelihood of growth than old age does. Older players do grow and develop, but they are just less likely to do so. Thats why like to play the odds on young players.
With hitters, sure, but not so much with pitchers. Youth isn’t a good thing for pitchers because of the risk of injury. I’d take a 25 year old with Strasburg’s stuff and no injury history over Strasburg with the same stuff at 21 solely because one has shown his arm can handle the stress of a full season starter’s workload.
So you would take a 25 year old with 4 extra years of pitches on his arm than the 21 year? Jimenez is just as likely to be injured next week as Strasburg is, perhaps more likely as he has many more pitches logged in that arm. Jimenez is also less likely to improve than Strasburg given the age difference.
Lichtman did an interesting study where he tried to find evidence that any subset of pitchers improves with age, and found they all get worse.
That isn’t to say all pitchers get worse as they age, but my understanding of the work was that you should not expect any pitcher to get better, even if they’re only 21. Some will, but you won’t know which ones before the fact, and on average they will get injured or decline.
I admit I don’t know if there have been further developments on this topic. I was actually surprised that his article didn’t get more play at the time, as I found the results astonishing.
I’m not saying Strasburg will improve, I’m saying he is more likely to improve than Jimenez and he is equally if not less likely to be injured.
Reminds me of my favorite Q&A ever posed to a pitcher.
Media Member: “When was the last time you felt 100%?”
Curt Schilling: “I’d have to say when I was 15.”
You get the idea.
@vivaelpujols
If he has thrown all those extra pitches with no signs of arm trouble, absolutely. I’ll take the guy who has proven he can shoulder the workload without problems over the younger guy we have no idea on. I completely disagree with your idea that the younger guy is a similar or lesser risk to get injured. He’s still in the middle of the injury nexus and he hasn’t proven that he can deal with a 200+ IP workload.
And stop using the age argument that a younger pitcher is more likely to improve than an older guy. If you remove the chance of injury, you might have a point, though in general pitchers don’t age linearly as hitters do, but that chance of injury is significantly higher for the younger guy than the older guy.
So you are saying that Strasburg has a higher chance of injury than Jimenez?
I agree with the overall point, but there is also the question about whether Strasburg is nearer to his ceiling than Ubaldo to his. I mean, it is obvious to everyone that Strasburg is much more polished at his age than Ubaldo, but perhaps there’s not much more polish to add? With Ubaldo, it seems he has constantly added polish throughout his major league career, culminating (so far, and on the surface, at least) this year. Perhaps he has more polish to yet add? Or perhaps he’s reached the peak. But the question still remains valid.
Yeah I think if anyone has lost perspective its you. You’re comparing the best pitcher in the majors this year at his best to Strasburg in his first start and implying that everyone else is losing perspective. Wait until we have at least a seasons worth of PitchF/X data then cherry pick Ubaldo and Strasburg’s most eye-popping numbers and you may have a bit of a case.
Perfect point.
If someone would have suggested, on May 4th, that Strasburg’s debut would be a comparable start to Ubaldo’s best? Probly would have gotten great odds in Vegas.
Perhaps what separates this site is the focus on data/scientific method. For those who did find some semblance of artistry in last night’s start, that total picture likely included the setting/surroundings/pressure/anticipation this kid had to deal with…and he still dealt.
.
BigSteve said it perfectly. Not sure if you’re just trying to be a contrarian here, or if the fact that this is Strasburg’s first start is just simply lost on you, but last night was every bit as impressive as most are making it out to be.
I agree with that.
There is no need to embellish or minimalize what happened in the game. It was what it it was … and what it was … was damn impressive and fun to watch.
Maybe I look at things a bit differently than some, but I kept thinking “Man, there’s a dad named Mr. Strasburg out there that is strutting around with a big chest today.” Get down with your bad self dad. Dad got to live the dream many dad’s dream … he got to look to the person seated next to him and say “That’s my boy.”
Just be happy for the kid. Let’s all remember our role, etc. No need to rank Strasburg in any osrt of way (although it can be fun). Let’s just keep our perspective. None of us have any real predictive powers, or statistical database, that can lead us to a solid conclusion on what his future will be.
Just enjoy the show for now … well, at least until we get more data. *grin*
Where exactly did Dave say Strasburg’s start wasn’t impressive? I re-read the post, and all I see is Dave pointing out that Ubaldo Jimenez’s stuff is just as electric – not more electric. I don’t really see how calling a guy two-of-a-kind (instead of one-of-a-kind) and mentioning him in the same breath as the current greatest pitcher alive is some sort of knock against his very obvious talent.
Maybe it’s just my eyes fooling me, but Strasburg’s stuff seems much better than Ubaldo, even though they both have about the same fastball velocity. Ubaldo can’t miss bats that way Strasburg did last night, and especially not without walking anybody. On pure performance, I put my money on Strasburg over Ubaldo for the rest of the season.
I’m a big Ubaldo fan, but doing what Strasburg did last night in 30 less pitches does merit some consideration. Furthermore, while the Pirates lineup is terrible, the Padres are not *much* better, and Ubaldo’s game was at Petco. Just evening things out a bit. But nice to bring this to peoples’ minds, in any case.
The Padres are currently in second place in a tough NL west…..
The Padres are doing well because of pitching, not their bottom of the NL lineup.
The Padres are in the top half of the NL in OPS+, with 95. The Pirates are second to last with 90.
However, the Pirates have the 3rd most K’s in the league, while the Pirates are in the bottom half the NL in K’s.
Err, the Padres have the 3rd most K’s in the NL.
30 “fewer” pitches, not 30 “less”.
*Smugly feels superior without adding one bit to the discussion*
Cordially,
15% of FG readers
two fakeout hooks on Strasburg in one day!
can the next one be about Ivan Rodriguez?
Seriously, the fakeout hook is becoming the FanGraphs go-to move all of a sudden. Every time I still fall for it though…
Fangraphs is a daily (or hourly) read, and you all really really do an incredible job analyzing the historic aspects of the game from varying cogent viewpoints. Dave especially does a great job.
With that said, I was surprised to not see an article on Strasburg today. He has seemed to leak into other posts, but posters just seem a little shy to delve into talking about Strasburg because EVERYONE EVERYWHERE is talking about him.
And now with THAT said, I wonder why. Can’t the numbers guys get caught up in the performance too? We can rationally understand that next start won’t look like…that, but does that mean we cant talk about the gutting of the Pirates for a day?
We can talk about Scherzer’s great (and statistically weird) outing, but not Strasburg’s? What gives?
Where is the love today for Delwyn Young? His rather amazing cut for a HR off of Strasburg was a thing of beauty (I thought). He is himself immortalized, should SS go on to have a career above replacement level.
Dave I’ve been asking about this for a while now, but can you do one of those velocity-by-game charts for Tim Lincecum? It seems to me in watching the games that he has lost (at least) a couple MPH’s on his fastball since last season and even more since his ’07 and ’08 seasons. Wasn’t he hitting 94-96 with regularity back then? The game radar guns I’ve seen so far this year show him sitting at 91-92…
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/evolution-of-lincecum/
Yes, Timmy’s fastball has lost about 3 MPH on average since 2007 (from 94.2 in ’07 to 91.3 this year). He’s said that he can’t dial it up past 95 anymore, when he used to be able to hit high upper-90’s when he needed it.
His fastball velocity decline started last year, though. It’s not a recent event. He’s almost become a different pitcher since his first two seasons.
Doesn’t seem to bugging him any, though; Tim is looking pretty good even without being able to dial up past 95. He’s making much more use of the change and slider, and that seems to be helping him out a fair bit, even to the point where his K/9 hasn’t dropped to any degree worth mentioning and he’s still as tough to hit as ever.
I’m actually more impressed by this year’s Lincecum than any other incarnation, even the ones with the insane heat on the 2-seamer.
Yeah, but Strasburg’s changeup has a good 4 inches extra drop compared to Ubaldo’s, and Strasburg’s curveball has a good 4 inches extra drop compared to Ubaldo’s. Ubaldo has a slider, but it’s honestly not a very good pitch and he doesn’t throw it that frequently.
The two might have similar fastballs, but Strasburg’s offspeed stuff is much better.
With respect, this comment is filled with inaccurate blanket statements. Jimenez throws his slider second-most in frequency behind his moving heaters and I can remember reading a pitch f/x breakdown suggesting that his slider actually saves more runs than his fastball. I’d also like to see the pitch f/x data suggesting that Strasburg’s (obviously tremendous stuff) falls and breaks more than Jimenez’s.
Is the size of the break the quality indicator?
For breaking pitches – Sharpness? Velocity?
For changeups – Late movement? Speed differential (or I should say delta)? Arm slot/speed similarity with fastball delivery?
Just because something breaks more doesn’t mean it’s a better pitch by that metric alone. Having not stood in the batter’s box against either I think it’s hard to say based purely on pitch fx data (especially when limiting it to amount of break)
It’s been shown that the amount of movement a curveball has is directly correlated to it’s effectiveness, on this very site in fact:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/one-win-curveballs/
Check out the Pitch f/x pages for Strasburg and Jimenez – Strasburg’s curve had more movement last night than Jimenez averaged this year, and if you look at the game Dave Cameron mentioned in the OP, Strasburg’s curve did indeed have about 4 inches extra drop.
With regards to changeup, the two have the exact same speed differential, and the only quantitative difference between the two with Pitch f/x is with regards to movement. Strasburg’s changeup has a lot less vertical movement, which means it has more sink. You are correct that it hasn’t been really proven that more sink is better, but just going by common sense, I’m going to say that a changeup with more sink is better than a changeup with less sink.
Doesn’t the high altitude in Denver hurt the movement on U-Ball’s curve? Or has that proven to be ESPN misinformation?
The game in question was in Petco, so that isn’t a factor there.
You cannot ignore the speed component of the effectiveness of the curveball…
Maybe the pitchers are using there curveballs differently (ahead in counts vs even in counts)
Maybe, and I;m just spitballing here, there is a control component to the run value?
(and there are dozens of other variables beyond this)
I’m not disputing the fact that Strasburg’s curve may have had more break… I’m disputing the ridiculous conclusion that amount of break determines it’s effectiveness – it is one component of many, and to use that as THE determining factor is a bit silly.
But hey, break on a pitch could be the end all be all… however your use of “common sense” saying more break is better than less break is unfortunately based on a flawed assumption that everything else is equal (and there is more to speed delta involved in that assumption)
Strasburg’s curveball is about 2 MPH faster than Jimenez, and there is basically an identical speed differential with the fastball.
Right, so I assume you are saying that the article I posted from Dave Allen here is crap right? Because that shows that the more break a curveball has the more effective it is.
But whatever frank. I guess evidence is ridiculous these days.
Again since you are having trouble listening… the amount of break is not the end all be all of effectiveness (especially on a changeup).Your argument is basically – Stras’s ball breaks more = better pitch… it may be better but there is more to it than simply break.
What you claim is “evidence”, is a loose correlation of break to effectiveness and turning correlation into causation.. I didn’t even notice an R or R2 on that which I suspect would blow away any ability to make a conclusion.
The article is not crap… it’s the person misusing an article which attempts to correlate break with effectiveness and turns it into causation/evidence…. Speed, sharpness of break, direction of break, location, command, pitch sequencing, arm angle relative to fastball arm angle are potentially just as important… there just isn’t a way to measure things like that, so it’s easy to dumb things down to break on the pitch (these things are even more important on changeups)
Dave Allen’s article was findefor what it was and had the appropriate qualifiers (including mentioning that there are some pitchers who have far more break than Halladay, but are far less effective). Allen was trying to present a “general rule” (he used those specific words) and you turned it into an absolute rule to prove some point.
Ummm yeah, except Strasburg has that 100 AND has a better curveball (spinning some at >2200 RPMs according to BrooksBaseball, which is nuts) AND showed better command than Ubaldo has in his career AND it was his first start. The 100 mph fastball, the curveball and command are individually not THAT special, but no, we haven’t seen anything like what he showed last night because what he showed was all three.
That doesn’t make him the best pitcher on the planet because there’s more to pitching than just that, but he has the highest ceiling. Go figure, people got excited about it.
Don’t forget the changeup, with negative vertical spin deflection!
Nonetheless it’s not that good of a pitch standalone if he’s gonna be 89-92 with it—but yeah, that has plus-plus potential too if he can figure out how to back it down to 86-88. Can you even imagine how impossible he’d be to hit if he figures that out?
But everyone let’s keep everything in perspective because there’s another guy who has a 100 mph fastball who doesn’t have that curve or command.
I dunno, joker. Isn’t it pretty well established that the vaunted 10-mph fastball/change speed differential isn’t what it’s cracked up to be? Hasn’t a 10% drop-off been shown to be more important? And don’t results kind of trump all when it comes to pitch effectiveness? Felix Hernandez has a pretty wicked 90-mph change and he doesn’t even touch 99 with his heater. Tim Lincecum throws the best change up in the world at 84 off of a 91-mph fastball. Sure, the change stands as Strasburg’s worst pitch so far — thanks to Delwyn Young — but the sample is a mite, uh, small. Strasburg did generate three swinging strikes on the nine changes he threw, so it must not be too terrible. I guess my point is that we should see if he keeps giving up homers on it before we criticize.
I’m not basing it just off of yesterday, I watched a few of his starts in the minors and that seemed like his weak link. That’s not to say it’s worthless at all, but I don’t think he can really throw it at 92 and have it be as effective as it very much could be.
Though yeah qualitatively, Delwyn Young shouldn’t be fooled and be able to golf one out that was located at the knees…
Fair enough. I’m just skeptical of the notion that velocity differential has as much to do with change up effectiveness as conventional wisdom (and every f***ing announcer in the world) would have us belief. And as a qualitative counterpoint, that pitch has some nasty, nasty movement. It seems like if he just kept it away or down, there’s not much anyone could do with it. Not that I know anything, really.
The fact that a 21-year-old power pitcher has any kind of feel for or command of a change is pretty nuts by itself.
I wouldn’t say the two have similar fastballs, except in velocity. Jimenez now mostly throws a 2-seamer with significantly more movement than the 4-seamers that Strasburg (mostly) threw last night.
This looks pretty good to me…I think we watching the beginning of a historic player.
http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/images/2010/06/08/Pitcher_Report_Card060810_200003_Stephen_Strasburg.pdf
A better comparison would be Stras to Ubaldo’s first start: 10/1/2006 @CHC. 6.2 ip, 3h, 3bb, 3k, 1hr, 4r, 3er.
I love how writers on this site have to be so jaded about this sort of thing. It’s that attitude that has baseball lagging behind the other major sports as there’s always a know it all who has to rain on the parade. Enjoy it while you can. Who knows how long his arm will hold up. Btw, Stras’ command is better than Ubaldo’s and Ubaldo wishes he had that kind of breaking ball.
I’m Dave Cameron, and I’m better than you.
ha this guy made a funny
Can’t believe there hasn’t been mention of the number six organization in the game yet . . . anyway, yeah, annoying article. Up next: you think this sunset’s pretty? Well, it happens every day!
You think your kid made a nice macaroni picture, well nobody is talking about my kid and his is twice as good as yours! ME ME ME ME ME!!
I think the most concerning thing to me, is that immediately (and someone mentioned it earlier) the Kerry Wood 20k game pops into mind. It’s eerily the same ridiculous wiffle-curveball. Off the top of my head, i think of billy koch and a young a.j. burnett who threw secondary stuff like that to go along with that much velocity. Anyway, all of the above mentioned, to our dismay, suffered serious arm problems and were not able to exhibit their talents for a long time. I guess my question to the fangraph community is, has there ever been a pitcher with such “filthy” stuff who has been awesome for an extended period of time? Oswalt and his bugs bunny curve is the only thing i can think of.
John Smoltz comes to mind. He was still throwing disgusting stuff at age 40 before he got injured in early 2008.
Oh, and Nolan Ryan is almost too obvious. Put up some of his best seasons in his early 40s, and it’s not like he turned into a finesse pitcher with age.
Ryan also had picture perfect mechanics and didn’t suffer any sort of major injury until blowing out his elbow in his final game. On a 98 mph pitch.
Randy Johnson’s slider remained a fairly ridiculous pitch into his early 40s. Obviously he didn’t throw a whole bunch of different breaking pitches that well and Strasburg isn’t 7 feet tall, so I don’t know if it’s a useful example.
Wait a second—are we really supposed to believe that the Padres bats are the Ruth/Gehrig led Yankees? Yes, they’re better than the Pirates, but the difference is marginal. SDP is better than league average in three offensive categories (OPS+, IBB & GDP). Oh and they’ve struck out the third most in the league. You can’t say SS did this against the lowly Pirates without also mentioning that San Diego is pretty terrible.
What Strasburg did was once in a lifetime b/c he had the most strikeouts in a debut since 1971. Only two pitchers in 50 years struck out 10 and walked nobody in their first game. I’m not saying that SS will have a better career than UJ or vice versa, b/c you never know with injuries, run support, etc. But for the more impressive outing, give me yesterday’s game.
It should also be noted that most pitchers faced relatively better lineups in their MLB debut that the lowly Pirates. The Nats timed his debut perfectly, offering him to an easy opponent at home.
I think this was a good article with solid intentions. Dave Cameron does indeed defend his claim against those who say that this “kind of stuff hasn’t been seen before”, as well as variations on that quote.
He simply showed that a high strikeout performance with silly velocity is something that has been done before (very recently, in fact) in much the same fashion as Strasburg’s performance last night by someone with whom we should all become very familiar if we aren’t already in soft-speaking, heat-bringing Ubaldo Jimenez.
He made no attempt to ‘defend’ the fact that Strasburg is a rookie and Jimenez is a vet, therefore Strasburg is more impressive jadda, jadda, jadda. Nor should he have. That wasn’t his point.
Point is: Strasburg is downright dirty. Jimenez is flat filthy. Enough said. God bless fastballs.
So Strasburg’s first start was only slightly better than the best start this year by the guy who has the 0.93 ERA through 12 starts? Damn us overhyping him!
Justin Verlander has upper 90s heat, a big sharp bender, and durability.
I’m glad somebody brought up Verlander, not saying that he’s as good as Ubaldo or even Strasburg right now but in terms of pure stuff he’s got to be pretty close. Alot of people talk about both of those guys velocities but Verlander can throw just as hard or pretty darn close to as hard as those 2 when he wants to.
You bring up Ubaldo hitting 100 on his 116th pitch, look at Verlander last year, this is a start in late September so basically he’s already thrown more than 3000 pitches on the season and this was his 121st and final pitch of the night and he hit 101 on the gun. Now that’s pretty impressive.
http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/pfx.php?month=9&day=19&year=2009&game=gid_2009_09_19_detmlb_minmlb_1%2F&pitchSel=434378&prevGame=gid_2009_09_19_detmlb_minmlb_1%2F&prevDate=919
Also the “Bugs Bunny” references should be for changeups, not curveballs. It’s part of the baseball vocab, but in the cartoon, Bugs got 3 swing and misses on one super slow pitch.
Your FG nickname is now “Grassweed”.
This article was needed. All I could think of last night was, “Any of you idiots seen Jimenez?”
I heard Rob Dibble (easily the worst color man in MLB) comment on Strasburg’s first breaking ball, which was rightly called a “ball”.
He said: “Yep, I knew these umpires wouldn’t be prepared to call his curveball a strike. They’ve never seen a curveball this good.”
No, nimrod.
Also heard an ESPN radio exchange where Brian Kenney asked if you would trade Strasburg for ANYONE in baseball right now. He said basically “no”, and then proposed multiple possible deals that might work.
He indicated that the Rays would need to trade David Price, Matt Garza, and Evan Longoria for him.
He said, “What if the Cardinals offered Albert Pujols AND Adam Wainwright…I might have to think about it at that point.”
You think?
Also, these are the Pirates. The same squad that Johnny Cueto and Homer Bailey CG SO’d on back-to-back days early last month.
Brian Kenny said, “Sure, Pujols is nice, but what if I have a guy who can post a sub-2.00 ERA?”
Newsflash: He’s not even on that pace. He gave up a bomb, and in one inning needed a well timed groundball to escape a potential jam. I know he was impressive, and his stuff is silly good, but people act like the guy just no-hit them. He didn’t. He got taken deep by a sub-league average hitter at one point.
Personally I think Jimenez’s stuff is better.
lol did he really say that? What a moron. I thought Steve Phillips suggesting the Nats trading him for Oswalt was bad but the Rays trading Garza, Price and Longoria for him and the Cards dealing Pujols and Waino for him are far worse than Phillips crazy idea.
Oh yeah, he said it. The whole thing was just crazy, because BK is typically a lot smarter than that. Price, Longoria, AND Garza…lol.
Was there really any reason to write this article other to be contrarian? You think that the demographic of this particular site wouldn’t already know that Ubaldo Jimenez owns? Is it such a horrible thing to be ecstatic for a young pitcher who absolutely killed in his first start just because he’s “only” as good or slightly inferior to the guy who may be the best pitcher in baseball this year?
You need to learn to pick your spots rather than writing every impulsive thing that comes into your head.
“This isn’t to diminish Strasburg’s debut in any way, shape, or form. ”
Sure it is. And that’s fine, but at least own up to it.
When did I miss the Padres offense becoming a juggernaut ? It might be a better overall group in terms of plating runs, but they 1) still suck, and 2) strike out way more often than the Pirates do as a team.
Apparently it’s so difficult for a pitcher to face and dominate that team that we should bow to the greatness of Ubaldo.
Striking out 14 and walking NONE vs Striking out 13 and walking three against an equally bad lineup that strikes out more often. Looking at it that way doesn’t blend with your bias though
So Dave has an anti-Strasburg bias now? Awesome. I was wondering when he was going to move past his pro-Rays bias to something new.
I understand the meaning of this post, and I like it.
Its so SICK to watch both of these guys throw, simply amazing. Why can’t we just put sports bias aside and say “yes, both of these guys have similar stuff, and they are so much fun to watch.”
Strasburg is gonna be a stud, Ubaldo has finally figured how to throw his pitches for strikes (most of the time), and is gonna be a stud for years to come.
This article was less anti-Strasburg and more anti-“OMFGDIDYOUFINGJUSTSEETHATALIENPITCHRIGHTTHEREITSNEVERBEENSEENBEFORE”
If you are a baseball fan, you better start cheering for the Rockies and Nationals to make the post-season, because game 1 will be quite the spectacle.
Stras throws harder and has a MUCH MUCH better breaking ball. When Ubaldo can throw a snapper like that then you can say they have similar stuff, otherwise it’s simply not true.
Let’s see how his heater and breaking ball look after 50-100 major league starts on a full every-5-days schedule of NL lineups.
Strasburg’s “changeup” looked an awful lot like a 92 mph 2 seam fastball…just sayin’. I’m thinking this is a case of Pitchfx misindentifying a pitch.
Nope, it’s a changeup http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/holy-mother-of-strasburg-with-pitch-f-x/
SS will most likely be a dominant force, but sometimes crazy things happen in pitchers big league debuts. That might have been SS’s best game that he will pitch all year….as in nowhere to go but down even though his upcoming schedule is full of cupcakes.
Off the top of my head, here are 3 crazy good MLB debuts from recent years.
Scherzer 4.1 IP, 7K, 0 Run, 0 H, 0 BB. coming in as middle relief against Houston
Cueto 7 IP, 10 K, 1 R, 1 H, 0 BB
Dice K 7 IP, 10 K, 1 R, 6 H, 0 BB
Strasburg IS a once in a generation type talent. He does have once in a generation stuff. Just because there’s another pitcher who throws almost as hard as home doesn’t change that. I mean, think about it. Ubaldo has an ERA under 1.00, he’s being talked about as the best pitcher in the league right now, and you could make a legitimate case that Strasburg is already the more complete pitcher.
Ubaldo has an amazing fastball, but it’s probably in the same vicinity as Strsaburg. In fact, Strasburg has two fastballs. A four seemer that he throws exclusively in the 97-100 range, and a sinker he throws in the 95-96 range (I’m pretty sure Pitch F/x classifies this as one pitch). Ubaldo also has an amazing breaking ball, but Strasburg’s breaking ball might just be the best in baseball. You could make a legitimate argument that Strasburg has the best fastball AND breaking ball in all of baseball today, right now. And he’s 21.
The thing that really separates the two, though, is command. At this point in his career, Ubaldo had none, and right now, his command is still only “ok.” It’s above average, but it’s not much above average. Strasburg has always had incredibly advanced command. We saw that on display on Tuesday. He can put any of his pitches where he wants, and he has a great deal of confidence in all of them. He really attacks the strike zone. Early in the game, it seemed as though he had a case of nerves. He was overthrowing a few of his pitches, and getting behind in counts. But he was never afraid to come back and throw strikes. He got back into counts, and didn’t surrender a walk.
Finally, I don’t think these two games are close. Look at the lines:
Ubaldo – 9 IP, 120 PC, 13 K, 3 BB.
Strasburg – 7 IP, 94 PC, 14 K, 0 BB.
The way Strasburg was pitching the last few innings (struck out the last seven guys he faced) is there really much doubt that he could have pitched the last two innings, piled on a few more Ks, and finished with maybe 17-18 Ks, no walks, and 4-5 hits? Not in my mind. He was that locked in. I understand the Nats wanted to protect his arm, there was no reason for him to pitch the last couple of innings. But he could have. And had he done so, it would have looked a lot better than Ubaldo’s start.
I read things like this, and I wonder who it is that makes David Cameron’s effing life so miserable that he has to piss on other people’s fun at every opportunity.
The risk of injury in young pitchers, IMO, has more to do with the increase in workload than it does mechanics. The MLB season is a long, hard, grind.
“SureAure, Hobbs is pretty good, but Bump Bailey was just as good”
– Dave Cameron
Late break is better than big break … And that’s the key to both SS and UJ. When a guy is throwing 95-100, the time you have to recognize the pitch is ridiculous.
The opposed HR to Young was likely a “bad pitch call” … Throwing a change to a guy with change bat speed. He was late on the change. How many times can you say that?!?!?!
The discussion of SS and UJ is approaching the absurd in regards to the splitting hairs of the details of the pitch data.
Late break has been shown to not really exist.
Late break is really baseball talk for “high velocity curveball” (harder to react), so we agree.
Lots of times soft curveballers will be better suited to throw a cutter, so called “later breaking pitches”, when it actually means “looks like a fastball longer, less break, higher velocity = less reaction time. By the timeyou recog it’s a cutter, too late you’re already jammed.
Bert Blyleven had the biggest breaking curveball of his era, perhaps ever, and his home runs allowed totals reveal the downside of the pitch.
A high velcity curveball is optimal for the very basic premise that something that moves a lot at a high speed is hader to hit. Both SS and UJ succeed in that regard.
FWIW, it’s also been shown the curveballs do not really break “shoulders to knees”, but we still use the expression because everyone knows what we mean when we say it. If we were to say “18 inches of vertical movement” not many would understand how that compares. “Rising fastball” also do not increase their vertical height, they just drop less than other fastballs … But we know what the phrase means in it’s observation form.
Strasburg’s curveball has more vertical movement than Ubaldo’s, more horizontal movement and higher velocity.
It’s a better pitch.
I believe it.
I watched the first 3 innings of today’s game, and I could tell right away the “book” on Strasburg is to hit the first fastball strike you see, don;t swing at the curve, and avoid two strike counts at all costs.
His curveball reminds me of Kerry Wood’s severe breaker when he was in his first 2 years.
The amount of “ball washing” done by the broadcasters early in the game was ridiculous. Strasburg throws a 2-2 curve way outside, then a fastball in the dirt for ball 4 (his 1st ML walk issued), and the guys in the booth are talking about “when he misses, he just misses”. No, he misses, and is wild at times. It’s okay. That doesn;t mean he sucks, it just means he’s human. I don;t want to be one of those guys that bad mouths broadcasters as if I know everything, I just wish they didn;t have to make an extreme statement (good or bad) after every pitch or situation.
I do really like Strasburg. I think he has his mechanics issues worked out and his arm action is very much like what I used and now teach (seperate ball and glove as far as possible, or at least seperate the elbows), he does a great job of “tucking the glove” (GS elbow close to body), as his torso/body moves forward. He is a bit of a “heel lander”, as is Verlander.
As a 6’3 guy myself, I have a bit of a theory that us giraffes (tall, lankyish) cannot land “toe closed” as well as the Clemens and Schillings, iwthout eventually blowing our front knee out. *grin* The “opens a little early” and “lands on heel” is supposed to be signficantly reduce velocity. Someone should tell that to Verlander and Stras, they didn’t get the memo.
I also like that he finishes with his back pocket facing home. I think the act of trying to finish in a “proper fielding position” places to much “sudden stop” pressure on the rotator cuff. A big guy throwing hard with his full body just cannot “stop in the middle. I like that he allows his body to recoil and unwind to release the stress, and he’s still in a good enough position to get his glove up to protect his face if he has to. Most ML SS’s can get to the routine grounder pitchers field anyway.
As for UJ, seems to me from the limited highlights I have seen of him, his best pitch is his 2-seamer. Hard with “late” (i.e., high velocity) movement into a right hander. It’s like throwing a low 90s sinker. Ruckin’ Fidiculous.
His change also seems to be really good, which always bring a figurative tear to my eyes.
I’m not splitting hairs between either SS or UJ, I just admire from afar … and enjoy the “pitcher takeover” that is now in full effect. It’s just too bad they aren’t left-handed … then they’d dominate and get all the ladies.
Thanks for wonderful info I was looking for this information for my mission. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be actually something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!