R. A. "Cruel" Dickey with the gorgeous performance Saturday 7th. What was it, 3 IP, 1H, or somesuch. He was giddy after the game, as was everybody else. He is mowing them down like dandelions out there…
Dickey emphasized, after the game, a K of his that he was taken with — it came on an AB where he threw 4 consecutive knuckleballs, and then just blew a hitter away with a (presumably mid-to-high 80's) fastball.
I mean, what's a hitter going to do on a 2-2 count? You're going to be absolutely embarrassed if you guess wrong.
……………..
If D-O-V had adopt-a-players, Cruel would be one of my top guys:
1. I love knuckleballers anyway — they are Moneyball undervalued players … thanks to old-school unfair skepticism of them
2. Dickey's learning curve is super steep
3. He was, more or less, the best pitcher in the PCL last year 2H
4. A knuckleballer with a good fastball is a unique animal
5. Dickey is NOT walking a lot of guys, which is pretty amazing
6. It *is* a positive to throw the knuckleball harder
……………..
Dickey has a looooooooooong way to go, but whatever team owns him, has a shot at developing the best knuckleball pitcher in a long time.
.
=== 17th Law Dept. ===
Most saberdweebs will tell you that winning in the minors doesn't matter. After all, you're developing talent there. Most of the time (not all of the time, most of the time) if you're winning a lot, it's because you've got org-filler guys in there hammering younger players.
But James pointed out, in the 1980's, that it is good to have a winning AAA team. There is a good correlation between making the playoffs, and having a AAA team that wins a lot.
Can you guess why?
Because teams run into problems during the season …. and some teams can dip into AAA to fix them. Other teams run 7.00 ERA's out of the #5 SP slot. Right?
That makes a big difference: after you get the ugly news about Felix' UCL, it matters whether the replacement has a 6.20 ERA or a 4.20 ERA.
……………………….
SP 6: Brandon Morrow
SP 7: R.A. Dickey
SP 8: Ryan Rowland-Smith
OF 4: Wlad Balentien
OF 5: (Mike Morse looking like a beast; rawhide-tough 10-pitch BB today nearly keyed a 9th-inning comeback)
IF 6: Jeff Clement
…………………………
When discussing the M's projected W-L column for 2008? There has not been nearly enough attention paid to the replacements lurking.
You might debate it, but you shouldn't ignore it. The second line of redcoat soldiers, firing over the first line kneeling … that is an invisible-but-important factor in calling a final W/L.
BABVA,
Dr D
March 7th, 2008 at 5:54 pm Quote
Doc,
I’m absolutely giddy ike a school girl hearing this report baout Dickey!!!
Imagine how awsome it would be to go in a game from Bedard to Morrow/Dickey and Putz. Domination!!
I’ still can’t get over the fact we replaced Weaver/Ramierez with Bdard/Silva that’s a killer upgrade in itself.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm Quote
and we also replaced Feierabend/Baek/White/the other White meat/Davis/Reitsma/insert other crappy relievers and spot starters with Dickey, Lowe, Huber and Rowland-Smith.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm Quote
What’s your reason for believing this?
—————-
I’m not totally convinced that Dickey’s success so far isn’t just a spring training mirage; taking advantage of hitters who are still shaking off some rust. That said, I’m only more excited about him than before and can’t wait to see him pitch in meaningful games.
And yes, the staggering amount of depth is a huge asset. We could plug two or even three holes in the rotation at the same time without a problem, and the same goes for the bullpen. The insurance for the offensive players is even more exciting. The organization has made HUGE strides over the last few years in this regard. As recently as 2003, the best hitter for the Rainiers was Pat Borders. Seriously.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:45 pm Quote
WOW…LOL
That’s scary.
We have depth at other positions too BTW.
Hulett and Chen on the middle infield, Tui at third, Morse too. LaHair at first. Clement behind the plate (and Johnson).
March 7th, 2008 at 11:40 pm Quote
For one thing, Jim Bouton’s remarks in Ball Four.
He picked up the knuckleball late, wasn’t that great with it, but used all five fingers on the grip and so “could throw it harder than anybody else.” Implied throughout the book is the idea that whatever pace a knuckleballer can get on the ball, he’d like to get.
…………….
For another thing, taking the reductio ad absurdum, supposing that you had a 180-mph pitch that was not spinning? What kind of movement would you expect? :- )
The reductio ad absurdum the other way: *I* can throw a baseball that doesn’t spin — at 40 mph. It doesn’t move ANYwhere. It’s not reacting against the wind because there’s no “wind” to speak of.
……………
For a third thing, less reaction time is better for the pitcher than more reaction time.
A Nishiguchi-style 61 mph change curve is interesting *when thrown off of harder pitches.* But that shouldn’t mislead people into believing that 100 consecutive 61-mph pitches are desirable. An eephus pitch is interesting as a trick pitch. Try throwing 20 of them in a row in an ML game and see what happens….
…………….
Wakefield throws his knuckler, what is it, about -10 or -12 mph off his fastball, obviously implying that’s about the max pace he can get on the knuckler. Do you see *any* of those guys interested in throwing it 58 mph?
Just from everything we’ve ever heard off of Hough, Niekro, etc, they all have indicated, as I’ve understood them, that they would prefer to throw it 80 mph rather than 50 mph if they could do so and keep zero spin on the ball.
…………….
For a fifth thing, why do they always want to throw into a 10 mph headwind, and dread a 10 mph tailwind?
…………….
I could be wrong — the physics of baseball does surprise you sometimes.
But I’ve never watched baseball where a knuckleball pitcher spoke of less velocity as being a good thing for his knuckler that day. They all seem to throw it as hard as they can, consistent with no spin, and they hope for a wind into their faces.
Which is probably a good way to think of Dickey: a knuckleballer who always brings a 10-mph headwind into the game. ;- )
March 7th, 2008 at 11:56 pm Quote
It has been proven that a knuckler won’t dance if thrown slower than 58 mph…physicists have studied it…the harder you throw it…the more it moves.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:20 am Quote
Been on a roll here Matty… must be that new webpage at MC? Takin’ the game to another level :- )
March 8th, 2008 at 9:42 am Quote
Good stuff along with some neat images showing air movement over a knuckleball:
http://www.oddball-mall.com/knuckleball/mego.htm
March 8th, 2008 at 12:26 pm Quote
of course, it’s true that once you reach a certain critical speed, you lose movement due to lack of time…but we’re talking about whether it’s better to throw the knuckleball 64 or 76…I think it’s without question better to throw it 76 if you can also throw an 88-90 mph fastball, which Dickey still can.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm Quote
Thanks for the linkup Fett.
I’ll have to read the article. Is there anybody here into aerodynamics? Does that make sense, the idea that a pitch needs “time” to move?!
If you throw a 300-mph wind at a piece of stainless steel that is edge-on, and then tilt a flap of it up to catch the wind, does it need “time” to move?! Does a Peregrine falcon tilt its wing and then need “time” to swerve if he’s doing 150 mph?
Will have to read the article. I thought as the air pressure factors increased, the movement became greater. Huh.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Quote
Doc, it’s seems pretty clear to me that, generally speaking, there is an inverse relationship between pitch speed and pitch movement*. The knuckleball is at one extreme (slow speed, tons of movement) and the 101-mph fastball being the other (high speed, little or no movement). The whole reason every type of pitch a pitcher throws isn’t at his max speed is because adding lateral movement cuts down on the forward velocity. Therefore, you can’t just judge a pitch by the radar gun readings. I presume this principle holds true for knuckleballs, with faster ones moving less. If that’s the case then you still need to know how much it moves in order to evaluate its effectiveness in a meaningful way.
Note: the main reason I make an issue of this is because Jared Hernandez threw a “hard” knuckle and he didn’t amount to much. If I hadn’t heard about him then I’d be ecstatic about the thought of 77-mph butterfly pitch.
*change ups being the exception
March 8th, 2008 at 5:48 pm Quote
That’s an interesting counter amigo.
…………..
One thing to keep in mind here: with a fastball, the two-seam movement *causes* the lack of velocity, not the other way around. They throw it with four seams to cause less air resistance, less drag, and get a couple extra mph out of it.
But if a guy can throw it two-seam and get 95-96 mph out of it, the swerve is likely to be spectacular. Remember Felix’ fastballs in the first Boston game last year? It looked like the fastball was moving as a Frisbee.
Randy Johnson is another case in point: he was able to throw a curve ball 87 mph and the movement was epic.
Nolan Ryan sometimes threw his overhand curve close to 90 mph and the hitters said it looked like bug hitting the windshield and falling into the dirt.
Freddy Garcia used to be able to turn over a FB at 94 mph and it looked like a breaking pitch.
……………..
The debate’s open on it…
March 8th, 2008 at 5:52 pm Quote
.
BTW, any of you guys ever thrown a wiffleball?
The harder you throw it, the more it breaks, no questions asked about that one.
Not sure about the differences, but the aerodynamic principle seems like it would be the same for a heavier-weight ball.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:03 pm Quote
(response to #12)
That’s correct, but that’s really what I’m getting at. A pitch isn’t good or bad because it’s faster or slower than the average pitch, what matters is if the balance between speed and movement is different than the average ratio. So for Dickey’s 77-mph knuckle to be better than Wakefields 66-mph knuckle (assuming the same level of command and consistency), Dickey’s needs to move almost as much as Wake’s. I haven’t heard anything to suggest that that is the case (and nothing that indicates otherwise). Until then I will have a somewhat skeptical wait-and-see attitude.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm Quote
Agree witcha on the wait-and-see attitude amigo. You raise some interesting points… looking forward to watching Dickey from the CF camera.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pm Quote
Another real interesting bit form the article:
March 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm Quote
Speaking of James, there’s an excellent article by Passan on Brian Bannister, apparently the first pitcher to truly embrace Sabermetrics:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgiFvFpvOBvHLclwl8ceCtQRvLYF?slug=jp-springbannister030808&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Selections:
Imagine if a guy who had stuff like Felix had the brains and desire to get this sort of edge.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm Quote
That should be a lead article. Matt, maybe you want to convert Fett’s post to front page?
If only Richie Sexson could use a .210 BABIP to keep his chin up.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:24 am Quote
My understanding always was that once you throw a baseball past a certain speed, the aerodynamics are such that the turbulence around the ball actually become more uniform reducing the magnus force.
This effect probably varies with ambient temp, humidity, altitude, etc.
It has also been my understanding that ball rotation speed (rpm) is more important for deflection than forward speed (at least within the bounds of typically baseball speeds).
March 9th, 2008 at 7:37 am Quote
Agreed. Since this issue is wholly different from the R.A.D. madness, I’d love to see everyone’s take on Bannister’s embrace of sabermetrics.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am Quote
Doc…I don’t know how to do quoting the way you do that makes it look all nice with the shadow box and everything…otherwise I’d have already made that post into an article.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm Quote
Regardless of the absolute effect of speed on a knuckleball’s break, the important thing is that Dickey’s is demonstrably effective. If it weren’t, he’d still be the meatball righty he was in the Rangers’ rotation.
Adding a 90-mph heater to an effective floater strikes me as being potentially devastating. If the knuckler is diving, how on earth can a batter stand any chance at all against that fastball? Which Dickey has shown the inclination to use more than most other knuckleballers I’ve seen.
I expect him to either A) spend significant time in the Mariners rotation this year, or B) eat up enough innings to allow McLaren to carry 11 pitchers instead of 12. Either way, it’s a very positive impact.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pm Quote
I think you can pencil Dickey in for 120 innings this year. 5-8 spot starts and lots of innings in the pen.
And he will be one of the most valuable relievers the Mariners have ever had.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:23 pm Quote
:daps: ‘Bro…
Always enjoyed watching the Ramiro Mendoza / Steve Karsay type swing men.
Sometimes you’ll see a season in which a 4-, 5-inning long man enters a good number of games when down by four runs, hold the other team down all night, and then the ballclub “poaches” wins after its starter has been knocked out.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if there were SEVERAL specific games in which Dickey allowed the Mariners to come back and win a game in which the SP got knocked out early. It happens.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:05 pm Quote
and in the post-season, it becomes even more important because you’re on a shorter leash with the SPs.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:57 am Quote
I’m excited about RA as well. However, aren’t knuckleballers supposed to rubber armed because they don’t throw as hard? If Dickey is throwing harder than the usual knuckler, maybe he won’t be quite as available as one might hope.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:01 am Quote
RAD went three innings on Friday and then came back with two on Monday (all scoreless).
McL is talking about the extra bench player, which appears to mean that he would keep both Cairo and Norton (along with Bloomie, Burke and probably Morse).
March 11th, 2008 at 8:32 am Quote
Wow.
This bench seems a little redundant: Cairo, Norton, Willie, Morse, Burke…
I feel silly for my 5-man-bench-excitement.
C’mon Billy-Mac, swallow hard and accept responsibility for finding Clement some ABs…end the silly.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:39 am Quote
The real bugaboo on the bench is Cairo. Why in the world Bavasi picked him up is still a mystery to most. If they wanted to push Lopez they would have done better by picking up Boone, or forcing Bloomy to take some HGH, but Cario??? Hopefully Bavasi will realize that he is no longer needed and give him a slap on the rump, and send hiom on his way. Yeah it is would be an expensive mistake, but it certainly would be his MOST expensive mistake
April 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm Quote
I’ve been doing some more thinking on the issue of the flutterball. Earlier I argued that throwing the knuckler faster like Dickey does isn’t necessarily an advantage because it probably does move as much. However, I was thinking only in terms of hitability. But that isn’t the only thing that matters. If his knuckleballs don’t move as much as those from someone like Wakefield (which I’m certain is the case), that would mean that they shouldn’t have as big negative results that a knuckles wildness usually creates. That is, he should walk fewer batters, hit fewer batters and throw fewer wild pitches/passed balls. All of those are significant issues beyond just how easy it use for the hitter to get the bat on the ball.
Furthermore, the fact that he has a MUCH better fastball also contributes to reducing his wildness. Wake’s “heater” is strictly a sneak pitch. It is completely worthless in its own right which means he can’t throw it much more than 1 time in 10. Therefore, he is forced to throw something offspeed (either a knuckle or a curve) more than 85% of the time which exasperates his control issues with those pitches. Dickey doesn’t have that problem. His fastball may be below average, but it’s still respectable enough to give hitters problems. We saw this last night when he outrighed attacked the first two hitters he faced with 4-seamers (6 of his first 10 pitches were fastballs). Again, that doesn’t just make him tougher to get hits off of, it means he won’t have have a big problem with walks, passed balls, etc since the fastball is much more controllable than any breaking pitch.
I had noticed that this year, both in spring training and his two starts in Tacoma, he didn’t seemed to have any special trouble with wildness. That really surprised me because I thought it was a given that a knuckleballer was a loose cannon. Now I realize that this may not be the case and that Dickey may indeed have better than normal control. That means that he could have more value than Wakefield even if R.A.’s knuckle is a bit easier to hit. It also means the catcher behind the plate doesn’t matter as much (no need for a specialist like Bill Mueller) which makes tactical decisions so much easier.
In fact, until he gets a shot in the rotation, he really should take over Sean Green’s role as the primary right-handed non-closer in the bullpen. Normally you wouldn’t want a knuckler throwing in high leverage innings because there’s a good chance the ball will skip away from the catcher and allow a runner on third to score. As explained, that isn’t a big problem with Dickey. Also, he’ll be better than your normal long reliever/swing man in short outings because he can get both righties and lefties out (the knuckle is harder for lefties to hit, so much so that switch-hitters often bat right-handed against Wake). Green can’t say that.
Now that he is finally up in the big leagues, the only question left is how long it will take MacLaren to get his mind around just how good Dickey is. Regardless of what the answer is, it’s going to be a lot of fun watching those butterflies.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Quote
Interesting thoughts amigo.
On that last paragraph, absolutely. The time lag on something like that hurts traditional orgs a *lot.*
Let’s just say, hypothetically, that Miguel Batista, at the age of 37, hit the wall and came into training camp as the very worst SP in the league. Exactly how long would it take to adjust to that and remove him from the rotation? Probably 4 or 5 months, right?
Or let’s say, hypothetically, that Dickey pulled a Fausto Carmona and suddenly, out of nowhere, became a 19-win, 130-150 ERA+ pitcher.* How long would it take them to adjust to that? Months, if not even years.
That’s my #1 complaint with an old-school org. The ossification of the player roles.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:56 pm Quote
Well, with Bedard hitting the DL it looks like Dickey will get at least one start with the big club. At least he’s going to get some kind of shot.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pm Quote
One start…maybe two…while Batista continues to struggle.
Dickey throws up a 0 for 6 innings and we may have a totally different discussion.