8 IP, 4 H, 1 ER, 1 BB, 3 K, 91 pitches (67 strikes), 15 groundouts, 6 flyouts.
Porcello was dominant tonight and kept the ball on the ground when he didn't record a strikeout. Now, because I love graphs and am trying to learn the best routes to graph the things I want to look at (a.k.a. would like to be a Harry Pavlidis clone!), I've got an abundance of graphs.
First up, his selection of pitches to both right-handers and left-handers tonight. Click all images to enlarge:
I'm hoping I split up his fastballs correctly (I think I'm close, but I'm not entirely sure). Splitting two and four-seamers apart seems to be tricky. Same with curveball's and sliders -- Porcello's seemed to be identical so I lumped them in together as sliders, but don't take that moniker for 100% accuracy.Anyways, you can see he abandoned the slider to LH hitters, although PITCHf/x only recorded 86 of his 91 pitches tonight. He did the same with RH hitters, but swapped out the slider for abolishing his change-up.
Now, his release points total:
I wish I'd gone with a different dot set and not this 2-D one (Harry's 3-D dot sets are much more clear). Live and learn. It's late and I'm tired and don't want to go back and change it. I've noticed it in the various times I've privately looked at his PITCHf/x data, but Rick Porcello releases his breaking ball a touch higher than his other pitches.The strikezone plot really shows how much he pounded the zone tonight:
When he missed, he missed above or below the zone. I count 5 or 6 pitches being off the edge but between the chest and the knees. He really, really attacked the zone with all of his pitches, tonight.And finally, the flight paths graph:
I know it's sometimes tough to read/comprehend when there's more than 3 or so pitch flights, but I included them all. But, his four-seamer (FF; blue line) was pretty straight tonight, and you can see the sink and arm-side run on the two-seamer (FT; orange line) that makes it such an effective pitch for Rick. His change-up (CH; white/yellow-ish line) mirrored his two-seamer almost identically. There's a gap of about 9 MPH between the two and giving a glance back to the release point chart shows just how tough his change-up is to recognize. Same release point + same flight path + 9 MPH difference between the two = great, great pitch. I think his change-up would grade out as a plus pitch on the scouting scale. Then again, I'm just a kid who's pretending to be a PITCHf/x guru, let alone know a lot about scouting. And the slider/curveball/breaking ball (SL; red line) has a bit of sweeping action but great downward movement.All in all, this will be what Rick Porcello provides at the major league level at his best. I feel the strike outs will come with more regularity later in his career, but the Josh Beckett comp Scott Boras and the media was throwing out before the 2007 draft is completely false. He's a ground ball machine with above-average to plus ratings on his 2-seam, change-up and breaking ball and he can dial it up when he wants to the middle-90's. He's very much apart of the new hybrid of guys like a Roy Halladay or Brandon Webb that get gobs of ground balls and incorporate enough strikeouts to be a legitimate good K pitcher.
In short: Roy Halladay/Brandon Webb at his best, Derek Lowe at his worst. Yeah, I said it. Lofty expectations.
Posts
I beg to differ, but Leyland was dead wrong in taking Porcello out of the game. Porcello was lights out, had the Indians bewitched, bothered, and bewildered and he hadn't even reached the 100 pitch threshold through 8 innings. Why do you want to take a pitcher out of the game who has the opposition completely flummoxed? The most important point for me however is simply that Porcello had earned and deserved the opportunity for his first complete game victory. What the hell does a guy have to do to get a complete game victory while playing for an absurd micro-manager like Leyland? The Tigers treat their young pitchers like fragile women instead of the strong, well paid men that they are.
ReplyDeleteRobert, I disagree. Porcello pitched all last year on a 75 pitch count and this year is around 95-100, max. Given that he's not been properly stretched out to go that far and that Fernando Rodney has been money in save situations, I feel it was the right move. If he was left in, I wouldn't be hardcore against it, but I'd be apprehensive about it.
ReplyDelete"Given that he's not been properly stretched out to go that far". I'm sorry Mike but I don't buy that for a second. It's August for christ's sake. He reported for camp in February. He's been pitching for six months and you're telling me that he couldn't have gone another measly inning after what he accomplished in the first 8. This puss-ification of pitchers has gotten way out of hand. What the hell ever happened to the idea of leaving a pitcher in the game until he became tired and started getting hit? It worked in major league baseball for decades until this ridiculous notion of pitch counts and limiting developing pitchers to 6 innings. Are they grooming them to be pussies or major league starting pitchers? I truly wonder sometimes.There are still many injuries to pitchers, so I don't see how this puss-ification process has helped in that regard. Porcello is young & strong and earned the right to finish what he started. That's where it's at for me.
ReplyDeleteRobert, I have to disagree. While I agree with the core of your assertion that there's far too much babying going on with pitchers, it isn't something that can be changed immediately. It's something that must start in little league and the high school ranks.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Rick Porcello was on a 75 pitch pitch count last year and this year has averaged 88 pitches per outing. Given that he's going to exceed his innings total from last year this season, and that means throwing more pitches in a year than he's ever thrown, he does need to be watched.
As for when it changed, I'm not sure. I'm only 23, so I've grown up with this way, but I'd imagine people started watching more closely when they started paying millions upon millions of dollars. And why shouldn't they? These are front offices that are getting much more advanced and intellectual, so they should be protecting their investments from going all Paul Wilson on us.
I get the sentiment of finishing what you started, but given he was going to be way over his average pitch count in the 9th had he gotten a couple batters deep into it, I'd rather take my chances with a guy who's been lights out in save situations.
Like I said, had he completed the game, it wouldn't have been something that affected me one way or the other, but I'd rather err on the side of caution with someone you want to anchor your rotation for the next 10 years.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with your reasoning. With a 20 year old arm, these innings add up and 5-10 future years aren't worth one more inning here and there. He'll get his chance to stretch out games in a year or two, but it's not worth the risk.
You could really even make the argument that he shouldn't be in the majors this early in his career, considering he's - what? - 2(!) years removed from high school. This kid's a stud (what I would give for him to be Derek Lowe the rest of his career) and should be taken care of in excess until it's guaranteed his arm is in good enough shape to be pushed. Until then, 8 solid innings and then giving way to Rodney is fine by me...
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou and I will never agree about this and I don't want to belabor the point. I'm much older than you and I remember a time when there were 4 man starting rotations, pitchers only had 3 days rest, and they finished many of their starts. These guys were real men, not the babied, whining, over-paid, coddled, and arrogant pussycats of today. Managers today are happy to get 6 innings out of a starter. 30 years ago you would have been kicked out of the rotation if that's all you had to give. I liked the old days much better!
Birchman, good point on him being 2 years removed from high school. I'm fairly young myself, but Porcello makes me feel old.
ReplyDeleteRobert: I assume we won't ever agree on it, either, and that's fine. No need for everyone to agree all the time. I know that pitch counts, on average, honestly have not changed all that much. Tom Tango, noted sabermetrician, has looked into it in the past and found that in the 1960's, for instance, pitchers were left in for 150+ pitches much more regularly, but have a lot more 60 pitch outings which seemed to indicate you were out there to finish what you started, or the manager had a very, very quick hook.
On the whole, my feeling on pitchers (and this is an ever-evolving opinion as I keep wavering), they only have so many pitches left in their arm. Overhand pitching is just a completely unnatural motion, so it's only a matter of time before most pitchers arms or shoulders or elbows break down.
As far as what era is better ... I just like the one that the Tigers win the most in!
Robert, Mike's point about the durability issue going back to early development is a key consideration. Porcello is only 20 years old. 20. He's not even done growing yet.
ReplyDelete