Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JMU_Birdfan

Change Up

Recommended Posts

In a year of suck, the orioles actually have two starting pitchers who are pitching very well. The reason for their success?  The gutsiest pitch in all of baseball..... the changeup.

I remember reading an article towards the beginning of the year where John Means said it was Doug Brocail who worked with him during spring training to futher develop his changeup. Now, Cashner has stepped it up and has become a dependable starter on the back of a very effective change up. 

I wonder if this will be the orioles thing for the next few years? A successful rotation built on the development of an effective change up

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JMU_Birdfan said:

 

In a year of suck, the Orioles actually have two starting pitchers who are pitching very well. The reason for their success? The gutsiest pitch in all of baseball ......... the change-up.

I remember reading an article towards the beginning of the year in which John Means said it was Doug Brocail who worked with him during Spring Training to further develop his change-up ........ now, Cashner has stepped it up and has become a dependable starter on the back of a very effective change-up. 

 

I wonder if this will be the Orioles' thing for the next few years ??? A successful rotation built on the development of an effective change-up.

 

o

 

In addition to Means and Cashner, I believe that Dylan Bundy's change-up has gotten some notice this season, also.

 

o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cy Bundy said:

 

Ted Williams said the slider is the reason no batter will ever hit .400 again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JMU_Birdfan said:

In a year of suck, the orioles actually have two starting pitchers who are pitching very well. The reason for their success?  The gutsiest pitch in all of baseball..... the changeup.

I remember reading an article towards the beginning of the year where John Means said it was Doug Brocail who worked with him during spring training to futher develop his changeup. Now, Cashner has stepped it up and has become a dependable starter on the back of a very effective change up. 

I wonder if this will be the orioles thing for the next few years? A successful rotation built on the development of an effective change up

I believe it was Chris Holt, not Doug Brocail, who was working with Means on his changeup.    

 

Quote

Means has credited Orioles minor league pitching coordinator Chris Holt for helping him improve his changeup this spring.

“I didn’t really work on it much this winter. I was more focused on gaining velocity. But I came into spring training and worked on it. Always been good at disguising it, but he just told me how to slow it down. That has been a big key as well,” Means said.

https://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2019/04/john-means-uses-strong-changeup-composure-to-get-off-to-solid-start.html

Cashner, of course, had a very successful year under Brocail while in Texas.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cy Bundy said:

Ted Williams, needs revision.

He said that when a good change up was 73mph, flat, and changing up off of a 83mph fb. Times have changed. A good change is a tougher pitch to master, nearly everyone has a pretty good slider by the time they reach the majors & average sliders are better than average change ups...while a bad change up is the worst secondary pitch in baseball.

Good arm action and speed differentiation, even without the movement, can turn a Means into an All Star... no slider tinkering is doing that for John. The only pitch that allows 90-91mph heat to play in the bigs is a change up... without it you’re a AA guy at best... Blaine Knight, Sedlock... give them elite change ups and they become prospects, otherwise they have no shot to contribute as starters. It’s all in the change, but all change ups are not good change ups.

 

No revision necessary.  He said what he said, and has thus far been proven to be right.  When someone hits .400, you can say he was wrong.  Not until.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

No revision necessary.  He said what he said, and has thus far been proven to be right.  When someone hits .400, you can say he was wrong.  Not until.

He could be wrong about the cause.

Anyway, I agree, the changeup is the key to being able to get out both lefties and righties. Very hard to get through the lineup multiple times without that third pitch. For a lefty like means, the changeup is even more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

He could be wrong about the cause.

Anyway, I agree, the changeup is the key to being able to get out both lefties and righties. Very hard to get through the lineup multiple times without that third pitch. For a lefty like means, the changeup is even more important.

He knew a little bit about hitting, so I'll go with what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

He knew a little bit about hitting, so I'll go with what he said.

So did Keeler, what does he think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the numbers (pitch value):

The perspective.  Last years best CH by PV was K. Hendrix at 16.6.  The next closest was 12.

This years leader is Luis Castillo at 16.8.  Top 10 is 8.3+, top 25 is 1.4 to 8.3. 

This is pitchers with qualifying IP so there are no relievers on the list.  Means does not qualify yet but i have included a ranking none the less as he has 82.2 IP and you must have IP= team games played (89)

Means, 9.4 (8th)

Cashner 14.6 (2nd)

Bundy 1.6 (23rd)

Castro (1.9)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cy Bundy said:

 

The change-up is the best secondary pitch in baseball, & there is no close 2nd. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

 

Pretty sure that Astro-Ball says its the curve-ball. 

 

o

 

If you get your hand caught in a feed-chopper, you might wind up riding a wicked curve-ball all the way to the Hall-of-Fame.

 

 

Image result for Mordecai Brown hand

 

o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • I'm multitasking.
    • I'm here too, logged in as DJ Stewart's number one fan on the board. I like the guys who don't look like athletes.
    • Here's bad news: I'm watching. 
    • Looks like it's just me and you here, @eddie83
    • So I had a grand theory all ready to explain modern baseball, based on the impact of the information revolution on defense.  According to the theory, better data has allowed teams to better measure individual defense and the contribution of defense to run prevention, which has led to increased emphasis on defensive ability in personnel decisions.  Better data has also led to shifts and other improvements in defensive positioning.  All of these factors have led in theory to improved defensive efficiency--an increase in the percentage of balls in play that are converted into outs.  In turn, this has led to a change in optimal offensive strategies.  If it's harder to get hits on balls in play, then it is less likely that you will be able to score runs by stringing a bunch of singles together, or by using small ball tactics like base stealing, the hit and run and the sacrifice.  Teams thus optimally put more emphasis on power in personnel decisions, because a home run is the one way to score runs that can't be stopped by good defense. Great theory, huh?  Then I looked at the data.  Here are the numbers for aggregate defensive efficiency for MLB since 2001: 2001:  0.691     2002:  0.695   2003:  0.694   2004:  0.691   2005:  0.693   2006:  0.687   2007:  0.686   2008:  0.689 2009:  0.690   2010:  0.691   2011:  0.694    2012:  0.691   2013:  0.692   2014:  0.690    2015:  0.689    2016: 0.688 2017:  0.688    2018:  0.691 So twenty years into the defensive revolution, we have...the same defensive efficiency that we had in 2001.  Teams on the whole are doing no better today at converting balls in play into outs than they were in 2001, despite all of the shifts and all of the zone ratings and other defensive measures that are now available.   So much for my theory.  Some earlier posts suggest another theory--improved pitch design and velocity have made it harder to hit for contact, which increases strikeouts and reduces batting average.  In turn this leads to a greater emphasis on power at the expense of contact, increasing home runs, further increasing strikeouts and further reducing batting average.  That theory may be correct, but it's less obvious to me that the correct strategic response to improved pitch design and velocity is to sacrifice contact for power. It could go the other way--in response to better pitching, it is even more important to hit for contact, to put the ball in play, to sustain an offense.  It would take a model simulation to determine whether the optimal response to power pitching is to emphasize power hitting.   Or it could just be a juiced ball!  
    • Two out walk no damage. I say Orioles win 8-2 tonight.  
    • Holy hell Soler is having himself a season.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...