Dan Duquette on O's pitching philosophy: "We don't like the cutter"

[CA-ORIOLE]

Sorry, maybe a slight exaggeration on my part. The direct quote was "We don't like the cutter. We don't like the cutter as an effective pitch." I'm just pointing out that it has been quite the effective pitch when used properly.

Well they seem to have data that not too many pitchers are very effective with it. I don't think that means if you have a veteran pitcher that is effective (i.e Andy Pettite) with it, that you make him stop using it. I find it kind of interesting that they don't consider Mo Rivera's pitch a cutter when everybody else does, but as I think about it, it kind of makes sesne. Most cutters typically don't have a lot of movement like Mo's does.

[TiredofLosing20]

Sorry, maybe a slight exaggeration on my part. The direct quote was "We don't like the cutter. We don't like the cutter as an effective pitch." I'm just pointing out that it has been quite the effective pitch when used properly.

Actually if you add the next line of the quote it provides important insight...

"...Name me all the great pitchers that used it as their primary pitch in the big leagues."

[brianod]

I can guarantee that almost no one thinks any of this.

No, you can't guarantee anything. I'm not judging the philosophy. I'm simply saying that if you have a philosophy, you follow it. Don't do things half assed. If the organization doesn't like the cutter, ban it from being used by our 19 yr old phenom.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Tillman's velocity was inconsistent before he ever used the cutter. Tillman's velocity went up this year while using the cutter. That's all you need to know (to know you can't make some - sorry, lazy - causation determination.) .

Well, that's obviously anecdotal in itself. I believe the theory is that using (actually overusing the cutter) does make FB velocity go down over time. Apparrently that's what DD/Peterson believe and something that I've certainly heard professed by others (Jim Palmer off the top of my head) in the past.

Heres one of DD's quotes from the article:

First of all, the cut fastball, we don't like it as a pitch, OK? And we don't like it for young pitchers because it takes away from the development of their curveball, which is a better pitch long-term and also, the velocity of their fastball. So we encourage development of an overhand breaking ball that has depth along with command of their fastball and, of course, velocity and movement will get the hitter out."

[TiredofLosing20]

but in this article he sounds defensive in a fairly off-putting way to me.

I agree with your take on the tone and maybe that is just DD's way but it does seem defensive. I am really not sure why he did this interview on this topic. Speculating here but it appears the Bundy/Organization relationship is not good.

[TiredofLosing20]

No, you can't guarantee anything. I'm not judging the philosophy. I'm simply saying that if you have a philosophy, you follow it. Don't do things half assed. If the organization doesn't like the cutter, ban it from being used by our 19 yr old phenom.

So I assume then you applauded AM's conviction of Grow the Arms/Buy the Bats?

[snatch311]

Well, you have to look at it relative to other pitches, how it's used, and what kinds of pitchers generally use it. Tillman went to a cutter when he was struggling as a means of trying to minimize contact, for instance. If it's often a go-to pitch for struggling pitchers, then it's no wonder that its values would be lower. That doesn't mean it's a terrible pitch.

It's a shame they're too busy doing this six months ago to read your posts. You think they haven't researched all of this extensively?

[cmurter]

Actually if you add the next line of the quote it provides important insight...

"...Name me all the great pitchers that used it as their primary pitch in the big leagues."

and I give to you, Roy Halladay's fangraphs pitch type the last 5 years: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1303&position=P#pitchtype

[Lucky Jim]

Well, that's obviously anecdotal in itself. I believe the theory is that using (actually overusing the cutter) does make FB velocity go down over time. Apparrently that's what DD/Peterson believe and something that I've certainly heard professed by others (Jim Palmer off the top of my head) in the past.

Heres one of DD's quotes from the article:

I'm making no other causation point than about Tillman. Tillman is not an exhibit for velocity issues arising from a cutter. I don't debate that pitchers who use the cutter may experience diminished velocity, though I'd like to see the numbers and how they regressed that for all other confounding factors (including the fact that most velocity diminishes over time).

[emmett16]

Say what you will about the tenents of National Socalism, Dude, but at least its an ethos.

I think that might be my favorite quote in the entire movie...and there are a lot of good quotes.

[Lucky Jim]

It's a shame they're too busy doing this six months ago to read your posts. You think they haven't researched all of this extensively?

Plenty of things get researched extensively. What you do with the data is what matters. My guess is that this is probably a non-issue over the long haul (provided stubbornness on the part of DD and the Bundy clan don't get in the way). But I'm also not going to assume that their conclusions are reliably or ineluctably derived from the data.

[Lucky Jim]

Also, I would caution anyone reading too much into DD's "off-putting" tone to the media. He's not good at..uh.. being social. I prefer when he doesn't say a whole lot and it did get him in some trouble in the Sox organization. But his good baseball mind and scouting ability is what he brings to the table. I tend to toss out his weird comments.

Right. I mean, the burden-shifting was a bit disingenuous (I mean, you're the one arguing that a pitch sucks, you back it up, DD ), but he's not really doing anything other than being archly Socratic. It's fine. Like I said, I doubt it amounts to much, but I'll still keep it in my back pocket because it's not a shining example of good PR or a really well-explained doctrine (as of yet).

[CA-ORIOLE]

and I give to you, Roy Halladay's fangraphs pitch type the last 5 years: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1303&position=P#pitchtype

Well, the point was that not a lot of pithers are effective with it.

I wish they had asked DD about Halladay. Most cutters don't typically have the movement that Halladay/Rivera have and DD was pretty exact in in pointing that out, and that he considers Mo's pitch to not be a cutter. There's obviously a pretty big difference between a Tommie Hunter cutter and a Halladay cutter.

[Lucky Jim]

Well, the point was that not a lot of pitccers are effective with it.

I wish they had asked DD about Halladay. Most cutters don't typically have the movement that Halladay/Rivera have and DD was pretty exact in to pointing that out and that he considers Mo's pitch to not be a cutter. There's obviously a pretty big difference between a Tommie Hunter cutter and a Halladay cutter.

Right. The issue as applied to Bundy is: well, #$%*, isn't he more Halladay than Hunter?

[TiredofLosing20]

and I give to you, Roy Halladay's fangraphs pitch type the last 5 years: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1303&position=P#pitchtype

Maybe I am mis-reading this but it appears he has thrown 4 seamers more that cutters over that span 44% to 24% and in arguably his best season in that span. 2008 (given him pitching the AL East) his ratio was 47% 4 seam to 16% cutter...

Wouldn't that make his cutter not the primary pitch?