Jump to content

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


Orsino

Recommended Posts

The funny thing is, you actually are mis-reading it. In 2008 (2.78 ERA), it says 40.7% FB to 33% CT, followed by 2009(2.79 ERA): 31%FB to 41%CT, and 2 of the next 3 years more CT than FB

I'm really not trying to get into arguments, just saying it has been done.

LJ is correct I was looking at Pitch FX..

That said, over Halladay's career, the split is 46% FB to 24% CT using Pitch Type.

He use of the cutter has trended upwards. So looking at it from Pitch Type, I think you can make the argument that Halladay is a successful pitcher with the cutter being his main pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I can understand the philosophy of shelving the cutter in the minors to have the young pitchers focus more on FB and secondary pitch command. I can't imagine this translates into the majors. I mean, are they going to tell a major league pitcher that he can't throw the cutter? If the pitcher wants to throw a cutter in a given situation and Wieters isn't putting up the right sign he will just shake him off or call him to the mound until they are on the same page.

This seems much ado about nothing and strictly a teaching philosophy for our minor league pitchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't really understand why you'd want to disarm a ballplayer from using a strength.

It'd be like if you had high average hitter coming up, a highly regarded prospect who was extremely adept at going to the opposite field for base hits. You'd never tell that guy "We don't want you to hit to the opposite field anymore, our organizational philosophy is that you should pull the ball all the time."

If Bundy thinks the cutter is his best pitch and doesn't rely on it too heavily, there's no good reason why he shouldn't be able to throw it in a key situation. I don't think he should necessarily throw it to every batter but Frobby made the point earlier that Bedard used his when batters were looking for something else, like his hammer.

If you're a starting pitcher and starting to go through the lineup for a third time, to me it'd be beneficial to have another pitch in your back pocket that you can rely on and keep hitters who haven't seen it much (if at all) off balance.

Because every form of strength disguises a weakness.

Fleshing Bundy's arsenal out, and keeping him from growing over-reliant on a pitch that can have negative effects on his other stuff, seems like good developmental strategy.

Looked at in that light, wouldn't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I've never crapped on Law like some just cause he disses the O's, but he really is a douche. Is it really an "insane" statement that DD made? Of course it isn't.

"

Its "insane" if you read it quickly like Law probably did and think he is saying that no one in he organization will ever be allowed to throw a cutter. Of course, DD didn't say that. In addition, whenever they talk about Bundy they say they have taken the cutter away to let him develop other pitches. If they were taking it away completely, forever, he would not be allowed to throw it in side-sessions and they would say he isn't allowed to throw the cutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems much ado about nothing and strictly a teaching philosophy for our minor league pitchers.

Except that he states clearly that it doesn't work in the majors. My assumption all along was that he wasn't using the cutter because the O's wanted him to work the curveball and the change and the reason was they didn't want him dominating using soley his cutter. Now it appears they don't want him using the cutter because they don't think it works at the major league level. Those are two different things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its "insane" if you read it quickly like Law probably did and think he is saying that no one in he organization will ever be allowed to throw a cutter. Of course, DD didn't say that. In addition, whenever they talk about Bundy they say they have taken the cutter away to let him develop other pitches. If they were taking it away completely, forever, he would not be allowed to throw it in side-sessions and they would say he isn't allowed to throw the cutter.

My point exactly. Law leaves a lot to be desired as an "analyst."

As a source of pithy one-liners, he's unmatched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that he states clearly that it doesn't work in the majors. My assumption all along was that he wasn't using the cutter because the O's wanted him to work the curveball and the change and the reason was they didn't want him dominating using soley his cutter. Now it appears they don't want him using the cutter because they don't think it works at the major league level. Those are two different things...

He believes it doesn't work if leaned upon too heavily. There's a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because every form of strength disguises a weakness.

Fleshing Bundy's arsenal out, and keeping him from growing over-reliant on a pitch that can have negative effects on his other stuff, seems like good developmental strategy.

Looked at in that light, wouldn't you agree?

I don't buy that as a hard and fast rule. I think you can improve on perceived weaknesses while still maintaining strengths.

I don't see how throwing the cutter a little bit (mind you, I'm not talking about it as something he throws 50% of the time or anywhere close) could hamper development of a curve or a changeup so long as the curve and changeup were getting more focus than the cutter.

I'm not talking about being over-reliant here...I'm not talking about using the cutter to every batter in every plate appearance.

In essence what I'm saying is that I don't understand why he can't throw it when he feels the need to in order to keep a feel for the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you have to look at it relative to other pitches, how it's used, and what kinds of pitchers generally use it.

And you know Duquette hasn't done this because?

He's a busy man giving a quickie interview to a sports reporter. He is not presenting a research paper at an academic conference or arguing a difficult court case.

Even before taking the Orioles job, he was giving lectures around the country on the use of statistical analysis in baseball. Now, I don't know for sure that he has examined the issue in greater statistical detail.

But I wouldn't want to bet against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But especially Duquette for whatever reason. Really thinks he's totally crazy. Which he might be, but give the man some credit.

Maybe. I just know Law is pretty crappy, so it isn't really fair to feel singled out.

If DD's crazy, he's been crazy like a fox so far. I'll take it- for now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that as a hard and fast rule. I think you can improve on perceived weaknesses while still maintaining strengths.

I don't see how throwing the cutter a little bit (mind you, I'm not talking about it as something he throws 50% of the time or anywhere close) could hamper development of a curve or a changeup so long as the curve and changeup were getting more focus than the cutter.

I'm not talking about being over-reliant here...I'm not talking about using the cutter to every batter in every plate appearance.

In essence what I'm saying is that I don't understand why he can't throw it when he feels the need to in order to keep a feel for the pitch.

And, again, that's the whole point. Where did DD say, or what evidence is there in the fact that we have 2/5ths of our rotation who throw the cutter, this is something hard and fast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with Bundy focusing on his fastball command and the development of better breaking pitches.

Mariano Rivera may have the best cutter, but he is also a closer, the Orioles need to Bundy to be a starter so he needs to focus on those other things. I doubt he forgets how to throw the cutter while developing his other pitches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I’m a little surprised Tony is in the field today, looked dinged up towards the end of the game yesterday getting up slowly from both his slide into second and his diving catch. 
    • I'm not opposed to trading Kjerstad (assuming Santander is then re-signed), but trading him for a reliever of any stripe seems like a waste of resources. There should be more economical ways of building a strong bullpen, and Kjerstad is a big enough talent to be the centerpiece in a trade for a cost-controlled starter. That seems like the more impactful move to me. 
    • Sure service time factors in. But it also seems to me you and a few others like you, think the grass is always greener on the other side based on the constant overrating of other team's players, but totally act like our own prospects are worth pennies. The Orioles don't have the best farm system in MLB if all their prospects are all low rank and low value. I do agree with Moose's comment about the fetishization of some prospects around here, but then there's the other extreme of that with some of these ridiculous trade offers of giving away the farm for a brown paper bag. You're not giving what's really possible enough of an opportunity or enough thought.
    • You're right, context does matter. I get it, we love our prospects but some of them are going to have to be traded.  Trading Ortiz and Hall didn't hurt much because of 1.  the return and 2. they weren't, like, a member of the inner circle of prospects we've grown to fawn over on here. IMO, that group is Holliday, Cowser (although I'm gonna remind everyone here once again that a lot of you were ready to part with him this past offseason) Kjerstad, Basallo and Mayo.  IMO, Hall had enough time for the shine to wash off him and while he had his defenders here, Ortiz was a guy that would have a hard time finding a full time spot.  Those two guys were on the outside looking in...didn't know if Hall was a starter or a reliever and Ortiz wasn't Jackson Holliday or Jordan Westburg. People on here like fantasizing about filling out lineups 1-9 of completely home grown talent, first round picks that'll all pan out, that'll all be great players...and it's just not going to work out that way.  It's coming close, but not all of these guys are going to be studs, not all of these guys are going to be as great as we seem to think they'll be.   So, yeah, I'd be open to trading Kjerstad for an elite, cost controlled bullpen arm because we'd be dealing from a position of strength in order to address a big need.   
    • Not actually expecting it but would be a very baseball thing to happen.
    • Yeah I agree with your thought process on position players vs pitchers. But that’s also why the young cheap guys like Skenes are worth so much. Yeah, he may break, but he’s cheap and you don’t have to give him a ton of money like you would for a free agent pitcher. With our current situation, I’d definitely do Holliday for Skenes straight up. It’s very likely Holliday provides more value during their controlled years, but he’s more easily replaced. If we’re lucky and Skenes and Grayson can have a few healthy years together, I think that gives us a better chance at a world series than 6 healthy years of Holliday. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...