Stephen Strasburg Pitch Types
Stephen Strasburg made his second Arizona Fall League start this afternoon. Gameday, as they do with many rookies, had some troubles with his pitch types. The fact that he threw 90 mph change-ups didn't help either.
My own classifications are somewhat tentative, as this is one game from one park. And there are differences between the Peoria installation and Surprise. There's three or four inch difference in release point height, so I'll wait until a game in Surprise for the 2009 first rounder before doing these up in full detail.
Fastballs
Strasburg threw 36 heaters in today's outing. I'm not sure of the two- and four-seam split yet -- right now I think he threw five sinkers, but that's not for sure. In any case, the fastballs from Strasburg came out of his hand at no less than 95, maxing out around 99.6. He sat around 97/98, which is nasty.
This was clearly an off day for Strasburg, so don't make too much of this. Only 48% of his fastballs found the strike zone. Even though hitters took a lot of fastballs in the zone (53% !) his B:CS ratio landed at a hefty (for a fastball) 2.7.
Despite control issues, the whiff rate of .143 against his fastball (swing rate .389) was pretty good, and he got the ball in play on the ground (.667). Still, each ball in play resulted in one base, on average, for an even SLGCON of 1.000.
Off-Speed and Breaking Pitches
Strasburg throws a curveball and a change-up, with the latter not getting much action in college ball (IIRC). Thursday's game saw 10 change-ups and 14 curveballs out of Strasburg. The changes ran from 88 to 92, which is often the fastball range for some starters.
Beyond the speed gap of 7 or 8 mph (very nice), Strasburg's change "sank" about six inches relative to the fastball, which is brutal. If he's hiding that thing at all, yikes. If today was any indication, he was. He kept it out of the zone (30%), but every one he threw for a strike yielded a swing. Two of the seven balls were chased. Of the five total swings, three found nothing but air. Two made contact, on the ground, which still didn't work out well. Both were singles.
Strasburg's curveball isn't a big yakker, but has much as five inches of top-spin induced sink, resulting in a one foot difference from the fastball. It's also thrown in the low 80s, making it pretty vicious.
So, it has good enough snap, above average velocity and, my favorite, he threw 11 of 14 in the strike zone. Six of the 11 were watched by the batters (B:CS ratio of 0.6) and half the swings (six) resulted in whiffs. But, two were left up and in the middle of the plate, and were subsequently sent out of the ballpark for home runs.
Just a Bad Day
Strasburg had bad luck, which he actually made on his own. He hung two curveballs, and paid the price. But not every hung curve is hit, and it remains to be seen if he continues to do that with any regularity. The ground balls that turned into hits were probably more or less out of his hands (relatively speaking). The fastball command was clearly a problem.
So, next time out (hopefully in Surprise), I'll be looking for four things:
- Distinguishing sinkers from fastballs
- Fastball control
- Curveball command
- Outcomes of balls in play
And I'll also be enjoying one of the most exciting pitching prospects of recent memory.
0 recs |
24 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Sounds like he’s everything he was made out to be, and maybe more…
by Missing Barry on Oct 22, 2009 9:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bloom's coverage at MLB.com
Mitchell’s homer came on an 0-1, 96-mph fastball. Retherford and Wells hit curveballs that hung in the zone.
“Those were the only two pitches I hung all day,” he said.
I hit my spots well, and I wasn’t getting the calls.
That second remark is interesting.
Bloom even uses PITCHf/x data.
by Harry Pavlidis on Oct 22, 2009 10:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That is interesting
He wasn’t getting the low strike at all, nothing below 2 feet, and the bottom of the zone looks to have been around 2.2 or 2.3 feet. That’s tough.
by Mike Fast on Oct 22, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly can't even tell those dots apart
Why doesn’t Dan at least have different shapes?
by vivaelpujols on Oct 23, 2009 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've always wondered that as well

And now at Beyond the Boxscore and Project Prospect!
by Mike Rogers on Oct 23, 2009 2:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the strike zone plot from Strasburg’s outing, FYI. Forgot to mention that.
And now at Beyond the Boxscore and Project Prospect!
by Mike Rogers on Oct 23, 2009 2:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But all the strikes below 2 feet are swinging strikes, not called strikes. The zone he was getting from the ump was much worse than your plot implies.
by Mike Fast on Oct 23, 2009 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, i didn’t break up called/swinging strikes. Probably should’ve. But it still gets the point across.
And now at Beyond the Boxscore and Project Prospect!
by Mike Rogers on Oct 23, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks,
I don’t know how an umpire could possibly miss that call around 0,2. What pitch type was it?
by vivaelpujols on Oct 23, 2009 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
There have been over 12000 pitches that have been thrown within 1/10th of an inch of that location, and 90% of them have been called strikes. That seems unbelievable to me. For funzies, here are the umpire leaders calling balls on those pitches:
first, last, #, pct
Fieldin, Culbreth, 12, 0.2143
Tim, Tschida, 11, 0.1833
Wally, Bell, 10, 0.1429
Jerry, Layne, 10, 0.1923
Randy, Marsh, 9, 0.1837
Marty, Foster, 9, 0.1875
Rob, Drake, 8, 0.1311
Alfonso, Marquez, 8 , 0.1702
Andy, Fletcher, 8, 0.1333
And a bunch of guys with 7.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 23, 2009 3:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does the height of the batter have any effect on that?
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He does on other graphs
But I chose that graph because it shows the difference between called strikes and swinging strikes. Strasburg got a lot of swinging strikes on low pitches, but basically no called strikes below what is typically the middle of the zone.
by Mike Fast on Oct 23, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The AB’s against Taylor Green in the 3rd inning (2 or 3 pitches at the knees that were called low) and the following batter Russ Mitchell got big breaks. The third pitch against Mitchell looks like it’d be at his thighs. I can’t believe that was called a ball.
And now at Beyond the Boxscore and Project Prospect!
by Mike Rogers on Oct 23, 2009 1:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Also, Harry (or Nick or Mike) … I graphed out his pitch flights just for fun to look at, and they remind me a lot of Justin Verlander’s. Their arsenal is pretty similar, no? Mid-to-high-90’s gas, hard curve in the lower 80’s. The only real difference is in the Change though Verlander’s change can sit in the mid 80’s at times (don’t know what his avg change velo was on the season … I remember looking at it at one point and it was around 84 MPH). But all of the pitches seem to be pretty close in movement, as well.
I wish Josh Kalk’s similarity scores were still around. Someone should re-make those (hint, hint).
And now at Beyond the Boxscore and Project Prospect!
by Mike Rogers on Oct 23, 2009 2:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not familiar with those
You got a link?
by vivaelpujols on Oct 23, 2009 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can find his methodology here
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitcher-similarity-scores/
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitcher-similarity-scores-part-ii/
But his data is gone since he went to work for a team.
by Mike Fast on Oct 23, 2009 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
It looks a little more intimidating than it actually is. Of course I say that without actually having applied it. I’ve done some stuff on an individual pitch basis, but never on pitcher’s as a whole. Basic idea is that it puts everything on a normal curve so you can coherently compare things of different units (mph and inches of break for example).
by stevesommer05 on Oct 23, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure I could figure out the equation with a little determination
I just really don’t like notation.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 23, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt
It’s pretty cool stuff. I messed around with including some other components (whiff and GB rate for example) when I did pitch v pitch comparisons. I may have to dig that stuff back out and actually write it up sometime this weekend.
by stevesommer05 on Oct 23, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please do so
I’d like to see what you come up with. I’ll give you a plug at THT.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 23, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please do. I think I was more interested in the similarity scores from Josh Kalk’s blog than anything else.
And now at Beyond the Boxscore and Project Prospect!
by Mike Rogers on Oct 24, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ugh
So here are some initial results and explanation of methodology. It’s definitely rough/raw, so viva no need to plug it at THT if you don’t see fit. Hopefully it’ll get refined as I go along over the next week or so.
by stevesommer05 on Oct 25, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 









BtB on Facebook
















