mysteries of the single-finger screwball
with so many opinions circulating about bruce sutter's hall-of-fame worthiness -- line 'em up one two three and four -- i figured i'd chime in w mine. the article is recycled from my old blog, one of the very earliest posts and hence read by almost no one. so pretend it's fresh and composed this very day with great care. . . . .
sutter does not merit inclusion, imho, even though he made a revolutionary contribution to the game: he was the first guy to perfect the now-ubiquitous split-finger fastball. there was no such thing before he came along; there was the forkball, a similar pitch, but hardly anybody threw it (diego segui for one, i recall). the split-finger was a great mystery at the time -- nobody could figure out the physics of the thing, or explain why it dropped so sharply just as it reached the plate. it was as if sutter were practicing a form of sorcery, employing a power no one understood. i remember watching a segment on nbc's "game of the week" pregame show in which ex-dodger relief pitcher mike marshall stood next to sutter during a bullpen session and tried to figure out how he cast such a spell on the baseball. marshall (whose career stats are comparable to sutter's, by the way) scrutinized his subject the way old-time anthropologists used to study contortionists or tribal medicine men; nbc shot some super-slow-motion video of the session, and marshall pored over that too. he concluded that sutter was throwing not a split-finger fastball but rather (as he called it) a single-finger screwball. the super-slo-mo revealed all: as the ball left sutter's hand his index finger fell completely away, and the ball rolled off his middle finger in a tight clockwise twirl, so that it broke toward right-handed hitters and away from lefties -- the opposite of the typical break from a right-handed pitcher.
hence the mystery -- batters had never seen anything like it from an rhp before. (a similar sense of awe and disbelief apparently attended carl hubbell's invention of the classic screwball in the 1930s.) sutter had stumbled upon a gimmick pitch -- and once hitters figured it out, the jig was up. in his first three and a half seasons as closer (1976-79), he struck out 9.6 men per 9 innings and held hitters to an avg below .200 -- they could barely lay bat on ball. but they eventually adjusted, and in his next six seasons (1980-85), until injury basically ended his career, sutter whiffed only 5.9 per 9 innings, with correspondingly weaker eras, hits-per-innings, avg allowed, etc etc. though sutter remained a very effective pitcher, he was no longer a dominant one -- and 400 innings of dominance does not a hall-of-famer make, in my estimation.
data are courtesy pinto's day by day database:
| ip | era | whip | k/9 | h/9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1976-79 | 390 | 2.33 | 1.02 | 9.6 | 6.5 |
| 1980-85 | 587 | 2.97 | 1.20 | 5.9 | 8.2 |
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Screwy?
by dancurry on Dec 29, 2005 3:08 PM EST reply actions
dan thanks for reading
w sutter, the index finger was the "set" hand, and the middle finger was the "shooting" hand ---- the one that applied the backspin. the ball essentially rolled over that finger and rotated tightly clockwise (as you face the plate), with the same spin that a left-handed pitcher would put on a conventional breaking ball.
remember now, this is 20+ years ago so it's possible my recollection is faulty. but i have a pretty good memory. it truly was a freak pitch, a different pitch from the common splitter that half the mlb pitchers throw today.
marshall
by dancurry on Dec 29, 2005 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
A tough
I agree,
Question
Say Sutter does make it. Would he be inducted as a Flub (when his true dominance reigned) or as a Cardinal? How is that decided--does the player make the choice or is it by the number of years played with a certain team? This may be a really stupid question that I should know, but I don't.
Here you go....
Some interesting plaque/cap tidbits culled from my own database of all things useless:
Yogi Berra's plaque features a profile of the Hill's finest, obscuring the logo. Same with Rogers Hornsby.
The first real "cap controversy" came with the induction of Catfish Hunter, who had great success with both the A's and Yankees. I think, at the time of his induction, the Hall asked the player what he wanted. Hunter couldn't decide and thus, he is the only modern day player in the Hall with a cap bearing no logo. (many old-timers have no-logo caps, but that's because all caps were no-logo back then.)
Other multi-team guys:
Dave Winfield - Padres
Carlton Fisk - spent more time with the White Sox, but wears a Red Sox cap.
Frank Robinson - truly great for two teams, but wears an Orioles cap.
Dennis Eckersley - A's
Jimmie Foxx - Red Sox. Surprising, huh? I would have said A's.
Nolan Ryan - Rangers.
Cy Young - Cleveland Naps.
Possibilities.....
Bruce Sutter? - I'd say Cubs.
Mark McGwire? - Cardinals.
Rickey Henderson? - A's.
Roger Clemens? - Red Sox
Ken Griffey Jr.? - Mariners (first M's cap in the Hall)
Randy Johnson? - Diamondbacks (first D-Back's cap)
Mike Piazza? - Dodgers
Greg Maddux? - Braves
Tony LaRussa? - A's, but if he wins a WS with STL, then Cardinals.
by flynn on Dec 29, 2005 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
i wondered that myself
Thanks
by rockin redbird on Dec 29, 2005 6:31 PM EST up reply actions
Offbeat
randa at 1 / $4m is a bargain
Sutter should be in for at least this reason . . .
by titolandrum21 on Dec 29, 2005 5:49 PM EST reply actions
and that also explains
Split finger fast-ball
What I don't get
He's certainly not overlooked,
Overlooked
IMHO, Bert Blyleven will get in eventually by the Veteran's Committee but its a shame that he have to go by that route.



















