pitching philosophy and regime change

by BigJawnMize on Jun 19, 2007 10:46 AM EDT

I have been thinking about this a little bit, but the stats Larry posted today about runs allowed started to make me wonder if Duncan hasn't lost a bit of his luster for the organization. Considering his poor track record of developing young pitching and mandate from Dewitt to develop young talent, I think that Duncan's (and LaRussa's) time here is short. With that said does the organizational philosphy of pitch-to-contact outlast Duncan? I would have said no until this last draft where most of the first day pitching prospects already throw sinkers and seem to fit into the organizational philosphy easier than Ottavanio and some of the past drafted pitchers. Is Luhnow taking orders from Jocketty as to which skills to look for from pitchers or does he buy into the pitch-to-contact mantra?

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A "Moneyball" approach?

Considering that we passed on a guy like Porcello in the first round, for "signability" reasons, it could be that Luhnow is coming to the same conclusion as Duncan, but from a different rationale -- these sinkerballers and "pitch to contact" guys are generally cheaper on draft day than the Homer Baileys and Yovani Gallardos, power fastball/curveball guys with tremendous strikeout pedigrees.

Either way I don't much like it. Pitching to contact against young and undeveoped hitters is no guarantee of any level of major league success. And if we aren't going to plow the immense revenues that this team has brought in over the past three years back into the major league payroll, at least we can afford to pay premium on the top talent in each year's draft.

by taiko on Jun 19, 2007 11:35 AM EDT 0 recs

Gallardo

Isn't quite what you think he is.

He doesn't throw that hard, he just throws everything crooked and knows where he's throwing it and why he's throwing it there.

I'm not calling him Greg Maddux, but his pitching style is more Maddux than, say, Clemens. Which surprised the heck out of me when I saw him in person a couple of weeks ago.

by whopperman on Jun 19, 2007 3:42 PM EDT 0 recs

That surprises me too

But still, based on stats, he definitely as the high dollar pedigree.

by taiko on Jun 19, 2007 3:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

To be honest...

I was shocked at the numbers. It appears the perceived value of Duncan outweighs the results the Cardinals staff have produced. I haven't gone back to do check the numbers, but this could also be the product of just not bringing in the top tier starting pitching and constantly having to work with retreads. If nothing else, that is a huge eye opener and tarnishes Duncan's reputation a little bit for me.

by Mrthe2th on Jun 19, 2007 5:34 PM EDT 0 recs

hmm...

... Duncan hasn't been given much to work with this year. a series of scrubs, and his starting catch/pitch-caller is injured. he's done a good job so far with Wellemeyer, a decent job with Thompson, a decent job with Looper, and Wainwright is adjusting and hasn't been 100% healthy. Wells has been a disaster, but i'm not sure Duncan is to blame for his utter lack of control. not getting into Reyes again, but if Anthony could improve in two areas -- start of games and pitching with RISP -- then he would be a much better pitcher that he has been, no matter which fastball he's throwing.

i think the "pitch-to-contact" accusation is a bit of a misnomer. Duncan's philosophy is control; the logic is that even if you don't have the stuff to strike out everybody who comes up, you can still be successful if you can locate your pitches well. that's why guys like Marquis, Suppan, Thompson, Benes, Eldred, etc. have had some success with Duncan, despite having below-average stuff.

pitch economy is another consideration. TLR likes to use his bullpen extensively and situationally. to do that well, starting pitchers need to be able to routinely go deep into games. control is instrumental in that.

so yeah. i think the Duncan approach is much better summed by "control" + "pitch economy" rather than "pitch-to-contact". and that is a recipe for success... i doubt any MLB pitching coach would disagree.

by kindred on Jun 19, 2007 11:32 PM EDT 0 recs