Cubs 5, Pirates 2: Bullpen Breaks Down, But Duke Shines
by Charlie on May 27, 2009 6:33 PM EDT
28 comments
Zach Duke pitched seven strong innings and left the game with the score tied at 2-2, but the normally reliable Jesse Chavez allowed a game-winning homer by Reed Johnson in the eighth. From there, the Cubs added two more runs, one charged to Chavez and the other to Sean Burnett.
As with a number of games this year, the Bucs reached base a fair amount but didn't score much because they didn't generate any power. They had five walks and eight hits (three by Ramon Vazquez), but all were singles.
Regarding Duke: his ERA is a remarkable 2.75. Every aspect of his game has improved. He's striking out more batters, his strikeout to walk ratio is better, and the defense behind him is much better. Duke's stuff is a little sharper than last year (although his velocity is about the same). After using his changeup sparingly for the past three years, he's throwing about the same number of changes as he did in his brilliant 2005 rookie season. The focus on changeups may be causing him to allow somewhat fewer groundballs, but he's also allowing fewer homers than we might expect so far.
The next few months will tell us more about what that means, if anything. Generally speaking, a pitcher doesn't have much control over whether fly balls hit off him fly over the fence, but the percentage of infield flies a pitcher allows is apparently somewhat repeatable. The Hardball Times, evidently using a different data set than FanGraphs, says Duke in 2009 has served up about the same percentage of infield flies as he did in 2005, and about twice as many as he did in 2006-2008. That squares with the increased reliance on his changeup, since if it's deployed well (and it generally has been) it might cause hitters to swing ahead of the pitch.
The infield fly thing is an extremely small sample size, so it's just something to watch going forward and not necessarily something that means anything now. But it's been interesting to watch Duke this year--he looks more like the guy we saw in 2005, who looked like he had about 30 IQ points on most of the batters he was facing and was always thinking a couple of pitches ahead of them, as opposed to the one we saw in 2006-2008, who mostly just looked content to get the ball into the zone.
UPDATE: I had class and missed the end of the game, which is too bad--this is awesome. Thanks to WstCstBucco.
0 recs |
28 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Your headline says the Pirates won. :-(
by matskralc on May 27, 2009 7:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wishful thinking, I guess. Thanks for catching that.
by Charlie on May 27, 2009 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who's to say
who are the winners and who are the losers?
I'd rather be dead than singing "Satisfaction" at forty-five. -- M. Jagger
by cocktailsfor2 on May 27, 2009 8:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Check out Zambrano's "one for the ages" meltdown
Here’s a story on it, and a link to the video. That’s some nice Gatorade dispenser — but this is the 2nd time in 3 days Cub pitchers have assaulted it.
Favorite comment (paraphrased) — With Zambrano, Pinella, Dempster and Milton Bradley all on this team, explain to me again why Jake Peavey would waive his no-trade clause to join these madmen?
BTW, Morgan was safe.
by WstCstBucco on May 27, 2009 8:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He was absolutely safe.
If you watch the replay, the left hand is on the plate before Zambrano completes the tag. Ump made a great call.
by Vlad on May 28, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently...
They only watch 1 angle of close plays on ESPN. I’ve heard 3 different people call him out and say Zambrano was right. I agree with you though. He was definetly safe.
by gorillakilla34 on May 28, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bright side
At the beginning of the season did you have any idea you’d use “remarkable” and Zach Duke in the same sentence. Or even less likely, utter this, “the normally reliable Jesse Chavez”?
Being a Bucco fan still is painful more often than not, but there are occasional bright spots.
by TPenaRules on May 27, 2009 8:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Morgan was safe. The replay is very clear.
Rough couple of days for that Gatorade dispenser.
by Suffering Buc on May 27, 2009 8:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
About Freddy...
I’m really starting to think his benching is more and more about the clause in his contract. How in the world do you justify benching a guy that is eight for his last nine?!?! I don’t want to hear the “day off” excuse either. This game was sandwiched in between a 6-inning game (Pirates only played 5 innings in the field) the night before and an off day on Thursday. That’s basically two off days in three days. What the heck is going on?!? He automatically gets that $8M payday if he gets the 600 ABs (or however many it is) OR an All-Star game selection. Right now, he is our All-Star, and it’s not even close. So if it’s, in fact, the 600 ABs the managment is worried about, then they might as well go ahead and play him because he’s going to get the All-Star selection anway. It just infuriates me that this organization worries more about money than it does about putting a winning product on the field. Also, this is nothing against Delwyn Young. If you’re going to bench Sanchez, then Young would be the first guy I would pick to start in Sanchez’s place. Nobody would’ve guessed in a million years that Young would have the kind of game he had today. I’m sure it is a game he just wanted to forget about as soon as the last out was made, and I felt bad for him. He had maybe the worst game he will ever play in his career (for fans that don’t know: Young was 0-for-4 with 3 K’s-all of them looking-and threw a ball away on a routine DP that would’ve ended the first inning. Instead, it lead to a run scoring), and it just happened to come on a day where every Pirate fan was going to be mad no matter who was playing 2B because of the sheer fact that Sanchez wasn’t out there despite his red hot streak at the plate. Young’s performance was magnified because of that fact. I felt terrible for him (although you gotta swing the bat, kid), but this has nothing to do with him or his performance today. It’s simply the fact that Sanchez, our best hitter right now and really all season, was benched! They can make up whatever excuse they want to, but they’re not fooling anybody. It has to be the contract.
by mspirate on May 28, 2009 12:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep
The continual benching of Freddy is hurting my fantasy team – same thing that Dodgers are doing with Furcal.
by BlindSquirrel on May 28, 2009 3:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Young screwing up in the field at 2B?
Nobody could’ve predicted that?
I’m pretty sure I’ve done nothing BUT predict glove problems for Young since they first announced him as a 2B…
by Vlad on May 28, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Freddy
is on pace for about 675 PA.
Can we put this conspiracy theory to rest yet? Along with “Doumit to 1B?”
I'd rather be dead than singing "Satisfaction" at forty-five. -- M. Jagger
by cocktailsfor2 on May 28, 2009 10:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
Now we can focus on putting to rest the 9/11 conspiracy….Oh wait, Southpark already did that.
by gorillakilla34 on May 28, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
there's no conspiracy, CT
Just the Pirate FO trying to save money . They don’t have to conspire with anyone.
It’s simple. You sit down Freddy now when there is no reason to—on a day after a shortened game and before an off day, after he went 8 for 9 his last 2 games (the Cubs announcers were scratching their head the whole game, but delighted he wasn’t in there.) so you can increase your chances that as the dog days come and nicks and aches happen you increase your chances he won’t make his goal.
He’s on pace for about 665 PAs. That’s only 30 ahead.
I hope Dejan keeps asking why Freddie is sitting out.
by rogero on May 28, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember when people here were complaining...
…about Young not playing enough? Now that he’s getting some starts at 2B, where the team is projecting him for the future, people are still complaining.
Keerist. Make up your minds.
by Vlad on May 28, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not me
And not you either. You derided Young as a 2B didn’t you? As well you should. He has no future there. Nor do I believe the team is projecting his future there.
It was a way to get him some ABs, and as luck would have it, make it a little more difficult for Freddie to make his target PAs.
A happy coincidence.
by rogero on May 28, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he can do it.
But evidently they disagree. From a MLB.com article the day after the trade:
Russell will look for opportunities to get Young in as a pinch-hitter right now, as he begins his work with infield coach Perry Hill. The Pirates are interested to see how capably Young can play second base.
If possible, the Bucs would also like to hone Young’s skills at third to further increase his versatility. Young played primarily as a corner outfielder with the Dodgers. -Langosch, 4/17
They’ve been very up-front about seeing him as an infielder.
by Vlad on Jun 1, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think most of us wanted Young to get starts in outfield over guys like Monroe and Hinske. At least that’s what I wanted. But I have no problem with Young playing second every once in a while, Freddy can’t play everyday.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on May 29, 2009 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No reason?
How about a lifetime average of .235 with no XBH against Zambrano?
by azibuck on May 28, 2009 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not a reason
In how many ABs? They can’t possibly be enough to matter—Freddy’s only been in the league for 3 years before this one. Oh and Zambrano just came off the DL. Is that the real big Z out there? I don’t think so?.
You think he hits .300 against everyone, Azi? Maybe he’s hit only .220 against Bronson Arroyo. Should we sit him there too?
C’mon, he was 8 for his lasty 9 ABs. .235 in a realtively few ABs against Zambrno means nothing. It’s safely without the zone of a chance occurence in fact.
Is that all you got?
by rogero on May 28, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
34 AB is not a few
It’s a small sample relative to his career, but v. one pitcher, it’s actually a good sized book. It represents probably 7-8 distinct games against the same pitcher. 8/9 does not change that.
If Zambrano is on the mound, why would you assume it’s not “the real” Zambrano?
Sanchez doesn’t hit Zambrano well, full stop.
C’mon, he was 8 for his lasty 9 ABs.
“C’mon”? Is that all you got?
by azibuck on May 29, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not really about Big Z
though 34 ABs is piddling. I could almost as easily argue that means Freddy is due to hit him. (Btw, that’s some crack research there, Azi. You know how many ABs all Pirates have had against all pitchers?)
But Freddy doesn’t hit righthanders nearly as well as lefties. Last year his OPS against righties was .647, against lefties .788. I only have BAs for his other years but here they are: ’07 LH .364, RH .282 and ’06 LH .442, RH .316
My argument is you don’t set down a hot hitter this early in the year with an off day following (risking him cooling off over the two days) unless he has a PA contract provision you’re trying to avoid or there’s an injury you’re not telling us about, Particulalrly to put in a guy who can’t play 2B. But, yeah, if there is a reason to set him down pick a tough RHer for him to avoid.
by rogero on May 29, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
34 AB’s is an okay sample size, but the real issue is that there’s no way a batting average drop of .100 is in any way significant over that sample size. If he was batting .110 against him, maybe it could mean something, but with 34 AB’s I can pretty much promise you that it means absolutely nothing.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on May 29, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree completely
I know what you’re saying, but the key is that it’s 34 AB against the same pitcher. That is not meaningless at all. That’s a track record.
And rogero, I didn’t know off the top of my head how many AB he had against Zambrano. BD, WHYGAVS, and HHQ, the 3 Pirate blogs I read, all mentioned in one way or another the “inexplicable” benching of Freddy. Being a contrarian, and curious, I set out to explic it. It took me like 5 seconds as his numbers v. LZ were the first thing I looked up.
by azibuck on May 29, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Freddy v. Zambrano
.235/.297/.265
Freddy’s only as hot as the next pitch he sees.
by azibuck on May 28, 2009 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Also....
I don’t understand why people think the Pirates SHOULDN’T manage Freddy’s playing time and option? You’re running a business and the guy stands to get overpayed by about $4 million next year if the options vest. The are trying to BUILD a winning team. They aren’t going to contend this year. I don’t want $8.4 million tied up in Freddy next year.
by dtoddwin on May 28, 2009 7:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
integrety of the game
Trying to win each one. How do you explain your position to a fans who buy tickets to watch games this year?
by rogero on May 29, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
