The Trouble With Ian Snell:
I've been saying this for almost two years and finally got confirmation on it from the announcers on the Pirate/Tiger game last night. In the game one of them stated that he had been having trouble in most of Snell's games differentiating between his fast ball and curve ball. He stated that Snell's two pitches were so similar in appearance that they couldn't be told apart. The problem can't be with his fast ball because he has consistently been clocked at 93-94 mph and so the problem has to be that there is very little break to his curve ball. If the announcer can't see the difference between the two pitches then I'm certain the batter cannot either and that would go a long way to explain what Snell has not been very productive.
0 recs |
92 comments
Comments
The problem with Snell is...
he’s basically a 2 pitch picther. He’s curve ball has never been average and I don’t think I’ve ever seen him throw a chance. His killer pitch was his plus slider in 97’. That was his out pitch. Only problem is it was effective only because he got batters to chase it out of the zone. The book is out on Snell and he hasn’t adjusted in two years. Everyone is laying off of the slider, which he hardly ever throws for a strike, and they are sitting on his fastball in the outside corner. Two pitch pitchers don’t last long in the show especially when you are afraid to throw your fastball inside on your slider over the plate. Plain simple, Ian doesn’t trust his stuff. It’s time to send him down. He has one option remaining and it would be worth it for the front office to use it and call Gorzo back up.
by Slick1 on Jun 23, 2009 10:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the problem is different. Snell’s blowups always seem to be these endless innings that he just can’t quite get out of. It’s rarely a case of hitters simply bashing everything he throws, which is what happens with Maholm when he’s not pitching well. Snell’s stuff is too good for that. These excruciating innings usually feature 2-3 walks and endless full counts.
I think Snell just overthrows once he gets in trouble. The first two innings tonight, and early in the third inning, he stayed out of trouble and his breaking stuff was consistently in the strike zone or near it. From the time Sizemore got up with two on in the 3rd, though, Snell didn’t throw a single breaking ball that was in the same zip code as home plate. Not one. His fastball command was fine, but you can’t strike out Grady Sizemore with a 92-mph fastball when he can sit on the fastball and safely lay off anything else. Like most pitchers, Snell’s always gotten his Ks with the breaking ball. Without it, he has no ability to put a hitter away. His tendency to completely lose the breaking ball whenever he’s in trouble is why hitters are able to foil all the good pitches he throws—which are invariably fastballs—and work the count full. Then they foul pitches off until they draw a walk or get something fat.
by WTM on Jun 23, 2009 10:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think he's afraid to throw his slider for strikes in key situations.
His slider has always been an out pitch when used as a “chase” pitch out of the zone. Hitters don’t seem to be chasing as much anymore as evidence by his strikeout rate decling two years in a row. Ian hasn’t adjusted and the book is out on him. He can’t live on the outside corner and he can’t be afraid to come into the zone with his slider earlier in counts. Undoubtedly he has very good stuff, he just hasn’t figured out how to adjust to the adjustments…IMO.
by Slick1 on Jun 23, 2009 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be nibbling or overthrowing. The end result is the same.
by WTM on Jun 23, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I agree.
Probably a comb of both.
by Slick1 on Jun 23, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regardless of what the guy’s problems are, it’s been evident from the beginning of last season that this guy just doesn’t have the mentality to be an effective starting pitcher in the big leagues. How long do we have to continue to run him out there every fifth day and watch the exact same thing happen? He can’t throw strikes, he’s terribly inefficient and he doesn’t belong in a major league rotation. Does he have to get to 10 or 15 losses before he’s pulled from the rotation? If the Pirates are serious about turning this thing around and winning again in a couple of years, they have to get rid of Snell or at least pull him out of the rotation.
by mspirate on Jun 24, 2009 1:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dude.....
You should seriously write opinion pieces about the Pirates for our local papers.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 24, 2009 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he already does.
Has anybody seen Ron Cook lately?
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ron Cook:
Link. P-G columnist best known for always being wrong.
For me, this will always be Cook’s crowning moment of glory.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Simon column is hilarious, especially the part where Cook couldn’t believe DL could get SImon for so little. The Tigers were going to non-tender Simon. DL could have gotten him for nothing at all.
by WTM on Jun 24, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I dont understand
is that we have options to fill in for him if we would send him down. Gorzo, Karstens, Vasquez may not have the upside of Ian, but they could do no worse. How long is Ian going to be run out there because of his “upside”.
There is the standard arguement that we are not going to compete so just run him out there. I say BS. We need to get him straight. He obviously hasnt gotten it straight in 15 starts. We sent Gorzo down, so why no send Ian down? I don’t understand why they are so tentative to pull the trigger with this guy? The FO talks about accountability and production. When Moss was slumping, we pulled him. When Monroe dogged it, he got cut. Last year when Gorzo was out of shape and struggling – they demoted him. All Ian has done this year is throw everyone under the bus and underachieve. Kerrigan hasnt reached him or coached him up. I think this kid needs to go down to AAA for a few starts and start trusting his stuff again.
by vanslyke on Jun 24, 2009 9:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We sent Gorzo down, so why no send Ian down?
Becauase Gorzo was worse. He was getting bad results with bad stuff. He wasn’t one of our five best starters.
Snell, on the other hand, currently IS one of our five best starters. So he stays.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
for what it's worth
Gorzo has more wins then Snell in 9 innings of work,,,obviosly relief…but some of his ER were due to inherited runners when he left the game.
by Bucco44 on Jun 24, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Wins" for a pitcher don't reflect the quality of his pitching.
Much though supporters of Josh Fogg would have you believe otherwise.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then how come
really good pitchers tend to get lots more wins than really bad pitchers?
And I take any and all Josh Fogg comments personally.
by bucdaddy on Jun 25, 2009 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because good pitchers...
….generally (but not always) pitch for good teams that score lots of runs, making wins easier to come by.
If pitchers were randomly distributed throughout the league every year, then the correlation betwee pitcher quality and wins would be even weaker than it already is.
by Vlad on Jun 25, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But aren't those good teams
also good because they have good pitchers? Who, you know, win games?
I hesitate to step in the ring with you because you’re right 99% of the time, but since I’m getting into the same debate over at WYGAVS where Pat declared “I know wins are meaningless,” I’ll take my chances.
Wins are NOT meaningless. No stat is meaningless. Are there better stats than wins to assess a pitcher’s value? Sure, but wins, or more precisely, win percentage, is not at all meaningless.
Look, let me ask you: If I offered you a deal for a pitcher and all I told you about him and all you could know about him was that his career record was 150-75, would you be interested? Would you want to know the rest of the deal or would you hang up on me? If it came down to acquiring him or pitcher B, whose career record is 75-150, and that’s all you knew, which would you choose?
Well, maybe you would pick Pitcher B. But I don’t think so.
The only thing in my eyes that makes the Bert Blyleven for HoF debate interesting is that he’s the rare good pitcher who DOESN’T have a good win percentage, for whatever reason(s). Most of the rest of the pitchers in there have good records BECAUSE they are good pitchers. And they didn’t all pitch for the ’27 Yankees every year of their careers.
Wins and losses are information, that’s all. They can only take on whatever meaning you choose to ascribe to them. If they’re at the bottom of your list of meaningful stats, well, fine. But it just seems funny to me that Clemens and Unit and Maddux and Mussina and Pettitte and Moyer and Glavine and Smoltz etc. all have roughly 100 or more wins than losses, but people will say that doesn’t mean they’re good pitchers.
by bucdaddy on Jun 25, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"If they’re at the bottom of your list of meaningful stats, well, fine."
That’s pretty much my position, yeah. A teeny, tiny bit better than nothing, but so much less useful than contextualized ERA/WHIP or component rate stats or whatever that it’s almost not worth caring about.
Look at the context in which wins came up in this thread. Bucco44 pointed to Gorz’s win total as a way of demonstrating that he’s been a better pitcher than Snell this year. A ludicrous proposition. That’s the kind of stuff pitcher win totals are used to defend, because if you have a better argument to make, then you’ll generally make it before you get around to dredging wins out of the bottom of the bucket. Thus, even though they notionally have some slight amount of value, in practice they mostly end up doing more harm than good.
by Vlad on Jun 25, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah,
you’re right about Bucco44. That’s absurd.
Sure, I’d be skeptical about using wins as a year-to-year indicator of quality, because even great pitchers wind up with a 12-18 season or two. But I think in an assessment of a career, win % has its place.
In the first Historical Abstract, James did an analysis of Lefty Grove’s career in which he concluded that Grove was (at the time) “the greatest pitcher of all time, period.” Granted this was 20-some years ago, but James asserted “The one best indicator of a pitcher’s ability is his ERA.” We’ve certainly come a long way since then in developing analytical tools, but I think you can fairly say that ERA AND its modern derivations are still excellent, if not the best, indicators.
Then James wrote, “The second-best indicator of a pitcher’s ability is his winning percentage” and pointed out that Grove led his league in win % more times than anyone else.
I don’t know if he’s changed his stance since then, but I don’t see any reason why he would, so there you are: wins/losses have real meaning in the context of a career. Not the best indicator, but a fairly good one.
by bucdaddy on Jun 25, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ludicrous....absurd....
Not necessarily “better”…just worth a shot due to experience…no comments were made about the inherited runners……..guess it is all moot since snell is demoted and vasquez is giving it a shot….
by Bucco44 on Jun 26, 2009 7:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one example
dan haren has 104 ks against just 14 walks and leads the NL in era. his era+ is 208 which, if he kept it for the full season, would be one of the top 30 seasons of all time. for any pitcher. he’s 6-5.
jason marquis, with an era of 4.53 and a career era+ of slightly below average 97 (it’s 108 this year) has 48ks against 36 walks. he’s tied for the league lead in wins at 9-5.
wins aren’t worthless but they’re not a solid indicator of pitching excellence.
by johnnycuff on Jun 25, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not saying they are
over a three-month period. But that doesn’t mean they can’t EVER be a somewhat useful tool, such as when assessing a career. You just can’t make a blanket statement, like Pat did, that “wins are meaningless.”
by bucdaddy on Jun 25, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Look, let me ask you"
Redundant, superfluous.
by azibuck on Jun 25, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
addendum
If Ian is going to be a part of the future, we need him to get straight. We dont need another Kip Wells.
by vanslyke on Jun 24, 2009 9:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that...
…we would all prefer that Snell not develop a life-threatening medical condition that interferes with his pitching, yes?
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better wait for mspirate to weigh in on this.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jun 24, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
“Come on, I mean we’re all Pirates fans right?”
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 25, 2009 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look
Kip Wells was underachieving before his life threatning medical condition. If his condition were that bad and truly life-threatning, then he should have retired. Last time I checked he was pitching for the Nats and I still heard from their broadcasters about his potential…..
I don’t argue that Snell is one of our five best starters. My arguement is that he should be sent down to get some success and maybe start trusting his stuff. We aren’t going to compete this year, so why not hold his place with a fill-in while he gets it right under less pressure circumstances? If he is going to be a long term option and truly be a part of our future – he has to perform better. All other non-performers or under performers have been demoted or benched (whether or not they are deemed part of our future). Why is Ian the exception?
by vanslyke on Jun 24, 2009 10:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
His life isn't going to be in any more danger...
…by pitching than not-pitching, given the specifics of his condition (to the best of my knowledge, anyway). And yes, there’s a non-zero chance that he could throw a huge clot at any given time and die right then and there. It’s put him on the disabled list on several occasions since he was diagnosed, and required at least two operations. If you don’t think it was a big factor in his “disappointing” development, then… there really isn’t any chance of reasonable discourse here.
Your Snell suggestion goes into the realm of psychology, and as far as that’s concerned, I think it’s better to trust the opinions of the people who interact with him in person over random internet people like us.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're wrong, full stop
The condition he developed was undiagnosed, not present, or otherwise a non-factor in his “good” years, when he, allegedly, had great stuff. But he nibbled maddeningly. An at-bat against him did not start until the count was full. His good years were a mirage. He defined tease, and that had nothing to do with his medical condition. Your mention of it is a red herring and a non-sequitur in an argument comparing Snell to him.
by azibuck on Jun 24, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.
If you didn’t like his pitching style on a subjective level, that’s fine, but it doesn’t have anything to do with whether the years in question were “good” or not. A 3.28 ERA in 2003 is a 3.28 ERA in 2003, full stop. It’s an equally “good” ERA for both a guy who nibbles and a guy who does not.
Why are you assuming that the increasingly serious problem with clots was entirely unconnected to his control problems? Even if he was a “nibbler” by inclination, numbness in his arm/hand would still affect his ability to successfully hit the corners.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're wrong about the relation of Snell to Wells
That’s the one and only point. Why Wells pitched the way he did is irrelevant. You can’t assume he would have been any better if he didn’t have a health issue.
Player A is becoming more and more like Player B in his inefficiency and ineffectiveness. WHY Player B was inefficient and ineffective is irrelevant.
by azibuck on Jun 24, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can assume, at a minimum...
…that he wouldn’t have spent all that time on the DL if he hadn’t had his medical condition. Which would have given him more in-season value, even if he didn’t actually pitch any better. And while it’s impossible to prove what he would or wouldn’t have done if he’d never started throwing clots, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that he might have done better if he’d always been able to feel the ball while he was throwing it.
I mean, maybe Ray Chapman would’ve been out of baseball after 1920 anyway if Carl Mays hadn’t beaned him, and maybe Jim Abbott would’ve put up exactly the same numbers if he’d been born with two hands. Who knows? We can only speculate.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My turn to say I have no idea what you're trying to say
Kip Wells sucked before he started throwing clots.
by azibuck on Jun 24, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
coincidentally
he was also designated for assignment today by the nats
by johnnycuff on Jun 24, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My points, phrased differently:
1) We already know for a fact that the clots impacted his performance in at least one way, in that he spent a large amount of time on the DL after surgery to have clots removed. If he hadn’t had clots, he wouldn’t have missed those games, and would’ve added more aggregate value to his teams in those seasons even if his rate stats hadn’t changed at all.
2) We don’t know when Wells started throwing clots – we only know when our crackerjack medical staff noticed that there was a problem. Given that our medical staff under Bonifay and Littlefield sucked donkey balls, it’s entirely possible that he started having problems with the condition before the initial diagnosis.
3) We can’t draw any absolutely definite conclusions about the magnitude of the impact of his medical problems, but that doesn’t mean that the default conclusion should be that they made no difference at all.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
an interesting fact about Ian Snell's 2009 performance
by my calculations, Ian Snell has 8 “quality starts” in 15 games started, the same number of QS as Maholm (8/15) and Ohlendorf (8/14), but trailing Duke (10/14) for the team lead. (Karstens was 4/10, and Morton is 0/2). for comparison purposes, last year Snell was 13/31, with an ERA and WHIP marginally worse than his current stats, and he was 22/32 in 2007 and 14/32 in 2006.
certainly, the “quality start” isn’t a be all/end all stat, but as a simple measure of whether a starter gave his team a reasonable chance to win without overly taxing the bullpen, 6+ IP and 3 ER or less seems to be valid yardstick. for Snell to rank up there with everyone else (except Karstens), but not have the wins to show for it, has to be frustrating to him.
I dunno how much difference opposing batters see between his fastball and curve, and he is certainly “nibbling” with his pitches, but he’s also clearly had a run of bad luck. and while I’m not a psychologist, I’d bet a lot of his problems are in fact mental. hopefully the Pirates have a sports psychologist on call.
by humbucker on Jun 24, 2009 11:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great breakdown on the quality starts. When the Pirates had that great run of starting pitching near the beginning of the season, wasn’t Snell the only one who didn’t have a quality start that week?
by StickRat on Jun 24, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks, but I'm not sure...
Snell had three QS in 5 games started in April (he went 1-2 in those three games). his only two “bad” starts that month were his first on April 7 (L) and the one on April 24 (ND). it seems like sometimes “bad luck” is hard to shake… although in Ian’s defense I’ll admit to becoming crabby when I’m driving and hit 3+ red lights in a row.
and for the record, Snell had two QS in May (0-1 in those two games), and has three so far in June (1-1).
by humbucker on Jun 24, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Upon further review, he did have one of the big wins during that streak on April 18; going seven innings in a combined shutout of Atlanta. His next two starts were also very good, including the April 24 no-decision you mentioned. He followed that with seven innings against Milwaukee on April 29 in which Pittsburgh lost 1-0 to a two-hit game by Yovani Gallardo.
by StickRat on Jun 24, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He doesn’t have an even decent third pitch. That is a huge problem unless it is addressed, and I’d expect him to continue to get torched until that happens.
by Gorkys n' Beans on Jun 24, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Two things
1. Kip Wells had the potential when he was drafted 16th overall in 1998. He was never on the DL for Pittsburgh except for his last year with the club ‘06 when we traded him to the Rangers for Jesse Chavez.. His record over his tenure with the Pirates ’02-’05 (I did not count ’06 because of his limited tenure with the PBC) was 35-53 with an ERA over 4. His numbers hardly define “upside”. You cannot quantify his nibbling at the corners when there was no evidence of his “life threatning injury”. If you want to quantify all of ’05 (for which we have no evidence statistically of when the injury occurred) I will give you that, but at that point he was going to be what he was going to be based on his 6 years of major league track record (47-51/4.38ERA). All of this is making the point that he never reached upside and this is exactly the same path/reasoning the PBC is putting forth for Snell (33-46/4.75ERA).
2. My suggestion that we demote Snell has nothing to do with psychology and I have no idea how that was inferred from my post. Demoting Snell sends a message that he is accountable to produce. 2-8 with a 5.36ERA with an almost 1/1 BB/SO ratio is not production. The whole point of demotion is to let Snell know that we want him to have success (which he is not seeing at the MLB level) and get back to basics. It is about approach not psychology. If we want him to be part of our future and realize his upside, then we need the best Ian Snell there is and in my opinion we have a better chance of getting that from a demotion to AAA where he can get back to basics.
by vanslyke on Jun 24, 2009 2:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll help Vlad out
He reported recurring numbness in 2004.
But I’m with you vanslyke.
In 2002, Kip Wells threw 90 or more pitches in lasting only 5 innings. Another time, he threw 92 in 5.1. In 2003 Lloyd decided to stretch him out a little. He threw 108 or more pitches but lasted 6 innings or less 9 times. Another time he threw 106 in 5.2.
Snell is already on the brink of repeating Wells’ feats of inefficiency this season, which is less than half over. He was the same in 2008. The difference is Snell is worse because he’s hittable too. I’ll give Wells that.
by azibuck on Jun 24, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And of course...
…the Pirates’ medical staff of the time were the sorriest bunch of idiots to disgrace sports medicine since Arthur Pappas. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he started to develop signs earlier on that were missed by the trainers, just like J.R. House’s torn cuff/labrum and Pat Meares’s hand that wouldn’t close and Clayton Hamilton’s broken rib and so forth.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It really doesn't matter
He was inefficient, and in my opinion, not nearly as good as his ERA.
I really don’t know how to say this any other way than I have. His health, at any time, is not germane to the point.
by azibuck on Jun 24, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If a guy puts up a given ERA...
…then he was, by definition, “as good as his ERA”. The ERA is just the record of what he did.
If you mean that the ERA didn’t necessarily suggest future ERAs in that same range, then sure. His component stats from 2001-2004 lead to a FIP in the low 4s, ranging between 4.17 and 4.57. That’s higher than his straight ERAs of the time, but still a very useful player – and then things went all kerflooey in 2004, the year when he first started talking about the (clot-induced) numbness.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's all terrific information, Pedauntless One
But still has nothing to do with Snell and Wells. You’re talking about clots and medical staffs and shit from 2005 and I’m saying he was an inefficient pitcher when he was with the White Sox, and didn’t get much better.
Excuse me, but, FUCK the clots already.
Snell is starting to resemble Wells STYLISTICALLY, as well as statistically. That he developed or even always had a medical condition that affected his style is neither here, nor there, in THIS discussion.
Snell is like Wells, without the clots. Is that easier to understand?
by azibuck on Jun 24, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Ian just needs his ass kicked. And yes, F Wells and his clots.
HAHA!
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 25, 2009 1:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, that doesn't make sense, either.
Stylistically, they aren’t all that similar. Different looks, different deliveries, different stuff. Wells’s biggest issue, IMO, was throwing his curve for strikes, and Snell relies more heavily on his slider when he needs a breaking ball.
If you’re just saying that it’s frustrating when Snell needs 40 pitches to get through an inning and then is out of the game after the fifth, well, yeah, sure. But that doesn’t make him any more similar to Wells than it does to a thousand other guys who pitched in the majors over the last couple of years.
by Vlad on Jun 25, 2009 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pedantic to peduantless to anal
I’m sorry Vlad, you’re being anal or stubborn, or the phrase, “ah, I see what you mean” is not in your vocabulary.
I don’t know scoutspeak, a lot of people don’t. That shouldn’t bar you from understanding a rather simple point. Whatever the word for “consistently throws a lot of pitches per inning” is, that’s how they’re similar. Racking up full counts, failing to put hitters away and end innings. If the word isn’t “style” it’s a form of it. I tried inefficient (couple times), but you didn’t seem to get that so I tried another term. I’ll stop guessing.
Being frustrated when Snell needs 40 pitches to get through an inning and then is out of the game after the fifth makes him exactly like Wells. A thousand other guys too, but Wells was a Pirate, so the comparison is not only accurate, but appropriate and makes the argument here, at a Pirates blog, that much easier to understand.
by azibuck on Jun 25, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's all you're trying to say...
…then I guess I’m confused why you bothered to bring it up at all. It’s not like being frustrated when your team’s pitcher doesn’t pitch well is a controversial position, y’know?
I thought you were trying to make some kind of larger comparison or advocating some strategy that I wasn’t getting. If you’re just saying that you wish Snell didn’t use so many pitches to get out of innings, then great. I’m sure we all agree.
If that’s still not it, then I just have to shrug, because I have no idea where you’re trying to go, here.
by Vlad on Jun 25, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Psychology:
You said that Snell “should be sent down to get some success and maybe start trusting his stuff”. Building confidence through dominance over lesser opponents is a psychological boost, ergo your approach relies on a particular psychological response by Snell, which may or may not be likely to occur.
He could just as easily become frustrated by the demotion and start sulking, or become anxious to prove himself and start pressing in order to get called back up, or any one of a hundred other things. We don’t know, and we can’t know.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You read into my comment about success
Let me further qualify “trusting his stuff”. Success is spotting your fastball, throwing your slider in all counts and maybe working on a third pitch (changeup) you can mix in for a strike. It has nothing to do with dominating a hitter. It has to do with basic blocking and tackling which in baseball terms is throwing strikes. The place to work on the above approach is AAA where a mistake does not end up in the Allegheny.
If you are struggling chipping the ball, do you keep going out and playing competitive rounds or do you practice on the side (which in my analogy he is doing wiht Kerrigan)? At some point you need to go further than just practice, you need to simulate competition to see how you do in real life situatiions. My point is that he has to refine his stuff and that is best done at the AAA level.
We can all agree that 2-8 5.36ERA is not getting it done. If you preach accountability, then apply it to everyone.
by vanslyke on Jun 24, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know - I don't play golf, or know much about the game.
The analogy is kind of lost on me, sorry.
Working on a third pitch is a technique, but mental approach (like being aggressive when you tackle/pursue in football) is psychology. If you see a flaw with Snell’s mechanics on video, a head whack or a wrist hook or an overstride or whatever, I can get on board with sending him to the minors to work on it. But short of cutting a hole in his head and sticking wires into it, there’s no way for us as fans on the outside to really assess what his mental approach is, or how it can be fixed.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too bad you don't get the golf analogy
It was spot on
.
by azibuck on Jun 25, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll be honest
It’s not like Snell is inept. He is madeningly frustrating (ala Kip Wells). Since he hasnt been demoted (ala Tom Gorzo), upper management may think he can work it out with at the Major League level. Joe Kerrigan is the best, but Snell still cant seem to find his groove. I am frustrated with managements approach to Snell. I am not in the front office or a scout – just some random internet poster – but when do you make a player accountable? We can tout quality start or run support, but at the end of the day he is 2-8 with a 5.36 ERA AND it’s not like he is rookie.
by vanslyke on Jun 24, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There is a lot fo pressure on him to perform. He is the highest salaried starter on staff for the Pirates. Albeit just $3-mil, it still has got to come with expectations from within the organization to be a staff leader, if not the ace. This is why organizations spend eight figures a year on starters like Gil Meche and Derek Lowe. The may not be stereotypical aces, but they can front a rotation so younger pitchers can develop without feeling like they have to carry a team. I haven’t seen much Pirates ball this season, but I would blame the organization for exposing Snell to a more intense role than he is ready for. As has been sighted time and again throughout his career, he has top-of-the-rotation potential … the key word being “potential”. It’s the organization’s responsibility to nurture that potential, and so far, I don’t see as the Pirates have properly invested in it.
by StickRat on Jun 24, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They clearly appointed Maholm the staff ace, not Snell.
Remember when they said that Maholm, not Snell, was the only pitcher guaranteed a rotation spot at the end of last season? Snell is probably his own biggest critic in his head but on the outside blames everyone else. I think the only one to blame here is Ian. Not saying he is a bad guy or they should cut him or even trade him but IMO, Ian has so screwed himself up in his head that he can’t pitch.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 25, 2009 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s why I said: “it still has got to come with expectations from within the organization to be a staff leader, if not the ace.” Theorize about what’s going on in Snell’s head all you want, the fact of the matter is he is the highest salaried starter on the Pirates staff. That that salary is $3-mil, some if not the majority of the blame needs to fall on the front office. You simply can’t expect results when the entire rotation’s salary equals the signing bonus alotted to last year’s first-round draft pick.
by StickRat on Jun 25, 2009 2:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, please do blame the front office...
The one ran by Littlefield. Starting pitching, especially starters better than the ones we have, are some of the most expensive players out there. They are not going to bid on free agent pitching and have actually improved the starting pitching options greatly from last year. Brad Lincoln is working his way up and Charlie Morton is working his way into the rotation. So you specifically want to blame the FO for Snell? The previous regime, if I’m not mistaken, were the ones who signed Ian to his current contract. I think the FO just wants to trade him, thats why they’re just letting him make his starts, hoping he will find a grove and increase his trade value. He will look less attractive sent to AAA or moved to the pen. Either way, if you’re looking for them to sign a Meche or Lowe then keep dreaming.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 25, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One small caveat:
They did bid on free agent pitching last offseason, but were turned down. Pedro wanted more than they were willing to offer, Byrd decided not to pitch for anybody, and Cabrera took less money to go to Washington instead.
You’re correct that none of it was particularly high-end pitching, though.
by Vlad on Jun 25, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...
Ian’s extension was signed on March 16, 2008…which would make it THIS front office’s headache.
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/pittsburgh-pirates_08.html
by Thunder on Jun 26, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good call Thunder
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 26, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The lack of a third pitch does hurt.....
I really think Matt Capps and Ian Snell are very similar in terms of their capabilites. I wouldn’t want Capps going through the order two or three times. Snell may have more natural ability, but Capps is willing to challenge hitters at all times and has fantastic command, two things Snell is apparently lacking.
Capps’ willingness to throw his slider more often these days is going to lead to great results in my opinion. If he will throw it when he’s behind in the count or when he needs to get a strikeout I think he can become a top level closer.
The reason other teams want Snell as a potential setup man is that is probably what he should be. Not on our team. We need to do everything possible to see if he can be a productive starter. But many contenders with starters in place probably would love to have him as a setup man. And I bet that is what he ends up being…..and a good one.
by dtoddwin on Jun 24, 2009 5:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think they want him as a setup man...
…because they think he can fill that role without making any more progress in any other area. Even in a conservative forward projection, he’s got that value locked in.
If he makes progress going forward, then it’s a bonus, and they got a bargain.
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree
The only question is will the Bucs and a potential suitor come to terms on value if a trade is proposed because of the different outlook.
by dtoddwin on Jun 24, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What difference is there between...
Gorzo and Snell?? Other than Snell had a longer term contract. Gorzo pitched like dog meat…and got sent down. Snell pitches like dog meat and hangs around. Both had or have options.
Again…we see where Pirates management has preached accountability…yet continues to handle situations in an inconsistent way. Moss slumps…benched…Morgan slumps…sits about once every 2 weeks. Are there that many fragile egos on the Pirates roster that can’t deal with trying to field the best lineup to give the team a chance to win?? Play the bench guys, even if it costs you a chance to win the game?? Don’t start your best 5 starting pitchers??
Play favorites?? By all means…keep Snell in the rotation…continue to play a guy that doesn’t hit his weight against lefties. Yep, JR, play favorites instead of who gives you the best chance to win. Then look at the 95-100 losses at the end of the season and say…we should have had a better record but we didn’t get the job done. That’s what got the last manager fired.
by Thunder on Jun 24, 2009 7:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The difference...
…is that Gorzo pitched worse than Snell in 2008, and then continued pitching worse than Snell in spring training this year, while showing a decline in the quality of his stuff.
They weren’t identical players, so they were treated differently. Shock!
by Vlad on Jun 24, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Accountability
Isn’t necessarily hitting .300 with 15 hrs. Accountability is showing up at the park on time everyday prepared to play, running out every ground ball (hello Craig Monroe), coming to spring training in shape (hello Gorzo). An individual is certainly accountable for his performance, but you don’t judge a 24 year old on 200 at bats. You try to teach, develop and work with these young guys so that in a year or two you have a team that can contend.
The new management team put that term out there with the best intentions, but the fan base has jumped on it to mean something different than it does.
by dtoddwin on Jun 24, 2009 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
with your views on accountability. To my understanding…Gorzo came into THIS season in shape…it was last year he screwed up there.
I’m not suggesting that the Pirates judge Moss on 200 at bats…quite the opposite. In fact…it appears that the Pirates have judged that he doesn’t perform very well against lefties…when the numbers don’t show that. In fact…his career numbers against lefties are very close to those against righties. Yet…Nyjer Morgan has shown over a season’s worth of plate appearances that he doesn’t hit his weight against lefties. It’s not Moss that should be sitting against quite a few lefties…it’s Morgan. Is it really that difficult to see??
by Thunder on Jun 24, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nyjer’s greatest value is his defense. His offense doesn’t have to be great.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 25, 2009 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His offense ISN'T that great...
And I know you’re not a big MyjMo man, Gorilla, nor are you particularly a basher. I just thought I’d look ’em up:
GP AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO SB CS AVG
MOSS 59 182 27 49 15 2 1 71 19 11 35 0 0 .269
NyjMo 66 258 38 69 6 5 1 88 25 29 48 18 7 .267
Moss’ numbers are quite comparable to Nyjer (and Moss hits over 100 points HIGHER against lefties), with 76 less AB. Except for SB, and Nyjer’s 72% SB rate ain’t exactly superb…
The numbers in May & June show Moss ahead of Tony Plush just about everywhere.
Nyjer has made some tremendous plays on defense, to be sure, but Moss is no DY, Monroe or Pearce in RF, either.
It’s just frustrating.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jun 25, 2009 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,
I do realize this is the wrong thread for this, but that’s kinda where it headed.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jun 25, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not suggesting Moss should sit either buddy. I’ve always been on the same side as you in wanting them to play Moss. Young may be a pretty decent hitter but is completely lost in the field. Maybe eventually Moss will start playing regularly again now that he has started to heat up, after being benched to “work on things” with Donnie Long. For the sake of our pitchers, we need Moss and Nyjer out there.
"So you think 25 percent of the country is retarded?! Yea. Atleast 25 percent. Well lets so a sample. There are 4 of us an you're retarded. Thats 25 percent." Southpark; Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
by gorillakilla34 on Jun 25, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I know.
I’m simply frustrated by the fact that Moss is tied for 2nd in MLB with 6 OF assist, and yet he sits.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jun 25, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
jason bay lead the league in assists a few years ago and he was a terrible fielder.
that aside, i agree moss is a better fielder than young.
by johnnycuff on Jun 25, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assists are misleading, it's like hockey
A 7-6-2 potout at the plate nets the LF an assist. So as long as Bay flipped the ball to Wilson in a timely manner…
by azibuck on Jun 25, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to the Trib
Snell is running out of time:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_630963.html
Of course Snell blames 3 pitching coaches in 4 years on his struggles. When is this guy ever going to take responsiblity? Even the article mentions that his bullpen sessions are not translating over to the field. I didnt know Kerrigan stood behind him on the mound screwing with his mechanics pitch to pitch or telling him to fall apart when there is an error behind him. Snell needs to quit bitchin’ to the media.
by vanslyke on Jun 25, 2009 10:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why do you care so much...
…about Snell “taking responsibility”? It’s not going to make him pitch any better if he comes out and says, “Yeah, I sucked tonight.”
by Vlad on Jun 25, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It Might
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jun 26, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You would rather
have athletes that throw everyone under the bus? If you dont perform at your job for which you are paid a salary and blamed your boss, co-workers and previous administration for your lack of productivity – how would you be viewed? My point is that I expect people to take personal responsibility for their productioin – whether on the playing field or the boardroom. I have no tolerance for people who dont produce but blame their lack of success on other people. Yes – I would rather have Ian say, “I sucked tonight and I am going to try to get better”. If I lose a deal, that is how I react – not blame my competition, upper management, politics and karma – even if they all played a role.
by vanslyke on Jun 25, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If I'm picking one or the other...
…and absolutely everything else is equal, I’d rather have the standup guy, but I don’t think it really matters much as far as his actual production is concerned.
If he were twice as touchy, but had an ERA in the 2s instead of the 5s, nobody would give a rat’s ass about it.
by Vlad on Jun 25, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much
how I feel about the people who want JR to go all apeshit every time a call doesn’t go our way.
by bucdaddy on Jun 25, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't anyone find it odd
that IPF put this up & has no further comment?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jun 25, 2009 9:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
cocktails
I think you miss IPF. Why don’t you drop him a line? His address is on his profile page.
by patthatt on Jun 26, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
I’ve never really had as many issues with IPF as most of y’all have had. For the most part.
There are others, though…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jun 26, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Trouble With Ian Snell
is that he is owed a guaranteed couple more milliion $ this year, and reportedly $4.25 million for next.
The good news is that the underachieving, royal pain in the arse is Indy’s problem for the time being.
Since Snell somehow convinced himself through his convoluted thinking that he belonged on the Puerto Rico team for the WBC, perhaps he should just prepare himself for a winter stint playing ball down there.
If he returns to Pittsburgh, it will be because of a bunch of injuries, or a September recall to act as filler while we finish out the string.
I’d be very surprised to see him in a Pirate uniform to start 2010.
by patthatt on Jun 26, 2009 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think they’ll cut him just to cut him but then again they did it to matt morris.
not sure what to think, other than ian will decide it with the way he pitches at indy.
by johnnycuff on Jun 26, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Problem Withi Ian Snell
… is that he just cost us any possible trade value he might have had by demanding to go to the minor leagues. His value to the team just went from little to none whatsoever.
by Androgen Jar Jimmy on Jun 26, 2009 2:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs















