Justin Sullivan - Getty Images
The title suggests a long post. The reality is a short post. I'm sorry, or, you're welcome.
I woke up this morning in a Tim Lincecum hangover, but it didn't feel like a normal hangover. It was quite the opposite. A normal hangover gives me a headache. It makes me feel sluggish. It makes me not want to do anything. A Lincecum hangover gives me a constant rush. It makes me feel energetic. It makes me want to do everything. I might even bake a potato in the oven. Who cares how long it takes? I got to watch Tim Lincecum. I feel like reaching for the stars.
As mentioned yesterday, Lincecum generated an unheard-of 31 swinging strikes against the Braves, and ESPN has confirmed my suspicions that that's the highest mark of the season, besting the second-place Brandon Morrow by five (what a draft). That's an immediately impressive statistic. You can't look at that number and not raise your eyebrows. But I feel like, if you didn't watch Lincecum go to work, you might not understand just how unhittable he truly was. Which is why I'm here now.
When you think of Felix Hernandez, you think of dominance. Certainly, over the past two seasons, he's turned in a new dominant start nearly every five days. However, I think the most dominant start he's ever had was his Opening Day effort against the A's in 2007, when he spun eight shutout innings while striking out 12. Felix didn't ascend to his throne that season, but early on, he showed glimpses of what was to come.
In that start, Felix threw 111 pitches, and the A's swung at 49 of them. 17 of their swings missed, for a contact rate of 65%.
A contact rate of 65% is very, very good for a pitcher, and I think all of us who watched that game still have vivid memories of seeing the A's helplessly flail away. Felix even struck out Jason Kendall three times, which is saying something, given that Kendall has been one of the most difficult hitters to strike out in modern baseball history. Felix didn't care. Felix did the job. That afternoon, Felix was as good as Felix has ever been in his life.
65%.
Tim Lincecum's contact rate last night was 44%.
I know the Braves aren't exactly starting a full-strength lineup, but they had Jason Heyward in there. They had Brian McCann in there. Everybody else, aside from the pitcher, has been at least okay. That lineup wasn't out-and-out bad. And Tim Lincecum made them look like middle school hitters in a high school practice.
Lincecum's start was so extraordinarily good in an obvious yet different sort of way that it might be doomed for a lifetime of underappreciation. People will remember Roy Halladay's no-hitter for decades. Roy Halladay didn't allow a hit. That's amazing. But a lot of pitchers have thrown no-hitters. I'm guessing far fewer pitchers have ever generated at least 30 swinging strikes.
Just incredible.
5 recs | 35 comments
I want someone to find the # of pitchers with 30 swinging strikes
GiantPain - October 8, 2010
Tortured minds...
hairball - October 8, 2010
Not going to happen I don't think
the pitch by pitch data doesn’t go very far back
Bearskin Rugburn - October 8, 2010
I suppose
But we should be able to find a “since 19XX…” stat, or something, right?
GiantPain - October 8, 2010
There’s gotta be a record of this stat. I must know!
hairball - October 8, 2010
It was great that his approach was so consistent, so...I don't know, obvious.
His FB was up in the zone consistently, which would normally be a red flag – elevated 89-91 FB = dingers.
But his change/split thing was so good, that batters were consistently behind and under the FB. They flailed away at the change (I never thought I’d say Heyward reminded me of Wlad Balentien, but what else came to mind in the 9th), but he got plenty of swinging strikes in and just out of the zone on his FB.
He essentially used two pitches (I remember a curve once, for show, in the middle innings), and placed them roughly in the same part of the zone each time, and generated 31 swinging strikes.
It really made me think of Josh Kalk’s THT article from several years ago on pitch sequencing. There, the Kalk noted that a high FB looks much more like a curve just after release if it’s thrown up in the zone. I’d love to see a pitch fx visualization of Lincecum’s change, because it was patently obvious no one could distinguish the two despite seeing them 10/12/15 times. Stunning.
marc w - October 8, 2010
The Kalk THT article is
here, by the way.
marc w - October 8, 2010
I keep saying it because it keeps becoming more true (truer?)
This season is incredible! Historic. 2010 baseball!
Kenneth Arthur - October 8, 2010
As you noted, Halladay's no-no was impressive in that he allowed one LD (to a relief pitcher).
Lincecum’s start generated way more swinging strikes, which is typically a much more reliable stat – we think of it as ‘truer.’ But nobody watching Halladay thought he got lucky (OK, except the Reds’ SS). He took a stat that has very low repeatability and repeated the fuck out of it, again and again. It certainly didn’t LOOK like luck.
Lincecum allowed several hard-hit balls; even the Infante ground-out in the 9th was hit quite hard. But the swinging strikes obviously more than made up for that. It essentially comes down to an aesthetic judgment – you either thought Lincecum’s game was more impressive because he didn’t allow the Braves to get the bat on the ball, or you thought the Braves helped him out by chasing a ton of bad balls, and Halladay’s command made his game look much more effortless (against a better line-up).
marc w - October 8, 2010
I just saw the highlights,
but my impression was that the Braves were swinging at a lot of pitches outside the zone. Is that the case? Was it that they were just too impatient, or was just that Lincecum was just too filithy? Could a more patient lineup have done better?
quacker27 - October 8, 2010
Yeah, Lincecum had them chasing all game long
Jeff Sullivan - October 8, 2010
Yes, and yes.
He got them chasing because they couldn’t distinguish the split from the FB. They were essentially guessing on every pitch.
Would a more patient line-up lay off? I guess I think they would have, but I think the effect would be marginal. I guess a more patient line-up may have upped his pitch count to the point where he wouldn’t have pitched the 9th, but who knows.
marc w - October 8, 2010
It's not like Atlanta was swinging wildly, though - just that when they did swing, they had no chance to hit the ball
seattlebruin - October 8, 2010
The at bat that really personified this for me was the McCann at bat later in the game where he held up on 3 straight curves in the dirt, but then swung at a 4th in the dirt for strike 3.
Goose - October 8, 2010
For me, it had to be Heyward in the 9th
who laid off a number of close-ish pitches, got the count to 3-2, then swung early at a change/split that travelled about 51 feet.
marc w - October 8, 2010
He has been amazing his whole career but I still don't understand how he has been so good lately
I do not understand for the life of me how he got so many strikes. I watched Rick Ankiel miss 92 mph fastballs at the end of the game and you know Ankiel doesn’t look for anything else than a fastball. What makes his fastball so hard to hit? It just made the Braves look very bad to me. It just surprises me that Lincecum is one of the best pitchers in baseball because when I look at his arsenal right now I feel like he is making more out of it than I’d expect.
Edgar for Pres - October 8, 2010
It's gotta be something deceptive that isn't explicitly apparrent, probably not even to hitters. It's sort of like "how does Doug Fister have one of the top-25 fastballs in baseball by pitch values?"
Decatur - October 8, 2010
" I feel like he is making more out of it than I’d expect."
Story of Timmy’s life
tsunamijesus - October 8, 2010
Closest game I could find
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIN/MIN200708190.shtml
Matthew - October 8, 2010
So I just spent about 10 minutes looking through the seasonal game logs of Pedro, Clemens, and Randy
And I found these games where they bettered 31 swinging strikes:
Randy Johnson:
33: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MON/MON200207310.shtml
33: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET199706080.shtml
34: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN199904250.shtml
35: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SEA/SEA199707180.shtml
36: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ARI/ARI200105080.shtml
Roger Clemens:
32: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET199609180.shtml
Pedro Martinez:
37: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS200005060.shtml
Decatur - October 8, 2010
And Lincecum still had the lowest contact rate of all of them
crazy
Jeff Sullivan - October 8, 2010
And for the record, B-R lists Lincecum at 28 swinging strikes, not 31
ESPN and PITCHfx say 31, on account of foul tips.
Jeff Sullivan - October 8, 2010
Does that count balls that were fouled straight back, or just tipped to the catcher's glove?
tootthekazoo - October 8, 2010
I'm sure it's just
Into the catcher’s glove.
GiantPain - October 8, 2010
Presumably just into the catcher's glove
Jeff Sullivan - October 8, 2010
That would make the most sense
Baseball is silly like that though, that the difference between a tip into the catcher’s glove and a barely re-directed foul straight back into even just the catcher’s mask is a matter of a millimeter or so of bat position
tootthekazoo - October 8, 2010
Ten in just the first inning for the first Johnson game
three StrSw in three pitches to Guerrero.
Bearskin Rugburn - October 8, 2010
I love the forgotten gems.
In that Pedro game, Steve Trachsel
-Steve Trachsel!- missed 19 bats and K’d 11. Of the 54 outs in that game, 28 were by strikeout. The first non-strikeout came in the bottom of the 2nd.Shane Reynolds almost matched Kerry Wood in Wood’s 20K game too.
Matthew - October 8, 2010
Only watchable game of Trachsel's career!
Jeff Sullivan - October 8, 2010
I bet the best place to keep looking would be the K/9 leaderboards
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/strikeouts_per_nine_season.shtml
Also, I seriously doubt that anyone before the 1980s came very close to what these guys are doing, because strikeouts have risen pretty steadily and consistently over the past 100 years. Herb Score was the first starter to ever strike out a batter per inning over a full season, as Joe Posnanski’s column points out: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/09/27/missing-marmol/
Decatur - October 8, 2010
Nine in a 1-2-3 inning
that’s gotta be somewhere in the holy books of strikeout records, right? Three K’s via nine swings and misses?
seattlebruin - October 8, 2010
Listening to the radio at lunch today they were debating Lincecum v Halladay, who had the better start.
1 guy was getting laughed at by the other guys because he said Lincecum. The guy mentioned a stat that no playoff start had ever had 2 or less hits or 14 or more K’s. The reasoning for the other guys that Halladay clearly had the better start?
Because “14 k’s and 2 hits or less doesn’t have a name” e.g. “No-Hitter”
Kenneth Arthur - October 8, 2010
GOT 'EM
Joe Metro - October 8, 2010
Obviously named things are much more important though
Just ask Pluto.
HititHere - October 8, 2010
This thread isn't about the M's, and yet it's incredible
Reading all of the excitement generated by top flight relevant baseball games is a lot of fun.
Kermit. - October 8, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.