I'm surprised to hear a player say "he was alright," but I think he's right that Dice-K wasn't especially dominating. He pitched well and got a lot of grounders, but many of the BIP were hit at people. A good game, not a great one.

Whereas, in the Detroit Free Press, it's painted another way:

It was the Tigers' first look at Matsuzaka, and the right-hander from Japan showed why Boston invested $103 million in him.

"I was very impressed," Leyland said.

Pass.

“This is the big leagues,” Casey said. “There are a lot of good pitchers in the big leagues, and he’s one of them.”

When facing Sean Casey (230/290/292), everyone seems to look like a good pitcher this year.

And this, from the Boston Globe:

"He's the real deal," Leyland said afterward. "He's good."

...And
this:

"To me, he was just another major league pitcher, and now I know he's a good one," Leyland said. "He has a good feel, and he and Varitek made some very good adjustments.

"Look, I knew with all that hype and with all the money they spent he had to be pretty good. I know it was a headline story. From what I saw tonight, he's good. He threw nine innings, and he knew what he was doing."

It seems they really changed his gameplan for the game. Instead of pitching up in the zone all day, as he's been working for much of the year, Varitek was setting up the lower half of the strike zone.

Fewer strikeouts that way, but more groundballs to balance it out.

I said this after watching him pitch his debut game. He does not have great stuff. His strength is in being willing and able to throw almost any pitch in any count. Players are not smart enough to appreciate that. Seriously. There is an inordinate emphasis on "stuff" in baseball.

How much of it is willingness and how much ability? I'd guess that most pitchers would be willing to throw any of their pitches in any count, if only they could do so effectively.

I agree, though, that Dice-K's stuff doesn't blow one away. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that he has still not been able to throw his change with any kind of control. It is constantly about a mile out of the strike zone. As this is a feel pitch, I wouldn't be surprised if it has to do with him adjusting to a 5-man rotation schedule.

Not to mention the bigger, heavier ball.

Sure, pitchers would love to be able to throw anything at any count. When behind youy have to strike a balance between predictablility and being able to throw a strike. As well, with weaker hitters, you will throw more strikes with presumably more predictability. Same with runners, score, inning, etc. When I say "willingness" I mean an ability to NOT be so predictable (e.g., in Little League, when you are 0-2, you will likely get a curve ball if the pitcher can throw one) as well as an aiblity to know what kind of balance to have (between predictability and throwing a strike) depending on the batter, count, score, runners, inning, etc. Some pitchers are way "smarter" than others even with the same stuff.

He does not have great stuff. His strength is in being willing and able to throw almost any pitch in any count. Players are not smart enough to appreciate that. Seriously. There is an inordinate emphasis on "stuff" in baseball.

that reminds me of the bill james quote about pedro in the new historical abstract:

"How can he be so much better than the other pitchers? His fastball is good, but there are 20 or 50 people in the league who can throw just as hard. His curve isn't better than anyone else's, his control isn't. But he is vastly better in toto because he has some additional factors--his ability to change his arm angle, his ability to change speeds on all his pitches without losing control--which interact to make geometric combinations."

can I ask a completely random question about the 1918 world series?

No.

His strength is in being willing and able to throw almost any pitch in any count.

And the batters' inability to tell what's coming. That is partly a function of having so many pitches he can command. But it's also a function of his delivery.

13. Darren Posted: May 15, 2007 at 06:44 PM (#2365069)
No.

fine, i wont ask anything, but I will state this:

I find it curious that in the 1918 series, Babe Ruth never started in the outfield or pinch-hit, despite the fact that he had played 60 games of outfield during the season and he was one of the league's best hitters. I wish someone would explain.

that reminds me of the bill james quote about pedro in the new historical abstract

how sweet would that be?! very unlikely, I realize. I sure do miss Pedro, though (in a nostalgic sense, to be sure. He's the greatest ballplayer I'm likely ever to see).

see = see in person. Not interested in sparking a faux-baseball steroids thread.

And the batters' inability to tell what's coming.

Thats the reason Ted Williams hated facing Ed Lopat. He never knew what angle or what speed or what pitch was comming. I forget that quote, but I believe it was something like that ####### Lopat has #### backwards.

I find it curious that in the 1918 series, Babe Ruth never started in the outfield or pinch-hit, despite the fact that he had played 60 games of outfield during the season and he was one of the league's best hitters. I wish someone would explain.

The Cubs used lefties Hippo Vaughn and Lefty Tyler almost exclusively in that Series, in large part to keep Ruth on the bench. Vaughn and Tyler threw 50 of the Cubs' 52 innings.

in game 4 he was moved to left field when they brought in a reliever.

Incidentally, I believe 1918 was the first time Ruth started a game as a non-pitcher.

The Cubs used lefties Hippo Vaughn and Lefty Tyler almost exclusively in that Series, in large part to keep Ruth on the bench.

Finally something to complain about on BB-Ref. They don't have 1918 player splits up!

thanks boots

covelli, correct. that was part of a quasi-double switch, as Ruth would have been up 2nd in the next inning if Chicago had tied the game.

in the 9th inning of game 2, with Boston losing 3-1 and the tying runs on base, the Sox pinch-hit for their 3b with A PITCHER, BUT NOT BABE RUTH! and a pitcher who had only 6 at-bats that year! is this the most extreme case of fearing the lefty/lefty matchup of all-time? ruth was their best hitter that year!

in game 5, they used 2 non-ruth pinch hitters, but at least they were position players

Were they really doing lefty/lefty stuff in 1918? Do we have a source on that?

Were they really doing lefty/lefty stuff in 1918? Do we have a source on that?

i'm not sure. why else wouldnt Ruth play at least a little in games he didnt pitch?