Ted Lilly and the inside changeup

[Transmogrified Tiger]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-inside-changeup-courage-or-folly/

 

Ted Lilly had a CQ of 1.57, which is about twice as high as any other pitcher. I don't know how many of these inside change-ups are intentional, but it's pretty clear that Ted Lilly is doing something that nobody else in major league baseball is doing.

[Jon]

The amount of success he had with his changeup on the inner portion of the plate or off the inside corner last year is pretty surprising.

 

That was a good way to kill 5 minutes at work.

[brinoch]

Yes, it was. Very interesting. Thanks, TT.

[Lefty]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

[CubinNY]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

[Soul]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

A matter of phyiscs yes, but none of that comes into play if the hitter is suprised and leaves the bat on his shoulder. Look at all the called strikes Lilly was getting on that pitch.

[David]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

 

 

wat

[CubinNY]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

A matter of phyiscs yes, but none of that comes into play if the hitter is suprised and leaves the bat on his shoulder. Look at all the called strikes Lilly was getting on that pitch.

This should go without saying, but if the hitter leaves his bat on his shoulder it doesn't matter where the ball is thrown so long as it's called a strike.

[David]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

A matter of phyiscs yes, but none of that comes into play if the hitter is suprised and leaves the bat on his shoulder. Look at all the called strikes Lilly was getting on that pitch.

This should go without saying, but if the hitter leaves his bat on his shoulder it doesn't matter where the ball is thrown so long as it's called a strike.

 

 

On top of it, if a hitter is so likely to be caught off guard by such a pitch and swing too early, even if he hits it hard, isn't he very likely to crush that ball foul?

[Fred Hornkohl]

Fascinating article. Thanx, TT !!

[CubinNY]

Fascinating article. Thanx, TT !!

What's most interesting to me is that compared to Moyer and Buehrle Lilly throws the ball up in the zone. That also goes against CW.

 

The author didn't really discuss this much but I think an important factor is that Lilly only throws the pitch @11% of the time. He seems to pick good spots to use it resulting in good outcomes most of the time.

[Soul]

I'd be interested to know how often Ted's using that pitch in '08 compared with these '07 numbers.

[TheDude]

On top of it, if a hitter is so likely to be caught off guard by such a pitch and swing too early, even if he hits it hard, isn't he very likely to crush that ball foul?

 

Yes. Further, if you note that the focus of the inside change-up cluster is on the zone line, it's very unlikely even with contact that the hitter gets the sweet-spot. At the very least you'll get some awkward swings.

[Bull]

I'd be interested to know how often Ted's using that pitch in '08 compared with these '07 numbers.

 

And if the trend has caught up to him such that hitters aren't "leaving the bat on their shoulders"

[sneakypower]

Orel Hershiser has also talked about how he told his pitchers in TX to throw the changeup inside and let the hitter hit it foul 400 feet, then throw the next one 6 inches further inside and you've quickly got an 0-2 count.

[brinoch]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft...

[CubinNY]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft...

Yes, if he swings very early. But if he doesn't, the chances of "rubbing up a new one" are increased by pitching the change-up inside. The point is that a pitchers wants to decrease the chances that the hitter gets the sweet spot of the bat on the ball. Speeding up the bat is one way to do that. But if you don't speed it up enough, inside pitches go far.

[brinoch]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft...

Yes, if he swings very early. But if he doesn't, the chances of "rubbing up a new one" are increased by pitching the change-up inside. The point is that a pitchers wants to decrease the chances that the hitter gets the sweet spot of the bat on the ball. Speeding up the bat is one way to do that. But if you don't speed it up enough, inside pitches go far.

 

According to the article, Lilly throws change-ups about 11% of the time. I seriously doubt that hitters were sitting on his change. And, I gotta tell ya, change-ups -- wherever they are located -- fly very, very far if the hitter has the timing.

[CubinNY]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft...

Yes, if he swings very early. But if he doesn't, the chances of "rubbing up a new one" are increased by pitching the change-up inside. The point is that a pitchers wants to decrease the chances that the hitter gets the sweet spot of the bat on the ball. Speeding up the bat is one way to do that. But if you don't speed it up enough, inside pitches go far.

 

According to the article, Lilly throws change-ups about 11% of the time. I seriously doubt that hitters were sitting on his change. And, I gotta tell ya, change-ups -- wherever they are located -- fly very, very far if the hitter has the timing.

Did you bother to read my other posts in this thread or did you just skip them?

 

That's the point I think is important that the author didn't delve into, the frequency of the change-ups Lilly throws. In 2007 it was obviously a good pitch for him probably because of the frequency with which it was thrown (I have no data to back this up). However it's a risky pitch. Most hitters do not have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field when they are fooled on off-speed pitches away. They roll over the ball and ground it weakly or they pop it up weakly. A batter can get fooled on an inside fastball or breaking ball and hit it out. That's why pitchers don't pitch inside and that's why you hear color guys constantly complaining about pitching inside (i.e., they want them to do more of it).

[brinoch]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft...

Yes, if he swings very early. But if he doesn't, the chances of "rubbing up a new one" are increased by pitching the change-up inside. The point is that a pitchers wants to decrease the chances that the hitter gets the sweet spot of the bat on the ball. Speeding up the bat is one way to do that. But if you don't speed it up enough, inside pitches go far.

 

According to the article, Lilly throws change-ups about 11% of the time. I seriously doubt that hitters were sitting on his change. And, I gotta tell ya, change-ups -- wherever they are located -- fly very, very far if the hitter has the timing.

Did you bother to read my other posts in this thread or did you just skip them?

 

That's the point I think is important that the author didn't delve into, the frequency of the change-ups Lilly throws. In 2007 it was obviously a good pitch for him probably because of the frequency with which it was thrown (I have no data to back this up). However it's a risky pitch. Most hitters do not have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field when they are fooled on off-speed pitches away. They roll over the ball and ground it weakly or they pop it up weakly. A batter can get fooled on an inside fastball or breaking ball and hit it out. That's why pitchers don't pitch inside and that's why you hear color guys constantly complaining about pitching inside (i.e., they want them to do more of it).

 

Seriously, are you always this irascible? It's pretty annoying. Yes, I "bothered" to read your posts. Any change-of-pace pitch -- regardless of location -- is dangerous if a hitter can turn on it. That includes outside pitches... or those down the middle. The physics of a hit ball's flight path are heavily dependent, though not entirely dependent, upon the bat's location, angle and speed. A change-up on the outer half can be hit a long, long way. Just as one on the inner half.

[CubinNY]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft...

Yes, if he swings very early. But if he doesn't, the chances of "rubbing up a new one" are increased by pitching the change-up inside. The point is that a pitchers wants to decrease the chances that the hitter gets the sweet spot of the bat on the ball. Speeding up the bat is one way to do that. But if you don't speed it up enough, inside pitches go far.

 

According to the article, Lilly throws change-ups about 11% of the time. I seriously doubt that hitters were sitting on his change. And, I gotta tell ya, change-ups -- wherever they are located -- fly very, very far if the hitter has the timing.

Did you bother to read my other posts in this thread or did you just skip them?

 

That's the point I think is important that the author didn't delve into, the frequency of the change-ups Lilly throws. In 2007 it was obviously a good pitch for him probably because of the frequency with which it was thrown (I have no data to back this up). However it's a risky pitch. Most hitters do not have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field when they are fooled on off-speed pitches away. They roll over the ball and ground it weakly or they pop it up weakly. A batter can get fooled on an inside fastball or breaking ball and hit it out. That's why pitchers don't pitch inside and that's why you hear color guys constantly complaining about pitching inside (i.e., they want them to do more of it).

 

Seriously, are you always this irascible? It's pretty annoying. Yes, I "bothered" to read your posts. Any change-of-pace pitch -- regardless of location -- is dangerous if a hitter can turn on it. That includes outside pitches... or those down the middle. The physics of a hit ball's flight path are heavily dependent, though not entirely dependent, upon the bat's location, angle and speed. A change-up on the outer half can be hit a long, long way. Just as one on the inner half.

 

Irascible? Annoying is having a point made to you that you made several hours ago.

 

The entire point of a change up, the ONLY reason it is thrown is to fool a batter into thinking it is a fastball. If the hitter is sitting on it and it's outside only most team's 3.4, and 5 hitters (and Mike Fontenot) have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field. Worst case is a double or a single (most of the time). If a batter tries to pull an outside pitch they ground out weakly. If he's fooled and his bat is sped up, he's are going to ground out weakly or pop up the pitch. If the pitch is inside and he hits the ball he will hit it hard most of the time, fair or foul. You don't see a lot of outside pitches hit 400 feet foul.

 

If a batter is sitting on the change (a very stupid idea), I'd rather see it outside than inside. The odds and physics of hitting make it much more likely to have a good outcome.

 

Last year Lilly used his change-up very effectively and against the odds, very wisely, if sparingly.

[Tracer Bullet]

Please tell me that I'm not the only one that had to google irascible.

[brinoch]

If you don't throw the change-up inside, a hitter knows that anything inside is going to be hard. The margin of error is small, but it is a very effective way to keep hitters off balance. Glavine said this in Leo Mazzone's book on pitching. It's not some know-nothing on the NSBB message board.

The only problem with that philosophy is that it goes against the physics of hitting. If a batter is fooled he'll start is bat early. If it's inside he hits it hard, foul or fair, because he gets the fat of the bat on the ball. If it's outside he hits it weak of the end of the bat or misses the ball.

 

It's a matter of physics.

 

That and ball bearings. It's all ball bearing nowdays.

 

I can't speak to the ball bearings, but if a player swings very early on an inside pitch, he's going to pull it way foul. It doesn't matter if he hits it hard or soft...

Yes, if he swings very early. But if he doesn't, the chances of "rubbing up a new one" are increased by pitching the change-up inside. The point is that a pitchers wants to decrease the chances that the hitter gets the sweet spot of the bat on the ball. Speeding up the bat is one way to do that. But if you don't speed it up enough, inside pitches go far.

 

According to the article, Lilly throws change-ups about 11% of the time. I seriously doubt that hitters were sitting on his change. And, I gotta tell ya, change-ups -- wherever they are located -- fly very, very far if the hitter has the timing.

Did you bother to read my other posts in this thread or did you just skip them?

 

That's the point I think is important that the author didn't delve into, the frequency of the change-ups Lilly throws. In 2007 it was obviously a good pitch for him probably because of the frequency with which it was thrown (I have no data to back this up). However it's a risky pitch. Most hitters do not have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field when they are fooled on off-speed pitches away. They roll over the ball and ground it weakly or they pop it up weakly. A batter can get fooled on an inside fastball or breaking ball and hit it out. That's why pitchers don't pitch inside and that's why you hear color guys constantly complaining about pitching inside (i.e., they want them to do more of it).

 

Seriously, are you always this irascible? It's pretty annoying. Yes, I "bothered" to read your posts. Any change-of-pace pitch -- regardless of location -- is dangerous if a hitter can turn on it. That includes outside pitches... or those down the middle. The physics of a hit ball's flight path are heavily dependent, though not entirely dependent, upon the bat's location, angle and speed. A change-up on the outer half can be hit a long, long way. Just as one on the inner half.

 

Irascible? Annoying is having a point made to you that you made several hours ago.

 

The entire point of a change up, the ONLY reason it is thrown is to fool a batter into thinking it is a fastball. If the hitter is sitting on it and it's outside only most team's 3.4, and 5 hitters (and Mike Fontenot) have the power to drive a ball to the opposite field. Worst case is a double or a single (most of the time). If a batter tries to pull an outside pitch they ground out weakly. If he's fooled and his bat is sped up, he's are going to ground out weakly or pop up the pitch. If the pitch is inside and he hits the ball he will hit it hard most of the time, fair or foul. You don't see a lot of outside pitches hit 400 feet foul.

 

If a batter is sitting on the change (a very stupid idea), I'd rather see it outside than inside. The odds and physics of hitting make it much more likely to have a good outcome.

 

Last year Lilly used his change-up very effectively and against the odds, very wisely, if sparingly.

 

Oh my God, I'm sorry your worshipfulness... I shouldn't have used the 11% number! Apparently you own that observation. Or, not as it were.

 

Given that I am making a different point than you -- in point of fact, I don't agree with your analysis fully supporting baseball's conventional wisdom regarding change-ups -- I felt like making that point. Last time I checked, I can do that.

 

And, you know what's annoying? Reading your extreme condescension and arrogance towards other posters throughout the board.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Please tell me that I'm not the only one that had to google irascible.

 

I would've had to, but I decided I didn't care enough.

[SouthSideRyan]

Please tell me that I'm not the only one that had to google irascible.

 

I would've had to, but I decided I didn't care enough.

 

I bet it means something bad.