Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Cubs News & Analysis

    I Think It's Time We Have the Blake Snell Talk


    Matthew Trueblood

    All offseason, the Cubs have been locked in a slow, dangerous tango with Scott Boras, and nearly all of the rumors and musings have centered on Cody Bellinger, Jordan Montgomery, and/or Matt Chapman. There's one more big name on Boras's client list, though, and it's time to tackle him.

    Image courtesy of © Orlando Ramirez-USA TODAY Sports

    Cubs Video

    I understand why Blake Snell is not some fans' cup of tea. If truth be told, he isn't mine, either. I like my aces to fill up the strike zone, and Snell (who walked a career-high 13.3 percent of opposing batters last year) stubbornly refuses to do so. He's an inveterate nibbler. He's also a two-time Cy Young Award winner. He has four truly filthy pitches, and he's actually pretty good at locating each of them. He just spends to much time trying to hit the corners and induce chases with his breaking stuff that he lets every count become a deep one.

    In the last 50 seasons (going back to 1974), 10 pitchers have had at least seven no-hit bids that lasted at least six innings. Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, and Justin Verlander each have double-digit games of that type. Then there are Max Scherzer and David Cone, who got through six hitless frames eight times each. That leaves five guys who have gotten that far seven times each: Aníbal Sánchez, Tim Wakefield, Roger Clemens, Dave Stieb, and Snell. A perennial 30-percent strikeout guy as a starter, Snell only really gets held back by injuries. When he took the ball, he averaged 5,6 innings per start in 2023, which just isn't that bad. Let's go pitch by pitch through his arsenal, to discuss why he's so good.

    Four-Seam Fastball
    Snell doesn't have a freakish fastball, from a spin or a vertical approach angle (VAA) perspective. He's the anti-Shota Imanaga--all the special in his heater comes from the high height of his release point and the speed on it. Sitting 95 and with the ability to add and subtract a few ticks in each direction from there, Snell gets good ride when he attacks the top of the zone with the fastball. He almost has to work up there for the pitch to really take off and get the whiffs he wants.

    export (42).png
    Many pitchers, especially these days, excel at throwing their heater to one side of the plate or the other. They favor that side, and it sets up the rest of their arsenal, and they command the ball much better there than to the other side of the plate. That isn't in evidence at all with Snell. He's slightly better at commanding it to the glove side (away from a lefty) when a lefty is at the plate, mostly, he tries to move the pitch around to all quadrants and chase whiffs at the letters and above, without trying to cut the zone into thirds or quarters. Thinking that way about the fastball is what leads to starters with 13-percent walk rates, but it also makes it hard to square a guy up and leads to high strikeout rates.

    Curveball
    Coming from his high release point and spindly frame, Snell's curve catches you by surprise a little. You expect a hurler like this to have one of those elite spin rates--for the ball to sing with that high metallic sound as it comes of their fingers, like blade or a wine glass has been struck just right. Instead, he has a Drew Smyly-ish hook, with as much tumble as crazy top spin. Still, he does have that top spin, and he uses it to induce elite whiff rates on the curve--especially from righties. Overhand curves are often part of reverse-split packages, and indeed, lefties make contact better and more often against Snell's hook than do righties. It's a pitch that works gorgeously off the fastball, though, regardless of the handedness of the opponent.

    Changeup
    The offering for which Snell doesn't get enough credit is the changeup, a pitch of which he does have pretty tight command. It's not a bat-missing monster, but it does induce whiffs. More importantly, it's a weak contact machine for him. Opponents had an average exit velocity south of 80 miles per hour and an average launch angle of just over 2 degrees on Snell's changeup in 2023. He didn't throw the pitch a single time to a lefty; he threw nearly 600 of them to righties. He just pounds away at one target with it, and because righties have to be ready for three other pitches, they're helpless on it.

    export (43).png

    Slider
    This is the pitch that occasionally gets hit hard for him. Snell's slider is a 'gyro' type offering, with a small deviation in actual spin axis from the fastball but a wide variance in the exact spin he applies to it from one offering to the next. 

    export (41).png

    It still gets a ton of whiffs, but a pitch like that is not going to be easily or prettily commanded. It's far from a sweeper, with a mostly vertical movement differential from the fastball, and it'll sometimes hang on the glove-side third of the plate, above the knee. When that happens, he does pay for it. It doesn't happen so often that he really gets hurt in the big picture, though, as evidenced by the two Cy Young Awards and the career ERA of 3.20.

    Snell is a much more complete pitcher than he gets credit for. Entering the offseason, I ranked him fourth on my list of the top 50 fits for the Cubs in free agency, one ahead of Imanaga. I still think that's true. It's very hard to swallow the worry and pony up over $200 million for a pitcher like Snell, because he issues so many walks and has had hip trouble, groin trouble, and loose bodies in his elbow within the last five years. export (40).pngOnce you step back from focusing on your preferred picayune problems, though, you can see the big picture, and it's worth that kind of investment. Snell is the last player available who really represents an infusion of superstar talent and transformation for the Cubs. With him joining Justin Steele, Imanaga, Jameson Taillon, and Kyle Hendricks in the starting rotation, the team would take a leap to a new level of expected competitiveness. 

    Obviously, it's wildly unlikely to come to fruition. If the Cubs do spend that kind of money at this point, it's more likely to be on Cody Bellinger. Still, I think Snell might be a wiser investment than has become the consensus. He does a lot of things very, very well--more than enough to make up for the things he does that are aggravating.

    Would you still want Snell on a long-term, high-dollar deal? Or does Imanaga slake your thirst for rotation reinforcement this winter? Let's discuss it.

    Follow North Side Baseball For Chicago Cubs News & Analysis

    Recent Cubs Articles

    Recent Cubs Videos


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    CubinNY

    Posted

    Just now, squally1313 said:

    Phillies had 61 games of scoring 3 runs or fewer. 

    Dbacks had 64 games

    Brewers had 69 games

    Orioles had 64 games
     

    Do I need to keep going?

    you can keep going until you find a point. 

    • Haha 1
    Bertz

    Posted

    Didn't the Cubs also have that preposterous long streak of not getting shut out?  

    I remember Sharma putting some decent data around I think it was the 2019 team and how they were beyond the pale, but the vast vast majority of the time this stuff comes out in the wash.

    CubinNY

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

    The Dodgers scored 87 more runs than the Cubs and still had 52 games of 3 or fewer.  What do you think is the right number to not be streaky?

    That's not the right question. The need more SLG in the lineup. 

    Bertz

    Posted

    This is incredible 

    squally1313

    Posted

    The Cubs scored more than 10 runs 24 times this year.

    The Braves did it 20 times. 

    Hopefully they went into this offseason trying to improve their roster to have the kind of potential to explode offensively in a game like the Cubs did. 

    squally1313

    Posted

    -Here are a bunch of teams that had a lot of regular season and/or playoff success that put up similar numbers to the Cubs in the stat that you cited. This list excludes the Braves, who put up a 125 wRC in 2023, which has only been matched in the modern era by the 1927 Yankees. 

    -Well yeah, but what about the Braves

    • Like 1
    squally1313

    Posted

    Rangers had scored 0-3 runs 63 times in 2023 as well. So the Cubs came in below the average of the World Series teams this year. But it's a big number, so they are Bad. 

    CubinNY

    Posted (edited)

    The Cubs have the makings of consistent offense. They have guys who can get on base, they have high-contact guys, but they don't have the sluggers. This isn't new information or some sort of behind the numbers type thing.  I understand all teams go through hot and cold stretches and a lot is dependent on where the opposite team is in their rotation. But it seems strange to insist that the offense was consistently good last year. 

     

    Edited by CubinNY
    squally1313

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

    The Cubs have the makings of consistent offense. They have guys who can get on base, they have high-contact guys, but they don't have the sluggers. This isn't new information or some sort of behind the numbers type thing.  I understand all teams go through hot and cold stretches and a lot is dependent on where the opposite team is in their rotation. But it seems strange to insist that they were consistently good last year. 

     

    I think its more that your expectations of 'consistent offense' are unrealistic in modern baseball outside of the extreme outliers (ie Braves). The 2023 Cubs were not uniquely inconsistent, or uniquely running hot and cold. Yes, they weren't consistently good last year. Neither were 28 of the other 29 teams (and Braves ended up with like, 38 games scoring 3 or less too). 

    mul21

    Posted

    44 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

    The Cubs have the makings of consistent offense. They have guys who can get on base, they have high-contact guys, but they don't have the sluggers. This isn't new information or some sort of behind the numbers type thing.  I understand all teams go through hot and cold stretches and a lot is dependent on where the opposite team is in their rotation. But it seems strange to insist that the offense was consistently good last year. 

     

    People are simply insisting that it was no less consistent than many other good teams.  The Astros scored 3 or less 63 times as well.  Your point is moot based on how baseball works.  Just by the nature of the game you're going to have a bunch of games where you don't score much and others where you knock the cover off the ball.  

    If your real point was that they need more slug in the lineup as currently constructed, I don't think you'll get much argument but the data point you used was a terrible way to try to demonstrate that.

    Joj

    Posted

    21 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

    The team scored a shitload of runs last year, people underrate the offense. If they sign Bellinger they project to have above-average players comparative to their peers at the position, all across the field. 

    They also flopped for weeks at a time and couldn't finish the season.  Last season's offense wasn't good enough.

    squally1313

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Joj said:

    They also flopped for weeks at a time and couldn't finish the season.  Last season's offense wasn't good enough.

    Cubs offense in August: 103 wRC (11th in baseball), 4.1 offensive fWAR (10th in baseball)

    Cubs offense in September: 111 wRC (7th in baseball), 5.6 offensive fWAR (7th in baseball)

    Cubs for the seaason: 104 wRC (12th in baseball), 24.8 offensive fWAR (9th in baseball)

    What about that group didn't "finish the season"?

    Joj

    Posted (edited)

    Lol.  Think he's mad from another thread.

    Edited by Joj
    mul21

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, Joj said:

    They also flopped for weeks at a time and couldn't finish the season.  Last season's offense wasn't good enough.

    The pitching, specifically the bullpen, failed miserably the last few weeks.  The offense was largely just fine.

    Joj

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, mul21 said:

    The pitching, specifically the bullpen, failed miserably the last few weeks.  The offense was largely just fine.

    Shall we do the same thing with the same people, expecting a different result? 🙂

    mul21

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Joj said:

    Shall we do the same thing with the same people, expecting a different result? 🙂

    What are you talking about?  Everyone agrees, including Tommy Hottovy, that they need more pen help.  I'm not sure what your cryptic post is getting at.

    squally1313

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, Joj said:

    They also flopped for weeks at a time and couldn't finish the season.  Last season's offense wasn't good enough.

    As mentioned before, Cubs were offensively above average, if not elite, in April (2nd), July (5th), August (10th), and September (7th). They were bad (or 'flopping') in May (21st) and June (16th). Deeper dive into the May-June stretch:

    The Good/Fine (over 100 PAs):

    • Morel 147 wRC
    • Happ 110 wRC
    • Swanson 107 wRC
    • Tauchman 106 wRC
    • Seiya 104 wRC
    • Madrigal 96 wRC
    • Hoerner 93 wRC

    The Bad (over 99 PAs):

    • Mancini 78 wRC
    • Gomes 73 wRC
    • Wisdom 50 wRC
    • Bellinger 54 wRC
    • Mervis 46 wRC
    Joj

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, mul21 said:

    What are you talking about?  Everyone agrees, including Tommy Hottovy, that they need more pen help.  I'm not sure what your cryptic post is getting at.

    Oh, sure, they need help.  Josh Hader.  I was never talking about the bullpen, you were.

    Joj

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

    As mentioned before, Cubs were offensively above average, if not elite, in April (2nd), July (5th), August (10th), and September (7th). They were bad (or 'flopping') in May (21st) and June (16th). Deeper dive into the May-June stretch:

    The Good/Fine (over 100 PAs):

    • Morel 147 wRC
    • Happ 110 wRC
    • Swanson 107 wRC
    • Tauchman 106 wRC
    • Seiya 104 wRC
    • Madrigal 96 wRC
    • Hoerner 93 wRC

    The Bad (over 99 PAs):

    • Mancini 78 wRC
    • Gomes 73 wRC
    • Wisdom 50 wRC
    • Bellinger 54 wRC
    • Mervis 46 wRC

    Ok, so what's your takeaway?  That the offense doesn't need to be upgraded from last year?  Sum it all up for us in a sentence or two.

    squally1313

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Ok, so what's your takeaway?  That the offense doesn't need to be upgraded from last year?  Sum it all up for us in a sentence or two.

    The takeaway is that if you weren't happy with the offense last year, you likely aren't going to be happy with the offense this year, regardless of the moves they do or do not make, because you're expecting a level of production/consistency that is incredibly rare in modern baseball. 

    • Like 1
    We Got The Whole 9

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Ok, so what's your takeaway?  That the offense doesn't need to be upgraded from last year?  Sum it all up for us in a sentence or two.

    You underrate the offense because you don't follow every team as closely as you do the Cubs

    • Like 2
    Tryptamine

    Posted

    46 minutes ago, Joj said:

    Oh, sure, they need help.  Josh Hader.  I was never talking about the bullpen, you were.

    I'm all in favor of bullpen help, but dropping 20 million of the remaining 55m on Hader isn't the way. At that point, if they signed Bellinger the money is nearly all gone when you figure they're probably going to save 5ish million for the deadline. I think it's much more prudent to shop in the Stephenson range with the high end being Robertson. 

    Joj

    Posted

    On 1/17/2024 at 12:52 PM, squally1313 said:

    The takeaway is that if you weren't happy with the offense last year, you likely aren't going to be happy with the offense this year, regardless of the moves they do or do not make, because you're expecting a level of production/consistency that is incredibly rare in modern baseball. 

    The team's offense came out of nowhere in 2023.  They played over their heads quite a bit.  And, again, we saw the inconsistency in the 2nd half.  There's nothing wrong with admitting that.

    By the way, you are completely wrong about my expectations.  You know absolutely nothing about me. 

    I disagree with you about offensive consistency so that means I don't know baseball and won't be happy with anything even if they sign everyone?  Classic response right there.  Let me guess...you and 2 other mean girls try to chase everyone away?  Is that why this board is so dead?  I'm just trying to give this place a shot, along with a few others.  Very welcoming.  LOL

    • Like 1
    Joj

    Posted

    On 1/17/2024 at 12:58 PM, We Got The Whole 9 said:

    You underrate the offense because you don't follow every team as closely as you do the Cubs

    How do you know that?  By the way, I do follow baseball very closely.  Likely closer than you.

    Joj

    Posted

    On 1/17/2024 at 1:27 PM, Tryptamine said:

    I'm all in favor of bullpen help, but dropping 20 million of the remaining 55m on Hader isn't the way. At that point, if they signed Bellinger the money is nearly all gone when you figure they're probably going to save 5ish million for the deadline. I think it's much more prudent to shop in the Stephenson range with the high end being Robertson. 

    I'd much rather see them spend the money than give up young players.  I'm still annoyed by Epstein's Chapman and Wade Davis deals.  Besides, THEY HAVE MONEY.




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...