Ian Anderson's stuff

striker42 said:
https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/player-scroll?player_id=592332#pitchTypes

The Baseball Savant data on Gausman does show some differences.

Gausman's splitter spins at a rate of 1,648 RPM while his change spins at 1,887 RPM. Both are fairly close to the same speed.

As for movement, Gausman's split moves 13 inches towards a right handed batter and drops 37 inches. The change moves 12 inches towards a right handed batter and drops 28 inches.

So the splitter for Gausman spins a little slower and drops about 30% more than the change.

I can see a splitter having some utility for Anderson burying it in the dirt and getting guys to chase. But the fact that it would likely be similar velocity with similar direction of movement to his change limits the utility. A hammer curve would turn Anderson into an ace. A plus splitter wouldn't have near that impact. I do think there's some utility there.
Click to expand...

Bolded my point. Gausman's split is far superior to his change, which is why he throws it 10x as often. The change is meaningless in his arsenal.

I haven't seen any instances of guys improving spin rates on breaking stuff without cheating, so I think Ian is who he is. Improvements to command/execution are his most likely avenue for improvements, and that's certainly possible. Mid-career velocity increases occur as well, but less frequently.

The Braves have now developed 3 good/great SPs, and currently have one of them lost to injury. They have supplemented that rotation with an impact FA, and use a spot to rotate other arms in for auditions. I expect they will add stability to the staff with another ~$10M arm. That's a pretty good way to build a rotation.
 
Last edited:
Isn't Morton (or maybe some other Astro) an example of mid-career spin improvement?

Morton's spin held relatively steady post sticky I thought?
 
Southcack77 said:
Isn't Morton (or maybe some other Astro) an example of mid-career spin improvement?

Morton's spin held relatively steady post sticky I thought?
Click to expand...

Nope. Morton had spin rate on his curve of 2973 and 2993 with the Pirates and Phils the 2 seasons before he joined the Astros. His spin rate actually decreased to the 2800s with the Astros, but he threw the pitch much more often.

Most likely the Astros identified Morton as a high spin rate guy before other teams knew to look for that, fixed his spin axis a bit to get more movement, and told him to throw the pitch more. They also appeared to have made him switch from a sinker to the 4 seamer. Then Morton became the guy we all love today.

The Astros made Charlie Morton because they were smarter than everyone else. They were one of the very first teams to understand the importance of spin rates, back when everyone else was saying dinosaur things like “everyone has to throw a sinker down and away”.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
Nope. Morton had spin rate on his curve of 2973 and 2993 with the Pirates and Phils the 2 seasons before he joined the Astros. His spin rate actually decreased to the 2800s with the Astros, but he threw the pitch much more often.

Most likely the Astros identified Morton as a high spin rate guy before other teams knew to look for that, fixed his spin axis a bit to get more movement, and told him to throw the pitch more. They also appeared to have made him switch from a sinker to the 4 seamer. Then Morton became the guy we all love today.

The Astros made Charlie Morton because they were smarter than everyone else. They were one of the very first teams to understand the importance of spin rates, back when everyone else was saying dinosaur things like “everyone has to throw a sinker down and away”.
Click to expand...

Charlie said in an interview that learning to pitch high with the 4 seamer with the Astros completely changed his own perception of himself.

Brent Strom is one of the most impactful coaches of the last couple decades.
 
I don't know how much it affected his spin rates, but Morton rather famously went through a series of mechanical/arm action changes (before spin rate data was available) to change him from washout to workhorse. Given how much of Anderson's success seems to come from his unique motion, I really don't think Morton type-fiddling would work in his favor.
 
striker42 said:
I'm not going to argue with you. It's immaterial now. Anderson came up big for us in the world series so I'm glad we drafted him.
Click to expand...

you literally cannot demonstrate how he dramatically improved his control. there’s absolutely nothing to support that.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I don't know how much it affected his spin rates, but Morton rather famously went through a series of mechanical/arm action changes (before spin rate data was available) to change him from washout to workhorse. Given how much of Anderson's success seems to come from his unique motion, I really don't think Morton type-fiddling would work in his favor.
Click to expand...

Morton was the guy who famously went Single White Female on Roy Halladay's delivery, right?
 
clvclv said:
Interesting take on Anderson today over at FG...

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/what-are-we-missing-about-ian-anderson/
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff. I do imagine how much a fastball and changeup look like each other to a batter is something that's hard to quantify but something that can be really important for certain pitchers. I find the idea that his fastball and changeup look nearly identical to a hitter until it's too late to be a more convincing argument than arm angle. Hitters adjust to arm angle quickly. You're not going to be an effective starter based on arm angle.
 
Really interesting read- thanks for sharing. Every time I watch Anderson pitch, I feel a lot like I feel when looking at his Stuff+: "How is he possibly as effective as he is?" But then I watch Bryce Harper swing through another changeup, and you realize that there is just something we can't see. The exceedingly rare case where I expect him to- at least while he's got youthful velocity- consistently outperform what the pitch data suggests his performance should be.
 
Enscheff said:
Overall:

We saw a straight rising FA, an average-ish CU, and a CH that's average-ish but played up due to good execution. Due to his over the top arm slot, nothing moves side to side, but he gets good up and down movement. Watching him on TV I figured the CH was his main weapon, but after looking at the data his rising FA is his main pitch that makes everything else more effective.
Click to expand...

This is what I came away with overall after grading his pitches, and it matches pretty closely with the statements made in this article.

It's not so much the CH that is awesome. It seems to be the CH playing off the good rising FA, coupled with his excellent extension.

Back when RiRod was using sticky stuff and throwing 93 with good rise, he was very effective. To me, that bodes well for Anderson's FA/CH combo aging well, even as the velocity starts to dip to 92-93. It was 94.1 in 2020, and 94.6 in 2021, so no dip yet.

What we are seeing is a flukey 2020 regressing to a solid #3, and I expect him to continue being that #3 or better by executing his #4 stuff very well.
 
McCann'sCans said:
Really interesting read- thanks for sharing. Every time I watch Anderson pitch, I feel a lot like I feel when looking at his Stuff+: "How is he possibly as effective as he is?" But then I watch Bryce Harper swing through another changeup, and you realize that there is just something we can't see. The exceedingly rare case where I expect him to- at least while he's got youthful velocity- consistently outperform what the pitch data suggests his performance should be.
Click to expand...

I felt the same way watching Tom Glavine for 15 years.
 
Besides the difference in velocity, consider the general arc of each pitch. Anderson’s changeup veers downward gradually, whereas Giolito’s changeup fades suddenly, ending up at the bottom of the zone. The numbers corroborate this observation, too: After adjusting for pitch height, Anderson averaged a -6.8 degree approach angle on his changeup; Giolito averaged a -8.0 degree approach angle. The relative “flatness” of the former changeup is reflected in what we observed in the above GIFs. And no, this isn’t because one pitch generated more vertical movement than the other – according to Pitch Info’s measurements, the difference between the two is practically a rounding error (1.32 vs. 1.38 pfx_z). Identical destinations, alternate paths.

What does this all add up to? My hunch is that due to its shallower entry into the strike zone, the changeup Anderson throws resembles his four-seamer quite strikingly until, wait, it doesn’t! Cue the awkward swing and miss. This makes up for the absence of a large velocity differential – in fact, the zip of the changeup might be what keeps it line with the fastball, in conjunction with a high spin rate. There’s not much separation as a result, but maybe that’s the point.
​


I see the point about the change playing off his fastball because of the lesser delta between fastball and change, but is he also saying that there is such a thing as "late breaking" stuff? Recently a lot of analysis suggests that's an illusion, but my personal experience and observation (which I've been questioning in a lot of my baseball knowledge over the last decade) has suggested there's something to it. I think about the interplay between the ball and the air and think, given the seams and spin rates and speed and the resistance of air, there might be the possibility that two pitches that break the same total amount would have two different paths. Especially when I think about Greg Maddux saying he wanted every single pitch to have a short, crisp, late break.
 
They are talking about approach angle + vertical movement = perceived late break.

This is an explanation of the late break concept that holds some water.
 
And extension.

The rate of drop in addition to the aggregate amount of drop is important to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top