Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About
Published May 15, 2008
The most obvious example of Hank's baseball sense is Mike Mussina. His horrific start has been well documented. After getting blasted by Boston on April 17, his ERA was 5.75 and he looked as ineffective as Barry Zito. Sporting an 85 mph fastball and constantly pitching from behind in the count, many questioned whether Mussina wasn't finished as an effective starter in the league.
What was Hank's take on the situation? After watching the drubbing in Boston, Hank told reporters he thought Mussina should pitch more like Jamie Moyer. That comment, much maligned by the press and the contingent alike, unfortunately for those parties reeks with truth.
Since those comments were made, Mussina has reinvented himself... to look a lot more like Moyer. Realizing he can't overpower anyone with the permanent loss in velocity behind his fastball, Mussina has refocused on his control and command allowing him to consistently get ahead of hitters — the key element to ensure the effectiveness of his breaking pitches.
By forcing batters into bad counts he is able to once again coax hitters to swing at the knuckle curve in the dirt, allowing expansion of the strike zone and preventing him from being forced to groove pitches over the plate with his fastball.
His improved control, and the effect of that control on his breaking ball has, in turn, "sped up" his fastball in the eyes of the opponents. Now refocused on defending against the offspeed curve ball early in the count for strikes and outside the zone when ahead, Mussina has once again regained an effectiveness that is vital to the success of the pitching-starved Yankees.
This strategy has been the key to success for pitchers from Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to Robin Roberts and Carl Hubbell. Oh, and Moyer pitches that way too. And while telling a pitcher on your team that he should pitch like another active pitcher on another team doesn't show very much tact (couldn't he have picked, say, Warren Spahn?) the premise behind his comments was correct.
While Mussina may not have liked Hank's commentary — quirking, to paraphrase, that he can't pitch like Moyer because he can't throw left handed — he definitely was, at the very least, thinking along the same lines.
Since Hank's "lashing" of his starter, Mussina has lowered his ERA drastically to 3.99, and his WHIP to a very good 1.18. Over that period he's won five straight games including two victories against the suddenly hot Cleveland Indians and a 2-1 gem against the first place Tampa Bay Rays on Wednesday night. The numbers speak volumes about the insight in Hank's assessment.
- Like It Or Not, Hank Knows What He Is Talking About
- Published: May 15, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Sports
- Filed Under: Sports: Baseball
- Writer: Anthony Tobis
- Anthony Tobis's BC Writer page
- Anthony Tobis's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Thats funny....I'll answer that like this. Being that we don't live in a communist society, the idea that because the owner of a business decides to invest heavily in a product he is trying to sell to the fans, maximizing that product's potential and quality is ridiculous, i.e. revenue sharing is ridiculous.
Should Coke have to give money back to 7up or Pepsi if their sales spike on a marketing plan they invested heavily in?
Every baseball team is either owned by a multi-millionaire or a corporation. If they choose to not invest in their team that's their own decision but there is no reason teams like the Red Sox, Tigers, or Yankees should be punished.
I know you're a Tigers fan Matt; how did you like when big Mike spent all his money on the hockey team and left the Tigers as the joke of baseball?
But Coke and Pepsi aren't sister businesses under the umbrella of Major League Soda.
"how did you like when big Mike spent all his money on the hockey team and left the Tigers as the joke of baseball?"
Well, I was 14, so I really didn't have much cognitive thought on the financial side of baseball back then. But today I don't care how much a team spends. As long as they're drafting well and hiring the right people, there's nothing wrong with being a perpetual small market team like Minnesota or Oakland. Ilitch wasn't doing anything right until he brought in knowledgeable people like Dombrowski and Leyland and other minor league managers who were able to cultivate the talent into a contending big league team.
Well, I lived through that time in Detroit and it was not fun watching the team constantly have little to no talent because they refused to bring anyone in to make the team legitimate.
The turnound in Detroit started when they signed Pudge. This signing showed the rest of the free agents that the team was willing to invest in winning.
Its great to draft and develope players but when those players get good, you have to pay them to keep them.
If the Yanks had decided not to pay home grown products Rivera, Jeter, Williams, Posada, and Pettitte, the 90's would have been a very different time in baseball.
Conversley, had a team like the Expos not run a constant fire sale on all the outstanding prospect they had we might talk of the Expos dynasties led by Pedro and Randy Johnson.
If I was a Twins fan i would have a massive problem with them not paying the money to keep Santana when he could be what puts the team over the top in the central. Why, as a fan, should i pay $60 dollars for a ticket to go watch a team owned by someone with no committment to building a winner.
Oakland is slightly different only in that they bring in players who fit a certain profile and know when to cut bait on players like Zito, but the fact is they would be the Red Sox (the other sabermetric team) if they would invest a little bit of money in keeping their stars.
I don't advocate indiscrimately throwing money at worthless free agents or signing washed up pitchers to three years deal (Dontrelle Willis anyone?) but if you want to keep your prospects you have to invest in the team.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/76895)
Did Hank understand that just because the Tampa Bay Rays threw intentionally at one of their batters, doesn't mean they should have to give some of the shared revenue back?