The Genius Strategy Behind Blake Snell’s Historic Season 

Storm you should take a dive into the rangers miraculous 2023 of all the highs and lows and how they did it and the road to glory

That's the plan!

@@SportStorm23 Thank you alot

This is how teams are trying to develop. It doesn't matter if you walk guys if nobody can hit your stuff.

@@parkercrossland410 the issue is that he's the only starter to ever have long term success this way

​@@CCDaDon15 No. He isn't. Tommy Byrne and Bob Feller both walked a boatload of guys and won consistently... Won World Series, as a matter of fact. Maybe fact check before your next babblefest, junior.

@@TheBatugan77 dude... I'm talking about since the 90s. Why are your first two examples guys from the 40s? I'm talking about how currently they're valuing STUFF and movement over control. The closest example we have for that is Kerry Wood and I would not say he was a long term success. Meanwhile Snell is a two time Cy young 6 years apart, on his way to his second contract after passing arbitration years. At least ask me some questions about the parameters I'm setting to my point before just acting like I'm an idiot. I'd like to have a normal conversation about baseball without the insults.

@@CCDaDon15 Yes, but it's a mold that a lot of teams are basing their pitching development on. Throw gas, be nasty, and if he has any sense of command he's dominant. The ability to execute is lacking a lot of the time.

He's the most unpredictable pitcher I've ever watched, but on his best days he's one of the best

I loved watching when he pitched. Probably going to buy one of his jerseys. His interviews were really fun to watch also.

some would say hes overrated.

Must@@NotSoSvenn must be why he is a two-time Cy Young winner!

Logan Webb has quietly turned into an ace over the past couple years. Great contract too

In 2021 I hadnt been watching most games until late July. The first Webb start I ever saw was against Houston and I said to my grandma "We've got something here"

Yeah Blake snail is the man

What lol

Think you mean Dylan Cease lol

oh yes blake snell sometimes reminds me of blake snell too

Logan Webb Zac Gallen Zack wheeler Justin Steele

It really depends on what kind of trust he has in his defense and catcher. I honestly think it looks worse than what it is.

FIP's flaw is that it only measures "how good is a pitcher at 3 true outcomes," and it doesn't really measure how good a pitcher is at pitching to contact.

Also walks help skyrocket the pitch count. You're not going to see a pitcher who walks guys pitch complete games anymore.

Yes, you are taking something away. Stop lying to yourself

He definitely has a risky player profile. He'd be perfect for a team that has a great top of the rotation starter already so he doesn't have to be the ace (Giants/Mariners/DBacks)

Schrodinger's pitcher is a VERY good way of describing him. Speaking from more than enough years riding the Snell train...

Explain please

@@rustyshackelford4224 Tatis won platinum glove and he has a great infield to back him up

Very inconsistent career due to his pitching style and injuries, but on his best day he has some of the best stuff in the league

This is half a thought. If we judge Snell by his first 10 pitches he's rubbish. But his next 30 he's gold? I'm a cricket transplant and a huge part of test cricket bowling is setting up the batters with your previous bowling - tricking them into what to expect. In baseball if they expect a walk they'll be more willing to take a strike? On first pass through a lineup strikeouts are more likely - so pitch your worst stuff and walk then - then when you come around to the third pass then you clip the edges you're going to get fewer swings?

This is very rambly and I would love someone who knows a lot about baseball to sort of give me an explanation (or link to a YT channel) on the background of pitch choices etc

I think I get the gist of your point, and I can't claim any true familiarity with how cricket is played, but I like where you're coming from so I'll see if I can offer any insights. Conventional baseball knowledge does suggest that it's easier to hit a pitcher the second or third time you face them in a game, on account of 1) the familiarity and 2) the fact that the more pitches they throw, the more likely it is that they'll be fatigued and be throwing with less velocity and/or movement. That being said, managers in the modern era are quicker than they've ever been to pull their starters and bring in a reliever, largely because of things like this. For the first chunk of baseball history, the game was the starting pitcher's to win or lose, and unless you were doing exceptionally bad you weren't generally going anywhere. Then relief pitchers became a bit more common, but they'd often pitch multiple innings, be used in a less specialized manner, etc., and although starters were on a shorter leash, they'd generally be left in as long as the manager felt they could be left in. By now, bullpen depth is pretty essential for any roster, and statisticians realized you have a better chance of winning if your starter stayed in just long enough to get you halfway or slightly more than halfway through the game, at which point you hand the game over to the bullpen and the ball changes hands enough to ideally keep the opposing offense on their toes the rest of the game, so you can either hold onto your lead or limit scoring enough to catch up, if you're behind. All by way of saying that you don't need to think THAT far ahead as a starter in today's game, you need to get as many batters out as you can, and ideally as efficiently as you can. Throw strikes, keep people off the bases, limit scoring as best you can. There are occasionally times you might pitch around a hitter, avoiding the strike zone because maybe in that specific situation you'd rather risk walking them and taking your chances with the guy on deck then seeing what they can do with a hittable pitch, but those instances are few and far-between, and probably even moreso with the DH in the NL now. In general, the more baserunners you allow, the more runs you allow, and the more pitches you throw, the sooner you can expect to be pulled from the game. In other words, approaching a lineup in the manner you proposed would likely be counterproductive, in general but especially considering the nuances of the modern game. As far as setting up pitches, it's more the type of thing that occurs within a single at-bat. Obviously, depending on a pitcher's strengths there may be some overlap in how they approach the lineup as a whole, but the slate is kind of wiped clean with each new batter, and this is only truer with the level of scouting reports available on every batter these days. The primary goal of any pitcher in the vast majority of at-bats is simple: get ahead in the count. Batters generally hit worse when they're in a pitcher's count (0-2, 1-2, etc.), and better when they themselves are ahead in the count (1-0, 2-1...). If you're a pitcher and the count is in your favor, then you can really play with the hitter's mind and subvert their expectations, both physical and mental. Say the count's 0-2 for example. There are infinite ways to go about it for a pitcher in that situation, but unless you're facing a really weak hitter you're probably not going to give them a good pitch to hit. That's when you'll see a slider that starts on the outer third and breaks off the plate outside, or maybe a high fastball. Maybe you'll throw an inside fastball, and then even if they take it for a ball, you follow it up with a change-up on the outside corner. The contrast from fast to slow might make the batter end up out in front of the pitch, and the contrast from inside to outside might cause them to reach for the ball more than they would have if you'd hit the same location with the previous pitch. Those are really basic examples, and I hope the way I explained then makes sense. Just wanted to see if I could shed any light on your questions!

​@@robbiearroyo2292bro thank you so much for taking the time to write this! So helpful!

@lukerichardson8097 anytime! Glad it could be of use.

Machado was a no show for entire first third of the season. Bogaerts for half of it. Tatis also missing the first month set them back. Soto was in the dog house for underperforming and also his defensive errors were costing games. They just arent that good.

Terrible situational hitting and the team could never click all at once for a prolonged period. I'm making a video on them soon

1 win 12 losses in extras. AZ only had 2 more wins than us and went to the Series. That's what happened.

walking that many guys isn't sustainable which is why he has never been consistently good

It also means he won’t go deep into games. Which doesn’t hurt his individual stats but affects the team over the course of a season

Nola is better than Snell lol

@@Tyler-xd5ns Then why did Snell win the Cy Young instead of Nola? You know nothing about pitchers.

@@Mostillist He has won 2 Cy Young awards and you don't think he is good? Stop drinking!

Loser

With that comment you prove that you are not godlike

So having an ERA of just over 2 like Snell did is a poor Cy Young criteria?

I thought it was voted for by managers.

@@user-ew9xd3zj1o Cy Young voters are members of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America.

I mean, he’s still not the goat. But he’s good 🤷🏼‍♂️

Webb's ERA was over a point higher than Snells! Having said that, I believe Webb will win it one day.

@@user-ew9xd3zj1o yes because Logan had 20 more innings

@@Busterallday28 So what? He did not win the Cy Young! Give it up!

@@user-ew9xd3zj1o Your actually dumb😂 I am trying to say “of course Logan Webb had a higher ERA he pitched 20 more inning than Snell and had less walks in more innings compared to Snell”

It impacts how deep he goes into games which affects his team over the course of a season

😂

You very stupid if you think wins matter