Thread: Article: How Scott Diamond Continues to Shine

What I find odd about Diamond's curveball is that he gets so little break on it. PITCHf/x says that his curve gets an average of no inches of vertical break (without gravity), which is atypical of curveballs (Texas Leaguers says the average curveball breaks about 6 inches downwards without gravity). If anything, his curveball has the break of a slider (1.7 inches up w/o gravity), which when combined with its velocity (about 81 MPH), it makes me believe that Diamond actually throws a slider instead of a curve.

Originally Posted by snepp

Where has Nick insisted that Duensing is starting material?

You're not looking very hard.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Nick was all for removing Duensing from the rotation in 2011 because of his splits. I know this for a fact because several massive threads were dedicated to it over on BYTO.

What evidence prompted the change in heart in 2012?

Originally Posted by jokin

You're not looking very hard.

The onus is on you to support your own statements.

Originally Posted by jokin

What evidence prompted the change in heart in 2012?

It probably had something to do with having the 29th best rotation in baseball.

Originally Posted by jokin

What evidence prompted the change in heart in 2012?

Is it a change of heart, or simply a gross misrepresentation of his position?

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

It probably had something to do with having the 29th best rotation in baseball.

OK, then not very thoroughly thought out then? (Given the alternatives I posted previously who still actually have a chance at some sort of success as a SP).

Originally Posted by snepp

Is it a change of heart, or simply a gross misrepresentation of his position?

Or is it you, displaying your ignorance by not actually finding our public conversations on the matter?

Originally Posted by snepp

The onus is on you to support your own statements.

The onus is on you to keep up with the conversation.

Okay, that's quite enough. The tone in this thread is turning for the worse.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Okay, that's quite enough. The tone in this thread is turning for the worse.

Thankyou.

I suppose I could just step in and settle this, since I don't need to "look" anywhere to identify my own viewpoints.

In spring of 2011, when the Twins named Duensing as a starter very early on, I criticized the decision and heavily advocated for placing him in the bullpen. See here:

Unfortunately, for anyone looking past those categories, it's tough to see him sustaining the kind of success he had last year in a starting role. ... As a reliever, he would provide the Twins with an established commodity in a bullpen that lacks many. He'd be able to fully utilize his dominance against lefty swingers rather than facing starting lineups stacked with righties.

It shouldn't be difficult to see why I was open to giving him a shot this year. The rotation has been an absolute mess and Duensing has had more success as an MLB starter than most of the "alternatives" suggested by jokin will ever experience.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

I suppose I could just step in and settle this, since I don't need to "look" anywhere to identify my own viewpoints.

In spring of 2011, when the Twins named Duensing as a starter very early on, I criticized the decision and heavily advocated for placing him in the bullpen. See here:

Unfortunately, for anyone looking past those categories, it's tough to see him sustaining the kind of success he had last year in a starting role. ... As a reliever, he would provide the Twins with an established commodity in a bullpen that lacks many. He'd be able to fully utilize his dominance against lefty swingers rather than facing starting lineups stacked with righties.

It shouldn't be difficult to see why I was open to giving him a shot this year. The rotation has been an absolute mess and Duensing has had more success as an MLB starter than most of the "alternatives" suggested by jokin will ever experience.

You should have stuck to your guns, Nick. Duensing had his niche role filled perfectly. (cc this to Snepp)

You are walking out on a thin limb, though, by cavalierly suggesting that Duensing will end up as the best starter out of the 6 mentioned (Duensing + Vasquez, Hendriks, Hernandez, Hermsen, Hirschfield). The rotation is a mess, this is the perfect time to find out what else you have in SP pitching depth before you start making the hard financial decisions that might include locking up Carl Pavano-type money (or more) to someone as you construct a 2013 rotation in the offseason. Nobody saw what the Twins had in Diamond, I certainly don't remember your prediction, or mine, about him as an "alternative" (more importantly, the Twins, themselves!). I'd say now is the time to find out if there are cheaper and less risky alternatives to high-dollar acquisitions. There is absolutely nothing to lose by finding out more about what you don't know, then to learn the same information that you already knew.

Originally Posted by jokin

You should have stuck to your guns, Nick. Duensing had his niche role filled perfectly. (cc this to Snepp)

You are walking out on a thin limb, though, by cavalierly suggesting that Duensing will end up as the best starter out of the 6 mentioned (Duensing + Vasquez, Hendriks, Hernandez, Hermsen, Hirschfield). The rotation is a mess, this is the perfect time to find out what else you have in SP pitching depth before you start making the hard financial decisions that might include locking up Carl Pavano-type money (or more) to someone as you construct a 2013 rotation in the offseason. Nobody saw what the Twins had in Diamond, I certainly don't remember your prediction, or mine, about him as an "alternative" (more importantly, the Twins, themselves!). I'd say now is the time to find out if there are cheaper and less risky alternatives to high-dollar acquisitions. There is absolutely nothing to lose by finding out more about what you don't know, then to learn the same information that you already knew.

I'd leave Hendriks off that list for now. I think it's pretty apparent that Cuellar is working on something specific with him in Rochester and as soon as they feel comfortable with his progress, he'll be with the ML club.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

I'd leave Hendriks off that list for now. I think it's pretty apparent that Cuellar is working on something specific with him in Rochester and as soon as they feel comfortable with his progress, he'll be with the ML club.

I'd leave almost everyone off that list for now. Hermsen hasn't even pitched in Triple-A, while Hernandez and Hirschfeld (seriously? Hirschfeld?) have had zero success there. These aren't top-flight prospects that you simply throw directly into an MLB rotation. Just because you haven't seen a guy before doesn't mean he's better than what you have. Plus, with the exception of Hendriks and Hernandez, none of those players are on the 40-man roster.

When I suggested trying Duensing in the rotation, it was simply because he was readily available and has had success as an MLB starter in the past, and at the time the Twins were trotting out Swarzak and Blackburn. That doesn't mean I think he's a viable long-term option or that I'm "continuing to insist that he's starting material" – amusing statements coming from a person accusing others of being ignorant and not taking the time to track down and accurately recap past conversations.

Originally Posted by snepp

Blinded by his half season ERA?

Nah, not blinded... I see he's figured it out.

Originally Posted by nick nelson

it shouldn't be difficult to see why i was open to giving him a shot this year. The rotation has been an absolute mess and duensing has had more success as an mlb starter than most of the "alternatives" suggested by jokin will ever experience.

ohhhh snap!@##w$

Originally Posted by jokin

You should have stuck to your guns, Nick. Duensing had his niche role filled perfectly. (cc this to Snepp)

As I said, you butchered his viewpoint to support your own and were unwilling to provide proof of your exaggerated claims because they didn't exist.

Scott Diamond's downward pitch slant makes hitters top a lot of balls, identical release point masks the pitch for a vital fraction of a second.

Another factor is the speed difference between his fastball and his curve. The fact that they look so alike coming out of his hand does more than create problems with pitch identification. It also creates a tendency to be early on his curve and late on his fastball, because the two aren't that far apart in speed. This should allow Diamond's infield and outfield to shade slightly to one side or the other, potentially gaining a vital step on a ball put in play.

One other thing that jumps out is his excellent grouping. It indicates that Diamond is spotting the ball with great precision, which implies that his style of pitching is sustainable so long as he's healthy, and I haven't seen any indication that his motion causes damage.

I'd love to see the pitch scatter chart on De Vries and Deduno. I bet De Vries has groupings in the corners, and Samuel Deduno's fastball looks like buck shot.

Originally Posted by snepp

Originally Posted by jokin

You should have stuck to your guns, Nick. Duensing had his niche role filled perfectly. (cc this to Snepp)

As I said, you butchered his viewpoint to support your own and were unwilling to provide proof of your exaggerated claims because they didn't exist.

You were asked nicely to cease and desist. Geez.

There were no exaggerated claims, there was no butchering of Nick's viewpoint, the debate regarding Dunce's role happened from the time Duensing was moved into the starting role, I questioned Nick's assertion that Dunce would be fine as a SP and asked Nick at the time to defend it. Feel free to check the dates when he became a SP and then search the TD archives. It isn't up to me to provide you footnotes, you are wasting everyone's time and providing nothing but white noise to this particular thread.