Thread: Article: Diamond's Shine Hasn't Worn Off

You can view the page at http://www.twinsdaily.com/content.ph...asn-t-Worn-Off

Agreed. If you're starting pitcher is either giving you outstanding performances or still giving you a chance to win on their off nights, you have got to be happy. One thing that impresses me about Diamond is how composed he seems on the mound. When things aren't going perfectly, he appears to be in control of his emtions and the situation at hand.

This is considered Diamond's rookie season, correct? If that is so, he's got to be leading the rookie of the year award, no?

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

This is considered Diamond's rookie season, correct? If that is so, he's got to be leading the rookie of the year award, no?

I suspect that Mike Trout of the Angels might have that nailed down.

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

This is considered Diamond's rookie season, correct? If that is so, he's got to be leading the rookie of the year award, no?

I don't know anybody (outside of Twins fans) who even knows who Scott Diamond is.

Um, ha, since Mike Trout might be having one of the best seasons in the history of the game for a 20 year old, and some people are saying he's already in the MVP race, I don't think there is any question who the AL rookie of the year is.

If your worst start is caused by giving up a HR to a future HoF player, that's a good sign. I don't think he's a guy that will pitch to an ERA under 3....but he might be a guy that can pitch to around a 4, that wouldn't be too bad.

Trout is definitely in the lead by a longshot but, like Diamond, there's definitely some regression waiting to happen with the kid. He's currently rocking a .400 BABIP. Yes, .400. That's absurd and should take a significant nosedive through the summer months.

For comparison, George Brett had a BABIP of .368 the year he hit .390. Guys occasionally sport a BABIP close to .400 for a season but those guys have a tendency to play in Little League parks and have names like "Josh Hamilton".

I don't know who Diamond is, but comparing this season with last, the only differences are that he is walking fewer (which is a good thing) and his pitches gained about 1 mph in velocity across the board and his BABIP dropped from .33x to a normal .290. A pitcher who averages 89ish with the FB, about 5 K/9 and about 6.5% SwStr%, is just not guaranteed success. I wish that he keeps doing it, but I just don't see how. Still, he can be a servicable 4th-5th type of starter. Lots like Silva in that single season of no-walk baseball... (and Silva had better stuff then - 92 mph FB ave)

In the four starts where he has allowed a home run, he is 1-2 with a 4.56 ERA.

Here's what's sad: this ERA would still be second on the team among all the pitchers who have started games, just behind DeVries 3 starts at 4.20.

Scott Diamond had an interesting interview with Dick and Bert.

Diamond mentioned that getting first strike is very important, because batting average tends to drop off dramatically with an 0-1 count. I thought Diamond said MLB average is something like .185 after a 1 pitch strike, but A. I'm not sure I remember correctly and B. under .200 seems like a suspect number.

Any of you stats people able to confirm that I heard correctly or that my memory just isn't what it used to be?

Baseball reference's batting splits has all that info readily available.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/le...2012&t=b#count

Originally Posted by Blake

Scott Diamond had an interesting interview with Dick and Bert.

Diamond mentioned that getting first strike is very important, because batting average tends to drop off dramatically with an 0-1 count. I thought Diamond said MLB average is something like .185 after a 1 pitch strike, but A. I'm not sure I remember correctly and B. under .200 seems like a suspect number.

Any of you stats people able to confirm that I heard correctly or that my memory just isn't what it used to be?

I saw that interview, and I remember him saying something about being determined to throw the first pitch in the zone every time, "even if it's a cookie." That seemed like something you would not want the opposing team to hear.

FWIW, MLB hitters this year have a .224/.266/.346 line after falling behind 0-1 in the count. So not exactly .185, but still it's obviously advantageous to get that first strike.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

I saw that interview, and I remember him saying something about being determined to throw the first pitch in the zone every time, "even if it's a cookie." That seemed like something you would not want the opposing team to hear.

It might be what you want them to hear if you're a poker player, or even a chess player. I took a look at yesterday's pitch-by-pitch log at espn.com, and the first time through the lineup the first pitch was a strike every time. Afterward, the first pitch was a ball as often as not. Gamesmanship, I think.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

It might be what you want them to hear if you're a poker player, or even a chess player. I took a look at yesterday's pitch-by-pitch log at espn.com, and the first time through the lineup the first pitch was a strike every time. Afterward, the first pitch was a ball as often as not. Gamesmanship, I think.

Could be, although it seemed to me like he was just missing his spots in the middle innings.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Could be, although it seemed to me like he was just missing his spots in the middle innings.

There's always that possibility. I'm basically agreeing with you, that it's a very odd thing for a pitcher to have said, so I'm inclined to think it can't be taken at face value.

Even if he does throw first-pitch strikes, it's reverse-reverse psychology, in my overwrought way of looking at it.

Nick, thanks for the answer, much appreciated.