Maybe the Cardinals finally get it...

[mattmitchl44]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

[hugeCardfan]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

RIP Dave Duncan...

[Melville]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

They have understood this for the past several years.
And have acknowledged it many times.
Super Slo Mo, always defined by fear and timidity, simply lacked the skill and the will to do anything meaningful about it.

[scoutyjones2]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Lol. None of them have proven anything yet

[The Nard]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Since when have they had a pitch-to-contact approach? Not for almost 10 years. They seem to have many hard-throwing prospects come up, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn

Maybe Mikolas and Pallante are who you’re thinking of. Yet they succeeded when they have command of their pitches.

Contact pitchers who have good command of the zone - changing speeds andhitting the outside corners - will still succeed in this era.

[JuanAgosto]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

They have understood this for the past several years.
And have acknowledged it many times.
Super Slo Mo, always defined by fear and timidity, simply lacked the skill and the will to do anything meaningful about it.

Because he was a lazy jackass. Johnny numb nuts. What a putz.

[mattmitchl44]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Since when have they had a pitch-to-contact approach? Not for almost 10 years. They seem to have many hard-throwing prospects come up, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn

Maybe Mikolas and Pallante are who you’re thinking of. Yet they succeeded when they have command of their pitches.

Contact pitchers who have good command of the zone - changing speeds andhitting the outside corners - will still succeed in this era.

As a team, the Cardinals have been 29th in K/9 over the last three seasons, 29th in K/9 over the last five seasons, and 26th in K/9 over the last 10 seasons. They have not prioritized "strikeout stuff" on their pitching staff.

[NorthernBird]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Since when have they had a pitch-to-contact approach? Not for almost 10 years. They seem to have many hard-throwing prospects come up, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn

Maybe Mikolas and Pallante are who you’re thinking of. Yet they succeeded when they have command of their pitches.

Contact pitchers who have good command of the zone - changing speeds andhitting the outside corners - will still succeed in this era.

As a team, the Cardinals have been 29th in K/9 over the last three seasons, 29th in K/9 over the last five seasons, and 26th in K/9 over the last 10 seasons. They have not prioritized "strikeout stuff" on their pitching staff.

The Cards were less than 1 strikeout per game lower than league average, and less than 2 strikeouts per game lower than the league leader.

Is that meaningful? Are two SOs a game what did it in for the Cards’ staff?

[mattmitchl44]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Since when have they had a pitch-to-contact approach? Not for almost 10 years. They seem to have many hard-throwing prospects come up, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn

Maybe Mikolas and Pallante are who you’re thinking of. Yet they succeeded when they have command of their pitches.

Contact pitchers who have good command of the zone - changing speeds andhitting the outside corners - will still succeed in this era.

As a team, the Cardinals have been 29th in K/9 over the last three seasons, 29th in K/9 over the last five seasons, and 26th in K/9 over the last 10 seasons. They have not prioritized "strikeout stuff" on their pitching staff.

The Cards were less than 1 strikeout per game lower than league average, and less than 2 strikeouts per game lower than the league leader.

Is that meaningful? Are two SOs a game what did it in for the Cards’ staff?

Seems like it turns out to be meaningful.

Of the top 10 teams in K/9, eight had team ERAs under 4.00. Of the bottom 10 teams in K/9, seven had team ERAs above 4.00.

Maybe not a "decisive" difference, but a meaningful one.

When you play ~50 one-run games a year, two fewer balls allowed in play could make a difference in more than a few of those.

[NorthernBird]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Since when have they had a pitch-to-contact approach? Not for almost 10 years. They seem to have many hard-throwing prospects come up, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn

Maybe Mikolas and Pallante are who you’re thinking of. Yet they succeeded when they have command of their pitches.

Contact pitchers who have good command of the zone - changing speeds andhitting the outside corners - will still succeed in this era.

As a team, the Cardinals have been 29th in K/9 over the last three seasons, 29th in K/9 over the last five seasons, and 26th in K/9 over the last 10 seasons. They have not prioritized "strikeout stuff" on their pitching staff.

The Cards were less than 1 strikeout per game lower than league average, and less than 2 strikeouts per game lower than the league leader.

Is that meaningful? Are two SOs a game what did it in for the Cards’ staff?

Seems like it turns out to be meaningful.

Of the top 10 teams in K/9, eight had team ERAs under 4.00. Of the bottom 10 teams in K/9, seven had team ERAs above 4.00.

Maybe not a "decisive" difference, but a meaningful one.

I don’t think you’ve made a case for meaning in 2 SOs per game. What you’ve instead now pivoted to is overall stats correlating with better pitching staffs. However, there’s no causation proven that 2 extra SOs per game is the difference maker from a bottom of the league staff and a top of the league staff.

Just for a minute, remove yourself from the numbers and think about the actual game. Two SOs. Maybe one extra in the 2nd inning and one in the 7th. That’s it. The difference between the Rockies and the Dodgers, according to your argument.

[mattmitchl44]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Since when have they had a pitch-to-contact approach? Not for almost 10 years. They seem to have many hard-throwing prospects come up, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn

Maybe Mikolas and Pallante are who you’re thinking of. Yet they succeeded when they have command of their pitches.

Contact pitchers who have good command of the zone - changing speeds andhitting the outside corners - will still succeed in this era.

As a team, the Cardinals have been 29th in K/9 over the last three seasons, 29th in K/9 over the last five seasons, and 26th in K/9 over the last 10 seasons. They have not prioritized "strikeout stuff" on their pitching staff.

The Cards were less than 1 strikeout per game lower than league average, and less than 2 strikeouts per game lower than the league leader.

Is that meaningful? Are two SOs a game what did it in for the Cards’ staff?

Seems like it turns out to be meaningful.

Of the top 10 teams in K/9, eight had team ERAs under 4.00. Of the bottom 10 teams in K/9, seven had team ERAs above 4.00.

Maybe not a "decisive" difference, but a meaningful one.

I don’t think you’ve made a case for meaning in 2 SOs per game. What you’ve instead now pivoted to is overall stats correlating with better pitching staffs. However, there’s no causation proven that 2 extra SOs per game is the difference maker from a bottom of the league staff and a top of the league staff.

Just for a minute, remove yourself from the numbers and think about the actual game. Two SOs. Maybe one extra in the 2nd inning and one in the 7th. That’s it. The difference between the Rockies and the Dodgers, according to your argument.

Added:

When you play ~50 one-run games a year, two fewer balls allowed in play could make a difference in more than a few of those.

Especially when you consider that hitters aren't going to the plate just trying to slap balls weakly into play. Everybody (it seems) is going up to try to do XBH damage.

Put another way, in going from 7 K/9 to 9 K/9, you reduce the number of outs your defense has to get by 10% (from 20 to 18 in a 27-out game). If you can get the same amount of "run prevention" by relying 10% less on your defense, maybe you can trade a little defense for a little more offense in your starting lineup.

[mattmitchl44]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

RIP Dave Duncan...

BTW - even in the Dave Duncan era (1996-2011), the Cardinals were 22nd in K/9, not 29th. Even the guru of pitch to contact, get groundballs had staffs that were a bit more in line with MLB averages than they have been recently.

[sikeston bulldog2]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Since when have they had a pitch-to-contact approach? Not for almost 10 years. They seem to have many hard-throwing prospects come up, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn

Maybe Mikolas and Pallante are who you’re thinking of. Yet they succeeded when they have command of their pitches.

Contact pitchers who have good command of the zone - changing speeds andhitting the outside corners - will still succeed in this era.

As a team, the Cardinals have been 29th in K/9 over the last three seasons, 29th in K/9 over the last five seasons, and 26th in K/9 over the last 10 seasons. They have not prioritized "strikeout stuff" on their pitching staff.

The Cards were less than 1 strikeout per game lower than league average, and less than 2 strikeouts per game lower than the league leader.

Is that meaningful? Are two SOs a game what did it in for the Cards’ staff?

Seems like it turns out to be meaningful.

Of the top 10 teams in K/9, eight had team ERAs under 4.00. Of the bottom 10 teams in K/9, seven had team ERAs above 4.00.

Maybe not a "decisive" difference, but a meaningful one.

When you play ~50 one-run games a year, two fewer balls allowed in play could make a difference in more than a few of those.

You’re leaving too much out of the equation that is super important. A stroke out pitcher automatically puts doubt in a hitters mind. Then, there are many 0-1 counts after a nice heater. Then 0-2, then 1-2, then 2-2, etc.

With a k pitcher much more to affect the game and play happens other than two strikeouts.

Completely changed the narrative. Per out.

[alw80]

Load up on pitchers. You can save a lot of money on your rotation and BP by supplying your own pitchers from your system.

[sikeston bulldog2]

Load up on pitchers. You can save a lot of money on your rotation and BP by supplying your own pitchers from your system.

The Dodgers model. If one thing stands out other than loading up with stars, it’s the dodgers staff. They have more on the IL than most have on roster.

Following a the dodgers model.

[renostl]

...when it comes to modern, pitching prospects.

Instead of their antiquated, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs approach to prioritizing pitchers, get fastball-slider guys who throw really hard (Fitts 60/60 FB, 55/55 SL; Clarke 60/60 FB, 70/80 SL; Doyle 70/70 FB, 50/60 SL). If you can get fastball-slider guys to develop one more pitch and better control, you have the makings of a FOR SP. And even if you can't, you can fill a bullpen with dominant fastball-slider guys and be able to shut down games from the sixth inning on.

Their traditional soft tossing, pitch-to-contact, try to get groundballs pitchers almost always have a limited ceiling and a basement of being unusable instead of a floor.

Since when have they had a pitch-to-contact approach? Not for almost 10 years. They seem to have many hard-throwing prospects come up, who couldn’t hit the side of a barn

Maybe Mikolas and Pallante are who you’re thinking of. Yet they succeeded when they have command of their pitches.

Contact pitchers who have good command of the zone - changing speeds andhitting the outside corners - will still succeed in this era.

As a team, the Cardinals have been 29th in K/9 over the last three seasons, 29th in K/9 over the last five seasons, and 26th in K/9 over the last 10 seasons. They have not prioritized "strikeout stuff" on their pitching staff.

The Cards were less than 1 strikeout per game lower than league average, and less than 2 strikeouts per game lower than the league leader.

Is that meaningful? Are two SOs a game what did it in for the Cards’ staff?

Seems like it turns out to be meaningful.

Of the top 10 teams in K/9, eight had team ERAs under 4.00. Of the bottom 10 teams in K/9, seven had team ERAs above 4.00.

Maybe not a "decisive" difference, but a meaningful one.

I don’t think you’ve made a case for meaning in 2 SOs per game. What you’ve instead now pivoted to is overall stats correlating with better pitching staffs. However, there’s no causation proven that 2 extra SOs per game is the difference maker from a bottom of the league staff and a top of the league staff.

Just for a minute, remove yourself from the numbers and think about the actual game. Two SOs. Maybe one extra in the 2nd inning and one in the 7th. That’s it. The difference between the Rockies and the Dodgers, according to your argument.

Maybe barrel rates become lower versus pitchers who are more difficult to hit
Of course these are general terms, something that is in play over 162 just as the SO per game isn't perfectly divided at 1 every game