Where Did Phil's Cutter Go?

Phil Hughes on the mound, a photo by Marianne O'Leary on Flickr.

We saw Phil Hughes struggle yet again on Saturday. Despite the 6 strikouts in 3 1/3 innings pitched, the Angels hit him hard. As we so often have seen with Hughes throughout his Yankee career, he had moments where he looked like the ace of this pitching staff against one batter, and then a batting practice machine against the next.

Hughes' inconsistency prevents him from being the pitcher this organization always hoped he would be. His control and accuracy quite frankly aren't that good, and he makes too many mistakes. He's had countless outings where he's cruised through the first several innings, appeared to be pitching a gem, and then let up a 3-run home run on a waist high fastball that missed its target.

Hughes has plenty of problems that need to be overcome for him to remain a starting pitcher at the major league level. Namely, his fastball is too straight. He doesn't throw hard enough to get away with the lack of movement. He isn't accurate enough to get away with it either, missing up in the zone way too often. He has a tendency to push the ball instead of staying on top. This means his fastball comes in on a flatter plane, making it a fatter and easier pitch for hitters to make good contact against. It's for these reasons that the vanishing of his cutter is so disconcerting.

In 2008, Hughes was a 2-pitch pitcher who struggled mightily. We heard all year, even after he was injured, that he was working on a change-up and cutter. In 2009, he came back with that cutter, and he was a changed pitcher as a result. Before being moved to the bullpen that season, Hughes was not only significantly improved, he was sometimes dominant. His cutter had late bite, keeping hitters off balance, not allowing them to make good contact as often.

After a great season in the bullpen in 2009, Hughes won 18 games as a starter in 2010. Then last season, disaster struck. Hughes' fastball lost juice due to shoulder issues. I haven't really seen his cutter since. Hughes has certainly thrown it, just not as often. And when he does, it isn't anywhere near as sharp and effective as it was in 2009 and 2010. The same is true about Hughes.

Why is the cutter so important to Hughes' repertoire? As stated earlier, his fastball is too straight. The cutter complements the fastball, and actually makes it better. This is because an effective cutter comes out of a pitcher's hand like a fastball and breaks off late, down and to the left from a right-handed pitcher. If it's a late-biting cutter as Hughes had in '09 and '10, it's tough for the hitter to identify until it's too late. After you've seen enough cutters, as a hitter you don't react to that straight 4-seam fastball as well. Your timing gets thrown off. Often a hitter can start looking for and protecting against an effective cutter. In this case, a straight fastball like Hughes has can sneak by hitters more often - this is similar to the effect of pitching backwards (throwing off-speed to a hitter early in an at bat, and fastballs late).

Because a cutter looks so much like a fastball out of the hand, it can easily become a pitcher's best friend. There is no count you can't throw it in. When hitters have favorable 2-0, 3-1, high-probability fastball counts, the pitcher can tip the scales in his favor, getting batters to swing at a pitch that dips out of the zone late, either swinging over it entirely or making poor contact. This obviously keeps a pitcher from getting into trouble as often after falling behind, a nice luxury to have.

The problem with the cutter is that it's a feel pitch - much like most off-speed pitches in baseball. As a result, it's tough to control and have it come out of your hand the right way while you also do so with your other breaking pitches. And because you turn your hand in ever so slightly as you throw the pitch, if you throw it too much you can get used to the hand positioning which then affects you when you throw your 4-seam fastball. Many initially thought this was Hughes' problem early last season.

These theories certainly have merit. But if Hughes can't find his cutter and throw it consistently, then his fastball isn't good enough for him to just be a two-pitch, fastball-curveball pitcher (his change-up really isn't much to write home about either). And if that's the case, he doesn't have a lot to look forward to as a starting pitcher in this league.

No Need To Panic

Joe Girardi, a photo by Keith Allison on Flickr.

It'd be easy to start panicking if you're a Yankees fan after opening weekend. An 0-3 start is not how this season was supposed to begin. But there really isn't much to be worried about at this point.

It would be one thing if there was a glaring hole that this series against the Rays exposed. Sure the starting pitching wasn't what the Yankees had in mind when they were constructing their rotation this offseason. However, it was the first start of the season for Sabathia, Kuroda, and Hughes. Each pitched well at times. None of the three performed in a way that raised any red flags.

By and large, the main components of the bullpen pitched well...I guess, except for Mariano. But I'll wait for a few bad outings from Mo before I start to panic. I think I'm not alone there.

It's tough to find too many concerns with the offense either. Alex Rodriguez was the player I kept the closest eye on. And quite frankly, he looked sharp. Not only did he make good contact consistently, but he showed great patience at the plate, drawing four walks over the weekend. He also stole a base. It's a little too early to tell if he'll be the A-Rod of old, and it's especially too early to know if he'll be able to stay healthy all season, but he looked good through the first three games.

Raul Ibanez also provided a nice boost to the offense. Consistent power out of the 7-spot is a luxury to any lineup, and if Ibanez can hit the ball as hard all season as he did this weekend, the Yanks will be right where they want to be at the end of the year. 

As for the rest of the offense, what is there to say really? They hit the ball hard often and got beaten by Joe Maddon's shifts. His moves paid off in just about every way in this series. But there's no need to be discouraged by such a small sample size when, in reality, the Yanks hit the ball well all weekend. They just had very little luck. If they continue to hit the ball like they did against the Rays, that luck will change over the course of their next 159 games.

Don't be fooled into thinking this series was a microcosm of some bigger problem with the Yankees. After three games there isn't any resounding statement to be made that truly encompasses this team. They just lost. I'm sure the New York media will be all over this, perhaps accusing the Yankees of being dead or playing with no energy or "checking out" like Wallace Matthews did in his recap of the game on ESPN.com.

But come on, it's really too early to panic or even be concerned at this point. It's a long season. If we look up at the end of the month and the Yankees are 7-16, then maybe it'll be time to start asking some serious questions. Even then, it's not like this team isn't capable of overcoming that type of start.

Until that happens though, I really won't be concerned. I can't find much to complain about other than the fact that the outcome stunk. And if none of what I'm saying comforts you Bombers fans, then just consider that at least the Yanks don't have a glaring issue at the back end of their bullpen like their division rivals to the northeast.

Tebow Move Makes No Sense For The Jets

Tim Tebow, a photo by Jeffrey Beall on Flickr.

In a vacuum Tim Tebow to the Jets is a great move. With Tony Sparano (the coach who introduced the "Wildcat" to the NFL) as the new offensive coordinator, this would seem like a perfect match. 

Unfortunately for the Jets, the game isn't played in a vacuum. It's played on the field. With humans. Humans have to deal with distractions on and off the field. There is, and never will, be any way of changing this, which makes the acquisition of Tim Tebow so confusing.

Mark Sanchez is being undercut by the organization once again. Now I don't think much of him as a quarterback to begin with. He's limited physically and has shown little ability to make complex reads. He's a front-running quarterback. When things are good he's laughing, celebrating, and having a great time on the field. And his play reflects that confidence. When things aren't going well he's shown no ability to bounce back, instead wearing that mopey, hangdog, Shawshank-Redemption-I'm-Not-Supposed-to-be-here look. And in those situations his play reflects that lack of confidence.

But the Jets have decided that he's their guy. They traded up in 2009 to draft him 5th overall. Just a couple of weeks ago, they guaranteed the next two years of his contract - I know, I know, it was really a move to create cap space. But regardless, if you're going to commit to the guy as your quarterback of the future and you want him to develop you should at least put him in the best position to succeed that you can. The Jets had already failed to do this before the Tim Tebow acquisition, and this move just compounds that.

Sanchez has played his entire career in an environment where he can't make any mistakes. He's on a defensive-minded team where, from day one, the philosophy on offense has by and large been "don't lose the game." No mistakes or turnovers allowed. Don't take chances downfield. Remember the famous red-light green-light wrist band and play-calling system his rookie season? The one where by virtue of the color of the play call, Sanchez was told if he was allowed to maybe take a chance or if he absolutely could not throw a risky pass under any circumstances. Now I'll be the first to tell you that many of the issues surrounding the Jets' handling of their young signal caller are due to Sanchez's deficiencies as a quarterback. That doesn't mean the Jets shouldn't try to put him in as good of a situation as possible, especially when they've committed to him so many times in so many ways.

Having a quarterback like Tebow backing him up won't do much to alleviate any pressure on Sanchez, especially when he struggles. The calls will come from all sides to replace Sanchez with Tebow as soon as he has a bad game or two. Remember, Tebow isn't a normal back-up quarterback. He's a rock star. With a following.

Even if Tebow is initially just on the team to run Wildcat packages here and there, the situation isn't any different. Since he'll play in short yardage situations, red zone situations, and whenever the offense with Sanchez sputters for a few drives, any success he has will serve as proof to fans and the New York media of why he should be starting. This will only add to the pressure on Sanchez. And don't forget, Tebow has basically said in so many words that he's there to compete for the starting job.

Every single player goes through ups and downs during a season. The ones who can make it through are the ones who can fight and the ones who are actually given the opportunity to fight through whatever adversity comes their way. Sanchez won't be given this opportunity with someone like Tebow waiting in the wings.

Football: Jets-v-Eagles, Sep 2009 - 73, a photo by Ed Yourdon on Flickr.

There's the argument out there that competition will raise Sanchez's play. We always hear that competition between athletes on the same team is good because those athletes will push each other to work harder and become greater by virtue of the competition itself. For the most part I think this is true. However, when it comes to the quarterback position this theory rarely applies.

The only situation I can think of where competion between two quarterbacks on the same team is good is when those two quarterbacks are evenly matched heading into a season. But this is only as long as by Week 1 there is a definitive starter, and as long as that declared starter is given the leeway to make some mistakes. I'm not saying a quarterback shouldn't ever be benched or replaced during a season. I'm simply saying they should be given some time to work through their mistakes and not fear a benching because they throw an interception or two.

With Sanchez and Tebow though, we aren't talking about evenly matched quarterbacks. We're talking about one quarterback the Jets might be able to salvage a future with, and one quarterback who shouldn't be playing the position but has a huge fan base that will call for him to play no matter how bad of a passer he is.

If you're going to commit to a quarterback like Sanchez, bringing in a backup like Tebow is not the way to get the most out of his performance. Again, the quarterback position is different than any other position in sports. There can be only one, and quarterbacks can't hide. The mistakes they make will cause fans to call for their removal faster than for any other position in sports.

Sanchez has been the starter for 3 years and he's had a rocky beginning to his career. Competition at this point isn't what he needs. He needs a confidence boost. He needs reassurance from his coaches and management. He needs to be allowed to play. He needs to be allowed to make mistakes. That's the best thing a quarterback can have - the ability to screw up and keep playing.

Just ask someone like Phil Simms. This guy was being run out of town in 1986 - his 8th year in the league, and also the year the Giants went 14-2 and won their first Super Bowl. Watch this clip from "America's Game - The 1986 Giants" produced by NFL Films. Start at 18:06. Watch the whole thing, because it's a great documentary, but specifically watch at this point and see Simms talk about how Bill Parcells told him to not worry about making mistakes. Parcells told him he didn't care if he threw 4 interceptions, just keep playing, and keep being a daring quarterback. This turned Simms' season and career around. That type of confidence and that type of reassurance is what a young, struggling quarterback needs. Obviously Parcells wasn't saying turnovers are a good thing, or even that they're okay. He was saying don't be afraid to make mistakes. Play to win the game, not to avoid losing it.

Sanchez has clearly never been able to play in this type of environment through his first 3 seasons. He certainly won't be able to do so this season either.

The only way this trade is a good move is if the Jets think Tebow will take over as their starting quarterback of the future. If they think a non-passing offensive system can succeed long term in the NFL, then this is arguably the best trade ever made anywhere. Personally, I don't see this type of offense leading to any type of long-term success. Tebow's effectiveness last year, and the Wildcat's success a few years ago, were both largely due to the fact that they were novelties. Teams didn't know how to defend these new systems right off the bat. The Wildcat has since quickly become a tiny aspect of offenses around the league at best. And quite frankly, for all the so-called "trouble" teams had stopping Tebow and Denver's offense last season, the Broncos still only averaged 17.08 offensive points per game during his 13 starts. I didn't know scoring 17 points a game makes you an offense that other teams have difficulty stopping - especially considering that the 4th best scoring defense in the league last season, the Houston Texans, allowed 17.4 points per game.

This is an all-around curious move by the Jets, and I'm just as interested as you are to see how it works out.