Tommy Rancel has been writing a lot recently about “pitching backwards” or “pitching 2.0.” Yesterday, he wrote a great piece for ESPN 1040 breaking down James Shields’ Sunday afternoon gem.
The concept is fascinating in its simplicity.
Get it? Pitching backwards? See what I did there?
Basically, Rancel has observed that Shields (and now Hellickson too) are taking advantage of basic hitting psychology by starting with a breaking ball working “backwards” to the fastball. This simple adjustment capitalizes on the most basic psychology of hitting.
Like most disciplines, hitting has accepted “rules” that were developed a long time ago [kind of like the rule that 9th graders must read books about farming yams in Africa -- do they even farm yams in Africa? -- instead of reading American classics like On the Road] that no one dares question. It was the way our fathers learned to hit and the way our fathers’ fathers learned to hit. So, it is the way we learned to hit. Start looking for a fastball or mistake in your nitro zone, then expand your zone with 1 strike, then protect the plate with 2 strikes.
Pitching backwards capitalizes on this institutional inertia. Shields/Hellickson start with a breaking ball (which automatically makes most hitters relax unless it is hung) that is a strike but not a strike in a hitter’s favorite spot.
That curveball isn’t a put away pitch. It is just a get-me-over pitch. Neither Shields or Hellickson are going to get a lot of strikeouts throwing that pitch late in counts (because they have nastier pitches for that). If Shields throws his curveball for a strike late in a count, when a hitter has expanded his zone, it is going to look like a mistake (or, to someone seated in the outfield, it is going to look like a souvenir). But, the pitch is remarkably effective early in the count because the spin makes a hitter not want to swing.
And, as they say, the best pitch in baseball is now and always has been strike one.
Actually, in Hellickson’s case, backwards for him is more early fastballs. In the pre-game chat Maddon does with the media before Helly’s CGSO, he told us he wanted to see Hellickson establish his fastall early and not rely so much on his breaking stuff and off-speed stuff. He said his change up is even more effective when the batter is looking for the fastball at any point in the count and not just at certain spots.
With Shields, pitching backwards is something that he finally took to. I know Rancel and I were screaming for it on our respective blogs last year after watching him give up 11 first pitch home runs off fastballs since he threw them or cutters so often to start off at bats last season.
Whatever James is doing, he should continue doing it. Thanks for giving me something to think about other than the on-field performance, Mark. It’s helping tamp down the burgeoning panic.
Although Hellcikson uses more fastballs early on (first time threw the lineup) he does it to set up pitching backwards later in the game.Same for Shields. Establish fastball command first, then as the lineup flips, you can start to change up your first pitch sequence.One difference I noticed from Shields to Hellickson is Hellickson uses a lot of first-pitch changeups late. Same theory, different pitch.
In my mind, Hellickson and Shields are similar – but different – animals. Hellickson throws too many pitches well. Shields was just a fastball-change guy when he arrived and he slowly developed the curve. Pitching backwards has rejuvenated his approach (which I think scouts had a book on). Hellickson, on the other hand, can pitch backwards, forwards, sidewards, etc because he has so many plus pitches.
Either way, this is such a great simple observation.