After another subpar performance, Tim Lincecum faces questions regarding his health and his control. Lincecum took the mound against the Nationals having uncharacteristically walked five batters in each of his previous two games and proceeded to make it three games in a row. Lincecum walked five Nationals hitters and allowed six runs before being pulled in the fifth inning. Lincecum’s quirky delivery doesn’t lend itself well to holding runners on and the Nationals reaped the benefits with 4 SB (Morgan, Kennedy twice, and Zimmerman). Lincecum now sits atop the stolen bases allowed list with fellow teammate, Jonathan Sanchez.
Lincecum’s obviously in trouble with 15BB in his previous 17.2 innings pitched after allowing only 10 total BB over the previous 7 starts. The question obviously becomes WHY? Why has Lincecum allowed 15 BB? Why has Lincecum seen his ERA rise from 1.76 to 3.00 in the previous two games?
The San Jose Mercury News reports speculations that Lincecum has been dealing with a blister,
According to a pregame television report, Lincecum had a blister on his pitching hand. Manager Bruce Bochy refuted the report, saying Lincecum “wasn’t pitching with a blister (and) we wouldn’t have pitched him with a blister.”
Lincecum, his hands noticeably stuffed in his sweatshirt postgame interview, sidestepped the blister question.”It’s something I’ve dealt with before,” he said. “I go out there all the time, so … whatever.”
Bochy obviously displeased of the idea that he sent an injured Lincecum out to pitch had this to say,
“He was out of sync tonight, no getting around it. He lost focus with men on base. He’s pressing a little. He’s got to regroup. He’s done an incredible job (but) as good as he’s been, he’s going to have his streaks. The next bullpen will be an important ‘pen for him.”
There’s no real reason to prove or discredit Blister-Gate but there are some small signals that Lincecum’s been dealing with something.
The loss of velocity on his fastball was at first considered part of Lincecum’s maturation but logic would dictate that he’d have no problem dialing it up for the occasional high-leverage situation but he hasn’t done that thus far (graph court. fangraphs.com):
According to fangraphs, Lincecum’s lost over a mph on his fastball in 2010. Lincecum has been experimenting with increased usage of the two-seamer, cutter and change-up to become a better pitcher rather than just a flame-thrower and it appeared to have been working — Until the wheels fell off, of course.
Contrasting the first seven games of the season and the previous three, it’s clear that not only is Lincecum having trouble locating but the pitches just aren’t moving as much:
Lincecum’s change-up, a pitch he was throwing 25% of the time to start the season, was a strike 75% of the time with batters whiffing 32% of the time after swinging at 68% of them. Conversely in his previous three starts, Lincecum was throwing changes 20% of the time, it was a strike 61.3% of the time with batters swinging at a 52% percent clip and whiffing almost 23% of the time. Originally, the change had almost 3.5 inches of tail but it’s fallen flat with under 2″ in the past three games. Less spin and a breaking direction 20 degrees closer to straight down has all but removed the tail horizontal movement.
Lincecum’s early success featured him throwing a straight four-seamer 35% of the time and the two-seamer with horizontal movement 16% of the time. In the previous three games, Lincecum has all but abandoned the two-seamer (down 7%) as it’s only drawing a strike 36.7% of the time compared to it’s earlier rate of 61%.
Here’s the full comparison of Lincecum’s pitch-use:
First 7 Games:
| Type | Count | Selection | Strike | Swing | Whiff | Foul | In Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 268 | 35.3% | 62.7% | 38.1% | 6.7% | 17.2% | 14.2% |
| CH | 186 | 24.5% | 74.7% | 68.3% | 32.3% | 21.5% | 14.5% |
| CU | 129 | 17.0% | 58.1% | 37.2% | 8.5% | 11.6% | 17.1% |
| FT | 122 | 16.1% | 60.7% | 36.9% | 9.0% | 14.8% | 13.1% |
| SL | 53 | 7.0% | 66.0% | 50.9% | 13.2% | 20.8% | 17.0% |
| FA | 2 | 0.3% | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
Last 3 Games:
| Type | Count | Selection | Strike | Swing | Whiff | Foul | In Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 141 | 44.8% | 66.0% | 40.4% | 9.9% | 12.8% | 17.7% |
| CH | 62 | 19.7% | 61.3% | 51.6% | 22.6% | 16.1% | 12.9% |
| CU | 55 | 17.5% | 41.8% | 29.1% | 7.3% | 10.9% | 10.9% |
| FT | 30 | 9.5% | 36.7% | 30.0% | 6.7% | 10.0% | 13.3% |
| SL | 27 | 8.6% | 63.0% | 51.9% | 3.7% | 22.2% | 25.9% |
Evidence of Blister-Gate is moderately supported by viewing Lincecum’s spin-rate comparisons from the previous couple years:
2009:
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity (mph) | Vertical (in) | Horizontal (in) | Spin Angle (deg) | Spin Rate (rpm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 1883 | 55.3% | 92.4 | 10.79 | -3.17 | 196 | 2,308 |
| CH | 643 | 18.9% | 83.1 | 3.93 | -3.26 | 219 | 998 |
| CU | 625 | 18.3% | 77.1 | -6.65 | 3.90 | 42 | 1,303 |
| SL | 230 | 6.8% | 82.5 | 0.36 | 1.66 | 119 | 646 |
| FT | 26 | 0.8% | 90.0 | 8.93 | -6.21 | 215 | 2,125 |
First Seven Games of 2010:
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity (mph) | Vertical (in) | Horizontal (in) | Spin Angle (deg) | Spin Rate (rpm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 268 | 35.3% | 91.3 | 9.98 | -0.39 | 182 | 2,012 |
| CH | 186 | 24.5% | 84.2 | 3.92 | -3.35 | 225 | 1,076 |
| CU | 129 | 17.0% | 78.3 | -6.05 | 3.98 | 56 | 1,258 |
| FT | 122 | 16.1% | 91.2 | 8.19 | -5.68 | 215 | 1,994 |
| SL | 53 | 7.0% | 85.0 | 2.81 | 2.29 | 128 | 761 |
| FA | 2 | 0.3% | 88.9 | 4.42 | -0.56 | 182 | 890 |
Compared to the previous 3 of 2010:
| Type | Count | Selection | Velocity (mph) | Vertical (in) | Horizontal (in) | Spin Angle (deg) | Spin Rate (rpm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | 141 | 44.8% | 91.1 | 10.50 | -0.13 | 181 | 2,097 |
| CH | 62 | 19.7% | 83.7 | 4.21 | -1.88 | 206 | 897 |
| CU | 55 | 17.5% | 77.9 | -4.73 | 3.49 | 56 | 1,023 |
| FT | 30 | 9.5% | 90.5 | 8.52 | -5.46 | 213 | 2,002 |
| SL | 27 | 8.6% | 84.6 | 2.32 | 1.95 | 132 | 662 |
While some of the rotational loss between years can be attributed to the slowing of Lincecum’s overall movement and torque, the difference between the first seven and last 3 games of 2010 is quite noticeable. Despite a stable velocity on his offspeed pitches, he’s been unable to impart the same degree of spin and rotation on the ball.
The easiest way to explain this is the one that Bochy’s been denying: Tim Lincecum has SOMETHING — whether it’s a blister or hangnail — wrong with his finger(s). Lincecum was given an extra day of rest going into last night’s start and it definitely didn’t help, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a DL trip in the near future.
