The headline was supposed to refer to all the nicknames you guys are throwing out - some gems in there. It could also refer to the Royals, who are once again proving that if they can just score 3 or 4 runs consistently, they're going to be in every game. Is mid-May too early for scoreboard watching? Because right now the Indians are the only truly imposing barrier blocking the Royals from realistic postseason hopes. If you told me right now that the Indians would win no more than 85 games, I'd say we have a shot at winning this division. The way the Tribe is pitching, though, they could blow this division apart pretty soon. But hey, their starter gave up a run (unearned) today. So that's something.
Once my schedule frees up in a week or two we'll talk in more detail about how realistic the Royals' chances are. In the meantime, here are my thoughts on all the suggested nicknames so far...
- First off, I want to address the concerns of those who feel this entire enterprise is inappropriate. As one anonymous poster said, "I must object to this entire post. The entire point behind nicknames, and the reason that they really great ones ARE great and therefore stick, is that they are given through spontaneous bouts of creativity, usually related to a humorous, impressive, or embarassing trait of the nicknamee."
My response to this is that, actually, most of the famous nicknames in baseball history were in fact penned by sportswriters, and were almost certainly not thought of spontaneously, but rather were premeditated acts of penmanship. I highly doubt one of Mickey Mantle's coaches looked at him one day and said, "you know what - this guy's the Commerce Comet!" One of Johnny Martin's teammates may have called him Pepper, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the guy who first called him "The Wild Horse of the Osage" was sitting in front of a typewriter at the time.
The media has always been involved in coining nicknames for players. It just so happens that in today's game, the media has largely abdicated that responsibility. There's nothing wrong with that, but just as blogs are replacing the traditional media's role in other ways, I see no reason why blogs can't take on the duty of both inventing nicknames and disseminating them to a wider audience.
- To "TheBobHamelin": I will gladly concede that you created the term "Hispanic Panic" to refer to Messrs. Soria, Nunez, and Ramirez first - a fact I was not aware of until after I made the same connection. In return I hope you will gladly concede that it is in fact possible for two people to have come up with the same nickname, independently of each other, without any need to suggest plagiarism or other foul play. Thanks. As I've said before, I'm not entirely comfortable with the nickname, so I may just avoid using it in the future.
- We'll be putting a number of potential nicknames up for a vote next week, I hope - I'll have more details on that later. But one nickname is so perfect that I am invoking executive privilege right here and now: our top two starters will henceforth be known, when referred to in tandem, as Greinke and the Brain. Many kudos to whoever came up with that one - I never watched the show and I still think it's brilliant. May they succeed in taking over the World...Series.
- Lots of calls for Doc Bannister, lots of calls for The Professor. Both of them are good but obvious. Doc, The Professor, The Brain...we'll put this up for a vote.
- A pretty strong consensus for calling Gordon "Splash", and an equally strong consensus that he hasn't earned it yet. Need a few other contenders here, or we'll just call this one over.
- I have a personal preference to avoid nicknames derived from the player's real name if at all possible, but that's not a hard and fast rule. A lot of you like "The Gobstopper" for Jimmy Gobble. I'm always up for a Willy Wonka reference. Maybe we can just call him "Everlasting" - an ironic reference to the fact that he's usually out there to face a single hitter.
- So many choices for Soria, but none of them strike me as being able to do his brand of dominance justice. I'm not sure any nickname can do him justice at this point - he looks like he's ready for a higher league. The way he closed out the game on Wednesday night...how do you say "The Eviscerator" in Spanish? I think Marcus Thames saw a PTSD counselor after the game.
El Matador ("The Killing One", Babelfish tells me) is not bad. 'Sover? So Long Soria? Don't want to jinx the guy. Captain Jack isn't bad. Joakim The Dream is - not a big fan of the rhyming names.
Someone suggested "The Wolf" from Pulp Fiction, which I think is great. But wasn't Harvey Keitel's character known as "The Cleaner"? Maybe just Wolf will do. This just in: "The Hispanic Abe Lincoln" - or HAL for short - is a late entry, worthy of your consideration.
- There's NO consensus for Billy Butler. Billy Baroo...Beav...Bat Man...Big Bang...B-Squared...Bubba...everybody's got the same idea, but different execution. Apparently Teahen calls him Bill the Thrill, and I'd be fine with that - the players should get priority on nicknames - except Will Clark was Will the Thrill, and I'm not a fan of recycling nicknames. The perfect nickname should incorporate his undeniable hitting skills as well as his heft and lack of dexterity when engaged in any activity that does not involve a bat in his hands. The dude's a big ogre, basically. Shrek, anyone? (Yes, I'm a sucker for the animated films.)
- Some very good suggestions for Gathright. I still like Dash, in large part because he can bat ahead of Gordon and we'd have "Splash and Dash." But Hops and High Jump are both very good. (I don't care what the people in Louisiana call him, I'm not calling him Honey Bun.) We'll put this to a vote.
- I like Mr. Incredible a lot for John Buck. Although this would make him Gathright's father. The apple fell pretty far from the tree, I guess. Maybe Elastigirl had a fling with Frozone...
- Very few suggestions of any stripe for Guillen. Tick Tock's the best I've seen so far, but I'd like to see better.
- Sliver is not bad for Leo Nunez, but I like Razor better. It's a reference to his build and his impressive body of work at the same time.
- I really like the suggestion of "Topspin" for Teahen. The alliteration is nice, and it's a quirky nickname which is actually kind of a dig - maybe it will remind him that, once upon a time, he was a capable of hitting for power. "Gordon takes a lead off second base...and Topspin lines a fastball the other way for a hit!" That sounds pretty cool. Thoughts? Slapshot might also work because he's such a cut-up.
- Some good names for Greinke, but they all reference his psychological issues in one way or another. The Baseball Jonah awaits a real challenger. Although "Chipotle" was pretty funny.
- The only name I've seen for Meche is "The Mechete." If that's the best we've got, I'm fine with "The Epic."
- Someone called Grudzielanek "Stubble". That's what I'm talking about - short, simple, evocative.
- Come on, guys. Hooch? It's not even the right pronunciation. Dumbo would be okay if it were newspaper-friendly. Cool Hand is still the leader in the clubhouse here. (And it looks like I'll have to add it to my Netflix queue. Given how rarely I have time to see movies, I'll probably get to it in 2013.)
- Does Tony Pena even deserve a nickname? If he does, I like Toothpick - refers to his build and the effective size of his bat. Toothpick Tony is hitting .182 - see, that works already.
- None of the DeJesus suggestions have overwhelmed me so far. With a name like that we should be able to come up with something, right?
- "Shake" Yabuta is so stupid that it's actually kind of funny.
Again, keep in mind that we're not going to pin a nickname on every player, nor should we expect to. If I don't think any of the suggested nicknames for a player are absolutely top-notch, then we'll simply pass over that guy.
Alright everyone, I should be back early next week and we'll try to get some polls up. In the meantime, keep the nicknames - and wins - coming.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Nicknames.
The blog is going to be a little slow over the next week or two, partly because I'll be out of town for a few days, but mostly because I'm devoting my writing time to another project these days. Don't fret - I'm still writing about the Royals. I'm just writing about them for our special Baseball Prospectus project that's slated to come out next spring. I don't want to give away too many details just yet, but suffice it to say that instead of writing about Greinke and Gordon, I'm writing about Saberhagen and Brett...and UL Washington and Pat Sheridan too. Writing about good Royals teams - this is a new experience for me. I'll try to adjust.
In the meantime, I wanted to launch an idea I've had since I started the blog three months ago. Call it the Nickname Project. While the experience of being a baseball fan is, in so many ways, the best it's ever been, one of the small things we've lost over the years are the evocative nicknames for players of generations past. Gone are the days of King Kong Keller and The Barber and The Mad Hungarian, to say nothing of Death to Flying Things or the nicknames that stuck to their player so strongly that most fans didn't even know what their real name was, like Cy Young or Dizzy Dean or, of course, Babe Ruth.
Today, few players have nicknames that uniquely identify them, and of those who do, most of them were either created by Hawk Harrelson (i.e. they're really dumb) or they are simply a diminutive of their real name. If I ever get a Hall of Fame ballot, I'm tempted not to vote for Alex Rodriguez in his first year of eligibility simply because "A-Rod" unleashed an avalanche of "first letter-first syllable" nicknames on the sport. One of Justin Upton's teammates recently referred to him as "J-Up". Upton is the most exciting young player to hit the sport in years - is that the best you can do? Please.
The dearth of good nicknames is, I think, a casualty of the fact that baseball reporting has become so splintered since the advent of cable TV, regional sports networks, and of course the internet. Many of the nicknames of years past were penned by sportswriters, who had such a monopoly on reporting about the game that someone like Red Smith could single-handedly anoint any player he felt worthy of a nickname. No one has such power today.
Baseball-reference.com lists Babe Ruth with two nicknames, in addition to "Babe", and there were probably a dozen other names that were used in Babe's era that fans understood referred to him. Ted Williams has four nicknames: The Kid, Teddy Ballgame, The Thumper, and The Splendid Splinter. Barry Bonds, who has towered over the game like a colossus for the past two decades, has no nickname.
I can't help Barry Bonds, but I can do my part to help our Kansas City Royals. I did so for the first time a few years ago, when I walked into the visitor's clubhouse at U.S. Cellular after the Royals had lost another one-run game. The reporters quickly gravitated to Andy Sisco, who in the midst of a promising rookie season had lost the game in the eighth on a couple of cheap hits.
I knew Sisco was 6'10", the tallest pitcher in team history, but no number can prepare you for the sight of this enormous man-child, with the build of a defensive lineman (a 6'10" defensive lineman), standing a full head taller than any of the reporters in the room. He had this timid, deer-in-the-headlights look in his eyes even as he answered questions as politely as possible, and it called to mind Lefty Gomez's famous line about the hulking Jimmie Foxx, "He wasn't scouted. He was trapped." (Foxx, whose nickname was "Beast", is listed at 6' even and 195 pounds. Mark Teahen is 6'3", 210. They sure don't make 'em like they used to. They make 'em a lot bigger.)
And suddenly it came to me. "Sisco? This guy should be called Sisquatch."
Now, as nicknames go Sisquatch didn't exactly catch on like wildfire, probably because Sisco himself has let his career go in reverse pretty much from that exact moment on. But a number of people - okay, a number of my fellow BP authors - started using the name, which was a small moral victory for me.
But I can come up with all the nicknames in the world and it won't matter if I'm the only one using them. The Epic (Gil Meche) and The Baseball Jonah (Zack Greinke) have yet to set the blogosphere aflame, though I remain optimistic. But today I am here to ask you, the gentle RotR reader, to suggest nicknames for your favorite (and even not-so-favorite) Royals. Here are the rules:
1) Be nice. We're looking for nicknames that can appear in your family newspaper - more precisely, nicknames that will appear in the Star at some point. So no fair calling Greinke "ProZack." You know who you are.
2) Try to avoid puns on a player's name, unless they're really, really good. Nicknames should tell you something about the player, not just rehash his name. Sisquatch works (well, I think it works) because it evokes Sisco's physical dimensions; it just happens to resemble his name.
A few months ago, reader Breck suggested that we call our third baseman "Splash" Gordon, which I like, because it mocks the typical "Flash" Gordon name and says something unique about Gordon. Plus, it's a name that only works in Kansas City and a few other parks that have water beyond the outfield fence. But otherwise, try to avoid using their real name. If anyone suggests calling Butler "B-But" again I will have you banned from the internet, so help me God.
3) Give feedback. The point here is to come up with nicknames that we all agree on, so we'll all use them, in the hopes that eventually the names will spread into the vernacular of the casual Royals fan. So feel free to comment on other people's suggestions. I'm hoping to engage my fellow Royals bloggers out there to take part as well.
If we can pin a nickname on every player on the roster, wonderful. But if we can just come up with five good, solid, catch nicknames, that's fine too. Quality over quantity. Fire away.
Here are some suggestions to get you started:
Gil Meche: Gilgameche is both too obvious and name-derived, which is why I call him The Epic. Plus, it refers to his contract, the biggest one the Royals have ever given to an outside free agent. Do you like? Not like?
Zack Greinke: The Baseball Jonah. Read here for details. Do you like? Not like?
Brian Bannister: How about Rodin?
Joakim Soria: Bob Dutton called him Captain Zero today, which isn't bad, except his ERA will
eventually be a positive number.
Luke Hochevar: Cool Hand Luke is all I've got. I've never seen the movie, though I remember an episode of "Cheers" when Dr. Frasier Crane referred to it as the "sweatiest movie of all-time." That sounds pretty manly. I think.
Leo Nunez: "The Blade" is taken, but something that refers to his slightness of build ought to work.
Joel Peralta: Victorinox? He's the swiss army knife of the Royals' staff - he can mop up, he can be used as a righty specialist, he can even close in a pinch.
Billy Butler: Last summer I wrote a piece comparing Royals players to Harry Potter characters, and no comparison was more obvious than calling Butler "Hagrid." Are we cool with this, or would the joke be lost on the 0.3% of the population that hasn't read the books?
Joey Gathright: Dash. "The Incredibles" is, for me, the best of the Pixar movies.
And then there are nicknames we can pin on groups of players. I referred to the collection of Soria, Nunez, and Ramirez as "The Hispanic Panic," although that might be construed as offensive. Better ideas, anyone? The 1927 Yankees lineup was Murderer's Row; the 2008 Royals lineup is...Shoplifter's Row? Jaywalker's Row? Double-Parker's Row?
Alright, that's just off the top of my head - if I think of more, I'll add them in the comments section. Just like everyone else.
So send in your suggestions, and hopefully I'll come up with a way for everyone to vote on their favorites at some point.
In the meantime, I wanted to launch an idea I've had since I started the blog three months ago. Call it the Nickname Project. While the experience of being a baseball fan is, in so many ways, the best it's ever been, one of the small things we've lost over the years are the evocative nicknames for players of generations past. Gone are the days of King Kong Keller and The Barber and The Mad Hungarian, to say nothing of Death to Flying Things or the nicknames that stuck to their player so strongly that most fans didn't even know what their real name was, like Cy Young or Dizzy Dean or, of course, Babe Ruth.
Today, few players have nicknames that uniquely identify them, and of those who do, most of them were either created by Hawk Harrelson (i.e. they're really dumb) or they are simply a diminutive of their real name. If I ever get a Hall of Fame ballot, I'm tempted not to vote for Alex Rodriguez in his first year of eligibility simply because "A-Rod" unleashed an avalanche of "first letter-first syllable" nicknames on the sport. One of Justin Upton's teammates recently referred to him as "J-Up". Upton is the most exciting young player to hit the sport in years - is that the best you can do? Please.
The dearth of good nicknames is, I think, a casualty of the fact that baseball reporting has become so splintered since the advent of cable TV, regional sports networks, and of course the internet. Many of the nicknames of years past were penned by sportswriters, who had such a monopoly on reporting about the game that someone like Red Smith could single-handedly anoint any player he felt worthy of a nickname. No one has such power today.
Baseball-reference.com lists Babe Ruth with two nicknames, in addition to "Babe", and there were probably a dozen other names that were used in Babe's era that fans understood referred to him. Ted Williams has four nicknames: The Kid, Teddy Ballgame, The Thumper, and The Splendid Splinter. Barry Bonds, who has towered over the game like a colossus for the past two decades, has no nickname.
I can't help Barry Bonds, but I can do my part to help our Kansas City Royals. I did so for the first time a few years ago, when I walked into the visitor's clubhouse at U.S. Cellular after the Royals had lost another one-run game. The reporters quickly gravitated to Andy Sisco, who in the midst of a promising rookie season had lost the game in the eighth on a couple of cheap hits.
I knew Sisco was 6'10", the tallest pitcher in team history, but no number can prepare you for the sight of this enormous man-child, with the build of a defensive lineman (a 6'10" defensive lineman), standing a full head taller than any of the reporters in the room. He had this timid, deer-in-the-headlights look in his eyes even as he answered questions as politely as possible, and it called to mind Lefty Gomez's famous line about the hulking Jimmie Foxx, "He wasn't scouted. He was trapped." (Foxx, whose nickname was "Beast", is listed at 6' even and 195 pounds. Mark Teahen is 6'3", 210. They sure don't make 'em like they used to. They make 'em a lot bigger.)
And suddenly it came to me. "Sisco? This guy should be called Sisquatch."
Now, as nicknames go Sisquatch didn't exactly catch on like wildfire, probably because Sisco himself has let his career go in reverse pretty much from that exact moment on. But a number of people - okay, a number of my fellow BP authors - started using the name, which was a small moral victory for me.
But I can come up with all the nicknames in the world and it won't matter if I'm the only one using them. The Epic (Gil Meche) and The Baseball Jonah (Zack Greinke) have yet to set the blogosphere aflame, though I remain optimistic. But today I am here to ask you, the gentle RotR reader, to suggest nicknames for your favorite (and even not-so-favorite) Royals. Here are the rules:
1) Be nice. We're looking for nicknames that can appear in your family newspaper - more precisely, nicknames that will appear in the Star at some point. So no fair calling Greinke "ProZack." You know who you are.
2) Try to avoid puns on a player's name, unless they're really, really good. Nicknames should tell you something about the player, not just rehash his name. Sisquatch works (well, I think it works) because it evokes Sisco's physical dimensions; it just happens to resemble his name.
A few months ago, reader Breck suggested that we call our third baseman "Splash" Gordon, which I like, because it mocks the typical "Flash" Gordon name and says something unique about Gordon. Plus, it's a name that only works in Kansas City and a few other parks that have water beyond the outfield fence. But otherwise, try to avoid using their real name. If anyone suggests calling Butler "B-But" again I will have you banned from the internet, so help me God.
3) Give feedback. The point here is to come up with nicknames that we all agree on, so we'll all use them, in the hopes that eventually the names will spread into the vernacular of the casual Royals fan. So feel free to comment on other people's suggestions. I'm hoping to engage my fellow Royals bloggers out there to take part as well.
If we can pin a nickname on every player on the roster, wonderful. But if we can just come up with five good, solid, catch nicknames, that's fine too. Quality over quantity. Fire away.
Here are some suggestions to get you started:
Gil Meche: Gilgameche is both too obvious and name-derived, which is why I call him The Epic. Plus, it refers to his contract, the biggest one the Royals have ever given to an outside free agent. Do you like? Not like?
Zack Greinke: The Baseball Jonah. Read here for details. Do you like? Not like?
Brian Bannister: How about Rodin?
Joakim Soria: Bob Dutton called him Captain Zero today, which isn't bad, except his ERA will
eventually be a positive number.
Luke Hochevar: Cool Hand Luke is all I've got. I've never seen the movie, though I remember an episode of "Cheers" when Dr. Frasier Crane referred to it as the "sweatiest movie of all-time." That sounds pretty manly. I think.
Leo Nunez: "The Blade" is taken, but something that refers to his slightness of build ought to work.
Joel Peralta: Victorinox? He's the swiss army knife of the Royals' staff - he can mop up, he can be used as a righty specialist, he can even close in a pinch.
Billy Butler: Last summer I wrote a piece comparing Royals players to Harry Potter characters, and no comparison was more obvious than calling Butler "Hagrid." Are we cool with this, or would the joke be lost on the 0.3% of the population that hasn't read the books?
Joey Gathright: Dash. "The Incredibles" is, for me, the best of the Pixar movies.
And then there are nicknames we can pin on groups of players. I referred to the collection of Soria, Nunez, and Ramirez as "The Hispanic Panic," although that might be construed as offensive. Better ideas, anyone? The 1927 Yankees lineup was Murderer's Row; the 2008 Royals lineup is...Shoplifter's Row? Jaywalker's Row? Double-Parker's Row?
Alright, that's just off the top of my head - if I think of more, I'll add them in the comments section. Just like everyone else.
So send in your suggestions, and hopefully I'll come up with a way for everyone to vote on their favorites at some point.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Bannister in the Daytime.
Posnanski wrote his usual wrap-up of Bannister's start yesterday, and updated his log to point out this rather unusual split in Banny's performance:
Those are pretty dramatic splits, certainly. But I think it's dangerous to read too much into them. Yes, this year Bannister has been much, much, MUCH better in the daytime than under the lights. But you can't say it's not a fluke simply because his career numbers also reveal a split - because those career numbers include this season.
For his career, Bannister has a 4.58 ERA at night, a 2.65 ERA during the day. But if you strip out 2008, his ERA at night is 4.07; during the day it's 3.64. A difference, but a small difference. And it's a difference which overstates the mark, if anything. Here are Bannister's career totals at night and during the day, prior to 2008:
Night: 143.2 IP, 135 H, 47 BB, 78 K, 15 HR
Day: 59.1 IP, 55 H, 16 BB, 20 K, 4 HR
His hits per nine innings during the day (8.34) is a fraction better than his ratio at night (8.46). His strikeout-to-walk ratio is significantly better at night than during the day. His BABIP - this is approximate - is .256 during the day, .266 at night.
Prior to 2008, there was no conclusive evidence to speak of that Bannister was a better pitcher during the day than at night. Do eight starts change that perception? If his start in Arlington, with 30 mph winds gusting to right field, when Bannister said he felt like he was pitching on the moon, had happened to occur in the day, how much would that skew these numbers?
I do think that Bannister is probably a little more effective during the day, in part because Bill James ran a study about 20 years ago - I think it was the 1987 or 1988 Abstract - which showed that power pitchers appear to be signficantly more effective at night. Bannister is basically the opposite of a power pitcher, so it would stand to reason that he might be more effective during the day.
But I don't think the difference is great enough to influence how the Royals use him. For one thing, he's not the only Royals' starter to pitch better during the day. Gil Meche, in a career of over 1000 innings, has a daytime ERA (3.78) more than a point lower than his nighttime ERA (4.84). Now that is significant. I suspect that most pitchers pitch better during the day, because day games tend to be clustered in the colder months of the season, and colder weather tends to lower offense. (Just a theory I have. Which means I'm probably wrong.)
If the Royals have a doubleheader and choose to start Bannister in the day game and someone like Greinke (whose ERA is 15 points under the lights) in the nightcap, great. But let's not go overboard with moving starters around to take advantage of an effect that might not actually exist.
Wow, as someone who claims to be one of the nation’s leading Brian Bannister scholars, I am embarrassed to say I missed this. But I did. It is brilliant reader PC who points this out:
Brian Bannister by day (this year):
– 4-0, 0.62 ERA, 29 ip, 12 hits, 3 runs, 2 earned runs, 0 homers, 7 walks, 18 K.
Batting average against: .126; OPS: .320; OPS+ -10(!)*, Babip: .156.
Brian Bannister by night (this year):
– 0-4, 8.02 ERA, 21 1/2 ip, 33 hits, 19 runs, 19 earned, 5 homers, 5 walks, 11 K,
Batting average against: .344; OPS .960; OPS+ 158(!), Babip: .350.
Brian Bannister by day (career)
– 10-1, 2.65 ERA, 88 1/3 ip, 67 hits, 28 runs, 26 er, 4 homers, 23 walks, 38 Ks.
Batting average against: .212; OPS: .576; Babip .226.
Brian Bannister by night (career)
– 8-13, 4.58 ERA, 165 ip; 168 hits, 88 runs, 84 er, 20 homers, 55 walks, 87 Ks.
Batting average against: .261; OPS .763; Babip: .275.
Those are pretty dramatic splits, certainly. But I think it's dangerous to read too much into them. Yes, this year Bannister has been much, much, MUCH better in the daytime than under the lights. But you can't say it's not a fluke simply because his career numbers also reveal a split - because those career numbers include this season.
For his career, Bannister has a 4.58 ERA at night, a 2.65 ERA during the day. But if you strip out 2008, his ERA at night is 4.07; during the day it's 3.64. A difference, but a small difference. And it's a difference which overstates the mark, if anything. Here are Bannister's career totals at night and during the day, prior to 2008:
Night: 143.2 IP, 135 H, 47 BB, 78 K, 15 HR
Day: 59.1 IP, 55 H, 16 BB, 20 K, 4 HR
His hits per nine innings during the day (8.34) is a fraction better than his ratio at night (8.46). His strikeout-to-walk ratio is significantly better at night than during the day. His BABIP - this is approximate - is .256 during the day, .266 at night.
Prior to 2008, there was no conclusive evidence to speak of that Bannister was a better pitcher during the day than at night. Do eight starts change that perception? If his start in Arlington, with 30 mph winds gusting to right field, when Bannister said he felt like he was pitching on the moon, had happened to occur in the day, how much would that skew these numbers?
I do think that Bannister is probably a little more effective during the day, in part because Bill James ran a study about 20 years ago - I think it was the 1987 or 1988 Abstract - which showed that power pitchers appear to be signficantly more effective at night. Bannister is basically the opposite of a power pitcher, so it would stand to reason that he might be more effective during the day.
But I don't think the difference is great enough to influence how the Royals use him. For one thing, he's not the only Royals' starter to pitch better during the day. Gil Meche, in a career of over 1000 innings, has a daytime ERA (3.78) more than a point lower than his nighttime ERA (4.84). Now that is significant. I suspect that most pitchers pitch better during the day, because day games tend to be clustered in the colder months of the season, and colder weather tends to lower offense. (Just a theory I have. Which means I'm probably wrong.)
If the Royals have a doubleheader and choose to start Bannister in the day game and someone like Greinke (whose ERA is 15 points under the lights) in the nightcap, great. But let's not go overboard with moving starters around to take advantage of an effect that might not actually exist.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The Intentional Walk.
Joe Posnanski wrote a typically great post about Trey Hillman's bizarre decision to intentionally walk Nick Markakis last night in favor of Aubrey Huff, which got me thinking about when the strategy should be employed. I think the intentional walk is over-utilized by some managers, but there certainly is a time and a place for it - for instance, when Casey Kotchman bats with a man on third and one out in a scoreless game in the ninth inning, as happened the other night.
As I see it, there are three primary advantages to the intentional walk:
1) To gain the platoon advantage;
2) To set up the double play;
3) To bypass a specific hitter in favor of a significantly inferior one.
Of the three, #3 is certainly the most important, but really, if you want to order an intentional walk at least two of the three conditions should be in effect, and ideally all three.
For instance, when Gil Meche intentionally walked Justin Morneau on April 11th, the game was tied, a man was on third base with one out, and Delmon Young was at the plate. Walking Morneau gained the platoon advantage and set up the double play. You could argue whether Delmon Young is "significantly" inferior to Morneau with the bat - certainly Young has tremendous potential, but he hit .288/.316/.408 last season, and he's doing worse this year.
He also hit into 23 double plays last season, which doesn't hurt. And after Morneau was walked, Young did just that to end the inning.
The amazing thing about Hillman's decision to walk Markakis last night is that the situation didn't meet any of the three criteria above.
Markakis, while an outstanding young hitter, isn't significantly better with the bat than Aubrey Huff. Last year Markakis hit .300/.362/.485, while Huff hit .280/.337/.442. This year, Markakis is at .279/.404/.473 to Huff's .271/.340/.474. Markakis is better, but not that much better.
Both Markakis and Huff bat left-handed.
There were two outs.
With two outs the only time you should consider an intentional walk is when 1) the pitcher or Tony Pena Jr. is up next, or 2) the batter is an extreme high-average hitter like Tony Gwynn or Ichiro Suzuki.
In the situation last night, with a man on second and two out, the only reason to walk Markakis and pitch to Huff is if you think that Markakis is much more likely to drive that runner home from second base, i.e. he has a much higher batting average in that situation. But Markakis is a good hitter because of his secondary skills, i.e. power and plate discipline, not because of his batting average. Over the last two years his average is, what, 15 points higher than Huff? And for that you put another man on base?
(Interestingly, John Gibbons' decision to walk Pena to face DeJesus met the first two criteria. But the decision went so far against the third one that it was still a dumber decision than Hillman's last night. By a factor of about a hundred.)
In addition to the three criteria above, a fourth factor is context. Namely, an intentional walk should only be used when the marginal impact of a single run being scored outweighs the marginal impact of additional runs. Even though the situation last night didn't meet any of the criteria above, you could make a case for the intentional walk if, say, the game was tied in the bottom of the ninth inning. In that case, the impact of a single run scoring is exactly the same as the impact of three runs scoring - you lose either way.
Again, the context here didn't make any sense for an intentional walk, because the game was in the fifth inning. And in the fifth inning, even in a tie game, there's no way to know how important the next run is. Sure, your offense might struggle to score the rest of the game, but they also might scratch out a few runs, as the Royals did last night. Walking Markakis to face Huff may have reduced the Orioles' chances to score at least one run in the inning, although even that is debatable. But there's no question that the walk increased the Orioles' chances to score at least two runs in the inning.
The only way pitching to Markakis leads to two runs is if he hits a homer, while Huff can drive in two runs with any extra-base hits (especially since the runners are going on contact with two outs.) Obviously, the latter is more likely than the former - Huff has averaged 62 XBH per 162 games in his career, while Markakis has averaged 22 HR per 162 games. There's also no way Marakis can drive in three runs, whereas (as we found out) there was a way for Huff to do so.
The irony is that that these are the only two walks Hillman has ordered all season, putting the Royals on pace to order 9 IBBs all year. The lowest total of IBBs in franchise history is 20, back in 1984. Based purely on quantity, it would appear that if anything, Hillman isn't using the IBB enough. There's the example of Casey Kotchman, when Hillman called on Jimmy Gobble to pitch rather than walk Kotchman and leave Ramon Ramirez in to pitch to Torii Hunter with the double play in effect, but I'm sure there are a few other situations when Hillman may have put the tactic to good effect.
But last night, he used the tactic in one of the worst possible situations, and the result illuminated his error in a very harsh light. I hope the negative feedback Hillman received won't make him even more reluctant to put up four fingers in the future. But man, I hope it makes him pick his spots a little better.
As I see it, there are three primary advantages to the intentional walk:
1) To gain the platoon advantage;
2) To set up the double play;
3) To bypass a specific hitter in favor of a significantly inferior one.
Of the three, #3 is certainly the most important, but really, if you want to order an intentional walk at least two of the three conditions should be in effect, and ideally all three.
For instance, when Gil Meche intentionally walked Justin Morneau on April 11th, the game was tied, a man was on third base with one out, and Delmon Young was at the plate. Walking Morneau gained the platoon advantage and set up the double play. You could argue whether Delmon Young is "significantly" inferior to Morneau with the bat - certainly Young has tremendous potential, but he hit .288/.316/.408 last season, and he's doing worse this year.
He also hit into 23 double plays last season, which doesn't hurt. And after Morneau was walked, Young did just that to end the inning.
The amazing thing about Hillman's decision to walk Markakis last night is that the situation didn't meet any of the three criteria above.
Markakis, while an outstanding young hitter, isn't significantly better with the bat than Aubrey Huff. Last year Markakis hit .300/.362/.485, while Huff hit .280/.337/.442. This year, Markakis is at .279/.404/.473 to Huff's .271/.340/.474. Markakis is better, but not that much better.
Both Markakis and Huff bat left-handed.
There were two outs.
With two outs the only time you should consider an intentional walk is when 1) the pitcher or Tony Pena Jr. is up next, or 2) the batter is an extreme high-average hitter like Tony Gwynn or Ichiro Suzuki.
In the situation last night, with a man on second and two out, the only reason to walk Markakis and pitch to Huff is if you think that Markakis is much more likely to drive that runner home from second base, i.e. he has a much higher batting average in that situation. But Markakis is a good hitter because of his secondary skills, i.e. power and plate discipline, not because of his batting average. Over the last two years his average is, what, 15 points higher than Huff? And for that you put another man on base?
(Interestingly, John Gibbons' decision to walk Pena to face DeJesus met the first two criteria. But the decision went so far against the third one that it was still a dumber decision than Hillman's last night. By a factor of about a hundred.)
In addition to the three criteria above, a fourth factor is context. Namely, an intentional walk should only be used when the marginal impact of a single run being scored outweighs the marginal impact of additional runs. Even though the situation last night didn't meet any of the criteria above, you could make a case for the intentional walk if, say, the game was tied in the bottom of the ninth inning. In that case, the impact of a single run scoring is exactly the same as the impact of three runs scoring - you lose either way.
Again, the context here didn't make any sense for an intentional walk, because the game was in the fifth inning. And in the fifth inning, even in a tie game, there's no way to know how important the next run is. Sure, your offense might struggle to score the rest of the game, but they also might scratch out a few runs, as the Royals did last night. Walking Markakis to face Huff may have reduced the Orioles' chances to score at least one run in the inning, although even that is debatable. But there's no question that the walk increased the Orioles' chances to score at least two runs in the inning.
The only way pitching to Markakis leads to two runs is if he hits a homer, while Huff can drive in two runs with any extra-base hits (especially since the runners are going on contact with two outs.) Obviously, the latter is more likely than the former - Huff has averaged 62 XBH per 162 games in his career, while Markakis has averaged 22 HR per 162 games. There's also no way Marakis can drive in three runs, whereas (as we found out) there was a way for Huff to do so.
The irony is that that these are the only two walks Hillman has ordered all season, putting the Royals on pace to order 9 IBBs all year. The lowest total of IBBs in franchise history is 20, back in 1984. Based purely on quantity, it would appear that if anything, Hillman isn't using the IBB enough. There's the example of Casey Kotchman, when Hillman called on Jimmy Gobble to pitch rather than walk Kotchman and leave Ramon Ramirez in to pitch to Torii Hunter with the double play in effect, but I'm sure there are a few other situations when Hillman may have put the tactic to good effect.
But last night, he used the tactic in one of the worst possible situations, and the result illuminated his error in a very harsh light. I hope the negative feedback Hillman received won't make him even more reluctant to put up four fingers in the future. But man, I hope it makes him pick his spots a little better.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Stat Nugget of the Day: 5/9/2008.
(As always, dissemination of the SNotD with attribution is welcome.)
Despite a terrific start to his season, including a 1.25 ERA in his first five starts, Zack Greinke was not dominating opposing hitters in the strikeout category; he struck out no more than six batters in any of his starts, and more than four hitters just once.
That all has changed in his last two starts. Last Thursday, The Baseball Jonah whiffed 9 Texas Rangers in seven innings, but was sunk by two solo homers and the Royals' typically impotent lineup. This Wednesday, Greinke struck out eight more hitters in seven innings of work, and walked away with the win.
Striking out eight batters or more in consecutive starts is not a big deal. Or at least it shouldn't be. But if you're a Royals fan, you know how rare this can be for the boys in blue.
In point of fact: Greinke has become the first Royals pitcher to strike out at least 8 batters in consecutive starts this century. The last Royal to turn the trick was Jay Witasick, on September 17th and 22nd, 1999.
If Greinke strikes out 8 batters his next time out, he will become just the third Royals pitcher in history to do so in three straight starts. The first was Dennis Leonard, who did so in his last three starts of the 1977 season. (He would strike out just four in game 3 of the ALCS, but beat the Yankees anyway, bless his heart. Let's not speak about game 5.)
The second was Kevin Appier, who did so three times, once in 1995, once in 1996, and once in 1997. In 1996 Appier struck out 8+ hitters in five straight starts, and started that streak with three straight starts of double-digit strikeouts, the only such streak in team history. (In fact, only two other Royals - Bret Saberhagen in 1989, and Bill "Don't Call me Billy" Butler in 1969 - have struck out 10 batters in consecutive starts.)
Despite a terrific start to his season, including a 1.25 ERA in his first five starts, Zack Greinke was not dominating opposing hitters in the strikeout category; he struck out no more than six batters in any of his starts, and more than four hitters just once.
That all has changed in his last two starts. Last Thursday, The Baseball Jonah whiffed 9 Texas Rangers in seven innings, but was sunk by two solo homers and the Royals' typically impotent lineup. This Wednesday, Greinke struck out eight more hitters in seven innings of work, and walked away with the win.
Striking out eight batters or more in consecutive starts is not a big deal. Or at least it shouldn't be. But if you're a Royals fan, you know how rare this can be for the boys in blue.
In point of fact: Greinke has become the first Royals pitcher to strike out at least 8 batters in consecutive starts this century. The last Royal to turn the trick was Jay Witasick, on September 17th and 22nd, 1999.
If Greinke strikes out 8 batters his next time out, he will become just the third Royals pitcher in history to do so in three straight starts. The first was Dennis Leonard, who did so in his last three starts of the 1977 season. (He would strike out just four in game 3 of the ALCS, but beat the Yankees anyway, bless his heart. Let's not speak about game 5.)
The second was Kevin Appier, who did so three times, once in 1995, once in 1996, and once in 1997. In 1996 Appier struck out 8+ hitters in five straight starts, and started that streak with three straight starts of double-digit strikeouts, the only such streak in team history. (In fact, only two other Royals - Bret Saberhagen in 1989, and Bill "Don't Call me Billy" Butler in 1969 - have struck out 10 batters in consecutive starts.)
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Housekeeping...
Wherein I weigh in on some of the debates taking place in the comments section, while wondering why Barack Obama doesn't just end this thing by naming Joakim Soria as his running mate. Because no one closes the deal like Jack.
- Should Soria have come in to pitch the 9th last night? I said no at the time, for the simple reason that he had pitched two nights in a row, and I really don't like the idea of using a reliever three nights in a row unless it's absolutely necessary. He did so once already this year, pitching on April 26th after pitching on both the 24th and 25th, but in that case he came in to protect a one-run lead.
I do think that teams do not use their closers in tie games nearly enough, and as a general rule of thumb that's an ideal situation to use your closer. Especially at home, because when a home game is tied after the 8th, it is physically impossible for a save situation to occur in the game - if the home team takes the lead, the game is over.
If memory serves, this is the first time the Royals were tied after eight innings since Opening Day, and Soria didn't come into pitch the ninth that time either. Of course, Leo Nunez did, and his two scoreless innings set Soria up to pitch the 11th with the lead. If Yabuta had pitched the ninth last night we'd have a legitimate beef, but let's be real: as good as Soria has been, both Nunez and Ramirez have been outstanding as well, and I'll take either of them in the ninth inning of a tie game without hesitation.
Credit Hillman for at least thinking about bringing in Soria (and regretting not doing so): "I could have made a better decision. I didn't put Soria in. Typical rule of thumb simply because it would have been three days in a row," Hillman said. "Ramirez has been pretty effective. Unfortunately, he left a ball out over the plate."
Talk is cheap, but if this means Hillman won't hesitate to use Soria the next time he's faced with a tie game, that's certainly good news.
- A lot of you have complained about Hillman using Gobble to pitch to Casey Kotchman with the go-ahead run at third and one out, given that Kotchman has hit LHP better (.313/.383/.403) than RHP (.268/.341/.438) over his career. It's a fair point, but not all LHP are created equal, and ever since Gobble went three-quarters against LHB last May, he's been much tougher on lefty hitters than their righty counterparts. Lefties hit .241/.325/.398 against Gobble last year, righties hit .319/.377/.532. Prior to facing Kotchman, Gobble had held LHB to one hit in 14 at-bats this year. Just as importantly, six of those ABs ended in strikeouts, and with a man on third, one out, and a great contact hitter at the plate, Gobble may have been the one guy who had a shot at keeping the runner on third. It didn't work out, but I understand the thinking.
The argument that Hillman should have bypassed Kotchman entirely, given him the free pass and tried to get the GIDP with Hunter...yeah, I can see the point. I generally hate the intentional pass, but if ever there was a situation that called for one, it was this: winning run at third, a great contact hitter at the plate, just one out, and nobody on first base (i.e. the DP wasn't in order.) Hillman would have been better off leaving Ramirez into pitch to Hunter with men on first and third, betting on either a strikeout or a groundball.
Hopefully Hillman will consider an intentional walk the next time he faces a similar situation. But don't bet on it. Last year, Buddy Bell ordered 54 of them, or one every three games. You know how many times Hillman has called for the free pass in his first month on the job? Once. In fact, of all the tendencies that we label managers with - likes to run, likes to platoon, likes to use 7 relievers a game - I think this might be the one tendency that we can definitely pin on Hillman after just one month on the job: he's not a fan of the intentional walk.
Hey, if the alternative is the John Gibbons approach - the dumbest intentional walk of modern times - I'll take Hillman's approach, thanks. Tony Pena has as many intentional walks as all the Royals' opponents combined.
But about that one intentional walk...it came with Gil Meche on the mound on April 11th, and Hillman held up four fingers with Justin Morneau, a tough left-handed hitter, at the plate with a man on third and one out. The next batter, the right-handed Delmon Young, hit into a double play. I'm just saying...
- About Bonds...too soon. Signing Bonds only makes sense if you're playing for this year. As much as I love our pitching, and as much as I think Bonds can completely change the complexion of our offense, I'm not sure that adding Bonds makes us a contender. I am sure that adding Bonds will bring a level of media scrutiny to the Royals that they haven't had in a long time. That might not be a bad thing, in all honesty. But it's too soon. Plus, Bonds really only helps you if he can DH, and the jury is still out on Butler's glove.
Now, if the Royals are still 2 games out at the end of June, and if Billy Butler continues to play first base well enough that the Royals think he can play there every day...the calculus changes.
- Craig Brazell is leading Japan in homers? Good for him. That doesn't change the fact that he was a longshot to ever be a productive first baseman in the majors. Akinori Iwamura hit 44 homers in Japan in 2004. He hit 32 homers in 2006. For Tampa Bay in 2007, playing in 123 games, he hit 7. Baseball is different in Japan; the parks are smaller, the ball is smaller, and translating numbers from Japan to the United States is a job that bedevils even the brightest of analysts. Brazell wouldn't hit 7 in the majors; he'd probably hit 20 homers if the Royals gave him the everyday first base job. With a .250 average and no walks. I'll pass, thanks.
- One commenter wants Buck to sit in favor of Olivo, which I disagree with vehemently. I have a feeling that Buck is getting closer and closer to figuring things out. He looked terrible yesterday, but he might have won the game for us on Sunday with his approach - he walked in his first two plate appearances even though he was down 0-2 his first time up and 1-2 his second time up. His second walk enabled Olivo to score when Casey Blake threw Pena's grounder into right field. Buck is tied with Gordon with 11 walks, behind only Teahen's 14, even though he has about 75% of the playing time of those two. He's made incremental improvements in his plate discipline pretty much every year he's been in the majors. I remain hopeful that eventually the improvement in plate discipline will lead to an improvement in power.
- The lack of a left-handed starter has never even crossed my mind. This is a classic example of conventional wisdom harping on "balance" for no clear reason. There is no evidence that dropping a southpaw in between two right-handed starters makes the right-handers more effective when they pitch. I'll go a step further and point out that the lack of a left-handed reliever is not a major impediment to winning. The 1994 Expos had the best record in baseball without one. The Angels won the World Series in 2002, and the only left-handed reliever they had was the immortal Scott Schoeneweis, who moved to the pen after bombing out of the rotation at the end of June.
Platoon splits are important, but they're not important enough to overcome the simple fact that good pitchers get hitters out more often than bad pitchers do. The idea that you can't win without left-handed pitching stems, I think, from the fact that the Yankees have won 26 championships, and they won all of them playing in Yankee Stadium, a park that was death on right-handed power hitters for so long (and is still tough on them today) that left-handed pitchers thrived there, from Herb Pennock to Lefty Gomez to Whitey Ford to Ron Guidry to Andy Pettitte. The Yankees may benefit from having left-handed pitchers; ordinary teams in symmetrical ballparks do not, or if they do, the benefit is minimal.
- Just FYI: I'm supposed to be on with Nate and Steven over at 810 WHB tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 7:30 CDT. Assuming I wake up in time. If I sound like I just rolled out of bed, well, I did.
- I don't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. I bought my brother Roukan the Nintendo Wii last summer - it took forever to find one - but Roukan is a hard-core gamer, and the Wii just doesn't hold much appeal to people who need the hyper-realism of Call of Duty or the insane graphics of Halo 3. So it collected dust for six months until he gave it to me to play with my kids - Cedra, my oldest, is five and was clamoring for one. It's been a huge hit with my family; I came home from work the other day to find my wife battling Cedra in Mario Kart while our two-year-old Jenna looked on, which is the first time I've ever witnessed my wife playing a video game of her own free will.
Anyway, Cedra figured out the Wii Sports bowling game that comes with the console pretty quickly, and this weekend my in-laws came over. We thought it would be funny to let Cedra embarrass her grandparents by beating them in a video game - granted, she had practice, but it's funny anytime an adult loses to a five-year-old in any endeavor. But I was a little worried she might be nervous, playing in front of so many people, with her parents egging her on.
My fears were unfounded. She shot a 224.
Two twenty-four. She nailed five strikes in a row at one point. No subtlety, no spin, just a grip-it-and-rip-it approach - and she shot a 224. Granted, the game is not particularly challenging, but the next morning I felt compelled to play on my own for half an hour, working on different spins and ball placements, and the best I could do was a 205.
Is this unusual? Is there some trick to this game that I haven't figured out, or should I be signing my daughter up for the Junior Wii Bowling Championships (and if they don't exist, create one)? I thought I had another 7 or 8 years before I faced the specter of losing to my own progeny in a video game, but now I'm already feeling like I'm washed up.
On the other hand, I can totally obliterate her in Mario Kart.
- Should Soria have come in to pitch the 9th last night? I said no at the time, for the simple reason that he had pitched two nights in a row, and I really don't like the idea of using a reliever three nights in a row unless it's absolutely necessary. He did so once already this year, pitching on April 26th after pitching on both the 24th and 25th, but in that case he came in to protect a one-run lead.
I do think that teams do not use their closers in tie games nearly enough, and as a general rule of thumb that's an ideal situation to use your closer. Especially at home, because when a home game is tied after the 8th, it is physically impossible for a save situation to occur in the game - if the home team takes the lead, the game is over.
If memory serves, this is the first time the Royals were tied after eight innings since Opening Day, and Soria didn't come into pitch the ninth that time either. Of course, Leo Nunez did, and his two scoreless innings set Soria up to pitch the 11th with the lead. If Yabuta had pitched the ninth last night we'd have a legitimate beef, but let's be real: as good as Soria has been, both Nunez and Ramirez have been outstanding as well, and I'll take either of them in the ninth inning of a tie game without hesitation.
Credit Hillman for at least thinking about bringing in Soria (and regretting not doing so): "I could have made a better decision. I didn't put Soria in. Typical rule of thumb simply because it would have been three days in a row," Hillman said. "Ramirez has been pretty effective. Unfortunately, he left a ball out over the plate."
Talk is cheap, but if this means Hillman won't hesitate to use Soria the next time he's faced with a tie game, that's certainly good news.
- A lot of you have complained about Hillman using Gobble to pitch to Casey Kotchman with the go-ahead run at third and one out, given that Kotchman has hit LHP better (.313/.383/.403) than RHP (.268/.341/.438) over his career. It's a fair point, but not all LHP are created equal, and ever since Gobble went three-quarters against LHB last May, he's been much tougher on lefty hitters than their righty counterparts. Lefties hit .241/.325/.398 against Gobble last year, righties hit .319/.377/.532. Prior to facing Kotchman, Gobble had held LHB to one hit in 14 at-bats this year. Just as importantly, six of those ABs ended in strikeouts, and with a man on third, one out, and a great contact hitter at the plate, Gobble may have been the one guy who had a shot at keeping the runner on third. It didn't work out, but I understand the thinking.
The argument that Hillman should have bypassed Kotchman entirely, given him the free pass and tried to get the GIDP with Hunter...yeah, I can see the point. I generally hate the intentional pass, but if ever there was a situation that called for one, it was this: winning run at third, a great contact hitter at the plate, just one out, and nobody on first base (i.e. the DP wasn't in order.) Hillman would have been better off leaving Ramirez into pitch to Hunter with men on first and third, betting on either a strikeout or a groundball.
Hopefully Hillman will consider an intentional walk the next time he faces a similar situation. But don't bet on it. Last year, Buddy Bell ordered 54 of them, or one every three games. You know how many times Hillman has called for the free pass in his first month on the job? Once. In fact, of all the tendencies that we label managers with - likes to run, likes to platoon, likes to use 7 relievers a game - I think this might be the one tendency that we can definitely pin on Hillman after just one month on the job: he's not a fan of the intentional walk.
Hey, if the alternative is the John Gibbons approach - the dumbest intentional walk of modern times - I'll take Hillman's approach, thanks. Tony Pena has as many intentional walks as all the Royals' opponents combined.
But about that one intentional walk...it came with Gil Meche on the mound on April 11th, and Hillman held up four fingers with Justin Morneau, a tough left-handed hitter, at the plate with a man on third and one out. The next batter, the right-handed Delmon Young, hit into a double play. I'm just saying...
- About Bonds...too soon. Signing Bonds only makes sense if you're playing for this year. As much as I love our pitching, and as much as I think Bonds can completely change the complexion of our offense, I'm not sure that adding Bonds makes us a contender. I am sure that adding Bonds will bring a level of media scrutiny to the Royals that they haven't had in a long time. That might not be a bad thing, in all honesty. But it's too soon. Plus, Bonds really only helps you if he can DH, and the jury is still out on Butler's glove.
Now, if the Royals are still 2 games out at the end of June, and if Billy Butler continues to play first base well enough that the Royals think he can play there every day...the calculus changes.
- Craig Brazell is leading Japan in homers? Good for him. That doesn't change the fact that he was a longshot to ever be a productive first baseman in the majors. Akinori Iwamura hit 44 homers in Japan in 2004. He hit 32 homers in 2006. For Tampa Bay in 2007, playing in 123 games, he hit 7. Baseball is different in Japan; the parks are smaller, the ball is smaller, and translating numbers from Japan to the United States is a job that bedevils even the brightest of analysts. Brazell wouldn't hit 7 in the majors; he'd probably hit 20 homers if the Royals gave him the everyday first base job. With a .250 average and no walks. I'll pass, thanks.
- One commenter wants Buck to sit in favor of Olivo, which I disagree with vehemently. I have a feeling that Buck is getting closer and closer to figuring things out. He looked terrible yesterday, but he might have won the game for us on Sunday with his approach - he walked in his first two plate appearances even though he was down 0-2 his first time up and 1-2 his second time up. His second walk enabled Olivo to score when Casey Blake threw Pena's grounder into right field. Buck is tied with Gordon with 11 walks, behind only Teahen's 14, even though he has about 75% of the playing time of those two. He's made incremental improvements in his plate discipline pretty much every year he's been in the majors. I remain hopeful that eventually the improvement in plate discipline will lead to an improvement in power.
- The lack of a left-handed starter has never even crossed my mind. This is a classic example of conventional wisdom harping on "balance" for no clear reason. There is no evidence that dropping a southpaw in between two right-handed starters makes the right-handers more effective when they pitch. I'll go a step further and point out that the lack of a left-handed reliever is not a major impediment to winning. The 1994 Expos had the best record in baseball without one. The Angels won the World Series in 2002, and the only left-handed reliever they had was the immortal Scott Schoeneweis, who moved to the pen after bombing out of the rotation at the end of June.
Platoon splits are important, but they're not important enough to overcome the simple fact that good pitchers get hitters out more often than bad pitchers do. The idea that you can't win without left-handed pitching stems, I think, from the fact that the Yankees have won 26 championships, and they won all of them playing in Yankee Stadium, a park that was death on right-handed power hitters for so long (and is still tough on them today) that left-handed pitchers thrived there, from Herb Pennock to Lefty Gomez to Whitey Ford to Ron Guidry to Andy Pettitte. The Yankees may benefit from having left-handed pitchers; ordinary teams in symmetrical ballparks do not, or if they do, the benefit is minimal.
- Just FYI: I'm supposed to be on with Nate and Steven over at 810 WHB tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 7:30 CDT. Assuming I wake up in time. If I sound like I just rolled out of bed, well, I did.
- I don't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. I bought my brother Roukan the Nintendo Wii last summer - it took forever to find one - but Roukan is a hard-core gamer, and the Wii just doesn't hold much appeal to people who need the hyper-realism of Call of Duty or the insane graphics of Halo 3. So it collected dust for six months until he gave it to me to play with my kids - Cedra, my oldest, is five and was clamoring for one. It's been a huge hit with my family; I came home from work the other day to find my wife battling Cedra in Mario Kart while our two-year-old Jenna looked on, which is the first time I've ever witnessed my wife playing a video game of her own free will.
Anyway, Cedra figured out the Wii Sports bowling game that comes with the console pretty quickly, and this weekend my in-laws came over. We thought it would be funny to let Cedra embarrass her grandparents by beating them in a video game - granted, she had practice, but it's funny anytime an adult loses to a five-year-old in any endeavor. But I was a little worried she might be nervous, playing in front of so many people, with her parents egging her on.
My fears were unfounded. She shot a 224.
Two twenty-four. She nailed five strikes in a row at one point. No subtlety, no spin, just a grip-it-and-rip-it approach - and she shot a 224. Granted, the game is not particularly challenging, but the next morning I felt compelled to play on my own for half an hour, working on different spins and ball placements, and the best I could do was a 205.
Is this unusual? Is there some trick to this game that I haven't figured out, or should I be signing my daughter up for the Junior Wii Bowling Championships (and if they don't exist, create one)? I thought I had another 7 or 8 years before I faced the specter of losing to my own progeny in a video game, but now I'm already feeling like I'm washed up.
On the other hand, I can totally obliterate her in Mario Kart.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Royals Today: 5/5/2008
So it's come to this: the Royals start the longest homestand of the season by getting seven brilliant, shutout innings from their fifth starter...and it's completely wasted. For the fourth time in their last 23 games, the Royals were shut out. They've scored one run four times in that span, and two runs four times. Which means in 12 of their last 23 games, the Royals have been held to two runs or less. They're 2-10 in those games.
It's driving me nuts, because a month into the season, it's possible to argue that the Royals have built a championship-caliber pitching staff. The team has a 4.37 ERA, but that number is a little deceptive because they've given up only 5 unearned runs all year, tied for the fewest in baseball. Unearned runs are partly the responsibility of the defense - and the Royals have made just 12 errors, also tied for the fewest in the majors - but also partly the responsibility of the pitchers - good pitchers surrender fewer unearned runs as well as fewer earned runs.
More than that, if you just look at the 10 key pitchers on the roster - the current rotation and the five most important relievers - those guys have pitched 85% of the team's innings, and more than 90% of the team's relevant innings. The combined ERA of those 10 pitchers is 3.51, which is sensational. The fact that John Bale, Yasuhiko Yabuta, Joel Peralta, and Hideo Nomo have allowed 42 runs in 41.1 innings is almost irrelevant. One of those guys is gone, one is hurt, and the other two are pitching in strictly low-leverage situations (or will be, given how Peralta pitched after entering a 1-0 game in the ninth tonight.)
But the offense is still on pace to score 559 runs, and nearly a fifth of the season has been played. The pitching staff is good enough, and the division is weak enough, that if the Royals had an offense that ranked, say, 10th in the league in runs scored, they ought to be in contention all season. Instead, they're still struggling to keep pace with the Giants on offense, and they're struggling to stay out of last place (though still just 2.5 games out of first.)
Dayton and Trey have to do something. I propose:
- Fire Mike Barnett. Immediately. I haven't discussed the performance of the hitting coach that much because I'm not really sure how much impact a hitting coach can have.
I have rarely been more excited as a Royals fan than the day the Royals hired Jeff Pentland, famous for turning Sammy Sosa from brain-dead hacker into a patient power hitter. Here are Sosa's unintentional walks, from 1996 to 2002: 28, 36, 59, 70, 72, 79, 88. His home run totals over that span went 40, 36, 66, 63, 50, 64, 49.
We used to think that the former begat the latter, but 1) Nate Silver's PECOTA research has shown that many times it's the latter that drives the former, i.e. as a hitter hits for more power, pitchers are less willing to challenge him, leading to more pitches out of the strike zone and more walks; and 2) the general consensus is that the key to Sosa's power surge lay in something other than improved plate discipline.
In retrospect Pentland's impact on Sosa may have been overstated. Anyway, Pentland was a bit of a flop in Kansas City, although among the Royals of that era it's impossible to tell who was a legitimate flop and who was simply a victim of awful circumstances.
Hitting coaches may or may not be able to significantly help a team, but I believe they are able to significantly hurt one. Barnett is hurting the Royals. He was hired as hitting coach on May 1st, 2006, and the Royals finished that season 12th in the league in runs scored. Last year they were 13th. This year they're 14th. If Barnett stays around another year I'm convinced they'll find a way to finish 15th.
Managers are, for the most part, not wholly good or bad - they all have strengths and weaknesses, and the man who is a poor fit for one team might be a good fit for another. I suspect hitting coaches are the same way. Barnett was the Blue Jays' hitting coach from 2002 to 2005, and they finished in the top five in runs scored twice in those four years. (On the other hand, they still fired him after the 2005 season anyway.) Regardless, this is a results-based business, and someone needs to take the fall here. If Jose Guillen's contract wasn't guaranteed, I'd vote for him. But it is, so Barnett needs to go.
- Can we get Callaspo and Gload more playing time? Please? Callaspo is on pace for 199 AB, and German is on pace for 94 - all season. Yeah, he's 1-for-18; who cares? Do you trust 18 at-bats of data, or two seasons worth of evidence that says he's the best on-base threat on the team? I've talked about platooning Callaspo and Pena based on who the Royals' starting pitcher is, and stand by that still.
I think Hillman is coming around to the fact that Gload is not an everyday first baseman - tonight's the first time in five games he started over there - but platooning Gload and Olivo isn't enough. Why not start German at first base against RHP? German has only played one game at first in his career, but he's played all over the infield and outfield, so I hardly think it would be a difficult adjustment. (Jose Offerman, like German an OBP fiend who played a marginal second base, was moved to first base by the Royals and was an absolute defensive stud over there.) Who would you rather see at the plate in a tough situation - Gload or German?
Dayton blew it by not foreseeing the traffic jam of talent in the middle infield before the season began and not trading German when his value was at his highest. He can't compound it by letting one of the game's best utility players scrap for playing time all season.
- Add another hitter. I'm sorry to keep saying things I've said before, but the Royals don't seem to be listening, so...why do we need 12 pitchers? Hillman has so little faith in Yabuta that he has openly talked about optioning him to Triple-A. The rotation has averaged 5.99 innings per start, 6.08 innings per start if you take out Bale's three starts. Last year, by comparison, the Royals' starters averaged just 5.48 innings per start; in 2006 it was 5.24 innings per start.
So compared to the last two years, Royals' starters are getting roughly two additional outs per game - an extra 100 innings a year. A 12-man pitching might make some sense when your starters are going five-and-dive, but the current rotation might be the best one the Royals have had this century, especially if Cool Hand turns out to be for real. Jimmy Gobble is still on pace to throw fewer than 30 innings all season. Do we really need a 12th pitcher that bad?
The problem is that whoever the Royals call up won't do the team any good unless Hillman adjusts his roster approach to take advantage of the guys he already has. If he can't find a way to make use of German's talents, fat chance he'll use some Triple-A lifer in the right role. In an ideal world, the Royals would call up Mike Aviles, who's hitting .347/.375/.694 for Omaha, and can play shortstop badly and second base and third base passably - he's German with fewer walks and more power. Or they would call up Shane Costa, who's hitting .330/.368/.591 in Omaha, the third straight year he's absolutely raked in Triple-A. In an ideal world, the Royals would pinch-hit for Pena at every opportunity, sit for Jose Guillen against hard right-handers, find a way to get Callaspo's bat in the lineup every day.
The Royals are dead last in the league in runs scored, and the 14 hitters who are on the roster today are the only 14 hitters who have played for the Royals all season. Common sense dictates that when your hitters aren't hitting, you might want to try new hitters.
When the Royals score 3 runs or more this season, they're 12-7. Hell, they've won two of the four games in which they've scored just *2* runs. It's criminal to waste this much good pitching. If Dayton shakes things up a bit, if he can just coax the offense into scoring a few runs in every game, the pitching staff could keep the Royals in contention well into the summer. But hope is not a strategy. And neither is playing Tony Pena every day.
It's driving me nuts, because a month into the season, it's possible to argue that the Royals have built a championship-caliber pitching staff. The team has a 4.37 ERA, but that number is a little deceptive because they've given up only 5 unearned runs all year, tied for the fewest in baseball. Unearned runs are partly the responsibility of the defense - and the Royals have made just 12 errors, also tied for the fewest in the majors - but also partly the responsibility of the pitchers - good pitchers surrender fewer unearned runs as well as fewer earned runs.
More than that, if you just look at the 10 key pitchers on the roster - the current rotation and the five most important relievers - those guys have pitched 85% of the team's innings, and more than 90% of the team's relevant innings. The combined ERA of those 10 pitchers is 3.51, which is sensational. The fact that John Bale, Yasuhiko Yabuta, Joel Peralta, and Hideo Nomo have allowed 42 runs in 41.1 innings is almost irrelevant. One of those guys is gone, one is hurt, and the other two are pitching in strictly low-leverage situations (or will be, given how Peralta pitched after entering a 1-0 game in the ninth tonight.)
But the offense is still on pace to score 559 runs, and nearly a fifth of the season has been played. The pitching staff is good enough, and the division is weak enough, that if the Royals had an offense that ranked, say, 10th in the league in runs scored, they ought to be in contention all season. Instead, they're still struggling to keep pace with the Giants on offense, and they're struggling to stay out of last place (though still just 2.5 games out of first.)
Dayton and Trey have to do something. I propose:
- Fire Mike Barnett. Immediately. I haven't discussed the performance of the hitting coach that much because I'm not really sure how much impact a hitting coach can have.
I have rarely been more excited as a Royals fan than the day the Royals hired Jeff Pentland, famous for turning Sammy Sosa from brain-dead hacker into a patient power hitter. Here are Sosa's unintentional walks, from 1996 to 2002: 28, 36, 59, 70, 72, 79, 88. His home run totals over that span went 40, 36, 66, 63, 50, 64, 49.
We used to think that the former begat the latter, but 1) Nate Silver's PECOTA research has shown that many times it's the latter that drives the former, i.e. as a hitter hits for more power, pitchers are less willing to challenge him, leading to more pitches out of the strike zone and more walks; and 2) the general consensus is that the key to Sosa's power surge lay in something other than improved plate discipline.
In retrospect Pentland's impact on Sosa may have been overstated. Anyway, Pentland was a bit of a flop in Kansas City, although among the Royals of that era it's impossible to tell who was a legitimate flop and who was simply a victim of awful circumstances.
Hitting coaches may or may not be able to significantly help a team, but I believe they are able to significantly hurt one. Barnett is hurting the Royals. He was hired as hitting coach on May 1st, 2006, and the Royals finished that season 12th in the league in runs scored. Last year they were 13th. This year they're 14th. If Barnett stays around another year I'm convinced they'll find a way to finish 15th.
Managers are, for the most part, not wholly good or bad - they all have strengths and weaknesses, and the man who is a poor fit for one team might be a good fit for another. I suspect hitting coaches are the same way. Barnett was the Blue Jays' hitting coach from 2002 to 2005, and they finished in the top five in runs scored twice in those four years. (On the other hand, they still fired him after the 2005 season anyway.) Regardless, this is a results-based business, and someone needs to take the fall here. If Jose Guillen's contract wasn't guaranteed, I'd vote for him. But it is, so Barnett needs to go.
- Can we get Callaspo and Gload more playing time? Please? Callaspo is on pace for 199 AB, and German is on pace for 94 - all season. Yeah, he's 1-for-18; who cares? Do you trust 18 at-bats of data, or two seasons worth of evidence that says he's the best on-base threat on the team? I've talked about platooning Callaspo and Pena based on who the Royals' starting pitcher is, and stand by that still.
I think Hillman is coming around to the fact that Gload is not an everyday first baseman - tonight's the first time in five games he started over there - but platooning Gload and Olivo isn't enough. Why not start German at first base against RHP? German has only played one game at first in his career, but he's played all over the infield and outfield, so I hardly think it would be a difficult adjustment. (Jose Offerman, like German an OBP fiend who played a marginal second base, was moved to first base by the Royals and was an absolute defensive stud over there.) Who would you rather see at the plate in a tough situation - Gload or German?
Dayton blew it by not foreseeing the traffic jam of talent in the middle infield before the season began and not trading German when his value was at his highest. He can't compound it by letting one of the game's best utility players scrap for playing time all season.
- Add another hitter. I'm sorry to keep saying things I've said before, but the Royals don't seem to be listening, so...why do we need 12 pitchers? Hillman has so little faith in Yabuta that he has openly talked about optioning him to Triple-A. The rotation has averaged 5.99 innings per start, 6.08 innings per start if you take out Bale's three starts. Last year, by comparison, the Royals' starters averaged just 5.48 innings per start; in 2006 it was 5.24 innings per start.
So compared to the last two years, Royals' starters are getting roughly two additional outs per game - an extra 100 innings a year. A 12-man pitching might make some sense when your starters are going five-and-dive, but the current rotation might be the best one the Royals have had this century, especially if Cool Hand turns out to be for real. Jimmy Gobble is still on pace to throw fewer than 30 innings all season. Do we really need a 12th pitcher that bad?
The problem is that whoever the Royals call up won't do the team any good unless Hillman adjusts his roster approach to take advantage of the guys he already has. If he can't find a way to make use of German's talents, fat chance he'll use some Triple-A lifer in the right role. In an ideal world, the Royals would call up Mike Aviles, who's hitting .347/.375/.694 for Omaha, and can play shortstop badly and second base and third base passably - he's German with fewer walks and more power. Or they would call up Shane Costa, who's hitting .330/.368/.591 in Omaha, the third straight year he's absolutely raked in Triple-A. In an ideal world, the Royals would pinch-hit for Pena at every opportunity, sit for Jose Guillen against hard right-handers, find a way to get Callaspo's bat in the lineup every day.
The Royals are dead last in the league in runs scored, and the 14 hitters who are on the roster today are the only 14 hitters who have played for the Royals all season. Common sense dictates that when your hitters aren't hitting, you might want to try new hitters.
When the Royals score 3 runs or more this season, they're 12-7. Hell, they've won two of the four games in which they've scored just *2* runs. It's criminal to waste this much good pitching. If Dayton shakes things up a bit, if he can just coax the offense into scoring a few runs in every game, the pitching staff could keep the Royals in contention well into the summer. But hope is not a strategy. And neither is playing Tony Pena every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)