This isn’t the first time I’ve talked about the difference between effort and results. Professional athletes and coaches focus on effort, but fans and, all too often, some members of the media focus on results. A fly ball is hit to the outfield. The fielder breaks forward, realizes he’s misread the ball, reverses course, runs a bad route, gets into a backpedal too soon and makes a snow-cone catch while falling over backward. The crowd cheers the results: The ball was caught. Look in the dugout, and you’re likely to see a coach shaking his head in disgust: It was a horrible effort.
The fans are happy because their team recorded an out, but the coach knows that effort will not succeed most of the time.
Here’s another example: Say a manager faces a situation with three options. Option A has a history of succeeding 70 percent of the time, Option B works 40 percent of the time and Option C works 30 percent of the time. Which one would you choose? (And if you didn’t choose Option A, you’re probably not managing material.)
But remember, Option A also has a history of failing 30 percent of the time. It’s clearly the best option, but it doesn’t work every time. So the manager does the right thing, picks Option A and it fails. He made the correct choice; it just didn’t work out…yet some fans and members of the media will be upset because he didn’t choose one of the other options, an option that had even less chance of succeeding. Why?
It has to do with being human: Sometimes, we’re morons.
We want to be perfect, and that can make us be dumb. Here’s proof: I was reading a book on odds (yes, I’m that boring, and no, this isn’t the dumb thing I was talking about). The book described a psychological experiment. A test subject is put in front of two lights, one red and one blue. The goal is to predict which light will come on next. The (let’s say red, because I really can’t remember) light is set to come on more often than the blue one. There is an observer in the room with the subject recording results.
At some point the subject will say something like, “Boy, the red light comes on a lot.” The person conducting the test will agree: the red light does come on a lot. After further testing, the subject will then say something like, “Does the red light come on more than the blue light?” The person conducting the test will say, “Yes, the red light comes on more than the blue light.”
Even though they’ve been given that information, even though they’ve just been told they can be right more often than not, nobody in the entire history of the experiment has ever said, “Then I’ll just go with the red light.” They want to be perfect all the time, even at the expense of being right most of the time. As a result of passing up their chance to increase the odds of success, they manage to work their way back to 50-50. That is about what they’d do without the crucial information that one light comes on more often than the other.
A manager’s job is to pick the red light every time because he knows it’s the best option. But fans and some members of the media will criticize him for choosing the best option whenever the blue light comes on. They want perfection, and the manager failed.
One more example:
A third-base coach (it wasn’t Eddie Rodriguez) had two outs and a slow runner on second. The on-deck hitter was left-handed. A third-base coach has to think about the on-deck hitter, because if the coach throws up the stop sign with two outs, the on-deck hitter may have to drive the run in.
The coach could see into the visiting bullpen. The opposition was warming up a left-handed pitcher to face the left-handed hitter on deck. A third-base coach needs to know if his team might pinch hit in this situation. That also means he needs to know the possible match-ups (if we send up so-and-so, they’ll counter with what’s-his-name). In this case, the left-handed hitter on deck was not a guy they would pinch hit for, so he was going to face the lefty reliever warming up.
The third-base coach knew that the left-handed on-deck hitter was batting .181 against the left-handed reliever he would face. So the coach made the decision to be very aggressive about sending the runner. If the coach held him up, his team had an 18 percent chance of scoring the run, based on past history.
Sure enough, the guy at the plate gets a hit, and the coach waves the lumbering runner home. At this point the coach was hoping for a bad throw or a dropped ball, because if the defense did everything right, the slow runner would be out. Even so, sending the runner was the right move, because he had a better chance of scoring than if he stopped the runner and let the on-deck hitter try to drive him in. The coach sized up the situation and took the percentage play.
Naturally, the throw was a good one, the catcher handled the ball cleanly and the runner was out by six feet. The coach got showered with boos during the game and roasted in the press afterward. And the coach couldn’t say anything. As they say in baseball, he had to wear it. He couldn’t say, “Don’t look at me — our lefty can’t hit their lefty.” That would be throwing a player under the bus. The coach made the right choice and got hammered for it.
All because people focused on the results, not the effort.
So next time you’re sitting in the stands, think through the options before the next pitch is thrown. Try to figure out which one has the best chance of succeeding, then live with the results. Then you’ll be thinking like a pro.
As long as we’re on the subject
In the book “Backboards & Blackboards: College Athletes and Role Engulfment” by college professors Patricia A. Adler and Peter Adler, they describe how athletes think about success and failure. (By the way, I realize I’m throwing out a pretty impressive reading list, but trust me, there’s lots of Raymond Chandler in-between.)
Anyway, here’s a quote from the book about how athletes think:
“They tried to discount the flattery of others as exaggerated or false. As Jones and Nisbet have hypothesized, ‘There is a pervasive tendency for actors to attribute their actions to situational requirements, whereas observers tend to attribute the same actions to stable personal dispositions.’ Basketball players, then, tended to evaluate their behavior less globally than their audience, and to interpret their successes as based less on their own outstanding characteristics than on some complex interaction of circumstances.”
OK, first, I have no clue who Jones and Nisbet are, but I get what’s being said: Observers will label someone a “winner” or a “choker” based on results. Athletes see results as the logical outcome of specific circumstances. Fans say, “That guy’s a clutch hitter.” Athletes say, “I got a good pitch to hit.”
Understand the difference and you’ll go a long way toward understanding why athletes talk the way they do. You’ll also be less likely to make sweeping generalizations that can be harmful, not to mention inaccurate. At some point, all major-league players have come through in the clutch. They wouldn’t be in the major leagues if that weren’t true. At some point, all major-league players have failed.
If you think specifics instead of labels, once again, you’ll be thinking like a pro.
The bullpen change
I was looking through old notes and came across this one. Tex has been gone awhile, so I guess it’s OK to finally tell this story.
Before he left the team last season, reliever Kanekoa Texeira talked about the advantages and disadvantages of the Royals changing their bullpen from right field to left. Tex said the sun beat down on the right-field bullpen and the left-field bullpen had more shade. On the other hand, the right-field pen has access to the rest of the stadium, while the left-field pen is closed off, with just a bathroom and equipment room. The coaches like the left-field pen because they can look directly into it and see what the players are doing. Some pitchers prefer the right-field pen for the same reason.
But, according to Texeira, there was one final advantage to the right-field pen that I hadn’t considered: Talking to girls from the sports bar. He said it was a long season, and that helped pass the time.
(And now you’re really thinking like a pro.)
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoOK, what Kanekoa Texeira actually said was talking to ‘drunk girls’ from the sports bar.
Putting this in the comments makes it my responsibility, if it’s in the column it’s the editor’s responsibility.
I just think the distinction between ‘girls’ and ‘drunk girls’ is important. And if you don’t, you’ve never been a single male.
Steven A Hurst
1 year, 4 months agoWow, I didn’t realize I thought so much like a pro… I prefer talking to “drunk girls”! (grin)
But seriously, what about coaches who go by gut feelings & hunches (Tony Pena seemed to do that a lot & coaches who “go for it” on 4 down a lot)?
There seems to be some very good coaches (managers) who “go against the book”, or write their own book (a certain former Cards manager comes to mind).
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months agoGood insights, this is what makes you unique in the local field.
The story of the 3rd base coach and lumbering runner reminds of the difference between large sample, average and aggregate stats, and small sample, very specific stats that have something to do with the actual play. What amazes me is the memory and process speed to handle that much information, that fast, while the play is developing. Apparently coaching is more than just remembering which players like high-five, which low-five, and which fist-bump after a homer.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoSteven: OK, first of all we totally agree on the drunk girls thing.
As for less important issues: Malcolm Gladwell wrote a terrific book called ‘Blink’ and it’s an examination of how gut feelings are formed (in the “Blink” of an eye).
It really gets to the heart of the metrics vs. eyes debate. What Gladwell concluded (along with a lot of experts) is that gut instinct should be listened to, as long as you have some expertise in the subject.
The subconscious mind is picking up clues we’re not aware of. Clint Hurdle once told me that when I was managing a game, if I thought of something, I should do it.
There’s a reason the hit and run or pulling the pitcher crossed my mind. He was right: almost 100% of the time when I thought of a move and didn’t do it, I regretted it within the next three pitches. Of course, the hard part is developing the expertise to have reliable instincts.
Back in the 70s a hippy buddy of mine decided he could play the saxophone without ever taking a lesson if he could just get mellow enough and be ‘one’ with nature.
He went out in the woods, smoked a joint, took his clothes off, picked up the sax and proceeded to scare all the wildlife within 5 miles with a series of loud squawks.
He went with his gut instincts, but hadn’t developed the expertise to make that work. He hadn’t worked on the scales for years or practiced, he just wanted to cut to the part where he could jam. (Hmm, sounds like some fans and members of the media.)
I’ve taken the long way round, but I think in most cases those managers’ hunches were actually based on something concrete.
There other thing to remember is the right move can change with more specific information. Early on in my managing experience, I’d make the ‘right move’ (the book says bunt here), but ignore the fact that I didn’t have the right personnel on the field (this guy at the plate can’t bunt).
I’m not saying all managers are geniuses and I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some dumb moves, but every time I saw someone do something unorthodox and got to ask about it afterwards, they had a very good reason for doing so.
And often the reason wasn’t public knowledge. If they had information that others didn’t (we’ve picked up a key on this pitcher when he’s coming over to first) they didn’t want that information out there. They planned on using it again.
If I were a major league manager I’d definitely be trying to develop my own book that gave me an advantage against a more conservative opponent.
OK, that was a long answer and I hope the information you were seeking is in there somewhere.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: Thank you very much, although I think the only smart thing I’ve done is talk to players and coaches about how they play the game and repeat what they have to say.
As for that quick decision making (and I should’ve written about this in the original piece): what you’re talking about is ‘pre-deciding’ and it’s absolutely mandatory for managers, coaches and players.
When things happen, they’ll happen so fast there won’t be time to make a logical decision, so you’ve got to ‘pre-decide’.
The coach in that story had run through the options and knew holding the runner would give his team about an 18% chance of scoring the run. In his mind, send the runner and he scores (through bad throws, missed tags, etc.) more than 2 out of 10 times. So easy decision: send the runner if at all possible.
People who hadn’t run through the options criticized him when it didn’t work out.
That thinking-through-the-options-before-the-next-pitch process is going on all over the field. Runners are telling themselves, “Break on a grounder, tag on a fly ball, freeze on a line drive.”
Managers should be thinking ahead also. I’d run through my first three hitters every inning: “If my leadoff guy gets on, I’ll do this, if he doesn’t, but the next guy does I’ll do that.” The good managers are thinking waaay ahead of the game.
(Interestingly enough the Rangers’ Ron Washington appeared to get caught managing behind the game a couple of times during the World Series. There was a situation or two in which he seemed undecided. I hear Washington is a great clubhouse guy and people enjoy playing for him. If a manager does have trouble in that ‘keeping ahead of the game’ area that’s when you need a strong bench coach.)
Anyway, I’m glad you liked the piece. I didn’t think it would be everybody’s cup of tea, but it’s something I’ve wanted to write about for a while.
Eric Dunn
1 year, 4 months agoAnother great article Lee. I have really enjoyed your website the last two seasons. I think this article shows what some of the more sabermetric-minded people sometimes miss… which is simply all baseball stats are flawed. It doesn’t matter if they are stats that show average, are counting stats or are determined by a math formula. Baseball is a game played in the moment and the circumstances of that moment change all the time. This is what I love about Ron Polk’s system… it looks at different situations differently. If a runner is thrown out at home or the infielder misses a grounder that would normally be fielded because he has shifted to the pull side of the batter will be recorded in statistics as bad play by the player instead of looking at the play in context. Ron Polk’s system is built the same way, it is best looked at game by game. Who contributed to the game today? Player A might have made a defensive play that saved the game in the 9th but the same play tomorrow night doesn’t effect the team win because the situation is different.
I no longer live in Kansas City and therefore do not get to see every game, but I can read Lee’s article and find out what the critical plays were in the game that determined the outcome. Following the team this way is much more enjoyable and informative than looking at a boxscore the next morning.
And to any “sabermetric-minded” readers, I enjoy looking at statistics too and I believe they are an important part of player and team evaluation but they are not the holy ground of player evaluation. It is much different have a SP who finished the year with 220 IP and an ERA of 2.75, does he pitch for the Rangers or Mariners, Padres or Reds? I also know that there are newer statistics that try to equalize statistics to assume an average defense and average ballpark is played in, but they cannot be perfect as any hypothetical situation is not reality. But these newer stats are good and I think they do help give a more accurate picture when trying to compare players. But in the end, someone who has a deep understanding of the game is needed to watch the game and put everything into context.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoEric: Thank you, I’m pleased that this website is adding to your enjoyment of the game. I’d agree with you that all stats are flawed in some way, but each reveals another piece of the picture.
Batting average might reveal a #8 hitter in the National League is having a bad year at the plate, but doesn’t account for the fact that the pitcher is following him in the lineup. In an RBI situation his team will want the #8 man to expand his zone and not leave it up to the pitcher. So a guy who wasn’t great to begin with, looks even worse because he’s chasing marginal pitches. Just looking at batting average reveals none of that.
I don’t think the system I’m using is any less flawed. I have to make judgment calls and I could be wrong. I tell people to ignore just a few points in a category, but if a player scores a lot of points, it’s revealing something about the way they play the game.
What Ron Polk’s MVP Chart adds to the picture are things that might go unnoticed otherwise. If the defensive metric you’re looking at doesn’t include missing the cutoff man or being out of position, Polk’s system allows you to take that into account. Like I’ve said and will keep saying: it’s not THE way to look at a ballplayer, but it’s one way and a way that tells you some things other statistics miss.
One last thing: part of what we accidently did right with “Judging the Royals” is allowing me to ignore certain plays. That means what I’m doing will never be a complete account of what happened in a game, but it will allow me to explain plays that get overlooked.
Here’s an example: I can’t remember who got the game-winning hit, but when I got to the clubhouse, he was surrounded by reporters. I figured that story was covered and went to find Mitch Maier. Mitch broke up a double play that kept the inning alive so the next guy could get that game-winning hit.
Players like it when someone notices a thing like that and it gives the rest of us a better understanding of how games are won and lost.
Larry Tindle
1 year, 4 months agoThinking like a Pro or a Fan. One thing I notice in the stands is that fans want the manager to do everythig every day to win the game. While this sounds good, the pro has to allow for 162 games. There are times decisions have to be made, for the better of the team, for the whole season. Drives me crazy when fans complain the manager does not pull SP fast enough then a few days later the same fans complain he is burning up the bull pen. As you like to say, the people on the team know more about what’s going on with the players than we do. On other sites I see people upset because they think management is hiding information about player health. Pro’s know that telling us details about players health is like broadcasting it to the competition. If the manager is not playing someone there is usually a reason besides he doesn’t like him. Other teams can figure that out but why would you scream it from the roof top. Lee, sometimes I do detect a bit of sarcasm in your comments, go figure a political cartoonist that uses sarcasm. Keep up the good work.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoLarry: You detect a BIT of sarcasm? Geez, I must not be trying hard enough. Actually, I’ve been trying to be very civil. I’d like the web site to provide a place for people to express themselves without being ridiculed by strangers.
Anyway, you bring up a couple of every interesting points:
Managers can never say this, but they do have to give up on certain games in order to have a chance at the next one.
The starter gets lit up right away, but if you go to the pen too soon, you chew up innings that could be used to win a game tomorrow. Plus you’ve got the guys you use when you’re ahead and the guys you use when losing. The manager doesn’t want to waste quality-relief innings in game he’s likely to lose anyway.
In the Royals case last season, if you saw Nate Adcock come into the game that meant Ned Yost was kind of punting. Nate was long relief and those guys are used when the starter poops the bed a lot earlier than anyone planned. It wasn’t that Ned didn’t want to win, he just needed Nate to give him some innings. If the offense could get the team back in the game, then Yost might be able to use his quality relievers.
No fan wants to hear that he spent his money on a game that the manager gave up on after four innings, so nobody’s going to put it that way. They’re always trying to win, they’re just going to make different decision when they’re way behind.
And as for injuries: Man, I hope the team is hiding information about players’ health. If the other team knows who’s hurting and who isn’t they have an advantage. A guy you have no intention of pinch-hitting can come out on deck and act as a decoy.
Fans need to remember that it’s the team’s job to win games, not help you in your fantasy league. (Hey, was that some of the sarcasm you mentioned?)
Bob Forer
1 year, 4 months agoLoved your red light/blue light analogy, Lee. Clear, concise and simple. You transformed a somewhat perplexing topic into something mathematically challenged folks like myself can understand.
Good work.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoBob: Glad that explanation worked for you (although I didn’t come up with it, I just remembered it from a book). Although, when I read it, I thought it was a perfect analogy for managing.
There’s an unfortunate assumption by some fans and media members that anything that doesn’t work was a bad idea and anything that does work was a good idea.
Managers, coaches and players have to make decisions before they know the results of those decisions. It’s only logical that they’d choose the option with the highest chance of success. Non-participants have the luxury of waiting until the dust settles and then deciding what the team SHOULD have done.
I had the feeling that this post would not generate as many comments as the last one on the Polk system, but I thought it was worth writing anyway. If it helps fans think about the game in a more logical way, it’s a good thing.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months agoBeen meaning to ask, do any of the Royals work out with Seitzer in the off-season? You had mentioned that Getzie was working on some things and I assume that Lorenzo Cain and Johnny Gio might be putting some time in to clean up Cain’s longish swing or Gio’s pitch selection and holes, if any. If I were any of them, I’ld be swinging and studying film so I could hit the ground running in SP.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months agoSince it’s a slow thread, let me say that, based on my haunting of baseball blogs and exposure to literally hundreds of posters, Larry is one of my favorite posters. His knowledge is good, his style, his feel for the game, and he comes across as a really mellow dude.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: Yes, some of the Royals hitters work with Seitzer in the off-season. I believe Alex Gordon has already started and stayed in town to do so.
It’s also my understanding that Jeff Francoeur showed up last winter to work with Kevin a bit so he’d know what was expected come spring training.
Chris Getz is trying to get a bit more pop by bending his legs deeper and getting more out of his lower half. Although, I don’t know if he’s coming to KC to work with Kevin or doing it on his own. He either just got married or is about to, so he’s probably pretty busy right now.
I would think everybody, especially those not assured of a spot, would want to come into spring training ready to go. It’s not like the old days when the athletes used spring training to play their way into shape.
As for Larry: you’re right, but we’re lucky to have more than our share of mellow dudes (you’re on the list). One of the pleasant surprises of the web site has been the community of fans that enjoy seeing the game this way.
I suspect next week’s column will generate a bit more heat. I spent some time talking with Jason Kendall and, as always, he had some interesting things to say.
Larry Tindle
1 year, 4 months agoWell thanks to both of you for the kind words. My boss thinks I’m too mello at times. I know Lee only says good things about me in hopes of getting more cookies this year.
I do really enjoy this site. I had the fortune when growing up to have very good and knowledgable baseball people in my life. Just sad I didn’t have the skills to go any further in the game than I did. Love the fact that this site shows everyones name on their post. I think this helps keep everything civil. No hiding behind some cute made up moniker to blast people. Come on Spring Training!!!!
Jim Fetterolf
1 year, 4 months agoA thought on Getz, may be wrong, but his style of hitting last year would probably emphasize a short, slappy sort of swing with little follow through, Chris breaking from the box at the same time the bat head is pointing down the line so he gets a little pull from the momentum of the bat. That works if the goal is put the ball in play on the ground and run. A longer swing with the hands ending up behind the neck would neutralize that momentum and even pull him back a little. The time difference between the two swings would be small, a tenth maybe, but that turns a close play into a hit. The obvious drawback is that that short swing doesn’t generate maximum bat speed, so little force, therefore few extra base hits. I would guess that Getz’ adjustments would be geared toward a longer swing early in the count in an effort to drive the ball, while still retaining the ability to shorten up a little and guard the plate with two strikes and take advantage of his speed. Having both skill sets available is probably a good thing, huh? Just a guess, really haven’t watched Getzie’s swings closely enough.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoLarry: When they told me I was going to have to create a Facebook account to comment on my own web site I was appalled…and totally wrong.
Even though it can be a pain, I think you’re right: having to use your real name keeps things fairly civil. (Although one guy did create a Facebook account with a false name and predictably enough behaved like a jerk.)
The IT guys said this site was the exception, many of the Star sites go south in the comment section fairly fast. From what I’ve seen, that’s correct.
The Star’s web site people made the right call and I’m grateful.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: You’re analysis may be right, but I haven’t talked to Chris about his swing in those terms.
Getz felt that at times he got ‘too’ relaxed and was just laying easy grounders out there for the defense to gobble up. It’s a fine line: the number one reason for a swing and miss on a hittable pitch is muscling up.
The shoulders get tight, which causes the neck to get tight, which causes the head to move during the swing. Get too relaxed and you’re hitting lazy fly balls and grounders.
Getz is trying to find the most desirable level of tension in his swing, but I’d assume his approach would change with two strikes: he’s a very good situational hitter.
Danny Alvord
1 year, 4 months agoGood post again! I’m studying for my PhD in sociology, so it’s nice to see you reading some sociologists (Adler and Adler). I like how you complexitize the game. There is so much that happens in the dugout that we, as fans, remain totally unaware of. The examples you gave of playing the odds is a good example of that. Thanks for keeping up the good work.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoDanny: Thanks, I was pretty sure this post wouldn’t be for everybody, but I still thought it was worth writing.
Learning to think about decision-making in the correct light was the first step towards understanding that game as seen by professionals.
Chuck Smith
1 year, 4 months agoOut of curiosity, a couple of questions. Do the players keep track of your scoring and make it a friendly competition? Does the Royals organization use a similar tool that you have been privy to seeing?
Jim Silcott
1 year, 4 months agoLee, I’m new to the comments, but have been reading and enjoying your blog for a long time! I have my teenage son reading it too because he’s a Royals fan and would like to play at the next level. There’s always something valuable in your articles. As far as managers going with their gut, I think Grady Little paid the ultimate price when he left Pedro Martinez in against the Yankees. That seems like a good example of him having more information than the fans (and maybe the front office). Unfortunately it didn’t work out and cost him his job. Thank you for writing this blog!
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoChuck: No, the players are either unaware of the scoring or don’t care. Their perception of someone in the media is based on your behavior around them. Someone might tell them you’ve written something especially positive or negative about them and then they’ll go check it out. Other than that, they don’t pay a lot of attention.
The Royals organization, on the other hand, keeps similar numbers. Kevin Seitzer uses some of the same stats to record how his hitters are doing in “Quality Plate Appearances” (walks, hard-hit outs, 8+ pitch at-bats, etc.) and “Situational Batting Average” (succes or failure on hit and runs, bunts, moveing runners over, etc.).
I assume their doing the same type of thing with the pitching. All professional teams that I’m aware of keep these kinds of stats: things they want to know about their players.
It was one of the reasons I chose Ron Polk’s system in the first place: it’s the same kinf of system teams use to analyze their players.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoJim: Thanks very much. I’m glad you and your son are finding worthwhile information here on the site. Insight from coaches and players can’t make you more talented, but it can help you use what talent you have more effectively.
Good luck to your son.
Brian Rose
1 year, 4 months agoLee: i have a long and distinguished career as an average rec league player but was wondering how the home and away games affect top teir athletes in all sports. i seems to me when i am in a comfortable surrounding i often play better. sometimes i feel like the feild is aligned different and i am constantly fighting to get my bearings or something like that. i assume pro athletes have the same problems but are better at dealing with it. any ideas how to better handle the uncomfortable/unfamiliar environments? i plan to “dominate” my rec league this year so you better pick me on your fantasy team! thanks!
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoBrian: My first piece of advice would be to find a better player than me and ask him…but until that happens:
Successful players avoid distractions. That allows them to remain focused on the things that matter.
One of the things you’ll see them do is create a routine and follow it, game after game. Wade Boggs ate the same lunch every day, left for the park at the same time and crossed the foul line to go onto the field at the same time every day. Hitters have routines as they approach the plate.
All these routines help them be comfortable. Every day is the same, every game is the same. They don’t get up, they don’t get down. They also don’t go to Fenway and change their swing because the Green Monster’s there.
So I’d advise the same thing: find a pregame routine you’re comfortable with (stretching, playing catch, wind sprints, swinging the bat) and stick to it.
And let me know how your season goes.
Dave Beal
1 year, 4 months agoGreat article again! This is not really related to the ARTICLE, but I have two things I’d like to hear your opinion on sometime.
1 Players discussing their approach in the media, because the media asks. Don’t you think the players are taking an advantage out of their arsenal by tipping off the next day’s or future opponents? I flippin hate that!!!
2. The SF Giants pitching success. I know the are a NL teak with a favorable ballpark. I know they have talented pitchers. But Tim Lincecum, (whom the Royals passed over in the draft because they thought he was too small and wouldn’t holdup to anything but a RP role) pitches with a different theory of mechanics than most major league pitchers. When I was coaching American Legion baseball I tried to better myself by reading up a lot on pitching. In a nutshell, Lincecum uses a longer stride (90% of body height) and creates the momentum with his legs. This approach has proved very successful as he both pitches with a higher velocity than you would expect from his frams, and he has proven very durable and healthy espite his smaller size and workhorse load.
My question has to do with the entire SF SP staff, and whether they have tried to take a lesson from Lincecum and incorporate it into their philosophy, or did they really just acuire a bunch of pitchers with that much ability. Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Sanchez etc. My main purpose for asking in an article out of context is because if in fact they are emulating Lincecum, perhaps there is a narrow window of opportunity to be capitalized on with the addition of Sanchez that could benefit some of our other pitchers. Only a person with your insight and contact with the players and coaches could perhaps both evaluate that, and bring it to the attention of the right person. Just FYI, Dick Mills of pitching.com was the source for the mechanics. Lincecum is his star pupil. There is more to it than a long stride obviously. Thanks and sorry for bringing it up here.
Dave Beal
1 year, 4 months agoHoly typo Batman, LOL sorry i was both just typing without looking, with a cig in my hand at 5AM, lol, and have a couple of keys that stick.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months agoDave: Hold on a second, my ears are ringing from reading your comment. Man, you have GOT to teach me how to do that. I’ve never seen anyone shout in print before.
But seriously, folks…
Hitters are given scouting reports on pitchers and vice versa. And they all look at video. If it’s someone new, somebody else has probably faced him somewhere, (minors, etc.) and will give everybody a heads up.
Before games I sometimes walk around asking hitters how they’ll be pitched that night so I can watch for that pattern during the game. They always know, based on past experience. (I’d do the same with the starting pitcher, but you don’t talk to the starter unless he talks to you first…baseball tradition.)
The base stealers also know who they can run on before the game starts. An average major league catcher gets the ball to second base on a steal attempt in 2.0 seconds “pop to pop” (from the time the ball “pops” in the catcher’s mitt to the time the ball “pops” in the middle infielder’s glove).
Pitchers vary more: a pitcher that gets the ball to home in 1.2 seconds is fast (Detroit’s Benoit) a pitcher who gets it there in 1.5 seconds is slow (Detroit’s Valverde).
Chris Getz, for instance, can beat a 1.3 delivery time. So when he’s on first with Benoit on the mound, both team know he’s probably not running. When Getz is on first with Valverde on the mound, both teams know he’s probably going.
Which is why you see a pitcher throwing over to first again and again: he knows if he doesn’t do something to disrupt the runner, the runner can steal the base.
I asked Doug Sisson, Royals first base coach, if we could publish opposition pitcher’s delivery times because everybody on both teams knows how fast the pitchers and runners are, the only people left out are the fans.
Doug said, “And if they’d bring a stopwatch, they’d know, too.” (We might be able to publish those times next season, we’ll see.)
Anyway, this is a long way of saying everybody playing in the game already knows what everybody else does. Fans are the ones left out…which I’m hoping to change.
Lee Judge
1 year, 4 months ago(The web site made me break my reply into two pieces…didn’t know it would do that, sorry.)
The flip side of unusual mechanics is that it can make the ball move in unusual ways. Mitch Williams pitched like he was falling out of a tree, but it gave him movement. It also appeared that he didn’t know where the ball was going half the time.
So a guy who does everything in the “right” way, might be costing himself movement and a guy who does things in the “wrong” way might be gaining movement, but at the risk of injury and being inconsistent.
What’s great about baseball (or at least one of the great things about baseball) is that you can’t predict what will work and what won’t with 100% accuracy. Clint Hurdle once said, “Name a hitting flaw and I’ll name a Hall of Famer who has it.”
Tim Lincecum is making a long stride work for him: most pitcher’s can’t. When most pitch overstride their body gets too far out in front of their arm’s. The arm never catches up and the ball goes high. But that’s “most” pitchers, not all of them.
I don’t have any insight into what the Giants are doing with their staff. That’s the downside of trying to report on one team in detail: I know next to nothing about other teams.
I haven’t met pitching coach Dave Eiland or pitcher Jonathan Sanchez yet, but I plan to ask about pitching philosophy and what the Royals will stress in 2012.
Dave, I hope I’ve come somewhere close to answering your questions…and thanks for the most visually impressive comment we’ve ever had on the site.
Read more here: http://royals.kansascity.com/comments/post/#storylink=cpy
Dave Beal
1 year, 4 months agoLOL Lee I have no idea how that happened.