Games » Los Angeles Angels
Aug11Lee Judge
None
Clint Hurdle once told me that if you made more then half your outs by strikeouts and fly balls, you’d probably lose. The idea is that strikeouts and fly balls don’t put enough pressure on the defense. (On a fly ball, one guy has to do one thing: catch it. On a ground ball, two guys have to do three things: catch it, throw it and catch it again.) In this game, the Royals made 30 outs, 14 by strikeout and 11 in the air.
Apparently, the results were predictable.
Although…
The Royals’ offense is struggling, but they’ve had a fair number of lineouts and balls caught on the warning track that might’ve carried out in different conditions. To understand what you’re seeing, you should focus on the effort, not the results. Effort is controllable, results are not. The effort here wasn’t as bad as the results indicate.
Just managing…
In the seventh inning with runners at first and third and one down, Ned Yost chose not to pinch hit for Brayan Pena. I wondered whether he would. Brayan had already struck out against Jered Weaver twice, and Jason Kendall (a good situational hitter) was available. Yost let Pena hit, and he struck out for a third time. Easy to second-guess, but maybe the Royals want to let Pena hit in those situations to find out what he can do.
I once asked Hurdle if his job in the minors was to win or teach, and he said, “Teach, until we lose three in a row.”
The two-hole…
Kendall sat out this game, so Mitch Maier hit in the two-hole. It made sense: Maier is a good situational hitter and, assuming your leadoff hitter has a high on-base percentage (I know…big assumption), you want a right-hander who goes the opposite way or a lefty who can pull the ball. Either one can take advantage of the hole created by a runner being held at first.
Other stuff…
In the previous game, the Angels ran a suicide squeeze. The correct defense is for the third baseman to alert everyone that the runner’s going and for the pitcher to throw up and in on a right-handed batter (or pitch out on a lefty). The play is usually run with a right-handed hitter at the plate because it blocks the catcher’s view of the oncoming runner.
The Angels did a good job with their timing. The batter squares and the runner breaks when the pitcher’s front foot hits the ground, too late for him to change locations. Bryan Bullington said that’s just what happened and to top it off, he had a slider grip: a pitch that would be hard to use for buzzing the tower.
Right after the successful suicide squeeze, the Angels attempted a stolen base (Kendall threw him out). This is something you can watch for. Lots of managers like to strike during chaos. Catch the defense hanging their heads or losing focus over a previous play and you can turn a one-run inning into a rout.
Team MVP…
Unless something dramatic happens, Billy Butler, Jason Kendall or Yuniesky Betancourt will be the team MVP, according to this method of evaluation. That makes sense to me. Every other position player has missed significant chunks of playing time for one reason or another.
Both Zack Greinke and Luke Hochevar have put up 44-point games, but no pitcher has put up the 20 points per game average it would take to keep up with the position players. (If you’re only going to play every fifth day, you better be really good to be the MVP.)
When we started this project, I called Ron Polk, the legendary college coach who came up with this system, to make sure I understood the system and its scoring. I asked Ron about injuries: What if your best player got hurt and wasn’t able to put up points? Ron said, “Y’know, Lee, part of being good is actually getting on the field and playing.”
Think about this: If Mickey Mantle in his prime showed up and played one game for your team, he’d definitely be the best player on your roster, but would he be the most valuable? Did he contribute the most?
Clearly not.
If you’re outraged by the idea that Betancourt or Kendall could be considered the most valuable player on this team, I have two pieces of advice: (A.) Get a life (B.) Remember, this system isn’t telling you who the best player on the team is. It’s telling you who has contributed the most. That’s an important and worthwhile distinction. And it’s the difference between how a fan thinks about the game and how an experienced coach thinks about the game.
I’m sticking with the experienced coach.
Greinke
Betancourt
Aviles
It would be interesting to see the points for each player with respect to the number of games they have played. It would add an aspect that shows best player without regard to stater, spot player or even injuries.
In Regards to the team MVP: Lets do a diffrent exercise. Lets say you have the 24 best players ever on your roster. But they keep getting injured. None plays more than 50-60 games. Then you have Tony Pena Jr. a model of health, who plays all 162 games at SS.
According to your logic, TPJ is the most valuable player simply because he plays alot more than anyone else.
Which of course makes no sense. If a player sucks then playing them more doesn't make them suck less. It just hurts the team more. So yes perhaps Kendal and Yuni have contributed the most, but when all you are contributing is bad, then I'm not sure I want you to contribute a lot.
So I'm supposed to get a life because you're wrong about Yuni and Kendall? You just told your primary readers (those who like to debate evaluating baseball players, talent and performance) to get a life if they don't agree with you using a unproven semi-random grading system. Are you an idiot?
Why even have the site if you are not near the top of the game, and you're hostile about anyone disagreeing with you?
Others are allowed to be more informed than you without being told to get a life. And by the way it doesn't require you to be "without life" to simply go to one of a hundred websites and instantly get player evaluations which prove your point to be incorrect.
So I have to "get a life" because I refuse to believe that a catcher with a low batting average, no home runs, one of the third lowest metrics in the league and with one of the lowest percentages of throwing out steal attempts should not be the team MVP? Why don't you take some of your own advice.
Wow, should I deal with your complaints alphabetically or chronologically?
Let's go all reverse chronology on the problem.
Nathan: If you go the players page and click on 'sort by average' you might find some of the information you're interested in. It will show you how many points per game a player averages.
Tim: I agree with part of your argument (a player that sucks playing a lot isn't helpful), but not the important part (that these guys suck...at least not all the time). A player doesn't get points just for being on the field. You have to do something positive to get positive points and if you do something negative you get negative points. Do nothing and you get no points, so I don't think your Tony Pena Jr. premise holds up.
Timothy: The 'get a life' comment was a joke about people (including me) who get caught up in 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' arguments.
Clearly, I should not have made a joke about people getting their underwear in a twist to people who get their underwear in a twist. My apologies.
As I've said over and over again, this is just ONE way to analyze players, not THE way. As I've also said over and over again, change categories or the points awarded and the results would be different.
I'd go along with your description of the system as semi-random, but not unproven. One of the best coaches in the history of college baseball came up with it and it's been used for decades by hundreds of teams. Almost all professional teams keep track of similar stats and think they're important. Every professional player who's seen the system liked it and thought it was providing interesting and worthwile information.
Frankly, I don't care who the team MVP is. The top three guys are within a few points of one another and just because one will finish with more points, does that really mean he's the most valuable player? Maybe, maybe not.
What is valuable about the system is the accumulations of patterns. While subjective to a large degree it is a chance to weigh offense and defense, good and bad, mental and physical play and come to some (also subjective) conclusions.
As for your question about me being an idiot: have you been talking to my wife?
Dan: See Timothy's answer.
Finally: If the system is batcrap crazy, who SHOULD be the top three MVP candidates? Not the best players, the three players who have contributed the most throughout the year.
Once you get past Butler, Betancourt and Kendall I think the the pickings get pretty slim, but I'd be happy to hear your arguments.
I guarantee if you showed this system to Brian Bannister he would laugh.
Any system that scores a sac bunt (where an out is given up) the same as a double is completely asinine.
Also this is a counting system so of course since Betancourt plays SS where even the worst players convert most of their opportunities his cumulative stats will be higher than someone like Butler who doesn't get as many chances at 1B. This system is absurd, and can not be defended rationally.
Well, Craig, that makes you smarter than Ron Polk, Tim Bogar, Russ Morman, Mike Swanson, Frank White, Paul Splittorff, Kevin Seitzer, Jason Kendall and probably a few other guys I've forgotten.
Congratulations.
They like the system and think it's strength is the baseball knowledge that went into it's creation...but what do they know? They only play the game.
As for your specific complaints: non-players (and if I'm wrong, tell us about your baseball background) have a hard time understanding the scoring.
They keep trying to work it out by the numbers and that doesn't make sense to them. Why is a called strike out -2 and a swinging strike out is -1? They're both one out. (A previous complaint that ignores the fact that a called strike out reveals a poor two-strike approach.)
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, the system was designed to evaluate and motivate. You can get -2 points for a mental mistake that has no affect on the outcome of the game because you want players to pay attention to those mistakes and prevent them from hurting you in the future.
Getting +2 for a sac bunt is a reward for team play that Ron Polk wanted to encourage. Hitting a double is fairly random, laying down a bunt takes a skill that has to be deliberately worked on and gives away an at-bat for the good of the team. But what the hell does Ron Polk know about baseball? (Read his biography and you'll find out.)
As for the Betancourt vs. Butler argument, you're dead wrong. After the catcher, the first baseman handles the ball more than anyone and has the most opportunities to score points in this system. Butler hasn't done that and it should tell you something.
And a shortstop doesn't get anything for turning routine plays (unless you consider double plays routine and I don't know of a coach that feels that way). Betancourt only gets positive points for outstanding plays and anyone that has watched every day knows he's made a bunch...along with some amazingly bad ones.
The reaction of the 'metric' guys to this system has been one of the biggest disappointments of this project. I thought they'd be interested in the point of view of a great baseball coach.
I never made the claim (and neither has he) that this is THE way to evaluate a player, just the opposite. We both think it's ONE way, but a very legitimate way that can reveal some things that aren't usually reflected in the numbers.
Far from being interested in the point of view of a great coach, or great players or even a bad one (but someone who nevertheless has stepped on the field and attempted to play) the metric guys seem to reject any point of view that doesn't agree with what they already believe.
Far from being the opened minded-evaluators they portray themselves as being, they've gone on the attack. (You didn't ask why a double and a sacrifice bunt score the same points, you attacked the idea.)
I thought we'd be having rational discussions about the scoring and ways to improve the system, but instead I'm constantly responding to people who I suspect have never played and consider any point of view but their own heresy.
Sorry you're not getting more out of this.
No I am not dead wrong, Butler may handle the ball more often, but he doesn't actually field as many plays. If Betancourt was any good for the most part Billy would just have to catch the ball. And since these are judgement calls its unrepeatable, 2 people could watch the same game and score it differently, that is not a reliable system, and even Frank White has said during a broadcast that some double plays are routine and that occasional an error on a DP should be scored as one. Regardless of what my baseball experience is doesn't matter (though I did play for 12 years, granted thats not the same as a professional but Im not just a nerd crunching numbers on a computer), In the last 2 years I have maybe missed 15 Royals games, and watch baseball on the off days, I understand the game. Just because a player has been doing in more doesn't mean he understands the game more, I would never ask a NASCAR drive how to build a NASCAR, I would ask an Engineer, same goes with baseball. Im not saying baseball players are idiots, but of all the professional sports Baseball players have the least amount of education as far as school goes, this isn't a knock on them because if I was blessed with enough talent to have skipped college I would have, but just because someone hasn't played the game to the same extent doesn't mean that they can analyze a game more thoroughly, its easy to do things the way they have always been done, that doesn't make them right. At one point you could have been burned at the stake for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun, though they were persecuted, they weren't wrong.
You will never convince me that giving up an out is ever a good thing. No matter how hard you work at laying down a bunt its still not as good a skill as squaring up a ball and driving it. The out is the most precious thing in baseball and you get a limited number of them.
The whole basis of my argument is that cumulative stats are biased, Yuni will get more opportunities to field a ground ball than any other player on the field because thats the nature of the game. Regardless of the position all players will have the same ratio of routine to difficult plays, I don't care how many that player converts total, I care to know how many that player converts compared to how many he doesn't convert.
Explain this... Soria comes in the 9th inning of a game where the Royals are up by 3. He walks the first batter, and the 2nd batter hits a HR, he gets two K's, and a weak grounder and earns the save earning 8 points. The next day the starter pitches a complete game allowing 4 runs twice walks the leadoff runner, randomly walks one other hitter, strikes out 5 and never throws fewer than 12 pitches in an inning while the other 6 innings are perfect. This results in 10 points because the Royals are shutout. Explain to me how the complete game loss is only 20% better than the save where 2 runs are allowed in one inning? The Royals getting the loss by not scoring is also fairly random and out of the pitchers control. Take tonights game where Hafner struck out on the final out by taking a strike that was clearly a ball.
You want to improve this system, how about not penalizing for striking out looking, but for striking out on a pitch out of the zone that would have resulted in a walk. Why is an RBI more valuable than a Run scored, they both require the work of another player.
Scenario 2, you have a guy who gets to 2nd base because of a week grounder to SS who then threw the ball into the 3rd row... This player then steals 3rd he now has 1 point. The next hitter then hits a weak grounder to the 2B and is thrown out scoring the run. He gets 3 total points where as the scoring player only gets 2. Even though if they had done this in the reverse order no run is scored, and no points are awarded. This is also random chance.
Wow, this is like doing a term paper...but you've been reasonable and asked reasonable questions so I'll do my best to answer them.
Let me start by saying this is not my system, it's Ron Polk's. I might have designed one differently and there are a zillion other factors that you could consider if you wanted to, but I think this system is a good way to start thinking about the game. Having said that...
I still disagree about Butler. He may not field as many grounders as Betancourt, but he handles throws from everybody. Ka'aihue handled two bad throws tonight that got him points. A first baseman has a lot of opportunities to help out his teammates and Billy hasn't done that as much as a good fielding first baseman would.
Yes, I agree, this system is often very subjective and in many of the categories different people would score it differently. This was never intended to be anything else. It's one coach's (and one rather bad player's) analysis. I don't think anyone should take this as gospel and I've said that over and over again. It's one point of view that you might want to take into account, but that's about it.
The fact that you did play, at whatever level, matters. I agree that people who have never played can still offer a legitimate point of view, but people who have played offer a different one...and one that I think ought to be considered. When people, who have never taken the field, entirely dismiss the work of a guy like Ron Polk, I admit, I found that a bit presumptious...but that doesn't mean you can't question what he's done or wonder whether it can be improved, which is what it sounds like you're doing now.
Fair enough.
We disagree on the worth of the bunt. The most likely thing a batter is going to do is make an out. Making a productive out seems worthwhile. It also puts pressure on the defense, forces them to play in which then opens up lanes if you do decide to swing away. If a team never bunts the defense plays where they're most comfortable. I also believe that when you get to the playoffs (I guess we don't have to worry about that for awhile) and inevitably face a good pitcher on his game, you'll have to bunt, steal, hit and run, etc. because the guy isn't going to walk too many people, give up bombs are three singles in an inning.
Tim Bogar felt that was exactly what happened to the Red Sox in the playoffs last year: they needed to play one run baseball, but didn't have the skill set.
I get what you're saying about players that handle the ball more and how they'll have opportunites to accumulate points, but that's part of what I like about this system. Betancourt and Butler are close in total points, but Butler's done it largely with his bat and Betancourt's done it with both. The fact that you can add glovework into the equation and equal out the evaluation by acknowledging players' contributions on defense seems like a positive to me. And, once again, Betancourt doesn't get any points for making routine plays (unless you...and I guess Frank White...consider double plays routine...but watch Mike Aviles and you can see him struggle with this routine play). And a player that gets the most chances to put up points defensively is also getting the most chances to make errors and mental mistakes.
OK, as for the Soria situation (and it's late so I hope I'm doing the math right) if he got the save (+6), walked the first batter (-3), the next guy hits a home run (-2 for the walk that scored) and he struck out two (+2) isn't his total 3 not 8?
And in the second example the starting pitcher gets a complete game (+6), five strikeouts (+5) six innings without a walk (+6) and loses 7 points in walks which gets you to 10 points, but that's over three times as many points as Soria got.
Tomorrow I'm going to post something about the weighting of the system and performance under pressure is in there. Saves and game-winning hits are rewarded more highly because of that.
As for the strikeout scenario: I don't think any stat is perfect and there are always occasions where the numbers aren't an accurate reflection of what happened, but I understand why Ron Polk wants hitters to swing the bat with two strikes. Both the strikeouts at the end of the game were probably bad calls (although Foxtrax isn't considered totally accurate), but both balls were reachable. Thus the reason for the extra negative points: don't let an umpire's bad decision take away your at-bat. You can be right, but you're still out and you're team still lost.
I do think you're idea of a strikeout on ball four has some merit, but it would have to be an awfully bad pitch before you wouldn't want the hitter swinging and those are often breaking balls that fooled a hitter.
The difference between RBIs and runs scored? Pressure. Easy for me to run home from third on a sac fly, harder for you to hit it.
Same with scenario two. You're right that there is a whole lot of randomness in the system, but that's also true of baseball. (I hit a pop fly into the sun and get a double?) Theoretically, it all evens out.
OK, I'm toast. I don't expect my answers to totally satisfy you and they shouldn't. You've obviously put some thought into this and therefore have more credibility than people who dismiss the idea because it doesn't fit with what they already know.
You don't have to agree with Ron Polk or me and ought to decide things for yourself.
Thanks for being courteous...I'll try to return the favor.
It may be easier to run home from third on a sac fly than to hit a ball deep to score him, but in most instances its actually harder to get to 3rd than to sacrifice him in. I just don't think a player gets enough credit for getting to 3rd.
For the record I don't go by Fox Tracks, I use Pitch F/X data, it is very reliable since it uses 3 cameras.