Games » Oakland Athletics
May7How Ned Yost shows guts
Lee Judge
None
Are the Royals changing the way baseball is played? Probably not. OK, let me back up and explain.
There are a whole bunch of base running rules: never make the first or third out at third, with two down try to get to second or home, when you’re on second with nobody out and there’s a fly ball to the outfield go back and tag with nobody out, go halfway with one out and the list goes on.
As I’ve mentioned before, the Royals are throwing the rules away in favor of a simple philosophy: if you think you can make it, go. They’re trying to clarify their player’s thinking by giving them less to think about. They’re also trying to build a reputation around the league as an incredibly aggressive team on the base paths. They think that over the long haul this philosophy will pay off in stolen bases, extra bases, and rushed throws from the opposition.
How’s it working so far?
Last year they were at the bottom of the league in runs scored, this year they’re at the top. Clearly, you’ve got to have the horses to make this plan work, but the plan seems to be working. So why won’t other teams copy this philosophy?
Post-game press conferences.
If a manager sits on his hands, doesn’t bunt, doesn’t steal, doesn’t hit and run, plays it safe on the bases and his team loses he can walk into the post-game press conference and say, “What can I do? The guys didn’t hit tonight.”
If he starts pushing buttons and he loses, now it looks like his fault. Ned Yost will sometimes get semi-critical questions for moves that worked. “Ned, in the 8th inning how could you (fill in the blank), what if it hadn’t worked?” Ned’s usually answer is ‘You can’t be afraid to win ball games.’
So enjoy Jarrod Dyson’s aggressive race to the plate to score the winning run in this game. The outfielder wasn’t all that deep. Just remember some night when it doesn’t work and a runner gets thrown out, that Ned and the Royals could’ve played it safe and avoided criticism.
But you can’t be afraid to win ball games.
Game stuff
Unless I learn differently, Alex Gordon made a mental mistake when he didn’t retag second once he went beyond the bag. It wasn’t called by the umpire, but it could’ve been. Melky Cabrera also made a throw to third that wasn’t that close and allowed the trail runner to advance, taking the double play out of order.
Matt Treanor saved the game in one of those unrecorded moments when he blocked a slider in the dirt with Hideki Matsui on third in the 5th inning. A few pitches later Matsui tried to score on a grounder to short and was out on a rundown. Treanor also did a good job of getting a key call for Aaron Crow to end the 8th inning with a runner on third and the game still tied. The pitch appeared inside, but Matt caught the ball (Jason Kendall has informed me there no such thing as “framing,” you just catch the ball as quietly as you can) thumb up and elbow down (we talked about this earlier) which keeps most of the body in the zone and gives the umpire a better look.
Chris Getz had a very good day at the plate and not much to show for it. In his first at-bat he just missed extra bases down the left field line, then lined out to second, in his second at-bat a hard 6-3, in his third he laid a great sacrifice bunt down (it dropped in front of home plate like a chicken laying an egg) which immediately turned into two runs when Melky Cabrera drove Matt Treanor and Alcides Escobar home with a single. In the 8th, Getz just missed hitting the ball out of the park, pinning David DeJesus against the right field bullpen gate.
If numbers are the only thing you look at you’re missing a great game.
Leading the league in style
We got Mike Aviles to do a video explaining how to dress like a big league ballplayer. As always, Mike was engaging and funny (we’ll post the video soon). I even learned some stuff I didn’t know: I thought the style of wearing sunglasses on the back of your head was just the latest attempt to find a new place to keep your eyewear. Turns out the players and coaches are prohibited from covering up the logo on the front of the cap…another of those ‘who knew?’ moments.
We also discussed stirrups, (hey, you have your issues, ballplayers have theirs). Nobody I know is sorry that stirrups are a thing of the past: they were damn uncomfortable. Stirrups were held up by a stretchy kind of garter that cut into the leg just below the kneecap. After a game you’d have a deep groove in your flesh. This game is hard enough without playing with two tourniquets wrapped around your calf.
I picked Mike for the “dress like a pro” video because he does everything with style. Mike’s explanation for this is his natural awesomeness. Mike’s mother’s explanation is that he’s an idiot (Mike’s words not mine) and his teammates think it’s because he’s Latin and Latin players have flair.
Take the bat flips: Mike flips the bat after every ball in play, but swears he has no idea he’s doing it. (Mitch Maier doesn’t buy this). After I got hit by that pitch I flipped the bat, but had no intention of doing so, it just came out naturally. I went up to Aviles and said, “Hey, Mike, it turns out I’m Puerto Rican!”
That earned me a fist bump.
A thing I forgot to mention
Someone asked me how I avoided cursing after getting hit by the pitch. I didn’t. I dropped about six f-bombs while walking from the plate to the pitching machine (you might notice the edit they had to make there). When you get hit like that your body interprets it as an attack (duh) and you get an incredible surge of adrenaline or testosterone or Mountain Dew Code Red. (I’m a little hazy on biology, maybe I should’ve paid more attention in class.) Anyway, it shed a new light on charging the mound: you’re a bit amped up and looking for trouble.
Information that isn’t about me
Sooner or later I’ve got to get off the subject of me (hey, I don’t think so, but you know how editors are). So here’s another bit of weird information: the batter’s eye in Kauffman Stadium is actually four different walls and all of them are a slightly different green. A batter’s eye is the area that a pitched ball will appear in when thrown to a hitter and keeping the ball clearly visible is a high priority. The wall behind the outfield padding appears to be the biggest problem. It’s made of a rough looking brick and when the light hits the uneven surface it can glint, not a good thing. That’s why you see vegetation growing above it. Eventually that vegetation is supposed to hang down and cover the brick.
On the other hand, the club leads the league in hitting and runs scored (thanks, Seitz) so it can’t be too distracting.
Hochevar
Soria
Butler
Hey Lee, Still think this is the best new sports site i've seen in a long time. I actually come here first on mondays over Peter King. You are starting to push Joe P. for insightfulness in my book. I was wondering if there you have done any comparisons of point totals from last April Vs this April. It should show some of the improvements that have been made by the Royals this year correct?
BTW, someone mentioned a political cartoon. Where exactly is that posted?
If Major League Baseball can pass rules that players can't cover up logos, then MLB can pass a rule FORCING players to wear stirrups. They can't be that uncomfortable - they're just socks. Plus, the stupid "pajama pants" that most pros prefer looks really terrible and sloppy.
Chuck: Thank you, I'm glad you're enjoying the site. My day job is political cartoonist for the Kansas City Star. You can see my work by going to kansascity.com and finding the editorial page section.
You're right about comparisons with last April. Unfortunately our technical department is two overworked guys trying to keep up with the demands of an entire newspaper. The info is stored somewhere on a server, but I'm not sure we have it by month. I'd like access to the numbers, but it's not a priority at this point.
Chris: You're probably right, MLB probably could force players to wear stirrups if they wanted to. In the minors the Royals players wear their pants high by team rule. Part of the reward of making it to the majors is getting to chose how long your pants are.
Most of them like the longer pants because they're more comfortable. Same with stirrups. As I said before it's not the socks that are uncomfortable, it's the garters that hold them up. I only wore them once a week and they were a pain. Literally. When you take them off it's hurts to have the blood flow back into your leg.
I can see why players would choose something else when playing 162 games. But if it really bugs you don't worry: eventually someone will come up with a different look (come back tomorrow and I'll tell you what Jeff Francoeur wore today during BP) and THAT will be the new thing.
(Although what Frenchy wore will NEVER catch on.)
As always, great stuff! Can you explain the no framing, just catching softly idea? Every catcher I watch does the "framing" action...is that something different?
OK, let me take a shot at what Jason Kendall was saying: 'framing' is cetching the ball and deliberately moving the glove to a better location in order to get a call.
Jason thinks it's something the better catchers don't do because it doesn't fool major league umpires. In fact, it will cost you calls (why move the ball if it's in the zone?)
The idea is to receive the ball without lurching or moving much to catch it. Let the ball come to you, receive it like an egg with as much mitt and body in the zone as possible (hence the thumb up, elbow down rule).
Everything is quiet. The movements, the body, the mitt. Receive the ball as quietly as possible, but don't hold it in place...another sure way to P.O. an umpire.
Watch some of the better catchers and see if you can spot what he means.
After reading the post earlier this morning, I KNEW there would be a post about how terrible long baseball pants are. Is there some ruling body of chrotchety baseball purists that requires them to whine about this once a year to maintain their membership? Styles change. Jerseys, caps, gloves, spikes and pants have all changed from decade to decade throughout the history of the game? In a way, different styles of uniforms help us as fans to recognize different eras of the game.
This decade will be marked by baggy uniforms, flat-billed caps and those goofy titanium necklaces that balance your chi or whatever, just like the 80's were all about powder blue away unis and skin-tight pants that came just above the ankles, just like the nineteen teens were marked by short-billed hats, 3/4 sleeve jerseys and baggy pants worn to the knee.
There's a million things to watch (and critique) during a baseball game, folks. The uniforms are about the 999,997th most important.
Hey Lee, I noticed one of the pitches Treaner had with a runner on third was a little low and outside. He went to his knees and put his glove on the ball before it hit the dirt and then the ball fell in front of him (because he really wasn't in a good position for it to stick in his glove). In most situations he would have just back-handed that ball. My question for you is this: How do you determine if the catcher "blocks a pitch in the dirt with a runner on third". In my opinion, that specific pitch shouldn't count since it really wasn't in the dirt or a wild pitch -- he was just being careful... IMO... which probably doesn't really carry much weight.
Nick: Thanks for your input, pretty much on the same page with you. Whatever is new looks funky if you've been watching for awhile. There was a guy who referred to himself as 'old-school' and when he played he had a giant afro, high pants and long stirrups. Things change.
Michael: Your opinion is as valid as anybody's. I constantly caution people from taking anything I'm doing and assuming it's precise: what's an outstanding play or mental mistake to me might not be to the next guy.
I had to decide what constituted an outstanding play and one of things I came up with (after talking to players) were pitches in the dirt, blocked by a catcher with a runner on third. For a variety of reasons, players thought this was a big deal and I agree.
It's actually easier for me to see that particular play at home on TV. We're on the 6th floor at Kauffman. When a catcher drops to his knees from our angle it's often hard to tell if it was a block or he gloved it. I can spin around and look at the TV monitor (it's just a bit delayed from the live action), but I'm usually not in time.
I've also got MLB.com up on the laptop and they'll describe the pitches. If we're talking about the same pitch, I saw Treanor go to his knees, he didn't glove the ball because it came out on the first base side and MLB.com described it as a 'pitch in the dirt' so I gave him the points.
I miss stuff all the time. For instance: there's no way I'm able to catch whether everybody went to their assigned spot on a ball in play. If they didn't, it should be a mental mistake.
So take the numbers I'm putting up as a rough gauge of how people are playing. One instance isn't very meaningful, but once you see a sustained pattern of mental mistakes or heads-up baserunning you have some insight into how a guy is playing.
It was a deliberate decision to highlight defense. I don't think it gets enough attention and if all the website does is make the point that a catcher that keeps the ball in front of him is important, I think that's worthwhile.
Highlighting the defense is one of the reasons that I like this blog so much. I love watching good defense. In my opinion, game highlights should show more defense and less long-balls.
Being in Iowa, I only get to watch the games on TV. Being blessing (or spoiled) with instant replay allows me to get the full enjoyment from every play. I could completely see how interpreting a play that you see live at the game would have very different results than from the 4 or 5 different angles of slow motion on TV.
I was just curious how you define the blocked pitch. Since the blocked pitch with a runner on 3rd happens (somewhat) often - it affects the scoring quite a bit. I agree that blocking a pitch with a runner on 3rd is important. However, some blocked pitches may be hard to be compared to the flashy defensive plays Escobar makes daily. Perhaps you could add a 'Web-Gem' category that rewards defensive plays that are above-and-beyond.
No worries... I love your perspectives.
P.S. The media does stink. I've seen several sources trying to cover your video of getting hit by a pitch... incorrectly and a little too jokingly.
I love your bruise by the way. Very impressive.
Made it to my first game in years (live in Texas) on Saturday (picked a good one!). I was thinking about how you would score the players during the game and specifically wondered about that pitch in the dirt. Watching with an eye towards all the little nuances made the game a lot more fun...well, the Royals won too so that helps!
Thanks, keep up the good work.
Thanks, guys. I've got no argument with people that come to different conclusions about what constitutes an outstanding play.
A diving catch is easy (although sometimes a diving catch is necessary because the guy was standing in the wrong place and got a bad jump). I wanted to point out less obvious plays that change the game's outcome and a block with a runner on third was one.
Michael's absolutely correct: not all blocks are equal. I'll give a block points when the runner is on first or second, but only if it's a hard one that required a lot of movement. With a runner on third I give it for everything.
That really does change the scoring, but the guys with dirty uniforms love that what they're doing is being recognized somewhere.
I tell people not to take the scores too seriously, but the system does allow you to think about defensive worth and how a guy can contribute without hitting a ton.