Games » San Diego Padres
Jun29Why the Royals couldn't pressure the Padres
Lee Judge
None
Manny Mota once said, “Hit the ball in the air, three guys say, ‘I got it’. Hit the ball on the ground, nobody say %$#@.” (OK, I’ve got no idea if Manny Mota actually said that, but I was told Manny Mota said that and I’m sticking with my anonymous sources.) Whoever said it did a good job of explaining why the Royals lost this game: no offensive pressure on the Padres.
When a ball is hit in the air, one guy has to do one thing: catch the ball. When a ball is hit on the ground, it usually takes two guys doing three things to get an out: catch it, throw it, catch it. If the guy who hit the ball on the ground is fast, the pressure increases. If the guy hit the ball in the air is fast, it doesn’t make any difference. For example: Chris Getz hit three fly balls to the outfield before singling in the 8th. Getz is best when the ball is on the ground and any screw-up can turn into a runner. So three fly balls, but no pressure.
The other thing that puts no pressure on a defense is a strikeout. Jeff Francoeur struck out four times (three is a hat trick, four is called a ‘Golden Sombrero’) so once again, no pressure.
There’s a rule of thumb (I’ve mentioned this before) that says if you make more than half your outs by fly ball or strikeout, you’ll probably lose. You just haven’t applied enough pressure to the opposition. Go through the score book after this game and you’ll see that in every inning, at least two and sometimes all three outs were made by non-pressure plays: fly balls or strikeouts.
Of course, the Padres pitchers know they’re playing in a park only slightly smaller than Yellowstone and probably want you to hit the ball in the air, it probably isn’t going anywhere. The Royals made 22 of 27 outs by striking out or hitting fly balls and the only one that felt pressured was Bruce Chen.
That pop-up
OK, in the third inning the ball was popped up by the Padres pitcher and it was coming down behind the mound. In pro ball they don’t want the pitcher trying to catch anything he doesn’t have to, so Bruce Chen’s job was to point out the ball and get out of the way.
Mike Moustakas, Eric Hosmer and Chris Getz all converged. Middle infielders can call off corner infielders on pop flies because they have a better angle. Without being there to ask what happened, I don’t know who said what to whom. (Did I use ‘whom’ right? But then again, whom are you to correct me?)
If an infielder is camped, he’s usually yelling, “I got it, I got it, I got it.” If that’s happening, the middle infielder usually won’t run him off unless he’s still moving and there’s some doubt. (A worthwhile point: infield pops are all curveballs and drift back toward the mound. If you’re directly underneath a pop fly at its highest point, you’re about to be embarrassed.)
The other factor besides “infield drift” can be the sun. Balls that go into the sun are murder and even pros struggle with them. When you see a player looking up and shading his eyes with his glove, he’s checking on the sun and where it’s likely to be if he has to make a play on a fly ball. Apparently, the ball got into the sun and Hosmer bailed, which meant Mike had to make a last-second stab at the ball. It bounced out of his glove (have I mentioned the ball is also spinning like crazy?) and he dropped it. You’re going to see an E5 in the paper, but it’s a damn tough E5.
Moving the runner over
(I’ve meant to write about this a couple dozen times and today provided an opportunity: so here we go.)
In the second inning, Alex Gordon led off with a double. The game was scoreless, so his run was meaningful. Jeff Francoeur came to the plate and the usually strategy in this situation is to hit the ball to the right side on the ground. If you get a hit, so much the better, if you make an out, at least the runner is moved over to third with one down.
(Just to complicate things, they have a sign that tells the hitter not to worry about moving the runner, just go ahead and try to drive him in. Frenchy is the kind of hitter they give that sign to: an RBI guy.)
So, assuming the hitter is going to try to hit the ball to the right side and the pitcher wants to prevent that, here’s what you might see: with a right-handed batter at the plate, the pitcher wants him to pull the ball. You might see off-speed stuff or hard stuff (sinkers are popular), but it’ll usually be down and in. The pitcher wants a ground ball to short or third. If the pitcher wants to get ahead and is looking for a swing and a miss, he might give the hitter something that looks good for hitting the other way on the outside corner, but runs off the plate and can’t be reached.
With a lefty at the plate, you tend to see hard stuff, down and away, once again hoping for that grounder to short or third. As with the right hander, they might stick a pitch on the inside corner that looks good for pulling, but is so far in or so off-speed that the batter can’t keep it fair.
If the pitcher can paint the hitter into a corner by getting ahead, he can then force the hitter to swing at his pitch and get the ball hit exactly where he wants it to go.
(Time out for history: Mike Shannon was forced to come in to play third for the Cardinals because of injury (as I recall) and Bob Gibson turned to him and said, “It’s coming to you.” Sure enough, the next pitch was hit at Shannon. He ran into the dugout and asked Gibson how he knew the ball was coming to third and Gibson said, “You have no idea what the hell we’re doing out here, do you?”)
Once again, not sure if that story is exactly correct, but it ought to be. (Actually, I’ve heard two versions of that, once told by Mike Shannon and once told by Bob Gibson, but the point remains the same: there’s a plan to all this.)
Anyway, now you can look for that battle when it happens and it’s one of the most interesting dramas in baseball.
P.S. Frenchy took all the drama out of where the ball would go by striking out.
The reverse shutdown inning
We’ve talked about the “shutdown inning” that you hope a pitcher provides when your offense has put up some runs. Same goes in reverse: when the other team puts up some runs, like the Padres did when they scored four in the third, you want your offense to respond. It doesn’t have to be four, or three, you’re just hoping for anything that sends the message that you’re not going to curl up on the floor and die. Sometimes the message is for the other team and sometimes it’s for your own.
In the top of the 4th, the royals went 1-2-3, not a good message for anybody.
P.S. That’s 81 games, we’re halfway home.
Explaining how third-base coach is extension of manager
Lee Judge discovers how Royals third-base coach Eddie Rodriguez is an extension of Royals manager Ned Yost. 6/14/11 (Video by John Sleezer/The Kansas City Star
Chen
Coleman
Hosmer
fantastic story about shannon and gibson.
long time, first time...
ive heard said every team is gonna WIN 54 games and LOSE 54 games, and that as a team concept, it what you do with the other 54 games...
why is it always the same script of a SP blowing a big inning (sometimes after a defensive implosion) that sets the offensive in a tomb?
i guess my question really is, how are the Royals gonna win in a walk off 54 times, as that is what seems like the only way this team wins games, with luck in the last inning?
much obliged
Mark: Glad to hear from you. You've got a couple of interesting questions there, so let's take them one at a time.
In the majority of all ball games the winning team will score more runs in one inning than the losing team does in nine and that's known as the 'big inning.'
Teams that believe in it try to avoid making outs with steals and bunts, etc., so you see a lot of standing around hoping for walks and home runs.
Not a big fan of it myself, it's boring and you usually need to play for one to beat the best pitchers.
But when the big inning happens you will often see two things: walks and errors. It's hard to get hit after hit to score multiple runs. Hits are like the bricks in a wall and walks and errors are like the mortar: they connect the hits together.
Think of how many runners you see stranded on third when the last out is made. So if the offense is given four outs to work with (an error) or an extra runner (a walk) the offense has a much better chance of scoring.
So whenever there is a walk or an error (especially to start the inning because the offense has all three outs available to move the run around the bases) you might see the big inning you're talking about.
When that pop fly was dropped in the third, a whole lot of Royals went, "Uh-oh."
After giving up a four-spot, it really felt like the Royals were never in it, a bad sign. Coming out and scoring even one in the next half-inning gives a jolt to both teams and the Royals couldn't do it. It's begun to feel that way lately, that the smallest lead can't be overcome and if the team feels that, it's very bad news.
I keep saying, and believing, that the Royals aren't that far away, but the worst teams win four out of ten and the best win six out of ten so I guess no team is that far away.
Until they get more talent in the starting pitching (although that wasn't the problem in San Diego) they need to control what they can control, walks, errors and mental mistakes.
They didn't do that over the last three games, but if they had, the Royals would be closer to what we all want to see: a team that can win consistently, without last-inning, come-from-behind heroics.
"Jeff Francoeur came to the plate and the usually strategy in this situation is to hit the ball to the right side on the ground"
that's the problem with this team, my team, our team...we play for one run. Being in NJ, I have the "luxury" of watching and reading a lot about the Yankees and Red Sox,etc. They rarely play for a run, unless the situation dictates it. Here we have our leading RBI guy, thinking about moving the run over instead of crushing the ball to the gap. Small ball has it's place in the game. But in our case it shouldn't be every inning.
Not sure what you meant about infield pop ups drifting "back" toward the mound. Don't infield pop ups have a tendency to loop "back" toward the backstop on the way up, and then slide out toward the outfield on the way down?
Vinnie: That's why I said they have a sign that says go ahead and drive the runner in. Not being there, I don't know what they were having Jeff try to do. So it would be unfair of fans to say,"He didn't even try to move the runner over" if they didn't want him to.
I'd think either strategy would be OK in that specific case: if you wanted to shoot for more, fine, but the score was 0-0 and getting on the board first is always nice.
Me, I would've had him try to go to the right side. A fly ball followed and we could have had a run there...but that's my philosophy. Other, smart people, think differently.
Carla: You're right, pop ups that go towards the backstop then come back towards the mound. That's why the catcher takes his mask off, turns around and faces the backstop: the ball is headed back towards him.
But the same thing happens on balls popped up down the first or third base line, they drift back towards the mound. That's the 'infield drift' I mentioned and fielders have to take it into account.
Throw in the effect of the wind and the ball can be all over the place. Suddenly, a ball that you had a bead on, gets pushed into the sun at the last second.
And just to make it really fun, there can be jetstreams from openings in the upper deck that can change the flight of the ball.
Apparently the ball park in Houston didn't have a great seal when the roof was closed and my buddy, Tim Bogar, said he could be looking up into the rain that was leaking through the roof while he was dealing with a pop fly.
So, in conclusion, all infield pop flies tend to drift towards the pitching mound, unless something else affects them.
And I wish I was wherever you are in that picture, it's HOT in KC today.
There was no place and time like my front yard in KC, January 2009.
Carla: I've told people that there are places hotter than KC and there are places colder than KC, but for combined misery, we take the cake.
I just hate the mentality of moving runners along when you're the 3, 4, 5 hitters. If it happens by chance, then it's a good out. Otherwise, do your job and drive them in. If you can't do it, let's go out and get Miggy Cabrera (joke obviously).
For years, we haven't had a pure deep threat. I will continue to wait though.
Lee,
When was the last time a non-pitcher for the Royals was selected to the All-Star game? Was it 1989 with Bo and Brett?
Vinnie: A lot of people agree with you and if a guy doesn't go the other way very well, why ask him to do it?
But we've shuffled a lot of people in and out of those spots: should Hosmer drive them in when he's in the 3-hole, but move them over when he's batting second?
I'd say stick with the guy's skill set wherever he hits in the order: if he can go for a hit and move the guy at the same time, great (Billy). If he's an RBI guy and is better at pulling the ball, do that (Frenchy).
Of course, nobody's asked me to manage a major league team lately, so maybe I'm all wet.
Assuming I remember, when I next see Francoeur I'll ask what they have him doing.
Lee- to clarify! Selected as a starter.
Jeff: Unless I'm missing somebody, Mike Sweeney, 2005. Unless you want to count Nick Swartz, trainer, 2006.
That is correct! Thanks! I didn't think it had been 22 years!
Lee,
What do you think about trying out some of our relief pitchers in the starting rotation? As Sam Mellinger said in the paper the other day, we really don't have much promise in our rotation, besides Duffy. Our top minor league pitching prospect, Mike Montgomery, has struggled with an ERA over 5.80 not to mention John Lamb being out for a year with Tommy John surgery. When you have two of the four worst starting pitchers over the last few years having significant roles in the Royals rotation (Hochevar and Davies) Dayton and Ned cannot possibly think that we will be ready for "Mission 2012". That got me to thinking; why not try out Holland, Crow, Wood, or even Soria out in the rotation? They all have been starters in the past. Although it was in the minors, we already know we have three high quality relievers in Holland, Crow, and Soria and a solid one in Wood. Obviously we are in no position to compete this year, but why not see how effective one or two of them could be in the rotation with half the season over. If they struggle, we can always put them back in the bullpen were we know they are effective. The bullpen is strong enough to afford to have one or two make the transition I feel. This also is something the Texas Rangers have done with their rotation. They moved former reliever and closer, CJ Wilson to the rotation last year and Alexi Ogando this season. I would say that has worked out very well. Other players who have made this transition include Ryan Dempster, and Derek Lowe. Starting pitching is very hard to come by these days and bullpens are fairly easy to rebuild, after all we have five rookies in the ‘pen right now. If the Royals do not try this out, Dayton needs to make a trade for a high quality starting pitcher with all the prospects we have in the minors.
I believe in making sure the game is played fundamentally sound but with this team there is just no margin for error b/c the starting pitching is so bad. As a unit, they have a 5.02 ERA and an OBAA of .292!! That is just terrible. Better pitching can overcome the occasional defensive lapse, which with the way this team plays defense is just an occasional lapse. Lee, I hope you check out my blog. I wrote something on the Royals pitching today. Let me know your thoughts if you could. www.fluffyballskc.com
Brad: If they decide to try one or more of the relivers as starters, they probably won't do it until next season, That would give them the chance to build up their pitch count and have their arms ready for the stress.
No matter what you do, though, it can create problems: last season the team couldn't get the ball to Soria with a lead and numerous solid starts were wasted in the 7th and 8th.
The back end of the pen is solid now, so I don't know if they'll mess with that. Although, if you can't get to the backend because of your starters, what's the point? So you may have something there.
The other thing is the 'leave well enough alone factor.' Soria decides to add a cutter (if that was the culprit) and things go kablooey.
If you make starters out of relievers and it doesn't work out, I'm not sure there's a guarantee that they can get back to what they were doing out of the pen.
But, the Royals will have to do something to turn things around, so you might see them do what you're suggesting.
(Guess I straddled THAT fence, didn't I?)
Darral: I read your post and I think you make a good point about talent. Firing a coach might make everybody feel better and buy the team some time, but if the coach hasn't been given enough talent, there's not much he can do.