Games » Texas Rangers
May7Lee Judge
None
We told you so…
As I predicted, because of his poor technique on pop flies, Yuniesky Betancourt dropped one. This makes me a genius. It also makes Frank White a genius, because he predicted the same thing. So did Ryan Lefebvre. I believe there might’ve been a head hunter in New Guinea who said it was just a matter of time. I passed a wino on the street the other day who said, “If that Royals shortstop doesn’t stop catching pop-ups at shoulder level without watching the ball into his glove, he’s gonna drop one…and do you have any spare change?”
In fact the only person who didn’t seem to know that the Royals shortstop was bound to drop a pop-up was the Royals shortstop who dropped a pop-up. Betancourt stared in disbelief and expressed disgust with the disappointing turn of events. Who knew doing things the wrong way could turn out so poorly?
The Royals are short on talent. This means they have to do things right.
I once watched Bo Jackson completely misread a line drive in center field. He charged in, only to discover the ball was continuing to carry over his head. He stopped, gathered himself and jumped straight up about 16 feet (this may be a poor estimation, it might’ve been 18 feet) to snag the ball. The crowd went nuts, but it was a lousy play, saved by athleticism. So the lesson here is: if you can’t jump like Bo Jackson, you better do things right.
In the last couple games I’ve seen Aviles try to catch a throw off to his side instead of blocking it with his body. I’ve seen Callaspo try the same thing, while moving backwards on a ground ball. Neither play was successful.
When I started playing baseball seriously, I got great instruction from professional players. I learned there was a right way to do everything…and I mean EVERYTHING. Throwing the ball, holding the ball, even how you pick it up off the ground, have been examined and thought about, until the most logical approach was decided upon.
Unusual approach takes unusual talent, and that means the Royals can’t afford unusual approach.
The tying run…
Baseball players are always aware of where the tying and winning runs are (at least they should be). When you’re on defense, if you’ve got a one-run lead, the tying run is at the plate. If you’ve got a two-run lead, the tying run is on deck.
By dropping a two-out pop-up with a runner in scoring position in the second inning, Betancourt gave the Rangers an insurance run.
This meant that after the third inning, the Royals only got the tying run to the plate two more times in the fifth. The Rangers pitcher, C.J Wilson, could be here-it-is-hit-it aggressive about throwing strikes, knowing the hitter at the plate could knock the ball to hell and gone and he’d still have the lead. By contrast, Royals hitters, knowing they didn’t represent the tying run, had to take a less aggressive approach (if they were thinking about it…and they should’ve been), just hoping to get on, so the tying run WOULD come to the plate. Wilson was rarely behind in the count for the rest of the night.
Poor technique led to a dropped infield fly, which led to more aggressive pitching by the opposition, which led to weak at-bats which led to defeat.
For the want of a nail, the kingdom was lost…or at least another Zack Greinke start.
Greinke
Butler
Kendall
I don't blame Yuni as much as Hillman. This is not the first incident. Gordon did this twice last year. How hard is it for a manager to simply tell Yuni - catch it correctly or you don't play-end of story. Hillman is afraid of his own players and his vast insecurity just adds another layer to his ineptness as a manager. The team has allowed Yuni to catch like that all year- Hillmans failure no question.
I asked a friend, who's a major league coach, how Minnesota managed to be consistently competitive with a low payroll. He said that in the Twins system you're expected to master certain skills or you don't move on, apparently a novel concept. I agree with you, Hillman and the Royals need to insist that the game be played right the right way.
I think Yuni is the poster boy in the stats vs. eyes debate. Sam covered this well two months ago: Those who use their eyes see a player who has slipped in recent years but maintains elite ability and could again be one of baseball’s better shortstops. Those who use numbers see the game’s worst everyday player, a guy who makes a lot of outs with his bat and not nearly enough with his glove.
There is no gray area here. Each side is often mocked by the other.
At least with Betancourt, Royals general manager Dayton Moore has put his trust in the eyes. How this plays out goes a long way in determining whether the team can shake its status as one of baseball’s worst at defense and fundamentals.
There is a production side of this that numbers measure much more coldly than humans. Computers don’t care about a guy’s backstory or how he looks taking a ball from glove to hand.
Computers care about a guy’s production, and by almost any measurement, Betancourt has been a disaster.
He was dead last in adjusted OPS, on-base percentage, and Ultimate Zone Rating among American League players in 2009. He was also the second-worst base runner.
“We want to get this right,” says Dewan, creator of a respected defensive rating system that has Betancourt worst among shortstops. “We don’t want to be claiming somebody’s a bad fielder when he’s not. I feel bad about saying Yuniesky’s a bad fielder, but that’s just the way it is. It’s tough when it’s a guy like this, with a good reputation.”
Dewan’s Plus/Minus is perhaps the best measurement available for defense. He and a staff of 15 review every big-league game twice, charting every play on a computer and putting it into a formula to determine how many runs a fielder saves or costs compared with the league average.
These ratings often draw private, R-rated rants from baseball folks — much like traditional scouting does on some message boards and blogs.
In so many ways, Betancourt is the current test case. If he becomes adequate defensively, the old-school scouts win. If he continues his slide, score one for the computers.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/04/03/1851468/betancourt-subject-of-debate-between.html
Sorry, hit post too quickly and botched the formatting on the Betancourt story.
It seemed relevant to the Ankiel debate as well.
So my choices are trusting someone with a calculator or someone with a World series ring? Tough call.
Lee Judge: "So my choices are trusting someone with a calculator or someone with a World Series ring? Tough call."
Looks like my work here is done. I don't think any objections I could raise would possibly discredit this site as much as that statement.
If you ever decide to take be more open minded, you might look into the work of Bill James. He has two World Series rings and a calculator.
Brendan,
I wouldn't get too worked up about Bill James' World Series ring, when the players win, they give them to the radio announcers, too.
And, actually, I've read quite a bit of Bill James' work and find it interesting and, at times, helpful. There are also times when I find some of the numbers generated by the math-whizzes misleading.
It doesn't bother me that you don't think Rick Ankiel is a good outfielder. That's your right, but it does seem to bother you a great deal that I (and quite a few people who actually play) hold a different opinion.
P.S. YOU had work here? Do I owe you money?