Games » Texas Rangers
May9Lee Judge
None
Thank God for Frank White and Ryan Lefebvre (and I’m almost positive I’m an agnostic). I have to watch every pitch of every game…let me run that by you again…I HAVE to watch EVERY pitch of EVERY game. When you turn the channel because the Royals are down by 10 and the pitcher is working slower than a Kansas City street repair crew, I have to keep watching.
When Trey is making his third pitching change of the inning and they’re showing the same Ford ad for the fifteenth time, I have to keep watching.
So thank God for Frank White and Ryan Lefebvre. They’re funny and informative and have gotten me through some tough innings.
When Frank said he wasn’t sure Yuniesky Betancourt could change the way he caught pop flies and Ryan said maybe he could work on it in Omaha, I laughed out loud.
When the camera showed a young woman covered with tattoos and piercings and Frank, clearly at a loss for words, murmured, “Wow,” and Ryan said, “Well said,” I cracked up. (By the way, you guys were wrong…that woman was hot.)
They’re not homers, either. Last year, when Jose Guillen (I think it was him) started to run off the field after two outs, Frank said, “Y’know, in a major-league ballpark, there are plenty of opportunities to find out how many outs there are.” Jose was standing in front of Fenway’s giant scoreboard at the time.
When Alberto Callaspo was playing second, got a double-play ball and ran up to tag the runner, who dumped him on his can, Frank said, “In my day, we would throw the ball to the shortstop and avoid all that.”
Frank’s the kind of guy who can put the knife in so smoothly you don’t notice until you begin to wonder where all the blood’s coming from.
Anyway, if you’re reading this, thanks, guys. It may be the eighth inning of some dreadful blowout that seems meaningless, but somewhere, someone is watching and hoping to be entertained by the two friends they invite into their living room every night.
Wow, that was beautiful. I think I’m going to cry…mainly because I HAVE to watch EVERY pitch of EVERY game.
Ballplayers vs. stat geeks…
There’s a battle going on in baseball: ballplayers vs. stat geeks. (I’m not talented enough to be a ballplayer or smart enough to be a stat geek, so I guess I’m a ball geek…wait a minute, that didn’t come out right.) Everyone knows who the ballplayers are, so let’s concentrate on the stat geeks.
From what I can tell, they’re people (generally guys) who really and truly love baseball but never played at a high level. There are exceptions (Brian Bannister has the reputation of being a semi-stat geek), so it would be unfair to paint them as tape-on-the-glasses couch potatoes who would pee their pants if anyone ever threw a 95-mph fastball in their general vicinity. So let’s just say they’re MAINLY tape-on-the-glasses couch potatoes who would pee their pants if anyone ever threw a 95-mph fastball in their general vicinity.
(By contrast, I have had someone throw a 95-mph fastball in my general vicinity…at least that’s what it sounded like; I usually close my eyes while praying…and I didn’t pee my pants…thought about it, but held back.)
The attitude of the stat geek seems to be, “Oh, sure, you’re the great athlete with the cheerleader girlfriend who can actually PLAY the game, but I’m smarter than you.”
This has led to a lot of numbers generated by guys with calculators and computers intent on proving ballplayers don’t really understand the game…at least not the way a really smart guy, living in his parents’ basement, does.
The stat geek needs to prove the accepted wisdom is wrong. Otherwise, what’s the point? You don’t need a fat guy with a computer to tell you Willie Mays was a good ballplayer, but if he can come up with a stat that shows Willie Mays WASN’T a good player, now he’s got something going. He can prove everyone else is an idiot and feel a little better about himself.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think all the numbers generated by these guys are useless. The Bill James Gang has found some new and interesting ways to look at the game. I just think a lot of these stats might tell you something, just not as much as the people who come up with them want you to believe.
For instance: I saw a stat that showed what a hitter had done on grass and turf, and the analyst concluded that this was a turf player. The analyst also went on to conclude that if the player had a lick of sense, he would immediately get traded to a team that had a turf field.
Maybe…but is there any chance who he FACED on grass and turf affected the outcome?
If you face Zack Greinke on grass and me on turf, I think I can guarantee that you’ll look like a turf hitter.
Then there’s the stat that shows a runner on first with nobody out has more chance of scoring than a runner on second with one out. Therefore, all those managers who call for sacrifice bunts are morons.
Once again, a stat that’s interesting, but possibly misleading. That stat is based on all runners in all situations, but let’s say you’re facing a pitcher who’s been shoving it up your posterior sideways for seven innings and this is only your third hit in a one-run game. The most likely thing the next hitter is going to do is make an out. Shouldn’t it be a productive out? An out that means you only need one more hit to score a very important run? Or do you think your odds of getting two more hits in the same inning off a very tough pitcher are better?
And how many hits will you get BECAUSE you sometimes bunt and the corner infielders are playing in? That number won’t show up in a box score.
That’s the problem with the stat geek: assuming that one stat gives you an answer (bunting is bad) when there are so many other factors.
This site had a viewer…reader…(what the hell are you guys, anyway?) who argued that Mitch Maier was a better outfielder than Rick Ankiel because last year Maier had 250 putouts in 879 and 2/3 innings while Ankiel had 203 putouts in 795 2/3 innings. Therefore, since he has a higher rate of putouts per inning, Maier is the better outfielder.
Maybe.
Or maybe those numbers prove the Cardinal pitchers were better at keeping the ball from being hit to the outfield. A friend of mine, who’s a coach in the minors (and is also foolish enough to believe Rick Ankiel is a good outfielder) said, “Ankiel’s got a great arm…what stat shows how many baserunners DIDN’T attempt to go second to home on him?”
There just isn’t one number that tells you the answer in any situation. Professional managers have made that clear to me over and over again. So anytime you hear a stat that PROVES something, take it with a grain of salt the size of a ’63 Buick LeSabre (had one of those…great car).
And in the battle of ballplayers vs. stat geeks, I’m with the ballplayers.
Although I’m fairly certain they don’t want me.
New ways to lose
It’s often said that a team is playing so poorly, it’s finding new ways to lose. Usually that’s an exaggeration.
In the bottom of the third inning, with runners at first and third, Vladimir Guerrero hits a sacrifice fly to left. All eyes are on Andrus, tagging up at third. Meanwhile, Josh Hamilton has gone halfway between first and second. Podsednik makes the catch, Andrus beats the throw home easily and Hamilton takes off for second…without tagging up.
Billy Butler is standing right there, but doesn’t appear to notice that Hamilton has missed tagging the bag by, oh let’s say, a mile and a half. This is an appeal play; the umpires don’t make a ruling unless you ask for one. The Royals didn’t ask for one.
Naturally, the Rangers go on to score two more runs in the inning, and the Royals lose by…two runs. Butler got the mental error, but everyone else on the team ought to get an assist.
Billy Butler, eight other players on the field, Trey Hillman, his coaching staff and every player in the dugout, failed to notice the missed tag or the fact that Josh Hamilton would have to be beamed down by the Starship Enterprise to get to second that fast. How does something like that happen?
Well, as someone who once visited the mound for a conference with his pitcher and catcher without calling time, thereby letting the runner on third jog home to score, I think I’m qualified to speculate.
Lack of focus.
When you let your mind wander, bad things happen. That’s the challenge of baseball that fans rarely notice. One-hundred sixty-two games, 8,748 outs (give or take a few hundred) around 50,000 pitches, give or take a few thousand…and ballplayers need to know the situation on every one of them.
What’s the score? What inning? How many outs? What’s the count? Do they hit and run? How did we say we were going to pitch this guy? What’s our pitcher throwing? Can he hit his spots? Does the hitter pull or go opposite field in this situation?
That’s the stuff ballplayers are supposed to be thinking on every pitch…every pitch of a very long summer. And when something happens to take your mind off the next pitch (because it’s the only one that matters), bad stuff happens.
My brain-dead trip to the mound happened because we were losing by 10, everything was melting down on the field and in the dugout, and when I came out to talk to the pitcher, I saw my catcher say something to the umpire and assumed it was “time.” Apparently, it wasn’t. (We hit the guy who scored from third later. We also told the guy who bunted up by 10, because he wanted to “work on his average,” that the next time we saw him, we’d “work on his on-base percentage.”)
Misery can also take your mind off the business at hand. We once played a doubleheader in 100-degree heat. Won the first one 2-1 with two runs in the ninth and were tied in the fifteenth @#%$#&! inning of game two, when our third baseman hit a sacrifice fly, with our pitcher on third, that should’ve won the ballgame.
Except he didn’t tag up, and I didn’t tell him to. We were both so hot and miserable our minds weren’t on the game. Our brains were lightly broiled. Afterward, when the players who weren’t too exhausted yelled at us, I said, “Hey, maybe you should’ve tagged up or something.”
Luckily the next batter got a hit, won the game and took us off the hook.
So I know what it’s like to have your mind wander. I know what it’s like to have an entire team out of focus. I don’t know what it’s like to be playing the getaway game of a long, lousy road trip on a gray, crappy day in Texas when all you want to do is get to the plane and go home…but I can speculate.
And just so I’m clear: I understand, but good teams don’t do this.

Maier
Aviles
DeJesus
I agree with your comments on Frank White, he does a great job as the color man on the Royals broadcasts. He also is very subtle in the way he shares information as to how the play should be executed, as you described. WHile the Royals may not be worth watching each and every night, Frank makes it more entertaining. Good observation, Lee
wow at least your background in journalism has taught you not to generalize..that was some amazing comentary there- your lack of understanding of sabermetrics is astounding and misleading. I guess every team in MLB is wrong for having these guys working for them. Because you attend a few fantasy camps and play in an over 40 league doesn't exactly make you an expert either. Beyond that how much major league time have you logged? No one in sabermetrics is suggesting getting rid of scouts etc, but analyzing performance has great value and yes does destroy some long held myths guys like you hang on to, but hey your an insider right? how can simple people understand the complexities you encounter in your beer league. Until you research better keep the condesending tone down it embarrasses you as a journalist
Bart:
Let me respond to your posting with the following points:
I do not play in a "beer league." I play in a "beer-and-shot-and-from-what-I've-seen-sometimes-a-joint-in-the-parking-lot league"...and I scuffle. (Maybe I'm not drinking enough.)
I'm not a journalist, I'm a cartoonist...and I've made a damn fine living out of generalizing.
I'm not an expert, I'm not an insider and I haven't been a major leaguer (if that were a requirement for having an opinion, I'm guessing we'd all have to shut the hell up).
I have had the opportunity to listen while experts, insiders and major leaguers talk about baseball and I hope to bring their knowledge, not mine, to this site. Pretty much everything I've put on this site was first said by people with much better baseball credentials.(Including what I said about the numbers-guys.)
If you look closely at what I wrote', you'll see there's no suggestion that MLB get rid of stat-guys. In fact, I said they've come up with 'new and interesting ways to look at the game'. What I DID suggest is that stats can be misleading and looking at one stat and then drawing a conclusion is a method prone to error. In fact it might fall in the category of 'generalizing'.
Suggesting statistics can be misleading (I believe Mark Twain reached the same conclusion more than a century ago) is hardly unfair or controversial.
Using the term 'stat-geek' and suggesting they all lived in their mother's basement, had tape on their glasses, would urinate in their trousers if ever confronted by a major league fastball and suffered from penis envy...now THAT was unfair and controversial.
P.S. I once lent a famous ballplayer a pen to autograph a stripper's body parts. Does that count as major league experience?
I think Frank White is one of best & informitive announcers in the league he brings a needed knowledge & spark to the game,& never bias like some others.
Lee -
I get why ballplayers can be averse to stats. They already proved that they know how to beat the game, so I can understand if they're not interested in somebody else explaining it to them. I'm a little foggier on why a rec-league softball manager would be averse.
Anyway, I'm not sure if Rick Ankiel is supposed to be Willie Mays in your analogy, but literally every single fielding metric shows Ankiel to be mediocre or worse. I provided you all of those numbers. I'm not sure how they got left out of the post, but it's pretty rich that you then accused me of "looking at one stat and then drawing a conclusion."
When Moore traded for Betancourt, the scouts said he was a plus defender. The stat guys said he was the worst defensive short stop in the league. (See Sam Mellinger: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/04/03/1851468/betancourt-subject-of-debate-between.html) If you watch every inning of every game, it seems like there might be some part of you that's beginning to think the stat guys may have been right.
Maybe I was too quick. I just went back and reread this post and the previous ones. I see that you've transitioned from "Rick Ankiel makes tough plays look easy" (original post) to "Rick Ankiel is a very good outfielder" (rebuttal post) to "Rick Ankiel is a good outfielder" (here). If that's your way of trying to split the difference and find common ground, I'm sorry for continuing to press the issue. I'll leave you to your system.
Brendan:
The ballplayers I know aren't averse to stats. They're averse to people they think are inexperienced drawing erroneous conclusions from them. The reason a 'rec league' manager feels the same way, is because he was instructed by those same players.
I've been lucky enough to be taught the game by (in no particular order): George Brett (OK, I lied, I started with the Hall of Famer), Dan Quisenberry, Kevin Seitzer, Greg Pryor, Clint Hurdle, Bob Apodaca, Jerry Dipoto, Russ Morman, Chris Egelston, Danny Jackson and Tim Bogar, among others.
They were all generous with their time and gave it freely, even George. (Although I finally figured out after hitting together once a week the winter before he retired, that he needed someone to unjam the Iron Mike while he hit.)
After their instruction, I became fascinated with the techniques and strategies they were showing me: banana routes, crowhops, captain wheels, infield drift, throwing the barrel, the funnel, weight shift vs. rotation, throwing the knob, drop and drive,etc. and that's just scratching the surface.
It sounds like you're more interested, if I read you right, in the numbers those techniques produce.
Those different perspectives produce different conlusions: Rick Ankiel, greatest outfielder known to man (you need to develop a sense of humor about this) vs. Rick Ankiel sucks.
What I hope to do, among other things, with this website, is pass along the knowledge those players passed along to me. They revealed a game being played right in front of me that I'd never seen before. It makes watching baseball much more enjoyable and I hope that I'm able to transfer that enjoyment to others.
For the record: never been a big Betancourt fan. We used two differnt methods to reach the same conclusion. I see bad routes, poor technique on pop ups, bad pitch selection and off-balance swings. I think what the baseball guys are seeing is physical talent that they believe can be adjusted to be more productive.
Another thing,: I make fun of my rec league team a lot and will continue to do so,(what else can you do when Danny Jackson shows up holding a beer, pitches a shutout, and leaves holding a beer) but I should defend them and actually they're pretty good. Most of the guys played college ball, a few played professionally and two played in the major leagues. At one point we had more players with World Series Rings than the Kansas City Royals.
Since we formed the team they've won over 400 out of just over 500 ballgames, 10 league championships and after the one summer Russ Morman (White Sox, Royals, Marlins) played with us he said that it was one of the best, most knowledgeable dugouts he's ever been in...which is high praise, because Russ can be a jerk.
And, finally: this isn't my system. It's Ron Polk's, the winningest coach in the history of the SEC, eight trips to the College World Series and coach of the U.S. Olympic team twice.
Don't forget, the game you referenced about Danny with the beer before and the beer after, he also had a pop-up bounce off his head in foul territory. He also threw a 1 hit shutout that game too !