Games: Boston Red Sox, May 9: Judging the Royals with Lee Judge

Games » Boston Red Sox

May9

Defense

When the Royals were going through their losing streak I would get asked if the team was really that bad and I’d say no. I’d then get asked why I thought they weren’t that bad and I’d say, “Defense.” There was no doubt in my mind that this team had improved on the defensive side of the ball. And Wednesday night they showed it.

Alex Gordon made two spectacular catches — one against the wall and another on a sinking liner in the ninth inning. He also tried another diving catch, couldn’t get there but kept the ball in front of him to prevent extra bases. Jarrod Dyson made a catch on a sinking line drive that looked like trouble. Jeff Francoeur kept a ball from going to the wall and might’ve had a shot at throwing out Adrian Gonzalez — but everyone was so sure it would be a double, the defense was set up to concede second base.

Mike Moustakas has been spectacular at third all season and his replacement tonight, Irving Falu, kept it up with a catch of a ball that was already by him, a complete spin and throw to first. Brayan Pena blocked a pitch in the dirt with a runner on third. Even Bruce Chen got in the act by coming off the mound to field a dribbler and get the runner at first. Several times the infield positioning paid off: David Ortiz hit a line drive up the middle and Alcides Escobar was standing right there. Cody Ross hit a hard grounder headed for centerfield, but for the positioning of Chris Getz.

Offense gets most of the attention, but if you can keep the score low enough, you don’t need as much offense to win a game. Clearly, all the pieces are not in place with this team, but one big piece of the puzzle is on display almost every night.

Defense.

Game notes

After the game Ned Yost said he thought Bruce pitched really well, even better than his line in the box score might indicate. Bruce gave up seven hits and Ned though five of them were jam shots or hit off the end of the barrel.
Johnny Giavotella is back with the team because they need a right-handed bat. Not sure what will happen once Yuniesky Betancourt is healthy again. Gio hit the ball hard three times, but had nothing to show for it.
The score was tied 3-3 in the fourth and Yost said he just had the feeling—based on how well he thought Chen was pitching—that one more run might hold up. So after Falu doubled to lead off the 4th, Yost played for one run. He had Chris Getz sacrifice—and the more I see it, the more I agree with Getz that putting the ball down on the right side of the infield is the smart thing to do—and that moved Falu to third.
The Red Sox must have agreed with Ned about how important one run would be, because they brought the infield in to prevent Falu from scoring. The next batter, Alcides Escobar, then hit a soft line drive right where the second baseman would be standing — except for the Getz bunt which forced the infield in.
Both teams were right: there was not another run scored the rest of the game. Playing for one run and playing to prevent one run, was the right thing to do.
I haven’t talked to any baseball people who believe that you should play for one run all the time. I also haven’t talked to any baseball people who believe you should never play for one run. Knowing when it makes sense is the trick.
If you wondered why the Royals didn’t do the same thing in the ninth inning — bring in their infield to cut off a run at the plate — it was because the tying run was on third, but the winning run was on second. Bring in the infield to prevent the tying run and the winning run might score on what might normally be an out.

Tuesday’s game

I didn’t get a chance to talk to some of the players and coaches after Tuesday’s game — I was meeting with Red Sox bench coach Tim Bogar. Wednesday afternoon I caught up with some of the people involved in key moments from Tuesday’s game and here’s what I learned:

Humberto Quindero is apparently faster than we think. Red Sox pitcher Daniel Bard timed out at a 1.6 (so I guess I did a better job timing him than I thought) and the Royals reasoned that after two balks in the same inning, Bard was not throwing over to first base. (By the way, nobody could figure out why Bard was so concerned about Mike Moustakas stealing a base.)

Anyway, the plan was for Quintero take advantage of the situation: extend his lead against a pitcher that wouldn’t attempt a pickoff, steal second without a throw and then have a chance to score on a Jarrod Dyson single. Humberto did not take a big enough lead and was thrown out — barely.

The Jeff Francoeur play at the plate also has an interesting background: one down, Frenchy on third, Moose on second, the contact play was on. The contact play usually means the runner on third breaks for home on contact—as long as the ball has “down” angle. The team is gambling that the ball won’t be hit back at the pitcher—any place else and the run scores as long as the infield is back.

Alcides Escobar saw the Red Sox infield was back and decided to bunt for a hit. So, essentially, Francoeur did what he was supposed to do: break for home on “down angle.” The bunt caught everyone—including the Royals — by surprise. Francoeur tried to make it work. His only mistake—according to Doug Sisson — was sliding head first at home plate. That’s an easy way to get injured and Francoeur got spiked by the catcher.

I asked Chris Getz if he got clipped by the runner on the double play ball he threw away and Getz said yes, but only after he made the throw. Chris said it was his fault, he just screwed up. And Eric Hosmer said he did not have to leave the bag to reach the ball that Getz threw. Hosmer went for the do-or-die scoop while maintaining contact with the bag and missed. He’s made that play a lot, so thinking he could make it again doesn’t seem unreasonable.

One more inside story

Boston infielder Will Middlebrooks had a throwing error in the series caused by Alex Gordon’s pine tar. Gordon got jammed, the ball hit the part of the bat with the pine tar on it and when Middlebrooks picked it up and tried to throw it, the ball stuck to his finger. Seems like every statistic has an interesting story behind it.

Comments

Joel Kallem
1 year ago

For all those that have been complaining about small ball, I hope you will acknowledge that it was the difference last night and allowed us to win the series and the homestand. Falu doesn’t score unless Gretz moves him up with a perfectly executed sacrifice bunt.
Jay Hall
1 year ago

Falu was on second after his double. He scores on a base hit either way, whether it was Getz getting a hit (rather than burning an out sacrificing him to third) or Escobar’s hustling double. The bunt didn’t eliminate the double play, either, because again, Falu was already on second.

Using the sacrifice to get him to third basically cost us a chance at a big inning because we gave away an out with a runner already in scoring position.

Maybe Getz doesn’t get a hit there, but he’s been swinging the bat well, so there’s no reason to not give him a chance.
Larry Tindle
1 year ago

Jay, you are right, however with Falu on third you can score him without a hit. Now a hit, ground ball to anyone except third baseman and fly out to outfield can score him. Just different ways of looking at it.
John Wilson
1 year ago

I’ll bet I wasn’t the only fan watching the game on TV and swearing when Broxton walked the second batter in the ninth. But WOW! That defense had my swears turn to cheers fast! What a game.
Jay Hall
1 year ago

Larry, I don’t disagree with that, but with no outs and a lead off double that early in the game, you have a chance to break it open, push Lester (always a Royal killer) out of the game and eliminate the drama, especially with the top of the order coming up.

Good teams break games open when the opportunity rises. If we are going to be a good team with this group down the line, we have to do what good teams do, which is blow a game like that open and win 7-3 or 8-3 rather than 4-3. You do that by not sac bunting in the fourth inning after a lead off double with the top of the order coming up, instead trying for the big 3 or 4 run inning.
Brian Barnett
1 year ago

What I didn’t get about the Getz bunt was that after 4 pitches he was up in the count 3-1. Much to my surprise Getz is hitting really well so far this year. Having him bunt on a 3-1 count (with no chance of hitting into a double play) seems like a pretty bad call to me…more so because the runner was already in scoring position.

The Royals are 6th in the league in OBP, SLG, and OPS. They 10th in the league in runs scored per game. Definitely a part of that is that they just haven’t hit with runners in scoring position but they don’t do themselves any favors by intentionally making outs. The offense is good enough to let them swing and the pitching is bad enough that they need all the extra runs they can get.
Lee Judge
1 year ago

I think the reason that the Royals did not try for a big inning once Falu doubled was the pitching.

The Royals haven’t had many big innings against Lester and saw a chance to grab the lead. The Red Sox recognized the same thing, Chen was pitching well, one more run might be the difference in the ball game—and it was.

As I said in the column, there’s no one way to play the game. Recognizing the situation you’re currently in and attacking it in an appropriate manner makes sense, at least to me.

The most likely thing Getz (or any other hitter) was going to do was make an out, so either choice is a risk. I thought they might let Chris swing away and try to pull the ball to move the runner, but clearly, Ned Yost wanted to be sure the runner was on third when that at-bat was over. Asking Chris Getz to get down a bunt is almost a sure thing.

If Getz doesn’t move the runner, the infield doesn’t come in and Escobar’s soft double is an out to Pedroia.

It was interesting to me that both managers recognized the same thing early: the pitchers had settled in and runs would be tough to come by the rest of the way. Ned showed that by bunting, Valentine showed that by bringing the infield in.

Subsequent events showed they were both right.
Kurt Vancil
1 year ago

To me a win is a win, whether you use small ball or not. So yes I will concede that small ball helped us win this game. However we cannot really say that if Getz swings away we don’t score Falu in a different manner.

What I don’t necessarily understand is why not let Getz swing away with the intention of pulling the ball. This too will move the runner over to third AND has the possibility of being a hit. Getz has impressed me with his bat this year and i know he has enough bat control to intentionally hit a grounder to 2nd. That just seems like it has more upside than bunting in that situation.
Luke Healy
1 year ago

i see the argument both ways. small ball worked in this instance, though it was early in the game. with as bad as lester was pitching (for lester), and getz in a 3-1 count with no double play threat, i think you let him swing, especially as he’s been swinging it well lately.

i disagree that the 2b would have caught esky’s double, it had pretty good height to it, so the run would have scored either way (granted the pitching may have been different if the infield wasn’t in).

at least it worked though. if the red sox had scored 2 in the ninth, which they were very close to doing, it would have been a different story. i’ll give yost credit this time—it was gutsy and it worked. as was his decision to ask broxton if he wanted to pitch to sweeney. they both worked out. i just hope we don’t play for one run in the fourth inning all that often.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year ago

One thing to consider when either Getz or Escobar bunt is that they have a good chance of getting a hit out of it. It’s no more a guaranteed giveaway of an out than when they are swinging. One further thought is that Getz’ new stance isn’t splitting well against left-handed pitchers.
Lee Judge
1 year ago

Asking Chris Getz to put down a bunt isn’t automatically giving up an out. He can turn that bunt to the right side into a hit as well as anybody.

And, in my estimation, Esky’s soft liner would’ve been an easy out with the infield back. It barely made the grass which is why he was able to hustle it into a double, there was nothing on it and it took time to roll to the outfield.

It’s kind of amazing that people are still finding ways to complain about a bunt that worked.
George Smith
1 year ago

“People finding ways to complain about a bunt that worked”?

Really, Judge? Because they got lucky, now Ned will probably bunt even more than he does now. Giving away outs by bunting is a ridiculous, outdated strategy. If Ned wants to play for 1-run innings in the American League then he will lose that bet far more often than he wins.

Far be it for me, or anyone else to criticise this perfect front office and manager.
George Smith
1 year ago

If anyone really wants to ask why this team has been so awful, both before Dayton Moore and after, it is that fundamentally the organization does not understand the value of outs and free baserunners. They routinely give away free outs by bunting and poor decisions on the basepaths in general.

When it comes to walks, the Royals have proven without any shadow of a doubt that they do not value walks. Otherwise they would not have signed Yuni, Francouer, Jacobs, Guillen, etc etc….However, they get pitchers who (Sanchez is a perfect example, a walk machine), guess what, walk a crap ton of batters. So they give pitchers easy outs when at-bat and they give hitters bases when pitching. Worst of all worlds.

Maybe there is hope. It seems recently the Royals are starting to come around that pitchers walking batters is a bad thing. Now if pitchers walking hitters is bad, then a reasonable man would think that as a hitter, being walked is GOOD. Oh well, its the Royals so maybe they will grasp that concept in another 10 years, or whatever timeline Dayton Moore changes (aka the Carl Peterson 5-year plan, every 5-years it starts over). Maybe in 2035 we can actually start to “Judge”, pun intended, Daytons ability to construct a MAJOR LEAGUE roster.
Kurt Vancil
1 year ago

The bunt worked this time and we won so I’m happy. It hasn’t worked so well recently though so I am not at all surprised people aren’t asking to extend Yost because it paid of last night.

Also, as you often point out Lee one small difference in a game changes a lot of things. Falu is on third so Bostons infield is in and Lester is trying to induce a grounder. Esky hit it where nobody was playing and turned it into a double. If Getz doesn’t bunt or move the runner up then the defense isn’t playing up and Lester would pitch differently to Esky. So it is unfair to say that Esky hits a weak liner to Pedroia if the bunt isn’t used. You use this logic often when talking about different situations and I’m surprised you haven’t thought about that in this instance.
Heath Ellison
1 year ago

I thought we had a chance for insurance runs in the 8th. It looked like a bad call to try to score Falu from first on Getz’s double to left. I didn’t see a replay, but in real time it looked like the left fielder was already in his throwing motion as Falu rounded third (and like Falu had run out of steam). Maybe being at the bottom of the order made it less likely we would be able to score Falu from 3rd with two outs, but I liked that option better than sending him.
Aaron Bailey
1 year ago

I saw the bunting situation more based on where the Royals were in their lineup. A big inning was doubtful with 3 straight light-hitters coming up and 3 of the 4 upcomig hitters being left-handed. Maybe one of them gets a single to score Falu, but the odds were stacked against a big-inning at that point. And Falu later showed he doesn’t have the blazing speed to automatically score from 2nd on a single when he was thrown out in the 8th trying to score from 1st on a double (with two outs, I didn’t think he’d get thrown out by that much).
George Smith
1 year ago

I should caveat everything after this with, against Miguel Cabrera, feel free to bunt away:

With a runner on second and nobody out – a classic bunt situation – teams average 1.177 runs per inning, while a situation with a runner on third and one out yields only 1.032 runs.

However, these numbers rely on an “average” player on an “average” team, with no regard to whether a team was playing for one run – i.e., in the late innings of a close game. Simulations using actual players to determine the thresholds for which specific hitters should and should not bunt. With a runner on first base and no outs, any hitter with an on-base percentage (OBP) of at least .206 and/or a slugging percentage (SLG) of at least .182 – aka anyone not named TPJ– should swing away. The only exception is when a team is playing specifically for one run, in which case the thresholds are a .282 OBP and/or .322 SLG.

With no outs and runners on first and second (like the other night), the chances of scoring multiple runs are significantly higher than runners on third and second wih one out. Yet what does Nervous Ned do? Gives away the free out? How many runs do the Royals score? You guessed it, ZERO.

The bunt has some situational value, like vs a poor fielding 3B, however Yost continues to manage by the gut and grit and continues to get burned by his outdated and failed strategy.
Aaron Bailey
1 year ago

And Lee, good info on the Middlebrooks error. I can’t think of any other place I’d find that kind of information.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year ago

I’m noticing that no one is in mortal angst over Falu’s hustle double. He looked to have been out if the Sox defender had only managed to catch a very good throw.
George Smith
1 year ago

Jim,

At this point Falu could kick me in the balls and I would be ok with it, because he is not Yuni.
George Smith
1 year ago

Judge,

It is no secret that I think Yost is just an awful, atrocious manager who actively hurts the teams chances to win on a daily basis. Having said that, it is weird for there to be no extension talk (A good thing) in his contract year. Does this mean the idiot GM has little confidence, justifably, in Yost?

Heck it took the Glass’s making Moore fire Hillman, otherwise that knucklehead would be here. Moore is notorious for taking an inhuman amount of time to admit mistakes, so I would be surprised if Yost is not extended. That would suck.
Brendan Woodbury
1 year ago

This playing field is not level.

When Quintero gets out at second on a questionable steal, he’s “out — barely.” When Francouer gets thrown at at third on a questionable extra base attempt, “it took a perfect throw.”

But when a questionable decision works, we get “It’s kind of amazing that people are still finding ways to complain about a bunt that worked.”

What kind of reasoning is this?

If the result is all that matters, then where’s the criticism of Francoeur on the bases?

If the calculation is what matters, then why isn’t the sacrifice bunt in the fourth inning to move a runner already in scoring position fair game?
George Smith
1 year ago

“This playing field is not level”

Brendan, prepare to be JUDGED!
Jim Fetterolf
1 year ago

Brendan, the playing field in life is seldom level. Those of us old Hot Stovers around could probably think things are unfair being apparently outnumbered by talk radio and most blogs and herds of fantasy players, but hang in there rather than surrender. You offer a lot of good views and the numbers are interesting, but not compelling.

“questionable”

In your judgement. Difficult to discuss a play when you’ve already handed down the verdict. In the case of Q he was safe, in the case of Frenchy he slipped and was in trouble whichever way he went, so the question of questionability is very much open to most of us.

Good questions on Dutton’s chat yesterday.
Sean Fite
1 year ago

so if Getz grounds out to the right side, moving Falu to 3rd, it’s a great play by Getz, a great decision by Yost to allow Getz to swing 3-1, and we have Falu on 3rd with 1 out. but if Getz bunts to the right side, moving Falu to 3rd, it’s a dumb play by Getz/Yost and we have Falu on 3rd with 1 out.

what was the result? Falu on 3rd with one out causing the infield to play in in a pitchers’ duel…which allowed Escobar’s hit to go for a run scoring double. sheesh! some of you need to move on to other blogs that like share in your misery.

great win by the Royals last night against an excellent team and a great pitcher; at least when he faces us. also, Lee, great info on the pine tar error. i’m sure that happens more often than we realize, but we never hear about it.
Brendan Woodbury
1 year ago

Dutton’s chats are great. He’s a great source of info, he takes a lot of questions, and he’s very plain spoken which I like. I had to submit my questions in advance yesterday because I was going to miss the chat. I wish I’d been there to ask a follow up when he said pitch f/x was being charted by a person. It’s actually done by cameras, and I think that would have made a difference in his answer.

I don’t think anyone disagrees that the sac bunt was questionable. One group thinks that the answer should have been yes. One group thinks that the answer should have been no, but nobody is surprised that people are asking questions about this particular decision.

Life is not fair, but people usually aspire to be fair. I assume Lee does. I just wanted to point out that the successes and failures seem to be judged by different standards.
Eric Blatt
1 year ago

The Getz sac bunt was a bad call, pure and simple.

If you go with the sac bunt, there’s about a 60% chance the runner scores. Sometimes the bunt will get popped up, sometimes the runner will get thrown out a third, sometimes the following batter will strike out or ground to third or pop up, etc. When you just think “What is the most likely outcome?” you tend to forget that all the other eventualities add up. With the sacrifice him over, sacrifice him in plan, there’s a lot of little things that can and do go wrong.

If you instead try to drive in the runner on 2B by hitting, you also have about a 60% chance of scoring the runner on 2B, but you’re much more likely to score additional runs in the inning.

So you’re sacrificing your chances at 2+ runs in the inning without increasing your chances of scoring 1 run in the inning. It’s an out-dated tactic that flatly doesn’t make sense.
Eric Blatt
1 year ago

And let’s not forget that the bunt call was even worse since it was made on a 3-1 count. Get had a very good chance to get on base after reaching a 3-1 count, and Yost gave to gain no tangible net benefit.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year ago

“It’s actually done by cameras, and I think that would have made a difference in his answer.”

That’s also what I thought, PitchFX cameras into a computer to digitize speed, trajectory, break, and path. It is my understanding that the system is accurate enough to replace a home plate umpire for balls and strikes.

“I don’t think anyone disagrees that the sac bunt was questionable.”

When phrased like that, yes, the usual suspects will question it here and elsewhere. Others of us will look at Getz’ chances of getting a hit from it and Chris’ problems with lefties in his new stance and figure it was a good enough call.

“I just wanted to point out that the successes and failures seem to be judged by different standards.”

True, which is why I mentioned Falu’s mistake in taking 2nd. I could also point out Bill James’ Sox sacrificing in the 9th.

“Get had a very good chance to get on base after reaching a 3-1 count”

Jon Lester isn’t a walk machine and Getz isn’t splitting well with lefties this year. Would that modify the chances?
Lee Judge
1 year ago

The bottom line is the bunt worked just the way it was supposed to—the winning run scored, the Royals beat the Red Sox.

Both managers decided to play for one in the 4th inning, both managers were right. There were no big innings coming. Both managers saw the pitchers settle in, both managers decided one run was important.

Had the bunt not worked, Ned Yost would be criticized. The bunt worked and Ned Yost is still criticized for not winning the game by more runs.

Some people seem to have a hard time saying that, while they don’t like the bunt as a strategy, in this case it worked. Admitting it worked in one case, might mean admitting there are other cases where it’s a logical move.

If your position is that a team should never, ever bunt, then your mind is made up and there’s nothing I can say that will change it.
Eric Blatt
1 year ago

Lee:

“Some people seem to have a hard time saying that, while they don’t like the bunt as a strategy, in this case it worked. Admitting it worked in one case, might mean admitting there are other cases where it’s a logical move.”

I’m happy to admit that the bunt worked in this case. Well, I’m not sure ‘worked’ is the right word, because I think Escobar’s batted ball would have scored Falu with or without the bunt, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is that I’ll readily acknowledge that bunts work sometimes. Heck, they work often.

Like I said before, opting for the bunt tactic will score the runner more often than not. But the fact that it works more often than not doesn’t make it good strategy. What matters is whether it works better than the alternative.

And the alternative in this case, swinging the bats, would have also scored the runner more often than not—especially given Getz’s 3-1 count.

The hitters following Falu (Getz, Escobar and Dyson) make outs about 70% of the time. The odds that all three would be out is approximately equal to (0.7)^3, or 34.3%. That means that there’s about a 65% chance that at least one would reach base, and most of those events would result in scoring the runner. And in the event that a batter reaches via a walk, a very good hitter in Alex Gordon would come to the plate, and most likely with multiple runners on base.

So the issue isn’t whether the bunt worked in this particular situation or even whether the bunt would work out more often than not in a general situation. The issue is whether bunting is a better bet than swinging away. Statistically speaking, bunting almost never is a better bet than swinging away after a lead off double. And in the situation last night given a tie game in the 4th inning, in a 3-1 count against a scuffling pitcher, and against a great offense, bunting certainly wansn’t the better bet.

But in this case, it worked out. Of course, if we’re going to go by the “did it work out?” evaluation method, I hope that we can also apply the same method to all the times the Royals bunt a lead off double over to third and the runner doesn’t score. Because that’s already happened several times this year.
Brendan Woodbury
1 year ago

Lee -

I think just about everyone on here supports playing small ball or playing for one run in certain situations. The debate is just over which situations.

My question was about how we’re to judge if something is a good idea.

It seems like the analysis is that if it works, it’s a good idea because it worked. If it’s a success, the results are what matters.
But if it fails, the results are not what matters. It might still have been a good idea, if we just understand what the team was thinking.

I think the analysis should be consistent. If results are what matters, then the successes were good ideas and the failures were bad ideas. If the approach is what matters, then some of the failures (like the Quintero steal 2 days ago) might have been good ideas, but some the successes (like the 4th inning bunt yesterday) might have been bad ideas.

It just seems that both results (positive and negative) should be subjected to the same type of analysis.
Tony Helfrich
1 year ago

I felt like the Sox gave us a better chance in the 9th. With Broxton struggling (hit and walk and no outs), they burned an out with the bunt. I know this played the percentages and I would often agree with the move, but I felt the Sox psychologically helped us out—much easier to get 2 straight outs than 3. It seemed like once Brox had the out from the bunt, he settled down and made pitches. I know that I was immediately glad when they went to bunt. And, I didn’t see the Getz bunt, but I see it as a bad move at that stage of the game…and really indefensible. Obviously, it can work out many different ways on a given instance, but the Royals for sure gave up a bigger inning. And, I like our chances with three consecutive batters to drive the run in from 2nd just as much as 2 consecutive batters with the runner on 3rd. And, Getz (hard to believe I’m saying that) is the best of the three in that situation and you gave him up. I think it’s bad baseball…and could be a reason why we rank higher in batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage than we do runs scored.

You do have to love Gordon in Left…he is a game changer.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year ago

“It seemed like once Brox had the out from the bunt, he settled down and made pitches.”

Sox got what they wanted after the bunt, a sinking, hooking liner to left that Gordon got a poor jump on, but compensated with a good catch and a 3rd baseman’s pop-up throw on the money to Esky, who was likely telling the runner, “Well, do you feel lucky?” I’m sure some Sox fans are griping because the runner didn’t try to score. What really saved us was Mike Aviles against a RHP for the last out.

“could be a reason why we rank higher in batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage than we do runs scored.”

Another reason is big ball hitters failing in crucial situations with runners on when a run or two ties or wins the game.

“I like our chances with three consecutive batters to drive the run in from 2nd”

To be consistent, shouldn’t we have Falu on 1st, as his taking 2nd was a mistake and only worked due to poor fielding by the infielder?
Brendan Woodbury
1 year ago

Why would we have Falu on 1st? The debate is what to do with Falu already in scoring position. How he got there is a separate discussion.

I do agree that Falu going for two was a mistake. I just don’t see how it affects whether we should bunt once he’s on second.
George Smith
1 year ago

Judge, is there anything Moore does that you would criticise?
Joel Kallem
1 year ago

“Falu was on second after his double. He scores on a base hit either way”

Jay, if you look at Esky’s double again, you will see there is no way he scores from second on it. Further, as Lee pointed out, Esky’s hit would have been an out if the infield was not playing in to cut off the run that was on third.
Kurt Vancil
1 year ago

I think there is one valuable lesson from all of this: Whenever the Royals bunt, whether it negatively or positively effects the game, this page will receive more comments than if the Royals did not bunt.
Joel Kallem
1 year ago

There seems to be a lot of sentiment that the Royals gave away a big inning in the fourth by bunting. Can someone tell me exactly how many big innings we have had with the lower part of the lineup coming up? If Getz does take a walk, that also sets up a double play if Esky hits a ground ball (which he is prone to do), and then we have a runner on third with two out. I would agree that bunting with Gordon, Butler, or Hosmer coming up would have been poor strategy, but bunting with Getz plays to his strength, not a weakness, and gives us many more ways to score that run than simply relying on some of weaker hitters to drive it in.
Brendan Woodbury
1 year ago

Joel -

Francoeur and Moustakas have been batting 5/6 most of this year. If you take out runs scored on the hitter’s own HR, Francoeur and Moustakas are 2nd and 3rd on the team in runs scored. For those who believe in short-term trends, the evidence suggests that the bottom third of the lineup has had plenty of success extending innings and bringing runners home.

More importantly, playing for the big inning means not giving up outs so we have a chance to get the big guys back up to bat. If we give away outs in the bottom half of the order, we’re reducing the chance of Gordon or Butler coming to bat with the bases loaded and a chance to blow the game wide open.
Sean Fite
1 year ago

a 4-3 win is no different from a 10-3 win with regards to the standings…which, if we’re all honest is why these debates are fiery. this bunt in this situation worked. another day, a different batter up/on deck, and we can reassess, but the bunt that Lee wrote about worked.
Jim Wilson
1 year ago

If I’m a Sox fan, I’m very unhappy that the infield was moved in to protect against one run in the fourth inning against a fairly average (I like Chen, don’t get me wrong) pitcher who struggled his last two outings.
Jay Hall
1 year ago

Joel,

I said base hit, not double. If Getz gets a base hit, Falu scores from second. If Getz grounds out to the right side, Falu goes to third.

The bunt worked last night, true enough. But how many times will we have to get burned by going up by one run against a team with some bona fide sluggers (Gonzalez, Ortiz, Pedroia) only to have that team net multiple runs to beat us.

Bruce’s last start played out that way. Bruce was pitching really well against the Yankees, cruising along against a pitcher that the Royals often struggle against (Sabathia). We didn’t have a chance to really get to Sabathia after the first inning, but had we played for one run early in the game, it would have rung hollow after the Yankees hung four in the 7th.

The American League is too strong offensively, even with offense down, to play for one run early in games. In the 8th or 9th inning, sure, grab that go ahead run. But early on, you don’t know how many runs you will need, so you can’t give away precious outs so early.
Anthony L. Monley
1 year ago

Lee—Big fan of the page, first time comment.

I think both sides of The Great Bunt Debate make valid points—the comment I’m really stuck on is the whole ‘both managers saw that no big innings were coming, that both pitchers had settled in’ i.e., that 1 run would win the game in the 4th. The 4th! It only took Chen one inning to ‘settle in’ after a 3-run inning in the 3rd? With this staff and this bullpen, 1 run was going to do it?

I think this particular point weakens the valid rationale of bunting in this situation. Had Chen thrown up 3 or 4 shutout innings and we’re talking about the 6th or 7th inning I have no problems.

Just my opinion but seems a little early (again, with this staff) to declare that 1 run wins it with over half the game still to play.
George Smith
1 year ago

Bruce Chen is no Justin Verlander. To play for 1 run in the 4th inning of an American League game is ridiculous.
Larry Tindle
1 year ago

George or should I say SMITH. His name is Lee. It is very disrespectful to refer to him as Judge. Please show a little class with your valid comments.
George Smith
1 year ago

ok, Tindle.
Steven A Hurst
1 year ago

Ya know, I prefer to watch a game with a beer in my hand, rather than a calculator.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year ago

Did a little searching to see what is being said in the Red Sox Nation and found this:

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2012/05/10/closing-time-more-bad-times-for-josh-beckett-red-sox/

Apparently the Royals aren’t the only team with a disappointing starter or two. Was kind of hoping that the BoSox would heat up and do some damage to Cleveland, but not to be today.

Also found a blog suggesting the Royals might be a target for unloading Josh Beckett on. I hope not:)
Curtis Ruder
1 year ago

The decision to sacrifice was ridiculous. Bad decisions work out sometimes. The Red Sox decision to bring the infield in was much less so. Bringing the infield in does increase the prospect of a hit for the batter, but not by a huge margin. Those additional hits will almost all be loopers and ground balls, which mean singles rather than extra base hits. With a runner only on third, and especially with exactly one out, I think most situations would call for bringing the infield in.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year ago

“The decision to sacrifice was ridiculous.”

Curtis, would you know the slash line on the average pitcher and hitter that history gives us in the bunt situation?

Been giving this some thought and have decided that a big difference between those basing opinions on a grand average stat and the rest of us is that I don’t see the GAS as final, but rather as a mid-point in the process that needs to be weighted to apply to specifics. Unless Broxton and the batter can be shown to be “average”, then the GAS needs further adjustments before the Boston coach’s decision can be judged “ridiculous”.

“The Red Sox decision to bring the infield in was much less so.”

Wasn’t that decision forced by the sacrifice? Is the bunt decision given extra positive weight due to its impact on the next play?
Lee Judge
1 year ago

I took a break from the site yesterday, it was my first day off since spring training. I’m either drawing cartoons, covering baseball or both almost every day. Couple of things and then I’m back to my two jobs:

Someone, I believe Brendan, asked why I didn’t criticize Francoeur stealing third and getting thrown out if the results are all that matters. Actually, I don’t think the results are all that matters and I’ve said that dozens of times. The effort is more important than the results: was it a good effort? Was it a smart decision? Nothing works all the time, so of the options available, was it the best one?

Assuming we’re talking about the same steal attempt, I never said it took a perfect throw to get Francoeur, as I recall, that came from Ned Yost. What I said was that if the pitcher was under 1.6 seconds delivering the ball home, it was a bad idea.

And, if a manager is convinced that one run is going to matter, then I don’t think it’s a bad decision to bunt in the 4th inning, especially with the bottom of the order due up. So why would I criticize it? My point was both managers thought one run would matter, both managers were right. And few people want to give them credit for that.

Someone else said it was unfair of me to play out the inning hypothetically—no bunt and the infield is back and Escobar’s ball is caught. That criticism has some validity: nobody knows what might have happened had some event not taken place. The pitches thrown and swung at might change. Fair enough.

So let’s concentrate on what did happen: because of the bunt the infield was in and the ball landed beyond them. Once the runner got to third with less than two outs the Red Sox either had to play the infield back and concede the run or play the infield in and increase the hitter’s chance for success. They could also split the difference and play halfway, but the bunt meant the Sox did not have a lot of great options.

OK, back to work so I’m finished in time for tonight’s game.

P.S. You can call me “Lee” or “Judge” I don’t mind. Either way we get the page views and my bosses are happy.
Ben Weddle
1 year ago

George, For the record, I’d be OK with Falu kicking you in the balls too.
Jim Fetterolf
1 year ago

For those interested in Mike Montgomery at Omaha and also interested in adjustments players make to get better:

http://www.pinetarpress.com/royals-mike-montgomery-2012/

Clint Scoles at Pine Tar does great work on the minor leagues, especially at Omaha where he sees nearly every game and has a press pass and access to the players.