Games » Tampa Bay Rays
Jun27A scapegoat
Lee Judge
The Kansas City Star
Everett Teaford wanted to talk Wednesday morning, but that presented a problem: it’s an unwritten rule that you do not speak to a starting pitcher right before a start. Teaford had a plan — if he talked to me and had a bad outing, he could then blame me for whatever went wrong, “Lee was yukking it up at my locker and ruined my mental focus.”
Fortunately, for both of us, Teaford threw well. Five shutout innings before tiring in the heat and giving up a walk and a single in the sixth (both scored). He also struck out five, handed the game to the pen with a lead and had no use for a scapegoat.
But I’ll bet he’ll want to talk again before his next start — just in case.
Game notes
Second inning: Ben Zobrist was on third base after doubling and being balked to third. Sean Rodriguez hit the ball back to pitcher Everett Teaford. Teaford caught the ball and did what he was supposed to do: look the runner back before throwing to first.
Teaford did a double-take when he saw how far Zobrist was down the line. Everett decided to go for the out at third. When a pitcher catches a runner between bases, he’s supposed to hold the ball up and run at the runner. He’s got to force the runner to make a decision and, if possible, the pitcher wants the runner to decide to go back to the base he came from.
Zobrist was feinting back and forth and Teaford was trying to feint with him. Finally, Everett thought the heck with this and decided to get the ball into a position player’s hands. He threw the ball to third baseman Mike Moustakas and Moose ran Zobrist toward home plate, making the toss to Salvador Perez who tagged Zobrist out at the plate.
Third inning: B. J. Upton grounded into a double play with one down and Jose Molina on first. The point of interest here is the pitch right before the double play: Salvador Perez blocked a ball in the dirt, keeping the double play in order.
After attempting to block pitches myself, I’m very impressed with Sal’s ability to block pitches so artfully that they don’t bounce away, but fall softly at his feet.
Sixth inning: With Salvador Perez on second and two outs, Jason Bourgeois hit a soft flare just beyond second base. Bourgeois felt certain that Perez would try to score on the play: there were two outs, which means the runner doesn’t have to wait to see if the ball is caught before taking off, and the ball was hit softly. That means it takes longer to get to the outfielder and buys the runner more time to advance.
Unfortunately, the Royals were not all on the same page: Third base coach, Eddie Rodriguez held Perez up at third. Bourgeois made the turn at first and broke for second. This is a common ploy used with two outs to make sure the ball is cut off and the runner is safe at home.
If the runner advancing to second can force a cut and get the defense to throw the ball to second, the man at the plate scores and the offense trades an out for a run. That’s what Bourgeois was trying to accomplish. His mistake — as he told me after the game — was not checking third after he hit first base. Bourgeois assumed, incorrectly, that Perez would be headed for home.
Still a mistake, but Jason Bourgeois did not suddenly lose his mind and take off for second base. There was a reason he tried to advance from first to second.
Seventh inning: After having it pointed out to me, Sal Perez’s physical width and ability to hold pitches in place becomes more evident with every game. The width makes pitches look more like strikes (they stay within the frame of his body) and the ability to receive a pitch with a minimum of glove movement gives umpires a good look.
After the game, Greg Holland said Perez is very comfortable to throw to: Sal has the knack of making borderline pitches look good.
Ninth inning: Three outs from a victory, Jonathan Broxton strikes out the first batter, walks the second and then ends the game by inducing the Royals fourth double play of the game.
Postgame
The heat index was over 100 degrees when the game started. Some players needed to take IV fluids afterwards.
Ned Yost said Billy Butler’s timely home run saved a lot of tired players from having to play extra innings.
Ned also said the upcoming double header in Minnesota on Saturday, June 30th might be rough, but the toughest day is the one after playing two. Watch for that on Sunday. Players are going to be tired.
When asked about the team’s goals, Yost said it’s unrealistic to think you’re going to win every game, but trying to win a series is a more attainable goal. Don’t think about climbing the mountain, think about taking the next step. (That last part was me, not Ned.)
Correlation and causation
If you wonder why someone hitting well still hits in the bottom of a batting order, they might be hitting well because they’re in the bottom of the batting order. Here are Alcides Escobar’s batting averages (at least according to Baseball Reference) when hitting in different spots in the order:
First: .200
Second: .087
Sixth: .333
Seventh: .351
Eighth: .410
Ninth: .294
But where Esky hits is just one factor. He only has 29 plate appearances hitting first or second. The pitchers he faced, the defense on the field, the park he played in, the people hitting in front of him, the people hitting behind him and what he had for breakfast, might have influenced the numbers. As we discussed yesterday, correlation does not imply causation.
But you also can’t ignore the psychological aspects of the game. One of the recurring themes on this site is how the mental side of the game affects players. As Crash Davis said, “If he thinks he’s winning because he’s not having sex, he’s winning because he’s not having sex.” So if a player just feels more comfortable hitting in a certain spot in the order, managers will often accommodate that when possible.
Escobar
Butler
Moustakas
Tom Roesler
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Don’t think about climbing the mountain, think about taking the next step.”
Yet another great analogy for life and something to help me keep daily life in perspective.
Team #keepsawingwood
Go Royals. Keep going baby!
Jeff Frost
11 months, 3 weeks agoLoving it! Keep it up! Go Royals!
Aaron Bailey
11 months, 3 weeks agoOn Perez: the MLB channel showed bonus coverage of the last couple innings and whoever the Rays announcer is gave Perez heaps of kudos for his ability to block balls in the dirt. I was holding my breath when he was flexing his knee after the collision at the plate. Good thing he seems ok, after Quintero already being cut.
John Wilson
11 months, 3 weeks agoMan this is one streaky team! I really hate the suspense of watching the game via Gameday though. At least here in Springfield, we had no TV and no radio broadcast. It makes working a tad more difficult :-)
Gaines Arnold
11 months, 3 weeks agoActually I am bummed by the TV black out dates also. Do they always black out a day game before a day off? They have the last two. Also, two whole days without Royals baseball after the All Star game is going to seem interminable.
Larry Tindle
11 months, 3 weeks agoCurtis, from yesterday about the intentional walk. I didn’t agree with walking Moose. My decision would have been as Jim said and pitch around a hot Moose and try to make him hit my pitch. You have to admit Billy has a reputation of hitting into a lot of double plays. Whether it is accurate or based on current information.
Terry Payne
11 months, 3 weeks agoI hope Esky doesn’t get power happy after his dinger today and his near-dinger Tuesday. I was really surprised at that drive off the very top of the wall in deepest left-center. He’s tall and rangy, but apparently can really generate the bat speed.
I have always maintained that he is the true Royals MVP. He doesn’t get the ink of Hos or the fans’ love like Mous, but he makes all the routine plays as well as the outstanding plays. He has saved many a run with his range, his arm, and his head. Plus, he’s really starting to drive the ball and he always seems to have a game-plan when he goes up to hit.
Just stay healthy, baby!
Bob Wheeler
11 months, 3 weeks agoI agree 100% with Terry’s comments about Esky getting Power Happy.
I think Yost would be wise to accept the reality that certain hitters on this team do better in certain line up spots. Gordon is way better at lead off, so keep him there. Batting him in the middle or batting Esky up top is asking them to perform outside of the character.
Tim Bruggeman
11 months, 3 weeks agoEnjoyed being able to listen to the broadcast. I’m in South Africa, and we’re 7 hours ahead of KC time. The only games that are on at a reasonable hour are the ones that start at noon or one.
Happy to see Perez back. If he can stay healthy, he’s going to be a heckuva catcher.
I’d like to see the Royals get, and stay, over that .500 hump!
Bob Forer
11 months, 3 weeks agoTerry, I couldn’t agree with you more. Esky is the team’s MVP, hands down.
While folks on Lee’s site tend to be gracious in their assessments, commenters at other sites have given Yost a lot of grief regarding many of his managerial decisions.
How quickly they forget Yost’s decision to let both Eksy and Moose play through their slumps last year. In retrospect, both moves were brilliant, as Escobar and Moose have been among the few bright spots this year.
Brian Grant
11 months, 3 weeks agoGood points Bob. Perhaps we can agree that Yost seems to excel at “macro managing”, that is, managing the overall baseball operation of his players….yet can struggle at “micro managing”, making the correct moves in the moment that give the Royals the best chance to win that day.
That’s not a criticism, really. Only the few elite managers excelled at both.
Jim Kissane
11 months, 3 weeks agoFor the past year and a half, I’ve said Esky is my shortstop even if he goes hitless. His RBIs are in his glove. So if he gets power-happy, just send him up there without a bat! (Kidding, of course, and I’m sure he’s more concerned about keeping his BA around .300 than he is about his Josh Hamilton impressions.)
Sean Fite
11 months, 3 weeks agomlb.com showed yesterday’s game as their “free” game, so i was able to watch the entire game. the Rays’ announcers spoke a lot about the Royals young players and the good things they were doing on the field. they seemed impressed with what we have.
Escobar’s HR was hammered! it was a “no-doubt” 413 foot shot that looked sweet off his bat. his swing just looks great right now.
Bob Forer
11 months, 3 weeks agoBrian: Good way to put it. Although I am not around the club house (and here Lee would have much more insight) I think Yost does a very decent job of creating and maintaining a decent atmosphere and chemistry on the team.
Yeah, I have raised my eyebrows at some of his game calls. I think he bunts a little too much and we’ve also run ourselves out of a game or two. But after the Hillman debacle, a few questionable calls I can live with. I don’t think he is close to the disaster of a manger Trey was. Still remember opening day a few years back when Hillman let Professor Farnsworth pitch to Thome in the ninth inning of the opening game. A fastball pitcher against a fastball home run hitter. Not surprisingly, Thome went park.
And Jim, you are spot on. Esky’s glove alone makes him our everyday shortstop. I don’t think he will keep up the hot bat, and he certainly hasn’t reached the Ozzie Smith level, at least not yet. But let’s not forget that The Wizard rode a .262 career BA all the way to the Hall of Fame.
Escobar has the markings of a great one.
Luke Healy
11 months, 3 weeks agoI’ve heard the line about esky batting better at the bottom of the order, but as you pointed out, he doesn’t have that many PAs near the top of the order. Sure there is the tendency to not want to change a good thing—but wouldn’t you want to get him more ABs with the way he is hitting?
And it isn’t just a hot streak—he hit well last year too. It looks like he can put up good numbers consistently. It’s not the biggest of deals, but his numbers fit really well for what you might want in the 2 spot (except for the lack of walks). Wouldn’t now be the time to try to make the adjustment and let him push through if he struggles there a bit at first? Let him learn to where he can be a threat in the heart of the order?
Jim Kissane
11 months, 3 weeks agoInteresting discussion about batting order, and I’m surprised at the disparity in performance. Surprised, but not disbelieving - Gordon was obviously uncomfortable anywhere but in the leadoff spot.
Thing is, in an American League lineup, batting order is rather immaterial except for the first inning. The way I look at it, with Gordon leading off, we start the game with the meat of the batting order (he’s got more pop than a traditional leadoff hitter, like Esky or Dyson would be). Then when we get around to the No. 8 hole, we’re back to a more traditional batting order with Esky and Dyson, except that our “top of the order” is at the bottom.
In a National League lineup, yes, I would be tempted to shuffle things around, but we play so rarely in NL parks I don’t know that it’s worth it.
Gaines Arnold
11 months, 3 weeks agoExcellent point Brian. Yost has done well at the macro things, but the micro got him fired with the Brewers. He was also a great macro-manager there.
Curtis Ruder
11 months, 3 weeks agoThe discussion of Yost’s handling of Escobar last season brings up an important point that probably doesn’t get mentioned enough: the actual decisions made within a game are significant, but they probably are a relatively small part of what the manager of a baseball team needs to do. Any particular decision to pinch hit or bring in a reliever, walk a guy, or position the defense probably doesn’t affect the outcome of the game as often as we like to believe. We talk a lot about these because they are the most visible decision a manager makes.
But he also needs to decide who needs a day off mentally or physically. He has to manage his coaches; he has to structure each day to give his team the best chance to play well that night. He has to know when to soothe a guy and when to kick his rear. All of those decisions are largely ignored by us because we don’t get to see them.
I don’t really have an opinion as to whether or not Yost or any other manager is particularly good or bad at any of these things.
Bob Forer
11 months, 3 weeks agoCurtis, for what it’s worth, I read someplace that the SABER guys studied the issue and concluded that during a full season, in-game managerial decisions affect the outcome of no more than three to four games.
Gaines Arnold
11 months, 3 weeks agoBob, it would be interesting to see how that 3 or 4 game outcome was determined. It does seem, using the mostly unreliable eye test, that managers do not make a very great difference during a game. However, that 3 or 4 games could easily be the difference between the going to the post season or going home. I will have to look up that SABR study though.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 3 weeks agoJim K -
You make a good point that batting order doesn’t matter quite as much in the AL as it does in the NL, but it still matters quite a bit in terms of plate appearances.
The 2-spot in the Royals lineup came to the plate 753 times last year. The 8-spot came to the plate 639 times. Plus a hitter who gets on in the 2-spot is more likely to score because he’s got better hitters following than the batter in the 8-spot.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks agoVery good, Brendan. Good hitters earlier, assuming they have the speed to not clog up the bases for the good hitters after them, the reason why Billy isn’t a lead off hitter.
Tom Roesler
11 months, 3 weeks agoJim K.-
Be careful…there are some stats guys around here who will tell you that the stats/charts show that Escobar is not all that good defensively. They might take exception to your statement “his RBI’s are in his glove.”
I am not one of those guys. Esky’s been a freak on the field since he’s been here and AWESOME to see what he’s doing at the plate. I love guys that come to work every day and work hard to get better.
William Wolfe
11 months, 3 weeks agoI’d rather have a fat guy on base clogging up the basepaths than a speedy guy who can’t get on base. Billy Butler’s a better leadoff man than Joey Gathright in other words. (Doesn’t mean Alex shouldn’t lead off, don’t me wrong). I think the key point someone raised is number of PAs and the clogging the basepaths argument doesn’t hold much water for me. If the basepaths are clogged, that’s good. Better than empty.
Thayne Griffin
11 months, 3 weeks agoJust read this article on Wil Myers (it’s pretty good): http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/futures-game/2012/2613620.html
Raises the question to me that if he gets the call soon, will he take this offseason off again thinking he had made it?
Hate that we have an off day today after the sweep..
Jim Kissane
11 months, 3 weeks agoBrendan and Jim - no question about the PA differential, but it may be something the Royals have to live with. We’ve already seen that AG leading off is vastly superior than AG hitting anywhere else. Similarly, you don’t want to push BB or Moose down in the order or you’ll cost them PAs. That leaves the 2-hole, where Esky is absolutely awful (granted, small sample size).
As Luke suggests, it may warrant some experimentation, but that’s the kind of thing that’s best handled in Spring Training. You can really upset rhythms by putting the lineup card in the Cuisinart. Ideally, it becomes a moot point because I can visualize (rephrase, I expect…) just about everyone in this lineup to hit .290 or higher.
Bob Forer
11 months, 3 weeks agoTom, Any mathematical model that does not pass what I call the “common sense” test is imho, worthless. In other words, once we view the numbers and what they purport to tell us, we have an obligation to ask ourselves, “are those conclusions consistent with our sensory perceptions?”
I watch a lot of baseball, and any suggestion that Escobar is deficient defensively is utter hogwash. In fact, the saber guys themselves acknowledge that their fielding stats leave a lot to be desired.
You’re right. Esky is a FREAK on the field. Damn the charts and numbers. We know what we see.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Billy Butler’s a better leadoff man than Joey Gathright in other words.”
Gathright isn’t in the conversation and Alex is a high isoOBP as well as reasonably fast and a good base runner. The original line up this year had Big Bill 4th, after Alex, ??, and Hosmer, 1,2, and 3 all being faster that Bill, a good compromise.
“the clogging the basepaths argument doesn’t hold much water for me. If the basepaths are clogged, that’s good.”
As I recall, Butler went 1st to 3rd on a single twice last year. Billy clogged the paths just fine the first half of last year and didn’t score or drive in many runs. Baseball, unlike fantasy, is a heavily contextual game and Billy on 1st usually requires the creation of three more batter bases to score him. I think it was Paul Splittorff, by way of Lee maybe, who said that he didn’t consider Butler on 2nd to be a runner in scoring position. That’s clogging the bases. He looks a little quicker this year, so that helps, and he seems to be buying into conditioning, so another step or two should be possible next year.
Bob Forer
11 months, 3 weeks agoI think we all agree that Billy clogs the bases. But he hits for both power and average so his lack of speed is an acceptable trade off.
Terry Payne
11 months, 3 weeks agoCan’t we all just get along?
Opinions are like certain orrifices: everybody has one.
Let’s get behind these guys playing their gloves off, stop analyzing every little thing they do, and root for them.
Pretty sure I misspelled “orrifices,” but am willing to admit it.
I am so old that I can recognize this team as the same one that emerged in the early ‘70’s: One or two bright stars, one or two guys on the rise, a couple good pitchers figuring out how to pitch on the MLB level.
I can remember lying awake late at night, listening to those West Coast play-by-plays, hoping that the team that emerged from these contests was a team we could count on for years to come:
Western Division champs: 1976-1978, AL champs, 1980. Western Division champs, 1984, World Series champions, 1985.
Sure, it’s been a dry spell, but those teams were not dreamed up: they were the result of great scouting and years of intuition.
Who is to say this current team cannot rise up and surprise the s**t out of the American League?
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 3 weeks agoTom’s caricature of stats: “there are some stats guys around here who will tell you that the stats/charts show that Escobar is not all that good defensively.”
Stats: Current AL Central shortstops by UZR (2010-2012):
Alexei Ramirez (CHW): 21.8 runs above average
Alcides Escobar (KCR): 8.3 runs above average
Jhonny Peralta (DET): 7.4 runs above average
Brian Dozier (MIN): 3.4 runs below average
Asdrubal Cabrera (CLE): 22.3 runs below average
Current AL Central shortstops by Dewan Runs Saved (2010-2012):
Alexei Ramirez (CHW): 27 runs above average
Alcides Escobar (KCR): 12 runs above average
Jhonny Peralta (DET): 2 runs above average
Asdrubal Cabrera (CLE): average
Brian Dozier (MIN): 6 runs below average
Obviously, the defensive stats aren’t perfect. They don’t even fully agree with one another (on Asdrubal Cabrera, for example). And I don’t think that Escobar has been as bad this year as the advanced stats say or Gordon as good this year as the advanced stats say. But I do think Escobar has been worse this year than last. He’s getting to fewer balls and committing more errors.
But far more important is that I don’t watch enough White Sox games to be able to compare Escobar and Alexei Ramirez. If the stats say that Ramirez is that much better over the last three seasons, I don’t have any basis to disagree with them, and I doubt anyone else is watching enough WGN to form a basis for disagreement either.
Sam Miles
11 months, 3 weeks agoJim F. -
“Good hitters earlier, assuming they have the speed to not clog up the bases for the good hitters after them, the reason why Billy isn’t a lead off hitter.”
I think we can agree that you want your best hitters early in the lineup regardless of speed. And that, all other things equal, you’d rather have the faster good hitters up higher.
Billy isn’t the leadoff hitter for a lot of reasons, but that he’s slow is maybe the least important one. More important factors are that Gordon is a better fit there, and that Billy’s power isn’t best utilized following the bottom of the lineup.
The most important things a leadoff hitter can do is get on base, and Billy does that. Leading off would also give him 60 or so more PAs over the course of the year.
Just because he isn’t best served in that spot doesn’t mean his base clogging ways are why.
Thayne Griffin
11 months, 3 weeks agoWell said, Brendan. UZR absolutely loves Gordo beyond my comprehension and doesn’t like Escobar in the opposite way (in my opinion). But I never watch the ChiSox (I hate them almost as much as NYY!) to compare him on a daily basis.
I am surprised at the enormous difference on Asdrubal (the few times I have seen him, I’m more on Dewan’s side though - granted, it is a small sample size).
Heard Cubs are looking to trade Dempster for prospects and are willing to eat some of the money on his contract. Any idea what an average ERA change from NL to AL is or what it would take to get him (not saying we should, just wondering)?
“More important factors are that Gordon is a better fit there, and that Billy’s power isn’t best utilized following the bottom of the lineup.”
Because of his speed. Alex can score from 1st on Bill’s double, Big Bill can’t often score from 1st on a double. Butler has a hard time scoring from 1st on a triple. Gordon is where he belongs, Billy hitting fourth is where he belongs, following Hosmer and ahead of Moose so pitchers can’t work around him like they did when he was followed by Treanor.
“Heard Cubs are looking to trade Dempster for prospects and are willing to eat some of the money on his contract.”
35 year old borderline ace, having a good year, but shoulder issues, last year of a $13mil/yr contract, FA after this season. Might trade Giavotella for three months of him.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 3 weeks agoCraig Brown of Royals Authority takes over on Royals Review this week, and he’s got a good article up looking at the defensive numbers for the Royals ranging from the most basic (balls fielded) to the most advanced (DRS and UZR).
Good stuff for anyone interested in Royals defense and defensive metrics, and there are some good additional links in the comments.
http://www.royalsreview.com/2012/6/28/3123700/black-holes-and-second-basemen
Paul Johnson
11 months, 3 weeks agoSo based on what everyone is saying about having your better hitters (and by that I don’t just mean batting avg. but also on-base percentage), WHY is Betancourt batting 2nd and Escobar 7th, 8th, or 9th? Seems like it should be pretty easy for Ned to figure out it should be the other way around.
Paul Johnson
11 months, 3 weeks agoSorry, that should be “having your better hitters (sic) higher in the batting order …”
Jim Kissane
11 months, 3 weeks agoBob, I agree wholeheartedly. You call it the “common sense” test, I call it my “BS detector” - does the same thing. If what I’m hearing doesn’t match what I’m seeing, my nose usually detects it ;-)
My son and I have seen almost every game, either together or separately. We’ll comment on plays Esky makes that no other shortstop in baseball makes (and yes, it’s too early at this point to bring up The Wizard, but we’ll see how this plays out in 15 years or so). We do the same thing when comparing Getz to Yuni (usually with the observation, “Yuni doesn’t get to that one.”).
And the stats will never be able to drill down on defensive stats (and they still have a way to go on offensive stats, too, IMHO). Too many nuances. Saw this over the weekend: Allen Craig hits a big hop grounder in the hole between Moose and Esky. Moose has to stretch to reach it in front of Esky because Craig is fast enough to beat it out. Moose takes the play, runner out. Innings later, sharp grounder to the hole, Moose would have to stretch to get this one too, but the runner is Tony Pena, the Cardinal catcher, so Moose lets Esky make the play, runner out.
Stats will show Moose got to one, didn’t get to the other. BS detector activated and armed, Sir.
BTW, remember early in the season when Moose and Esky got their wires crossed on a play like that, Moose misplayed it and cost the Royals a run (and the game, if memory serves). Well, that’s been fixed.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Craig Brown of Royals Authority takes over on Royals Review this week”
That should help, Craig and Clark at least put some effort into their work. Been reading them for a few years now. They have the right POV for that niche. Still think you and Mark should be contributing there.
William Wolfe
11 months, 3 weeks agoSam Miles, the voice of reason. Now that Billy’s finally showing his power, he shouldn’t be the leadoff man, but what if he never did and still hit his 10 homers or whatever he used to hit. Dude’s an OBP machine. More guys on base = more runs. Simple as that. Those 2004 Red Sox were full of base cloggers, and it’s not like Johnny Damon was the only guy who scored runs.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Dude’s an OBP machine.”
He does get worked around quite a bit. That’s respect for his hitting and often has something to do with the guy in the on-deck circle. Early half of last year he was over .400 OBP, but didn’t create many runs walking down to 1st as Matt Treanor and others came to the plate. Matt Treanor had a high OBP and wasn’t much for scoring and driving in.
“More guys on base = more runs.”
Royals are 18th in OBP, 24th in R, 16th in SLG, 24th in HR, 16th in wOBA, 27th BB %. Perhaps not so simple.
Larry Tindle
11 months, 3 weeks agoOn a lighter side,,William if that picture is really you,,you are old.
William Wolfe
11 months, 3 weeks agoPlease raise your hand if you disagree with the statement that more guys on base = more runs. I don’t even know how to argue with that. So I’ll let MLB do it for me. Someone else can run a linear regression for me, but just go down the list I’ve linked to which is the final 2011 team stats, sorted by runs scored and compare OBP down the list. Notice a pattern? I sure do. The OBP generally goes down as you move down the list of runs scored. I wonder why… Oh but I’m sorry, there I go with my silly Fangraphs arguments. Otherwise known as facts. Guess that’s just my niche.
http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp#sectionType=st&playerType=QUALIFIER&statType=hitting&pagetype=SortablePlayer&season=2011&seasontype=ANY&sportCode=’mlb’&leaguecode=’MLB’&split=&teamid=&activesw=&gametype=’R’&position=&sortOrder=’desc’&sortColumn=r&results=&page=1&perPage=50&timeframe=&extended=0&lastxdays=&ts=1340919947143&elem=%5Bobject+Object%5D&tablevel=child&clicktext=Sortable+Team+hitting
Gaines Arnold
11 months, 3 weeks agoJim, not sure what you mean by “at least [they] put some effort into their work.” Is that a dig at Will McDonald, Jeff Zimmerman, Matt Klaassen, Scott McKinney or any of the others who have written very informative and well-researched articles at that site? I agree that Craig, Clark and Nick are a good group of new writers, but their addition is at the expense of a great writer. Of course, they do come down kind of hard on you and Lee. Maybe that is the reason for the comment. Although, I will say that I enjoy reading most of Lee’s words and even find you somewhat knowledgeable.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Please raise your hand if you disagree with the statement that more guys on base = more runs.”
Royals numbers for the year make a nice argument. Better correlation seems to HR and BB%, which themselves correlate to each other.
Gaines Arnold
11 months, 3 weeks agoGreat point William. No arguments here with the logic of that statement or the data presented. “Clogging the bases” I almmost fall out of my chair anytime I see anyone seriously put that in as a basis for anything.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Of course, they do come down kind of hard on you and Lee.”
Frenemies, do a nice job of driving eyeballs, sometimes come over here en masse to vent. I get mentioned quite often over there. So what’s your screen name there so I can check you out when I drop by?
Thayne Griffin
11 months, 3 weeks agoSince the linear regression was asked for and I have software just for that I ran the numbers Williams and Jim wanted.
William’s argument (OBP=runs) Using the formula of Runs = constant + x*OBP, the formula explains 60% of runs (with OBP being a significant variable).
Jim’s argument (HR and BB rate) Using the formula of runs = constant + xHR + yBB, the formula explains only 52% with BB being an insignificant explanatory variable.
If anything wants to be added or compared, I have the software and it’s quite quick and easy to use. With more variables, I would use adjusted r-squared instead of r-squared for the amount of variance explained however. Also, the data may not be linear, but I do not really want to take the time to find that out as it can be time consuming testing for logs, exponential, etc..
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks agoGood work, Thayne, although I was just pointing out similarity of rankings. Regressions are well beyond my educational level.
Is there a better stat with higher correlation, SLG or wOBA maybe, or is it a matter of some two stats together yielding a higher percentage than other two stats, perhaps moneyball’s hr and obp? Nice to see original work.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago““Clogging the bases” I almmost fall out of my chair anytime I see anyone seriously put that in as a basis for anything.”
Been kicking around an idea of where we might disagree and I think some of it is that I don’t think all walks are created equal and that a walk to Billy may not be worth a walk to Escobar, as an example. OBP is good, obviously, but base-clogging “speed” is a factor in ultimate value. Just the latest installment of Grand Average Stats v some semblance of specificity.
Thayne Griffin
11 months, 3 weeks agoI have thought about it, and there should be NO constant as a team can’t have negative runs, that being said. Of the following statistics of team data I have for this season so far (Hits, 2b, 3b, hr, ba, obp, ops, bb, slg), SLG has the most effect on runs scored, explaining 68% of the variability in a team’s amount of runs scored (OPS explains 62%, showing some flaws in using one variable when OPS = SLG + OBP).
That said, with a coefficient of 803.5144, a raise of 0.010 in SLG results in 8.035144 more runs for a team per about 76 games (how many most teams have played). Standard Error of 20.72.
And if people want to point of flaws in this methodology, that is fine, I know they exist, I just don’t want to take the time to fix them.
Jim,
I’ll look into wOBA and other SABR stats in a bit and post them later.
Brian Rose
11 months, 3 weeks agoButler has 18 home runs so far THIS year, i think that was about what he had all of last year. When was the last time a Royal hit 25 home runs in a seaon? what about 35 in a season? Clogging the bases? Really?? kind of like my Ferrari that gets bad gas milage… ;) I thik what we should complain about are the people behind Billy not able to hit more doubles.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks agoNo hurry, Thayne, just wondering if any one stat is most correlative rather than runs being a function of the interplay of several stats plus some information we don’t have, like a weighting for speed. SLG seems intuitively right, since it gets into bases created rather than treating a walk as equal to a home run. On the rankings above from fg, SLG, wOBA, and OBP are within two spots, 16th, 16th, and 18th, but all are well above R at 24th.
Brendan did some nice work awhile back on base running efficiency affecting runs scored. That is surely part of the equation, as would be base runner speed leading to bases advanced on a batter’s BIP.
Nice work, appreciate the effort. I envy your skills:)
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“I think what we should complain about are the people behind Billy not able to hit more doubles.”
That would get Billy to 3rd:)
“Butler has 18 home runs so far THIS year,”
One commentator predicted Big Bill as 30 HR, 110 RBI, and .290 BA this year, based on his change of approach, swing, and conditioning since last mid year. His last 365 days are .291/28/109 in 152 games old school, .291/.341/.499 for the young, hip and happenin’.
“kind of like my Ferrari that gets bad gas milage… ;)”
More like an old two-ton farm truck, lot of torque, just chugs along:)
Gaines Arnold
11 months, 3 weeks agoJim, the comment about clogging the bases being funny was not directed just at you, but at anyone who uses it. My issue with it, and most of the RR and SABR crowd that disagree with it, is that ANY runner is a potential run. The fact that Billy is slow does play a part in the amount of actual runs he may generate, but it would be an interesting study to see exactly how many he loses because he is slow. My assumption would be that he generates more runs than someone who is much faster (Dyson for example) because of his abilities as a hitter. My handle at RR is hopefulguise. I do not comment much because I rarely have the time, but I read that site because of the knowledge propounded there.
Gaines Arnold
11 months, 3 weeks agoBTW Brian, unless we are counting Spring training HR, Billy has 15 this year.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“ANY runner is a potential run.”
Agree.
“it would be an interesting study to see exactly how many he loses because he is slow”
Things that stick out are his 1st to 3rd on singles, twice last year as I recall, and 1st to home on a double. Bill’s speed pretty much requires the creation of three more bases by batters behind him, station to station ball.
Esky and Billy have similar OBPs, 28 Rs, and 13 more of Bill’s come from HRs, Billy being driven in 13 times this year. That may suggest a speed premium, both in Esky’s 11 extra SBs and in Esky’s ability to score from 2nd on a single and 1st on doubles. Moustakas, faster than Bill and with similar OBP, has 37 Rs often hitting behind Billy. Hosmer has scored 1 more R and with a .290 OBP. Theoretically it should be possible to work up speed factors, but that’s way beyond my math skills. I’ll think about it and see if I can get a matchbook cover idea.
“I read that site because of the knowledge propounded there.”
They have some good stuff. Craig’s piece today was quite good. I also read fangraphs and much of Rany’s stuff, especially his studies. Anymore I check Pine tar Press first for the minor league reports, then Bob Dutton, then Judging the Royals, then Kings of Kauffman, because I like Mike and several of his writers. I tend to hit news sites before opinion.
Glad you have time to drop by. Appreciate that.
Brian Rose
11 months, 3 weeks agoThanks for correction on home runs. Heard it tv yesterday and thought it sounded high. Had a case of da lazies and didn’t look it up. Still would be cool if he hit 30 this year. He really looks good up there making himself dangerous late in the game. Gonna check out softball game at k for all star game. Heard bo jackson is playing. Would love to see him whack a softball and break an aluminum bad on his knee.
Larry Tindle
11 months, 3 weeks agoAmerican League East best division in baseball…bull crap. Three teams could not beat the 3 Central teams that are ahead of us.
There I vented and feel better.
William Wolfe
11 months, 3 weeks agoAsk and ye shall receive…Baseball Prospectus tracks baserunning in many fun ways. Included are advancing 1st to 3rd on singles, tagging up on flys, etc. etc. It basically compares an individual to the average and quantifies it with “runs”. So this is exactly what is being discussed. And as each of us could have guessed, Billy Butler’s not very good. There are only 8 players in the ML with worse baserunning stats overall—Matt Wieters is the worst. The area where he is absolutely awful is advancing on basehits, again consistent with Jim’s observations. Other interesting notes: Escobar is also the worst at that type of baserunning, but overall he’s an average baserunner. The difference between worst (Butler) and best (Getz) is about 5 runs, or half a win per season. So really not the end of the world. I looked at team baserunning as well since there have been so many boneheaded plays this year…some call it aggressive, some call it heat of the moment, some call it stupid. We are the worst baserunning team in the Majors (we’re #1!). Here are the components: advancing on grounders 20th, stolen base efficiency 26th, advancing on balls in the air 17th, advancing on hits 27th. Overall we’re 15 runs behind 1st place, 7 from average. So that’s .7 - 1.5 wins a year from our baserunning. Doesn’t tell you who’s to blame but as a collective team our eyes do not deceive us, we suck at baserunning.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 3 weeks agoVery good stuff William. I hadn’t seen those Baseball Prospectus stats before.
As the youngest team in baseball, the Royals ought to be about the fastest team in baseball, so to be the worst at baserunning has to reflect just taking poor risks. I guess the optimistic case is that it’s something that can be corrected and improve the team’s baserunning going forward, but it’s clear that the team has been hurting itself through overaggressiveness.
Brian Grant
11 months, 3 weeks agoAnyone else worried about us going up to Minnesota and losing 3 out of 4?
In years past, when our team looked like it was getting ready to turn a corner, and had an “easy stretch” coming up, they almost always blew it.
I think this is a HUGE series. If we take 3 out of 4, we legitimize ourselves as a .500 team (step 1 to competing). We go up and lose 3 or more to an inferior opponent…and it’s same old Royals.
Also…if Duffy had been healthy all year, do you guys think we’d be .500 right now? I think it’s a distinct possibility.
Tom Roesler
11 months, 3 weeks agoWhere did Babe Ruth rank in base running statistics?
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Doesn’t tell you who’s to blame but as a collective team our eyes do not deceive us, we suck at baserunning.”
Good effort, William. Gives some numbers to Brendan’s ideas and, I think gives at least some of the missing variables in why Royals’ Rs trail other offensive stats.
“We go up and lose 3 or more to an inferior opponent…and it’s same old Royals.”
There’s more than one way to be a .500 team. Twins have also been playing better and will face our #4&5 starters, as well as Chen and Hoch, so almost anything could happen. Can you imagine what Tampa fans are saying about dropping three to a losing opponent in the weakest division in baseball? I’m sure demands are being made for the manager’s head and gripes about the low payroll and unwillingness to sign big free agents.
Sam Miles
11 months, 3 weeks agoBoy, people sure are worked up about going first-to-third on singles here!
The fact of the matter is, in hopes of not being a station-to-station team, the Royals have turned mid-level scoring indicators into fewer runs than would be expected.
How are they doing it? Bad base running, partly.
We should be so lucky as to have a few more base cloggers on this team…guys that Ned doesn’t feel need to take the extra base with.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Where did Babe Ruth rank in base running statistics?”
Babe Ruth had Lou Gehrig batting behind him, as well as the rest of Murderer’s Row. Base running is more or less important based on the production of the rest of the team. Baseball is funny about contextual stuff like that.
“We should be so lucky as to have a few more base cloggers on this team…guys that Ned doesn’t feel need to take the extra base with.”
Interesting question, would the Royals be better off with another Alex or another Big Bill? Another Moose or another Billy? Another Escobar or another Butler? I use those three as they all have similar OBPs, the main difference being speed.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks agoSince Babe Ruth was invoked, he was 6‘2, 215lbs, played 22 seasons, his first five also pitching with 95 games his most in those seasons.
His career batting stats were .342/714/2217.
He had 506 2B, 136 3B, 2174 R, 123 SB, 117 CS, for a net +6 SB:) That Yankee manager must have been an idiot. He walked 2062 times and struck out 1330 times. He was hit by pitch 43 times.
His career slash was .342/.474/.690. His career fWAR was 177.7.
Comparing to Butler, numbers of triples and near parity of RBIs and runs suggests that Ruth may have been quite a bit faster.
Thayne Griffin
11 months, 3 weeks agoJust heard this… Sporting KC CEO Robb Heinemann said he would “pick up the phone” if Royals called wanting to sell.
Not trying to fuel rumors, but has anyone heard anything of glass wanting to sell? Possible foreshadowing?
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks agoDave Glass has no interest in selling, according to him, but people like Heinemann and other business owners seem to be pushing the rumors. If I had the money, now would be the time to buy, look like a genius as the team breaks out. I do doubt that these CEOs have the money. I’ve heard the Padres will sell for around $800 million. That is serious money.
Sam Miles
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Interesting question, would the Royals be better off with another Alex or another Big Bill? Another Moose or another Billy? Another Escobar or another Butler? I use those three as they all have similar OBPs, the main difference being speed.”
Jim - I’m almost sure you mean strictly after they get on the bases, because prior to then, you’d much rather have Butler. Obviously. Once you’re on the bases, you’d want the better speed. You know this.
Of course, that’s assuming management isn’t running them into outs, which the Royals have been.
The real question is whether or not the Royals would be better off being more cautious on the base paths. The numbers seem to say so. I appreciate when Lee points out the extra bases we do take successfully, but even those aren’t making up for the outs we’re giving away. (It should be said that they have seemed to improve their judgement as the year has worn on…)
Jim Wilson
11 months, 3 weeks agoBrendan, the numbers cited by William indicate poor base running, not necessarily over aggressive base running. We are right at MLB average for attempted steals, but our success rate is below average. We do a poor job of advancing in the enumerated situations — whether because of a lack of speed, being too conservative (see study cited by Jim F.) or just not being good base runners (picking the wrong siturations, for example). To state the obvious, good base running involves much more than just pure speed (although speed doesn’t hurt :))
Jim Wilson
11 months, 3 weeks agoOkay, not really a “study” but a series of three articles. Here’s a link to the third article int he series:
http://sportsinreview.com/blog/?p=1577
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Jim - I’m almost sure you mean strictly after they get on the bases”
It can mean that or total package. The speed of the other three also allows them to play positions well and the OBP indicates they are currently getting on base at similar rates, so there is no sacrifice of OBP for the speed, which seems to score more often, as the three have all been driven in by others than self quite a bit more than Bill. The speed also enhances OBP, Gordon and Escobar both getting quite a few infield hits.
My primary question is if it’s possible to assign a speed factor to players to weight the worth of OBP to a particular player as far as his impact on runs actually being scored. At heart, is a walk to Billy worth as much as a walk to Dyson in any instance? If not, then perhaps a “wOBP” should be considered.
“Jim, not sure what you mean”
Gaines, thanks for the free publicity over there. Extend my congratulations to Craig, Clark, and Nick for the nice pieces. Remind the other guy that I was very nice to him when he came by here, twice. Imagine the reception I would get if allowed to drop by there:)? Give my regards to KCDC1.
Ben Reid
11 months, 3 weeks ago“…Any mathematical model that does not pass what I call the “common sense” test is…worthless. …once we view the numbers and what they purport to tell us, we have an obligation to ask ourselves, “are those conclusions consistent with our sensory perceptions?”
Normally this is the type of thing I’d ignore, and in a “strictly baseball” context, it doesn’t bother me much, but the academic in me can’t let this one go. The suggestion that, after reviewing a dataset, you can simply disregard it if it doesn’t confirm your biases is, totally irresponsible. The world-view that such an approach informs is irresponsible and problematic.
I understand the frustration with the way that some of the advanced defensive metrics have evaluated Escobar. If you haven’t read the comments section on Craig’s write-up for Royals Review, then you’re missing a lot of good content that would likely surprise you in terms of the depth of the skepticism exhibited re: UZR and DRS. The conversation is pretty empathetic with your complaints about the UZR/DRS metrics for Escobar, albeit more responsibly.
This brings me to my larger point. In a strictly academic sense, there is a proper way and improper way to confront the results of data regressions. Questions about the archaic inputs and referents that comprise the datasets for some metrics are valid, and, in this sense, provide an avenue for methodological criticism that is worthwhile and productive. Often, a study can be demonstrated inaccurate simply by way of a robust criticism process that demonstrates problems with the original literature/data review. What is unconscionable, however, is to simple disregard a set of metrics because they don’t coalesce with your own limited, subjective perception. There is a proper way, and there are many improper ways to confront “objective” information, but Bob, you don’t simply get to replace broadly observable information in favor of creating your own reality.
Be skeptical of objective studies, sure, because often “objective” studies have inherent biases that are problematic when viewed in the parallax. Learn about the referents and the models, and evaluate context. Fine. That’s healthy. That’s productive. But to say “that doesn’t confirm what I believe to be true, it must be wrong” is an attitude which is insidious—it filters into every part of our life. It creates bad policy, it creates bad discourse, and it can perpetuate real problems.
I don’t mean to jump down your throat because I think there’s an off-chance (and I certainly hope it’s true) that you’re speaking in a specific context, and your statements don’t have as broad a bearing on your larger worldview as seems implicit. That said, these types of comments inform my understanding of much of the dispute between “stats” folks and “non-stats” folks in a way that does not reflect positively on the “non-stats”, and also just generally makes me uneasy from the perspective of someone who sees an all-too-common public willingness to ignore facts in favor of confirming a pre-existing belief structure that may be wildly inaccurate.
/rant.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“The suggestion that, after reviewing a dataset, you can simply disregard it if it doesn’t confirm your biases is, totally irresponsible.”
Ben, sometimes the eyeballs tell us that there are factors not yet quantifiable and included in data sets.
Stats are an evolutionary form, BA giving way to OBP, then wOBA, then something else. PitchFX and FieldFX were created to try to get statistically closer to what the eyes could see since Walter Johnson or whoever threw the first curveball that was long considered to be impossible and nothing more than an optical illusion even through hitters knew it was real and hard to hit. FieldFX is to create zero point defensive measurements, replacing pie-slices, buckets, and zones and replacing soft or hard with 20mph or 95mph.
Very good post, thanks for the effort and the insight, welcome:)
Ben Reid
11 months, 3 weeks agoI don’t disagree at all, Jim. It can be worthwhile to make subjective observations, but those subjective observations are (generally) only valuable when they’re made with a certain deference to data. There’s always context that, at some level, fails to be accounted for in objective measures. The problem I had with what Bob (and by extension Jim K.) said is that it implies a logic that, rather than using subjective judgement and analysis to further an understanding of the data or create a rational methodological criticism (again, I think the discussion at RR today about the potential problems with UZR data compilation is a good example of this), simply chooses ignore the data because it doesn’t confirm presupposition.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks agoI read RR’s piece, quite good. Even enjoyed the Getz snark and invocation of my name.
One thing that I would remind of is that this is a message board and most of us are guilty of taking a literary shortcut, often because we’re texting while driving:) The long version might be: “Stat A seems to think Hosmer’s defense is as bad as Yuni’s. My eyes tell me differently. I’ll believe my eyes in this case while pondering why the same stat recognizes Alex and Moose as quite good, which I agree with. I respect the effort and good will involved in trying to quantify a game played by humans and hope they keep getting better at it.”
Thanks.
Ed Bartel
11 months, 3 weeks agoI’d like to briefly revisit the idea that Billy “clogs the bases”. I don’t believe there is any such thing as clogging the bases, and here’s why: I think we can all agree that having someone on base is better than not having anyone on base. Further, I think we can all agree that when Billy bats, it is better to have him reach base than to make an out. So the concept of clogging the bases seems to infer that when Billy is on base, he somehow blocks others from advancing. But let’s look a little harder at that. When Billy fails to go from first to third on a single, he isn’t preventing the hitter from going to second. And when he fails to score from first on a double, he doesn’t prevent the hitter from going to third. (Okay, admittedly there might be one time per season that a hitter behind Billy could have had a double or triple, but Billy prevented them from taking the extra base. Maybe.) So the only time Billy might actually cause a runner to not advance as far as they otherwise would is if Billy is on second and there is another runner on first, and Billy failing to score on a single prevents the other runner from going first to third. That’s going to happen, what, maybe three times a season? In almost all other cases, any other baserunners still advance as far as they would if Billy were not on base.
Now, there’s a legitimate gripe that by failing to score from second on a single or first on a double, he prevents the Royals from scoring a run, at least immediately. But the opportunity still exists for the next hitter to drive him home.
So he doesn’t “clog the bases” … there’s no such thing. It only appears that way to us frustrated fans. His slowfootedness does cost the Royals a handful of runs every season, but I’ll gladly pay that price for the way he hits.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks agoThe amount of runs is suggested by how often Billy is driven in by others compared to how often faster players with similar OBPs are driven in by others.
“But the opportunity still exists for the next hitter to drive him home.”
Something the Royals have been very bad at this year. Billy on 3rd doesn’t score often on a sac fly or an infield grounder or even a passed ball. It takes a hit, which the next batter will deliver maybe 3 out of 10 times.
“His slowfootedness does cost the Royals a handful of runs every season, but I’ll gladly pay that price for the way he hits.”
As will the rest of us as long as there isn’t a better option. I would probably trade Billy for another Moose, Esky, or Alex, three players I’ve used for comparisons based on OBP. That would give us a stronger team. Of course, best would be for Billy to work on his foot speed again this off-season. He looks half a step faster than last year and gaining another step would help.
I haven’t meant to be dogging on Big Bill, my favorite player, just exploring the idea of weighting for speed on OBP. I intuitively feel that a walk to Bill isn’t worth as much as a walk to Dyson.
Thanks for the comment.
Sam Miles
11 months, 3 weeks agoJim -
You intuitively feel? Who is arguing that faster players on base is a disadvantage?
And Billy should work on his foot speed? To gain a step?
I think we should probably just be OK with him knocking the cover off the baseball, as he’s doing that pretty well. Trending up, too.
Thanks for the comment, though.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks ago“Who is arguing that faster players on base is a disadvantage?”
Seems quite a bit of discontent with “clogging the bases”.
“And Billy should work on his foot speed? To gain a step?”
A step is surprisingly often the difference between out and safe on plays at 1st most often, other bases enough to note.
“I think we should probably just be OK with him knocking the cover off the baseball, as he’s doing that pretty well. Trending up, too.”
Trends are fairly flat from his mid-summer 2011 change in approach, swing and position in the batting order, but he has been productive in spite of his OBP slump since then.
Sam Miles
11 months, 3 weeks agoNo one here has argued that they wouldn’t rather have a fast runner than a slow runner on. Come on.
Come back with stats for me on Billy Butler being out by a single step, then report back. If it’s not more than a few, it’s not important to worry about.
As for his OBP slump, that’s a fantasy. His current OBP is virtually the same as it has been in every year but 2010.
2009 - .362 2010 - .388 2011- .361 2012 - .357
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 3 weeks agoThe “slump” was brought up last year when Billy changed approach and moved up in the order and dropped from about .400 OBP. It was reported as a joke about a blogger interviewing Big Bill who asked about his “slump”.
Checked fangraphs, Bill’s isoOBP was .049 in ‘08, .061 in ‘09, .070 in ‘10, .070 in ‘11, and .061 this year, after his 3 walks tonight. His last 365 day isoOBP is .050, coinciding with the changes he made.
“No one here has argued that they wouldn’t rather have a fast runner than a slow runner on.”
True, because slow runners clog bases:)
Sam Miles
11 months, 3 weeks agoTwo big OBP months in 2011 is a small sample surge, and do not constitute the norm. You got one wrong…
It’s cool.