Game 12 Open Thread- Twins (6-5) at Royals (6-5)
by Freneau on Apr 13, 2008 12:45 PM EDT
in Events
Email
PrintMinnesota Twins at Kansas City Royals, Apr 13, 2008 2:10 PM EDT
We've seen this story before, as the Royals try to avoid being swept by those pesky Twins. Really not digging the complete offensive decay, and I can only hope that it doesn't inspire Hillman to enact some hardcore small-ballisms, which would be like treating a sore foot by sawing off your leg.
We'll see. Travel again tomorrow for me, so have fun without me.
473 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Francisco Liriano day
The good news is that he looked pretty bad in his two minor league rehab starts. 6.75 ERA, more K's than IP, but lots of walks and hits as well. So, I'm not sure he's major league ready yet. And I'd be shocked if they let him go more than 5 innings.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 12:54 PM EDT reply actions
The Bad News
The Royals offense has looked hapless since the first inning of the close of the Yankees series.
Considering that we made Livan Hernandez and Boof Bonser look like ALCY candidates, i wouldn't be surprised if Liriano shuts us down through 5.
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
They're due
I know that is an ultra-cliche, but clearly they aren't as bad as they've been for the past 3 days. They'll do better than that sometime soon. Why not today?
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you, eventually they will break out
My point, which I should have made more clear, was not that the Royals have a high chance to be shut out, but that all signs thus far point to a less than stellar offense in 2008.
Runs scored this season:
5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 3, 5, 4, 1, 0, 0.
Quite frankly, that is a terrible sign, and while the small sample size holds true I think we were somewhat over-optimistic about our offensive potential prior in the season.
We have an already good and potentially very good pitching staff, but they will need to continue to pitch with close to zero margin for error if we are to realistically think about 4th place or better.
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
Were we overly optimistic?
I think most of us expected an improved offense, but not a "good" offense. I still think we'll have that.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I was close to positive that we would have a league average offense in 2008
Outcome looks doubtful
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
Yeah, I didn't expect that
I don't think most of us did, but I'm not sure.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
But I'm still thinking about 755 runs scored
The average RS prediction from the "Big Prediction Contest" was 766.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Anyone else see this in the Star?
Hillman on Gload...
"Give me 25 guys like Ross Gload, and I’ll take the field against anybody," Hillman said.
"He’s just one of those guys that’ll run into a wall for you. He’s a leader in the clubhouse. Players look up to him."
There are no fancy Bill James-like stats or catchy terms for the value of a player like Gload. But Hillman doesn’t care.
"We don’t need any of those for (Gload)," Hillman said. "Well, if you need to come up with one, it’s called ‘gamer.’ The guy is just a gamer. You win with players like that, and no one will convince me otherwise."
Seems like this would make it really hard to Shealy to come up, barring some kind of energy. I've been happy with Gload thus far, but I don't know if that's going to last.
Also, henceforth, "Gamer" is also an acceptable nickname of Gload.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 1:20 PM EDT reply actions
Oops...
Does not play well with HTML...that whole thing from the Star was supposed to be a blockquote...you get the idea.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Hopefully Moore finds a good replacement in the offseason
Dunn is at the top of my list right now.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Madness, Sheer Madness
Minnesota
AB R H RBI BB K LOB Season Avg
C. Gomez cf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .292
B. Harris 2b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .367
J. Kubel dh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .265
J. Morneau 1b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .222
D. Young lf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .262
M. Lamb 3b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .188
M. Redmond c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000
D. Span rf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .308
A. Everett ss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .095
Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kansas City
AB R H RBI BB K LOB Season Avg
J. Gathright cf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .214
E. German 2b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000
M. Teahen lf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .316
B. Butler 1b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .372
J. Guillen rf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .133
A. Gordon 3b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .311
M. Olivo dh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .111
J. Buck c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .226
T. Pena Jr. ss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .037
Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
We will see German don the tools of ignorance today.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
so....
hillman thinks butler can man the bag. i'm hoping this doesn't make me curse or laugh throughout the afternoon.
olivo, buck, pena.... i suppose hillman's a believer in the "they're due" philosophy
Olivo hammers lefties
Buck hits them pretty well too. And, somebody had to catch today.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The decision no one seems to be questioning
is why the heck are we operating short one outfielder. DeJesus has seen no action for almost two weeks, couldn't he have been put on the 15-day disabled list retroactively, so we have Costa or Hollins or Maier available? Maybe they wouldn't have ended up seeing any action, and I'm sure none of them are better than a Teahen-Gathright-Teahen outfield, but what's the point of keeping DDJ on the active roster as dead weight?
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
I'd rather have DeJesus back in the lineup in less than 15 days
...than to waste a roster spot on a horrible player like Costa, Hollins or Maier.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
But he's already been out almost that long
shouldn't a trainer or team doctor have figured out before this that he's dead roster weight for a while?
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
I'd rather have him out for 14 days and not on the DL
...than waste a roster spot on those guys. How does it hurt us to not have Hollins, Maier or Costa? Gload, Callaspo and German can all play the OF if necessary.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Fine, then call up Shealy
to allow Gload to be an emergency OF. His slow start in AAA notwithstanding, he did decently in Spring Training, and so did Hollins.
My point is, we're short a bat (not necessarily an OF) for no real reason. DDJ could have been put on the DL retroactive to his injury, and 15 days will be up tomorrow or Tuesday (not sure how the date of the injury itself is counted for this).
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
We're short one position player, but it doesn't really hurt us at all
And the addition of Shealy or one of those OFers doesn't really help us. However, getting DeJesus back into the lineup ASAP does help us.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
But Gathright can jump over cars and Japanese pitchers...
that's worth two shane costas, three mitch maiers, and twenty brandon bergers.
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
But seriously, folks
Gathright is better than all of the Omaha options.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
yes Gathright is the better option...
....to start. I just think they are saying it would be valuable to have that person on the bench. To pinch hit or whatever
by 85CardsforLife on Apr 13, 2008 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
It would be different if they were actually valuable bench players
But they aren't. Not any of them.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
are you telling me
that we have no one in triple a worth calling up to take a rosterspot outfielder or otherwise?
by 85CardsforLife on Apr 13, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
We have no one who is more valuable as bench player than DeJesus is getting back ASAP
A week of games on the bench for the AAA player is worth less to the team than DeJesus coming back one or two games before his 15 days would be up.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
When he goes on a hot streak
...will he become your new favorite player?
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not that he hasn't been great
He's just been REALLY bad. It didn't help that he walked through the KC doors and demanded to play RF
by kansasjhawk044 on Apr 13, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Players have bad streaks
It's not particularly uncommon. I could list some good players right now who are on bad streaks, but I won't. It's too obvious.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Probably not. First impressions are everything, and his has sucked.
So I will continually to rag on him irrationally when he hits a hot streak.
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
At least you'll be in the majority
:)
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
This is why baseball players value evenness over a 162-game season
...and not overrreact to individual wins, losses and good and bad stretches.
I probably disagree with you.
Alrighty
Bannister got off to a rough start last week, he'll turn it around. I guess it isn't really his fault we aren't out of this.
Anyone else having trouble with the radio feed on MLB?
instead of the royals feed, I'm getting some Fox Sports radio show. I can get the twins feed, though.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:17 PM EDT reply actions
Yes, They Were
Discussing UCLA basketball when I turned it on. The game feed is still not on.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, they were talking to some Australian baseball player.
Didn't catch his name, but no, it wasn't Huber. Some pitcher.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Liriano had serious control problems in his rehab starts
Let's hope Royals batters wait for him to throw strikes before they swing.
I probably disagree with you.
Unfortunately For You
No.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Why is that unfortunate?
The more the merrier!
by kansasjhawk044 on Apr 13, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm An Idiot
But usually a benign one.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Phil is here
Representin' Alaska!
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
It'll Be Warmer
Here later today than it is at the K.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Here but my slingbox isn't working
so I have no clue what is going on.
Proud father of a budding Royals fan.
If he could do that more often, then he might be a good leadoff man
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
I meant to say 'Will be such a good leadoff man'
by kansasjhawk044 on Apr 13, 2008 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmmmm, hope so
I'm still thinking 4th OFer.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
sacrificing in the first...
well...our anti-scoring offense is at it again...playing for one run in the first inning w/ no one out...
Never giving up on your team is what makes you a good fan.
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Apr 13, 2008 2:25 PM EDT reply actions
agreed
neifi=worst player in game....and butler just gooooot it...one streak continues...another ends
Never giving up on your team is what makes you a good fan.
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Apr 13, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
hit and run
would be more effective w/ a hitter like german
Never giving up on your team is what makes you a good fan.
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Apr 13, 2008 2:26 PM EDT reply actions
It'd Take A
Homer to plate Billy.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe next time....or next week
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Not sure how I feel about that bunt.
Think what it really says is Hillman doesn't trust German to move Gathright over to second, and he REALLY wants Gathright at second for Teahan and Butler.
But you'd think Gathright would be a candidate for a steal, and you wouldn't have to waste an out with German. And if Hillman doesn't trust German in that situation, then why the hell is he batting second?
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:28 PM EDT reply actions
I mean, seriously bad.
three pitches and he's down again? I can't stand this guy's plate approach.
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
I'm guessing it is a spiritual crisis
I think someone should send him some pamphlets about their favorite religion.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Seems like Jaboo isn't helping him hit.
Screw you jaboo, I do it myself.
...sigh...if only...
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe Miss South
Carolina could provide him with a U.S. American map. He is in a new place.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
You can get rid of Emil...
...but apparently you can't immediately cure yourself of "outfielder with an .100 average in April" syndrome.
by andrewmiller on Apr 13, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Bunt single, sac bunt, single by Butler
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Twins scored on an E-9 by Guillen followed by Morneau RBI single
Royals scored on a Gathright infield single, sac bunt, Butler RBI single.
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
He Knew He
Needed a K.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Good point
Nor does he make last night's error.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe TPJ Should
Try switch-hitting. Could it possibly be worse?
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Could be worse, yeah
If he hasn't tried that yet, I probably wouldn't want him to try it now.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
OK, How About
One foot in each box, chopping straight down; no one's tried that yet.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
i'm sorry, that was supposed to read
"i think you might be on something"
This space intentionally left blank.
When you know with every miss that ball is gonna hit you in the crotch...
you tend to hit better.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions
WOW, great play by TPJ
if only we could merge his glove with Alberto's bat
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
Maybe we give them the same jersey number?
And sneak Callespot to the plate once or twice a game and see if anyone notices?
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
The perfect blend
of Carribean flavors.
Finally coming back to the 'K'!!!! I'm going to be there 7/11/08, vs the SEA Mariners, of course!
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Apr 13, 2008 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
A Pena Callaspo
Kinda like a Pina Colada.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Just shortened up on the first pitch...not on the second
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Get ready to get angry.
Throwing things helps.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Span made the same mistake Guillen did.
I'm not entirely defending Guillen, but that wind is really making balls sail left to right and deep.
I probably disagree with you.
The difference is the ball was in Guillen's glove and he dropped it
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
Actually, it hit the heal of his glove
Flies to RF are a bit hard to read today.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Bang bang play
hard to call
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Twinkies Were Penalized
For stupidity.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Olivo is tricky.
Think he's gonna bunt, then WHAM...hits it hard. Then he makes you think he's going to third and SURPISE he's back at second.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:39 PM EDT reply actions
nice oppo hit
looked like he connected... their OF overran the ball, as well.
Finally coming back to the 'K'!!!! I'm going to be there 7/11/08, vs the SEA Mariners, of course!
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Apr 13, 2008 2:39 PM EDT reply actions
why would olivo
1 - bunt with our big rbi guys pena and buck coming up
2 - think he can get three
is anyone keeping track of the number of outs we have made on the basepaths, not counting steals...
Hmmmm...
How many games do you think the Royals will complete on baserunning errors alone this year??
I know I have seen at least 5 errors already this year, including the ugliest slide ever into 2nd by Butler.
Finally coming back to the 'K'!!!! I'm going to be there 7/11/08, vs the SEA Mariners, of course!
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Apr 13, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Sometimes you shorten up to bunt on the first pitch to make the defense think you are going to sac bunt
The fact that he didn't shorten up on the second pitch means the sac bunt was not on.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Gotta Believe He'd
Do that more often if he'd cut down his swing.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Often imitated, never duplicated.
Have a seat, Gomez.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
speaking of gathright impressions
anyone seen that lame Kobe ad where he "jumps" over a car?
This space intentionally left blank.
Someday I hope to a see a
Gomez-Gathright-Tyner outfield, with Juan Pierre as the 4th OF.
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
That Group Could
Take runs off the board.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder when/if the guys at BP will think Bannister is for real
This isn't really meant as a criticism of BP or their particular analytical approach, but Bannister's stats continue to fly in the face of the statistical profile that a successful pitcher should have. When do you think they would/will recognize that Bannister is a statistical anomaly?
I probably disagree with you.
i think banny was maligned more by PECOTA than by the BP writers
but then, i didn't get the book this year -- perhaps they said something negative in the write up?
This space intentionally left blank.
I do remember one of them (Nate Silver, I believe) calling his season a "DIPS-induced fluke"
Such sentiments were not uncommon. They thought he would regress big-time becuase of his BABIP and low K-rate.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Whereas most pitchers don't understand or follow the stats
so they don't realize their good season was a fluke. He realizes the "flukiness" and thus is able to re-create it in a sense.
Rany wrote the Royals section
Other BP writers have been less kind.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Rany wrote in this year's BP annual:
Intelligence may have split the atom and put a man on the moon, but it can't sustain a .264 BABIP. What it can do is sustain a pitcher's ability to pitch above his God-given talent... He's likely to go through some tough times in 2008, but if he can stay one step ahead of the hitters, he'll avoid being a one-year wonder.
Take a little farther...
Maybe banny isn't a statistical anomaly. Maybe his approach is dictating his success, despite his sometimes mediocre "stuff".
In other words, other pitchers could follow the same approach and get similar results.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
That's really what I mean
He has a particular way of succeeding which is atypical. He doesn't follow the most common model of pitcher success.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I've been wondering that as well
Ironically, the ESPN analysts have been the first national outlet to jump on the "Bannister's sage-like pitching savvy outweighs his lack of stuff" wagon.
Probably a good thing that BP is being skeptical, but in a perfect world that should begin wane with each solid start that Banny takes.
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
All ESPN cares about is ERA and wins and losses
So they are easy to win over.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
does the Dodge Buck night
involve our catcher running around the field naked?
This space intentionally left blank.
Royals marketing isn't thinking outside of the box yet
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Come on, you're joking right?
He slipped and lost the ball when he slipped.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
After a replay I see that
I was surfin the net when I heard Paul say that Pena didn't get it. I assumed it was a screw up. I posted too soon. Sorry TPJ
by kansasjhawk044 on Apr 13, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Are you watching the game?
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Then you should know that your criticism of Pena on that play is misplaced
Unless it was just random Pena-bashing. Then it's all good.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
E-6 Taken Off
The board.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
He Needs A
Better choreographer.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Anyone know what Jose is batting with runners on?
I know his AVG is terrible, but it just seems like every time he's up there with a chance to drive in runs every time.
I'm also curious as to how many times he ends an inning, cause again, it seems like he's the third out every time he's up.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 2:59 PM EDT reply actions
Better than his overall numbers...but still bad
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, He Bailed
And left Pena out on the island.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
The Twins announcer commented on the sun as well.
Said it poked out from behind the cloud just as the ball was coming down.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Nefi Perez Can
Do that.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
As we're talking about SS
Does anyone think Angel Berroa will ever make it big again? If not in KC, anywhere?
6 years of French and some German as well.
I lacked Foreign Language forsight, evidently.
Translation???
Finally coming back to the 'K'!!!! I'm going to be there 7/11/08, vs the SEA Mariners, of course!
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Apr 13, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
literally, "the fat guy and the skinny girl"
it's also the name of some terrible talkshow on Univision or the other spanish station
This space intentionally left blank.
I know its still early, but just for fun...
Most likely to reach the All-Star game this year?
Gordon
Butler
Teahan
Bannister
Greinke
Soria
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:06 PM EDT reply actions
Banny and Greinke
those are my bets
Finally coming back to the 'K'!!!! I'm going to be there 7/11/08, vs the SEA Mariners, of course!
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Apr 13, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Butler and Bannister
Soria also perhaps. It's great to have some legitimate options who actually demand consideration.
by andrewmiller on Apr 13, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
gordon or butler will make it...
whoever can sustain this early success longer, probably butler. of course, AL DH is tougher, so maybe gordon will make it instead.
and then i think a pitcher will make it, most likely banny.
Has Pena Learned
To bunt well enough for a squeeze?
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
He Would Have
Tripled last year.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
For some reason, I thought the game was at 4:10
So I missed the end of the drought.
I have no problem showing up to a 3-1 lead, however.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
They are scoring because you weren't watching
Go away! (j/k)
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
buck around second...
(1/4 second pause) - i think to myself (oh crap)
and he's gonna check in there....
whew.
Getting an RBI
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Real answer
Waiting for Moore to work out the best trade possible
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Also Swinging At
Ball 3.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
He was schedule to start today, before Liriano got the call
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
And the bullpen doesn't allow any runs
Unless Nomo pitches
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
You know, Peralta is still in Omaha.......
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
It passed a few days ago. It's time to complain now. And I'm with you.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with 1 out of every 10 things you say
...maybe
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
wow
I ment throw
I kant spel at all todae
by kansasjhawk044 on Apr 13, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll take 4 runs through 4
Maybe we can even score two more and break our record for the year.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
No, This Is
Where the 5 and 6 pitch innings come, traditionally.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Why do I have this nagging feeling
that Guillen is going to be responsible for ending this inning?
Seems like thats the key to a big inning...start the inning with whoever is battering after Jose. That way, we get some runs before his slump kills the inning and doesn't hurt us.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:18 PM EDT reply actions
Spoke too soon.
Disregard first part of that comment, though i still stand by the idea that starting the inning with whoever is hitting after Jose is the key to a big inning.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I would guess 85 is his limit. Just a guess
So 5 innings at most.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
It's possible
I won't seriously consider that until after the ASB, though. Although he really, really looks like a good #2. But it's still early.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
When He's On
You seldom see hitters getting a really good swing.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
just checked in!
hurray for some offense. as always banny looking great, it appears.
most important q: how is butler's defense? anything clunky?
No balls hit to him
Just catching throws from IFers. No problem, nothing difficult so far.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Surprised the Twinkies aren't trying to drag bunt everything down the first base line...
partly for the entertainment factor that would be Billy charging (waddling) down the line...
by Royal Revival on Apr 13, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Should let you all know.
Before the start of the fourth inning, I heated up some ribs for lunch and cracked open a Guinness. After doing so, we score runs.
I think we've found the key to our success. Feel free to thank me at any point.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:23 PM EDT reply actions
Thank you
Keep up the good work. I would suggest Guinness and ribs for every game. I don't care how much weight you gain.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, I'm a team player.
I'll take the hit on this one.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Now THAT is grit
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Best Billboard
Right around the time AB was marketing Mich Ultra Amber.
"Guinness: 125 Calories
Not on Purpose"
or something like that
I Poured The
Red wine; same effect.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree.
Only beer I happened to have at the moment, but I'm enjoying the combination thus far.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Prairie Home Companion's
Sonnet show is on right now; you are listening, aren't you RR? I caught the first half yesterday. It's must-hear radio.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
He hit 3 balls to or near the warning track yesterday
I'm hoping these are small positive signs
I probably disagree with you.
guillen has hit a lot of balls hard...
eventually they will be hits.
im really not worried about him...
His approach has worked for years. It will work again.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Gameday shows a pickoff attempt at Billy...really?
I guess the hit-and-run could be on but really? Pickoff attempt?
Denny Matthews just said...
Butler has a conservative lead at first.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
So is David Ortiz
I'm just saying
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I forgot
Burn him at the stake.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
If Olivo Puts
One in the gap, the show on the bases might be worth the price of admission.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The Royals hitters deserve no credit for those walks
It was all Liriano.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
With the walk, Liriano is at 90 pitches
And it looks like he might be experiencing some discomfort. I really don't know why they called him up so soon. This is not smart.
I probably disagree with you.
I admire their restraint.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Minnehoovians Are Nothing
If not polite.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah. He shouldn't have come back that year at all.
Supposedly he doesn't tell them when he's experiencing discomfort or pain.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Especially Since We're
Seeing the baseball equivalent of the Ice Bowl. "Here on the frozen tundra of Kauffman Stadium".
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
So Pena comes up a chance to knock in some runs.
Time to weild that Little League power.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:35 PM EDT reply actions
According to Denny...
No, it's the runner's responsibility to avoid the fielder.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I Wish Billy
Had tried to hurdle him.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok then
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Groundball to the left side
Butler runs in the middle of the basepath from second to third and collides with the 3B, preventing him from making the play, Buck safe at first. Ump calls it safe then after Gardenhire argues, calls Butler out on obstruction.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
That's bullshit.
Lamb ran into Billy. The runner can't plow into the fielder if he's actually fielding the ball, but he has no obligation to vacate the fielder's path.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
In addition to Denny, Ryan on TV is saying that the rule says that the baserunner has to avoid the fielder
That just isn't how I remember the rule.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
that is ridiculous...
so, if i am a fielder, why not just run into the runners way every time and just stand there and wait for him to run into you.
bad call.
If the ump sees that is happening, he won't call it obstruction. It is a judgment call
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
If anything it was obstruction on LAMB.
Everett was the one making the play. Billy was "past" the ball.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
That would be a reasonable way to call it. I wish Hillman would have argued that one for a while.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The Replay Shows
Lamb saw Butler, Butler did not see Lamb. Bad call.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Butler makes his first play
Reasonable. I would hate to see him try to throw to second there.
I probably disagree with you.
Butler Graceful As
A newborn moose on that play.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
Ouch! They're Incredibly
Strong and nimble critters; how did that happen?
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
She must have teased it about its poor defense and horrible base running
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
got the same thing on MLB Gamecast.
Chance for a complete game?
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
He's on pace
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
That Wouldn't Be
Fair to JoSo.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
brian bass sucks...
meaning he will throw 7 pitches this inning.
this is how our offense works, particularly when it is TPJ-gator-german.
We play gritty, inspired, bunt-happy, fundamentally sound, 4 run baseball.
Anything else would be un-American
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
Asked And Answered
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree.
And even after DDJ comes back, I'd like to see him hit second, and billy third, especially if/when Guillen remembers how to hit and can return to batting cleanup.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Really? Why OBP in the 2-hole?
Isn't that where you stick the guy with "bat control" so he can bunt the leadoff hitter over?
/tounge punctures cheek
by stuckinstl12 on Apr 13, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
no fair.
it's too hard to think of a witty comeback when I'm laughing.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Disheartening. I've never liked the soul patch much.
by stuckinstl12 on Apr 13, 2008 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What The Hell
Is Hillman chewing?
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I loved the announcers
"Billy will be removed in favor for some speed in the later innings." Since when did Ross Gload become a burner?
True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.
X2
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
seems like a better use for gload
would have been to pinch hit for Guillen
This space intentionally left blank.
by marbotty on Apr 13, 2008 4:04 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
No, That's What
Jason Smith would be for.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
That only works if Guillen can get on base.
So, never.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Oops.
I'd managed to keep my inability to read secret for so long. Dammit.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
don't worry, all my posts are actually transcribed by my secretary
Doris, take a letter!
This space intentionally left blank.
it makes me wonder if we had the highest offer on the table to Fukudome?
at least A Jones is struggling, too...
This space intentionally left blank.
I bet Banny figures out how a way, using statistics, reduce it to 0.
by stuckinstl12 on Apr 13, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I Can See
Him in the tower in the wee hours, ominous organ music playing, lightning flashing, mixing strange concoctions.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
i noticed that
i remember when he was supposed to be the next great thing... perhaps there was just a six year delay to that
This space intentionally left blank.
I almost started arguing with you about the save opportunity.
Then I noticed the Gordo homer. F-yeah!
by stuckinstl12 on Apr 13, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
With that run...
it's a non-save situation, so I'm hoping he lets Banny close it out.
And I say that despite having Soria on my fantasy team.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
harr! me too.
but i have a-gor too, so i don't regret the home run too much.
Pithces? Godro?
Dyslexia reigns. This Gordon kid is OK, wot?
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
the accompanying graphic
is a man in a suit destroying a miniaturized tokyo
(and yes, that was intentional)
This space intentionally left blank.
Now I'm really hating Guillen's error in the first.
Cause banny should have the chance for a CG SO.
by RoyalsFanInBillings on Apr 13, 2008 4:16 PM EDT reply actions
Shouldn't That Be
A capital "g"?
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
royals win prediction update (from me)
79.
if gil meche gets to the 4.0 ERA i predict, then maybe 80 or 81.
yay!!!!!
there should be a contest
what will be lower:
Banny's ERA, or
Pena's AVG?
This space intentionally left blank.
He Should Be
Going for a 3-hit, complete game shutout.
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
Get on gameday, and look at the "Away outs"
No balls to RF, only one to CF.
winning records follow good bullpens
112 pitch 3 hitter...
winning records follow good bullpens
Didn't He Have
An 8-inning 2-hitter last time out?
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
And Omar Minaya
Let's go, boys, to the toppermost of the poppermost!
by philofthenorth on Apr 13, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
tomko looked great yesterday
we could almost have taken the series. looking good!
while it is nice to get the CG
I sorta wish that Hillman had thrown Mahay or Yabs into the fray there at the end.
This space intentionally left blank.
How the hell is Brian going to win the Cy Young without at least one CG?!
winning records follow good bullpens
Agreed again!
No reason for him to throw 110 pitches in that game.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I seriously do think
the idea was "let him pitch until he allows a baserunner".
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
Nonethless
he pitched more than he needed to or than he should have. I'm not saying it is a huge deal, but managers should do what they can to limit pitches their SP's throw over 100. Sometimes you need him to go over. In this game, they really, really didn't need it at all. I hope the bill doesn't come due in September for Hillman's desire for these guys to go deep into games.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the guys who have studied pitcher use/abuse like Rany and Keith Woolner would disagree
It is not a huge problem, but it is at least small problem. And it was completely and totally unnecessary.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
The performance degradation after outings of 120-129 pitches and after outings of 90-99 pitches is virtually identical, according to this, using Woolner's numbers.
That was from 2001
Woolner and Rany's research into pitcher use/abuse has grown and evolved greatly since then. The PAP listing below was from BP's 2006 book. Here is some more data from that book with regard to performance after certain pitch counts:
Pitcher Abuse Points, Five Risk Factor Categories
Category - Pitch Count Range - % change in RA - % change in batters faced - Risk of short-term decline
I - 0-100 - .47 - 1.10 - Smallest risk
II - 101-109 - 1.62 - 1.13 - Minimal risk
III - 110-121 - 2.31 - (-1.11) - Moderate risk
IV - 122-132 - 2.95 - (-2.01) - Significant risk
V - 133+ - 4.08 - (-3.82) - High risk
Why get him up to "moderate risk" today with the likely increase in runs he will allow in the short-term?
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
By throwing 112 pitches in 9 innings today instead of 98 pitches in 8 innings, PAP would put him in line for a 1.15% change in RA, basically a change of an additional run allowed for each 99. Negligible, not "moderate".
Woolner and Rany call it "moderate" not me
And they have done much, much more research into pitcher use/abuse than either you or I have.
Again, this was not a big deal, but it was unnecessary overuse. There was no reason to increase risk at all today.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
My point is that it does not qualify as overuse at all. If Hillman has his guys regularly throw 120+ pitches, then we have something to discuss. But what Banny did today, even according to the research you've cited, is not a problem. At all.
So, exposing him to unnecessary risk and a likely increase in RA is "no problem at all"?
Uh no. Basically you're arguing that no pitcher use is abuse unless it is allowing pitchers to go over 120 pitches regularly. That is simply not true. There are degrees over pitcher abuse. What Hillman did today was on the low-to-moderate level of pitcher abuse. It has very measurable negative consequences (as seen above). And there was absolutely no reason to do it today.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm saying that the effect of pitch counts above 130 is well established, and the effect of pitch counts below it is not. The "degree" of pitcher abuse for a 112-pitch outing like today's is negligible. By the very numbers you quoted.
You can ignore Woolner and Rany's research if you like
...but their research has well established the negative effect (and degree of that effect) for pitch counts under 130. In fact, the worst effects are actually at 121+. But there are clear negative consequences even for a Category III pitch count, such as Bannister's today. You can call it "negligible" if you like, but I disagree. Woolner and Rany would disagree too. In fact, Rany was of the opinion that Hillman allowing Greinke to go to 107 pitches in his last start was a clear mistake. I've read their research. I agree with it. And they know more about pitcher use/ abuse than you and I will ever know.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
You are misinterpreting it horribly
Do you think Woolner and Rany are arguing that there really is nothing more than negligible risk with pitch counts under 121? First, they don't describe it as negligible risk. Second, Rany frequently complains about unnecessary pitch counts over 100, such as Greinke's 107 pitch game and one other start this year where a pitcher's count was under 110? Why do you think that is? Because he thinks the risk is negligible? Obviously not. Unnecessary risk is unnecessary risk. You don't heap innings on a pitcher without good reason. If you think you are somehow agreeing with Woolner and Rany on this, you are way, way off. Without detailing their research to you, I'm just going to say that I prefer their opinions on pitcher use/abuse over yours (and mine).
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I am interpreting it properly
...even according to the author of the article:
PAP is more about the manager and how he handles a staff than about any particular pitcher.
So, like I said. If Hillman reguarly allows his starters to throw in the 120 range, we have something to talk about. Until then, we're just talking about what the article actually says.
Yes
And it says this is moderate risk with a measurable increase in likely Runs Allowed. Small, but measurable. And the risk Hillman forced Bannister to go through was completely and totally unnecessary. Again, your argument isn't with me; it's with the people who have done exhaustive research on this subject. You disagree with them.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
And Rany's application of it, apparently
Did you see what he wrote about Hillman leaving Greinke in too long in his last start? That his 107 pitches were completely unnecessary and ill advised?
It will be interesting to read what he has to say about Bannister's 112 pitches today. I have a feeling he won't think it is meaningless and irrelevant.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I read what Rany wrote about Greinke's start:
For the second straight start, Hillman left Greinke in one inning too long. Greinke gave up a single and a double in the eighth, but a well-timed DP saved some runs – and just as importantly, some pitches on his arm. I’m glad the game has evolved to the point where forcing his starter to throw 107 pitches on a cold, rainy day is about the worst a manager is allowed to do anymore.
This is something less than a statewide abuse alert then you have made it out to be, yes?
Did I say that he thought it was a big deal?
No. And I said many times even before I started debating with you that Bannister's start here was not a big deal. Pitcher abuse happens in degrees. This was near the low end.
But you think you are somehow interpreting Rany and Woolner's work more accurately by saying anything under 121 (or maybe 130) pitches is minimal abuse which is essentially meaningless. Clearly Rany disagrees as he though leaving a pitcher in for over 100 pitches unnecessarily is leaving him in "too long." Rany disagrees with you, period.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn't want to see Greinke pitching in the rain any longer than necessary either, so I don't disagree with Rany at all.
That he was taken out of the game at 107 pitches is actually something Rany cited as a positive evolution from the bad old days of pitcher abuse, not something of great concern in its own right. You see this as an example of Rany "complaining" about pitch counts over 100, and I don't.
Write to him and ask him about his opinion about outings of just over 100 pitches and see what he says.
You've got to be kidding
Rany said he was left in too long. He mentioned his 107 pitch count. He referred to leaving him in too long as "worst thing a manager is allowed to do anymore." That is a positive in that managers usually don't abuse pitchers much more than that. Rany was really clear. You have to work hard to misinterpret him as you did. I'm looking forward to what he writes about Bannister going 112 pitches with the team up by 4 runs with a good bullpen behind him.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Forgot to answer your question: pitchers are always at risk of injury, and leaving pitchers in a game too long is a problem. But how long is too long? Not 100, at least not according to the research. However, we need to establish some lower bound, and 100 is very round and very appealing, with that extra digit and everything, as a quantity to start complaining about.
Until the research matures, that's all it is.
How much of this research have you actually read?
I would suggest you read more of the research that has been done in the last four years. Until then, I don't think you know how much the research has "matured".
I'm done arguing with you about this. Your argument is with Woolner and Rany and people who have actually done the research. You can take it up with them.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah, you've read every bit of research on pitcher use/abuse?
Is that why you cited a 2001 article to me which is horribly out of date and has been superceded by a great deal of research from multiple sources? Then I guess you are the real pitcher use/abuse expert. Rany and Woolner can now cease their clearly inaccurate analysis and shoddy research.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I quoted numbers out of that article that are simply averages of actual performances that occurred during the years studies. Those numbers don't go "out of date" -- the pitch counts were what they were and the ensuing performances were what they were. Still valid to cite those, I think.
What has gone "out of date" is the original abuse measurement system. But that's not what I cited, was it?
I know that Rany and Woolner have done a lot of research
...on pitcher use/abuse since then, including changing and refining some of their findings. That may well include the formulations of PAP and PAP3. But I haven't read all of it and I certainly don't have it all handy.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
From BP's book "Baseball Between the Numbers"
This chapter was written by Keith Woolner, who developed Pitcher Abuse Points and the surrounding research and analysis with Rany.
Pitcher Abuse Points by Pitches thrown:
100 0
105 125
110 1,000
115 3,375
120 8,000
125 15,625
130 27,000
140 64,000
So we see an exponential increase for basically every pitch over 100. While 1,000 PAP isn't very high, this was not a good choice of when to heap some PAP onto Bannister. Going over 100 pitches in this outing (110) means it is all the more important that Hillman not let him build up a big pitch count in the next couple of outings. And in those outings, we might actually have a need for him to go deep. In this case, with a 4-run lead and a great bullpen, there was no need or even utility in him going so long.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Read the definition of PAP in the accompanying paragraph: it's just the pitch count, minus 100, cubed. So, by definition, PAP increases exponentially as pitch counts increase past 100. So what? If it's not predictive of anything, it's meaningless.
Actually, it is quite predictive of runs allowed in future starts
Check out the above table
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
No, it is not. The author even admits that "the reduction in quality may not seem big." This is because it is small.
It is definitely predictive
But the increase in likely RA should be low. Not a big deal, but a very real phenomenon, and a measurable one at that. So, Hillman did something which likely increases the average runs Banny will allow in his next few starts. It shouldn't be huge, but it is a real risk. And there was absolutely no reason for Hillman to do that at all.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Let me restate what I said above in another way: according to that chart, how many runs would Banny have to give up in his next few starts for a 1.15% increase to be detectable?
Do you ever want to do anything which will cause a likely increase in RA by any amount?
Perhaps if there is some significant countervailing interest. In this case, there was none.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The answer to my question is: 44. A 1.15% increase over 44 rounds up to 1. So if Banny was likely to give up 44 runs in the next 3 weeks after going 8 today, now he's likely to give up 45. Those would be very bad starts in any case, and if it happens that way we'll be talking about something other than his throwing 14 extra pitches today.
Look at it this way
Does this particular instance of pitcher abuse make it more or less likely that Bannister will have a Quality Start in his next start? It makes it a little less likely.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe the contest should be to see how long they can keep that combination under .200
This space intentionally left blank.
me too....
very much
Finally coming back to the 'K'!!!! I'm going to be there 7/11/08, vs the SEA Mariners, of course!
by RoyalsFanInMarinerTown on Apr 13, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Concerns about Bannister's...
...pitch count aside, this was a ~great~ win. It stopped the bleeding. I'm also especially happy with Gordon's performance.
Sure, you don't want Banny throwing 110 pitches every start, but ~the kind~ of pitches thrown counts too. If he was free and easy the whole game, then fine. If there was a lot of stress, usually caused by walks (or you could say that walks cause the stress), then I'd be concerned. But I think Banny is a Mark Buhrle type: 100 pitches is not too much of a concern.
Good win! - TL
great game today!
I got to go again today. Gordon looked good. I took a lot of pictures & I had great seats, 2nd row behind the Royals dugout.
Those are great seats
You can see beads of sweat on players from those seats. Of course you wouldn't have seen any of that today.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 13, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
7-5!
Hallelujah! That's a winner, folks. Temporarily, oh but just temporarily.....All is right with the world!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
