Lineup awesomeness
by grantfunk on Apr 15, 2008 1:58 PM EDT
Email
Printmy buddies and i spoke on the phone at the lineup last night.... is anyone else impressed with the way Hillmoney is handling the DH/1B situation? I've been really nervous about Olivo, but him and Buck both in the lineup rocks! Pardon my unbridled enthusiasm, i'm just hyped about this development.
i'd kinda like to see TPJ in the 9 hole like a pitcher in the NL.
anyone care to guess tonights lineups?
mine:
DDJ
Grudz
Teahen
Buck
Butler
Guillen
Gordon
Pena
Olivo
44 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Lineup
First off, you only have 8 guys in your lineup. Second of all, Buck batting third is…..well, ridiculous….sorry! Third, how you can put Pena above Olivo is fascinating to me. And of course, going with the first point you don’t have a third OF’er in that lineup, thus leading to 8 guys.
Disclaimer: Comments may not be suitable for young children or women who are pregnant, or women who think they may be pregnant. Side effects could include nausea, dizziness, or yelling at the monitor in disbelief.
pardon
forgot about mark. edited!
The first thing I know about someone in a KC hat is that they're loyal.
Today's lineup
I’m guessing
CF DeJesus
2B Callaspo (let Grudzie rest his shin)
LF Teahen
DH Butler
RF Guillen
3B Gordon
C Olivo (day game after night game)
1B Gload
SS Pena
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Right on it
I’ll be shocked if it’s much different than that. Perhaps Gload 7 and Olivo 8, but either is fine.
I do like the L,R,L,R,R,L,R,L,R. Just in case a pitcher started to locate something nasty to one side of the plate or the other, throw him off. Not that I think Miguel Batista has anything particularly nasty for us. Is it sad that every time I hear that tonight’s starter is a “former Royal” my stomach starts growling and my mouth starts watering.
One encouraging thing..
Is when we have to use our bench (i.e. Olivo and Callaspo for Buck and Grudz) there is virtually no drop-off. Some of the Sunday lineups Buddy used to throw out were just brutal. No Costa, Larue, Smith garbage going on. Pitching, defense and bench appear to be solid. Add a hitter or two and its world series here we come!
I do like
how our ‘heart of the order’ last year is not this year.
The first thing I know about someone in a KC hat is that they're loyal.
speaking of the 'heart' of yore: A's update
Sweeney .279/.373/.349, 3 RBI, 6 walks, zero strikeouts
Nationwide Emil .256/.289/.372, 1 HR, 8 RBI
by andrewmiller on Apr 15, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
We will rue the day
We gave up on that dynamic duo.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Will be
CF DeJesus
2B Callaspo
LF Teahen (although i disagree, it should be gordon, especially after teahen swinging a 3-0 pitch with butler coming up with the bases juiced if teahen got walked)
DH Butler
RF Guillen
3B Gordon
1B Gload
C Olivo
SS Pena
I love life. Life = Royals
When you get the green light on a 3-0 pitch and a nice, fat pitch comes down the pike, shouldn't you swing at it?
They gave him the green light for a reason.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
But man, if that’s the best you can do with it, you probably shouldn’t get the green light anymore on 3-0.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
If he's TPJ, he doesn't get the green light
But he isn’t. And most of the time, he’s going to do something better with that pitch. Even great MVP hitters like Butler sometimes hit weak grounders on fat pitches.
He got the green light for a reason. He’s a good hitter, period. And he had a great hitter’s count. In that situation, he should have the green light and swing at a good hitter’s pitch if possible. In the same situation tomorrow, I wouldn’t hesitate to green light him. And if he got that pitch again, I would definitely want him to swing at it.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm curious as...
to your position on giving the green light to hitters of Teahen’s ability (i.e. good). Personally, I think it shouldn’t be done except for exceptional hitters. I don’t really like the strategy.
I agree with that
There’s a reason most hitters get the red light 3-0. Its because even if they are exceptional, they’re going to hit it and make an out 60% of the time or so. Unless we’re talking about a big time power hitter and we’re looking at taking a gamble on a home run or XBH, I think most hitters should have the red light, and that includes Teahen.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
In case anyone cares
Major Leaguers last year hit .394 on 3-0 counts.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I agree with Retro
If a hitter gets to 3-0, he’s at the most advantageous situation for a hitter. The pitcher is basically forced to groove a fastball. The stats for hitters at 3-0 are through the roof. Every hitter has a much better chance of getting a hit at 3-0. Now, some hitters are so bad that they can’t be trusted to only swing at a good hitter’s pitch 3-0 (like TPJ). For a hitter like that, I don’t give him the green light at 3-0 or 3-1.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I think you misunderstood me
I’m arguing against letting guys like Teahen hit with a 3-0 count. Of course guys will hit better when the pitcher is grooving it down the plate, but they’re still getting out 60% of the time. I’d be curious what the odds are of receiving a walk. I really don’t know. But if you combine that and factor in that hitters still perform quite well at 3-1 (Major Leaguers hit .368 in 2007), I think you have to red light nearly everyone. The only way it makes sense is if you need a hit to win, or have a power hitter who can do some serious damage.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
When you've got a good hitter and the most advantageous count possible...
...then green light that hitter. You never know what kind of count the next hitter will get to. That 3-0 count will probably be the best shot the two hitters have to get a hit. I love plate discipline, but I’m not a big fan of giving away hitter’s pitches down the middle to good hitters. When the pitcher gives you a gift, take it. Remember, getting the green light doesn’t mean that the batter necessarily has to swing. He just has the option.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course 3-0 is your best shot
But 3-1 ain’t bad either. In fact its nearly as good a shot of landing a base hit. So why take the risk on 3-0 when you’re almost nearly as likely to get a hit on a 3-1 count?
Take the walk.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
"Take the walk" isn't the choice we have here
On a 3-0 count, if you get the pitch you want in the spot you want, it you should definitely swing. Having the green light on 3-0 means that you have the opportunity to swing at a great pitch. Or, you can take it for a ball or strike. Then you’d have another good opportunity to perhaps swing at a great pitch.
If the pitcher throws a ball outside the strike zone on 3-0 then yes, take the walk.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Here's the problem.
There is simply not enough data thus far to make any judgments regarding Mark’s hitting ability with a 3-0 count; for his career, Teahen has put the ball in play exactly four times on a 3-0 count, and is hitting .250. There’s a little more data available for “after 3-0”, but it looks even worse—.226 over 31 AB. Meanwhile, he’s drawn 57 walks in 88 plate appearances which reached 3-0.
However… if you look at Mark’s splits by count, you will see that, as far as hitting the ball, he is vastly more dangerous with a strike on him than not. His career line when he puts the ball in play with exactly one strike and at least one ball is a ridiculous .370/.490/.641 with 8 homers in 234 PA. (Of the three permutations of this scenario, he - as one would expect - is most deadly on 3-1.) All this leads me to the conclusion that Mark Teahen is someone who should really take the 3-0 pitch, because if he doesn’t get ball four, he’s likely to rake on 3-1.
Of interest, while we’re on the subject… when putting the ball in play on the first pitch, he’s an absolutely insane .406/.403/.678 with 8 homers in 180 PA. I find it absolutely crazy that the guy with probably the best eye on the team is a guy who’s MOST successful hacking away at the first offering.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
Everyone is likely to rake 3-1
The dropoff in hitting 3-0 and 3-1 is slight. Certainly not worth the risk of hacking away at 3-0.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Bad generalization, sort of.
Yes, everyone rakes on 3-1, to an extent. My point was precisely that for Teahen especially, the benefit of taking 3-0 is grossly out of proportion to the benefit of swinging at a meatball. The “dropoff” is not “slight” in Teahen’s case; it’s not even “non-existent”. He hits better when putting the ball in play at 3-1 than he does at 3-0.
As a comparison, over his career Guillen has a 2.289 OPS putting 3-0 in play, compared to 1.330 on 3-1; he’s a guy who should probably have the green light.
(Another wild point of interest: apparently, in his entire career George Brett put a 3-0 pitch in play exactly five times. He only got one hit.)
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
I'm not convinced
He’s small sample sizes of 3-0 or 3-1 have any statistical significance. But I think we agree to the larger point.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Ultra tiny sample sizes
I just looked at his 3-0 count stats in 2006 and 2007. 29 plate appearances in those two years and he took a walk in almost all of them. The data really doesn’t suggest that he isn’t a good 3-0 hitter. It suggests that he’s a disciplined 3-0 hitter. When a guy has discipline like that, I would definitely give him the green light 3-0, because you know he’s only going to swing if it is a great hitter’s pitch.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
????
You say its an ultra tiny sample size, but then you conclude from those small sample sizes, that he should take a walk? Am I misunderstanding you?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Tiny sample sizes
We can’t draw any good conclusions from tiny sample sizes. But my point was that even if we were to try to interpret the data, it doesn’t say that he’s a poor 3-0 hitter. He very, very rarely swung at a 3-0 pitch. He usually took the walk. That tells me, if anything, that he’s disciplined 3-0 hitter. He can be trusted with a green light. So, he should be given the green light and then he’ll swing if it is a good hitter’s pitch.
If a guy is a good hitter overall (and I think Teahen is), then he’s going to be an even better hitter on 3-0.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Uh... sorry, you're backward on this.
Allowing a hitter the green light on 3-0 is something you should do because of the presence of evidence, not something you should “not avoid doing” due to the lack of same.
The problem with your argument is so simple it shouldn’t even need to be mentioned; whether Teahen is disciplined enough to lay off a ball at 3-0 isn’t the point; take the green light off, and he’ll still take the 3-0 ball. But since Teahen is an absolute beast hitting at 3-1, (not to mention he can still draw the walk at 3-1), he’s got about a 75% chance of reaching on a walk from 3-0, plus his sick BA at 3-1.
Now, maybe I can agree that “he should have the green light”; he still shouldn’t bother to swing unless it’s a sloppy hanging curve that he’s going to just absolutely crush.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
I'm sorry, but this seems like realy Bizarro world analysis
Allowing a hitter the green light on 3-0 is something you should do because of the presence of evidence, not something you should "not avoid doing" due to the lack of same.
So you don’t give a guy the green light to hit 3-0 until he proves that he can hit 3-0? Well, how does he get the chance to prove that? The “presence of evidence” is over 100 years of major league history. Over the history of the game it is a universal that batters hit better on 3-0 counts for very obvious reasons. And, if a guy can hit well 3-1, then he’s going to hit well 3-0. Teahen simply hasn’t had much opportunity to show what he can do 3-0. But everyone hits better 3-0, period.
The problem with your argument is so simple it shouldn’t even need to be mentioned; whether Teahen is disciplined enough to lay off a ball at 3-0 isn’t the point; take the green light off, and he’ll still take the 3-0 ball
Do you not understand that when the player has the green light, you get the potential benefit of a hit or a walk? When you take it off, then all you can get is a walk or a strike to take the count to 3-1. You think there is something special about the 3-1 count for Teahen. There isn’t. 3-0 and 3-1 counts are very beneficial for hitters. Teahen has shown that by how well he has hit 3-1. If given the opportunity, he’ll hit well on 3-0 as well, because that is an even more beneficial count for every hitter.
Now, maybe I can agree that "he should have the green light"; he still shouldn’t bother to swing unless it’s a sloppy hanging curve that he’s going to just absolutely crush.
On such a count, he should look for whatever pitch he thinks he can hit well. A hanging curve is good. Or, if you’re sitting on the fastball and you get one right down the pike, hit that. That is good, fundamental hitting.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
"Over the history of the game it is a universal that batters hit better on 3-0 counts for very obvious reasons."
No, it is not a “universal”. Players so not hit better on a 3-0 count, “period.” Players don’t even hit better after a 3-0 count, “period”, “universally”.
I just checked three random players, plus Teahen again; your statement is absolutely, positively false for two of those four players. I checked a few more; DeJesus hits worse after 3-0 than 3-1. George Brett hit better - 47 points better - after 3-1 than 3-0. Don’t ever play certainty games with me when you’re wrong, and don’t ever again follow up such an egregious error by asking me “do you not understand” (anything).
Players have a better OBP and OPS on a 3-0 count than on a 3-1 count—because more of them take ball four at 3-0 than on 3-1, because more of them are swinging on 3-1. They do not “hit better”.
(They might slug better, although I still wouldn’t be so cocked as to say “universally” “period”.)
Alex Rodriguez hits better after 3-1 than 3-0. Sheesh.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
I was talking about the overall averages
I didn’t mean every player in the history of the game. I’ll dial it back a notch. In general, players hit better at 3-0 than 3-1. This is true overall, and for the vast majority of players. Can you find any player who is at least decent hits well 3-1 but doesn’t hit well 3-0? If you are going to green light a player 3-1, you should green light him 3-0 because this situation is even more advantageous to hitting. You get a good chance for a hit or a walk. If the player can be trusted not to swing at a bad pitch 3-0, it is definitely the right call.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll accept the dial-back.
The problem - and the thing that actually irked me here - is that you can’t make blanket statements about how hitters hit better 3-0 after using sample size to pooh-pooh my examples of players who don’t. Teahen doesn’t, Brett doesn’t, lots of people don’t. There’s a reason George Brett only put 5 balls in play at 3-0*, and we both know damn well he had the green light.
And this is my whole point; intuitively, we expect people to hit better 3-0 when they put the ball in play, because the pitcher’s back is against the wall. But we can’t really say it as a certainty, because almost no individual player who’s a good hitter has enough evidence to prove it.
I’d suggest that “lesser” players possibly do provably hit better at 3-0… because “lesser” players are more likely to see a fat strike at 3-0 than, say, Mark Teahen. You get Brett 3-0, and you may well just decide “fuck it, I’m not throwing him a strike here so he can beat me”.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
"Teahen doesn't"
You look at those stats and you think you can draw the conclusion that Teahen doesn’t hit as well 3-0 as opposed to 3-1? The sample size is tiny, so you can’t draw a meaningful conclusion. But even more than that, he has almost all walks in his 3-0 situations. That means he likely hasn’t had the green light. So how do we know how he hits in 3-0 situations. We don’t know at all. He really hasn’t had the chance. But if he hits well 3-1, he should hit well 3-0. There is absolutely no reason to think the he’s likely to hit better 3-1 than 3-0.
I’m done. In my opinion your argument flies in the face of over a hundred years of baseball experience and, quite frankly, logic. My part of this discussion is over.
I probably disagree with you.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 15, 2008 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, since you're insulting my logic, I'll get the last word in.
You seem to think I’m “concluding” Teahen “doesn’t” hit as well 3-0 as opposed to 3-1, when that’s not my “conclusion” at all. My “conclusion” is that hitters are not decisively better at avoiding outs 3-0 than 3-1.
Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds both hit better putting the ball in play 3-1 than 3-0 (although both slug better 3-0, another point I alluded to earlier).
Ichiro hits over 100 points higher 3-1 than 3-0.
And I’m not cherry-picking—those are the three guys I just happened to look up right now. You could be absolutely correct. It could be that good hitters should always put good pitches into play on 3-0.
But last year, major-league wide, the batting average on balls in play on a 3-1 count was .326. On a 3-0 count, it was .325. That’s league-wide. Given the number of at-bats involved, it’s significant enough that it proves that with one small (yet not unimportant) exception, players in general do not avoid outs better by swinging 3-0 than 3-1. Still think my argument flies in the face of logic?
The exception: It’s the homers on meatballs that make the difference; 3-1, .358, 3-0, .371. (Obviously, strikeouts are not part of the equation; can’t strike out on a 3-0 or 3-1 pitch.) That, to me, indicates that if you see a home run coming at you, then hell yes, swing away. But there is absolutely zero benefit in terms of getting on base any way other than the long ball.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
i love this, btw
i know you guys are waaaaay more knowledgeable, insightful and well spoken than me, and i like it when my inane posting results in interesting dialog. thanks!
The first thing I know about someone in a KC hat is that they're loyal.
but...
you shouldn’t take the 3-0 event out of context. the reason a batter gets a 3-0 count is because a pitcher is having control problems and/or doesn’t want to throw a pitch that the batter can hit. the reason 99% of batters should have a red light 99% of the time is because by swinging he removes the pressure on the pitcher to throw three consecutive strikes. as you two have exhaustively quantified, swinging 3-0 (and 3-1) results in a positive outcome only 35% of the time (once you account for foul balls and swinging strikes) AND the pitcher (who, remember, has struggled to throw strikes to this batter) is off the hook. 65% of the time, swinging 3-0 produces a bad outcome. I’m no statistician, but it seems clear that you’d rather make the pitcher throw at least two consecutive strikes in that situation. especially an average to above average MLer like Teahen who’s followed by a superior hitter in Butler.
by billexgordler on Apr 16, 2008 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Its also important to realize
That if you take a pitch, you have a 35% chance of getting ball four. If you get a strike, you still have a 36% chance of getting a base hit (as well as drawing a walk, but I don’t know what the odds of drawing a walk are in that situation).
So I’d say your odds are much better if you take a pitch on 3-0.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Apr 16, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
agreed...
take on 3-0. it’s the smart play. though as a fan, I hate watching guys spitting on bp fastballs right down the middle. alas, we must trust the numbers.
by billexgordler on Apr 16, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
the anemic run production
by our lineup is preventing me from being overly optimistic so far this year. I know, it’s early in the season and run production across the league is lower, but we are still towards the bottom in run production. [/end typical Royals fan cynicism]
Focs—why mess with Gordon? He’s been on a tear since Hillman moved him out of the #3 spot. While I don’t know if Teahen is the batter to put in that slot on a long term basis (I think that after Guillen gets his bat going, he can be moved back to cleanup and Butler can take the #3 spot), but for now, I’m fine with it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
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.
