JoePo rips into Hillman's decision to not bring in Soria in the 8th
This is about as mad/frustrated as I think JoePo generally gets when he writes. Almost every writer I know of who follows KC baseball day in and day out (Poz, Mellinger, Rany, etc) has seriously criticized Hillman's irrational preference for Professor Tatersworth. That preference has already cost us two games at least, and the season is barely two weeks old.
Most frustrating (to me, anyways) is the fact that yesterday made it abundantly clear that Hillman has learned nothing from the Opening Day debacle, as it was almost the exact same situation: having Farnsy pitch to the heart of a dangerous, HR-hitting lineup in one of the best homer-hitting parks in the AL, in an incredibly high-leverage situation.
Man, that's depressing.
almost 3 years ago
DarthYoshi
51 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
...oh,
and the whole not-using-Soria-for-a-frigging-week bit is at least equally as frustrating.
yeah, but it's not surprising
Poz definitely has a drive to “keep up withi the kids.”
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 20, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Hillman's screwed now
Yes, it may have been inappropriate for Posnanski to ask a baseball question after a game, but maybe Trey should have been a bit more gracious in the face of such a rude affront.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
Interesting
I can really see both sides of the argument — I can see why some people think he should become a starter where he would be more valuable, and I can see why some people think he should be a closer where he has proven to be dominant. If you want to know the truth, I personally am on the side of making him a starter, but I have very good friends and baseball people whose opinion I respect more than my own give me solid-sounding reasons why he should stay a closer. When he shut the door last week against the Yankees, I wrote a column saying that on days like that you can certainly see the closer side of the argument. It’s nice to close out victories.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Where is NYRoyal?
I need the proper audience for my “I told you so.”
that's what I was trolling for below
and given that you and I don’t agree that often, I figured it would be fun to celebrate together
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 20, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
What is the nature of your "I told you so"?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
re: your JoPo values feelings over facts post
I’d said he was merely doing a “Soria’s awesome piece” and saying that on days like that, having Soria in the bullpen felt right, but that he was not actually asserting that he believed that Soria is best used in the bullpen.
In light of the above quote, I told you so.
Haha, all in good fun tho.
Yeah, he can see both sides of the argument
And in his previous column, he made the case for Soria staying in the bullpen. Now Soria gets wasted and unused and suddenly the weather vane moves back towards “boy, I can sure see both sides of the argument.” After he racks up a bunch of saves in 1-run games in May or June what kind of tune do you think he’s going to be singing?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Although he stated:
I am on the side of making him a starter. That doesn’t count?
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
Apparently that's the side he's on today
It sure didn’t sound like he was on that side when he wrote his column fresh on the heals of a few Soria shutdown saves. Do you think that JoPo is such a consistent, thoughtful, above-his-emotions analyst that the events of the most recent week can’t move him from one side to the other, and then likely back again once Soria makes a few more saves? Did it count when he made all of those arguments for Soria staying in the bullpen and how hard it was to argue otherwise?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
More evidence of JoPo back-and-forthing on Soria
Joakim Soria is the closer – and he’s fun to watch. I was messaging with Rob [Neyer] about this: I cannot remember a young pitcher who started out his career as a closer and then became a good major league starter. I bring this up because the Royals keep talking about making him a starter down the road … I don’t think so.
— JoPo BaseballAnalysts.com, March 2008
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it's sort of silly to argue about the internal opinion of someone we don't know
especially when he says things like, “I have written quite a lot about what the Royals should do with Joakim Soria, but I haven’t really written a hard opinion on it. There’s a reason for this: I can really see both sides of the argument.”
He sounds like her marginally favors trying Soria in the rotation, but is really okay with either decision, so long as Soria is used properly in the bullpen. The argument we’d had before was whether that particular piece was JoPo making a direct case for keeping Soria as a closer or, as I took it, using the bullpen/rotation debate as a vehicle for doing some pitch-by-pitch breakdown of Soria’s awesomeness in striking out some Yankees without making any strong conclusion either way on the debate. As he’s said, he’s written a lot about what the Royals should do with Soria, but he hasn’t written a hard opinion….and that’s mostly because he doesn’t have a hard opinion. And that’s okay—he, like many of us here, slightly favors one option, but won’t be upset if the Royals go the other way.
I think it’s sort of silly to argue about the internal opinion of someone we don’t know
But that doesn’t stop us (both you and me included). And I don’t argue about his opinions as much as what he has written.
There’s a reason for this: I can really see both sides of the argument
And alternately argues for both, while trying his best to ride the fence.
And that’s okay—he, like many of us here, slightly favors one option, but won’t be upset if the Royals go the other way.
And I think this is an example of very poor analysis on his part. He dabbles in stats, but that’s about it. He doesn’t want to be guided by numbers too much.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
there's nothing wrong
with laying out arguments for both sides without clearly expressing your preference. it’s more of a journalistic style to an opinion column. if you find it boring, i guess that’s one thing, but it’s certainly not “wrong” by any logical standard.
re: “poor analysis,” you say it’s poor analysis because you disagree. you believe the only reasonable conclusion would be to strongly favor moving soria to the rotation. i think it’s less clear which choice is “right.” look at it this way—which option would make the royals a better playoff team? you only use 3 starters in the playoffs. would soria even be one of the top-3 starters? a relief ace is also much more valuable in the playoffs. i think it’s pretty clear which playoff configuration is better.
there’s nothing wrong
with laying out arguments for both sides without clearly expressing your preference
There’s nothing wrong with that. And JoPo has laid out the arguments and argued for one side at times and for the other side at different times. I guess there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind, then changing it back.
re: "poor analysis," you say it’s poor analysis because you disagree.
No, because I’ve yet to see him put for good reasons for keeping Soria in the bullpen. The “good feeling” that it gives the rest of the team is an argument as weak as a newborn kitten.
you believe the only reasonable conclusion would be to strongly favor moving soria to the rotation.
No, I believe the best use of Soria which would win the Royals the most games is moving him to the rotation. If JoPo could put forth an argument for why it would win the Royals more games to keep him in the bullpen without resorting to the magical power of the “closer feeling,” he might change my mind.
i think it’s less clear which choice is "right."
Perhaps so. But this was about the quality of JoPo’s analysis, right? If he wants to argue that Soria’s mechanics, injury history and/or injury risk is why he should stay in the bullpen, then if he provides good support for those claims, then that would be sound analysis. Instead, his support for the side of the argument that Soria should stay in the pen is very, very weak.
look at it this way—which option would make the royals a better playoff team? you only use 3 starters in the playoffs. would soria even be one of the top-3 starters? a relief ace is also much more valuable in the playoffs. i think it’s pretty clear which playoff configuration is better.
1. The Royals need to get to the playoffs first. And they need more wins to get there. So they need to do what maximizes wins.
2. Teams usually don’t just use 3 starters in the playoffs. It can be done but usually 4 are used.
3. Would Soria be a top 3 starter? Quite possibly. I think he would, but we certainly don’t know.
4. Let’s say Soria is in the rotation and the Royals make it to the playoffs. If you wanted to go with only 3 starters, couldn’t Soria move back to closing during the playoffs?
Pretty clear? Really?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Moops!
The General Theory of Royaltivity
by kabrink on Apr 20, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Lot of stuff here
But I think the central issue is, “But this was about the quality of JoPo’s analysis, right?” Short answer, no. This was about whether the Soria piece was analysis or commentary. If it was analysis, it was bad analysis—no question. If it was commentary, it was not deserving of the criticism you’d given it.
But I think the central issue is, "But this was about the quality of JoPo’s analysis, right?" Short answer, no.
You discussed the quality of his analysis when you said:
re: "poor analysis," you say it’s poor analysis because you disagree
And I responded accordingly.
If it was analysis, it was bad analysis—no question. If it was commentary, it was not deserving of the criticism you’d given it.
It just looked like analysis to me as he kept discussing the starter vs. closer issue and some arguments for and against it. It sure seemed like he was analyzing that issue, and not in a brief tangential way. The whole first two paragraphs of the column were about the starter vs. closer issue and he dealt with it throughout the column. That’s certainly an odd way to write a puff piece about how great Soria is.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
It's one thing to say you may have been wrong, but for the right reasons
but at least you could give some credit to the people who were right for the right reasons.
Whatever, it’s all in good fun, as kcdc says — JoPo explicitly says that he’s been on the side of Soria as a starter for some unspecified period, but not just recently. Maybe he’s lying?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 20, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe he’s lying?
Maybe he’s spinning. Maybe his opinion on this matter isn’t consistent or static. Do you think either of those is unrealistic? Do you think JoPo is above spin or inconsistency?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
hahaha, thanks for taking the confrontational route
I suppose we won’t be getting a, “Damn, guess I was wrong,” today….Shocking.
But we get two "Haha, I was right!"
So it all evens itself out.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
yep, just was about to post that
(ahem)
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
supposed to be a reply to Retro's Pos "starter" post
waiting to hear from the master hermeneuts on the blog
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 20, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice to see JoPo can rip him in the column
after totally backing down to Trey last time he had a shot. Pussyfoot
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
seems like JoPo is being just nice enough
to give Hillman enough rope, if that makes any sense
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 20, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know
last article he had an opportunity to call him out and when Trey said you are asking me baseball questions he totally backed down and wrote a weak article.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
true, he didn't directly go off
but just putting it that thing about “I didn’t know you are going to ask me baseball questions” makes Trey look much worse, I think, than directly criticizing him like a writer would normally do.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary to Driveline Mechanics and elsewhere since sometime in 2008.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 20, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions
It's also the path of least resistance
JoPo isn’t a company man who always defends the moves of the local team, but he’s also not much of a boat rocker either.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
And Dutton
simply swallowed Trey’s “the defense did it” argument hook, line, and sinker
The General Theory of Royaltivity
I've said it before, I'll say it again...
Dutton is a beat writer, it isn’t in his job description—nor is it probably in his best interests—to be a big boat rocker.
I wish someone, anyone, would have followed up Hillman's "playing the percentages" comment...
…with a question about how keeping Soria on the bench in the 9th in a tie game is playing the percentages.
The immoderate moderator
There are more hard-nosed, in-your-face reporters...
covering the Burlington Bees.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 20, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
In all honesty, that's probably true, and there's a reason for that
Minor league teams need media coverage desperately. So even if some local reporter or columnist tears into the team, he/she won’t lose access because the team can’t afford to lose coverage and thus publicity. For MLB, the power rests with the teams. The media outlets need the team more than the team needs the outlets. That’s why beat writers for every MLB team are less than critical. Now, where you do see criticism, sometimes very vocal, even vitriolic criticism is from columnists. Jay Mariotti of the Chicago Sun-Times regularly tears Kenny Williams and Ozzie Guillen new a-holes. Whitlock isn’t afraid to openly criticize the Chiefs. But JoPo is usually very moderate and guarded in his criticism. We see some in his blog, but little goes into his KC Star columns. I think he’s playing it safe because he doesn’t want to piss off the Royals management.
All of the above said, the I think the follow up question, if asked the right way, would have been safe and enlightening.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
So why aren't there more mamby-pamby, hugs-and-kisses...
beat reporters covering the Yankees? Wouldn’t they be embraced by the organization and given all the biggest scoops? If the KC media got together and decided to take a more (or even somewhat) critical overall stance with the Royals, then they couldn’t lock them all out. Solidarity, baby!
I think JoPo is probably just a really, really nice guy who has spent most of his life never stepping on anyone’s toes. That’s fine, and there’s definitely a place for the warm and fuzzy writers in sports. But KC and Royals fans don’t need ALL the reporters that cover them to be like that. That’s what Dick Kaegel is for.
Maybe they’re all scared they’ll get Fescoed and have to take jobs in a different city.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 20, 2009 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions
So why aren’t there more mamby-pamby, hugs-and-kisses…beat reporters covering the Yankees?
The beat writers for the Yankees are by and large actually very straightforward, reporting the news, not being too critical sports writers. It’s the columnists that are eager to be critical.
But KC and Royals fans don’t need ALL the reporters that cover them to be like that.
I guess we don’t need that, but this is what beat writers are like MLB-wide. This is the nature of bigtime professional sports. The beat writers play it straight and don’t rock the boat. It is columnists who have more latitude, but they still get smacked down and shut out by their local team from time to time.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess we don’t need that, but this is what beat writers are like MLB-wide. This is the nature of bigtime professional sports.
All beat writers may be like that, and I understand why they may need to be like that for the most part. But as best I can tell, the Royals really only have one independent beat writer (Dutton, and maybe Mellinger to an extent). But NONE of the columnists that write commentary about the Royals ever seem to take them to task for anything. Ever. It contributes to a culture that makes the organization think it can just get away with stifling dissent and potential controversy by yanking credentials (like the Fescoe incident).
I will say that you have to be careful—you can cross the line between honest, legitimate, and professionally-made criticisms on one hand, and unprofessional, manufactured-confrontation on the other (as Fescoe often did). The latter is completely unnecessary, and of little value. The point/message get lost in the drama/showmanship. But the Royals don’t have to deal with much, if any, of the former. And that’s not a good situation for the fans.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 20, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
But NONE of the columnists that write commentary about the Royals ever seem to take them to task for anything. Ever.
You’ve got to lay that at JoPo’s feet for the most part. Whitlock’s focus is on football and basketball because those are the two sports he really knows about. Mellinger is a reporter, not a columnist. He can write some commentary on his blog, but he’s a junior guy there, so he really doesn’t have such a secure position that he can write just anything he wants. When Flannagan was there, I guess he could have done it, but I never really knew what his role was anyway. JoPo is the only columnist that really focuses on the Royals. And as that columnist, he’s the guy who has the power and the leverage to really be critical of the manager, GM and owner. If no one from the Star is making the fair criticisms of Royals coaches, management and ownership, it’s on JoPo’s shoulders.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 20, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed.
As was said earlier, I think JoePo is just a really nice guy that would love for everyone to succeed. From reading him, he wants everyone to be right and everyone to be successful. I’d love to see him rip a few times, but he’s not going to do that.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
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.
