Thanks to Six Double-Plays, Royals Lose the Same Game Multiple Times
by Freneau on Apr 21, 2009 10:35 PM EDT
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
PrintStrange, strange night in Cleveland.
I'm not sure how this is possible, but I'm convinced the Royals did the unthinkable tonight, they lost the same game at least three times. To wit:
- The first loss was a bland 6-1 defeat on the road. Just hours after I wrote that "we should all shut up" about Sidney Ponson, our beloved Sidney was awful, burying the Royals early. Ponson couldn't do anything tonight, and frankly, he was lucky to only allow six runs.
- The second loss materialized somewhere in the middle innings, when it became clear that the Royals were having a day of bad luck on a borderline historical level. The Royals grounded into double plays in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth. That's right, they grounded into a double play in six straight innings. Perhaps the best, or rather worst part, was that the Indians weren't even sending ground-ball pitchers out there for most of the game. According to my records, it was the most GIDPs in a game not involving Derek Jeter since the Spanish-American War. When the Indians somehow failed to extend their lead in the middle innings and the Royals rallied in the eighth, all those double plays revealed themselves to be secret game losers.
- The third loss came in the eighth and ninth inning. Despite really having everything go completely and utterly against them, the Royals had pulled to within 6-5 with just one out in the top of the eighth. With two men on, the latest candidate for most hated Royal, Miguel Olivo grounded into a, you guessed it, double play to end the inning. Instantly, the Royals' chances of winning dropped back from a reasonable 27% to a much lower 14%. (Of course, somewhere in Hackin' Miguel's mind, he blasted that ball out of the stadium.) Still, it was 6-5, and the Indians couldn't have been exactly confident. In the bottom of the eighth however, Juan Cruz picked a bad time to allow his first runs of the season, surrendering a crucial two-run homer to Victor Martinez. As such, when DeJesus homered with two outs in the ninth, it was of little use. The Royals have now lost back-to-back one-run games in which they've not used their best reliever.
So when you break it down, the Royals managed quite the trifecta: a typical "the starter sucked" loss, a quirky vintage bumbling Royals loss, and a minor heartbreaker.
Not a bad night's work for a drizzly night in the Rust Belt.
190 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
'shoot man'
god i hate you trey
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 10:38 PM EDT reply actions
two bright spots mentioned by trey....
horam and farnsworth….
anyone surprised?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 10:39 PM EDT reply actions
Yes, Soria should have been called into the game in the 6th inning down 6-1
If you’ve got him, you’d better use him!
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions
he NEEDS to pitch sometime...
no major gripes with anything trey did tonite, but how long are we going to let him sit inactive? Then we’re going to find ourselves in a save situation and he’s going to be rusty as hell.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:10 AM EDT up reply actions
It's not like his arm is going to lose strength
They do have him pitching in workouts and on the side to keep his arm fresh. He gets to throw all of his pitches to keep a feel for them. All relievers have to deal with this.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions
ahhh...since throwing bullpen sessions is the same as throwing to hitters....
i pitched for 13 years including two years in college….they are FAR from the same thing
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions
So it is your extensive amateur pitching experience that tells you how often Soria needs to pitch in a game?
I just spewed water out of my nose laughing at that and now it is all over the keyboard. :(
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions
it tells me that theres a whole helluva difference b/w bullpen sessions and facing hitters....
if they were the same….good pitchers would never face hitters in spring training…due to the risk of injury from a line drive or other such circumstances
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Ever had a MLB-quality arm? Ever pitched in the majors? Or even in pro ball?
Then what in the world do you know about what it takes to keep Soria’s arm fresh and game ready? Not a helluva lot (and that’s being charitable).
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions
oh fuck....why do we even talk about baseball?
none of us including you or I have every played in the majors so we cant possibly know shit about the game….
oh wait, i just described our manager to a T
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
i agree
pitching bullpens and pitching in the game are way way different. No adrenaline in the pens. Not really much to judge yourself on other than what other people tell you. Feedback from coaches is good, but getting hitters out is the best feedback.
He won’t lose his curveball or the touch on his pitches, but I think it’s important for one of our best players to stay at the top of his game by playing in the games.
how dare you?
did you play in the major leagues?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Did you notice that he didn't try to make himself an expert by talking about his amateur pitching experience
I know you’re not so dense as to not understand why I pointed out that you don’t have professional pitching experience. Wait, are you?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:58 AM EDT up reply actions
the only reason i pointed that out my baseball experience was...
b/c i have pitched at high levels of baseball (not CLOSE to the majors) but higher than 95% of people who’ve played baseball. I’ve gone times where I’ve gone a long time b/w pitching and have come out rusty almost every time simply b/c bullpens are different than live games. This is something that people who havent played a ton of baseball might not understand.
I’d say theres a very good chance that when Soria pitches next, he wont look like normal Soria and thats a ridiculous mistake by our manager. Not only did Soria need to pitch to keep himself sharp, he needed to pitch b/c it wouldve helped us win a game.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:06 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm sure he'll pitch soon
And I’m equally sure that Hillman will be roundly criticized for however he gets used.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
and if he's rusty and blows a 1 run lead....
part of the blame will be on Hillman. Nothing like the farnsworth debacles, but he will not be blameless.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:06 AM EDT up reply actions
Because correlation proves causation, right?
Especially in one game. See the flaw there?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:09 AM EDT up reply actions
everything either of us ever says can be refuted by that
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions
No, no, no, YOU are the one who brought up his pitching experience to show how often Soria needs to be used
And I’m pointing out that your limited amateur pitching experience doesn’t tell you anything about what Soria needs to do to stay fresh and game ready.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:31 AM EDT up reply actions
and im telling you....
that based on my extensive amateur pitching experience…that pitching bp sessions is FAR different from facing hitters. Any pitcher who goes 8, 9, 10 days without facing hitters is going to be rusty. Why do you think that 5th starters who get skipped get thrown into games like Horam did last friday? B/C there are no other options? No, its b/c pitchers need to face batters
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions
that based on my extensive amateur pitching experience
I’m sorry, but your extensive amateur pitching experience is worthless. I played both third base and second base in high school. Does that qualify me to tell you how much more difficult it will be for a MLB-quality player and athlete like Teahen to move to second base? Of course not. You don’t have Soria’s arm. You haven’t even played at the professional level. Your experience is meaningless with regard to this issue.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I'd trust you if you said it was easier to field a ground ball on field turf..
than it is on real grass
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm sure my little league catching experience must make me an expert on catching too
I guess I can give you an authoritative, expert ruling on which Royals catcher is better.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:42 AM EDT up reply actions
but i guess that'd be foolish of me
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:42 AM EDT up reply actions
To say the least
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions
An your extensive managerial experience can tell you that he's wrong?
by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Apr 22, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
I'm not the one who made the BS claim of expertise
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Billy's comment was far from a claim of expertise
He was simply stating his opinion, based on his own personal experience, that, for most pitchers, there is a big difference between throwing bullpen/warmup sessions and actually facing live batters in game situations. And he’s done so at a level above high school. Like he said, that’s experience that the overwhelming majority people who frequent this blog don’t have.
I think it’s a pretty intuitive concept. Anyone who has played sports at any level knows that there are a variety of factors that make practice different from actual game situations. I also believe that not playing in actual game situations for extended periods of time can make a player (or entire team) “rusty” (however you want to define that).
Billy and Slayor have stated a theory, based on anecdoctal evidence, personal experience, and admittedly less-than-perfect stats, that Soria will be somewhat “rusty” in his next appearance when goes this long without pitching in a game. No, they are not MLB relief pitchers, but they are human beings (one of whom has experience pitching out of a bullpen at a level higher than most people get to see). I don’t think either one of them said that they are absolutely, positively certain that this theory is lock solid, or that Soria is 100% guaranteed to give up 2+ runs the next time he pitches. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting theory that may never be established definitively enough to your liking. That doesn’t mean it, or any experience it might be based on is “worthless.”
I’m beginning to think that you may actually be Skynet. Let it go.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 22, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
He was simply stating his opinion, based on his own personal experience, that, for most pitchers, there is a big difference between throwing bullpen/warmup sessions and actually facing live batters in game situation
Actually I think it was more along the lines of “I’ve pitched, so I know.”
I think it’s a pretty intuitive concept.
I’m sure there’s a difference. But how big of a difference? Is the difference so huge that the closer needs to be injected into games without regard to situation on a frequent basis because he’ll otherwise get very rusty and thus much less effective? That appears to be billy’s point. That’s where he and I part company.
Billy and Slayor have stated a theory, based on anecdoctal evidence, personal experience, and admittedly less-than-perfect stats, that Soria will be somewhat "rusty" in his next appearance
No, billy didn’t say “somewhat rusty.” I’ll go along with “somewhat rusty” as that is so vague as to cover even a minimal performance difference. Billy said that the difference would be significant. I think he went even further than that.
That doesn’t mean it, or any experience it might be based on is "worthless."
I didn’t say that the theory is worthless. The theory is quite reasonable. The issue is the degree to which this is a problem, which is a wide open question. And no I don’t think that billy’s pitching experience tells us much of anything. Sorry.
I’m beginning to think that you may actually be Skynet. Let it go.
You know, debating is what I do. And I think on a Royals blog heavy on discussion, that’s a good thing. People are going to state their thoughts, feelings and opinions. And often others are going to respond. Often the response won’t be in agreement, and a discussion or even debate will ensue. I think that’s positive. When I have one of these long debates, if people don’t like them they can ignore them. Also, when I have a long debate, it takes at least two to tango. I’m only one of the people who “can’t let it go.” And I’m not entirely sure why it should be let go.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m only one of the people who "can’t let it go." And I’m not entirely sure why it should be let go.
Debating is a good thing. It’s a great thing, and that is indeed a big part of what this blog is for. My point was that healthy debate can sometimes cross over into obsessive nitpicking. And yes, it can be ignored. But when others see that their statements or positions may be attacked and dissected to the nth degree, it can be stifling. Which in turn may lead to fewer people logging on, and a reluctance to comment. Just an observation I’ve had in my (relatively) short time on RR.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 22, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Debating is a good thing. It’s a great thing, and that is indeed a big part of what this blog is for. My point was that healthy debate can sometimes cross over into obsessive nitpicking.
I don’t think my criticism of billy’s argument and his support thereof was nitpicking, obsessive or otherwise.
But when others see that their statements or positions may be attacked and dissected to the nth degree, it can be stifling. Which in turn may lead to fewer people logging on, and a reluctance to comment.
Perhaps so. Thankfully over my time here at Royals Review, the number of hits has increased greatly (and pretty steadily). While I’ve made my contributions, I don’t think for a second that this is because of me. I do, however, think that it is not despite me. We have an intelligent group here. The vast majority of them can handle their opinions being disagreed with, critiqued and even challenged. And I don’t respond to everyone in the same way. If some new poster comes in and makes a point, I don’t tear him to shreds. Billy and I have developed a certain…rapport. And this leads to a particularly contentious and not entirely amiable mode of discourse from time to time. The feeling is entirely mutual.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
It has been awhile ago....
but this has been brought up before. NYR is a relentless high-performing fan(atic) who demands rigorous debate. This probably leads a few fans to lurk in lieu of lamenting on our occasionally languid Lancers.
I probably think you are irrational.
ya I'm sure me, billy, and RR aren't the only three who have wanted to call him
($&#(#)$(*#
Billys point was that bullpen does not equal games. He then said in his own experience he could tell the difference. Hardly showing off at all.
If they were the same Hillman wouldnt be saying things like “we need to get him work”
At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....
That was very impressive
And it was nice to see Soria didn’t pitch again.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
we've gone 5% of our season without seeing our best player, arguably
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
that's what happens when you trade him the the Marlins for a PTBNL
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 21, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
who trades away a cleanup hitter, pays his salary AND doesnt get anyone back in return?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Cruz was a bum today
Unusual for him. So, I don’t blame Trey for bringing Cruz in at all. He just stunk up the joint today.
Farny being Farny.
have we lost 3 games in a row yet this season?
god, we need some sweet revenge on cliff lee tomorrow
realistically speaking
Man I think I would have done the same in Hillmans place...
by not pitching Soria today.
Yeah he hasn’t pitched in a while, but lets say Cruz doesn’t give up the 2 run home run in the 8th, and we do need him to pitch the 9th, and then tomorrow we need him to pitch again.
Just because he hasn’t in a while doesn’t mean he cant get tired pitching 2 nights in a row.
Are you telling me Jesus Christ cant hit a curve ball?
That's the problem though
managers always winding up holding their closers back “just in case we need him tomorrow”, and all of a sudden your closer hasn’t pitched in two weeks
exactly
it’s like saving money for a vacation you might never get to take
what’s the point?
realistically speaking
thats why its always my opinion...
that if you think it might be time to use soria,, its time to use soria…..win the game ‘today’ and worry about tomorrow when it comes
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
you forgot the sarcasm font
realistically speaking
the thing is....he's never gonna see an ideal time to use him...
well, other than sunday….we just NEED to use him…i’d maybe even prefer in a loss just b/c he may have some rust
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Not that Cruz is a bad pitcher
but if Soria needs work, the 8th would’ve been the perfect time to pitch him. Close, reasonably meaningful game; he hasn’t pitched in over a week; he’s probably not going to get a chance for a save tonight anyway….
we're gonna blow cleveland out tomorrow
and we’ll get some innings for soria in a massively deleveraged situation.
and who pitches the last 5 1/3?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
thanks for reminding me that things really have gotten better...
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
That's right, they grounded into a double play in six straight innings.
Umm, why is this a surprise to you? This seems pretty normal Royal to me.
"I'll be the first one to tell you, Don't follow me. I'll let you down. Follow Jesus." Trey Hillman
OK, got it.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
not me...that means we had at least 1 baserunner in 6 straight innings....
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 21, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bravo!
thanks for reminding me that things really have gotten better…
"I'll be the first one to tell you, Don't follow me. I'll let you down. Follow Jesus." Trey Hillman
OK, got it.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
Yeah, because the Royals have an awful offense
…unless of course you’ve been paying attention for the last week and a half…or the stats.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 1:55 AM EDT up reply actions
23rd in the league in runs....
thats not good
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Did you read what I posted?
They’ve actually been hitting quite well for the last week at least.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions
you mocked me saying the royals dont have a good offense....
which by EVERY stat imaginable, they dont have a good offense.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually I was mocking kabrink saying that the Royals offense is so utterly horrendous that we should expect 6 GIDP's
And that is very mock-worthy. Let’s not pretend he made some reasonable comment about the Royals having a below average offense so far this season.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions
You guys are nitpicking
Trey was fine with the bullpen today. I don’t think he made a single wrong decision. So Cruz had a bad day. That’s unusual. Banny will get ’em tomorrow.
Don't try to be reasonable
Everyone is pissed off and cranky about Hillman. Now nothing he does will be looked at in a reasonable and objective way. Every move and non-move he makes will be described as yet another example of incompetence.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
-1 for telling people how they should think
If only the entire Royals fanbase could all have such perspective as insight as you, to shine light on the errors of our ways……..dude, fans will be fans. Let it go.
by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Apr 22, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yes, fans will be fans
And on a blog where people are sharing their thoughts, people are going to talk about all kinds of things, including commenting on each other’s comments. When people say stuff that I think is BS, I’m going to comment. When I say stuff that someone thinks is BS, others will comment (like you just did). Get over it.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough. But it’s like you have a personal goal to be the whistle-blower/hypersensitive one on over-reactions. To me, commenting on them is a futile effort….but your point is taken.
by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Apr 22, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
YOU GET OVER IT
My god, at what point will you realize that it’s not them…it’s you. When you are constantly fighting straw men, counter, devil’s advocate, it gets old.
At least Wally Joyner's not on the team....
Lots of things get old around here
And yet it doesn’t stop people from posting the same old bitches and gripes. That goes for me, you, billy and dozens and dozens more posters. The bottom line is that we all have to deal with each other’s opinions. Deal with it.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
NYroyal....
i get pissed off by your stubbornness at times…as im sure you do the same with mine…but if it really bothered me, I wouldnt come back to do the same over and over again.
I generally think I’m right, as i did last night, and as I still think I am…but in no way do you scare me away from RR, nor do i think i scare you away from RR…
…but i can understand how someone could think that WE (me and you plus others) can make people feel unwelcome
…at least neither of us called each other a homo last night…
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:54 AM EDT up reply actions
i get pissed off by your stubbornness at times…as im sure you do the same with mine…but if it really bothered me, I wouldnt come back to do the same over and over again.
We are very similar in those regards.
…but i can understand how someone could think that WE (me and you plus others) can make people feel unwelcome
I’m sure that’s true. This could be an entirely welcoming place. But that would involve no real disagreements or debates. That would basically mean no passion. I think the passion and strongly held opinions are part of what makes this site great — as well as sometimes probably scaring or intimidating some people from commenting. And the latter is unfortunate.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 4:59 AM EDT up reply actions
i can see how it's unwelcoming....
and i dont remember if you were here before me or vice versa…but i know that my hit rate hasnt slowed down b/c you are here. You, Will and D_F, etc write very good articles (agree or not, understand or not)…that is the reason I come back multiple times/day….it is not because i want to be insulted by NYR…or made feel dumb inadvertantly by D_F, or completely confused by Will and his classic amercan author talk….but b/c of all of those things…b/c I’ve seen royals corner and every other blog….this is the best place to be…even if its’ the only place i’ve been called a ‘homo’ in a solid 8 years
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 5:11 AM EDT up reply actions
So the Indians were losing their lead quickly in the 8th, going through multiple relievers and didn't bring in their closer
The closer didn’t come into the game in the 8th? Nobody makes that mistake! Wedge must be one of those rare really, really awful managers.
The immoderate moderator
Hey, I brought it up in the game thread.
He really rolled the dice bringing in Lewis. Then again, it was the bottom of our lineup, so it’s not exactly the same situation as it was in the Texas game.
realistically speaking
And my point is that this happens in major league baseball several times a week
In 8th inning situations where a lead is in jeopardy, sometimes the closer comes in, but the vast majority of times he isn’t. He’s “saved” for the 9th inning. Criticizing such a move is entirely valid. But that’s like criticizing a manager for going with a 5-man rotation or wearing the team’s uniform. Every manager does it.
Now not going with the closer in the 9th inning of a tie game is different…
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions
On the flip side, Ron Washington brought his closer into the 8th inning today in Toronto.
realistically speaking
Yeah, like I said, sometimes closers get used in the 8th, but usually they don't.
Managers do it, but very infrequently. Hillman did it a handful of times last year. That’s what managers do.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:14 AM EDT up reply actions
and it doesn't make it right
by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Apr 22, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I think I covered that.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Where's the preseason article where Wedge said....
he was going to do exactly that? Bring in his closer for some 4+ out saves? And comparing Wood with his godawful injury history to Soria….apples and oranges. Wood is a closer b/c he cannot take the higher pitch counts and getting hot multiple innings. Soria is the closer b/c…well, i dont really know…but not because his arm cant handle multiple innings
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, so it's only a mistake if you say you'll use the closer more in the 8th but you don't?
And it’s not a mistake if you don’t say you’ll use him more. Isn’t a mistake to not use the closer in the 8th in that kind of situation, regardless of your public comments about how you’ll use the closer? Or are you saying that it’s the public comments that are making you cranky and out of sorts?
And comparing Wood with his godawful injury history to Soria….apples and oranges. Wood is a closer b/c he cannot take the higher pitch counts and getting hot multiple innings
Wow, you are really working hard to argue that Hillman screwed up on Sunday but Wedge didn’t on Tuesday. It’s because Wood can’t handle getting 4 outs? That’s laughable. I’m not talking about blowing his arm out with a huge pitch count. I’m talking about him getting an extra out or two. Wood can handle pitching two innings at a time. What he can’t handle is 150-200 innings per season.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions
i think its apples to oranges still...
hillman has lots of good options in the pen, including two innings of soria….he went to none of those options. He went with the worst option.
Wedge has a pretty awful bullpen outside of Wood…and Wood cannot go more than one inning…theres the difference.
Having 3 good options and using none is different than having no good options and trying all of the bad options you have
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Wedge has a pretty awful bullpen outside of Wood…and Wood cannot go more than one inning…theres the difference.
Exactly! With a poor bullpen it is even more important that you be willing to go with the closer in the 8th when the lead is suddenly disappearing (not to start the 8th with a nice lead, but to put out the fire when the lead is almost all gone). And when a manager has “lots of good options in the pen,” as you said, it’s less important to bring your closer in in the 8th. So you’re right, Wedge made a bigger 8th inning mistake than Hillman.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions
his closer CANNOT go two innings....
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions
What makes you say that? Because he is fragile as a starter?
And fragility as a starter means that a reliever can only be used one inning at a time? That’s ludicrous and unsupportable.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions
and not a risk worth taking when you just guaranteed the guy like $20 million over two years
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Not a risk worth taking to save a lead?
And he pitched more than 1 inning several times last year.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions
one game (in 38 degree weather) is not worth blowing a $20 million investment....
if Wood goes down, their season goes down the drain. He’s proven that you have to be very careful with him, so that is what Wedge is doing.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:33 AM EDT up reply actions
So 4 outs in a cold game is a big injury risk, but 3 outs at the same temperature is not?
Three outs is quite a magical threshold for Wood, I guess. You’re really, really reaching to distinguish Tuesday from Sunday. But I appreciate the effort.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions
getting warm two different times makes it a big difference
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:38 AM EDT up reply actions
That significantly increases injury risk?
Have anything to back that up? Sounds like you are guessing, speculating or just pulling it out of your ass.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions
its fucking common sense
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:42 AM EDT up reply actions
It's common sense that pitching two innings (including the brief warmup before the second inning) significantly increases injury risk?
That’s not common sense. That’s pure BS.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions
then why do we use pitch counts at all?
if pitching more doesnt increase injury risks?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Sure increased pitch counts increase injury risk to some degree
First, so far the research only shows injury risk showing a clear increase when starters throw over 120-130 pitches in a start. I haven’t seen anything which says that 30 pitches for a reliever is significantly more dangerous than 20 pitches. Have you? Second, I’m willing to grant that to some degree risk increases as the number of pitches increase, but what is the threshold where the risk is too much? Does 30 pitches significantly increase the injury risk for Wood, Soria or any pitcher? I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that the level of injury risk increase is significant.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 2:53 AM EDT up reply actions
email i just received from Will Carroll...
who is probably the foremost expert on pitcher health/injuries….
here’s my email to him and his response….although, I’m sure this will in no way show you anything…and in advance, I’m an idiot…ill just save you the time…..
Will,
I always enjoy your chats and insights. A buddy of mine and I were arguing about Wedge’s bullpen use in tonight’s (4/21) Indians/Royals game and comparing it to Hillman’s BP use in Sunday’s game. I argued that with Wood being as fragile as he is, that getting him warm twice and doubling the pitches on a night where it was 38 degrees and rainy would be extremely risky with regards to his health history and whatnot. Im not really asking for any baseball analysis, just whether or not there’d be a significant increase in the risk of injury to Wood’s arm had he been brought into the game in the 8th innning to pitch the 8th and 9th.
his response…
You’d certainly have to worry about getting him up, but weather’s not that big a deal. I don’t think you want him pitching two innings though.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
and if you're going to bring your closer in in the 8th....
the time to do it was with nobody out after they’d already given up a couple of those runs
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions
On Joakim Soria, and the issue of rust:
Joakim Soria on 3 days or more of rest in 2008 (I compiled these numbers by hand using BR, so my apologies if they are not 100% perfect):
22.2IP
7ER
20K
20H
11BB
3HR
2HBP
So, ~1.4WHIP, ~2.84 ERA, and 3/3 HR that he gave up all last year. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. But to say that he doesn’t pitch better with more frequent use, obviously flies in the face of the numbers he compiled last year.
realistically speaking
and that shows quite a significant difference
thanks for doing that
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I promise I won't say anything about the sample size
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:08 AM EDT up reply actions
What do we have, 2 seasons on him?
Is it just a coincidence most of his bad appearances came after long layoffs last year? Maybe… But those are the numbers, and Joakim Soria on 3 or more days of rest last year was obviously quite a different pitcher than Joakim Soria on 3 days or less rest, say what you will.
realistically speaking
So if the stats support your position, sample size is irrelevant?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:10 AM EDT up reply actions
How much of a sample size would you need to be convinced?
No offense, but anybody that watched every game last year could tell Soria’s control wasn’t the same after his longer layoffs. It didn’t take a large sample size, or some sort of scouting genius to recognize this. I wouldn’t have bothered looking up the numbers if I didn’t think there was something to it. Maybe it won’t repeat itself, but when a guy consistently has some of his poorer outings of the season after long periods without use, there is probably something to it.
Hell, I think even common sense tells you that if you are doing a task that involves repeating a specific motion / movement very precisely, that being on sort of schedule or at the least getting regular “reps” or “practice” or “innings” would lend to better consistency. Pitching is obviously a precision thing.
realistically speaking
by slayor on Apr 22, 2009 3:14 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Hell, I think even common sense tells you that if you are doing a task that involves repeating a specific motion / movement very precisely, that being on sort of schedule or at the least getting regular "reps" or "practice" or "innings" would lend to better consistency. Pitching is obviously a precision thing.
And I guess “common sense” is also supposed to tell you that the “reps” or “practice” that he gets in bullpen sessions to stay fresh just aren’t repeating the specific motion / movement precisely?
And how big of a sample size do you need? I’m not sure. I am sure that 22 innings is a tiny sample size.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:24 AM EDT up reply actions
they're not repeating the same thing precisely...
in a game you’re talking about 15-20 seconds between pitches with all sorts of shit going on around you….batters calling time, runners on base, thousands of screaming fans, not having your pitching coach standing 5 feet behind you reminding you of what you need to do after every pitch, having to judge the quality of your pitches in order to make adjustments to them without seeing how a batter reacts to them, etc
Yeah, its the same thing.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
He was specifically talking about the value of repeating the physical motion, was he not?
He wasn’t talking about the mental, emotional or grit-related aspects. So I responded with pointing out that he does get those “reps” and “practice” at repeating those motions.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions
If I ran his 2007 season and it showed the same correlation,
then is the sample size big enough? The issue is we don’t have a lot of data, so obviously we make do with the data we have. Sure, you can say it’s less relevant due to sample size, but I don’t think you can totally discount its relevancy. Indeed, it is not damning proof that Soria is less effective after prolonged periods of inactivity, but it is something.
I think “common sense” should also tell us that throwing a bullpen session is nowhere near the same as pitching in an actual game situation. How many times have you read a pitcher say that they felt awful in the bullpen session before the game, or had no control, but found it when they got on the mound? Or vice versa? I’ve definitely read quotes to that effect multiple times. . So no, it’s not the same thing.
I would say… that my opinion is, that the chances of Soria being “lights out” after extended layoffs diminishes by an amount unknown. Unfortunately, I don’t think either of us can be proven right or wrong.
realistically speaking
Let's say that increases the sample size to 50 ip
If you saw only 50 ip of stats from any pitcher, do you think that’s enough to tell you how good he is? Of course not.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Of course not...
But if a pitcher has 55K in 50IP, would you feel confident in saying he possesses some sort of good strikeout pitch? I’m not asking you to make the leap from Joakim Soria is a great pitcher, to Joakim Soria is an awful pitcher when he has 3 days or more of rest – just that Joakim Soria most likely performs better when he is the recipient of consistent work.
realistically speaking
But if a pitcher has 55K in 50IP, would you feel confident in saying he possesses some sort of good strikeout pitch?
No, just from looking at the stats, I’d say that it looked like he was very effective at getting strikeouts in those 55 ip. In order to describe whether he had a good out pitch, I’d have to watch him pitch or at least read/hear the opinions of qualified people who had seen him pitch. Some players can get strikeouts because they have multiple pretty good pitches, but no clear “out pitch” per se.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Haha, fair enough
But you would at least recognize he has the ability to strike people out. I wish we could chart this somehow, but unfortunately the sample size will never get large enough with Joakim for you to deem it statistically relevant. Which, in some ways, makes this a pointless argument – because even if Joakim said he pitched worse after long layoffs, would his word matter without the stats to prove it? It’s a sticky wicket, and I’m not quite sure what the argument is at this point.
realistically speaking
But you would at least recognize he has the ability to strike people out.
I would recognize that he did strike people out over those 55 innings. I’d also look at his minor league stats to see if this is at least consistent with his prior track record. And I’d look at his stuff to see if this is more likely a mirage or the real deal. Striking people out over 55 innings doesn’t necessarily mean that a pitcher will do it over 200, 500 or 1,000 innings.
ut unfortunately the sample size will never get large enough with Joakim for you to deem it statistically relevant.
Of course this is not true. But when you’re talking about a small subset of a relief pitcher’s stats (which are already a fairly small sample), it will take a while.
because even if Joakim said he pitched worse after long layoffs, would his word matter without the stats to prove it?
His word would be good evidence. I haven’t seen any other good evidence so far.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Sounds good, new game!
Over the next 3 years we will track this for Joakim. 250 innings total good enough? This would be fun, we need a chart or something.
realistically speaking
baseball-reference.com
has it all under the splits tab….for career and year by year and on 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6+ days rest
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:49 AM EDT up reply actions
wow, i wasted a lot of my time
dammit
realistically speaking
yeah...
i really wasnt going to point that out after you did all the work….
until you talked about doing a whole bunch more work…
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Here's some more small sample size whackiness from 2008
When Soria pitched with 5+ days rest, his ERA was 0.00 in 8 innings pitched. Since that is the situation we are dealing with right now, let’s assume that Soria is a dominant pitcher when he has that much rest. Or we can do the wise thing and throw all of the tiny sample sizes out the window and not pretend that they prove any point.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 5:07 AM EDT up reply actions
oh shit....
we’re in trouble now….we’re taking players words on how they performed?
I expect nothing less than a pretty good banny performance tomorrow bc after the game Banny will say that he pitched well, 8 shutout innings or 3 1/3 with 8 runs
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:48 AM EDT up reply actions
i think theres a big difference b/w
50 innings of a starter over 6-7 outings vs. 40-45 appearances of a reliever….simply b/c one ’bad day (which could be completely unrelated to the layoff) isnt going to skew the stats a ton.
40-45 appearances is quite a significant sample size
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:35 AM EDT up reply actions
40-45 appearances is quite a significant sample size
You get an F in both statistics and sabermetrics.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:39 AM EDT up reply actions
how did you feel comfortable going into last year with Soria as our closer?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Mostly it was because he had three plus pitches, a fourth decent pitch and very good control
Are you asking if I thought that his rookie season’s stats made him a clear dominant closer? Of course not.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:43 AM EDT up reply actions
ahhh.....
so, those things are evident by watching him…they’re quite obvious in fact. Dude’s got great pitches and great control of those pitches. It is, however, just as obvious that his pitches and command of those pitches isnt as good after a long layoff. Explain to me the difference. Your completely amateur scouting opinion is better than our completely amateur scouting opinion?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Because you watched closely every time after he had a 3+ day layoff and compared it to all of the rest of his outings?
And why were you looking so closely at this last year? Or are you just relying on your memory now of those particularly 2008 outings? Your credibility is strained beyond the breaking point.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:48 AM EDT up reply actions
b/c it was often pointed out by Ryan, shockingly enough...
that Soria hadnt pitched for awhile, so, yes, I did pay attention.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:53 AM EDT up reply actions
You paid close attention EVERY time Soria pitched on 3+ days rest and compared it to the rest of his appearances?
Or, as it sounds from your “Ryan said” story, was this just one time?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:56 AM EDT up reply actions
not EVERY time....
but quite a few and the stats back up what I saw
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:57 AM EDT up reply actions
So we're talking about your current recollection of a few times when you think you remember that Soria was pitching on 3+ days of rest (maybe)
Backed up by a very small sample of data. Gotcha.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 4:01 AM EDT up reply actions
its not infallible...
but its based on a whole lot more than anything you’re saying….this isnt the court of law. We dont need beyond a reasonable doubt to say ‘theres a good chance that soria wont be great next time out due to 8 days rest’.
Criminal trial vs. civil trial….beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence (i believe that is the correct nomenclature, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong)
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 4:04 AM EDT up reply actions
First, are you just saying that you think it is likely that he won’t be quite as good, or that he’ll likely be significantly worse? I’d probably be willing to agree with the former, but certainly not the latter. Second, do you think that multiple pieces of weak, unreliable evidence are enough to prove your point? This isn’t my evidence vs. your evidence. You are making the claim, so you have to prove it (or, in this case, not prove it). A very small sample of 2008 data, plus your college pitching experience, plus your vague recollections of watching some games last year amounts to three pieces of really crappy evidence.
Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say that I claimed that Hillman has used Callaspo too much and that he actually performs better when he’s only playing twice a weak. If I supported that with a tiny sample of data, plus what a tarot card reading said, plus Callaspo’s horoscope and my wife’s hair dresser’s opinion (which all support my point, I assure you) would those weak pieces of “evidence” prove my point?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 4:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm saying....
as I’ve been saying all along, that he wont be as good and significantly less sharp. Now, that still makes him a pretty good pitcher and maybe he’ll get out of the game unscathed on Thursday when he closes out a Gil victory, but by not using him over the past 8 days, Hillman has likely increased the chances of Soria blowing a game, and that is backed up by legitimate, but not perfect evidence. This isnt the end of the world, but it was a completely unnecessary obstacle that Joakim will have to try to overcome.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 4:19 AM EDT up reply actions
"not perfect evidence"
The understatement of a lifetime. So I guess it was really good, strong evidence, but not quite perfect, huh? Just like how Kyle Farnsworth has been very solid so far, but not quite perfect.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 4:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and it wasn't just my amateur scouting eye, or even primarily my own scouting eye
I don’t think we as fans should ever rely on our own amateur scouting, both because we are merely amateurs and because we can be biased in favor of Royals players (or biased in support of our preconceived opinions). Every scouting opinion I read said that Soria had three plus pitches plus another good one and great control.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:49 AM EDT up reply actions
you are unbelievable...
if there’s something valid that proves your argument wrong, you’re always attacking it (thats what law school will do to you, no offense intended, seriously).
I’ve used anecdotal evidence, slayor has used statistical evidence, with both of us making very valid points, yet in your mind, neither one of these is valid, simply b/c they are contrary to your opinions, which are completely void of any statistical or anecdotal evidence.
Some evidence is always better than ‘b/c i said so’
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Some evidence is always better than ‘b/c i said so’
I never said that Soria sitting for too long would have absolutely no effect on him. It may. What I don’t buy into is the assumptions and conclusions that people are jumping to that this greatly decreases his effectiveness. And what do we have to support this assertion? 1) Your two years of college experience (plus 11 earlier years of pitching experience, which I guess takes you into little league), which is worthless. I’m sorry, but that tells us nothing about what Soria needs to stay fresh and game ready. 2) An insignificant sample size of stats. The fact that it is all the stats we have doesn’t mean that the sample is enough to draw meaningful conclusions. It simply isn’t. I’m sorry. If the stat argument is weak, I’m going to point out that it is weak. There mere fact that this small sample of stats supports your contention does not mean that it is a significant sample size.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:22 AM EDT up reply actions
coming from the guy who said our offense isnt awful based on one week of hitting against bad pitchers in hitters parks
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:23 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
coming from the guy who said our offense isnt awful based on one week of hitting against bad pitchers in hitters parks
Ok, so when we look at the second week, we have to take into account the quality of pitching and the parks the team played in. Should we take that into account in the first week, as well as the weather which was very unfriendly to hitters? No, that doesn’t support your argument, so let’s ignore that.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:27 AM EDT up reply actions
No, I'll weigh them just about equally...
and say we have a bad offense to this point. We’re 23rd in the league in runs scored. Thats bad.
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:28 AM EDT up reply actions
No, you wouldn't say that the offense is bad; you'd say it is awful
Which, of course, is what you did say above. Where is the “awful” cutoff line for you? The Royals are 23rd in runs scored and 21st in OPS. Is anything in the bottom third “awful”? If so, what adjective do you leave for the bottom few offensive teams? Do you dig into the thesaurus for that? If they get up into the middle third of offenses (and they are close to that now), do they graduate from “awful” to merely “very bad”? Or do your adjectives just get a lot more negative after a couple of Royals losses, regardless of how the team is actually performing?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions
just a general guide for me....
1-6 very good
6-12 good
12-18 averageish
18-24 bad
24-30 awful….
so i was two spots off in my completely arbitrary guide to which adjective to use
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:33 AM EDT up reply actions
So your adjective usage was both arbitrary and inaccurate?
Finally we agree. Whew.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:34 AM EDT up reply actions
but far closer than to call someone out for saying the royals have a bad offense....
and harping on them for ‘not looking at the stats’ when in fact, the stats show a significantly below average offense….
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:37 AM EDT up reply actions
No I called someone out for ridiculing the offense far more than it deserves to this point
It wasn’t like he said, “You know, the Royals have a poor offense.”
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:40 AM EDT up reply actions
no he didnt....
b/c that would be extremely an extremely boring comment….sure, he overdramatized it…and then you returned it in a worse manner…one that completely overlooked any statistics that are out there and mocked him for not looking at the stats, when in fact, the stats agreed with him
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:42 AM EDT up reply actions
The stats agreed with him that the Royals offense has been laughably horrible?
No, they don’t, as you yourself admitted. That is why I ridiculed his ridicule.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:51 AM EDT up reply actions
now tell me who was farther off....
Yeah, because the Royals have an awful offense
…unless of course you’ve been paying attention for the last week and a half…or the stats.(you)
or the guy actually saying we have an awful offense?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:38 AM EDT up reply actions
You
I said the Royals offense isn’t awful (or at least implied it). You said the Royals offense is awful. By your own admission, the Royals offense hasn’t been awful so far. So, according to your own nomenclature, I was right and you were wrong. So it looks like you were further off.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:41 AM EDT up reply actions
They're at the 21st %ile....
how would you feel if you scored at the 21%ile on a test?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:44 AM EDT up reply actions
How completely silly of a comparison
Talk about apples and oranges. Regardless, the issue was awful or not awful. As YOU pointed out, the answer is not awful.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:53 AM EDT up reply actions
not awful, not yet
but i was under the impression that most of the projection systems had our offense as being borderline awful, esp w/o gordon
then again, they are projections
realistically speaking
Aw shucks, quit being mean
You know he meant to say they were merely below average to average, not AWFUL
realistically speaking
Billy would never say something so reasonable and measured
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:52 AM EDT up reply actions
which would be precisely why I didnt say
we were 30th in the league in runs scored after the first week as a reason to support my argument
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I messed up, Soria gave up 5HR last year.
3 in 07
realistically speaking
without entering the debate
this sounds like a combined job for someone with Retrosheet and Pitch f/x skills
could be done for any and all relievers, measuring their relative velocity, release points, velocity given x # days of rest, as well as K/BFP, BB rate, etc.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that would be great info
And I would readily accept the results as long as it was multiple pitchers over a large sample of data, which I know is what you are suggesting.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know enough about stats at the moment to rigure out what a good sample would be
obvoiusly, the more years, the better. But even if someone did it for just one year, and just with retrosheet, I bet it would be really illuminating.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Very true
If you’re talking about all MLB relievers over one year, that would be very telling.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/do-relief-pitchers-suffer-from-pitching-back-to-back-days/
this is just for sinker/slider pitchers which isnt really Soria, but its exactly what you’re talking about….and its showing significantly less effectiveness on the sinker
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Completely off topic....
but has anyone seen Frost/Nixon? Worth watching?
How about What Doesn’t Kill you?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 3:20 AM EDT reply actions
Sure, it was a frustrating loss
But I didn’t get home last night until we were down 6-1 in the 4th. I didn’t even bother starting up MLB audio and figured it was going to be a loss. It was fun to come back in the 8th and at least have a shot because I didn’t figure we’d have one all night long.
The good news is that Detroit and Chicago lost
so KC is still tied for first !!!
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Are people actually upset with how Trey managed last night?
Granted, the lineup left a little to be desired (Maier and Buck instead of The Spork and Olivo would’ve been an improvement), but as far as in-game management, I agreed with pretty much every move Hillman made last night. Farnsworth only pitched with the team down 5 runs (the perfect role for him). When the Royals rallied and had a legit chance to win, Hillman brought in his second best reliever rather than leaving in Farnsworth. Cruz picked a bad time to give up his first runs of the year (although he’s usually going to be in high leverage situations, so any time is a bad time), but when he came in, I’m guessing most people expected him to get through the 8th without allowing any runs. Then the Royals have a chance to continue their rally in the 9th. If they take the lead, you bring in Soria. If they tie it up, you can either bring in Soria (which Hillman wouldn’t have done) or let Cruz pitch a second inning (which Hillman may or may not have done).
Yes, Hillman’s in-game moves were very questionable, if not downright stupid, on Sunday. But viewed with no preconceived notions about Hillman, last night’s moves made a lot of sense. The only thing I questioned was batting Brayan Pena for Aviles in the 8th. It worked out, but does anyone know why that move was made? I didn’t hear anything about Aviles being injured, so I’m guessing it was just because Aviles has struggled early this season and Pena is a switch-hitter versus a RHP. Both reasonable; I personally might have left Aviles in, but this move worked out, so I can’t complain. After Aviles was out of the game, Hillman made good moves of using Tony Pena Jr only for defense, and not letting him bat in the 9th. (Maier isn’t the ideal pinch hitter, but I believe the only other option on the bench was Buck. I can’t imagine what the defensive alignment would’ve looked like in the bottom of the 9th if Buck had batted for T. Pena and the Royals had scored.)
by cbrett42 on Apr 22, 2009 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Also, pulling Ponson when he did was a good call. Some managers might have left Ponson in, with the reasoning that they were probably going to lose that game, so why waste the bullpen. Hillman made the right call to get an ineffective Ponson out of there and go to a rested bullpen after an off-day. The Indians didn’t score in the 5th-7th (probably couldn’t have said that if Ponson had been left in to eat some innings). If they had, 4 runs in the 8th wouldn’t have meant much.
I don't think there are many people who are upset......
a few were wanting Soria to throw the bottom of the 8th, but it wasn’t anything like Sunday’s debacle.
Most of this cat-fight is just NY and billy……….when I saw that there were over 100 comments on here, I had a pretty good idea it was just NY going at it with someone.
by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Apr 22, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions
He's kind of like a pitbull, isn't he?
Sometimes I think you’d have to shoot him to get him to stop. And it would have to be a kill shot, too. I think he’d take one in the shoulder or leg and keep on going, as long as he wasn’t losing too much blood.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 22, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah.
he and i got involved in an epic debate last year. it was interesting to see just how long it could be drug out. i don’t remember how long it took for him to call off the dogs………ohhhhh snap! what a pun-ster I am!
by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Apr 22, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
when I saw that there were over 100 comments on here, I had a pretty good idea it was just NY going at it with someone.
Isn’t it awful when people get into a discussion about something in an open forum for discussion? What’s this place coming to???
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Difference between discussion and being Captain Gotta Have The Last Word
By the way
Your mom has the last word.
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Apr 22, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm sorry if you don't like my discussion/debating style
And, of course, I really don’t care. It’s just part of the joy of being at Royals Review. Deal with it. Oh, and you are free to have the last word in this particular witty banter.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Just yankin your chain baby
Last word
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Apr 22, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
nice job
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Not the best debater
but I do excell at poking the bear.
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Apr 22, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
i was actually just tring to get the last word
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
And it was all NY of course
Billy wasn’t trying to have the last word at all. Nope.
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
I'm in no way innocent of that....
its just somewhat annoying when someone keeps coming back with absolutely nothing besides, youre an idiot as a counterargument
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 22, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's what I did.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
On the bright side, we're still in first after dropping two
And we haven’t lost more than two in a row all of this short season. Let’s keep that going!
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
"can't we all just get along?"
"I'll be the first one to tell you, Don't follow me. I'll let you down. Follow Jesus." Trey Hillman
OK, got it.
The General Theory of Royaltivity
Nope
Sneaky last word.
Now quick, Will, close the comments on this thing so I win.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 22, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
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
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- 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
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
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.
