Royals win an efficient game behind Bannister
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:16 PM EDT
Email
PrintSo Brian Bannister came back to the majors and he was effective. It's always good to go six innings and give up no runs, but that start wasn't exactly one to write home about. Giving up no home runs in a home run friendly park is a good thing. But getting only one strikeout and giving up two walks isn't particularly impressive. And it seems like he gave up his share of hard hit balls. So this wasn't exactly a return to 2007 dominance, but it was exactly the kind of effectiveness you'd like to have from a fifth starter.
The bottom line is that it's good to get back in the win column, especially in a game where one of the bottom-of-the-order pitchers is starting and you're going up against last year's CY winner. Now the Royals get back to the the Big Three.
99 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yay Banny
and Go Davies, but, at the risk of giving up my return to class-clownism, can we hold off a bit on the “Big Three”
Didn’t get to follow the game, but it looks like the Royals really needed the pitching — Lee gave up some hard hits, but no HRs and a fair amounts of Ks…
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
"The Big Three" is undoubtedly premature fan exuberance on my part
I plead guilty.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
not trying to put you in your place or put down Davies
just trying to avoid a jinx
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand
And I know Davies still hasn’t proven himself. On the other hand, I don’t believe in jinxes.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
And I guess I meant "those who have been the Big Three so far this season"
…and hoping it will continue.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Whatever d_f you just drank too much Haterade
Davies is a lock everytime out 1 month and 3 starts tells me it’s so
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
My question is why d_f gotta be hatin'?
What up?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I can't keep this goin I left my ebonics dictionary at work
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
let's just say
your last mancrush candidate for a #3 starter… well, that didn’t turn so well. Although after tonight, we might have to stage another intervention.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I've still got love for Ponson even after last night
Do you think he’ll share his cake?
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
thats a lot of man to love
who are the two players assigned to keeping him and Callaspo from ever hitting the town together?
I’d love to know how “close” their lockers are.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Banny’s quest for league averageness isn’t over yet! And, thankfully, I don’t really have a mancrush on Davies. Superficially, he’s too country, too construction worker and too Galtish for me. I need an effete intellectual.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Gordon, Butler, and Moustakas for Scherzer!
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Blasphemor ...You leave my Moose out of all trade talks
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Banny is at least as smart and bookish as Scherzer, and he has more experience
So I’d be willing to hold my nose and trade them straight up.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions
given the DBacks offense so far
they really need about 3-4 aces maybe even more than the Royals do
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions
ya Haren got his 2nd and 3rd runs of support for the season so far
It only took 7 innings too
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Is Scherzer really that smart?
The guy went to the University of Missouri after all…
Hate, hate hate.
3.9 gpa in high school. 1st team Academic Big 12 at Mizzou. Finance/Banking major
Only negative is he’s a STL kid. on the plus side, he has two different colored eyes………which is amazingly sweet. it makes up for the STL thing. almost.
by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on Apr 22, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
That kinda freaks me out
One green and one blue I can deal with, but I’m pretty sure he’s a terminator.
You say something like, "Is that it?" I know what you`re trying to say. You`re trying to say, "Aww yeah, that`s it." Then you tell me you want some more. Well...I`m not surprised. But I`m quite sleepy.
by Joseph Landis on Apr 22, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't doubt Scherzer's intellectual horsepower...
I was just trying to take a dig at Mizzou.
does he know what his BABIP was last year?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:36 AM EDT up reply actions
At least we know he has
immunity to that crazy disease from 28 days…
I've got crazy flipper fingers!
Banni being interviewed on MLBN right now
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
And the studio actually talked about whether it should've been him or Hochevar called up
amazing
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
Now we get the more comfortable matchup of Meche vs. Reyes
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
not that it could really be setup
but if it could putting your #5 against the other team’s #1, again, making the unlikelyl assumption that pitchers generally stayed “in order” would be a good way of getting a slight edge in pitching matchups, assuming overall relatively “evenness” of the players in the respective slots.
sounds like a totally irrelevant column…
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 22, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
That's the best kind of column
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions
im of the opinion that i'll take my #5 vs the other team's #1....
rather than 1 vs 1 b/c that means we’ve got gil vs #2 and Zack vs #3….
weve got a definite advantage in 2 out of 3
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:38 AM EDT up reply actions
However
If you believe your starting pitching, in general, is better than the opposition’s, I think you would want every number to match up because you would always expect to have the better performance. The other scenario almost concedes a game every time through the rotation. In previous Royals rotations, I would be willing to do that in many cases (Eduardo Villacis), but not with this rotation – at least not once Hoch gets back up. Don’t forget that other teams have a back to their rotations.
On the other hand
should we view the lack of K’s as a good thing? His K/9 went up 1.4 for 2008 but everything else obviously dropped! Let’s get it all back to to 2007!
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
I'm not gonna mind if Banny goes all
Chien Ming-Wang on the AL this year. I just want the 2008 version, not 2009.
except that (pre-2009) Wang is a GB pitcher
Banny is not
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 23, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Verlander continues to bunch his opponents hits 3-2 Halos after 1
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
oh man I can't WAIT for JoPo's column.. hadn't even thought about that until just now
Do you think it would hurt my chances of being linked by him if I wrote my own pseudo “Banny Log?”
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
It depends
Will the pseudo-Banny Log be an homage to JoPo’s version, a satire of it or a ridicule of it? And, of course, there’s a fine line between the second and third.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions
let JoPo have his own banny log...
when banny actually makes a good start….
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:39 AM EDT up reply actions
god bless brian bannister
threw 100 pitches, and basically threw the same two pitches over and over again, with a 3mph variance in velocity. no idea how that works, but good game
realistically speaking
His pitch mix was interesting
Pitch f/x says he threw a lot of fastballs, sliders and cutters, mixing in an occasional change and slow curve. But the speed and break numbers were very similar for the cutters and sliders, so I think they were actually the same pitch. So he did mostly go fastball-slider. But interestingly in the 5th and 6th innings, he was throwing that slider and some changes and curves but very few fastballs. I think fastballs didn’t account for even 10% of the pitches in threw in his last two innings. I’ve heard of pitching backwards, but that is very unique. But hey, whatever works. He isn’t going to get batters out by blowing them away with the occasional 91-92 mph fastball, at least not very often, and particularly not in the later innings when they’ve seen the fastball several times and his velocity is down a bit. So I guess it makes sense to keep throwing breaking balls and changeups and putting them in the right place.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, I'm pretty sure it was almost all cutters
Don’t think he threw a curveball for a strike all night, 10% fastballs sounds right. Maybe 5-6 changeups. Just off what I saw I’m thinking 85% cutter, 10% fastball, 5% curveball / changeup
realistically speaking
It would be interesting if they were actually cutters
He threw a cutter back with the Mets, but said that he abandoned it before the 2007 season because the pitch simply wasn’t good. In both 2007 and 2008, he was fastball-slider-curveball-change. No cutters. I wonder if he has brought the cutter back or if those “cutters” that Pitch f/x recognized are actually sliders. Since their characteristics were very, very similar, I kind of think it was the latter and they were actually sliders.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Ryan said at some point during the game
that he was using a cutter. They mentioned part of the back story about him dropping the pitch then add it again.
So, I do think that it is in fact a cutter.
If so, it should be interesting to see if it makes a difference.
Fairly sure it was the cutter tonight
After looking at the pitch f/x from this game in april of last year:
and comparing it to what he was throwing tonight. Which is an interesting development.
realistically speaking
knock it off
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Olivo raised his average to .156
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
by mazoboom on Apr 22, 2009 10:39 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
On a couple of occassions, Maier has come in as a defensive replacement for The Spork
Therefore, William Paul Bloomquist is regularly in the starting lineup FOR HIS BAT.
At least for his bat against LHP, as opposed to Maier’s bat against LHP. I don’t know if Hillman is following a strict platoon until Guillen comes back, but it isn’t the worst idea.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Maier's only gotten one start, right?
The platoon until Guillen gets back isn’t a terrible idea. Why is it that (seemingly) every starting pitcher we’ve faced the first two weeks of the season is a lefty?
How crazy is this team?
We are playing Willie Fucking Bloomquist for his bat, and if that weren’t enough, we are playing Billy Butler for his glove.
BOOM! ROASTED!
by GoBabies!! on Apr 22, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
If we get to the point where
we’re playing Olivo for his speed, I’m done.
This space for rent.
by jonfmorse on Apr 22, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
...after all,
Olivo was a perfect 7-for-7 in steal attempts in 2008…
and 12 for 1,148 in catching pitches
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Huh
I thought it was for his grit.
He IS gritty, right?
. . . a weary nation turns to Gil Meche
Maybe that's why we've gotten a good start
Didn’t we play about .500 ball against lefties last year?
You don't really think Hillman
understands platoons do you? Sorry, correction. Hillman has SAID he doesn’t “believe” in platoons. So…
"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
I think there's a reason Bloomy and Olivo have a high percentage of starts against LHP
I think he understands at least the basics of platoon differentials. That’s standard baseball orthodoxy. He knows that stuff. And while he isn’t going to have a position on the team held down by a strict platoon for the whole season, when he’s trying to piece together a RF for a week when two injuries push you down to the 5th and 6th OFers, I think he’ll continue to use a semi-platoon.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
We talk a lot about standard baseball orthodoxy
and it made me think the other day during one of the numerous Soria/reliever discussions. Many of today’s “baseball men” were also in the game in the 70s era of “firemen”. So, how did that change occur. The argument that baseball is rigorously traditional seems to contradict that a change has occurred and the change has become the orthodoxy. And, to go to the old traditional “firemen” role is now “unorthodox” or “innovative”. So, how do we get someone (ahem, Hillman) to be innovative enough to go back to the future so to speak?
"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
Standard baseball orthodoxy does change over time
Over the history of organized baseball, teams went from 1 starter, to 2, to 3, to 4, to 5. At each step along the way, a given number of starters on the team represented the standard, orthodox idea of what starting pitching on a team should be. Relief pitching evolved from just a guy or two on the team who could come in if necessary to multiple pitchers dedicated to relief duty, to the “ace reliever” concept, to the fireman, to the modern closer. I’m sure the feeling in baseball (as echoed and perpetuated by the mainstream sports media) is that these changes represent progress. The three-man rotation was fine way back when, but now you have to go with five, they say. A fireman was fine back in the 70’s or 80s, but now closers are saved to slam the door on a win, which is more important, they say. So, to mainstream baseball thinkers, going back to how it was done in the past (even if that is only 25 years ago) is going back to when they doing things in an antiquated way beyond which baseball has evolved.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
It's all La Russa's fault
So, how do we get someone (ahem, Hillman) to be innovative enough to go back to the future so to speak?
We have to find the next La Russa, a basball guy that’s willing to be different and change the orthodoxy. A GM that encourages it is also helpful. And Soria could be our Eckersley
"I've seen the future and it's much like the present only longer." - Dan Quisenberry
Throw Banny a freaking bone
He pitched 6 scoreless innings. I’d like that from any of my starters, but I am quite pleased if it comes from the 5 spot.
Pecota, watch over us.
I think that's basically what I said.
Serviceable, acceptable, unspectacular, exactly what you want from a #5 starter.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I don't think it was "good"
I don’t think runs allowed is good way to evaluate pitching performance.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
sure as shit it is
it may not portend good things, but results are results. It was a good performance, probably benefitting from a lot of luck, but they can’t go back and change it. It happened. It was good. He’s obviously not going to get away with those ratios and peripherals, but for at least one night he did, and thats baseball.
Now im going to play some god damned beer ping.
PS (anyone who doesnt like the new pringles restaurant favorites like mozzeralla and marinara, onion blossom, or mexican layered dip sucks)
It was very good for the team, but I thought we were talking about how well he pitched
Whether runs scored has to do with a lot of things, including pitching, but also including defense and luck. Evaluating pitching performance is about isolating the pitching itself and minimizing the extraneous factors.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 2:32 AM EDT up reply actions
he pitched well
He didn’t strike out too many, but he induced a boatload of groundballs 57%. It’s not as though he allowed 12 baserunners but didn’t give up a run — he only allowed on average one baserunner an inning. I don’t see how you can look at this and say it wasn’t a good performance.
It’s entirely possible that he was lucky to not give up more hits, but I don’t think you can say he was lucky not to give up more runs (based on the actual number of hits and walks he allowed) or at least enough runs to make this merely an “acceptable” performance.
by marbotty on Apr 23, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
After looking at the batted ball data, he pitched better than I gave him credit for
LD% 14.3
GB% 57.1
FB% 28.6
Even with only one strikeout and two walks that’s still a good start. As his career batted ball data is much different from this, I don’t know if it is sustainable, but I’ll give him credit for what he did Wednesday night. And, by the same token, I think we can expect more strikeouts going forward as well.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
banny got good results tonite....
so for tonite, he was a good pitcher. He is not a good MLB starter in my mind. He had like a .40 ERA at this point last year after 3 starts…not 1….look how he ended up
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:46 AM EDT up reply actions
You overlooked one pretty big deal as Bannister gave up only 4 hits over 6 innings
He looked much more like the 2007 good Bannister than he did the 2008 bad Bannister. I do agree that the walks are concerning though…he was also walking too many at Omaha as well.
I'd rather be watching baseball.
by Sisquatch Kids on Apr 22, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
There's a reason I ignored it
Pitchers have little control over what happens to balls in play. I think Banny received the benefit of a lot of BABIP luck. He gave up a good deal of flyballs and line drives. Thankfully few turned into hits. I don’t think it was primarily because Banny was inducing weak contact. At least that’s not what I saw. I’ll be interested in seeing what his tRA is in a couple days.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 22, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions
howd soria look tonite?
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:46 AM EDT up reply actions
on top of his game im sure
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 4:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Boy, you can't get enough, can you?
He looked fine. His stuff was working and he had command of it. As Joakim said:
"My command was there," Soria said. "I was able to hit my spots. I’ve been throwing in the bullpen. I haven’t been pitching in games, but in the late innings, when the game is close, I have to warm up. I felt ready."
And since you like small sample sizes, his ERA from last year and this year in appearances in which he’s had 5+ days of rest stays at 0.00 in 9 ip.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 4:52 AM EDT up reply actions
so, soria didnt look rusty tonite?
theres no argument that i can make against that…
you’re too closed minded….
small sample size again…but as i predicted, soria wasnt sharp…not rocket science really….
BB/9 is a 9….almost 4 times more than on 4 or less days rest…nice try…k/9…same way….mock my sample size all you want, but theres no way to argue that soria didnt look like soria tonite….nor is there any way to argue that my argument last night did not ring true
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 5:01 AM EDT up reply actions
You were going to say that he didn't look sharp, regardless of what happened in this game
No matter what “evidence” you find, you claim vindication. Declaring victory is the easiest way to “win.” Soria sure felt sharp tonight. But I guess what he says about his command and hitting his spots means less than your scouting eye. I get it. And, I’m done. Continue on and howl at the moon if you like.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 5:07 AM EDT up reply actions
1,2,3....11 pitches and a K....
theres no way i can claim a victory…
it didnt turn out that way…it was a hit, walk and a close call on a 2 run lead…which is pretty much exactly what i predicted
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 5:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't really want to get involved in this argument, but...
I heard someone say that the single was a ground ball through the infield that wasn’t that far away from being a double-play ball. (I wasn’t watching the game at that point, so I’m only going on what I heard.) If that had been turned into a double play, and Soria had faced the minimum with 11 pitches, how would you have classified that?
i was correct in my prediction...
AND the royals won….twas a good night
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 5:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, you predicted that you'd think he wouldn't look sharp
Actually I was pretty sure you’d say he didn’t look sharp even before the game started. That was entirely predictable.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 5:07 AM EDT up reply actions
his fastball looked to be really on point
but I think his curveball was off just a hair. That’s how good he is, though, when he finally needed it, he got it over for a strikeout looking.
by I need more Esteban on Apr 23, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
His curveball has been off just a hair all season
HIs control of his curveball has been inconsistent all year. He’s getting good break, but I’d say 1/3 of his curveballs have been clearly out of control and not where he intended them to be.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions
ERA is not a stat worth of measuring anything...
which is why my charity is going to win $10 on porcello
TPJ...you're dead to me
by billybeingbilly on Apr 23, 2009 5:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Looking forward to the first annual Banny Log tomorrow
*You think I'm good* "You know, that Farnsworth is pretty good." *You will give me 9 million dollars* "So, Farnsy, how does $9 million sound?"
by jackie ballgame on Apr 22, 2009 11:28 PM EDT reply actions
Didn't get to see it.
But, heck, that’s fantastic for Banny. I love that he beat Cliffy.
"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
I got off work and expected to watch the end of the game
Quick pitchers duel instead, but I’ll take the victory. From how it sounds (since I didn’t get to watch the game), we hit Lee hard but right at the defense, which is a typical Royals problem. Hope we get the series win tomorrow with Meche, and then I can watch a first place Royals team in person for the second time in my life.
You say something like, "Is that it?" I know what you`re trying to say. You`re trying to say, "Aww yeah, that`s it." Then you tell me you want some more. Well...I`m not surprised. But I`m quite sleepy.
"...and the mind of a f*ck scientist."
Or is that Kenny “Farnsworth” Powers? Anyway, prereglorification* is fun.
*Suck it JoPo we can make up words too.
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Apr 23, 2009 7:12 AM EDT reply actions
Am I the only one
who tuned in late to the game and sat stunned wondering why Ponson was pitching this game for us? I mean, did Banny actually eat Big Sid for a pre-game meal before hanging 0s on the Tribe? I guess I’m saying he looked a little heavy to me. No one else?
Baseball's that swingy stick game, right?
by royalsroyalsroyals on Apr 23, 2009 11:11 AM EDT reply actions
he's a father now
it’s given him a different perspective on food
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 23, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
He looked the same to me physically
But with a goatee.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Apr 23, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
