Martin Manley Nails It: Royals Don't Have The Balls To Walk

The crux of Manley's argument: "If you are making the assumption that taking a walk is less a function of patience and more a function of pitcher fear, I can see where you care coming from. So, I decided to evaluate that question."

You can guess what he finds. The Royals simply do not value taking pitches, walks, and OBP. And you can't blame it on pitchers fearing the Royals obvious lack of power.

Novel? No. Not at all. We've all been arguing this for years here (and elsewhere). But Manley's critique is devastating nonetheless. Why? Because it's coming from the KC Star, which (other than Posnanski) has generally shilled KC success stories or unfounded hope. - TL

almost 2 years ago timlacy 17 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I want to hear what Coach Ron Polk has to say about this!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jul 22, 2010 11:04 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I was hoping that you...

…would comment on how I improved Manley’s title for my fanshot. …And who is Ron Polk, btw? – TL

"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.

by timlacy on Jul 22, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions

He's the one who devised the "Judging the Royals" system.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Jul 22, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Thanks.

I read that article. It was so-so. I mean, I like qualitative analysis, but that was still decidedly average. – TL

by timlacy on Jul 22, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Most of the UFR stuff is to me.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.

People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Jul 22, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

Hoo boy

That was badly written and argued. Couldn’t make it through.

by kcdc1 on Jul 22, 2010 12:00 PM EDT reply actions

The argument's point, however,...

…is there. And there are numbers to back it up. Manley’s point is undeniable. But yes, some of the bloggers the Star has assigned to follow the Royals are not crisp writers. – TL

by timlacy on Jul 22, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Also, show us...

…how you would improve the piece. – TL

by timlacy on Jul 22, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, a number of other problems aside, if he wants to look at the correlation b/t

a team’s “runs per hit” rate and their BB and HR rates, then run a regression. Looking at the HR-leader’s BB rank and vice versa is a strange way to approach the question he’s after.

Would you like to follow me on Twitter, Facebook, or my blog...well you can't.

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jul 22, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

He threw out like 4 data points and magically concluded that it’s a perfect correlation. There was also some nonsense about whether HR’s or walks are more important for scoring runs, and that somehow lead him to a conclusion that if HR’s are better, then it’s DM’s fault that the Royals aren’t scoring, but if walks are better, then it’s Yost and the players’ fault that the Royals aren’t scoring. The whole progression made no sense.

I could go on listing my problems with the article, but there’s no point. The Royals don’t walk enough. I don’t know if the lack of walks is the result of a lack of trying to walk or if it’s because the hitters just aren’t good at laying off pitches out of the zone and fouling off pitches in the zone. It’d be nice if they improved both aspects.

by kcdc1 on Jul 22, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm glad that a KC Star writer is trying to use stastical analysis

and also talking about the importance of walks. But the actual analysis (as others have mentioned) has a ways to go.

For starters, there’s a flaw in the initial reasoning that “runs per hit” is only really affected by walks and HR. More hits will also give you more runs per hit; better baserunning will, too.

Would you like to follow me on Twitter, Facebook, or my blog...well you can't.

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jul 22, 2010 12:46 PM EDT reply actions

He should've...

…looked at runs per hit efficiency while controlling for HRs.

by timlacy on Jul 22, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions

No overanalysis is really needed

One of the very first things I pointed out to my daughter when she first took an interest in baseball, was for her to watch how often any run scoring innings involved extra base hits and/or walks, and how often they didn’t. It wasn’t very long before she surmised how important those two things are to an offense, and it wasn’t very long after that that she surmised that the Royals were decidedly inferior to their opponents in both categories.

2010 has been a near-perfect example of how useless a singles-based offense is, regardless of the offense actually being good at hitting singles. Only exception might be in the dead ball era, or in the 70s or early 80s if you had a team full of high percentage base stealers like the Cardinals had some of those years. Also would probably require playing in a larger field than is allowed by ML rules nowadays.

"We're gonna win with pitching and defense" General Manager Dayton Moore, circa winter 2009

"Where did all these Indians come from?" General George Armstrong Custer, circa summer 1876

by loyal2sdad on Jul 22, 2010 1:29 PM EDT reply actions

Also would probably require playing in a larger field than is allowed by ML rules nowadays.

The Royals would probably be awesome on a cricket field.

"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae

"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie

by Sweep_the_Leg on Jul 22, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions

"2010 has been a near-perfect example of how useless a singles-based offense is, regardless of the offense actually being good at hitting singles"

Which would be awesome that the 2010 team produced such undeniable evidence of the lack of a correlation between average and runs, except that I bet Dayton just thinks we need to improve our BA with RISP.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Jul 22, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions

That would be funny if DM thought that

Mainly because these are the 2 lines:

Royals overall: .281/.335/.402
Royals w/ RISP: .279/.343/.402

The difference in BA amounts to 1 hit (though with the same SLG, they must have an extra double with RISP, or they round nicely, one of the 2), and the difference in OBP amounts to 7 extra walks/hit batters with RISP.

by AxDxMx on Jul 22, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions