Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Amateur Mathematics Of Linsanity

On Chris Getz, Willie Bloomquist, Hustle, Character, Etc.

The "Chris Getz play" is up on the MLB.com-related sites now, so I figure it's early enough to talk about it. For the second time in a month, a Royal made a fairly egregious mental mistake/lack of hustle mistake. You'll recall back in New York, the bizarre Jorge Posada appears to be insane game, when the Yankee catcher made a handful of weird plays, including one in which he was bailed out by a lolly-gagging Willie Bloomquist. In Getz's case, after a close play at second he turned and argued with a umpire, while play continued and a run scored.

Star-divide

My first reaction, to both of these plays, is anger and frustration. Anger and frustration directed in a variety of places. Towards the players, towards the people who kept telling me Yost was a great improvement because the team was playing harder and more focused and more fundamentally sound, etc. I also feel this weird misplaced, future investment anger, because I know I'm still going to hear all about how scrappy Chris Getz is. And I'm especially going to hear about Willie Bloomquist... for-freaking-ever. You just know he's going to be a bench coach with the Royals someday, and we'll be watching a game in 2025 when Ryan will say something about how you could build a team/the pyramids with a lineup full of Bloomquists.

 

I also feel a strong sense of injustice. We've endured hustle-based controversies involving Hanley Ramirez and B.J. Upton this season. A Upton+hustle google search brings back over 1.4 million results. Willie Bloomquist hustle brings back 98,000, which mostly appear to be positive. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't even think those Upton/Ramirez plays were necessarily even that bad. I saw both a zillion times when they happened, and there's no clear evidence that the other team gained a single base because they weren't running 20% harder. Neither was even in the Getz ballpark in terms of a mental decision directly hurting the team. I know that's not the point, but it's also a point that should probably be brought up. We actually see this in baseball all the time, and for good reason. On a huge percentage of plays, there's really only one best case scenario for the hitter. Unless someone falls down, he's not making it to second or third or whatever. Again, I know that's something we don't say out loud, but basically 90% of the doubles ever hit are like that. When Kevin Youkillis bangs one off the Monster, he's actually hurting the Red Sox if he busts it down to 2B and gets caught taking too large a turn or tries to stretch it to a triple or whatever.

I think, however, when I divorce myself from my own emotions, what these plays most remind me of is fielding debates. No one actually keeps hustle/non-hustle stats, much like the handful of stats we officially keep for fielding are pretty useless. Imagine if there were no hitting stats? Year after year, no hitting stats. You'd probably have a good sense of who the very best and the very worse hitters were, but 80% would just be a huge glob of mystery. (Kinda like the National League for me.) We'd all end up having strong opinions about guys who do weird/oddball things like hitting for the cycle or a player who hit 3 HRs in a game in April. HRs, remember, are just like diving catches, we see them, but we don't record them.

So, what I'm trying to get at is this: Willie Bloomquist had a bad moment, Chris Getz got caught up in his emotions and acted petulantly and let his teammates down. It's one play. One play out of thousands this season. I already dislike those players, so for me it's really annoying. For the guys in the Bloomquist nation, a Willie jog is barely worth noticing. In the end, we just confirm our own biases. Just like we do with fielding.

Maybe our human character is reliable and dependable in some clear way. Some people are good, some are bad. Maybe. Or maybe, we have good days and bad days. I've seen some of the nicest people I know do some devastatingly mean things too, and vice versa. I tend to think baseball character is the same way. Sure, on the whole, some guys do hustle more or less than others, and some players are smarter or dumber than others. (But what gets constituted as smart or dumb is still all messed up.) But everyone has bad days. It's baseball. It's a game built around failure.

I am still going to flip out the next time someone lectures me about all Willie Blooomquist does that "doesn't show up in the stats."

Comment 51 comments  |  7 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I don't think he wasrunning 100%

but I also don’t think it actually mattered in the play

by Freneau on Aug 3, 2010 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think it is too easily dismissed, yes

the silly go 110% alll the time ethos is cartoonish to me

not excusing what he did, but a dead, hamstring-risking sprint for a lost cause isn’t something that’s going to give me a hard-on either

by Freneau on Aug 3, 2010 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

it’s nowhere near that simple… but Getz and Bloomquist are in the mode of scrappy middle infielders

and Getz really isn’t average either

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo (follow me, because reloading my twitter page 40 times a day is kind of creepy)

by BHWick on Aug 3, 2010 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

It's going to go even further soon.

hopefully this season there will be some evidence to support it or dismiss. More on this later.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Aug 3, 2010 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions  

that you Whitlock?

for when I'm too lazy to come here, http://twitter.com/AtTheWall

by AtTheWall on Aug 3, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

that was pretty poetic Will...

Maybe our human character is reliable and dependable in some clear way.

Ross Gload, this account is dedicated to your spectacular Kauffman Stadium swipe-the-rolling-ball-off-the-wall play in 2008. I blew my Gload on that one.

by Blowin My Gload on Aug 3, 2010 2:23 AM EDT reply actions  

Any links to the video?

Everyone who bashes Kendall..... he is a damn good catcher. Very smart behind the plate. He has great BAT CONTROL, which makes him a good top of the order hitter.

I'm a proud "studs fag" since 6/20/2010... are you?

by kansasjhawk044 on Aug 3, 2010 4:53 AM EDT reply actions  

although you have a valid point...

What kind of examples are “gritty” veterans that “help create good habits” when they get bad results themselves?

I would much rather Grienke talk with Bannister about pitching than (insert veteran pitcher name here), or rather have Moustakas talk with Butler about hitting than Bloomquist.

by ZeppelinDZ on Aug 3, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions  

Not sure Banny's a great example for you...

Banny gets bad results and would be the type of guy that I think carries value beyond his pitching ability.

And don’t get me wrong, I don’t want a team of 25 Bloomquists or whatever, but I think that in the absence of good players, it’s better (for the future of the franchise) to have on the roster hard working players with good habits than slightly more talented guys who don’t work as hard.

by billexgordler on Aug 3, 2010 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Not sure what you're getting at here...

Guillen’s never been called a hard worker, or gritty, or a pro. There are a bunch of Royals that Moore’s signed that don’t fit the Kendall, Bloomy profile. Guillen was a terrible idea, a terrible signing. I’ve never said otherwise. I dislike him as strongly as I can dislike a player. Irredeemable, as a player.

by billexgordler on Aug 3, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I couldn't disagree more.

The vast majority of these ball players bust their asses in the off-season, in the cages, and weightrooms. I highly doubt that Kendall or Bloomquist really stand out a whole lot in that regard, they just dive a few times a year and guys like Ryan love to talk about how they got their uniform dirty so they get labeled as “gritty”.

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 Aug 3, 2010 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

And I think assuming that Willie Bloomquist works harder than anyone else is awful naive.

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 Aug 3, 2010 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Then we are at an impasse.

I have no idea what to say in response to this level of cynicism.

We all agree that there is no way to discern that Bloomquist is a hard worker by watching the games. Either there is a vast, league-/media-wide conspiracy invested in progressing the idea that Willie Bloomquist is a hard worker, or he’s working notably hard when we’re not watching and others are.

As for Kendall, I think it’s pretty clear that he is very tough and does work very hard. He plays the most brutal position and doesn’t skip games. And it’s cause for derision among the cognoscenti.

Look, I hate that I’m defending these guys. They’re bad baseball players and I hate that they’re on my team. Kendall’s my least favorite Royal in, like, forever. But I do believe that if nothing else they set good examples in terms of what type of effort it takes to be a major league baseball player. And if they can pass those lessons on to some of the more talented players in the system, then their presence will not be for nothing.

by billexgordler on Aug 3, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I'm definitely not saying that Kendall or Bloomquist aren't hard workers.

Just saying that I do not think they’re outworking 95% of the other players in MLB. I think they’re probably in the top half but because they’re limited athletically, they get praised for being hard workers.

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 Aug 3, 2010 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions  

Then it's a chicken/egg deal

I think they’re praised for being hard workers because they’re hard workers. And yes, they are limited as baseball players and it’s largely through hard work that they’ve been able to stick.

A couple other things: 1) like other labels, hard worker can stick on a player long after it’s true. It’s quite possible that a guy who once was a hard worker and a good example for young players has slipped in his effort and is living off his reputation. I have no way of knowing whether this is true for Willie but all evidence shows that Kendall is still working his as off. 2) strictly being a hard worker doesn’t mean you’re a good teammate. Two easy examples are ARod and Ichiro!. They both clearly work extremely hard but they seem to do all their work independently of their teammates and don’t seem to inspire like efforts from teammates. On my college football team our best player was our QB. He had a 10+ year NFL career. During the summer, we all worked out together at the school lifting and running together. He was in town but did all his workouts by himself with his own coach. We never saw him all summer. He came to camp in ridiculous shape. We all suspected PEDs but despite the fact that he had worked at least as hard as we had, we had no respect for him and little connection to him as a teammate. He treated himself as seperate from the team and despite his excellence and work ethic, he was not a good teammate, not someone I would go to battle for.

Commence eye-rolling now. I have no idea whether these issues of chemistry have any effect over wins and losses but I do know that these issues feel very real for the players, coaches and management.

by billexgordler on Aug 3, 2010 11:57 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

I don’t doubt there’s a very real effect. Players consciously believe it, at least: ESPN’s anonymous “MLB Player X” discussed this point. You also see glimpses of this principle, say, late in no hitters/perfect games when you see fielders attempt plays they otherwise might not.

Having said that, in one of your other posts, you mentioned Kendall"s durability as a strong example. I worry that it may largely be offset by his alleged bullying of teams into starting as often as he does, and the example that may set.

She thinks she missed the train to Mars; she's out back counting stars.

by KeepItCopacetic on Aug 3, 2010 12:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

The Kendall Problem

I firmly believe that Kendall’s insistence on playing every day hurts both his own and his team’s performance. Not only because he’s a bad player, but because his playing objectively gets worse the more he plays. But I’ll play Devil’s Advocate and say that coaches/management would much rather deal with a player who has to be physically restrained to keep from playing than a guy who begs out for minor ailments. And that if the lesson he teaches young players is to play every day and to fight for your position that this is a good lesson. If Kendall is truly bullying the organization into playing, the fault is the organization’s and not Kendall’s.

I know that Will Carroll has made a cottage industry out of criticizing the culture of tough-guy-ness in professional sports and he’s done a great job of presenting his position that players are often better off resting minor injuries than risking exacerbating them and creating major injuries. It’s a compelling argument, but the counter-argument is equally compelling: many of the injuries/pains that athletes incur throughout a season are not debilitating and won’t materially affect the player’s performance. See, eg, Albert Pujols. He’s had injuries that could have put him on the DL for each of the last five seasons, but he’s tough as hell and he works his ass off and stays on the field.

by billexgordler on Aug 3, 2010 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

The moral here, then

Is that players must be able to objectively recognize their own limits, and be able to follow frank advice from trainers. Pujols is a great example of a player with a “positive” pain tolerance he can work behind. Of course, Gil Meche insisting on staying in with 125 pitches is a more foolhardy example. I suppose that only Kendall himself truly knows where he falls on that spectrum.

She thinks she missed the train to Mars; she's out back counting stars.

by KeepItCopacetic on Aug 3, 2010 2:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

I think a guy like Bloomie is only in MLB to begin with because he works his butt off. When baseball people talk about grit, I think that’s what they mean—a guy who doesn’t really have the talent to be an MLB player—he’s close but not quite there. The effort pushes him across. For every guy like Bloomie there are dozens who have all the tools but are lazy, head cases, fragile, whatever. If they worked as hard as the gritty guys they’d be excellent ball players but they don’t and are resented. (Particularly since the gritty guys end up working for clubs after their playing days are over.)

by BlueEyes_Austin on Aug 3, 2010 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

its possible

but the thing is, we bring in the next wave of Kendalls every year

the culture of the team always supposedly sucks, and we’re always supposedly fixing it the next season

by Freneau on Aug 3, 2010 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Dayton should be looking for the next Ibanez each season ...

… instead of old David Eckstein clones. I could totally see Nick Punto on this team in 5 years.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Aug 3, 2010 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yes

If Moore actually believes that the culture is the cause of the royals ineptitude, then he’s wrong. But I do think that analysts who argue that culture is a product of talent (which is the prominent belief in the analytic community) are also wrong.

If Moore believes that creating a positive ethic is the right way to prepare the organization for talent, that’s an idea I can get behind. If however he continues to favor culture over talent when the talent is elite, then I’m out.

by billexgordler on Aug 3, 2010 12:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions  

I’m perfectly ready to admit that hustling/trying hard/working hard/etc. are valuable, but they are valuable BECAUSE of what they add to the box score. If some one is hustling, they’ll have a higher on-base percentage because they’ll leg out a few extra infield grounders per year, or score more runs because they reach on an error, or have a higher UZR because they get to a couple more balls in the outfield. If two guys have exactly the same skills and abilities, but one hustles and the other doesn’t, the hustler is going to be more valuable, but not because they hustle in of itself, but because their hustling affects their contributions to the team winning games.

Let's just trust the process.

by trusttheprocess on Aug 3, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions  

But you’re talking about hustle during a game, which I’m agreeing is something that is accounted for in the statistics and, if not, is generally inconsequential. I’m saying that these reputations are earned when teams aren’t playing the games and during events that we aren’t privy to, and yet are critical to player development/improvement.

by billexgordler on Aug 3, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

If hustle during practice/before games/etc. is meaningful, it will still show up in box scores. If some one is really dedicated to lifting weights, they’ll hit more home runs with those gains in strength. If some one is truly dedicated to studying film, they’ll steal more bases by detecting the opposing pitcher’s pickoff move. If some one really is dedicated to taking extra infield practice, they’ll make fewer errors. Good practice habits are good because they lead to on-field success. If those practices do NOT lead to on-field success, then there is no reason to assume that they are even good habits.

As far as below average yet hard working players like Jason Kendall being a good example, I’m just not sure that I buy it. What’s a more convincing example – busting your ass to have Jason Kendall’s stat line/salary or ‘being lazy’ and having Hanley Ramirez’s stat line/salary? Personally, I’d think that some one like Willie Bloomquist who’s trying to play drill seargent to get people to work harder would suffer from a lack of credibility.

I think the problem many people have with the mainstream media’s love afair with with the scrappy hustler is that a value seems to be placed on hustling in of itself, and that oftentimes that value is seen as more important than actual on-field success. Throw in the racial dimension and it becomes much more serious.

Let's just trust the process.

by trusttheprocess on Aug 3, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

I understand the whole “the box score is comprehensive” argument. It’s what analysts have been pushing for years. My response is only that the alchemy of leadership is mysterious. Being a hard worker is necessary but not sufficient. Ideally your best player is also your hardest worker and your best leader. That’s not often the case. Players will often follow the example of guys who aren’t great players because of their charisma and willingness to work hard and lead. And it certainly isn’t about being a drill sergeant. It has to be natural or it won’t work.

I’m not very comfortable making this argument. I’m gen-x, cynical, postmodern, the whole deal. But I’ve played enough sports and worked in enough environments to be firm in my belief having good leadership within the ranks matters a great deal to an organization’s success.

As for the racial component, it’s probably not insignificant. There are plenty of counter-examples in both directions (Torii Hunter: hard working, leader; Adam Dunn: lazy, not passionate) but there are definitely more white “grinders” than hispanics or blacks.

by billexgordler on Aug 3, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Good post

I was just reading last night about “confirmation bias” (Naseb Talem’s “Black Swan”). I think there is a lot of it in defense evaluation, even among those that use sabermetrics.

The hustle thing doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the Ryan Lefebvre “THE ROYALS LEAD THE LEAGUE IN FIELDING PERCENTAGE!!!!” thing.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 3, 2010 9:47 AM EDT reply actions  

will, i think you're spot on

there are a number of issues here and a number of thoughts running through my head, so I’ll try to lay them out somewhat coherently.

i absolutely think there can be some bias towards non-white players when it comes to hustle, probably subconscious (i’m probably guilty of it from time to time like most of us) but still there.

i think it is amazing that athletes hustle as much as they do, i mean bj upton didn’t hustle on maybe one play out of what, 500 and his teammate jumps all in his ass about it and it’s the end of the world…i mean, they should hustle 100% of the time that it’s appropriate, but we’re all human and prone to mistakes.

with getz, just a stupid play, a brain fart, a sign of immaturity but not a lack of hustle, still it was a mistake, hopefully he learns from it and moves on.

will, serious question: is your anger directed more towards the players themselves (i’m guessing no), the organization, or people who defend the players? with the organization, i think that is something that’s common among all organizations, the 25th man, the special teams dynamo, the scrappy backup point guard, etc. fans naturally fall in love with these players because they can identify with them, they are probably the closest to them in ability and it gives people a chance to live vicariously through them…after all, sports (like movies or tv) gives the average joe with 4 kids, a shitty job, and 2 mortgages a chance to escape, to dream, to root for the underdog (america, if nothing else, loves its underdogs).

i just think you’re setting yourself up for disappointment if you expect the average person with average IQ (and most of us are woefully inadequate when it comes to numbers, which is another issue altogether) to delve into statistics and try to statistically analyze sporting events.

anyway, good post and a good read-and, seriously, a big thank you for all of the time you put into this site, i can’t tell you how much enjoyment I get from having a place to come every day to talk royals.

BOOM YOSTED!

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Aug 3, 2010 9:53 AM EDT reply actions  

the players just become the target of a lot of unfocused stuff, positive and negative

but it’s really just stupid blogger rage directed towards the org, the apologists, etc

by Freneau on Aug 3, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

i'm sure they are fine people (the players, i mean)

i don’t think it’s limited to the royals, however-fans and organization both…just between you and me, i hate it too-i don’t really like underdogs all that much, i think it’s become overdone in our society.

BOOM YOSTED!

by Home Run Tony Cogan on Aug 3, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan