Alright, decision time, Ned Yost
I'm not even going to sweat the loss to Seattle today...the Royals just ran into a buzzsaw named Michael Pineda. This guy looks to be the real deal and a half, and if this keeps up, it'll make it an extra-interesting tidbit this Summer for the M's -- with as poor an offense as they have, they're not going to win much, so the possibility of trading Felix Hernandez will loom large.
Alright...I lied. I will sweat one thing, and that was Ned Yost's decision to have Jarrod Dyson bunt in the 8th inning. It was silly -- Dyson isn't a good hitter, but he does have a good batting eye and is able to get on-base via the walk. The Royals were down two runs with no outs at that point, so giving an out away in order to get the opportunity to score just one of the runs you'd need to tie isn't smart at all.
Also, with Dyson's speed, the possibility of a double-play should have been much reduced (and indeed he ended up beating out a double-play on that at-bat). So, with the decent chance Dyson could draw a walk, much less actually (gasp!) get a hit, why take the bat out of his hands? Or, better yet, why not have Alcides Escobar steal 2nd, where then a sacrifice gets him to 3rd -- and then even an out would score him? Sacrificing Escobar to 2nd base still means they would've needed a hit to drive him in.
Questionable, Yost.
Another thing that could become questionable very quickly is what Yost does with Chris Getz, now that he's performing more Chris Getz-like. I wouldn't necessarily say he should go against what he's done initially -- if Getz was named the starter at 2nd base, fine, I wouldn't suggest yanking him after a few poor games when he had the great start.
However, Yost has to know that his best offensive lineup features Getz sitting on the bench, and Mike Aviles starting at 2B with the still white-hot Wilson Betemit starting at 3rd, defense be damned. Getz doesn't provide enough defense to cover for the offensive jump from him to Aviles, and the Royals need to try to get Betemit more plate appearances at the moment.
We'll see how quick he is to pull the trigger, but I'll say this much -- with as quickly as he's given days off to Alex Gordon, Kila Ka'aihue, Aviles, and others for various reasons (including struggling at the plate), I'm going to start to wonder about Yost's sanity if he continues to play Getz every day while he's slumping with the bat.
Getz, Billy Butler, and Alcides Escobar are the only Royals who haven't had a day off yet. For two of those three players, that makes perfect sense -- guess which one doesn't make as much sense? You get three guesses, but the last two don't count.
Other things:
- The match-up vs. the Cleveland Indians will test some things -- the Royals have faced only one team that early in the season has scored well, and that team (the Chicago White Sox) tagged them for 16 runs in the two game series. The Indians are also scoring well, so this may be a true barometer of the Royals pitching staff, who to this point has done fairly well, but has faced some absolutely anemic offenses (especially in the Twins and Mariners)
- I'm now pretty much expecting something positive each game from Billy Butler, Gordon, and Betemit at the plate, whether it's hits of some sort or a walk (and Gordon's walked very little to this point). It won't happen, but I'm confident in them at the plate. Another thing Yost will need to consider (read: need to do), is hit Betemit 5th until such time as he cools off. He's simply a better hitter than Kila from the left side.
- Blake Wood has looked good so far, but I'll wait for a few more appearances before having any real confidence in him.
- The next 10 games will be very, very telling for the Royals in 2011. If they managed to do well in the 7 games vs. the Indians while holding their own against the Texas Rangers, then I will officially have hope of them contending for the AL Central title this year. That hope probably wouldn't fill a thimble, but hey, it'll be there.
Go Blue!
42 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
we think alike
i try not to get too worked up into “this guy should have PHed for so and so” kind of thinking too often. for one, there’s a demonstrated disadvantage to PHing, it’s not easy to do. for another thing, over a long season, stuff like that rarely matters.
however, yost really seems to be not doing any of that late game stuff at all this year. he basically PRs. Getz and Treanor have hit with the game on the line multiple times, when there were options off the bench to PH. Then again, Treanor hit a GW HR and Getz hit .400 for a week, so it actually didnt hurtthe team.
Still, something to watch.
Normally I don't, either
I usually see those decisions as something that don’t stand much chance of making a difference in the outcome of a game, but on that particular one I tried to follow Yost’s chain of probably logic, and I couldn’t get to a place where it made sense to me. Take the bat out of Dyson’s hands because you don’t like the 20-30% chance of him doing something good, so you can get Escobar to 2nd base…where hm, oddly enough, you have about a 20-30% chance of driving him home with Getz.
Maybe Yost is trying to get an idea of who is “clutch”, or he’s just trying to stand by his lineup card — which would be silly, because those could have been great decisions for that soft-tossing RHP that started the game, but now that there’s a fireball-throwing LHP coming into the game, maybe you should think about changing strategy.
Ah well…thanks for reading, Will, I appreciate it.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Sorry, to clarify the 2nd paragraph
What I meant was, if Yost is going to bother to make decisions like putting the sacrifice on w/ Dyson and trade an out for a possible extra 90ft., then he should also go the full length and pinch-hit sometimes, too.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
I agree
And so does Rany, he said as much this morning on 810. He thought there was a slight disad to pinch hitting, and that Melky is not a significant enough improvement over Brayan to overcome that disad and the loss of your catcher in extra innings. He also defended the Wood appearance as he was a groundball pitcher – and ended up pitching reasonably well.
Ned is a perfectly cromulent manager, and he seems to do well at what is arguably his most important job – creating an atmosphere where players want to and can succeed.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Apr 18, 2011 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree if by "slight" he meant "large"
I’m not sure Melky is a better hitter than Brayan straight up, even.
Pretty hilarious to pinch-hit for Brayan and not Coach TREANOR!!!, though.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 18, 2011 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Getz had 1 day off but came in in 1 of the extra inninng gms.........
"As a Karate expert, I will not talk about any of you." Jimmy McMillan
by PREGNANT ROLLERSKATE on Apr 18, 2011 10:48 AM EDT reply actions
Ah, I just saw the 15/15 games
Good catch…maybe he’s due another? =)
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
by DanielSmith on Apr 18, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
True, Gordon has not walked much.
Especially when it matters; he has not had a single walk with men on base or in RISP situations.
That, too, is very interesting
Because if we’re ready to think he’s really changed and can hit like this, are we ready to agree that it’s come at the expense of his walk rate? I’d take it in a heartbeat, but the old Gordon knew how to take a walk, whereas this one has been pretty hack-happy so far.
I seriously doubt he’ll continue to walk at this low of a rate, though.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
He's pretty swing-happy in big situations . . .
5 Ks in 17 AB w/RISP compared to only 4 hits (.235 w/RISP).
This is all "what if" discussion, right?
We’re all educated fans here, right? No one really thinks that a 66 PA stretch means anything, right?
If we (rightly) assume that his BABIP is going to regress to the mean and past performance, we need to assume the same about his walk rate.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 18, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you, here and on the competing article about Kila
because, to quote Will McDonald, of the “laughably small sample of fifteen games.”
Of course, it's always a "what if" discussion
It’s two parts: 1) are we ready to believe in some sort of change, then 2) wondering how that change will manifest itself over a longer period of time if it’s indeed happened.
But it’s such a vast difference it’s hard to really believe in it…but I think sacrificing some batting average (and thus SLG, too) for OBP could be the way things go, and keep him in the same general OPS-vicinity. .310/.380/.500 would still be wonderful, if we dare to hope.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Yeah, I agree
I don’t think he’s a true talent .300 hitter, not anywhere really close. .280 seems optimistic. But he’s going to need to get back his walks and perhaps even hit some home runs… seems like they’ve really taken to the idea of turning him into Mark Teahen (although, ironically enough, they spent tons of time trying to get Teahen to pull the ball).
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 19, 2011 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
That would be quite the BA jump
.280 is muuuuch more realistic, yes….and man, he is sort of following that Teahen career arc, isn’t he?
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
They seem intent on getting him to do so
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Apr 19, 2011 8:01 AM EDT up reply actions
What's wrong with Mark Teahen?
I mean, the guy had his own TV show. His own show!
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 19, 2011 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Can anybody make a decent case for bringing Wood into the game in a fairly high leverage situation in the 7th inning?
Rany attempted to on WHB this morning and quite frankly he failed dismally. He’s may the 5th best reliever on the 25-man roster right now. There were four better options, each was available. And no Blake Wood doesn’t make sense in that situation merely because he’s had good minor league stats in a tiny sample and there’s word hecreased his velocity some. (BTW, according to the actual data his avg. FB velocity in the majors is actually down 1.5 mph this year)
You may know me as NYRoyal.
I can't make a case either way
I would want to get a read on what the braintrust thinks of Wood as far as the future, and what they realistically think of the ballclub’s chances to contend this year.
If they don’t think they’ll be in contention (realistic view), then they should use Wood as much as they feel like, whenever they feel like. The evaluation process includes everyone…Wood, Crow, Collins, etc., so why not throw Wood in there and see what happens?
If they believe they’re in contention now (rosy view) and want to do as much as they can to win every game (something that’s already not quite being done), then I agree, there were better options.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
The evaluation process requires exposingm to high leverage situations righter he’s been called up even though he’s clearly an inferior pitcher? I don’t buy that for a second. By that logic, every Royals reliever should get used in high leverage situations to “test their mettle” or something like that. I’m sorry, but no. Evaluate him by pitching him, but there’s no reason to waste important innings on him.
So if the bases are loaded with nobody out in the 8th inning tonight in a tie game, you want Yost to bring in Adock so we can evalute him in a clutch situation?
so why not throw Wood in there and see what happens?
Because you don’t need to throw away games to evaluate him. I don’t believe he needs to be tested in high leverage situations any more than I believe in closer magic.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 18, 2011 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
They should all get to play, as well as . . .
get a medal and orange juice after the game (or, if they’re behaving well, Dairy Queen or McDonald’s).
I'm sorry
but high leverage situations don’t just come around when your bullpen is on perfect rest so you can pitch exactly who you want. Real life doesn’t work that way.
I’m not saying throw him out there every time, I’m saying he shouldn’t be excluded each and every time. If you decide he cannot at all be considered for high leverage situations, then you also need to get him off of your 25-man roster.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
by DanielSmith on Apr 18, 2011 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
but high leverage situations don’t just come around when your bullpen is on perfect rest so you can pitch exactly who you want. Real life doesn’t work that way.
Right, but we’re talking about a specific, real world situation here. Soria, Crow, Collins and Jeffress were all available. Any of them could have been used. They could have easily handled the 7-9 innings. Sure, if the rest of the bullpen was gassed, go with Wood. That was not the case in that game.
I’m not saying throw him out there every time, I’m saying he shouldn’t be excluded each and every time
No, he should be excluded every time there is a better reliever available. This really isn’t complicated.
If you decide he cannot at all be considered for high leverage situations, then you also need to get him off of your 25-man roster.
Huh? Are you arguing that a MLB bullpen should only consist of pitchers who are good enough to be relied up on in high leverage situations? That’s a great goal, but no MLB bullpen has that. The 6th and 7th relievers on a team are rarely good pitchers. But this is pretty simple. It was a high leverage situation. One of the Royals better relievers should have been out there. Yost picked maybe the 5th best reliever on the active roster and it cost the Royals the game. There was no good reason to have him out there. None at all.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 19, 2011 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm arguing an MLB bullpen
should have pitchers that you have a reasonable amount of confidence in to get hitters out, and part of the thinking for the Royals moving forward is, when a good opportunity presents itself, to find out.
But I suppose if you’re convinced the Royals are contending and are worried they somehow won’t be able to get enough data on Collins, Crow, or Jeffress in the 146 games left on the schedule, well, then you can stay mad over a single game.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
by DanielSmith on Apr 19, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
“stay mad”? Please don’t be that guy. Don’t act like I’m ranting and raving and still “mad” about a bad managerial move. It was a stupid move. My understandin of the original post was to look at some of the moves in that game and analyze them. This was one. And for that game it was in my opinion the biggest one. I think it was stupid, so I’m making that point.
should have pitchers that you have a reasonable amount of confidence in to get hitters out, and part of the thinking for the Royals moving forward is, when a good opportunity presents itself, to find out.
Does that require finding out if a pitcher can get hitters out at any and every degree of leverage? Must all pitchers be exposed to low, medium and high leverage situations? Why don’t we let Wood prove that he can get hitters out in ANY situation before exposing him to high leverage situation when we don’t have to? Because so far, he really hasn’t proven anything close to that. We haven’t even seen any signs of it, as his minor league track record and stuff don’t suggest that it is likely to ever happen.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 19, 2011 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
There isn't worlds of difference, here
I guess I waffle more than you do…there’s sort of a fuzzy line I have as far as believing minor league stats, whereas you believe in them more than I do. Nothing wrong with that, of course. As far as the scouting reports and their raw stuff goes, same thing — there were reasons why Kyle Davies or Brett Tomko never seem to get it despite having decent stuff, and reasons why Kirk Rueter was effective despite lack of stuff.
But we can’t wait a whole career to find all that out about these guys, can we?
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Kirk Rueter effective? Ha!
We’ve talked about The Myth of the 1 fWAR Pitcher here before. Kirk Rueter is a prime example of this. Despite a lack of results from Kirk, he continued to throw at the MLB level for some reason. If you set aside his career 1997 season with 2.9 fWAR, his next best season was half of that at 1.5. 13 seasons and a total of 15 fWAR. Wow.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1128&position=P
While Davies’s ERA is worse, his career FIP at this point is better than Rueter’s.
Hm, I'm not even going to start on semantics, again
But I will say this…5th starter, much?
I’m not sure what you’re expecting at the back end of the rotation (or what turns out to be most teams’ worst starter), but you ain’t gettin’ a 2+ WAR consistently, and shouldn’t even expect it.
Rueter was an effective pitcher…he ate innings very well at the back of the rotation w/o leaking runs like a sieve…somehow. The Giants treated him as better than a 5th starter most of his career there, but that’s not my problem…he was a “legitimate” 5th starter in a league where they’re usually a myth.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
If that's what you want out of a 5th starter then be my guest.
I’d rather put someone back there that has some possible upside, and after a few years if they don’t get it, cut bait and move on. Rueter’s salary was way too high to justify keeping him.
Very true
But I had no control over how much the Giants paid him, nor how they slotted him (Opening Day starter one year, #2 and #3 starters in others).
I’m just saying based on the results he got, even while every single one of us wondered why he wasn’t getting pasted, he was an effective 5th starter. He just wasn’t treated that way.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Haha, probably
But I thought of him as a 5th starter, and his performance holds up well in that regard…as a #2 or #3 starter, though, ugh.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
A 5th starter should be someone that has some possible upside.
And is cheap. Kirk Rueter fit the bill of a guy that should not have been resigned once he got past his arbitration years. Why pay a 5th starter good money, when you can pluck any piece of crap from your farm team and get about the same performance? SOS is a 5th starter. Vin Mazzaro is a 5th starter. Kirk Rueter was barely better than these guys most years, and cost more than 10x the price.
But he won games!
For which he should thank the Giants’ offense from some of those years, which had Bonds in his prime, Jeff Kent in his, Rich Aurilia’s best offensive seasons, etc.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
...
I think I realize Kirk Rueter wasn’t good, but thanks for telling me in about 7 different ways. My feeling he was an effective 5th starter for a large part of his career doesn’t mean I think he’s good.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
I'll also take advantage of timing
And use game 1 vs. the Indians as a perfect example of another point…we shouldn’t be confident in anyone in the Royals bullpen at this early juncture…it isn’t like Crow, Collins, Jeffress, et al have done enough to give us confidence in them as a definitively better option. We need more data on all of them.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
by DanielSmith on Apr 18, 2011 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
So you're arguing that we have no idea how good any of those pitchers is?
MLB data is not the only thing that s telling. We also know what kind of stuff they have, as well as their minor league stats. Jeffress has gotten a lot of strikeouts throughout the minors and in his brief major league stint and his best pitch is better than Wood’s best pitch. Collins has a much better minor league track record (based on pretty much every stat) and his best two pitches are better than any pitch Wood throws. Crow had a bad year as a starter, but he has excellent stuff, including two very good pitches. Blake Wood has an arrow-straight fastball which averages about 94 mph. He has no good second pitch. He hasn’t been successful above A-ball. Above that level he’s gotten few strikeouts and hasn’t coupled that with few walks.
In short, there is a great deal of statistical and scouting information which shows that those four pitchers (including Soria of course) are better than Wood.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 19, 2011 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Not at all
I’m saying they’re all being evaluated…is that the same thing as saying we don’t have a clue? I don’t think so. Remember 2012-2013? Aren’t they supposed to be building towards that? It’s all part of it…being more confident in Jeffress and Crow is fine, but I’m saying having supreme confidence in them and none in Wood is unbalanced, too.
If they bother to have Wood on the roster, they’ve got to consider him as an option whenever it makes sense.
In any case, you seem pretty sure of yourself, so we’ll go with that. I’ll point out I never disagreed with you on who seems to be better, only that I’d like to see them pitch more at the major league level…that’s it, and it’s simpler than any of the points you mentioned. Last I checked, minor league stats and scouting tell us what is possible, not probable.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
by DanielSmith on Apr 19, 2011 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
being more confident in Jeffress and Crow is fine, but I’m saying having supreme confidence in them and none in Wood is unbalanced, too.
Did I say anything about “supreme confidence”? (whatever that is) No, I said that there is very good reason to believe that Wood is inferior to those other four pitchers. It’s not like when a player gets to the majors, we have no idea how good he is. We know a lot about Wood and there isn’t much to like.
If they bother to have Wood on the roster, they’ve got to consider him as an option whenever it makes sense.
Exactly. When it makes sense. And it doesn’t make sense to use your fifth best reliever in a high leverage situation when each of the top four is available.
I’d like to see them pitch more at the major league level
Sure pitch Wood, Adock and others who don’t appear to be particularly good. Give them innings. But do so when it makes sense.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Apr 19, 2011 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Heh, we're down to semantics, now
We’re both making assumptions, I think, about what the other is saying, and maybe missing that there’s not much gap in what we think of the pitchers — just a difference in philosphy on how they looked at.
In any case, nice going back and forth with you!
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
When Moose and Cain come up and Maier and Kila go down
you’d have a “hitting” team of Treanor/Peña C, Billy 1B, Aviles 2B, Escobar SS, Moose 3B, Alex LF, Cain CF, Frenchy RF, and Betemit DH, and a “hands” team of Treanor C, Billy 1B, Getz 2B, Escobar SS, Moose 3B, Alex LF, Cain CF, Dyson RF, and Betemit DH. Billy and Alex never sit down even on the hands team because of their batting skill.
Yo confío en Jack.

by 
















