Why is Dusty in Cincinnati?

[CubColtPacer]

He may not have been referring to walks directly like Dusty does, but I still don't like the reasoning:

 

-Getting on base is NEVER a bad thing

 

No, it isn't. I don't think Lou ever said that it was.

 

-Having a pitcher make outs in front of a leadoff hitter is not better than having a slow baserunner get on base in front of a leadoff hitter. The middle of the order needs all the guys on base they can get.

 

True, but the pitcher has to make outs somewhere. There are arguments about where that should be.

 

-We don't have a speedy leadoff hitter who provides a significant enough contribution by attempting to steal bases

I don't see how that's relevant, but Theriot does a very good job at being efficient at stealing bases. Of course, I was thinking about the people who Lou might put in the 9 spot in this section. If you were referring to Soriano in the 1 spot, then this quote is more relevant but I don't see how the next quote fits, so I'll assume you're talking about possible 9 spot hitters here.

 

-We don't have a speedy leadoff hitter who gets on base good rate

absolutely true

 

-If you want the look of an "American League lineup," how about not trying to steal bases and hit more HRs?

An average American league team has attempted more stolen bases than an average National League team in 4 out of the last 5 years. The average National League team hit more home runs than the average American League team in 2007 after being close for several years. The perception is that American league ball is about waiting for home runs and not stealing bases, but that's not the reality.

 

 

-And most of all, there's no such thing as clogging up the bases

 

Sure there is. It's a very minor negative effect of speed. What made everybody furious at Dusty was that he neutralized a very minor negative effect by sacrificing a major component (BB's), which created a much, much worse negative effect. Clogging up the bases is real (in an ideal setting, every player would be fast enough to make sure that the next player wouldn't have to stop a base short of where they normally would). It's just not important whatsoever, and should be way, way down on the list of priorities to fix.

[Jon]

In a so-called base clogging situation, you'd either have a fast runner at first with a slow runner at second or a fast runner at second with a slow runner at third. There is a runner in scoring position in both situation. In the former, if you want to steal a base, it would have to be a double steal, so the speed of the runner at second doesn't hinder the runner at first. On a base hit, the runner on second will either stop at third or try to score. If he stops at third, the ball likely would not have gotten far enough for the runner on first to try for third if there was no runner in front of him. If he tries to score, the fast runner can advance as far as possible. In fact, he may be able to take third base on a throw home. Either way, there's no situation in which having a fast runner on first is better than having two men on with one in scoring position. Not with the players on this team, at least. Very, very few base runners have been able to steal both 2nd and 3rd at a high enough rate to even make that a strategical option. Even then you'd be focusing on scoring just one run, whereas having two men on gives you, well, two men on.

 

In the latter scenario, or with runners at the corners, the only way having a slow runner on third would be a disadvantage is if the fast runner can steal his way to third and score on a sacrifice fly which is too shallow to score the slow runner. But again, picking the non-base clogging situation over having two men on would statistically be the wrong decision. In certain situations it may pay off to have the fast runner in position to score on a sac fly, but over the course of a season, you'd be much better off clogging up the bases.

 

Base clogging exists in theory when focusing on the abilities of one base runner instead of the overall situation in the game, but it has no real practical presence in baseball. Managers can refer to certain situations as base clogging all they want, but as long as having that base runner in front of the fast runner is better than having the basepaths clear for the fast runner, it's not actually base clogging.

 

As for the not having an effective base-stealing leadoff hitter comment, Piniella stated that he'd never want a catcher batting 9th to clog the bases, which means he wouldn't want a slow runner in front of the leadoff hitter. That implies to me that he's more concerned about hindering the speed of a leadoff hitter and not having back-to-back fast base runners batting in the 9th and 1st spots in the lineup.

[CubColtPacer]

In a so-called base clogging situation, you'd either have a fast runner at first with a slow runner at second or a fast runner at second with a slow runner at third. There is a runner in scoring position in both situation. In the former, if you want to steal a base, it would have to be a double steal, so the speed of the runner at second doesn't hinder the runner at first. On a base hit, the runner on second will either stop at third or try to score. If he stops at third, the ball likely would not have gotten far enough for the runner on first to try for third if there was no runner in front of him. If he tries to score, the fast runner can advance as far as possible. In fact, he may be able to take third base on a throw home. Either way, there's no situation in which having a fast runner on first is better than having two men on with one in scoring position. Not with the players on this team, at least. Very, very few base runners have been able to steal both 2nd and 3rd at a high enough rate to even make that a strategical option. Even then you'd be focusing on scoring just one run, whereas having two men on gives you, well, two men on.

 

In the latter scenario, or with runners at the corners, the only way having a slow runner on third would be a disadvantage is if the fast runner can steal his way to third and score on a sacrifice fly which is too shallow to score the slow runner. But again, picking the non-base clogging situation over having two men on would statistically be the wrong decision. In certain situations it may pay off to have the fast runner in position to score on a sac fly, but over the course of a season, you'd be much better off clogging up the bases.

 

Base clogging exists in theory when focusing on the abilities of one base runner instead of the overall situation in the game, but it has no real practical presence in baseball. Managers can refer to certain situations as base clogging all they want, but as long as having that base runner in front of the fast runner is better than having the basepaths clear for the fast runner, it's not actually base clogging.

 

As for the not having an effective base-stealing leadoff hitter comment, Piniella stated that he'd never want a catcher batting 9th to clog the bases, which means he wouldn't want a slow runner in front of the leadoff hitter. That implies to me that he's more concerned about hindering the speed of a leadoff hitter and not having back-to-back fast base runners batting in the 9th and 1st spots in the lineup.

 

The biggest base clogging situation IMO is when the fast player is at the plate, not when they are both on base. On average, fast players are typically ground ball hitters who beat out plays with their legs on a semi-regular basis. In the Cubs case, their leadoff hitter isn't that way, but that's very atypical. Having a slow runner on first base hurts the production of that fast runner. Their high propensity of ground balls creates more fielders choice situations that if nobody was on base the leadoff hitter would beat out.

 

Now, does that mean you should ever root for a slow player to make an out before a fast player bats? Absolutely not. Getting on base is always, always preferable.

 

Can you instead structure your lineup where slow hitters are not followed immediately by the fastest guys on the team? Sure, and that should be a minor consideration if it doesn't hurt your lineup in other ways. In the Cubs case, if Pie and Soto end up being very similar hitters, then I would hope they would switch those two players in the lineup. My guess is that Soto will end up being a better hitter than Pie, and in that case the extra plate appearances for Soto are a lot more important than the fact that him standing on first base is a possible detriment to Pie's production. If they did end up being similar hitters, maybe then you have 4 to 5 times a season where Pie gets on due to an infield single and Soto singles him around to 3rd rather than Soto singling and then Pie grounding into a fielders choice at second. It's not going to make more than a 5 to 10 run difference at the most either way, which is why they would have to be very similar before you would think about switching them.

[JGalt73]

Thankfully we are spared more articles like this.

 

The other day, the Reds manager decided he wanted Joey Votto and Adam Dunn to swing their bats more. "I don't like called third strikes," Baker said.

 

Can we get an Amen?

 

It always amuses when fans defend heart-of-the-order hitters by pointing to their on-base percentage. Wow, look at all those walks.

 

Unless they're intentional walks, or the big boppers are being pitched around, walks aren't what you want from players hitting third through sixth. You want them up there smart-hacking.

 

As Baker said: "(Votto) needs to swing more. I'd like to see him more aggressive."

 

By-the-book managing is for men who aren't confident in their ability to read players and situations. It's for managers who don't know their players' personalities. It's what you do so you can say later, after it backfires: "Don't blame me. I went by the book."

 

The best thing about Baker is that from all accounts, it's important to him to know his players individually: what jazzes them, what scares them, the situations that best suit their talents and temperaments. Contrary to the notions of the seamheads and stat freaks, players are not numbers.

[Tyrant]

Thankfully we are spared more articles like this.

 

The other day, the Reds manager decided he wanted Joey Votto and Adam Dunn to swing their bats more. "I don't like called third strikes," Baker said.

 

Can we get an Amen?

 

It always amuses when fans defend heart-of-the-order hitters by pointing to their on-base percentage. Wow, look at all those walks.

 

Unless they're intentional walks, or the big boppers are being pitched around, walks aren't what you want from players hitting third through sixth. You want them up there smart-hacking.

 

As Baker said: "(Votto) needs to swing more. I'd like to see him more aggressive."

 

By-the-book managing is for men who aren't confident in their ability to read players and situations. It's for managers who don't know their players' personalities. It's what you do so you can say later, after it backfires: "Don't blame me. I went by the book."

 

The best thing about Baker is that from all accounts, it's important to him to know his players individually: what jazzes them, what scares them, the situations that best suit their talents and temperaments. Contrary to the notions of the seamheads and stat freaks, players are not numbers.

 

Smart-hacking!!!!!

[Bobson Dugnutt]

FJM had a field day with that one.

 

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/03/theres-war-brewing.html

[Guest]

Baker is correct as far as Votto and Dunn becoming more aggressive.

 

Of course, Votto did that last year, he was more aggressive and did strikeout less.

Same thing with Dunn, he had 345 PAs with two strikes. He's a much better earlier in the count.

 

I'm willing to give Baker the benefit of the doubt and assume when he's talking about aggressiveness, he's talking about being more aggressive with pitchers in the strike zone.

 

Isn't every hitter, though? I mean, I'd guess that you'd be hard pressed to find a hitter with a decent number of PA's who hits better with two strikes than with one or none.

 

Adam Dunn is already a very productive hitter. I don't see the point in trying to force Dunn to change his approach at the plate and take the risk of screwing him up by making him swing more earlier in the count.

[Anthony]

I love the idea that if someone uses statistics instead if their "gut" to rate players and gauge their performance that some how it means they can't truly appreciate the game or that their nerds. This is partly to do with the fact that most sportswriters can't understand math that doesn't involve using their fingers.

[Tyrant]

I love the idea that if someone uses statistics instead if their "gut" to rate players and gauge their performance that some how it means they can't truly appreciate the game or that their nerds. This is partly to do with the fact that most sportswriters can't understand math that doesn't involve using their fingers.

 

It's probably more because sportswriters at major papers have been around a long time, and they're stuck in their ways. They've been covering sports for 20-plus years, and they've always known that RBIs and wins are great ways to measure players. Why change now?

 

I think you'll start to see this kind of thinking go away once the old-time sportswriters die off. Hopefully that happens soon.

 

I only sort of mean that.

[Banedon]

FJM had a field day with that one.

 

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/03/theres-war-brewing.html

 

Also, in an unrelated matter, it's a marvelous night for a moondance." (does a shot of Lagavulin 21)

 

Manny Acta is actually M.A.N. eACTA, the black-ops code-name for the Mechanized Algorithmic Numerical (internet-ready) Actionable Computation Techno-Automaton. When his "contract" runs out with the Nats he is going to be launched into space. We are weaponizing space. Deal with it, China.

 

:lol:

[UK1679666180]

Baker is correct as far as Votto and Dunn becoming more aggressive.

 

Of course, Votto did that last year, he was more aggressive and did strikeout less.

Same thing with Dunn, he had 345 PAs with two strikes. He's a much better earlier in the count.

 

I'm willing to give Baker the benefit of the doubt and assume when he's talking about aggressiveness, he's talking about being more aggressive with pitchers in the strike zone.

 

Isn't every hitter, though? I mean, I'd guess that you'd be hard pressed to find a hitter with a decent number of PA's who hits better with two strikes than with one or none.

 

Adam Dunn is already a very productive hitter. I don't see the point in trying to force Dunn to change his approach at the plate and take the risk of screwing him up by making him swing more earlier in the count.

 

Most are, Dunn isn't the exception as far as not being able to hit well w/two strikes. Of course, most hitters don't end up in two strike counts as much as Dunn.

 

I don't see how wanting to get him to become more aggressive (with a pitch in the zone) earlier in the count is a bad thing for someone like Dunn.

 

Given how poorly he does with two strikes and often he is in that spot, putting a greater demand on attacking pitches earlier in the count would benefit him more than hurt his production.

[CubinNY]

Given how poorly he does with two strikes and often he is in that spot, putting a greater demand on attacking pitches earlier in the count would benefit him more than hurt his production.

There is a very fine line to attacking pitches early in the count and a series of 4-3 ground outs. I think Dunn is pretty set and doesn't need to change a thing. Anyway, he'll either be in Boston or someplace else that appreciates his skills before too long. Votto? He'll be another one that wasn't any good anyway thus validating through the most faulty of faulty logic the idea that Dusty doesn't get any good young players. In the meantime, a once up and coming franchise will be relegated to 4th, 5th, or 6th place until Dusty-isms become passe´

[UK1679666180]

Dunn isn't the type of player that when he makes contact will ground out, he does have a tendency to let pitches go by that were right down broadway.

 

Even with two strikes, he didn't shorten that swing to put the ball into play (I think he had 10HRs w/two strikes), so I doubt he would stop driving the ball while being more aggressive earlier in the count.

[Monco]

"Don't blame me. I went by the book" and "gut instinct " are both excuses. Johnny B. feels ones more acceptable than the other.

[Tyrant]

Saw this article on Baseball Musings.

 

In training, I recently told young Joey Votto to give into his aggression. I wanted him to feel the power of swinging the bat, and letting the fear of a called third strike take control. Feed your anger, I told him. Feel the power course through your veins.

 

Incredibly, the young man disagreed with me, saying that he preferred an approach based on patience. I find his lack of faith disturbing.

 

As a pretty big Star Wars geek & Dusty basher, it gave me a chuckle