Banny Log 40208
Posted: April 2nd, 2008 | Filed under: Banny Log | 21 Comments »
Start No. 1: Vs. Detroit
Innings: 7 complete.
Earned runs allowed: 0.
Strikeouts: 4
Walks: 0
Decision: Victory (1-0)
Number of pitches: 87
Number of strikes: 54
BABIP: .119 (2 for 19)
Pretty much this whole off-season, Brian Bannister thought about the Detroit Tigers lineup. He went over it in his mind again and again — not just how he would pitch Miggy Cabrera or Edgar Renteria or Gary Sheffield, but how he would pitch them in succession, how he would make it through that absurd lineup three times.
It’s no secret here how much I like Banny. I cannot remember a player I wanted to succeed more — maybe Reggie Sanders in his younger days, maybe Danny Fortson when he was a forward at Cincinnati, maybe Eric Zeier at Georgia, maybe Glenn Parker and Pellom McDaniels and Priest Holmes when they were Kansas City Chiefs, maybe Carl Pickens*. They were all such unique and good people, at least I thought so. You know the old sportswriters dictum: You don’t root for teams. You root for stories. And you root for people.
*I kid about Carl Pickens, who I believe is the first person in the history of professional sports to offer a no-comment at the PRO BOWL. Yeah. The Pro Bowl. I went there for the Cincinnati Post one year — I had a friend who lived Hawaii so I could go relatively cheap — and Bengals receiver Carl Pickens had made it for the first time. I went up to talk to him, fully expecting that he probably wasn’t going to talk back. He had not talked to me (or pretty much anyone else) all season. He reputation was pretty well secured by then (I believe it was my friend Austin Murphy who wrote the “Dude with a ‘Tude†story for Sports Illustrated when Pickens was still at Tennessee). But I figured it was worth a shot because, I mean, it was the PRO BOWL, which is pretty much heaven for football players. The guys practice half-heartedly in the morning, hang out with the best players in the NFL, then hit Waikiki Beach the rest of the day. There are almost no reporters around, it could not be easier. It seems almost impossible for anyone to be grumpy at the Pro Bowl. J.D. Salinger would talk to the media at the Pro Bowl.
So, as I remember it, I went up to Pickens and said, “Hey, Carl, you got a minute.†He looked at me with that bemused look he would get and said something like, “You know I don’t talk man.†And so that’s when I said, “Carl, it’s the Pro Bowl. It’s beautiful here. We’re in HAWAII. You know? Beaches? Bikinis? I’m trying to write a good, positive column about you. How about one question?â€
He looked intrigued and said, “OK, one question.â€
If you could only have one question to ask Carl Pickens, what would it be? It’s a philosophical conundrum, isn’t it? I mean, Slim Pickens, yeah, I could think of some things to ask him. Carl Sagan, maybe.
So I smiled and said, “How do you like weather here, Carl?â€
And he smiled right back and played his role perfectly: “No comment,†he said.**
**There’s an addendum to the story: That Sunday, Cincinnati quarterback Jeff Blake connected with someone (Yancy Thigpen, if I’m not mistaken) on a 92-yard touchdown pass, the longest in Pro Bowl history. I had a good relationship with Blake then, and I went up to him, and after the game and said something like, “Can you tell me a little bit about the 92-yard pass.†And he said: “No comment.â€
I thought he was joking, but when I asked him again he said, “No, seriously man, no comment. I’m not talking to you.â€
There was no way. I had gotten TWO no comments at the Pro Bowl? It didn’t seem possible. But then as I walked away, Jeff called me, I turned around and he said, “All right man, I’ll talk to you. But it will cost me money.â€
“Money?†I asked.
“Yeah,†he said. “PIckens and I had a bet that I wouldn’t talk to you.â€
Anyway, I’m a huge Banny fan for numerous reasons. He’s obviously a great quote. He seems like a terrific person. He’s a lot of fun to watch pitch. And then, of course, there’s the numbers thing.
One thing that really amazes me is how, even in today’s Moneyball world — with so much information available for anyone with Internet access — many many people in baseball are just SO anti-statistics. I mean, to me, hey, I understand that many people who love the game do not like it reduced to digits and percentages and ratios and whatever. They believe baseball is a game of flesh and blood, and of course it is (or “magic†as Morley Safer expressed it). I’m good with that — some people think that the numbers cut into the fun and humanity of the game, and so be it.
That said, I’m still surprised that players don’t try, at least to some degree, to USE those numbers to improve themselves? I think that in the whole Bill James 60 Minutes piece, the one thing that struck me hardest was when they were asking Mike Lowell about numbers, and he said that you can’t go into the season worrying about them, and his quote was: “I don’t think we come to spring training saying, ‘man I hope have a .960 fielding percentage.’ I don’ think it gets that detailed.â€
Now, I understand this was a spur of the moment quote … but it also struck me that Mike Lowell might be completely unaware that NOBODY GIVES A RAT about fielding percentage. I mean, probably half of the work done on baseball stats the last 10 years has been to OBLITERATE fielding percentage as a meaningful statistic. And it struck me that batters certainly could get something out of statistics that show what they hit when swinging at pitches out of the strike zone, or how they hit in certain counts or … well, lots of stuff. I don’t understand why people think baseball statistics are the antithesis of humanity; the good ones, I think, simply shine a brighter light on the humanity.
Brian believes that. He’s a guy who realizes his limitations and studies the game and the numbers to help himself be a better pitcher. It’s inspiring to someone who loves baseball AND the numbers. I would love to believe that if I had baseball talent, I would know my BABIP or my Eqa or whatever. I would want to know everything and try to gain every advantage.
ANYWAY, to Brian’s outing, which was, of course, a beauty. Start by saying he got first pitch strikes on 13 of the 23 Tigers batters he faced, which is a nice number. Brian’s a big believer in count control — last year he gave up only one hit with an 0-2 count.
And take a look at Wednesday:
First inning: Gets 0-2 count on Gary Sheffield. He promptly hits into a double play.
Third inning: Gets 0-2 count on Pudge v2.0 — and after extended battle, strikes him out swinging.
Third inning: Gets 0-2 count on Brandon Inge; after wasting one pitch, he strikes Inge out swinging.
Fourth inning: Gets 0-2 count on Oh-wee-oh-Magglio; he promptly grounds out to short.
Fifth inning: Gets 0-2 count on Carlos Guillen; after one waste pitch, Guillen strikes out swinging.
Some pretty good hitters in that group (and also Pudge v2.0). Of course, even beyond count control, Banny was outstanding. He says his goal is 100 pitches in seven innings; he threw 87. He said he was going to concentrate on walking even fewer people (to make up potentially for a jump in his Babip) and he walked nobody. All four of his strikeouts were swinging, which tells me he had batters all kinds of baffled. In fact, he had 10 swings and misses … we’ll try to keep track of that.
There isn’t anything bad to report in the Banny Log today. I’m sure he could have gone another inning, but I think it was a good move on the part of Trey Hillman to get him out of there. It’s early in the year, you want to get your bullpen in order, and there’s no reason to push right now. It was a sensational performance, and I think it only makes everyone feel better to take him out. In May or June, I would bet, Banny stays for at least one more inning.
And the Royals are 2-0. They’re in first place. Banny texted me that he did some Baseball Tonight stuff. It’s all good in Kansas City. Of course, I’m actually in San Antonio now for some hoops thing that supposedly is coming up. But my heart’s with the powder blue guys. It’s a good thing I’ve got a Slingbox.
Loading ...
One thing that really amazes me is how, even in today’s Moneyball world — with so much information available for anyone with Internet access — many many people in baseball are just SO anti-statistics.
The thing is, though, I’m sure most players are virtually consumed by their stats – I mean, what else have you got to do the other 20 hours of the day? I suspect the problem is not that they are anti-stat, just anti the stats that actually matter, which makes it all the more bizarre.
~
That Pickens story is priceless, btw. I got a great LOL from that.
I’m behind Bannister 100% I wish I was in KC just so I can cheer him on and I’m not even a Royals fan. I live in LA and like most people here I grew up in NY but I caught Brian a few times thanks to the Extra Innings pack last year and I liked the way he pitched. I won’t jinx it by saying which future hall of famer he reminded me of but I think he’s got the stuff to make it.
The least surprising thing in this blog post: Banny’s success. I was the cyber-geek who pointed out your first big summer post to him here at the Columbia, Mo Royal’s Caravan. He was a good guy then, and an even better pitcher today. Here’s to a great season!
The most surprising thing in this blog post: Jeff Blake PLAYED in a Pro Bowl? I mean, actually took snaps and threw the ball? It wasn’t Akili Smith?
Damn. As a Tigers fan I have to say I wasn’t expecting us to come out 0-2, but I’m interested in this Bannister guy if only because of this blog.
Agreed on everything posted above, from the Jeff Blake sotry to anything I’ve ever read or heard about Bannister (Some guys are nice to be nice and have good stories about them or other bs reasons), but he seems pretty genuine and determined to succeed. I think the ‘fantasy’ people that projected a down year for him based on the stats you mentioned, which I’ve read extensively all off-season praying they wouldn’t come true, didn’t realize the fact that the guy was a rookie and might be intuitive enough to learn a ton and get better. Bannister is obviously a smart guy, as evidenced by his discussions on MLBtraderumors and other sites. Of course he’ll use anything to his advantage, from stats to traditional coaching tips, and he should be open to all types of this advice…unlike most players. He seems to like stats as well. Stats not only describe a person’s performances, but they also offer areas of improvement and other things to be done. Bannister gets the idea mentally…and as far as athletes go, he seems to be a rare breed. I hope he continues to succeed, not just because I’m a huge Royals fan, but because he ‘gets’ it.
So Bannister threw 54 of 87 pitches for strikes (62%) and first strikes to 13 of 23 batters (57%). And your point is?
Joe, if you are in SA you should come up the road about an hour and say hello to us in Austin. There are a couple of avid readers of yours here.
I appreciate good and new statistics, but I do have a stat question that relates to Brian Bannister. Pitchers K’s are very, very important. You can’t predict long term success without a strong K rate. If a pitcher doesn’t strike out a lot of batters there are a lot of stats to temper future enthusiam about there performance. But, at the same time hitters seem to get a pass on strikeouts. It doesn’t matter that Adam Dunn strikesout a lot for example. I get Dunn’s value lies in his ability to get on base a lot, but I’d love to see a stat defending a hitters ability to put the ball in play.
I think there are now a lot of Bannister fans all over the country now. Living in NYC, I know a lot of people are surprised to see his success, and I’m sure the Mets are kicking themselves over the Burgos trade.
I hope he continues to do well, all year and beyond…
I’ve always been surprised that players aren’t more interested in advanced stats if for no other reason than their own financial interest, even if they have an agent to do that. If I’m Khalil Greene and I’m sitting in an arb hearing, I’d damn well better hear my agent talking about my EqA/VORP/OPS+ rather than my raw AVG/HR/RBI.
“…it also struck me that Mike Lowell might be completely unaware that NOBODY GIVES A RAT about fielding percentage….”
Sorry Joe, but I’ve got to defend Lowell on this one. Plenty of people regularly let Lowell know that they think fielding percentage is incredibly important, because he happens to be the all-time fielding percentage leader among third basemen. This is mentioned on Red Sox broadcasts several times each season and is almost ALWAYS mentioned by one of the Fox or ESPN talking heads when the Sox are on a national broadcast and the ball is hit to Lowell. Now, none of that means that fielding percentage really is important in the grand scheme of evaluating defense, but Mike Lowell has been tied to that stat so frequently that it doesn’t surprise me in the least that it’s the first stat that popped into his head when he was asked the question.
As a Mets fan, I was pretty annoyed at the time when the Mets traded Bannister away. Of course he didn’t have amazing stuff, but Banny was pretty unflappable on the mound from day one. It seems that the biggest difference between successful veteran pitchers losing their stuff and hotshot young pitchers struggling with lightning stuff is the ability to shrug off mistakes and bad breaks. Bannister pitched more like that veteran from day one and it made him really easy to root for. I continue to root for him in KC as I wait for Ambiorix Burgos to figure out half of what makes Bannister successful. I won’t hold my breath.
If I’m Khalil Greene and I’m sitting in an arb hearing, I’d damn well better hear my agent talking about my EqA/VORP/OPS+ rather than my raw AVG/HR/RBI.Bill James, who has been involved in a bunch of arbitration hearings, said that you simply can’t do this type of stuff. There isn’t nearly enough time available in a hearing to explain the newfangled stats to the arbitrator. Plus the arbitrator, being a “professional skeptic,” would tend to assume that any stat that isn’t generally accepted is probably being cherry-picked by you to serve your own purpose.
But, at the same time hitters seem to get a pass on strikeouts. It doesn’t matter that Adam Dunn strikesout a lot for example.It does matter, in the sense that it depresses his BA — how is he gonna hit .300 overall, when 200 of his at-bats don’t put a ball into play at all? (Only Ryan Howard can do that.) But since the hitter’s BABIP regresses to the mean much less strongly, there is less reason to think that a player who puts up a higher or lower BABIP than average is necessarily going to stop doing that. (It still can be expected sometimes — e.g., if a slow guy puts up a .350 BABIP, or a fast guy puts up a .390 — but it’s a much less dramatic thing.)
Banny’s starts are must watch for me on mlb.tv. I am pulling for the guy. I think part of what makes him so likeable is that he has to work for his success. He does not have the power arm, is on a team that gets national coverage, and he admits all of these things. He is humble. We relate to him. We think, “If I was a pitcher, that is how I would pitch.” Those of us that day-dreamed about being a player, or still do, can see a bit of ourselves in Banny.
Joe, love the site and referred by Aaron Gleeman…
On the issue of why more “baseball people” don’t seem to embrace statistics… I believe it comes down somewhat to Art versus Science. I honestly believe most all of these guys came up either in the scouting area or had stints where player evaluation was important in their baseball role. And, I believe that most of these guys felt like they could watch a player bat, field, or pitch a few times and then assess their ability. I think they feel that boiling it down to statistics truly cheapens their player evaluation talents since most people will come down to the same conclusions if they are only looking at statistics.
I just wish these guys would balance their subjective opinions/evaluations with objective (statistics) findings… FWIW
As a Mets fan I can’t believe that I neglected to mention the Mets essentially gave away Bannister. I suppose it’s payback for the Mets getting David Cone for next to nothing before the 1988 season. Hopefully Bannister will have similar successes and never “allegedly” expose himself to fans during a game.
I’m a Mets fan, and have been a huge fan of Bannister since he was at USC (my alma mater). I root for him at every opportunity, and continue to be tremendously impressed with how intelligent he is. Disappointed doesn’t begin to express what I felt when the Mets traded Banny away, but I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that Banny pitched very well when he first came up to the majors. I think it’s only in hindsight that this trade looks unbalanced.
Banny was fantastic in the minors, posting respectable ERAs and great WHIPs. He did it by posting a very nice +3/1 K/BB rate in the minors. He made the Mets rotation out of spring training in ‘06, and performed just well enough, but was contstantly in trouble, consistantly putting runners on the bases on many occassions. He worked out of enough jams to post a respectable-for-a-rookie 4.26 ERA, but his WHIP was an ugly 1.47 because he walked more batters than he struckout. I’m sure if you asked Banny he’d admit that is no way to consistantly succeed in the majors.
Worse yet, his season followed a bad trend, his first couple starts were like his minor league starts, working efficiently to great results, but things turned south fast, his next 3 starts, he allowed *30* baserunners in 15 IP. I’ve no doubt that given the opportunity to straighten things out, Banny would’ve, but tragically, Banny pulled a hammy running the bases in his 5th game. (Fun fact, Banny has a career batting line of .333/.375/.533, if this pitching this doesn’t work, maybe he can Rick Ankiel it in the outfield.
)
Anyway, after rehabbing for most of 4 months, BB finally returned to the Mets late in the year, and the rust showed, allowing 17 baserunners in 10 innings of work. Not an encouraging trend in Mets front office eyes. BB got the bad end of this small sample size, and it seems that the Mets figured he was a AAAA pitcher, a guy who could only get minor leaguers out. The Mets probably had at least 3 other pitcher prospects more highly prized than BB (Pelfrey, Humber, recent draftee Kevin Mulvey). Burgos was a 22 year old flamethrower who posted very nice minor league strikeout rates. They were flipped, in a trade of solid performance for raw potential.
Now, I’m not saying I liked the trade, not just because of my fandom of BB, but with his minor league resume, he should have been given a better shot. That said, the trade is at least defensible.
I saw the 60 Minutes piece and was skeptical of Lowell’s quote. After reading this post, I was reminded about Ted Williams’s strike zone. He actually had a chart of what he hit depending where a ball was in the strike zone. You can see it from this link.
http://champdesreves.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/strike-zone-ted-williams.jpg
If you people ever saw Burgos pitch before the trade, I don’t see how you’d want him. I don’t care if he was 22.
He. Was. Brutal.
I’m too lazy to see how many blown saves he had for the Royals, but it was a lot.
hey Joe:
Otis Nixon was another player who was an absolute nut, not about statistics, but about information. It’s been 15 years, but I remember reading an interview where he talked about keeping track of his steals on a computer, writing down pitcher’s moves and tendencies. It was his own private computerized scouting report.
Here’s hoping Banny continues to do well. He seems like a great guy.
Hey Joe, I think Banny can be the absolute linchpin of this rotation and possibly team. Becuase Banny stays within himself, and he isnt an overthrower, i see alot of healthy years holding down the #3 spot while pitchers come and go.
BTW, is ESPN forwarding you Neyers paycheck. Cause all his blogs in the last 2 weeks have included your homework.