I included much of the following in the Red-Sox Angels lounge, but a couple of brilliant readers have already emailed to say it should be pulled out as a full item. And who am I to argue with my brilliant readers?
* * *
Well, here’s an interesting story about how the Angels do not plan on being any more selective today against Dice-K just because he walked 1.3 million people this year. The money quote from swinging coach Mickey Hatcher:
“You want them to step in the box and be able to do something,” Hatcher said. “You don’t want them to step in the box and say, ‘We’re going to take a pitch, and then we’re going to swing.’ “
You know, on the one hand, I don’t entirely disagree with Hatcher’s general point. I mean, it’s stupid to not take pitches against Dice K, but let’s be blunt: You also ain’t changing now. The Angels have played 163 real games, not to mention all the spring training games, not to mention all of last year’s stuff and the year before that and the year before that. I suspect that it might be a little bit late now to say, “Hey, you know what guys? Let’s start taking pitches.” The Angels hack. The Angels finished 12th in the league in walks this year, and that’s only because Seattle and Kansas City happened to be in the league*. Dice K or not, the Angels are the Angels.
*Holy cow, the Royals walked fewer than 400 times this year. That’s pretty hard to do. I had a long chat with Royals GM Dayton Moore this week — that column will run in The Kansas City Star on Sunday — and he must have used the words “on-base percentage” about 239 times. That was good to hear and also inevitable. This was the sort of year, I think, that can make an OBP believer out of anyone. There are no free-swinging atheists in a 392-walk foxhole.
So, no, I would not expect Mickey Hatcher or anyone on the Angels to say, “Yeah, we’re going to change our philosophy tonight because of the pitcher.” But I will say this: The Angels are really, really, really close — maybe even over the line — when it comes to what I would like to now call: “Diloneism.” Yes, another new word!
Diloneism (Dee-lo-NAY-izm) noun. The misguided belief that your success is directly attributable to what is actually your biggest weakness.
I’ve named this after the obscure (to most) Miguel Dilone, who slapped and ran his way to a .341 average in 1980 while a member of the Cleveland Indians. He stole 61 bases, scored 82 runs despite missing 30 games and playing for a pretty brutal offensive team in a low-run scoring time. He was useful then. He also hit zero home runs. That’s who he was. But from what I could gather as a fan, Miguel Dilone did not see himself that way. He viewed himself as a guy who could hit with some power. He seemed to change his swing to accentuate his power, which might have been a good move if he had ANY power, but he did not, and five teams and five years later he would out of baseball.
This can be used in all walks of life. It was Diloneism that forced the spinoff “Joannie Loves Chachi” on the masses. Do you remember when there were posters of Erin Moran/Joannie out there, like we were supposed to be in love with her, like she was Farrah or Valerie Bertinelli or something and we were supposed to hang her poster on our testosterone-infected walls? I mean, um, no. People liked Happy Days DESPITE Joannie (and to a lesser extent Chachi).
I think we saw some serious Diloneism in the Veep Debate. I’m not talking politics as much as political strategy — it seems the point was for Sarah Palin to embrace her lack of experience and talk like she just got out of the Harper Valley PTA meeting. But the thing is, I think that many people who like Palin don’t like her because she’s inexperienced and folksy. They like her DESPITE the fact that she’s inexperienced and folksy.
Which takes us back to the Angels. They are a very good baseball team. Why? They have good starting pitching. They have an often dominant bullpen. They play fair defense. And they have some offensive speed and two or three good (and high priced) middle of the lineup guys. All this made them good in close games (80-42 in games decided by four runs or less) and as such they deserve a lot of credit.
BUT there is a real danger of Diloneism now — this personal sense that the reason the Angels are good is because they don’t score runs, because they have an astonishingly bad offensive approach, because they don’t get on base and swing free and don’t get caught up in, you know, WALKING or whatever. I’m not saying the Angels are there yet, but I hear tones of Diloneism in many of the quotes. The Angels win IN SPITE of not scoring many runs. It is BAD to not score many runs. It is NOT HELPFUL IN ANY WAY to not get on base.
And yet you hear it here and elsewhere: “Heck no, we’re not going to change our approach.”
You know what? Your approach sucks.
Loading ...
57 Comments, Comment or Ping
Josh in DC
This post reminds of the fact that the NFL on FOX people, last year, were clearly convinced that people like me can’t get enough Tony Siragusa. They had a special Siragusa graphic that popped up on screen whenever he was talking. Dick Stockton was clearly thrilled to throw it down to Goose. He couldn’t stop saying “Goose.”
The one redeeming thing about that booth? For those of us with kids and a lot of Sandra Boyton books, any time someone mentions that broadcasting team (which includes Darryl Johnston) and says anything about Moose and Goose, there’s always a chance to say “together have juice.”
http://www.amazon.com/But-Not-Hippopotamus-Sandra-Boynton/dp/0671449044/ref=pd_sim_b_1
Oct 3rd, 2008
Gate
From the the same article:
If you let a pitcher get ahead in the count, he argues, you’re letting him dictate the rest of the at-bat by pitching to the corners of the strike zone. “What good does it do you to take the first pitch,” he said, “if that’s the only one you can hit?”
Umm…Mickey, the whole point is he does not get ahead in counts; he does not throw first pitch strikes. You appear to not fully grasp the situation.
I wonder if there are 2 hitting coaches as superficially similar as Hatcher and Magadan (similar lifetime ba and slg, thirdbasemen in the 80’s and early 90’s), but so totally different in hitting approach as players and coaches.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Gate
2 corrections:
- I see Mickey Hatcher didnt play as much 3rd as I remember.
- I did not realize Dave Magadan played until 01
I guess I should say 2 players as superficially similar in my faulty memory.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Brent
Joe:
I remember Dilone’s and Cecil Cooper’s great 1980 seasons well. Of course, it is not hard to understand why no one remembers they hit .341 and .352 respectively, because Mr. Brett hit .390 that year.
Dilone’s year in 1980 sticks out like a sore thumb as compared to his other years.
Willie Wilson suffered from the same delusion with regard to his abilities as a power hitter, so he went from a .300 to .330 hitter with no power and no patience to a .280 hitter with a little power and no patience. I’ll take the first guy, thank you.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Jilly Rizzo
It never ceases to amaze me that coaches and managers will rail about their pitchers giving up walks but at the same time do not recognize the need for their hitters to attempt to get on base via the walk.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Kevin
Ah, Miguel. Had never heard of him before I bought APBA Baseball with the 1980 card set. My goal was to replay ‘81 with no strike. (Yeah, I know the cards had 1980 stats…….NOW.) Anyway, I made it into June playing each game and keeping stats by hand. My main goal with Dilone was to have him beat Ricky for the SB title. He was keeping pace. Ah, memories.
Other random memories from that little world - Rangers 1B Pat Putnam was leading the AL in HR. And Expo Bill Gullickson gave up 1 ER in his first 27 innings - 3GS 3CG 0.33 ERA
Don’t ask why/how I remember this crap……….
Oct 3rd, 2008
Keith K.
Little known fact: “Dilone” translates into Japanese as “Fukudome.”
Also, in regard to Palin (a/k/a “Caribou Barbie”): if I were facing major surgery, I might find it comforting if my doctor had a pleasant, down-home manner as we discussed my condition. However, when it actually came time for the surgery, I would like to know that behind the winks and “doggone its,” my doctor was in fact well-trained, experienced and intelligent.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Snowman
I’ve always wondered what kind of career Darin Erstad would have had were it not for Hatcher. He had that one superb season where his triple slashes were something along the lines of .350/.400/.550, and Hatcher publicly complained that offseason about his taking too many walks. Said something like “I’ll be working with him in the spring on being more aggressive, because you can’t hit home runs with the bat on your shoulder.”
Obviously, there was a lot of fluke in that season for Erstad (primarily in the BA), but he very nearly took a walk per 11 PAs that season, and that is a rate he has only come close to once in the seven or eight seasons since.
Actually, I think that may have been his career year for homers as well, so apparently you can’t hit home runs swinging at everything thrown near you either, Mickey.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Mike Williams
I hear hints of “Deloneisms” creeping into recent Royals personnel comments, such as speculation that our ballpark is so big, maybe it’s not that important to obtain homerun hitters.
NO NO NO NO. BAD ROYALS BAD ROYALS.
You play half your games on the road, and they count just as much at home, and MORE TO THE POINT:
Your team was OUTHOMERED by the opposition by about 40 this season. The point IS NOT that it’s hard to hit HRs in our ballpark, rather, the goal should be to OUTHOMER the opposition, REGARDLESS of where the games are played.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Brent
Hmm, Mickey Hatcher was one of those guys who never struck out and never walked either. In around 3500 PAs he had only 246 Ks and managed to walk only 164 times. Sounds like he wants all his hitters to resemble him.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Oddibe Kerfeld
I lived in San Diego when Dilone was on the Padres briefly and I honestly don’t remember him being with them. I was a kid that knew all the players, too. Still not sure what all that was about, but I think they might have been using him to replace Alan Wiggins after he went to Baltimore.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Mike
Whoa, Joe. “Your approach sucks.”? I’d expect that kind of rebuttal on the ESPN message boards, but not here. Very uncharacteristic. Furthermore, the Angels have the best record in baseball, so how can their approach suck? Just because they don’t do it the SABR way?
Oct 3rd, 2008
Mark H
Keith,
Do you post on other boards? I saw your EXACT same Palin analogy on another board somethere… I’d be mad if there were other people out there using my anaolgy (without proper credit). I think the back-handed jab at her “intellegence” is unfair. If anything, Palin did a better job last night in defending McCain against some of Obama’s attacks than the Senator himself has done (not that she was that great at it, just McCain’s been that bad at it. see the latest polls for proof).
You know, if you want to take the Doctor analogy one step further, I’d say the government has done such a fine job with the Banking system and Monetary policy, that I think we should put them in charge of health-care too…
Oct 3rd, 2008
Bellweather Johnson
THANK YOU JOE.
Their approach does suck. It seems pretty good when you play the majority of your games against the A’s, M’s and Rangers (R’s??). It seems like everybody is racking their brains about: why they can’t beat the Red Sox?, and: they are going to get swept again, and blah-bu-blah-bu-blah. Joe, all Kruckie or EY needs to do is point out what you have in this post and they will sound like they know what they are talking about.
Alas,
Their approach sucks too…
Oct 3rd, 2008
Marco
“Furthermore, the Angels have the best record in baseball, so how can their approach suck?”
Mike, Did you read Joe’s article? This is the whole point. They’re good despite their hitting approach, not because of it.
If once every 20 pitches Pujols closed his eyes as the pitcher went into his windup, he’d still be the best player in baseball, but that doesn’t make batting with your eyes closed a good approach.
Oct 3rd, 2008
IGotNone
The Angels’ approach sucks because they’re 10th in the AL in runs scored and their pythag record is 88-74. I’m a huge Angels fan but this year has been smoke and mirrors. They can beat the Red Sox but they’re gonna have to play out of their minds to take 3 of 4.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Brent
Bellweather makes a good point. You know, MartyBall works too during the regular season (play conservative, don’t screw up, take advantage of the other teams’ screw ups), because at least half your games are against teams that you should beat anyway, as long as you don’t hand them the game.
Probably with MartyBall is that none of the teams that screw up enough to let you win make the playoffs.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Gate
Mike - while the Angels were certainly very good this year, I don’t think that’s incompatible with saying there offensive approach is bad: they’re 10th in the AL in runs.
Hitting ain’t why the Angels won 100.
Oh, and their best offensive player is the one who goes against the philosophy Joe is talking about.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Buchholz Surfer
Interesting Matsuzaka numbers:
When hitters have put the ball in play on the first pitch, they have put up .368/.377/.632 against him in 70 PAs, a .1009 OPS.
Putting it in play on a 1-0 pitch, .167/.194/.367 in 31 PA for a .560 OPS.
On a 0-1 pitch: .333/.348/.476 in 67 PAs, an .825 OPS.
The numbers seem to show that hitters that put it in play on one of the first two pitches they see have overall done well against Matsuzaka this year.
If you wait until you have 2 strikes on you: .140/.243/.207
If you wait until you have 3 balls: .171/.616/.232
If you can get to a 3-ball count, you’ve got a great shot at walking. But you’re still not likely to hit him hard. If you wait until you have 2 strikes, well, most pitchers have great numbers with 2 strikes, and Dice K sure does.
(Small sample sizes, not adjusted for ballpark or opponent, other general stats warnings, etc.)
I don’t know that it’s necessarily a great idea for them to start trying to wait Matsuzaka out tonight. If they hack at the first or second pitch, that’s probably the time they have the best shot to hit the ball hard.
A patient team should definitely be patient against him. They will walk a lot. But a team that hacks like the LAAA might be better off just hacking like normal and maybe getting a few hits early in the count. They will probably foul off a lot of pitches and drive up the pitch count a bit by doing that, which would help make up for their typical lack of walks.
And they will probably draw a couple of walks when Matsuzaka is just having one of those innings where he gets wild and throws stuff that even hackers won’t swing at, and needs 35 pitches to get out of it. If the LAAA also get one big hit in one of those innings, they will score several runs off him.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Mark
The best example is the ‘05 White Sox. Guillen and company (and much of the baseball media) seem to think they won because they like to bunt runners over and played an aggressive, small-ball. (I still remember them giving high fives on the bench when their No. 5 hitter hit the ball to the right side and advanced a runner to third in the early innings of a game–that’s what you expect from a five hitter?). They overcame their silly approach and lack of OBP (.322) by hitting 200 homers and by getting career years from most of their pitchers. But the story line became: Ozzie leads Sox to Series by playing baseball “the right way”.
Oct 3rd, 2008
JO'C
Joe, as usual your baseball analysis is spot on but when you wander into the political abyss you come up as empty as Derek Jeter’s glove when he ranges to his left.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Gate
I’m commenting way too much…need to find more work to do. But:
I think it’s an error to take the information that players do well when they put the first ball in play to conclude that you should swing at more first pitches (or not be patient). That assumes that the pitches guys did not put in play were just as good to hit as the ones they did. I think that’s a very shakey assumption.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Brian
The 2006 Chicago White Sox are perfect examples of Diloneists. They thought they won the World Series in 2005 because of their “small ball” approach, which had Scott Podsednik and his 86 OPS+ batting leadoff and 6 of their 9 starters worse than average. But the real reason they won that year was because 3 of their 5 starters had career years and Hermanson, Cotts, and Politte pitched out of their minds for 6 months.
They won despite their horrible offense, not because of it.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Brian
Wow, should have read Mark a couple comments ago. Oops.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Buchholz Surfer
“I think it’s an error to take the information that players do well when they put the first ball in play to conclude that you should swing at more first pitches (or not be patient).”
Yeah, good thing I didn’t say that. I’m talking about this hacking Angels team and what they should or shouldn’t try to do against Matsuzaka tonight, not a general statement on what all hitters should do against all pitchers, and definitely not promoting a general offensive strategy for all teams to follow.
As Joe pointed out, it’d probably be a bad idea for this group of Angels hitters to try to change their approach for tonight’s game. I think he’s right, for a few reasons.
The numbers just show that hitters can have some success against Matsuzaka when swinging early in the count, and even those hitters that go deep in the count against him don’t seem to do that well.
I think if the Angels tonight try to be something they’re not and never have been, just because of the pitcher they are facing, it wouldn’t work well, IMO. If they do what they’ve done all year, they might score enough runs to win this game. You can be successful against Matsuzaka by swinging early in the count sometimes, so they aren’t doomed to fail if they are their usual aggressive selves.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Gate
Didn’t mean to misrepresent your point; my apologies.
I agree with what you said. Asking Kendrick and Anderson to go deep in counts wouldnt work even if they were capable of it.
I was just trying to say that much of the success on 1st pitches is b/c many hitters only swing at first pitches if they’re just too good to pass up. The Angels aren’t disciplined enough to do that (as we’ve all pointed out) so they might not enjoy the same success on first pitches that others have (because they’ll also swing at first pitches that aren’t good to hit).
But again, I agree - I don’t think the angels changing their approach is realistic or even preferable at this point.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Buchholz Surfer
And I agree with your point of those first pitch numbers, there’s a lot of mistake pitches being hit in most pitchers’ first pitch numbers.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Aaron M.
I would think the connection between walks and runs would be readily apparent to anyone that looks at WHIP and ERA statistics. A WHIP above 1.3 is getting into bad territory and if the ERA doesn’t go above 5 then the guy is getting lucky. The walk is not the be all end all of baseball offense, but it is highly correlated with success for batters, and the lack thereof for pitchers. It is amazing to me that it has taken this long for GMs and managers to realize it.
It is also a reason I expect Mike Aviles to regress next year, but maybe he’s special like Banny. /end sarcasm/ I actually think his approach may be enough, as he hits a ton of line drives, but I wonder if that can be sustained as well.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Matt
Amen. I’ve been an Angels fan for 30 years. My brother brought me a pennant from Game 5 in 1986. I’m sick of losing to the Red Sox. But I’m even more sick of Mickey Hatcher’s approach to batting.
I cannot tell you how many Angel rallies I’ve seen where they get something going and there is a ton of pressure on the pitcher, only to have the batter ground out on the first pitch. Make the pitcher throw you one friggin strike. If you can’t hit 0-1, then why are you in the big leagues anyway?
Part of me is scared that Hatcher would ruin Teixeira if he signed here long term. It’s funny (sad) how much better of a hitter Tex is than Torri or Vlade b/c he is patient and gets the pitches he wants.
I’d be curious to see if the 2002 team was such a first pitch hacking team. My memories of that year was Eckstein taking pitches and fouling off pitch after pitch against the Yankees. Driving their pitch count up, higher and higher.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Dan Pollock
Joe, I love you dearly, but when you say, apropos of the “Veep Debate,” that you’e “not talking politics as much as political strategy,” believe me, you’re talking politics, and predictably so. I’m like, “Okay, so now we know where Joe stands,even though he’s soft peddling. Fine, Can we get back to the good stuff please?”
Oct 3rd, 2008
Speedbird
“It’s funny (sad) how much better of a hitter Tex is than Torri or Vlade b/c he is patient and gets the pitches he wants.”
Matt, what you say about Texeira versus Torii is true. On the other hand, Guerrero is probably in the midst of a gradual decline to his career, and while it’s true that Texeira’s out-hit him if you compare their stats from this season alone, Vlad has a career OBP of .389. I’d say he’s pretty effective in his (allegedly) reckless “swing-at-everything” approach.
Teixeira’s BB/PA (career): .112
Guerrero’s BB/PA: .090
Hunter’s BB/PA: .067
You can’t group Torii and Vlad together.
Returning to the topic of the approach of the Angels’ lineup as a whole… this is probably one of those never-ending questions: Would the Angels be better off against Matsuzaka if they were more selective at the plate and not as eager to hack away in early counts? Maybe, maybe not. It’s always difficult to interpret statistics in a fair, measured way, but I feel that that’s even moreso with numbers such as AVG/OBP/SLG splits by count. There’s no doubt that such splits tell us a lot, but they’re difficult to employ in a rational context.
It’s highly unlikely that every hitter in the Angels lineup would suddenly reconsider their approach at the plate and dramatically alter it based on the tendencies of the opposing pitcher… needless to say, we’d never be able to acquire two sufficiently controlled sets of data and compare them: The Hacking-Away Angels versus the Suddenly Patient Angels. It’s an interesting debate, though.
I’m a Red Sox fan, so whatever will allow Dice-K to prevail works for me.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Bill
Agreed with Pollock. That’s definitely “talking politics,” and while on one hand we see enough of that…oh, everywhere else in the world, it’s a free blog and Joe should write about whatever he wants to write about. Just, you know, call it what it is.
Great post, though. “Swinging coach Mickey Hatcher” is pure brilliance. And, yeah, their approach sucks.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Ben
Re Joe’s line: “This was the sort of year, I think, that can make an OBP believer out of anyone. There are no free-swinging atheists in a 392-walk foxhole.”
Funny, I’ve always conceived of OBP as sort of a scientific stat, and Batting Average as the official stat of the head-in-the-sand flat-earth faith-based crowd. Y’know, inasmuch as the Sabermetric types want to “prove” things and the Buzz Bissinger types go with what they “believe” in their gut to be true.
Yeah, that’s right Buzz, I just compared you to George Bush. Suck it.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Johnny
I find it interesting that although Dice-K’s first two years were markedly different, he had the same WHIP (1.324) in both seasons.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Michael (in NYC)
I just want the Red Sox to lose. Is that so wrong?
Am I wrong that it seems like all the playoff teams just have more injuries than usual? Carlos Pena tore his retina? Alex Cora is playing short stop in the major leagues? Nomar–never mind.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Callaway Kid
This column just confirms, once more, what an unbelievably great ball player Pujols is, offensively. Man, I’m so glad he’s a Cardinal. And defensively, he’s gold glove. Leads by example, share w/his teammates. Definition of leader. I love it when the best player works the hardest.
This seems like it’s from out of the blue, but Albert’s OBP is awesome.
Oct 3rd, 2008
Linus
1) If inserting a politician’s name means one is talking politics, then there needs to be a new word to describe actual politics.
2) The assumption that what Joe wrote is “partisan” and thus politics, is a strange definition of politics and interpreting what he said as partisan is silly.
All joe said, was ‘Paul and his friends seem to think the is really charming because he is folksy. So whenever Paul and his friends go to hit on women at the local bar, he uses lots of “shucks, gotcha, and gosh darns.” Paul is reasonably successful in picking up women, but the women liked him despite his folksy manner rather than because of it.”
The analogy (to his point about the Angels) is a good one, and has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with politics. There was no opinion about one’s qualifications for higher office, any judgment on governmental philosophy, or what to do with our government.”
It is a sad state indeed that people get so allergic to politics and so sensitive to partisanship, that a simple analogy can be reacted to so negatively. It is no wonder that people don’t bother trying persuade or actually talk about politics at all.
Riddle:
“I want to play a basketball game with Obama and have a wife that looks like Palin.’
Who am i going to vote for?
Oct 3rd, 2008
Paul
I would like to second everything in the above post.
Oct 3rd, 2008
jjf3
I’ll third it…
Oct 3rd, 2008
jjf3
I spent an hour last night having a long discussion/argument with someone who will very likely not vote the same way as me this year. I could not “reach” him, nor could he “reach” me, but the discussion was friendly and civil. And I find it silly that a country with a population whose “majority” support approximately 80-85% of the same things could be SO split, and whose debate could be so vitriolic (on a media level - I did not see the debate, so I pass no judgement on it). We’ve reached the point where we’ve spent the last 3 decades split over the “fringes”, and, ultimately, I think those “fringes” scare the majority of us…so why are they the one’s we’re fighting over?
And this is a purely personal reaction separate from my “third” above. I just wish that people would work for a “greater” future for this country, rather than focus on whatever today’s “push-button” issue might be. I do worry sometimes that that is too much to ask…
Oct 3rd, 2008
Dave B.
Wow, Miguel Dilone. Who knew he could have a word coined in his honor. What could we do with Joe Charbonneau?
Oct 3rd, 2008
BeesGal
Matt wrote: Part of me is scared that Hatcher would ruin Teixeira if he signed here long term. It’s funny (sad) how much better of a hitter Tex is than Torri or Vlade b/c he is patient and gets the pitches he wants.
I’d like to second Matt’s concern from a slightly different perspective. The commentators here are considerably more qualified than yours truly to discuss the hitting tendencies of Hunter, Texeira, Guerrero, Aybar, Kendrick, Figgins, Erstad & Co. Honestly? I don’t watch that many MLB games. Nonetheless, it seems as though there must be a happy medium between “taking hacks” and “sabermetrics” hitting philosophies. I mean, it doesn’t have to be all-or-nothing, right?
FWIW, I live in the Triple-A town for the Angels and thus get to observe the young hitters who travel back and forth from Anaheim. What is disheartening is watching the potential of young athletes being impacted by “Diloneism” in ways that could affect their futures. How can a young hitter possibly learn the strike zone if he’s being urged to swing at the first pitch? How will he ever learn to hit curve balls if he “gives away” to the pitcher a 24” break that bounces in the dirt? Time after time, I watched talented twenty-somethings swing away rather than shrink the strike zone down to a manageable size, rather than use pitch selection to eliminate the hole in their swing. It’s easy to blame a youngster’s failure to produce hits on the difference between AAA and MLB pitching, however I see before-promotion/after-promotion changes in the hitters as well.
Regardless of whether the Angels can hack their way through the playoffs, I’d like to see these young ballplayers get the kind of fundamentals that helps them succeed in the Bigs for years to come, wherever they end up playing. Diloneism is a large, and more importantly unnecessary, impediment to that happening. . . .BeesGal
Oct 4th, 2008
Michael
The trouble with basing any sort of strategy on OPS splits based on balls hit on the first pitch is that it fails to take into account what happens when someone swings and misses at (or fouls off) the first pitch. It’d be a lot more informative if we saw the difference in results between batters who swing at the first pitch and those who don’t.
Oct 4th, 2008
Don
Thank you Joe! Why people in baseball do not teach players to know the strike zone. Obviously, when you are 30 and have played forever, you probably will not change. Hopefully, the Royals will get a batting coach that will help us to take some walks.
Is it a surprise that the Royals and Seatle are so bad?
Oct 4th, 2008
Tank Garbonzo
There may be a time that I understand how someone running a state with a $12 billion per year budget and 24,000 employees is less qualified or trained than a senator who has no record of accomplishing anything of note but that time is not now.
Oct 4th, 2008
Gate
Actually, it’s 23,999 employees now; one got fired b/c he wouldn’t fire someone the governor didn’t like.
Oct 4th, 2008
KM
A few weeks back on the TBS game o’ the week Chip Caray and Buck Martinez were praising Cito Gaston for changing the Blue Jays’s approach from patience/working the count to “get ready to swing.” Chip, in an even twerpier voice than usual, said, “Last time I checked, it’s not who has the highest on-base percentage, it’s who scores the most runs.” Seriously! As if there’s no connection, and teams like the Jays are suddenly going to score more by swinging at anything close rather than that namby-pamby waiting for a good pitch to hit and taking a walk if necessary. The Jays happened to be playing the Red Sox, so Chip/Buck felt obligated to excuse the Sox from criticism by explaining that the Sox (and Yankees) are not up there looking for a walk. So if the Cito/Angels approach is regarded as great, and the seeming opposite (Sox) is also acceptable, I keep wondering the identity of this unnamed straw man/team that idiots like Chip-N-Buck regard as too unmanly to swing the bat. Usually it’s the A’s by default (and anyone who can be tagged with Moneyball-guilt-by-association by people who never read the book).
Oct 4th, 2008
Joe Blow
It’s brilliant! Teams should always go up to the plate, just looking to draw a walk. After all, if they draw walks, they’ll be way better teams!
Oct 4th, 2008
David A
KM:
Just as a little bit of an explanation regarding Cito changing the Jays’ approach at the plate. He didn’t come in advocating the players swing at the first pitch in an AB. The Jays had a problem with swinging at any good pitch…they were so focused on trying to drive up the pitch counts that they were letting grooved 2-0 pitches go by. Their OBP likely went up because their BA went way up with Cito (and Gene Tenace) telling them that if they get into a great hitter’s count to be aggressive. The Jays certainly did not start “swinging at anything close”, they simply stopped worrying about the pitcher’s pitch count and started thinking about getting a good pitch to hit and then ripping it.
The simple fact is that with many pitchers the best pitch is often the first pitch.
I’m not entirely sure what Hatcher’s batting approach is, but Cito’s is definitely NOT anti-walk. It’s all about being aggressive when the count is in your favour and swinging at the best pitch thrown. Succeed at that and your BA (and OBP) will go up.
Oct 5th, 2008
Justyo
I know there’s a lot of Springsteen lovers here so for those people and for those who love this country the way he does I post this…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-springsteen/from-the-stage-at-the-vot_b_131966.html
Peace.
Oct 5th, 2008
antoniomo
“There are no free-swinging atheists in a 392-walk foxhole.”
Great line, Joaldo. Thanks for another entertaining and thoughtful post.
Oct 5th, 2008
Dr.Funkenstein
hey Tank, if you think having said state be “next to” a foreign country counts as foreign policy experience..well, may Allah bless you and all your loved ones, you’re going to need it..
Oct 6th, 2008
Mike
He may have been after your time in Cincinnati, but Pokey Reese suffered from this as well.
Oct 6th, 2008
Josh in DC
Honestly, people — I’m as big a partisan hack as you’ll find on this board, but can we let the political arguments go? Joe made a little joke, a good metaphor for what he was talking about.
If you want to make random political arguments that have nothing to do with the thrust of what you just read (and don’t sway anyone, regardless), there are literally thousands of other places on the Internet that serve just that purpose. I suggest you fools go there. Now.
Oct 6th, 2008
David in NYC
Amen, Josh.
Oct 6th, 2008
Gate
Is it just me, or is the fix in for the TBS pitch tracker? Every time a borderline pitch is called a ball, the pitch track shows it off the corner; every time a borderline pitch is called a strike, pitch tracker has it on the corner.
Now, far be it for me to doubt that Kerwin Danley is infalible, but I know that on the NESN pitch tracker, nothing is EVER a strike.
Either umpires are having the Divisional Series of their lives, or the thing is bogus.
Oct 6th, 2008
John
Which doesn’t belong and why ? I believe Miguel Dilone, despite his shortcomings, is in some pretty rarefied territory, or at least was for one year. There are 6 players in basebal history who have batted over .340 and stole more than 60 bases in the same season — Billy Hamilton, John McGraw,Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins Honus Wagner and your pal Miguel Dilone.
Oct 7th, 2008
Reply to “Diloneism”