Almost Impossible to Believe
Posted: September 15th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball, Media | 58 Comments »
A few thoughts about replacement-level performers, the Royals’ cleanup hitters and Trey Hillman while juggling radio interviews about The Machine. The book is doing great — closing in on the Top 100 in Amazon, if you can believe that — but it’s still behind the Dungeon Masters Guide 2 on Amazon. I mean, seriously? Dungeon Masters Guide TWO? A sequel?
I would hope you have read Baseball Prospectus’ “Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About The Game is Wrong.” It’s from a few years back, and it’s a fun collection of essays about a lot of the stuff we talk about here, such as why RBIs don’t tell you much about a player and what a team could gain out of going to a four-man rotation and so on. Interesting stuff … and reading it I always wonder why many teams don’t want to know this stuff. I mean, I’m not saying that you have to AGREE with all of it or most of it or even any of it. But wouldn’t you want to at least know what some smart baseball people out there are thinking, figuring, predicting and so on?
Anyway, I was re-reading a couple of essays in the the book yesterday while killing time, and this very interesting essay by Keith Woolner — called “Why is Mario Mendoza so important?” — caught my eye. In particular there was the segment asking what I think is a key baseball question.
The question is: Why do we see a number of regular players in baseball who are BELOW replacement level?
This is such a good question — and as you will see in a minute it leads to the mother of all baseball questions — but before we get into it, we should probably take a minute or two to go over the replacement-level concept.
The concept is this: There is a readily available smorgasbord of replacement-level talent available to any GM who wants it. What that replacement level is may be (and is) up for debate, but the point is that there is a certain level of baseball performance that is easily found, either at your own on Class AAA team or on someone else’s. Here is what Baseball Prospects put for American League Replacement level in 2005:
C: .234/.291/.370
1B: .228/.300/.415
2B: .240/.291/.382
3B: .234/.297/.395
SS: .244/.299/.380
LF: .246/.301/.404
CF: .237/.291/.376
RF: .239/.299/.419
DH: .226/.304/.408
You can drop or raise those numbers a few points if you like, but that’s generally what we’re talking about here four years later. You should — no matter what position — be able to find someone (or a platoon) who can hit around .230, get on base between .290 and .300, and slug somewhere in the .360 to .420 range. That’s the absolute MINIMUM production, understand, that you should be getting out of your Major League players. There is simply no shortage of player who can put up those minimal numbers.
This not just a concept …it’s pretty simple to deduce that more or less every team has handful of players in Class AAA who could put up replacement level numbers. And, truth is, many of those guys would put up BETTER than replacement-level numbers if given the chance. Look at just a couple:
– Pittsburgh called up Garrett Jones, a 28-year-old first baseman who had been released a couple of times. He has hit 19 home runs in 65 games for the Pirates.
– Randy Ruiz is a 31-year-old first baseman who was signed by the Reds as an amateur free agent 10 years ago. He was called up and has hit seven home runs and punched up a .360 OBP and .539 slugging in 100 PAs. Would that pace last? Surely not. But he probably could put up replacement level numbers.
You don’t think Shelly Duncan or Andy Tracy or Mitch Jones or any of these guys thrashing AAA could put up replacement level numbers? Of course they could. Of course, replacement level numbers won’t win you anything. But the point here, again, is to ask why teams would EVER use players who are below replacement.
The first answer is obvious: Defense. Replacement level numbers only talk about offense. If you have a great defensive player, you might be willing to go a bit lower than replacement level on offense. Adam Everett is JUST BARELY replacement level offensively, if that. But if you believe that he’s a great defensive shortstop. you might put up with it. Ozzie Smith, in his San Diego years, was probably a below-replacement level hitter.
Other than that, though, why would you go below replacement level? Why would you — in an effort to win games — use players who can be easily AND cheaply replaced?
Keith Woolner gives five possibilities:
1. Improper evaluation or bad information. This is probably the most common one … a general manager simply misjudges a player’s talents, and as such ends up using a player who is below replacement level. Trouble is many GMs and managers are unwilling to admit they are wrong, which is why improper evaluation can often sink a team for years.
2. Suboptimal decision making. This would involve GMs continuing to play guys who are below replacement level, but are also signed for a lot of money. It’s tough for GMs — and even tougher for owners — to simply acknowledge that they made a bad signing and then bench/release the expensive player. They try to get as much as they can out of those sunk costs. And, of course, this only ends up costing them more.
3. Strategic reasons other than short term. Maybe you want to allow a young player to struggle through at below-replacement level because you believe that it will help him develop into a good player in the next few years. Maybe you want to allow a player time to work his way back from an injury. Sometimes, you willingly suffer below-replacement level performance in order to build for the future.
4. Injury. Some players are hurt and keep it secret or downplay the injury. So, the team will stick with the player expecting him to come out of it at any time.
5. Alternative beliefs about replacement level. I’ll let Keith’s words speak here — “A GM who has not identified which low cost players are actually out there may form misguided beliefs about scarcity and thus overrate the low-level talent already on hand.” Um … you may know of a GM or two like this.
To this, I would add two more possibilities:
6. Poor age analysis. It’s amazing to me that with all the information out there, people in baseball simply expect players to continue playing well indefinitely. I think if we took a poll, we would find a surprising number of people inside baseball who continue to believe that a typical player peaks from age 28-to-32, even though most players hit their peaks well before that.
7. Stick with a player who offers a skill that the team overvalues. You might put this under “improper evaluation” but I think there is something else here. Willy Taveras is probably the worst every day player in baseball. And yet he’s leading off for the Cincinnati Reds. How do you explain that? Are the Reds TRYING to lose? No, I don’t think so. I think it’s just: Willy Taveras is fast. And Dusty Baker worships speed … even if it doesn’t get the team anything. Some people fall in love with a player’s arm. Some fall in love with power. Many love speed. Sure, this goes to evaluation, but I think it’s even more specific than that.
There are probably other reasons you can come up with.
By Baseball Prospectus’ count, there are 38 players in baseball with 300-plus plate appearances who are performing below replacement level. According to the list, there are five teams that either are or have been playing three below-replacement level players. You can look at the list and easily (I think) see which reasons fit:
– Baltimore: Ty Wigginton, Cesar Izturis and Aubrey Huff.
– Cincinnati: Ramon Hernandez, Jay Bruce, Wily Tavarez.
– Kansas City: Willie Bloomquist, Mike Jacobs, Jose Guillen.*
– Minnesota: Nick Punto, Delmon Young, Carlos Gomez(#).
– Texas: Hank Blalock, Jarod Saltalamacchia, Chris Davis.
*This does not include Yuniesky Betancourt, though he too has played below replacement level. He doesn’t have enough at-bats.
Like, I say: The reasons should be reasonably clear. Injuries for each of those players. Miscalculations. Sunk costs. Defense. Poor evaluations. The willingness to endure through a young player’s learning pains. Age misjudgments.
But I’m now going to give you a mystery that has no answer that I can come up with.
The mystery is this:
How is it even remotely possible that the Kansas City Royals cleanup hitters — THEIR CLEANUP HITTERS — are hitting .211/.278/.301 this year? How? Seriously. How?
You probably saw this in the Baseball Reference Blog — and it boggles the mind. They list off what the cleanup hitters have done for all 30 teams. The Royals cleanup hitters are hitting 18 points worse than any other team, they are on-basing 19 points lower than any team, and they are slugging NINETY-EIGHT points lower than any team.
The Royals cleanup hitters are hitting worse than a replacement level catcher.
I’m going to repeat that but with italics:
The Royals cleanup hitters are hitting worse than a replacement level catcher.
How is this possible? Seriously? How? True, the Royals have managed to screw up on all seven levels of Replacement-Level-Jeopardy — their cleanup hitters this year have included (along with reasons why they hit cleanup):
– Jose Guillen. Reasons: poor evaluation, sunk costs and age miscalculation.
– Mike Jacobs. Reasons: poor evaluation, sunk costs, player offered a talent the Royals overvalued (home run power without plate discipline), and the Royals clearly didn’t understand the abundance of first baseman who can hit with some power.
– Mark Teahen. Reasons: Improper evaluation; he’s not a clean-up hitter.
– Catchers Brayan Pena and Miguel Olivo. Reasons: Reasons: Desperation.
But none of this can explain fully how a baseball team can go almost an entire season with their clean-up hitters being THAT BAD. You can LITERALLY go into the minor leagues, pluck out almost ANYBODY who is hitting a decent clip (and they don’t have to even be hitting all that well), make that person your cleanup hitter for the whole season, and expect to put up better offensive numbers than the Royals are getting out their No. 4 spot.
The Royals have Cory Aldridge hitting pretty well in Omaha. I’m not saying he’s a prospect, but give him a whole season at cleanup, he’s better than .211/.278/.301. No question about it. Scott Thorman would be better. Kila Ka’aihue — the prospect who finally made Rany give up on the Royals — would be better.
You see what I’m saying? It’s bad enough — inexcusable really — to play a bunch of below-replacement-level players on your team. It means you are not trying hard enough. But to have your CLEANUP HITTER below replacement level — I mean, we’re talking about the spot where your best or second best hitter should be — well, it’s inexplicable, really.
And this leads me to a few words about Royals manager Trey Hillman. I’ve certainly taken my shots at Hillman’s job performance this year. Well, while I like Trey, I think he’s a hardworking and loyal guy, it does seem to me that when in one year, you can wreck the arm of your Opening Day starter, field a team that is unfathomably bad at fielding, run out a lineup that is the league’s worst at running the bases, turn a pretty expensive bullpen into daily catastrophe and mold an offense that is 13th in the league in just about everything, well, you probably should get a few shots fired your way.
Then, to construct a lineup where your cleanup hitters are hitting .211/.278/.301 … well, I mean, isn’t this why you HAVE a manager? To avoid this very thing? Would it really be worse if you let the players set up the lineup themselves like they do at the beginning of “League of Their Own?”
Then, I read Bob Dutton’s story on Trey in the Kansas City Star, and I have to admit: It bugged me. The headline reads: “Hillman says those who judge Royals should look deeper than wins and losses.” And maybe that’s true. But the truth is Hillman isn’t saying exactly that. He’s saying those who judge TREY HILLMAN should look deeper than wins and losses.
He says: “It gets discouraging when you’re not winning ballgames, but the biggest reason it gets discouraging is because most of the time that’s the only gauge that most people use as to whether or not you’re successful or unsuccessful. There are too many other factors that go into it.”
Look, I don’t want this to sound wrong: But when you’re a manager of a Major League baseball team, isn’t the only gauge of your success wins and losses? I mean, you’re not trying to graduate student athletes. HIllman is not (as far as I know) involved in scouting or player development. He’s not the guy who determines what players get selected in the draft, and he doesn’t spent time teaching Class A pitchers how to command their fastballs. The Royals did not give him some team of 22-year-old players so that his only job was to teach them how to play the game. No. he’s the manager of the biggest-payroll team in Royals history, and his job was to win games, and they haven’t won games. I don’t care if the team hasn’t quit — and, anyway, who is to say they haven’t? I don’t care if the team attitude has remained good through the losing — and anyway, how am I supposed to judge that?
We live in a world of spin. This, to me, is one of the reasons sports are so appealing because while, yes, there’s a lot of spin in sports too, the games mostly cut through it. You can talk, you can talk, you can bicker, you can talk. But at the end: You win or you lose. You make the playoffs or miss the playoffs. You finish .500 or you don’t finish .500. You improve or you regress. The Royals have had a disastrous season. Reasons? Sure, there are reasons. And if I’m a fan, I want to know those reasons. But I don’t want to hear how this is what you have to go through to win. I don’t want to hear how you need to look beyond wins and losses. I don’t want to hear about patience. I don’t even want to hear how it would have been different without injuries.
No. I want to hear why the cleanup hitters are hitting worse than 50 guys you could find in Class AAA.
Loading ...
Joe,
Long time, first time.
Went to a local Greek restaurant today and glanced over at a few magazines someone had left on the table. There sat the July issue of Cincinnati Magazine and in small print on the top of the page I noticed “article by Joe Posnanski”. You had a nice anecdote on Pete Rose and told some great stories — and it hit me —
“This guy must never turn down anyone?!?!” I mean your name is more places than Pete Rose’s autographs. I was wondering if you could contribute to the Clermont County Recorder — their sports section is a little light.
I went out and bought the book after that — partly because you do top notch work and partly because you must need the cash.
Keep up the awesome work –
“But when you’re a manager of a Major League baseball team, isn’t the only gauge of your success wins and losses?”
You can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit, Joe.
The Carlos on the Twins listed here must be Carlos Gomez, not Carlos Guillen, who’s still with the Tigers.
Dayton Moore loooooves VURP
Nati Doug, nice call. Joe, I bet if someone duct taped your fingers together you’d keel over with a horrible, silent scream trapped in your hands. Wouldn’t be me; I enjoy the horrible, not so silent screams in your blog.
Keep up the awesome work.
I believe the point here, Marco, is that Hillman apparently can turn chicken sh*t into much more disgusting and toxic varieties of sh*t without much effort.
You can’t make chicken salad, but you should at least try to make chicken sh*t the worst-case scenario..
I think you left out another reason to play below replacement, and that would be the economic draw from $tar power (see Ozzie Smith?).
Hey Joe–Andy from Baseball-Reference. Thanks for taking my piece about cleanup SLG and expanding on it so nicely. I’m a big fan of your work.
The Royals are an awfully sad franchise. I can accept all their years of futility and use their small-market status as a bit of an explanation. But with the quality of their pitching they should be accumulating more wins than they are. You may have hit the nail on the head here–if they could provide just an average offense or even a little below average–they’d be a lot better off.
“The Royals cleanup hitters are hitting worse than a replacement level catcher.”
Now it finally becomes clear why we have carried three catchers since May. Only, why didn’t they hit cleanup???
OT: The end of the world is nigh. The Snuggie for dogs was displayed at a “Snuggie fashion show” during New York’s Fashion Week.
MLB dot com has an article about “The Machine” and mini interview with your good self, that should push you further up the sales list, here’s to top 50!
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090915&content_id=6980832&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
Joe, thanks for final referencing Rany’s great post. You would hope between yours and Rany’s excellent analysis on why the Royals are a laughinstock, some of it will sink in with the organization, We Royals fan deserve so much better. My son is 12 years old and has no clue that the Royals were ever decent.
I agree entirely with the main point of the article, and this is not to defend Hillman or Moore. But I think we need to look a little more closely at the hitters who hit .211/.278/.301 in the cleanup spot. Though these guys are by no means all-stars (or possibly even replacement-level), I think there’s a good deal of bad luck at play when you look at that stat.
None of those 5 players (Guillen, Jacobs, Teahen, Pena and Olivo) have a SLG below Guillen’s .367. And Buck’s .277 OBP is the worst of the bunch. So I’m not sure that it’s Hillman’s fault that these guys hit much worse in the cleanup spot than they did elsewhere in the lineup.
Here’s how they fared in the 4th spot vs. elsewhere in the lineup:
Guillen, 4th: 210/281/337
Guillen, elsewhere: 300/372/420
Jacobs, 4th: 219/289/290
Jacobs, elsewhere: 249/313/522
Teahen, 4th: 212/259/288
Teahen, elsewhere: 291/346/444
Olivo, 4th: 192/192/269 (in 26 PA)
Olivo, elsewhere: 250/284/488
Pena, 4th: 160/192/240 (in 26 PA)
Pena, elsewhere: 293/328/491
I have no idea how every single player can have such a dramatic split. I suppose you could say something about the added pressure of hitting 4th and swinging for the fences?
As a group they hit 272/323/473 when NOT hitting cleanup, which is, well, major-league-ish. That .473 SLG would actually put them mid-pack among MLB teams.
fantastic piece, as usual.
Trey seems to have trained under the Dayton Moore “Deny the obvious and have a lame excuse for every situation” school of interviewing.
The fact that the Royals have subpar players is only part of the problem. Trey has then made decisions that made them even worse.
Trey says they are trying and it is not his fault.
Dayton says believe in the process, and tries to pull the Jedi mind trick on the world, to get them to believe that this is a well put together, well managed team that has had bad luck. (These are not the ‘droids you are looking for) He tells you to ignore the unlucky 33-74 stretch.
David Glass pokes his head out of his groundhog den and says You’re right! These aren’t the ‘droids I am looking for.
If the Royals continue to play well in September, they will all believe that this is the process coming to fruition, and WE can all set our sights on an even worse 2010.
You are missing by far the most common reason teams employ players who are below replacement level: random variation. Ty Wiggington’s past his prime, but he had an .876 OPS last year. He obviously wasn’t going to repeat that, but it wasn’t unreasonable for the O’s to expect him to revert back to his true ability and be above replacement level. Jay Bruce played through injuries, but even so I’d chalk his poor performance up as much to randomness as injuries. Same for Chris Davis, Salty and Teahen.
If you bring up a “replacement” player and give him 150 ABs, there’s a good chance his performance will also be below replacement.
Last year, the A’s had a lower OBP out of the leadoff spot than ANY OTHER SPOT IN THE LINEUP. That’s arguably worse, as Guillen and Jacobs at least kind of sort of once profiled as cleanup hitters.
[...] not quite grasp why this is shocking to me, partly because of what Joe Posnanski wrote today about Replacement Level Players. Note the part where he uses two examples of players who’ve lived in AAA but when given the [...]
Joe, I think you’re being a little bit unfair to the Royals. On the one hand, you’re imploring them to consider new ideas about baseball; yet when they break from convention and embrace a new approach to lineup construction, you complain.
In regard to Hillman, his comments in Dutton’s article were very much in line with comments he made at the beginning of the year. There was a lengthy piece in The Star late in Spring Training about Hillman and his Christian faith and how he plans to be more open about it throughout this season because it makes him a better person, better manager, etc., and one line he had in that story struck me as odd. He something to the effect of “I’m not sure if I’m in this position to win a lot of baseball games or not”, and while it was pretty clear that he was referencing the ambiguity and mystery of God’s plan for him, the reaction of me and a lot of Royals fans I know was, “Actually, Trey, that’s the ONLY reason you’re here”. He’s a major league manager. His job is to put his team in the best possible position to win as many baseball games as they can, and if he’s not sure if that’s what he should be doing, and isn’t sure if that’s how he should be measured, well then it’s time he changed his profession.
This is at least the second time I’ve picked up on a Music Man reference in a post.
There is only one possible explanation for what the Royals are doing:
They are tanking on purpose to get a good draft pick. They are #3 now and only 2 games behind (ahead) of the Pirates. If they somehow get Bryce Harper, isn’t this all worth it? Plus they can feign ignorance and pretend they were really trying. “Hey we signed good RBI men and athletic players!”
Also, I think those replacement numbers need to be tweaked to reflect the AL-NL divide, as 4 of the 5 teams playing 3 “crappy” players are AL teams, and you know AAAA guys would hit worse in the AL.
Man, I never thought I’d ever see a bigger douchebag on HBO than Jeremy Piven.
Then I saw the shot of Jay Mariotti walking down the street in shades talking on a cell phone.
Despite that I thought it was a nice piece. Congrats Joe. That must have been a thrill.
And I have to say I reject Frank Deford’s idea that younger readers won’t read investigative sports journalism. That’s kind of a blame-the-audience attitude.
I mean, if you polled a thousand sports fans on why they quit reading the local paper I doubt many people would say “I got tired of all the in-depth, investigative reporting.”
Have not seen the Frank Deford piece but just responding to above comments and I agree that blaming the audience is the wrong approach.
In fact, if newspapers are to have a future they must include online but also really FOCUS on investigative reporting. They still, even now, are the only ones that have the resources to do it. Most online pieces are just breaking news events, rehashing news or editorializing. There is still a need for in depth investigative reporting.
Joe, you have to include steroids when you talk about baseball stats. A player PEAKS not before 28-32 but when he’s on roids’. The Royals are in the middle of america and it’s a lot harder to use roids and get away with it. However, if you’re Raul Ibanez, A-Rod, Ortiz, etc. you’re going to be on roids thus your team will prosper greatly.
I don’t know if anyone has researched a teams success by locational access to steroids but I bet if you make a chart it’d be clear as day. KC, Brewers, Pitt, etc are not close to roids like the other teams, thus the pathetic record.
Remember, ONE player like a ripped Albert Belle makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE!
Lot’s of stuff about this recently, check out Jeff Zimmerman’s post on this at Beyond the Box Score…
Curious, though, Joe, as to how the words “Dayton Moore” don’t appear in your column.
Joe – I ordered both The Machine and the Dungeon Masters Guide 2 from Amazon if it makes you feel better.
This is good stuff and baseball blogging at its best.
Joe’s column was great and the added takes by Steve P. on numbers when not hitting clean up and Nick O on random variation were even better. Overall, while I think Hillman is a weak manager and Moore did an unbelievably bad job in putting together a line up with four below replacement player guys, the incredibly bad numbers at clean up appear to be luck/random variation.
So, the comments answered Joe’s question of how this is possible. As much as I hate to say it, and as much as I agree with all Joe’s other criticisms of Hillman, the numbers for his clean up hitters are really not Hillman’s fault to any significant degree.
Thanks for the link to Rany’s blog. And loved the Music Man reference.
The thing that I can’t get out of my head about the incompetence of the Royals’ front office and coaching staff is that it’s so unAmerican.
If the Royals were based in a banana republic and owned by El Presidente’s brother-in-law, the same guy who’s got the television station and brewery, then the management style could be understood.
But this is heartland America, where you either succeed or make way for someone who will.
If this process of deny the truth, blame others and generally thrash about for excuses is allowed to permeate from baseball into other sectors of society, then this time next century the USA will be another Brazil.
Hillman shouldn’t want people to look beyond wins and losses and look at the process. It’s like he didn’t think through the cliche because focusing on the little things would make the total picture look even worse. It would by extension make him look unqualified to be a manager. He’s basically saying, Look at the bad base running, the terrible defense, relievers who can’t throw strikes, batters hacking away without a plan.
And yet the season series between the Tigers and Royals is 8-8 right now. It seems like every time some horrible, horrible KC flaw gets pointed out in this blog, you can go to espn.com and find a boxscore where KC has handily beaten Detroit.
As a Tiger fan I must say, If KC has a winning record against us at the end of the year, I think Detroit should be banned from the playoffs.
I don’t get it. Isn’t that what the stat geeks are doing? “Looking deeper than wins and losses.” Aren’t they trying to find the reasons for the wins and losses, and not just chalking results up to chance? The GM poo-poos stats away, and then the Manager asks people to look beyond the obvious. Damn if we do, damned if we don’t.
The life of a Royals fan.
All season, I have thought the solution was obvious. It is clear that whomever batted fourth was going to suck. And it was equally clear that the shortstop was going to suck – pick your guy. So they should have just been batting the shortstop fourth and that way they wouldn’t be dragging two spots in the lineup down, but just one.
This is the kind of out of the box thinking we brought in a guy from Japan to handle, isn’t it?
The only non-pitcher lineup spots worse than the Royals cleanup hitters:
Detroit 9th .217/.265/.291 4 HR 59 RBI
Seattle 7th .214/.267/.299 6 HR 45 RBI
Cincinnati 8th .211/.297/.281 6 HR 38 RBI
Colorado’s #9 hitters – their pitchers and pinch hitters – outperformed our cleanup hitters:
Colorado 9th .217/.293/.307 4 HR 56 RB1
In fairness, Dungeon Master’s Guide 2 is probably the best DMG I’ve ever seen, so it is stiff competition, don’t feel bad….:)
Replacement value and defense is important in Gomez’s case. Also, Gardy (whom you love) is insistent that Punto is a good defensive player (when he’s not). This is not the first time Punto has been significantly worse than replacement, and yet they signed him to one of the largest contracts on the team. Young stinks. He is an example of why people SHOULD look at more advanced stats. Had people bothered to look at GB% and pitch selection and other “esoteric” stats, this could have been avoided.
It’s a testament to Span, Mauer, Morneua and Kubel that the Twins can overcome Punto, Gomez and Young on offense (not to mention 3B and 2B, which might also be below replacement, but no one there has enough ABs to qualify – my guess without looking it up).
Every time I read about your Royals, I wonder how this can be so hard. These things you point out are SO obvious, I wonder why teams contninue to make these same mistakes, over and over.
That quote from Hillman really bothered me. I have been getting the feeling most of the year that GMDM is constantly talking down to the fans. “If you watched baseball everyday… trust the process… you don’t understand baseball…” It’s incredibly aggravating. Not only do I feel like an idiot for supporting this team, now I’m being talked down to. Don’t tell me you shouldn’t be judged on wins and losses! If are a big league manager, what else do you want to be judged on?
I also think it’s very troubling that we are getting the same treatment from the other side of the parking lot. This isn’t Boston and that kind of cloak and dagger smug arrogance isn’t going to fly in KC. It REALLY isn’t going to fly if both teams keep losing like they have been. How can you have such a massively disappointing season and tell people not to judge you on wins and losses and the just blindly trust you and things will be better next year?
I just can’t believe their arrogance… I’m going to stop now.
“Then, I read Bob Dutton’s story on Trey in the Kansas City Star, and I have to admit: It bugged me. The headline reads: ‘Hillman says those who judge Royals should look deeper than wins and losses.’ And maybe that’s true. But the truth is Hillman isn’t saying exactly that. He’s saying those who judge TREY HILLMAN should look deeper than wins and losses.”
I’m a longtime Phillies fan; I’ve suffered a lot. I remember John freakin’ Felskie, which is probably more suffering than any fan should have to deal with.
Among my painful memories is Terry “Tito” Francona. Francona managed the team from ‘97 through ‘99. During that three year period, the Phils won a total of 220 games. The *best* they finished in those three years was 26 games back. Francona was a terrible manager.
Everybody here knew he was a terrible manager. We all snickered when he got hired in Boston. We all yelled when he said he deserved a mulligan for his time with the Phils. When he lead Boson to the World Series in ‘04, everybody said Tito got lucky. Everybody said they could manage that team to a World Series victory, given the talent on the roster.
When he won again in ‘07, suddenly people around here got real quiet about Terry Francona. Suddenly, he wasn’t an idiot manager any longer. Sometimes, yes, a manager is more than his won-lost record.
Turns out Francona is probably a decent manager. (again, remember I’m a Phils fan; it causes me pain to say even that much.) He was given some good talent here — he had Scott Rolen and Curt Schilling — but overall the talent level on the club was terrible, and it only got worse when they traded Schilling for four sucktastic players.
Is Hillman more than his won-loss record? I dunno. Maybe, maybe not. I guess my point is that sometimes that’s possible. Sometimes a good manager appears to simultaneously suck and blow, despite his being a good manager. Hillman may very well actually simultaneously suck and blow. I don’t think we’ll actually know, though, unless he gets a job with a “real” team.
None of that matters now, though, since FJM has reunited for a day on Deadspin!
John/Philly – good point about Tito. Joe Torre certainly got a lot smarter with the Yanks then he seemed with those Mets/Braves squads from the late 70’s-early 80’s. The point is, given more tools Torre or Francona (or anybody, actually) ought to be smarter.
Hillman’s case may be the same. Given a lineup like the current Sox or Yanks (or Phils, for that matter), he may lead them to 95 or so wins. And given the splits for the Royals’ hitters in and out of the four spot, it certainly suggests that he’s been partially done in by bad talent and bad luck.
And yet… if that were the case, he could easily have said, “Somehow whomever we hit fourth has imploded. We’re trying a lot of guys there, and they’ve all done better elsewhere. We’re working on getting them to relax and just be the hitters they already are.” He didn’t. He got very defensive instead. Understandable, but is it because he really doesn’t know what to do? Is it because he knows but he’s being a good company man? Because he doesn’t want to torpedo his own players?
Then compare it to Jerry Manuel. I’m not a huge fan, but I have to say, he’s done a whale of a job out there, in a way that really bolsters Poz’s argument. He has, in effect, several replacement players in his lineup. (A buddy in the office asked about their September callups and I joked, “They used them all in June.”) A typical batting order may be
cf Pagan
2b Castillo
3b Wright
1b Murphy (really – Dan Murphy, 1b, cleanup. Whoa.)
lf Francouer/Tatis
rf Sullivan
c Santos
ss Cora
pitcher
Their injury list looks like a hard drive in need of a defrag. (Perfect summation of their season, actually – the Mets need to be defragged.) Even when healthy they have four second basemen and six fourth outfielders – and have been lucky enough to get better than they could reasonably expect from them. They are pissing away the primes of Santana, Beltran, Wright, and Reyes. Omar Minaya emptied his farm system to build this team and even if it had stayed healthy they would have had too many holes to catch the Phils or Marlins, and no way to add missing pieces the way the Phils added Cliff Lee.
Somehow Manuel has that team fighting all the way down.
So… what is Hillman doing out in KC?
The 2005 White Sox got .234/.296/.419 (a little below a replacement right fielder) out of their #3 hitters and won 99 games and the World Series.
I’m with Steve P on what I’ll call “The Show” factor. What of the pressure factor with regard to lineup spots 3 and 4, or 1 for that matter? Is this where psychology trumps WAR? I don’t want to get into a vitriolic discussion about the much-abhorred notion of “clutchiness,” but how does WAR account for those an inability to overcome pressure. How is that averaged? …I’m starting to think there needs to be a baseball version of Sarah E. Igo’s *The Averaged American*. How do we know, for sure, what “the masses” of minor leaguers will really in The Show? Statistics will only take us so far, for the reasons articulated by Woolner (and JoeP) and the psychology of the game. – TL
Three corrections:
1. “…account for those [with] an inability…”
2. “…minor leaguers will really [do] in…”
3. More explanation on the Igo citation: What I’m saying here is how can we get the information needed on minor leaguers to correct for WAR information gaps. – TL
Hillman’s pronouncement was the most offensive (and demented) statement I think I’ve ever read, in terms of professional sports AND in terms of accountability–accountability at any task, in any profession, at any level. That sort of utter tripe gets under the skin like a pox, and bathing won’t help. And I’m not even a Royals fan. This has now passed the point of “car wreck, can’t look away”: it’s disturbingly clear that, down the path laid by Royals management, lies the Land of Baseball Armageddon.
You’re right Tyler @37!! F–k The Heck am I doing here?!? Sorry, Joe!!
To The Deadspin!!
Nightfly — great points about the Mets and Jerry Manuel. They’ve clearly played better under Jerry with the same Triple A lineup they had on the field before Jerry took over. I think it’s clear that a manager can have an impact on how the team plays.
I’m certainly not making the point that Trey Hillman is another Joe Torre or Terry Francona or whatever other example there is of a manager who sucked and then went elsewhere and won a lot of games. The point, really, is that talent acquisition isn’t Hillman’s job. He has to work with the 25 men he’s given by Moore.
I know that somewhere out there are some tools that will take the stats of the players on a team and produce a lineup, and then go on to figure out how that lineup would do in a season. Sadly, my old age is keeping me from remembering much about it. I’m betting somebody knows what I’m talking about, though. I’d be curious to see what the “best” lineup for the Royals would be, given their current roster, and how that lineup might fare.
Maybe it’s been bad luck, as Steve P argued in Post #13. Or something else. I don’t know, and I don’t think I’m smart enough to figure it out. All I’m saying, I guess, is that as a fan who’s lived through a similar situation with Tito (I vaguely recall similar statements from him and Ed Wade — it was more important to teach the young guys than to win, etc) I’m just saying that I can’t kill Hillman for the comment. That’s all.
@ Tyler #37: Really? FJM is back, even for just a day? * rushes to get to Deadspin’s site * Wow! FJM is back! YAY!!!
Another possible explanation (in limited cases): service time. Some teams just don’t want to call up prospects because they’ll have to pay to keep them sooner than they would by leaving them in the minors longer.
Uh, Nightly and John, you give Jerry Manuel way too much credit.
He certainly has inspired the Mets to keep fighting – for the number one overall draft pick.
Since August 1st, the Mets are 13-29, a .303 winning pct. – absolutely awful.
Since Carlos Beltran last played before going on the DL on June 21 and leaving Manuel primarily with the lineup referenced above, the Mets are 28-49, a .363 winning pct.
If he had to play the lineup all year, you could assume the Mets would finish 58-104.
Here’s what the rest of the dregs of baseball are on pace to finish.
KC 65-97
Pitt 62-100
Wash 56-106
So Jerry Manuel has the ability to manage a team that still has David Wright and Johan and Krod to a record 2 games better than the Washington Nationals (and 7 games worse than the pathetic Royals)
Manuel deserves to be fired for his record but once you add in the way he handles players like what he did with Ryan Church as one expamle:
-declaring Daniel freakin Murphy a better hitter than Church in spring training
-Not playing Church to the point they were forced to trade him for the inferior and completely worthless Jeff Francoeuer
-the ridiculous comments about Church not being man enough to heal from a concussion as quickly as David Wright, etc.
Not that Ryan Church is all that good, but who treats their players like that??
Jerry Manuel certainly gives Hillman a run for his money to be worst manager in baseball.
To those who argue that it isn’t Hillman’s fault because his #4 hitters do worse hitting #4, umm, something is wrong with your analysis. Let’s see what it may be.
It is true that managers (generally) don’t get to pick and choose talent, except of course that they are allowed to pick the 25 and then to decide who plays in the starting lineup and then where they all hit. Given a failure of such epic proportions in a key slot, I’d say he bears a lot of responsibility.
If he is saying that he needs power in the 4 slot (similarly to the way Baker says he needs speed in the #1 slot) and they fail, it was his choice. After all, he could change who hits fourth, right?
If everyone is failing at 4th for psychological reasons (possible – Yogi was far more right than he knew for saying baseball was half physical and 90% mental after all), then he could do something different, like:
Try literally everyone there (hasn’t done that yet this year) or
Try to sway the psychological issue with his clubhouse approach, or
Suggest the team hire a sports psychologist to deal with the issue, or
Take an entirely different tack – thinking out of the box – and set up his lineup differently. Maybe like a softball team with the best hitter leading off or totally platooning the 3/4/5 slots every day or…
Thing is, it doesn’t seem as though he has actually done anything more than try the few people there he thought “looked like” they could be cleanup hitters.
Regarding reasons as to why a below-replacement level player is on the field: money. Sometimes, I believe, ownership pushes a player to get more AB’s in the interest of keeping the fans happy. For instance, Griffey Jr. is pretty much sucking this year but Seattle fans are buying tickets to see him, so maybe he gets in the line-up to provide some kind of an ROI. Their catcher, Jojima, is also not good but there were whispers that he got a new contract last year because the Japanese ownership pushed for it. This may be more true for a team without a realistic shot at the post-season (i.e. “We aren’t making the playoffs anyway, so get Jojima out there and give our large Japanese fan-base somebody to come see…”)
Not saying this is a common reason for below average players in the line-up, but it should be mentioned in this conversation.
I can explain Minnesota’s candidates:
Delmon Young: Sunk costs, management unable to admit a mistake. “You mean THAT’s what we got for Bartlett & Garza!?”
Carlos Gomez: Great center fielder, huge speed, and they think he will learn to hit.
Nick Punto: Sunk costs, also Gardenhire’s love child, man crush, he may have certain pictures of Gardy.
More like…
Delmon Young: Improper evaluation and team’s stubbornness to admit a mistake. Many times I read the quote “The ball just sounds different off his bat” when he was acquired by the Twins. Seriously? It’s like Nick Punto…and the Twins just don’t want to give up on a guy they received in a trade when Bartlett and Garza have done so well for the Rays.
Nick Punto: Improper evaluation. He’s perceived to be a great fielder, when in actuality he’s just a great fielder with average range. Also, I think his inconsistent offense from the past few years hasn’t been helpful either. We’ve seen him hit .280+ twice now, but he’s also been under .240 twice as well.
Carlos Gomez: He doesn’t really fit under anything. He’s a great defensive CF, which I do believe the Twins understand, but in this case I think the Twins undervalue his defense, thinking that his poor offense negates it. Therefore, he’s been benched regularly this season in favor of Delmon Young.
Also, Baseball Between The Numbers is a great read, though admittedly difficult to read at times with all the numbers that get thrown around. Nevertheless, it does a great job of pointing out things such as sample size issues, are closers really best used for the 9th inning only, and if new stadiums actually improve a team and increase its payroll.
Just read this on espn.com about Delmon Young: “and Delmon Young is starting to look like a lost cause. He has a Miguel Olivo-like 79 strikeouts and 10 walks this season.”
If only Olivo had a cool handle like “Lima Time.”
Cardinal fan here–]
This post reminds me of something that happened back in the early 90’s, during the dark days of Maxvill/Torre.
There was one period when a regular was injured for a long time and the guy starting in his place was simply awful. (I don’t remember who the exact players were, but it’s not necessary for this anecdote.) At some point, Maxvill was asked if he was going to try to get someone else, and he explained that he couldn’t increase the payroll and the sub was already making the minimum, so he couldn’t get anyone any better. I was completely dumbstruck.
Trey never met Herman Edwards huh?
“YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.”
I even think he said that while he was in KC….
[...] Joe Posnanski: Almost Impossible to Believe [...]
I just checked the box for today’s game (top of the 7th). Almost every starter has a hit except the #4. Jacobs is 0-3.
Joe, we probably could have used a few replacement-level guys in the bullpen this summer, too.
uh… saving hundreds of runs with their defense ?
I think you touched on it, Joe, and someone else posted – sample size, the first point. Both in evaluating a minor league player and a major league player.
It’s highly unlikely that with all those variables, that anyone could hit it right all the time. And, when you get to the Mendoza point of the book, one has to realize that, compared to the general population, a replacement level player is far closer to a Hall of Famer than I certainly am. So, if according to whats-his-name (fanalytics guy), a 20% variance is not outrageous in the slightest, when you’re comparing it to a high base like replacement value, it’s not really much of a variance at all.
All I’m saying is it’s almost statistically improbable that there’s only 38 players with 300 ABs that are below replacement level. There’s too just many fuzzy things involved.
[...] not quite grasp why this is shocking to me, partly because of what Joe Posnanski wrote today about Replacement Level Players. Note the part where he uses two examples of players who’ve lived in AAA but when given the [...]