Hitters Who Would Better Leadoff Batters Than Matt Tolbert: A Handy Reference

Ron Gardenhire seems to think that in lieu of an actual leadoff hitter (Denard Span), he should simply place a speedy player at the top of the lineup. Normally, it would only matter to a limited extent, but putting a batter who's hitting .175 (also sporting a nifty .270 OBP and .237 SLG!) the highest number of plate appearances in a given game seems like a great way to not score very many runs.

Since Gardy is obviously confused as to what makes a good leadoff hitter (hint: see pitches, get on base for other hitters to get you in), I've composed this helpful cheat sheet.

List of People Who Would Be More Apt to Bat Leadoff Than Matt Tolbert

Brendan Harris
Joe Mauer

Nick Punto (and, my God, does that distress me)

Luis Ayala
Cecil Fielder

This man and his two career stolen bases would be a much better leadoff hitter than Matt Tolbert.

Scott Baker
Emilio Navarro (propped up with a series of levers and pulleys)
An unoccupied batter's box
Carlos Gomez (but only just barely... that was a long, angering road I'd rather not go down again)
A Sony Aibo
American Idol winner Kris Allen
Most of the commenters at the Star Tribune's website
Doctor Who
The gun toting corpse of Charlton Heston
That one guy on Lost... you know... the bald-ish guy, the mysterious guy with the shifty eyes... yeah, him
Eddie Gaedel
A sentient jack-in-the-box
Ordinary buttered toast

But is it scrappy buttered toast? Does it battle its tail off??

Lest you think I'm overly pessimistic, here another list.

List of Hitters Who Matt Tolbert Would Probably Be Better Than

Alexi Casilla
Bob Buhl

Please, listen to reason. Scrappy, light-hitting infielders who strike out almost as often as they get on base do not in any way scream "leadoff hitter".

Super Bowl, Here We Come

I should have known. Things seemed too good to be true. The owner of the Minnesota Vikings opened the purse-strings and pumped some money into the team, grabbing a couple of high reward defensive players and a pretty decent wide receiver. The Vikings were the chic pick to win the division, and a lot of pundits went so far as to say that the Vikings had the pick of a dark horse Super Bowl entry. Honestly, after years of watching folks pick teams like the 49's and Cardinals in the same way - only to watch those teams spiral into oblivion - we probably should have known better.

Today, after over a year of trying to Tarvaris Jackson to an unwilling fanbase, Coach Childress announced that Gus Frerotte has been named as the starting quarterback for the remainder of the season.

I've spent a fair bit of time trying to make a case for Tarvaris. He's quick, he's got a cannon for an arm, and - I thought - that he could adjust to life in the NFL and overcome his initial accuracy struggles. I'll admit it, it's just not going to happen. He still misses receivers left and right. He still has trouble looking off defenders. He still looks uncomfortable on everything except quick slants and rollouts, and opposing defenses are starting to catch on to that fact. On Sunday, when it was third and long in the waning minutes of the 4th quarter, I'm sure everyone in the western hemisphere knew which play was coming (i.e. the only one the coaching staff felt confident Tarvaris could actually execute.)

That doesn't mean that the coaching staff gets off scot-free. Last week, it seemed like every single pass was either a tiny screen or a long 50-yard bomb. What happened to the hard, aggressive play-calling that we brought out during the second half of the Green Bay game in week one? Tarvaris was hitting people on hard slants and medium range post routes, and it opened up the whole field. Against Indianapolis, we were playing as if we were terrified of giving the ball back to them (ironically, they got the ball back more often because of this very fact). I still think that Childress is one of the worst coaches in football, and this game only make me more adamant in that belief. It's my hope that once the Vikings get no better with Frerotte under center, that heads will start to roll.

For now, fare thee well, Tarvaris Jackson. I believed in you, even if no one else did.

Side note #1: During Sunday's game, one of the commentaters was talking about Adrian Peterson's amazing game against the Chargers last year, where he rushed for an NFL-record 296 yards, he guaranteed that Peterson would someday rush for 300 in a game. That's right, he guaranteed that AD will accomplish something that no one in the history of the NFL has ever done. Hyperbole much?

Side note #2: Ryan T. Scott's got to feel a little ridiculous.

Standing Pat & A Wild Win

So, the trade deadline came and went, and...

...nothng happened.

While I wasn't surprised, I'm a little disappointed that the Twins didn't try a little harder for one of the infielders that hey had been rumored to be in taks for. Adrian Beltre would have been a huge pickup, and one more strong shutdown reliever would have been nice to get (though trades for relievers often turn out poorly). If Alexi Casilla is truly done for the season (and I sincerely hope he isn't), we'll be trotting a lineup with at least 3 of the following players every game: Nick Punto, Brian Buscher, Brendan Harris, Mike Lamb, or Adam Everett.

* Buscher's really playing well, but he's really a replacement level player, and he needs to be platooned against lefties.

* Punto's redeemed himself after his abysmal 2007 season, but even the most optimistic fan has to realize that his stats will level off to some extent (my bet is that it'll happen faster, now that he'll be batting second with Casilla out).

* Harris is an okay hitter (I stress okay), but he's an anchor in the field. With him playing shortstop for the foreseeable future, Twins fans can get ready to hear "just missed the double play" a lot.

* Lamb has been a tremendous disappointment, both in the field and at bat. He's wayunder replacement value, and is looking like he's losing motivation rapidly.

* Everett was touted as an mazing defenseman, but injuries, an awful record at the plate, and even some extremely shaky defense had him almost DFA'd (until Casilla's injury). Who knows how much time he'll get to play.

Casilla's injury hurts the Twins drastically. If a trade for an infilder was important before, it became crucial once Casilla made that ill-fated headfirst slide into second. The Twins stood pat, and while I still think they can make some waves, and possibly win the division, any lineup that has to feature 3 of the aforementioned group is on shaky feet.

Gardy has to fill out just such a lineup card pretty much every game for the rest of the year if Casilla's injury is as bad as advertised.


On to brighter news. Thursday's game against the Sox was a joy to watch. Scott Baker had an abnormally rough outing, but still struck out 8 in 6 innings and kept the Twins close. Morneau hit a 3-run homer to bring us within one, setting the stage for one of the wildest innings I've seen in some tme.

Denard Span led off the 7th inning, and during a bunt attempt, he pulled his bat back (as replays showed) very much in time to avoid commiting to the pitch, which ended up hitting him. As he trotted down the line, suddenly the home plate umpire called him back, saying that he had gone too far. A horribly missed call, which Gardenhire immeadiately came out to argue. Gardy was ejected almost instantly, which sent him into a fury. After giving up on the umpire, he vented some frustration by dropkicking his cap. Unfortunately, doing this prompted the already agitated home crowd to start throwing their caps onto the field (a poor choice... those things are expensive), and when they ran out of caps, they started throwing whatever else they could get their hands on. Ozzie Guillen (rightfully) got his players off the field, and (bizzarely) got into a shouting match with a couple fans above the visiting dugout. The dome announcer threatened that if everyone didn't stop, the Twins would have to forfeit, but eventually, order was restored. Span came back to bat and ended up coaxing a great walk, then took second on a wild pitch, and scored the tying run on a hard ground ball which Orlando Cabrera wasn't quite able to snag. Jason Kubel tacked on a 3-run homer later in the inning. The Sox got a couple back in the 8th, but the Twins picked up 3 more in the bottom of that inning, securing a win.

Overall, it was a hard fought game against our biggest rival (a game which happened to bring us to 1/2 game back of said rival in the central division standings). It was the type of game that reminds a person why baseball is sch a great game...

Wow... Really?? I Mean, Really??

Twins general manager Bill Smith, on Livan Hernandez, who improved to 10-6 with a 5.29 earned-run average with Saturday's victory over Texas: "I'll take the (10) wins. Who do you want, a guy who's 10-15 with a 2.80 ERA or a guy who's 16-8 with a 7.00 ERA? I'll take the 16-8."

Source

 

Oh no Bill, not cool... I guess the saying goes 'I'd rather be lucky than good', but as a GM wouldn't you rather draft good, seeing as how it's a little bit more repeatable?

Let's put it this way. If I were to pitch in the major leagues, I'd understandably have a complete inability to get anyone out. I'd give up 96 runs in the first inning, and I'd only start people out when their arms were literally too tired to swing the bat. However, for the sake of this hypothesis, let's also say that my younger brother is toeing the rubber against me. He give up his 342 runs and then he starts walking people. The result is a thrilling 956-872 game, and I end up winning.

Now let's say that the very next day this happens. Scott Baker goes out and gives up 2 hits, one of which happens to be an unlucky home run. He loses because of his offense's innate disability to score runs behind him (this is actually the THIRD time he's lost 1-0 in this not-at-all-hypothetical-all-too-real world).

Who pitched a better game??

Exactly. Wins are overrated. A pitcher can pitch the game of his life, but unless the strikes out every single hitter, he's not in complete control of the outcome - and even then he still has to get some hitting behind him. Seeing how no one has ever done that, (not even Ron Necciai, though that one game was one of the greatest feats anyone has ever accomplished in sports), there has not been a single instance where a pitcher has won a game all by himself. A win is supposed to be a nice indicator of which pitcher pitched better on a given day, but it's a horribly flawed stat. I fear for the Twins, who seemingly have a GM who doesn't grasp that concept at all.

 

Coincidentally, Livan earns his own tag with this post. I'm kind of shocked he didn't already have one. His name has also been added to my computer's dictionary. Truly we live in harrowing times.

To Bunt or Not to Bunt...

The myth that bunting is a sure way to advance a baserunner and that it should be used liberally is baffling to me.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who's a tad tired of hearing Dick Bremer ponder over whether the player after a leadoff single will be called to bunt.

Let's have a look at a table. From 1977 to 1992, this is how many runs a team could get on average, depending on the number of outs and the number of runners on base) (stolen with credit given to http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php - It includes more information than I could hope to go over, including an argument for smart, situational based bunting - which increase the probability and help score runs. It's really quite interesting, and lengthy.)

TABLE 1 - Expected Run Table (1977-1992)

AL         0        1        2      NL        0        1        2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---     .498     .266     .099     ---     .455     .239     .090
x--     .877     .522     .224     x--     .820     .490     .210
-x-    1.147     .693     .330     -x-    1.054     .650     .314
xx-    1.504     .922     .446     xx-    1.402     .863     .407
--x    1.373     .967     .385     --x    1.285     .907     .358
x-x    1.758    1.187     .507     x-x    1.650    1.123     .466
-xx    2.009    1.410     .592     -xx    1.864    1.320     .566
xxx    2.345    1.568     .775     xxx    2.188    1.487     .715

(a dash '-' signifies an empty base, an 'x' signifies an occupied base. The numbers at the top indicate how many the number of outs there are, and everything in between indicates how many runs on average are scored per inning where the situations were met. Example, with one out and runners on first and second, an average of .922 runs were scored from that point on.)

You can see here that the 'tried and true' method of giving up an out to move the runner over to second base can often make it LESS likely than the team will score a run that inning. Bunting runners over from first and second to second and third is less painful, but it still gives away outs for positioning (except in certain situations), something that makes big innings less likely, and makes it more likely that even if runs do score, the damage will be minimal.

Last night, the Twins played the Padres, and the game was a pitcher's duel well into the late innings. With the score tied at 1, and runners on first and second (and no out, to boot) Jody Gerut was asked to bunt (Dick, of course, acted as if this was a smart play). Even with the bunt sign on, the first 2 pitches were off the plate, and Gerut got the count to 2-0. This is a hitter's count, there's really no earthly reason why a player who hasn't successfully sacrificed in 4 years (a streak that lives on, by the way) should be asked to bunt in such a situation. Even is he had been succesful, the statistics actually say that thier chances of scoring a run would have gone down anyway. Runners at second and third with one out historically has not been as advantageous as runners at first and second and one out. Besides which, Jody Gerut is hitting .288 this year, why not give him 3 chances to make something happen, as opposed to asking him to do something he doesn't historically have a talent for (4 sacrifices in 1284 career at bats, now)? At the very least, take the bunt sign off once he's up 2-0 and in a position to do some real damage.

I know I'm not saying anything that hasn't been parroted 10 thousand times before, and I'm not saying there's NEVER a good time to bunt (a lot of pitchers, for example). However, when it comes down to it, bunting is very often times a TERRIBLE way to score runs, and if a team is down (especially by more than one run), it represents a near pointless trading of an out for a small advantage on the basepaths (one that often goes for naught, anyway).

Luckily enough, major league managers are impervious to statistics, this is why the 'speed guy' will forever be leading off, even is he has a .200 OBP, and why bunting will always be looked on as a scrappy way to play some small ball, even if Jody Gerut is at the plate and hasn't bunted a runner over in over 300 at bats.

Well... I Didn't See That One Coming...

For the record, Kevin Slowey is a pitcher (a starting pitcher, at that).

No, that isn't an all too common "Gameday Typo", that is the direct result of carrying THIRTEEN pitchers on your major league roster. Here's the situation.

Mike Redmond (the Twins backup catcher, for the uninitiated) gets a single with one out in the 8th inning. The Twins are down by a run at this point, and Redmond is not known for his blazing speed, so Gardy puts in Kevin Slowey (again... a starting pitcher) as a pinch runner. The fact that Slowey was recently injured doesn't seem to factor into this equation. They pinch hit for Craig Monroe with Jason Kubel. They then pinch hit for Delmon Young with Joe Mauer, who ends the inning without getting the run in. After all is said and done, Kubel takes over in left field, Mauer takes over catching, and Jessie Crain comes in to pitch. Because of the shenanigans, we almost had ANOTHER pitcher batting in an AL game (this coming just a couple weeks after Bobby Korecky had the Twins' first hit by a pitcher in an AL game in, like 30 years).

So, the question I have is this - how many more times do we have to see pitchers roaming the basepaths in American League games before the Twins get fed up and DFA Juan Rincon? We can't keep doing this, it makes games interesting, I'll give it that, but it's not a great way to win a ball game. I thought that the whole reason we kept 3 catchers up last year (a horrible decision, btw) was so that this would never happen.

I'm confused and somewhat horrified. Hopefully this doesn't come up again.