Had Jayson Werth not had an historic offensive performance
last night against the Toronto Blue Jays, Jimmy Rollins and his poor approach
at the plate and on the base paths would have been in question. The Jays sent out rookie left-handed starting
pitcher David Purcey whom the Phillies hadn’t faced before.
As a lead-off hitter on a team unfamiliar with the opposing pitcher,
it’s Rollins’ job to take pitches to help his teammates behind him ascertain a
number of things including the pitcher’s release point, pitch tells (tipping
off pitches), velocity, and movement. Additionally, Purcey had shown in his
previous start that he lacks control, walking seven hitters in four and
one-third innings against the Detroit Tigers.
Rollins is last year’s MVP in the National League; surely
he’ll do the right thing and take some pitches to lead off the first inning. Incorrect: Rollins swung at a
first-pitch fastball and flied out to center fielder Alex Rios.
Between then and Rollins’ next at-bat, Werth put the
Phillies on the board with a three-run homer. Ryan Howard and Pat Burrell got
on base ahead of him via walks. In the third inning, Rollins came up for his next at-bat and
bunted the first pitch he saw – a change-up – down the first base line for an
infield single. It was odd to see despite Rollins being one of the faster
players in baseball since he rarely attempts to bunt.
In two at-bats, the lead-off hitter saw a grand total of two
pitches. It didn’t get better. Shane Victorino walked and Chase Utley strode to
the plate with runners on first and second base with no outs. After working the
count to 1-1, Purcey threw a fastball that was close to being a strike. For
some reason, Rollins attempted to steal third base, and, for some reason,
stopped. Shane Victorino, bringing up the rear, assumed that Rollins wouldn’t
make a base running gaffe and continued towards second. Catcher Greg Zaun
strolled out towards Victorino between first and second (Rollins was standing
on second base) with nowhere to go, and tagged him out.
Presumably, manager Charlie Manuel has given Rollins free
reign on the bases, so the idea to steal third base was likely entirely
Rollins’ doing. You can’t really fault Victorino because if the play unfolds as
it normally does, the catcher either attempts to nail the lead base runner or
doesn’t bother to make a throw; rarely does the catcher go after the trailing
base runner.
Strategically, it makes no sense to attempt to steal third
base in that situation. You have runners on first and second with no outs with
the best hitters in the lineup looming in Utley, Howard, and Burrell. According
to BaseballProspectus.com’s run expectancy matrix, 1.50 runs are expected with
runners on first and second with no one out and 1.98 are expected with runners
on second and third with no one out (if Victorino hadn’t tried to advance,
runners on first and third with no outs would’ve given an expectancy of 1.72
runs). However, given Victorino’s speed and the hitting ability of the 3-4-5-6
hitters in the Phillies’ lineup, the gap between the two situations is
presumably less. And given that the score
was 3-0, it made even less sense to attempt to steal third base.
When Jesse Litsch – another pitcher the Phillies are
unfamiliar with – came in to relieve Purcey in the bottom of the fourth inning,
Jamie Moyer had the correct approach, and he’s a pitcher! He took three pitches
– a called strike followed by two balls – before swinging the bat. Rollins came
up for his third at-bat of the game and, what do you know, he actually takes a
couple pitches before deciding to swing. The result was better, too: he made
great contact and lined out to right fielder Matt Stairs, who made a nice catch
on the sinking liner.
Rollins was lucky Werth went 3-for-4 with 3 homers and 8
ribbies to overshadow his poor approach last night.
|
|||||||
|
This Month
Month Archive
Login
BDD Store
BDD Recommends
Minor League/College Links
Projection Applications
Search
|
Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
Bill Baer
on Sat 17 May 2008 12:45 PM EDT | Permanent Link
Comments
Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
JMBlake50
on Sun 18 May 2008 05:58 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Blinded by the stats. I take you are a fan of the Fighting Phils; if so or if not, I see you are much too harsh on Jimmy Rollins. Maybe he doesn't fit your profile of a Lead-off Hitter (LH), maybe he doesn't treat the position exactly as you see fit for it, and maybe you use statistics to prove a futile point. Jimmy Rollins earned his MVP for a reason and the reason is HIS PERFORMANCE over the entire 2007 season in which the Phillies won the Eastern Division. Jimmy Rollins is fine. HIs stats are very nice. You do not thorw the baby out with the bath water.
Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
Well, I didn't say anything about his 2007 performance except an allusion to his winning the NL MVP award; however, I do think that Rollins wasn't even a top-five (maybe not even top-ten) candidate for it and David Wright was snubbed.
This article wasn't to impugn Rollins generally, it was one game, although I have noticed this ever since he came to the Majors. Simply put, Rollins is overrated. I take it you say "blinded by the stats" like it's a bad thing... I take it like it's a good thing. :) Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
JMBlake50
on Sun 18 May 2008 09:08 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
So the title of your writing should have been, " I think Jimmy Rollins is overrated and Werth's Success is Proof." ????
Stats are great when NOT over-done and over-blown. Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
No, that was my point: my article was not about Rollins being overrated; it was about his poor approach in this particular game.
I've scribbled about Rollins being overrated, this wasn't one of those articles, but if you'd like to debate it, I'm game. :) It seems you're claiming I'm "overdoing" and "overblowing" the use of statistics though I haven't used any, really. I cited Rollins taking two pitches in two at-bats as a lead-off hitter against a pitcher his team has never faced before. Unless keeping track of the # of pitches in an at-bat is "overdoing" it, I think you're creating a strawman here. Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
JMBlake50
on Mon 19 May 2008 09:57 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I read your article. All I am (was) doing is commenting on statements you wrote in the article. Did you make the comment that David Wright was cheated out of the MVP last season? Or was it the season before? I don't recall and all of the comments are not posted above. Anyway, instead of making a statement or comment (or whatever) about Rollins worth or worlthlessness as a lead-off man, your agenda is pointed at Rollins not because he is not performing as well you expect him to, but it is plain that you do not like Rollins, you do like David Wright, and the article is an expression of your negative opinion of Jimmy Rollins, 2007 NL MVP. Unless this web site is struggling to fill web space, your article should have been buried. You certainly contributed nothing of merit and the argument against Jimmy Rollins is poor and inconclusive. As far as I can read, I am the only one to make comments, other than you, of course; my friend, that should tell you something. Nothing vs you and I expect you to understand that I am only given constructive remarks that may assist you in future writings. Jimmy Rollins is one hell of a baseball SS and has been for many years. You would not rank him in the top 5, top 10 and so forth; that statement alone renders your article pointless. That said, I see serious potential in your craft. I really do. Given a topic that you can put together more facts vs opinions, I feel you are capable of writing as well as anyone else publishing here on the site. Now you might get mad at my analysis, throw pointless slanderous remarks back my way, or blather about in a lunatic fringe sort of way....but I don't think so. It is plain to read that you enjoy writing. All you have to do is get a topic that will allow you to develop your skills and not your bias. One more question and I'll let it go; if the All-Star Game is tonight and you are given duty to make out the lineup for the National League, who starts at 3B?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
Joe Hamrahi
on Mon 19 May 2008 10:12 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
If you don't mind me asking Blake, what are your credentials for determining a qualified writer, baseball analyst, or mechanics expert? I'm seriously curious. On another note, Bill's post is a blog entry and blogs are focused more on opinions and off the cuff writing. Still, you're entitled to your opinion, and that's why we allow comments. Just be careful about making comments like "That said, I see serious potential in your craft. I really do. Given a topic that you can put together more facts vs opinions, I feel you are capable of writing as well as anyone else publishing here on the site." It comes across more as condescending than it does as constructive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
JMBlake50
on Mon 19 May 2008 10:51 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
What exactly is a "blog"? What makes any piece of writing of "merit”? When is an "informed opinion" more than just a biased piece of writing? I, in no way, shape or form wrote my last response to come off as condescending to the gentleman. My aim is only to encourage the writer to take another angle instead of belittling a very fine baseball player. You asked me of my credentials; let me ask what makes someone like a Paul Nyman an expert on pitching mechanics? Who I am, what I have to offer, what I have accomplished is not as important as encouraging "bloggers" to offer more than empty opinions that are based on bias and misplaced statistics. A baseball digest worth reading is one that offers more insights than insults; more analysis than "assnalysis"; more and BETTER baseball talk than "buffalo chips". If my previous post insulted the gentleman, I offer my most sincere apology; my goal was and still is to add that little bit of positive critique and positive response that may lead a "blogger" to become a baseball writer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
I responded to all of this via E-mail except for your question about who would start at 3B in the All-Star Game. Ignoring the fact that it is a pointless and flawed game, I would go with Chipper Jones in the NL (obviously), and Joe Crede or Alex Gordon in the AL.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
JMBlake50
on Tue 20 May 2008 05:21 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
The All-Star Game is "pointless" and "flawed" to the tune of deciding which league gains home field advantage? I believe your "statement" has a definition waiting for you at Wikipedia.
"...flawed and pointless" is the all-star game of the great game of baseball? Tell that to "Matty' and "Three Finger"; tell it to "Chief Bender" and the "Splended Splinter", "Scooter" and "Tom Terrific." Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
JMBlake, there's no definitive advantage for the home team in the playoffs. Consider the last 3 years' W-L records for home teams:
2007 World Series: 2-2 ALCS: 5-2 NLCS: 2-2 ALDS: 5-2 NLDS: 3-3 Total: 17-11 2006 World Series: 4-1 ALCS: 2-2 NLCS: 3-4 ALDS: 4-3 NLDS: 3-4 Total: 16-14 2005 World Series: 2-2 ALCS: 2-3 NLCS: 3-3 ALDS: 4-4 NLDS: 5-2 Total: 16-14 Using the All-Star Game to decide on home-field advantage, though, is folly. The "1 player per team" rule disadvantages the league with worse teams (usually the NL especially since they have 2 more teams). The game, overall, is inherently biased towards teams with large markets which is why you see Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets taking up 50% of both All-Star rosters every season. All-Star Game selections to judge a player's value is just about as bad as you can get without using pitchers' win-loss records. Just because Chipper Jones made an All-Star team doesn't mean he's good; it just means he was either really popular among the fans, or was judged (read: subjectively) to be worthy by the manager of the All-Star team. Of course, Jones actually does deserve it thus far, but I'm speaking hypothetically. Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
JMBlake50
on Tue 20 May 2008 08:44 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
You are right and I do agree that using the all-star game to determine home field is not a good idea. It just doesn't fit. Too bad the players and coaches are not allowed to pick the All-Star team as in "days of old" and let the fans pick "a team" that just gets published in the paper or something.
Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
The All-Star Game, if it is to mean anything, shouldn't be subjectively picked. There should be a stone-solid set of criteria to merit an All-Star Game selection based on statistics.
Just as the fans are prone to poor judgment and bias, so too, are players and coaches. Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
JMBlake50
on Wed 21 May 2008 08:43 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I do not agree with your assessment of home field advantage in that every team in baseball will tell you that having their home field is an advantage for those players. Stats do not account for a player or a group of players preferences.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
That's not the point. The point was to show that the All-Star Game deciding home-field advantage is in itself a poorly-thought-out idea, and that home field advantage isn't that much of an advantage after all.
Whether players prefer or not doesn't matter. You seem to be so caught up in this anti-stat heat of yours... you and Murray Chass should hang out some time. :) Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
by
JMBlake50
on Wed 21 May 2008 03:52 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Don't know Mr. Chass.
The All-Star game deciding WS home field advantage is a poor idea. I agreed with that earlier. YOUR stats do not prove that having home field in the WS is not an advantage for the winning teams; YOUR stats only show that the winning team was able to win on the road. I am not "anti-stats"; as statistics have their place. I do have a problem with people that believe that the game of baseball is "black and white". Stats can be used to prove and disprove just about anything. You used the numbers so that you could say WS home field advantage is of no advantage. You could use the same stats to prove that the winning teams in the WS are the teams that overcome the opposing teams' home field advantage. But I'm sure that you'd head on over to Wikipedia and decided what faults my poorly constructed argument contains and "cogent reasoning" was not used.... ; - p Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost in Werths Success is J-Rolls Poor Approach
I'm sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner, J-Mike.
"Stats can be used to prove and disprove just about anything." This is not true, and it's an oft-cited comment directed at the stats crowd. The correct statement is, "Statistics can be misused to prove or disprove just about anything." Statistics are not wrong; it is our influence of and with statistics that err. "You used the numbers so that you could say WS home field advantage is of no advantage. You could use the same stats to prove that the winning teams in the WS are the teams that overcome the opposing teams' home field advantage." You're re-stating the argument in a more biased way. It's like saying, "Two-thirds of white women support Hilary Clinton," or saying, "One-third of white women don't like the African-American Presidential candidate." "But I'm sure that you'd head on over to Wikipedia and decided what faults my poorly constructed argument contains" You mock, but if you actually utilize my constructive criticism, your arguments will be that much stronger in the future. When I debate a subject with someone, and I see them using all kinds of logical fallacies, that just screams weakness and unpreparedness. When I cut out logical fallacies from my argumentation, I became much better at stating and defending my points. So, there's a huge advantage to not using them. |
||||||
