Get off of my lawn!

It might've been better to confront someone with more seniority, but I guess you gotta start somewhere.

I was hoping it was Dunn instead of Encarnacion so I could say "How could you tell if he was running?"

Yea, hustle. That's been the Reds' problem.

Not playing Ryan Freel every day, when it's obvious he's a 4 game a week player. Not carrying 3 catchers. Not telling Kearns to gain weight "to avoid injury", then sending him to the minors because he's "fat". Not half of the 40 year old players in the league. Not keeping Jr and his .316 OBP in the 3 spot all year, along with his rotting corpse in CF. Not giving Juan Castro and Royce Clayton and their combined career OPS of .671 regular playing time.

Nope. If they hustled more, those "SOBs" would win more games.

And this is a great quote to see: "I don’t care if we lose every game we’re going to hustle while we’re doing it.” Wouldn't that constitute throwing games?

Oh, and a warning to the Reds, and especially Josh Hamilton (can you win both ROY and Comeback Player the same year?):

Don't hustle too much, because we know that people who run to 1st after a walk are frauds.

Jerry Narron: You guys. You lollygag the ball around the infield. You lollygag your way down to first. You lollygag in and out of the dugout. You know what that makes you? Bucky!
Bucky Dent: Lollygaggers!
Jerry Narron: Lollygaggers.

TDF:

The items you mention are management issues. The item listed above is a systemic team problem that has endured despite management changes.

And no, it isn't certainly not the SOLE problem. But it is representative of an approach that is not conducive to winning long-term.

Harvey, when Narron is worried about "hustle", yet totally fails at every other part of his job (except those beautiful lineup cards), I'm not going to say "Good for him".

"I managed good, but boy did they hustle bad"

TDF:

Point taken. But I like Dunn hitting second. And Adam certainly looks more nimble. Junior went to right field after several managers failed to get him to move. Edwin is playing every day at third. Playing Ross and not fighting to keep "Country" LaRue. The starting pitching looks to be getting better bit by bit.

Lots of moving parts on a baseball team. If Narron has a plan he is WAY AHEAD of Miley and Boone.

Good luck.

Harveys, the reason people will ridicule things like hustle here is because to a lot of stat people if you can't measure it, it must not matter. But I'm with you. It's stupid for someone to get hurt hustling on a play that is a lost cause, but when there's a systematic lack of hustle on a team, you'll give away at least a game's worth of outs in a season.

the reason people will ridicule things like hustle here is because to a lot of stat people if you can't measure it, it must not matter.
You are dumb. Go away.

Suff:

I understand a player needing to balance exerting effort with a purpose and hurling himself into walls with the team losing 13-4 (Fred Lynn anyone?). And I also understand that it is a long season and a player cannot go all out like a banshee on every play.

But when the 'stars' on a team loaf it spreads. And then it BECOMES a problem as the body does what it is conditioned to do. And I firmly and ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE that some injuries happen because a player accustomed to loafing actually exerts himself and the body is unable to react as required.

Folks can mock "hustle" all d*mn day. But it's about constantly prepping one's skill set for when it's REALLY needed as well as forcing the other team to MAKE the routine play.

I think Narron's a good manager. He's taken a team that hasn't had a winning season since Clinton was president and gone 131-132 with them & pitching numbers have got better the longer he's been there.

What I don't get though, if hustle is such a large and systematic problem for the franchise, why has it taken him 260-some games for Narron to clamp down? Even if there have been other attempts on his part to stop the halfassing, he's clearly had little impact on the team's attitude.

I agree with everything you said, Harveys. When people don't hustle, they don't force the other team to make the routine play - bobbles and sometimes dropped pop-ups are still outs - and that's how you give away outs by not hustling.

Suff Posted: April 12, 2007 at 11:30 AM (#2333321)

Harveys, the reason people will ridicule things like hustle here is because to a lot of stat people if you can't measure it, it must not matter. But I'm with you. It's stupid for someone to get hurt hustling on a play that is a lost cause, but when there's a systematic lack of hustle on a team, you'll give away at least a game's worth of outs in a season.

they ridicule hustling when it's not the most important weakness of a particular team. This reds management has shown a propensity to do stupid things in the name of image (say dumping an above average reliever because he is fat, then spending the rest of the season trading good players to compensate for that loss) Hustling is great, it's fun to watch, etc. but given a choice between an aaron miles and a jeff kent, there really isn't a case to be made for the hustling guy, talent trumps hustle 7 days a week.

Why is so hard to understand that these are not alternatives? The manager's job is to get the most from the talent he's got. Part of that is to encourage hustling. So, kudos to Narron for encouraging hustling play and condemning lazy play.

But a manager's job is to maximize talent. He can put up with Jeff Kent (who I don't really remember as a "dogging it" type, but that's beside the point), but if he can get him to run out a few more grounders, especially if it sets the tone for others to do the same, that's good. People don't usually get hurt running hard to first base - it's more of a crashing into walls, diving into first, etc., problem. Most of the time people get more out of their talent in they're hustling, and if a manager can get them to do it, that's one thing that manager has done to make his ballclub better.

Now if he consistently chooses measurably inferior players because they hustle, that, of course, undermines everything. But that's not what Narron is doing. He was making a point with a player and had him back out there the next day. If Encarnacion hustles from here on out, the long-term benefit will outweigh any short-term loss.

talent trumps hustle 7 days a week.

Sure, but there's not much you can do about talent (please, no PED discussions). All the coaching in the world isn't going to turn Aaron Miles into Jeff Kent.

You can do something about hustle, though. A player being out on a bobbled grounder because he didn't run is unacceptable. A single turning into a triple because an outfielder jogs after the ball is unacceptable. Those things you can work on.

Harvey:

I mock hustle because it's used by people with an axe to grind who can't lean on anything of substance.

Despite being the Reds best hitter every single year, Adam Dunn is denigrated because he's "wasting his talent" by not hustling; despite being a very good hitter and fielder at different positions over a very long career, Pete Rose was (and is) labled a fraud because he always hustled.

It's a crap term used by guys like Narron who wouldn't know talent if it hit them in the nose.

It's a crap term used by guys like Narron who wouldn't know talent if it hit them in the nose.

What utter, arrogant horseshit. Here we go again: Let me guess - you're not only a great talent evaluator, you'd make a great manager?

Why is so hard to understand that these are not alternatives?

Because this case sounds less about winning games and more about currying favor with the Brennamans and the talk show idiots.

What utter, arrogant horseshit. Here we go again: Let me guess - you're not only a great talent evaluator, you'd make a great manager?

I never made either statement. And what do you mean by "again"?

Narron has made countless, blatant errors in managing the Reds over the past 2 years - the ones I mentioned above are only the most famous. As for Encarnacion, he gave significant playing time last year to Rich Aurilia at 3B instead of Edwin, which certainly didn't help his development. He also gave Freel and Castro significant time there. For him to single out Encarnacion, and comment on it publicly the way he did, is the real "arrogant horseshit".

And I stand by my comment. Again, if hustle is such a critical component to success, why was Rose ridiculed for running to 1B after a walk?

I read the whole thing, and it sounds to me like everybody's right:

What Narron did seems fine, since he balanced it with praise for EE and is going to put him back in the lineup right away.

The Reds do, however, spend too much time/energy/mouth IMO, on getting/worrying about "character and hustle" guys.

HW talked about "changing the culture" in the intro. This applies to Krivsky and Narron as well as to Adam Dunn. They need to focus on getting more talented players and not wasting resources on mid-range veteran relievers, by developing a better understanding of how talent in MLB is distributed. They need to focus on the POSITIVES about their players, even if those don't include hustle and build on that, rather than shitting on them. Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez are not stars, but the Reds didn't have enough talent to be pissing them away.

Here are the quotes:

“Eddie will be back in there on Friday,” Narron said. “(But) if they don’t run balls out, they’re not going to play. I don’t care if we lose every game we’re going to hustle while we’re doing it.”

Again, Encarnacion has not fallen out of favor over one transgression.

“I love him,” Narron said. “I think he’s going to a great player. He messed up. But doggone it, you can’t be messing up in this game. If you don’t know where the ball is, you run until you know where it is.

“The one thing he’s never done here is dog it. It was probably an honest mistake. But it was a mistake.”

Narron took Encarnacion into his office to re-enforce that after the game.

“He told me to keep playing,” Encarnacion said, “and don’t worry about it.”

Emphasis mine, of course.

Why are people assuming that "hustle" and talent are mutually exclusive. Sure you're not going to win with hustling AAA guys, but the Reds aren't going to win if they don't squeeze everything they've got out of their players.

Again, if hustle is such a critical component to success, why was Rose ridiculed for running to 1B after a walk.

Two points:

1. To the degree he was ridiculed for it, which was slight, it was because running to first after a walk can't help you win. Rose was a hot dog--but he also hustled--and was a damn good player for about 15 years.
2. Not sure how old you are, but the Rose-as-object-of-ridicule thing is a recent, and merited, phenomenon. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s almost all the media, and a lot of fans, loved Rose.

I agree, rr. I didn't quite get the force of the Rose is ridiculed thing, as, being older, I didn't recall him being ridiculed very much at all. People loved Rose.

why was Rose ridiculed for running to 1B after a walk?

Because he gets to first whether walks or runs. If you walk to the dugout or stand at home plate on a pop-up, if the balls drops, you're still out. If you run, you're safe. It's even more evident on infield grounders - a minor bobble can result in first base, if you're running all out. On lazy OF flyballs, you can end up on second if you're running it out.

Again, if hustle is such a critical component to success, why was Rose ridiculed for running to 1B after a walk.

That wasn't hustle - that's just fake "hustle" that added nothing to his team's chances of winning the game.

I don't care if the outfielders jog or sprint out to their positions when their team takes the field, but I do care if they jog after line drives hit to the gap.

robinred:

I first became a Reds fan when they lost to the Orioles in the World Series.

Even when he played, there were those who laughed at Rose's hustle (and his "Charlie Hustle" nickname). While it is true that the worst comments about him have been made since '89, I've seen the term "fraud" used when talking about his hustle, which is pretty severe.

And to use the posterboy for the other extreme, Dunn is damned for not running out to his position, which can't help you win, either.

Again, if hustle is such a critical component to success, why was Rose ridiculed for running to 1B after a walk.

Rose wasn't ridiculed. He was put forth as the paragon of hustle, grit, and all intangibles named and unnamed. But it's not "hustle" when you run to first on a BB; it's "pointless", it's "hotdogging".

Did Rose's rep as it pertains to his hustle start to decline after the Ray Fosse thing? That seems like a pretty clear example of Rose's hustle ending up as a negative (at least in the popular consensus)

Even when he played, there were those who laughed at Rose's hustle (and his "Charlie Hustle" nickname).

Well, when he played in San Diego, and LA, where I saw him play in person after my family moved out here from Kentucky when I was in elementary school in the 1970s, there would be some scattered boos. But I think that was more because he was good, and he was famous, and the Reds were good, than because of the "fake hustle." I think a large percentage of the general population of fans respected Rose at that time and many, like JC says, saw him as an icon. The running to 1b after a walk was fake hustle, but a lot of Rose's hustle was real and it was part of the whole package.

Even though I was (and am) a Reds' fan, I personally never much liked Rose, even then. My favorite team from that time was the least-memorable of the Reds' division winners, the 1979 team--the "Roseless Reds" that went 90-71 and then got swept by a superior Pittsburgh team in the NLCS. I do think the media liked him more than the fans, but I think he was popular. He certainly got a lot of All-Star votes.

Thank you all for making my point. "Fake", "pointless", and "hotdogging" aren't exactly terms of endearment.

I only dislike the "hustle" endorsement of a player if that player has precious few other skills. I feel Chris Denorfia is in this category. He
(uninjured) is a guy the fans love to promote as someone who should get more playing time etc. because he (insert Appalachian/ Cincinnati warble here) "plays hard." I've said it before, he's the fastest guy headed back to the dugout after another weak groundout. But, all things being relative, a guy scooting down the line is not a bad thing.

Thank you all for making my point. "Fake", "pointless", and "hotdogging" aren't exactly terms of endearment.

Depends on what your point is. Rose's hotdogging was part of a package--and a lot of people liked the package, even if they thought that one aspect was a bit much.

Thank you all for making my point. "Fake", "pointless", and "hotdogging" aren't exactly terms of endearment.

But what people criticize wasn't his actual hustle, it was the pointless pretend "hustling". Nobody ever criticized him for hustling when the ball was in play.

Pete Rose was one of the most hated and vilified player of the 1970s; people didn't deny his greatness but many thought he was a hot dog and several thought he was a dirty player. A lot of it, of course, was simply for being so good and being a hard-nosed player, like a Claude Lemieux or Ray Lewis or Ducky Medwick, whom you absolutely love on your team but despise if he's on the other team.

To many people, the Harrelson/Fosse incidents reinforced the idea that he was a dirty player.

Rose was ridiculed for running out walks because running out walks is ridiculous. This should not be difficult to understand. They call them walks for a reason. And anyone who knows the origin of the "Charlie Hustle" nickname knows that it too, is laughable.

My problems with Rose as a person have little to do with his "fake hustle." OTOH, my problems with Rose as a ballplayer have something to do with his real hustle. He hustled a lot of singles into almost doubles and a lot of doubles into almost triples. That was real hustle, but it didn't help his teams win.

Rose running to first base was in the same category as Ryne Duren throwing one wild warmup pitch per appearance, or Lee Smith lumbering in from the bullpen, or Sammy Sosa doing his hop, or Ted Kluszewski cutting off his sleeves. It's intended to fester in the minds of the opponent.

Either that, or it's what happened while Rose was restoring his natural ability in a conventionally accepted manner, after a night of drinking with jet lag.

Rose wasn't ridiculed.

Charlie Hustle wasn't intended as a compliment. Rose took a Whitey Ford insult and ran with it.

And there's Mickey Mantle. "If I had played my career hitting singles like Pete (Rose), I'd wear a dress."

Still, they're an obvious minority. Hotdogging notwithstanding, if effort could accomplish something on the field Rose made it happen.

He was put forth as the paragon of hustle, grit, and all intangibles named and unnamed.

YMMV. My memory of the day has Frank Robinson firmly in that role. I guess Rose inherited the role after Robinson moved on.

being a hard-nosed player, like a Claude Lemieux or Ray Lewis

Claude Lemieux was both talented and dirty. To my knowledge, Lewis has never turned turtle during a confrontation in a game. I would not equate the two.

Ig:

Didn't help his teams win? I understand one can look at those Reds teams and think that because of all the talent one guy playing like the Tasmanian Devil might not matter. But those Reds teams were known for their TEAM hustle. And that spread to KC courtesy of Hal McRae helped along by Whitey Herzog.

If your point is that hustle alone can't win a pennant you are correct. But it can win a GAME. And if you have good talent coupled with a heads up you can win EXTRA GAMES. And in THAT case you CAN win yourself a pennant.

I also am a firm believer in being proactive and thereby forcing the opponent to REACT, ergo a defensive approach to playing.

A balance has to be reached. Billy Martin burned out many a team pushing them nonstop. But if you handle it correctly other teams HATE to play against you. And THAT is an edge I will accept all day long.

hustle means you try your best on every play - that you try to beat the throw on what looks like a GO or GIDP or an easy pop fly. no matter what the score is. no matter what the inning is. no matter how good/bad your team is. it means you dive to catch balls if that is what you have to do to make the play, not get it on a bounce so you won't get an error if you try and miss (willy taveras i'm lookin at you)

this is good. and no the stats don't measure it.

when guys don't really try to run out grounders or pop flies they really DO look like they don't care and it DOES look bad.

yes i understand that when you are out on an easy 6-3 it don't matter if you are actually out by 30 feet or 5. but it DO matter if you try to beat the odds.

hot dog is running to first on a walk or a HBP. hot dog is diving for a ball you know you can catch standing up (jim edmonds in the old days)

dumbass is running your face into a wall - see aaron rowand.

and i hate to say it TDF, but i seen adam dunn play a LOT and he DOES look like he's dogging it in the OF with the glove. me i won't complain about the Ks swinging or staring because i don't think that a GO4 or a GIDP is for some reason, a more masculine way to get your self out.

i was just a small grrrl when pete rose quit playing so i can't talk about his playing. but when the gambling stuff come out i remember my mother saying something about - it figgers - he always was a dirty player.

Getting back to Encarnacion.... is he a legitimate prospect worth batting 4th or 5th every day? Can he be an All-Star at 3B? With development of Josh Hamilton, the team seems to have 4 OFs for 3 positions (Freel/Griffey/Dunn/Hamilton) and it must be tempting to shift Freel to the IF.

I'm in the anti-fake-hustle camp but have no objection to what Narron did (taking out a player who didn't run out a flyball). I do not think it will send a "message" to the rest of the players, based on the facts and quotes presented in TFA. Narron would send more of a message if his team won some more games.

Thank you all for making my point. "Fake", "pointless", and "hotdogging" aren't exactly terms of endearment.

Except, TDF, what I believe now vs. what at the time I was told and read are completely different.

Where Moe Jorgan to settle this dispute? I understand he has some opinions on the Cincinatti teams of the 1970s...

OTOH, my problems with Rose as a ballplayer have something to do with his real hustle. He hustled a lot of singles into almost doubles and a lot of doubles into almost triples.

It would be interesting to see how true this was (I haven't mastered Retrosheet databases yet), given that from 65-80, he was in the top 10 in the league in singles 14 times, doubles 15 times, and triples 7 times. On the other hand, his career SB% is only 57%.

it was the pointless pretend "hustling"....
Rose was ridiculed for running out walks because running out walks is ridiculous. This should not be difficult to understand.

The problem is this: I don't think anyone would argue that hustle is bad. Why is the fact that Rose always hustled a bad thing? If I see a guy who runs to 1B on a walk, I know two things: (a) I can be confident he's never dogging it; and (if I'm a teammate) (b) I'd better play the same way, because the coach might expect it. The only reason I stayed in sports as long as I did was because I thought if I hustled enough, I could be like Pete - it wasn't until much later that I realized that it does take a certain amount of talent, also.

JRE: How do you know he was pretending? And I'd say it wasn't "pointless" if that's the only way Rose ever played (which to my eyes it was).

To many people, the Harrelson/Fosse incidents reinforced the idea that he was a dirty player.

I never understood why Fosse was in the right for blocking the plate, but Rose was in the wrong for trying to run through him.

Getting back to Encarnacion.... is he a legitimate prospect worth batting 4th or 5th every day? Can he be an All-Star at 3B?

EE in my estimation, is and will be a good everyday player. I think he's best suited for a slot in the sixth hole on a good offensive team, and fifth for the Reds. All-star? Uh, maybe sometime down the line but he is not yet even approaching the conversation with Rolen and Wright.

About Hamilton, Narron loves him and will continue to get him spot starts while Griffey and Freel play out their impending injuries. The same old line is that we should expect him to struggle at some point, and I don't doubt it, but I've watched every AB and he sure doesn't appear overmatched. We'll see.

JRE: How do you know he was pretending? And I'd say it wasn't "pointless" if that's the only way Rose ever played (which to my eyes it was).

Well, obviously I'm not inside Rose's head, but it was definitely pointless, and did nothing to further his team's chances of winning. There are better ways to expend energy.

no the stats don't measure it.

Sure they do. If hustling on a lazy fly ball sometimes turns a single into a double that means the player gets more doubles. If hustling on ground balls means that you sometimes make it safe into first, that shows up. Taking an extra base means that you are more likely to score, which ends up on the stats. The stats measure the total package, not just a nebulous concept like "talent".

As long as Rolen, Wright, and Zimmerman are in the NL, and Cabrera plays 3B, EdE won't be an All-Star. That does not disparage his ability in the least.

Playing Freel in front of him? EdE is a much better hitter right now, and is only 24 (Freel's 31). Freel's also infamously fragile, while EdE hasn't shown that at all.

With respect to the stats measuring hustle, they don't isolate hustle, but they certainly do measure its effects. If one takes two nearly identical players where the only difference is that one hustles to first base on probable ground outs and the other does not, the statistical record will certainly reflect the differences between them: our hustling player will reach first base more often and therefore have better stats.

The question then is why I should care, when evaluating a player's performance, how he achieved his numbers (assuming all relevant baseball rules are being followed)? The player who doesn't hustle his way to a .300/.400/.500 line is still far and away more valuable than the player who hustles all the way to a .275/.350/.425 line. For the purposes of evaluating past performance, hustle is both accounted for and meaningless. Isolating hustle would only tell you how a player achieved his performance, it doesn't add to it in any relevant way.

All that being said, I have no problem with Narron asking his team to hustle because hustling might improve their numbers, if only a little bit. Players should absolutely hustle (when it's smart to do so; I'm not advocating killing yourself) because hustle might make their performance better. To use the previous example, maybe our .300/.400/.500 player could be a .325/.425/.540 player if he hustled. If so, and he wants to win more games, he should absolutely hustle. Not hustling didn't make him worse than the other, inferior, already-hustling player, but starting to hustle would take his game to the next level.

The problem that people seem to have with hustle is that too often players are valued because they hustle, not because of what the hustle does for them. That makes little sense.

Harv,

You're over-interpreting my comment. I was specifically referencing those occasions when Rose hustled his way into an out. I did not intend to express an opinion on whether his hustling helped or hurt on balance. Without any kind of detailed analysis to back it up, I would imagine that it helped considerably more than it hurt, especially considering the lower run scoring environment in which he played. However, I also maintain that the net benefits would have been even greater had he picked his spots to take the extra base a bit better. That 57% career success rate on stolen bases seems to bear this out.

It would be interesting to see how true this was...

I recall a poster on the old Neyer board who claimed to have studied this exhaustively. I think his handle was "Reverend Truth" or something like that. He often described Rose as "an out waiting to happen." Even when he was already on base.

Sure they do. If hustling on a lazy fly ball sometimes turns a single into a double that means the player gets more doubles. If hustling on ground balls means that you sometimes make it safe into first, that shows up. Taking an extra base means that you are more likely to score, which ends up on the stats. The stats measure the total package, not just a nebulous concept like "talent".

They measure these things, but not their source. Plus, a dropped pop-up that someone wasn't running on becomes a groundout -- and even a hustling player getting on base is a "reached on error"; unless he ends up scoring it hardly shows up. You might argue that if he doesn't score, then it doesn't matter, but it matters just as much as someone who takes a walk but doesn't score.

There's really no way to find a "hustling player" in their statistical record, but they make a difference in the outcome of the game.

the thing about rose is that perception of him evolved as a lot of baseball fans' perceptions have evolved. when i was a kid, i remember reading a long profile of him in Sport, probably written by arnold hano but i can't be sure, and i came out of it thinking he was a great player, great guy, etc. ... that's how a lot of sports journalism was in those days, and i don't think i was any less impressionable than the average kid. but as i got older, and a little more able to filter information as i took it in, i could see that rose was much more complicated than that, and not particularly likable. the fosse incident left a bad taste not because rose did something unsportsmanlike, it was just that even in those days the allstar game just didn't seem to merit that level of hardnosed play, and it began to dawn on some previously innocent minds that maybe rose was not what he seemed before. a lot of my shifting perceptions of rose seemed to coincide with growth passages in my life. i wasn't too thrilled with the end of his career, especially as it roughly coincided with my discovery of bill james and a much more nuanced and critical look at the game. also, i seem to remember that there were a bunch of revelations of him as a womanizer and tax cheat. then, as i approached middle age, i was prepared to be nostalgic and accepting of rose as someone with some rough edges but still a great player, but was viscerally upset about the whole saga with giamatti and i don't think it's a stretch to say my disillusionment with rose added to a lot of angst in my life at that time. so i guess i'm saying in a roundabout way that rose's 'hustle' is not something that can be evaluated in a dispassionate way. at least for me.

akrasian Posted: April 12, 2007 at 02:49 PM (#2333514)

no the stats don't measure it.


Sure they do. If hustling on a lazy fly ball sometimes turns a single into a double that means the player gets more doubles. If hustling on ground balls means that you sometimes make it safe into first, that shows up. Taking an extra base means that you are more likely to score, which ends up on the stats. The stats measure the total package, not just a nebulous concept like "talent".

i sure can see it a guy got 180 hits.

when i look at how many singles, i don't know if it was an infield bunt he beat out or a no argument about it up the middle that even bengie molasses would have gotten.

when i look at how many doubles, i don't know if it was a FB that someone hustled into a double that would usually have gone for a single, or a GR double that went 350'

if i see a FC, i don't know whether or not someone beat out what would have been an almost sure thing GIDP.

in other words, i don't know how much of the hits are because of routine play vs hustle.

like say, the other day, our, um, hefty catcher quintero reached on a dropped third strike. dude took off for first running as fast as he could go the second he thought the ball might could have ben dropped (not fast) instead of heading back to the dugout. and he beat the throw, which was darn close. and THAT is hustle. but all you see is ROE and you got NO idea how it went down.

and even with runs scored - like even jason giambi is gonna score a lot of runs from first base even though he runs like my granma in a wheelchair because so many guys behind him hit homers. no hustle there.

in other words, i don't know how much of the hits are because of routine play vs hustle.

But here's the thing: when evaluating a past performance, it just doesn't matter if the play resulted from hustle or not. It just matters that the play resulted at all.

Managers should get their players to hustle because of the positive effect it could have on their results, but the actual results have value that is independent of how they are achieved.

The Face in the Jar by the Door Posted: April 12, 2007 at 03:14 PM (#2333535)

in other words, i don't know how much of the hits are because of routine play vs hustle.

But here's the thing: when evaluating a past performance, it just doesn't matter if the play resulted from hustle or not. It just matters that the play resulted at all.

- sure it matters. because if it turns 20 woulda been outs into singles and 20 woulda been singles into doubles, you know that if he does NOT hustle, his numbers gonna go WAY down. unlike, say giambi.

sure it matters. because if it turns 20 woulda been outs into singles and 20 woulda been singles into doubles, you know that if he does NOT hustle, his numbers gonna go WAY down. unlike, say giambi.

I have tried very carefully to separate discussion of past performance from projecting future performance. You are absolutely right: a player whose value is significantly tied up in his hustle had better keep hustling. However, this is related to the projection of his future performance, not the evaluation of his past performance. No matter how much or how little a player hustles, his past performance has a value that is largely, if not completely, independent of this characteristic. Too often people ascribe phantom value to players who hustle, even though they aren't getting adequate results.

With respect to future performance, one might actually prefer players who haven't hustled (all else being equal) on the basis that if they could be made to hustle, they would be even better and that they are less likely to hurt themselves by crashing into a wall or another player. On the other hand, they also might be more likely to show up out of shape and pull a hamstring, so maybe it's a moot point.

Pete Rose was one of the most hated and vilified player of the 1970s;

That must have been going on at times other than during the six All-Star games he started between 1970 (when, amazingly, the fans got the vote back, conceding the ballot-stuffing tendencies of Cincinnatians) and 1981. He was chosen for the team pretty much every year he didn't start--17 times in all. He was also chosen to start in 1964.

phredbird sounds as if he is about my age, and his personal experience is instructive. The media were very different then and the move toward saber-based analysis, plus of course the scandal, affect how he is seen now. If there had been BBTF and similar sites in 1973, there likely would have been more recorded Rose-antipathy, as there is with, say, Derek Jeter, today since the medis liked Rose A LOT in those days whereas a lot of fans just respected him. And, sure, Rose's act got on some people's nerves. But "hated and vilified?" Not even close.

phredbird sounds as if he is about my age, and his personal experience is instructive.
The media were very different then and the move toward saber-based analysis, plus of course the scandal, affect how he is seen now.

Classic. But I'll stick to it: the Rose scandal and saber-based anlaysis DO affect how we all see phredbird now.

David Eckstein runs to first on a walk. That's recognized as hustle today.

The reaction to this here is a joke. Why are we making fun of work ethic.

No, hustles not the main reason the Reds aren't better but its the easiest problem to fix. Theres NO reason you can't. Seriously, WHY NOT hustle? WHY NOT run out your popups. Im not asking him to sprint to first on a popup but give a hard jog of it.
And whats the matter with disciplining those who aren't willing to obey?

And you know what, you work harder and those damn stats might get better. Why not try to do the best you can?

Seriously, SOMEONE explain the backlash here for me.

"Despite being the Reds best hitter every single year, Adam Dunn is denigrated because he's "wasting his talent" by not hustling; despite being a very good hitter and fielder at different positions over a very long career,"

Ok, hes good without working hard. Awesome. But its still disappointing to see a talent not living up to his full capabilities. Whats the matter with saying he should work harder and become even better?
A player that doesn't try his hardest lets down not only himself, but his teammates.

Seriously, SOMEONE explain the backlash here for me.

Well, it was done by a manager who has had many less than optimal playing time decisions. It was done against a player that the manager explicitly said hasn't had a problem with hustling in the past. (The one thing he’s never done here is dog it.) It just seems like an attempt to divert attention from other things, rather than to solve a problem. If there is a hustle problem - go after the players who regularly don't hustle. Don't do a token effort against a kid, because it's easy. That's not the way to win the player's respect - it's a wimp out that shows the entrenched players (who supposedly aren't hustling) that the manager is afraid of them.

Regardless of his words, it seems as if Narron has a problem personally with Encarnacion...recall last season when Edwin was benched for a stretch of games after making a couple of throwing errors. I agree that it makes no sense to not hustle, but for Narron to make Encarnacion pay for the sins of other, more veteran, and more highly-paid players (I'm looking at you, Mr. Griffey) smacks of favoritism.

As for Rose, I always viewed his walk/sprint as baseball masturbation: a bunch of furious movement without getting a whole lot accomplished, except for maybe breaking a little sweat.

- Hustle is a talent, they're not opposing dualities.

- Stats do measure hustle. You're looking at the wrong stats. I bet there's some database out there that measures "hustle" plays. I know Bill James was assigned to do specifically that for Manny. And what James found was that Manny's lack of hustle did hurt the team - significantly.

Saying stats don't measure hustle is like saying stats don't measure entertainment. Of course they do, you just need to look for a well-defined metric.

- I had no problem with Pete Rose running to 1st base. It communicated to the rest of the team that he was energetic about getting on base, which is the most important aspect of the game.

Despite being the Reds best hitter every single year, Adam Dunn is denigrated because he's "wasting his talent" by not hustling

Adam Dunn was a below average player last year. That too me is a waste of his talent.

True Sabrmetrics realizes Dunn wasn't a great player, shallow, artificial usenet sabremetrics may not be able to make that judgement.

Dunn should almost always be a top level player, the fact that he wasn't last reflects poorly on one person. Adam Dunn. You're defense and approval of that sloth reflects poorly on one individual, and it isn't Harvey it is you.

I own an Adam Dunn jeresy and a booble head. His failure is disheartening, and I hope he rebounds.

Pete Rose and Steve Garvey were regarded by many as frauds/phonies in the 70s. They were also very popular with fans who considered them to be hard-playing winners. It looks like everyone was right. They played hard, they won championships, and they were frauds.

That must have been going on at times other than during the six All-Star games he started between 1970 (when, amazingly, the fans got the vote back, conceding the ballot-stuffing tendencies of Cincinnatians) and 1981. He was chosen for the team pretty much every year he didn't start--17 times in all. He was also chosen to start in 1964.

phredbird sounds as if he is about my age, and his personal experience is instructive. The media were very different then and the move toward saber-based analysis, plus of course the scandal, affect how he is seen now. If there had been BBTF and similar sites in 1973, there likely would have been more recorded Rose-antipathy, as there is with, say, Derek Jeter, today since the medis liked Rose A LOT in those days whereas a lot of fans just respected him. And, sure, Rose's act got on some people's nerves. But "hated and vilified?" Not even close.

Getting voted to the All-Star Game six times in 12 years isn't really much to hang your hat on when the guy was the runs created leader of the 1970s. I mean, Barry Bonds was probably voted to more All-Star Games than that in the 1990s and he is certainly hated and vilified (long before steroid accusations).

If it's any indication, Rose was certainly the most booed player in the National League -- I doubt if anyone was even close.

- I had no problem with Pete Rose running to 1st base. It communicated to the rest of the team that he was energetic about getting on base, which is the most important aspect of the game.

I think this is true and important. I don't think it was "hotdogging" or "pointless".

It communicated to the rest of the team that he was energetic about getting on base...

Actually, what it communicated to everyone was that he was a world class a$$ho1e. If it was just infectious enthusiasm, Morgan and Griffey and Concepcion would have started doing it too.

And just for the record, I like hustle, and I absolutely think everybody should run everything out, back up every play they can, etc, etc. And I have no problem with what Narron did here. But Rose is a special case, and I don't see anything wrong with distinguishing between the real beneficial hustle and energy and enthusiasm on the one hand, and the self-serving act on the other.

Dunn should almost always be a top level player, the fact that he wasn't last reflects poorly on one person. Adam Dunn. You're defense and approval of that sloth reflects poorly on one individual, and it isn't Harvey it is you.

Um, I'm the one who's been defending Rose for running to 1st on a walk; "approval of sloth" isn't a term that applies to me. I also am not defending his "sloth"; I'm saying people use "Dunn doesn't hustle" when they really mean "I just don't like the guy".

But yes, Dunn had a bad year. They traded half of the offense, including his best friend, while fighting for a playoff spot. When the offense predictably tanked, it wasn't Clayton or Freel or Hatteberg or Phillips or anyone else not named "Aurilia", it was Dunn who was blamed. So maybe last year it got to him - they're not freakin' automatons, after all.

Plus, the "Dunn doesn't hustle" mantra didn't start last year. It's been going on for at least 3 years.

True Sabrmetrics realizes Dunn wasn't a great player, shallow, artificial usenet sabremetrics may not be able to make that judgement.

Wow. And I was called arrogant.

Whether hustling is valuable or not is besides the point. As Narron showed last year, it's almost certainly going to be a meaningless double standard in the clubhouse.

Someone like Hancock will get in trouble for showing up fat and someone like Encarnacion may get in trouble for not hustling, but when Griffey is hurting the team for years in centerfield, the team wouldn't move Griffey out of center until gingerly waiting for his permission. Adam Dunn didn't have to hustle last year or play a new position if he didn't want to. When Rich Aurilia whined about playing time last year, the Reds responded to his demands by making sure to play him more.

Does anyone believe that Jeff Conine would be taken out to the shed if he didn't hustle? No ####### way. The team's already been critical of Homer Bailey for throwing too many fastballs while has been absolutely silent for more than 2 years about Eric Milton throwing too many souvenirs.

Getting players to put out effort is a very good thing, but if the Reds spent half as much time worrying about evaluating their short and long-term needs properly and doing basic research on relievers they trade for, they'd be a good team.

TDF:

A few minor clarifications on your post 75.

Speaking for myself I don't know Adam Dunn sufficiently well to state whether I "like" him or not. What I do not "like" is a player allowing parts of his game to regress (defense), allowing his conditioning to regress (tub of goo last season), and making a determined effort to project an air of indifference about his profession. That may seem like splitting hairs but it is an important distinction to me. I don't like Adam Dunn's approach to the game. But I certainly don't know enough to write whether I like the man himself.

Also, Dunn took his share of grief because until early September the Reds were in the race for the divisional crown and when the team's need was greatest Dunn hit .188 in August and followed that up with .157 in September. And to save others the time Dunn "slugged" .265(!) in September. When your cleanup hitter is imitating Ray Oyler with malaria I think he deserves a few jibes.

We both want Dunn to do well. I want him to do well because having watched him since he was a svelte 240 pounds in Dayton I have been excited about what an experienced, stronger Dunn might do in the major leagues. You want him to do well because you are a diehard Reds fan and if the most talented player on your team plays well your team has a great chance to compete for a divisional title.

The problem is that we can't go back in time when Bob Boone was manager and helped sour Adam's attitude toward baseball. It's because of that I thought it may take the equivalent of an "intervention" to get the lad on the right path. However, he did lose some weight this offseason and so far this season looks to approach tasks outside the batters box with a tad more purpose. I am hopeful that this positive trend continues.

Adam Dunn didn't have to ... play a new position if he didn't want to.

Dan, this is a lie and you know it. Dunn was working very hard at learning 1B until Krivsky acquired Hatteberg, and moved Dunn back to LF.

While Dunn did put out a surprising amount of effort at learning 1B, he publicly expressed his displeasure about the move on more than one occasion.

Getting voted to the All-Star Game six times in 12 years isn't really much to hang your hat on when the guy was the runs created leader of the 1970s. I mean, Barry Bonds was probably voted to more All-Star Games than that in the 1990s and he is certainly hated and vilified (long before steroid accusations).

If it's any indication, Rose was certainly the most booed player in the National League -- I doubt if anyone was even close.

C'mon, let's be real. Pete Rose was certainly hated by many people, but precisely b/c he was a love-hate guy. MANY people loved Rose: he was a scrappy, blue-collar, hustler, easy to identify with, with skills easy to appreciate. He was a favorite player for many people. Precisely b/c of that, he was also hated by many people, people who found his drive phony (as I did), who disliked his hustle b/c it seemed contrived. I have to say now, however, I've changed my mind on his hustle and stuff: I think it was genuine Rose. I think he does possess an incomparable and rare will to win (to the point of obsession, obviously).

Pete Rose was one of the most hated and vilified player of the 1970s; people didn't deny his greatness but many thought he was a hot dog and several thought he was a dirty player. A lot of it, of course, was simply for being so good and being a hard-nosed player, like a Claude Lemieux or Ray Lewis or Ducky Medwick, whom you absolutely love on your team but despise if he's on the other team.

To many people, the Harrelson/Fosse incidents reinforced the idea that he was a dirty player.

Good take, baudib, and I'd say that the Fosse incident was the first chip in Rose's All-American Boy armor (remember, this was Rose's first national, prime time TV exposure except for that sleep-inducing 1968 All-Star game---all of his other All-Star games were day games). Prior to that he'd received nothing but great press for his style of play.

And the Harrelson wipeout took place in the heat of battle in one of the most fiercely contested LC series ever. Close series, close play, and (to a Mets fan) here comes a flying gorilla trying to kill their little ballerina of a shortstop. Flying gorilla then hits a game winning home run and sticks it to the entire stadium while running around the bases in triumph. That home run was at the time considered to be one of the more dramatic game winners (even if it wasn't a walkoff) in history, and rightfully so. Rose was lucky to get out of Shea alive that day.

I'd say that the first incident planted the seeds in many fans' minds that there was more to Rose than met the eye, and the second one made him into a polarizing figure for years after that, well before the gambling scandal. But it had nothing at all to do his his hustle, real or fake or anything in between. Think Jack Tatum and Darryl Stingley and you'll have a pretty good idea of what lots of fans outside Cincinnati were thinking about Rose after that afternoon in Shea.

While Dunn did put out a surprising amount of effort at learning 1B, he publicly expressed his displeasure about the move on more than one occasion.

Yet he did do it, and was moved only after they acquried someone they thought would be a better fit. It wasn't because "he didn't want to".

Yet he did do it, and was moved only after they acquried someone they thought would be a better fit. It wasn't because "he didn't want to".

And what would be the Reds reaction if one of the non-anointed had expressed similar displeasure, even if they did it? Certainly quite different.

You are supposed to run to first on a walk because the ball isn't dead and you are allowed to go to second. I'm not sure that this has happened on a non-wild pitch in MLB, but in highschool we were always taught to run to first and see where the ball was when we got there. I was able to take second on a walk twice in four years this way, and it happened at least twice against my team.

Maybe Rose was taught the same in highschool and it never left him.

And what would be the Reds reaction if one of the non-anointed had expressed similar displeasure, even if they did it? Certainly quite different.

If the only reason Krivsky acquired Hatteberg was to appease Dunn, he's a worse GM than many people assume. He gave up nothing and paid Hatte only $750K last year to fill a need. I sure hope he saw it as a real opportunity, and not just a move to keep Dunn happy.

I only dislike the "hustle" endorsement of a player if that player has precious few other skills. I feel Chris Denorfia is in this category. He
(uninjured) is a guy the fans love to promote as someone who should get more playing time etc. because he (insert Appalachian/ Cincinnati warble here) "plays hard." I've said it before, he's the fastest guy headed back to the dugout after another weak groundout.

This is off the mark. Freel is the darling of the intangibles/hustle crowd. Denorfia, OTOH, is championed by the statheads of the Reds' blogosphere, with his high OBP and proficient if not flashy defense in CF/RF. The "Appalachian" warble is not typically reserved for collegiate players from New England.

Maybe Rose was taught the same in highschool and it never left him.

You loveable naieve fool. How cute. Rose ran to first either because he's an #######, or because he was so hopped up on drugs he couldn't stop twitching, or because had to call in bets and wanted to get the game over, or because he understood that hustling would score him chicks, or because his father beat him, or because he mistakenly thought hustle would translate into future advances in statistical player analysis, or because he had chronic diarrhea, or because he wanted to show up the lazy Latinos on the team, or because he is so stupid he believed someone who told him if you didn't get to first in 4 second the firstbasemen could give you one noogy for each second late, or, finally, because he wanted to get to first base and continue to advance his theses that U. Grant is an underrated president and that the Japanese defeat at Midway was the turning point in the war in the pacific.

Rose ran to first either because...

Why do you think David Eckstein does it?

Seriously, SOMEONE explain the backlash here for me.

Remind us to introduce you to Backlasher sometime.

Seriously, it's the typical pattern for threads like this one. Someone in the first few posts takes a snarky, contrarian, basically reactionary position to mainstream opinion. If the topic deserves it, others chime in pointing it out for what it is, the contrarian retrenches, sometimes to a ridiculous extent, before conceding the point (hopefully) and giving a nuanced explanation for his original reaction.

The work ethic has taken a huge hit in this country for multiple reasons. It's not just on the ballfield where the privileged take for granted their privilege and don't give forth full effort, from the Oval Office to your local fast-food joint, but athletes are the poster children on the issue.

Regarding favoritism, Narron's gives a working definition -- he took the easy way by nailing EE instead of making the more difficult confrontation with Junior, took the easy way explaining it to the press, and will likely take the easy way in the future. The message sent is that some people can get away with not hustling and some can't.

Rather ironic that this is Charlie Hustle's team, no?

I have watched Ken Griffey Jr.'s entire career and haven't witnessed an outight "loaf" in over a decade. In particular his time with the Reds has been one of pushing his body beyond its obvious limits. Jr. has crashed into more walls than Michael Waltrip.

Does he stargaze on homers? Yes. Does he employ the afterburners on a routine ground ball? No. But despite the obvious risks Ken gives a solid effort. At least by my personal inspection.

I guess I'm the contrarian here.

My biggest beef is that Narron complaining about EdE's hustle would be like Joe Hazelwood complaining about someone leaving a streak on the window for the first time - it was an isolated incident that was far from the biggest problem, and very far from the problems the guy in charge had himself. I think it says alot more about Narron that he'd discipline EdE here (again, an incident that even Narron admits was isolated) than the fact that he disciplined "one of the non-annointed".

My secondary beef was the use of "hustle" as a determinant of effort - not enough, and you're a "sloth"; too much, and you're a "hot dog". At least in the case of Rose, many here seem to agree - people used "fake hustle" to damn him, when they really just didn't like him.

I'll never win on Dunn, because any rebound will be attributed to a rededication to "hustle" on his part.

I'm not sure that this has happened on a non-wild pitch in MLB...

I'm pretty damned sure it hasn't. I was taught to drop the bat, start jogging to first and pick up the coach, who would let you know if the ball had gotten away from the catcher. If there was a runner on third, we'd sprint to first and take a turn, trying to draw an ill-advised throw that might lead to a cheap run. We teach our little leaguers to run all out for second on any walk with a runner on third and less than two out. Usually, the other team will concede the base rather than the run. However, these strategies have almost no value at higher levels of the game, where fielding percentages exceed .900 by a fair bit, compared to the .750 or lower that you might find in a typical little league.

I'm not sure that this has happened on a non-wild pitch in MLB...

I think it happened two or three years ago or so. I don't remember who it was or what team, I do remember not too long ago someone taking second on a walk because the IF fell asleep. Now that I think about it, I believe the IF was in a Bonds/Thome type of shift which coupled with them not paying attention left the bag wide open.

I am pretty sure Rickey Henderson and/or Vince Coleman gave this a run before.

If it's any indication, Rose was certainly the most booed player in the National League -- I doubt if anyone was even close.

This is fine, but at least I had some specifics. The Bonds comparison sucks, because Bonds was, during that period, was seen, by acclimation, even by his haters, as one of the 2 or 3 best players in baseball, prior to BALCO. Rose, while a fine player, was not on that level, except for maybe a couple of times. He was considered to be in the top 20, probably. But when people talked about the best players on baseball in those days it was Morgan (once people woke up) or Bench in that conversation much more than Pete Rose. Rose's counting stats were great because he played every single day, but he was not a Bonds-level star in terms of peak. He got votes precisely because a lot of people loved him.

I saw Rose play in SD and LA probably 30 times. There were a scattered boos--more in LA, since the Reds were the Dodgers' rivals. Rose, like I said, was sort of like Derek Jeter is today--endless media-masturbation love, a lot of genuine grass-roots hero-worship, a lot of respect for his basic skill set from all fans, and some people who don't like him/are sick of hearing about him. Rose was a hot dog, and Jeter's not, but Jeter is also a groupie-magnet and a Yankee. #80 (JC) and #71(Charlie O) sum it up nicely. Saying Pete Rose was "hated and vilified" in the 1970s is sort of like saying "The Dallas Cowboys are the most hated and vilified franchise in the NFL." Possibly true on a very shallow level, but totally missing the larger point.

As for Narron, I posted the quotes above, (#25) and I think what he did to EE is OK, since he balanced it with praise and is going to get him back in there. But I agree about the Griffey issue, and as I said last summer when they traded Kearns and Lopez, I think they would have been far better off finding a good defensive CF, moving Griffey to right, putting Kearns in left, moving Dunn to 1b and using Freel as a supersub rather than doing what they did. Dealing with Dunn and Griffey in such a way so as to:

Make them feel respected
Get them to do what is best for the ballclub even if they don't want to

is precisely what managers need to be able to do.

Failing to do that is a management and "culture" problem as big as, and perhaps tied to, the hustle problem.

OTOH, my problems with Rose as a ballplayer have something to do with his real hustle. He hustled a lot of singles into almost doubles and a lot of doubles into almost triples.

It would be interesting to see how true this was (I haven't mastered Retrosheet databases yet), given that from 65-80, he was in the top 10 in the league in singles 14 times, doubles 15 times, and triples 7 times. On the other hand, his career SB% is only 57%.

From 1974 on, Rose had 2058 non-homer hits and was thrown out trying to stretch a hit 30 times, or 1.5% of the time.

MLB as a whole had 1,105,148 non-homer hits and 10,259 of those batters were thrown out trying to stretch a hit, or .9% of the time.

am i imagining this, or was there a play a few days ago where Griffey hit a long high fly and thought it gone, only for it to be a wall-ball and only a single? i wonder if that is part of what led up to this

This is fine, but at least I had some specifics. The Bonds comparison sucks, because Bonds was, during that period, was seen, by acclimation, even by his haters, as one of the 2 or 3 best players in baseball, prior to BALCO. Rose, while a fine player, was not on that level, except for maybe a couple of times.

The Bonds comparison does not suck. Bonds was a better player than Rose, but Rose was just as big a figure in the game and held nearly the same status as a player. Over a span of several years, Rose is going to come out to be pretty close to the best or second-best player in the National League in many intervals from the late 60s to the early 70s. He was widely regarded not just as a Tony Gwynn or Willie McCovey-type obvious Hall of Famer, but as an inner-circle Hall of Famer (top 20-25 all-time) while he was active.

And really, that is closer to the truth than saying he was merely top 20 in baseball.

Dan,
prevailing attitudes could be afecting your dataset. What was the rest of MLB over that same portion of Rose's career?

Dan,
prevailing attitudes could be afecting your dataset. What was the rest of MLB over that same portion of Rose's career?

I thought the same thing which is why I included this, which you might have missed:

MLB as a whole had 1,105,148 non-homer hits and 10,259 of those batters were thrown out trying to stretch a hit, or .9% of the time.