"Dayton Moore is probably too young to remember Daniel Raymond Quisenberry"

Dayton Moore is 42. So unless he forgot most of what he saw in baseball before he was 21, he'd probably remember the closer on the team he grew up watching.

The potshots Neyer keeps on making against the Royals seem petty.

The potshots Neyer keeps on making against the Royals seem petty.

Given the potshots the Royals seem to make against writers and their fans, it seems pretty fitting.

I thought Neyer grew up a Royals fan, in which case the potshots he takes are pretty much par for the fandom course. I know that I'm harder on the Giants than the most crotchety Dodger fan could ever be (at least when I'm around other Giants fans).

The potshots Neyer keeps on making against the Royals seem petty.

The Royals (not the ones in uniform) are a petty organization. They deserve even less respect than the scraps Neyer/Posnanski/Jazayerli have thrown them.

What did I ever do to you, Disco Hayes?

I believe you mean "What did the Gilmore Girls ever do to you, Disco Hayes?"

Gilmore Girls sucks. I have no idea how they kept that show and cancelled "Veronica Mars."

(I swear, I'm not a teenage girl. I SWEAR.)

Kristen Bell is hot.

Gilmore Girls sucks. I have no idea how they kept that show and cancelled "Veronica Mars."

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but "Gilmore Girls" sounds like a bunch of chubby middle aged single women running a coffee shop or book store and complaining about men, while "Veronica Mars" sounds like a stripper, so I concur.

Gilmore Girls sucks. I have no idea how they kept that show and cancelled "Veronica Mars."

Pretty sure they both died the same ignominious death at the same time. What they kept was "Everwood". And "Smallville". And "Supernatural". And . . .

Why don't the fielders ever swap positions?
I think it's safe to assume every team in the majors does not employ two corner outfielders with exactly the same defensive abilities.... So lets say a team has a better defensive right fielder than left fielder. When a right-handed dead-pull hitter comes up to bat, why would the team merely shade the center fielder over to left field to help out the weaker left fielder, yet keep their better outfielder away from the action?

Why not have him jog over and switch with the left fielder for that batter? I know the ball flight is different in right field than it is in left field, but I don't think it's impossible to think corner outfielders could adapt to being able to play both spots.

That's good outside the box thinking, I've sort of indirectly thought about this before. I figured it's (a) gotta be very tiresome on the outfielders to be shuttling back and forth across the outfield, specially with so many L-R-L-R lineups, and (b) make for additional (if small) game delays. I guess one could argue that they'd do that just for the dead pull hitters.

Veronica Mars was fantastastic, particularly season 1.

Neyer seems to get a ton of undeserved crap from Royals fans (the fanbase seems unique as far as angrily ripping people to shreds for the sin of not being cheerful enough...), but this sure doesn't help. Although calling up Disco seemed like a fun idea when he was doing well at AA, it was still a pretty gimmicky notion, based in large part on the facts that a) he blogs, and b) the Royals' season was lost anyway so who cares. It was totally reasonable to promote Disco to AAA instead, and given that he's gone 1-6, 4.59 and allowed 12.3 H/9 there, one can certainly understand why they stopped promoting him at that point. Moore hasn't impressed me much, but I highly doubt he doesn't know who Dan Quisenberry was. And then Neyer's discussion of Greinke basically ends with "... but he'll probably get hurt." Whee!

Veronica Mars was a fantastic show in its first season, as good as anything on tv. The second season was less crisp, but still excellent. They handled college very poorly, though that was probably partly the fault of the network showering them with notes and demanding pure single-episode procedurals.

But Gilmore Girls is a very good show. You need to give it some time to wash over you, to get used to its rhythms and yeah, quirks, but at its heart Gilmore Girls is perhaps the best dramatic representation of a healthy, loving relationship between a mother and a daughter in the last decade of television. There are vanishingly few female characters on television that have the sort of depth Rory and especially Lorelai did, and even fewer shows on television that take female characters that interesting and explore their relationships not with the men that are supposed to be the centers of their lives, but with each other.

I like having Gilmore Girls on the tivo when I get home. It's just really pleasant to sit down with the people on that show.

Disco sounds like the latest R.J. Swindle - a deception-type pitcher who suddenly isn't fooling anyone once he gets past a certain level. Swindle dominated in AAA but got lit up like a Christmas tree in the big leagues. Disco hasn't even made it in AAA yet. Once he establishes himself there, we can start talking about how "the man" is keeping him down.

That said, the musical possibilities for Disco's entrance are fantastic, though "Disco Inferno" has a certain gasoline-on-the-fire quality that might be all too fitting.

I agree with Mikael. Gilmore Girls was a fine show, worthy of its long run independent of Veronica Mars' fate.

rory was a cold bicth clone of her grandmother

To be clear, Hayes (pitch to contact, gets lots of grounders and allow a ton of singles) is a very different pitcher than Swindle (a lefty Mike Nakamura - mixes pitches and angles, be deceptive - give up flyballs and get Ks - struggle in the bigs where their LD and HR/FB rates skyrocketed). Hayes' biggest problem is that he isn't very good - his K rate is unlikely to ever be high enough to survive in the bigs, even as a groundball specialist, because opponents will hit at least .320 against him.
I'm rooting for him though - how can you not!

Gilmore Girls - It had definite merits - I thought the two leads were skilled and worked well together plus the writing was occasionally crisp. That said - it was never something I'd go out of my way to watch and my understanding is that it declined pretty precipitously after awhile.

Gilmore Girls - It had definite merits - I thought the two leads were skilled and worked well together plus the writing was occasionally crisp. That said - it was never something I'd go out of my way to watch and my understanding is that it declined pretty precipitously after awhile.

Concur. Both my 11YO daughter and I were ill yesterday, so both of us ended up on the couch watching TV through the day. Gilmore Girls reruns were one of the few things I felt like we could mutually tolerate. (Same for the pilot of Malcolm In The Middle, which was also on yesterday.)

rory was a cold bicth clone of her grandmother

I didn't like what Rory turned into in college that much, either. It was always hard to tell if the show wanted us to think that Rory had an unhealthy love for wealth and the wealthy, both in her grandparents and in Logan, or if that characterization just sort of happened. Either way, I think I generally take it as a positive that sweet little adorable Rory actually was still a person in progress, who at the end of the show remains at risk of turning into a less than admirable person - that's true of most 22-year-olds.

I recently found out my sister-in-law liked Logan. I may have to entirely reevaluate what I think of her. Logan.

I can't believe your tastes in TV.

I can't believe your tastes in TV.

Says the wrestling fan.

Does Neyer still consider himself a Royals' fan? I've lost track of the angry denunciations and symbolic burnings of the Royals' hats.

To be clear, Hayes (pitch to contact, gets lots of grounders and allow a ton of singles) is a very different pitcher than Swindle (a lefty Mike Nakamura - mixes pitches and angles, be deceptive - give up flyballs and get Ks - struggle in the bigs where their LD and HR/FB rates skyrocketed). Hayes' biggest problem is that he isn't very good - his K rate is unlikely to ever be high enough to survive in the bigs, even as a groundball specialist, because opponents will hit at least .320 against him.

Funny...that's exactly what people said about Quisenberry.

Hayes' BABIP has typically been well below .320, until he got to AAA where it soared to something like .380, so to a certain extent he got jobbed by the luck fairy. That said, I have my doubts too, but am definitely pulling for him.

THis Hayes has some interesting ideas, but I think WHitey Herzog used a number of them (the fifth infielder, swapping relief pitchers by putting one in another position.) I've seen players swap positions, but only when they were emergency fillins. Damon Buford had to play the infield one and was moved back and forth from second to third. A really ancient Rusty Staub was in the OF once and chugged from right to left (even caught a fly!) ANd Don Mattingly once played 3rd. In bunt situs, he switched with the shortstop.

I recently found out my sister-in-law liked Logan. I may have to entirely reevaluate what I think of her. Logan.

My girlfriend liked him too, and I thought he was a complete heel. Serious WTF moment.

Re 15, 17, 19 and the Gilmores - I've watched quite a bit of this show as both my girlfriend and her mother count it amongst their "comfort" shows. While I agree that it had its merits, including the writing, and I'm on board with MCoA's social argument for its value, there was always one problem with that show that I could never get past. Lorelai. She's incredibly self-centered, insipid, trapped in her own flaws and shortcomings, completely incapable of self-evaluation of any kind, and basically helpless. In short, precisely the type of person I can't stand in real life. Which really sapped my enjoyment of watching the show.

Re "Disco" Hayes - that blog post three links back from TFA above is pretty fascinating. He's obviously a student of the game and has more than a passing familiarity with advanced metrics. I hope he sticks around for a while.

Fun boxscore

But I couldn't find anything on Staub or Mattingly in Retrosheet.

Gotta say that I prefer a pitcher who talks to the baseball rather than one who is worried about something as arcane as swapping OFers per the scenario described. This isn't really "sabermetrics" at all, it's just oddball strategy tactics taken to an absurd extreme. #12 has a good common-sense reason why this just isn't done except in exceptional cases (extra IF or OF stuff).

When Neyer writes obvious filler like this, it's probably just prudent to ignore it and not link to it. His "bonding episodes" with Joe and Tango and Rany are simply not newsworthy (as the swift hi-jacking of this thread clearly indicates). It's better to link to stuff that Rob hasn't cherry-picked from someone else...

Re 15, 17, 19 and the Gilmores - I've watched quite a bit of this show as both my girlfriend and her mother count it amongst their "comfort" shows.

You have to watch tv with the mother-in-law? Oof. I don't mind my girl's mother, but that's just not something I'd want to do. May the in-laws stay their current 1200 miles away for many, many years.

3. How did two players as smart as Hayes and Bannister wind up in such a stupid organization?
I haven’t the foggiest idea. The universe is full of mysteries.


Those two guys may actually read here so my apologies if so. But a player's stated philosophy have very little to do with their utility on the field. We like them (I do, at least) but if you're looking to pick up players neither is exactly a dominating star. IOW, a stupid organization is a stupid organization for having too many players who top out where these two top out. If it were a matter of character, insight, etc., the KC players would rock. But it isn't about that.


Again, I don't mean to slam these two. I root for them and hope they have great careers (hell, I'm already extremely jealous of the careers they've had).



The thing that got me about Lorelai is that her success in overcoming a teen pregnancy without using her parents money was really hard to believe given her character. I liked her more than Petunia did, but I don't that that person raises such a good kid and has as much success as she has. She would have led a really troubled life. So, while Rory was depicted realistically, which was cool, it clashed with the portrayal of her mother.


I mean, er, what is Gilmore Girls?

That's good outside the box thinking, I've sort of indirectly thought about this before. I figured it's (a) gotta be very tiresome on the outfielders to be shuttling back and forth across the outfield, specially with so many L-R-L-R lineups, and (b) make for additional (if small) game delays. I guess one could argue that they'd do that just for the dead pull hitters

Happens all the time in softball. You put your best outfielder in left most of the time and when a lefty is up you move him over to right.

Don Mattingly once played 3rd

Here are the two Mattingly games where he switched:

August 29, 1986

August 30, 1986

The next day, he played a whole game at 3B. Four assists and he even fielded a bunt cleanly and threw out the runner at second.

This game has been referenced before for some bizarre swtiching. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the image of Pat Borders playing 2B.

Happens all the time in softball. You put your best outfielder in left most of the time and when a lefty is up you move him over to right.

Yea, but those are softball players, some of the most well-conditioned athletes in the world. Baseball players are likely to get tired from such exercise.

#12 has a good common-sense reason why this just isn't done except in exceptional cases (extra IF or OF stuff).

If your defensive specialist OF'er is getting tired by jogging 200 feet he needs to lay off the ring-dings and he isn't your defensive specialist.

As for delays, it takes something like a minute to get that first pitch off anyway and since when have managers cared about delays? They did create the modern usage of the bullpen afterall.


edit: owe a HFCS coke to the the big fat idiot.

Gotta say that I prefer a pitcher who talks to the baseball rather than one who is worried about something as arcane as swapping OFers per the scenario described. This isn't really "sabermetrics" at all, it's just oddball strategy tactics taken to an absurd extreme. #12 has a good common-sense reason why this just isn't done except in exceptional cases (extra IF or OF stuff).

Another common-sense reason: the "weaker" outfielder probably wouldn't appreciate the obvious, public attention called to his inferiority on a regular basis.

And if you are regularly playing an OF who is bad enough to make this switch beneficial, you probably have bigger problems than swapping outfielders can reasonably be expected to address.

Another common-sense reason: the "weaker" outfielder probably wouldn't appreciate the obvious, public attention called to his inferiority on a regular basis.

So what? I'm sure hitters don't like being pinch hit for on a regular basis either. But they somehow manage.

And if you are regularly playing an OF who is bad enough to make this switch beneficial, you probably have bigger problems than swapping outfielders can reasonably be expected to address.

Like Jason Bay?

"Veronica Mars" sounds like a stripper, so I concur

Veronica Mars is simply the hottest fictional character ever created, sir. You watch yourself.

Another common-sense reason: the "weaker" outfielder probably wouldn't appreciate the obvious, public attention called to his inferiority on a regular basis.

That is a possibility but I'm sure they had the same problems when they introduced the DH and I think the players got over the stigma.

edit: Galldarnit! I'm going to end up owing a case to the big fat idiot.

Quiz (IMO) was a little more impressive in his context that Hayes (though it's closer than you'd naively think outside of this year's BABIP struggles).
Expecting people to replicate what Quiz did is well, not realistic (not that you're suggesting it is, cpass). Regardless, if he does well in AAA - give him a look. [for that matter, I wouldn't be above giving Swindle another shot, should he right his course in AAA (he really struggled after moving to the Cleveland org).

Dayton

Are you sure it's Pat Borders at 2nd, and not Cecil Fielder, or Cecil Fielder, you're thinking of?

Has anyone read the full blog entry by Hayes? Even if you disagree with the various strategies -- most of which he admits would only be used in limited, special situations -- it is interesting to see a player think about this stuff, and work through it.

The article also contains references and/or links to tango, Fangraphs, Hardball Times and Bill James. Which leads me to wonder whether he has ever been a lurker here?

I think getting told to run across the field and switch positions with another guy, mid-inning, perhaps multiple times, is a bit more insulting to the player than getting called back from the on-deck circle or removed between innings. It's akin to removing a defensive player mid-inning, which obviously doesn't happen too often. I'm not trying to defend crybabies and prima-donnas, and I'm not saying that the offended player shouldn't just get over it and do his job, but realistically I think you are going to run into problems if you try to do this, and the problems probably aren't worth whatever marginal gains the strategy might net for you.

Really, in normal, non-emergency situations, what exactly is accomplished by swapping OFers that couldn't also be accomplished by simply shifting them within their current positions instead? Throwing arm is about the only difference there, and if the situation is dire enough that you absolutely need the marginal gains in corner outfielder arm strength/accuracy, you are probably better off just making an outright defensive substitution anyway and removing the weak defensive link from the field entirely.

Gotta say that I prefer a pitcher who talks to the baseball rather than one who is worried about something as arcane as swapping OFers per the scenario described. This isn't really "sabermetrics" at all, it's just oddball strategy tactics taken to an absurd extreme. #12 has a good common-sense reason why this just isn't done except in exceptional cases (extra IF or OF stuff).

In the original article, Hayes discusses the limited types of situations in which his ideas would be most useful. It's not any more arcane in principle than defensive replacements, and he doesn't take it to an absurd extreme (ie, switch back and forth all game).

When Neyer writes obvious filler like this, it's probably just prudent to ignore it and not link to it. His "bonding episodes" with Joe and Tango and Rany are simply not newsworthy (as the swift hi-jacking of this thread clearly indicates). It's better to link to stuff that Rob hasn't cherry-picked from someone else...

Hayes's article was more interesting than the vast majority of things posted here. But if you're just saying link to it directly rather than through Neyer, I agree.

Hayes's article was more interesting than the vast majority of things posted here. But if you're just saying link to it directly rather than through Neyer, I agree.
Agree with both. Hayes has had a number of interesting bits - and his 1 min post conceit is a clever one.

Really, in normal, non-emergency situations, what exactly is accomplished by swapping OFers that couldn't also be accomplished by simply shifting them within their current positions instead? Throwing arm is about the only difference there...

Hayes talks about the limited situations in which it would be most useful. His example is a slow righty pull hitter up with nobody on in the late innings of a tie game (ie, a situation in which there's little advantage to having a good RF b/c the odds of a play at third are slim).

The Twins did this in 1990, with Puckett sliding from 2b to 3b and back, depending on the batter. It was on August 16, 1990 against Cleveland. They were doing more than just simple swaps too, for some reason. To Tom Kelly's credit, it did work. Here's a quote:

Bottom of the 8th, Indians Batting, Ahead 7-3, Twins' Tim Drummond facing 9-1-2
Tim Drummond replaces Roy Smith pitching; Kirby Puckett moves from RF to SS; John Moses moves from PH to RF
Single to CF (Line Drive)
Kirby Puckett moves from SS to 3B; Al Newman moves from 3B to SS
Groundout: SS-1B; Fermin to 2B
Kirby Puckett moves from 3B to 2B; Al Newman moves from SS to 3B; Nelson Liriano moves from 2B to SS
Lineout: SS
Flyball: CF
0 runs, 1 hit, 0 errors, 1 LOB. Twins 3, Indians 7.

Do pull hitters hit that many more fly balls to their pull field? I thought I remembered that fly balls go the other way a lot more than grounders do.

I guess then the question is how often non-routine flyballs go the opposite way - I'd guess that a lot of the time when a righty hits a fly to RF, Jeremy Reimercaviglia could catch it, so the shift wouldn't make a difference.

I guess then the question is how often non-routine flyballs go the opposite way - I'd guess that a lot of the time when a righty hits a fly to RF, Jeremy Reimercaviglia could catch it, so the shift wouldn't make a difference.

If you read Hayes' blog post, he is not saying that it would definitely work -- he is really asking/wondering whether it might not work in some circumstances, based on all of the available data, which he admits he does not have.

His example is a slow righty pull hitter up with nobody on in the late innings of a tie game (ie, a situation in which there's little advantage to having a good RF b/c the odds of a play at third are slim).

Okay -- but how often does this situation actually happen? And how often does it happen when the LF and RF have a significant difference in overall defensive abilities? And how much does outfielder-swapping matter in light of the prevailing strategy in such a situation, that is, to play the outfield deep anyway to prevent any kind of extra-base hit?

It's an interesting thought exercise, the kind that idle fans like myself often ponder, and it is very cool to see an actual player share the thought. But the actual, real-world benefit of such a strategy seems very, very small, if it exists at all.

If you read Hayes' blog post, he is not saying that it would definitely work -- he is really asking/wondering whether it might not work in some circumstances, based on all of the available data, which he admits he does not have.

I wasn't criticizing Hayes - I think he brings up an interesting question, so I was adding some thoughts.

Also, to clarify, by "wouldn't make a difference" I was talking about a situation in which the shift could hurt (Cecil Fielder hits a fly ball to right), and then wondering whether a greater percentage of RHB flies to RF are routine - thus the shift wouldn't hurt the team, and "wouldn't make a difference".

I wouldn't be surprised if Hayes does lurk here, but he wouldn't make a big deal of it. Disco Hayes doesn't advertise.

But the actual, real-world benefit of such a strategy seems very, very small, if it exists at all.

Again, if you read the article, he admits the differences are small -- but suspects they are non-zero, and given that a lot of baseball strategies have very small advantages, why not try these, if the situation presents itself.

Okay -- but how often does this situation actually happen? And how often does it happen when the LF and RF have a significant difference in overall defensive abilities?

I don't know. There are a lot of sensible strategies, both currently utilized and not, which have limited practicality. I'd think it comes up often enough that it's worth thinking about. More importantly, it might generate other ideas.

And how much does outfielder-swapping matter in light of the prevailing strategy in such a situation, that is, to play the outfield deep anyway to prevent any kind of extra-base hit?

Wouldn't it be better to have the guy with the better range and arm in LF in that situation, regardless of the fact that you're already being careful by playing deep?

Are there pitchers that tend to have hitters pull the ball more? Is that kinda of data avilable?

Wouldn't it be better to have the guy with the better range and arm in LF in that situation, regardless of the fact that you're already being careful by playing deep?

Arm, that I could see making a real difference. But it the batter is a "slow, pull-hitting righty," how likely is he to try to take second base anyway?

I was mostly being a devil's advocate here anyway, but I was just going off the quoted text. Put in its proper context, I agree that players could be deployed more creatively for optimal results.

Did you know that Disco Hayes' ERA at Northwest Arkansas was down 60% for the year ending 2009? If these trends continue... ayyyyyy.

"Dayton Moore is probably too young to remember Daniel Raymond Quisenberry"

Dayton Moore is 42. So unless he forgot most of what he saw in baseball before he was 21, he'd probably remember the closer on the team he grew up watching.

I remember the Quiz, hell I remember Tekulve
I specifically remember the Leach

700 MLB IP, ERA+ of 120, and yet seemingly never made an opening day roster...
In 1981 he went 10-3 2.28 in the minors.
In 1982 he had a 2.96 ERA in AAA, when he was brought up, I saw him throw a 10 inning one hit shutout... (last or next to last game of the 1982 season)
For a team that went 65-97, for team that had 1 starter with an ERA+ over 100
He spent the entirety of the next two years in the minors.
In 1984 he went 11-4 3.03 in AAA
In 1985 he had a 1.59 ERA in AAA, in 1986 it was 2.49
(for his career 950 IP in the minors, 2.89 ERA, 44 starts 300 relief appearances)

In 1985 he had a 2.91 in mlb ip (inc 4 starts)
1986- back in the minors
Think of that, through 1985 he'd thrown 136 MLB innings to a 3.23 ERA, and had even thrown a 10inninng one hitter, coming off a year where he'd posted a 1.59 ERA in AAA and 2.91 in the majors, and he goes back down to AAA the next year.

1987- injuries forced the MEts to put him in the rotation awhile, he goes 11-1 3.23
the next year, back in the pen, 92 ip, 2.52 ERA, but he was already 34, later pitched for KC, Minny and the Whitesox, he was ALWAYS effective- any role,
The Mets traded him to KC, KC released him, Twins had him for a year, didn't re sign him, Expos signed him- never pitched, they released him- That year he went 1.95 in 72 ip for the white sox

He was, you guessed it, a submariner.
But I have always been baffled, I can't recall anyone else, who
1: PLayed well in the minors; and
2: Played well (sometimes brilliantly) in the majors; and
3: gets demoted anyway; and
4: Plays well again in the minors; and
5: Is promoted again, plays well again; and
6: Gets traded and almost immediately released;
7: signs with someone else, plays well, gets released; and
8: repeat.

I loved Terry Leach. Thought he was pretty decent and I never got why the Royals released him.

The Royals had a couple decent submariners/sidearmers in the late 80s/early 90s that did okay, but they just discarded. Leach, Rusty Meachem would experiment with odd arm angles including sidearm, Steve Shifflett, a KC native who was awesome in '92 and the team just got rid of after that. Its like they completely forgot how Quiz had his success.

i loved leach too.

This is the Staub game. It doesn't include the trudge-by-trudge specifics of Staub repeatedly switching places with Clint Hurdle. But it was the top of the 18th when pinch hitter Rick Rhoden crossed up Davey Johnson's strategy, hitting a 2-out flyball that Staub had to lumber and lunge for.