gehringer_2 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 20 hours ago, Sports_Freak said: The old attitude anytime a manager gets fired...you can't fire 25 (26 now) players but you can fire one guy. Sometimes a change of manager lights a fire under the players. But I don't think it would help the 2024 Tigers. Tigers aren't listless, they're just down in the count too often. I listened to Garko on the podcast. On the hitting side they have all kinds of facility for analyzing swings, balance, mechanics etc., very impressive. But I was still sort of put off by the way he seems to assume guys have perfect choice about whether they are swinging at strikes. Nothing he talked about related to pitch recognition other than just 'do it'. The other thing was watching the Jays and Guerrero Jr, and thinking about Sr, and watching Vierling homer on a pitch that was 6" inside, it made me wonder: There are players who are perfectly capable of hitting pitches outside the K zone - there is nothing magic about the K zone box in terms of whether a guy can reach and do damage on pitches outside it. Most guys can hit the ball best in a zone that parallels the bat path, so up and in in the zone is actually harder to hit than outside at the hips. Some guys can turn on pitches way inside like Vierling did in the 6th. Some guys can slap pitches well off the plate outside to the opposite field, some guys have great success dropping the bat head and golfing pitches at their ankles - especially in the center zone - often in to the stands (Mize has given up a lot of these). Should Vierling really not have swung at the pitch he homered on? I think maybe you want hitters to swing at what they can hit, and protect against what they can't, because that has to be more important than getting one more ball in the count, and their hot region is not necessarily going to line up with what the K zone is or particularly with what an ump is calling, so the uber focus on the zone still leaves me questioning. Again, it's clear that going forward they are not going to be interested in obtaining a player like Vlad Sr., who granted, was an outlier, so they are are going to force that it won't be an question in the org anymore, but there is always some cost in excluding potentially good players from consideration just because they do it differently. Of course the hope is what you gain in a system is greater than any costs it imposes. Edited May 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 Another take away from Garko was him talking about 'in-zone swing and miss" as an increased focus when looking at pitching prospects. This is something that is generally missed in the media hype around prep/college pitchers which looks at outcomes without delving deeper. You could say it's exactly the kind of thing that would make the org today a little more skeptical of a Casey Mize in the draft. A good pitcher continues to get OOZ swing and miss even in the majors, but the amount available decreases at every level as a pitcher moves up, and the difference between in zone and out of zone swing and miss become more important at each step up. That was good stuff to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: My concern about Hinch was about his ability to handle players after he couldn't get them to stop the cheating in Houston. The excuse his supporters gave was that it wasn't his fault and there was nothing he could do about it. I don't agree with that. I suspect Leyland, for example, could have done something about it. That being said, I have not seen any evidence that he doesn't have the respect of players in Detroit and have no complaints about his game management skills. In fact, I think his bullpen management is excellent. Alex Cora apparently being a ring leader it had to undercut Hinch as he didn't even have his staff presenting a unified stance. But of course then the question is why didn't he fire Cora? Maybe management wouldn't let him? Which maybe makes it ironic that Hinch has hired Joey Cora. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: One of the beat reporters said that Hinch in the post game said Perez bunted on his own. Hinch never bunts... Cody Stavenhagen mentioned that on his podcast which I heard this morning. I humbly and happily retract that criticism from Hinch. My guess is there was a discussion with Perez about that. I didn’t watch the game, I don’t know where the defense was. If he did that on his own, I would like to know what he saw and what he was thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports_Freak Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 9 minutes ago, casimir said: Cody Stavenhagen mentioned that on his podcast which I heard this morning. I humbly and happily retract that criticism from Hinch. My guess is there was a discussion with Perez about that. I didn’t watch the game, I don’t know where the defense was. If he did that on his own, I would like to know what he saw and what he was thinking. He attempted a bunt that went foul. The 3rd baseman than played in looking for the bunt. Perez bunted anyway, it was actually a good sac bunt. At least, it got the job done. But he definitely wasn't bunting for a hit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: My concern about Hinch was about his ability to handle players after he couldn't get them to stop the cheating in Houston. The excuse his supporters gave was that it wasn't his fault and there was nothing he could do about it. I don't agree with that. I suspect Leyland, for example, could have done something about it. That being said, I have not seen any evidence that he doesn't have the respect of players in Detroit and have no complaints about his game management skills. In fact, I think his bullpen management is excellent. I wonder, did Hinch allow his coaches to speak to the media in previous stops? Has this been his rule throughout or did he pick this up after Arizona or after Houston? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 2 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: He attempted a bunt that went foul. The 3rd baseman than played in looking for the bunt. Perez bunted anyway, it was actually a good sac bunt. At least, it got the job done. But he definitely wasn't bunting for a hit... I don’t like it unless someone was playing back and/or off of the line. I realize he’s struggling the last week or two and they’re only in need of one run. I prefer the chance to swing away and hopefully get Torkelson over to 3rd. Obviously there’s risk of the double play and/or a runner on first with one out if he strikes out or flies out or it’s a fielder’s choice. Stavenhagen mentioned run expectancy is around 80% with a runner on 1st and none out and around 65% with a runner on 2nd and one out. I had no idea what either was in the moment. I do know that Torkelson ain’t exactly fleet of foot, so he at 2nd with one out ain’t exactly a winning situation with Cora waving anybody and everybody around 3rd. Luckily it all worked out. I really doubt their chances if that goes into extra innings. Vierling would have been the Manfred runner to start off the 10th, so that’s good. But the bullpen was too shaky to assume a clean top of the inning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, casimir said: Stavenhagen mentioned run expectancy is around 80% with a runner on 1st and none out and around 65% with a runner on 2nd and one out. but Baez is behind him with very low OBP and a fairly high GB rate, so if Wenceel doesn't move him odds are about 50% Javy ends the inning on a DP (javy with a 47% GB rate). Plus Javy does seem to bear down with RISP (though it didn't happen here). Global stats are just that, global. The Tigers have a lot of players that are nowhere near median, so that weakens the predictive value of global expectancies. It comes down to what narrowing assumptions you want to make in mentally recalculating run expectancy for the options of the particular situation - hitters and pitcher. So on the other side you have that Romano is not a huge GB pitcher either. I know Hinch would still not have bunted, but I have less issue with it. Sometimes just the confidence level that a guy does or does not have in what he can do counts too. Edited May 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 3 hours ago, Tiger337 said: My concern about Hinch was about his ability to handle players after he couldn't get them to stop the cheating in Houston. The excuse his supporters gave was that it wasn't his fault and there was nothing he could do about it. I don't agree with that. I suspect Leyland, for example, could have done something about it. That being said, I have not seen any evidence that he doesn't have the respect of players in Detroit and have no complaints about his game management skills. In fact, I think his bullpen management is excellent. I think the situation in Houston was that Hinch didn’t like it, but the decision to do it was made over his head, a couple of the superstars on the roster bought into it, and if that’s the case, there really was nothing he could have done to stop it. What was he going to do, call a cop on the front office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, casimir said: Stavenhagen mentioned run expectancy is around 80% with a runner on 1st and none out and around 65% with a runner on 2nd and one out. I had no idea what either was in the moment. I do know that Torkelson ain’t exactly fleet of foot, so he at 2nd with one out ain’t exactly a winning situation with Cora waving anybody and everybody around 3rd. Based on the Tom Tango research, run expectancy is about 0.86 runs with man on first and one out, versus 0.66 runs with man on second and two outs. In a case like yesterday, though, it’s not run expectancy we want to look a—that is, how many runs a team is expected to score—but run probability, meaning what are the chances a run will score, because one run is what was needed, and not many runs. Run probability with a man on first and no out is 41.6%, while a man on second and one out, it’s 39.7%. So the chances of scoring at least one run, which is all we cared about in that moment, is actually worse after the successful bunt. Not enough worse to start firing people over, but definitely not better. If you want to increase run probability after a sac bunt, the only situation it makes sense is with man on second with no out, which is 61.4%, to achieve man on third with one out, which is 66.0%. That is definitely better, but also, this is the only situation it even makes sense. And that’s why sac bunting has gone the way of pitchers batting—it just doesn’t make any sense outside one very specific circumstance, if what you want to do is better your chances of scoring runs, or even scoring one run. As an aside, if Cody Stavenhagen is characterizing run expectancy as being 80% and 65% in yesterday’s case, then he is unclear on the concept, since he is confusing run expectancy with run probability. Edited May 27 by chasfh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 15 minutes ago, chasfh said: I think the situation in Houston was that Hinch didn’t like it, but the decision to do it was made over his head, a couple of the superstars on the roster bought into it, and if that’s the case, there really was nothing he could have done to stop it. What was he going to do, call a cop on the front office? it's true he didn't have many good options. He can quit and stay silent, and no-one is going to hire him unless the tells them why he walked away, he can quit and go public and he will be hailed as baseball's new Diogenes, and then still not be hired by anyone again. Or play it as it lies and hope to survive the levee break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 36 minutes ago, chasfh said: I think the situation in Houston was that Hinch didn’t like it, but the decision to do it was made over his head, a couple of the superstars on the roster bought into it, and if that’s the case, there really was nothing he could have done to stop it. What was he going to do, call a cop on the front office? As the manager, he is responsible for what happens on his team. Maybe he sniffs it out before it gets going, talks with upper management, talks with players. Maybe, he did all that and it didn't work. None of us know exactly what he did or whether it was possible for him to do anything more. I believe there are some managers who command so much respect from the bosses and from their players, that something like that would not happen. It was probably a difficult situation. He's the manager though. I can't just say "Nothing he could do. No fault of his whatsover". I have to question him on that. I have no problems with him as Tigers manager to this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 30 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: it's true he didn't have many good options. He can quit and stay silent, and no-one is going to hire him unless the tells them why he walked away, he can quit and go public and he will be hailed as baseball's new Diogenes, and then still not be hired by anyone again. Or play it as it lies and hope to survive the levee break. I suspect most teams wanted nothing to do with him as it was which is why the lowly (at the time) Tigers franchise was able to get him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, chasfh said: 41.6%, while a man on second and one out, it’s 39.7%. but overall those two numbers are so close that are likely to be lost in the noise variance of the particular match ups. I'm still OK with my chances this particular case if I reduce the chance of Javy in particular at the plate with one out and man on 1st, which is going to be something on the order of 68% if Wenceel just swings away. The other local variables is how good a bunter Wenceel is from the left side compared to that, which I have no idea..... aside from run probability It's just much harder to put a bunt down against modern era pitching, so most of the time it's just throwing away an out - swinging away down two strikes after failing to bunt ( the most common modern outcome) is giving away half an AB. You've cut down your chance of the 1st batter succeeding from maybe 32% to something like 20% or less and thus accomplished nothing but increase your odds of getting to man on 1st one out. EDIT: I would also note that since 41.6 and 39.7 are so close, the probability of getting the bunt down needs to be close to 100% to even consider bunting, while OTOH, Javy is such so far below average a hitter that the Tigers probabilities are going to be lower across the board. Edited May 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, chasfh said: Based on the Tom Tango research, run expectancy is about 0.86 runs with man on first and one out, versus 0.66 runs with man on second and two outs. In a case like yesterday, though, it’s not run expectancy we want to look a—that is, how many runs a team is expected to score—but run probability, meaning what are the chances a run will score, because one run is what was needed, and not many runs. Run probability with a man on first and no out is 41.6%, while a man on second and one out, it’s 39.7%. So the chances of scoring at least one run, which is all we cared about in that moment, is actually worse after the successful bunt. Not enough worse to start firing people over, but definitely not better. If you want to increase run probability after a sac bunt, the only situation it makes sense is with man on second with no out, which is 61.4%, to achieve man on third with one out, which is 66.0%. That is definitely better, but also, this is the only situation it even makes sense. And that’s why sac bunting has gone the way of pitchers batting—it just doesn’t make any sense outside one very specific circumstance, if what you want to do is better your chances of scoring runs, or even scoring one run. As an aside, if Cody Stavenhagen is characterizing run expectancy as being 80% and 65% in yesterday’s case, then he is unclear on the concept, since he is confusing run expectancy with run probability. I should go back and listen to that. I wonder if I botched up the terms he was using. But you’re right, probability and expectancy aren’t the same, and probability is what matters in bottom of the potentially last inning in a tie game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports_Freak Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 3 hours ago, casimir said: I don’t like it unless someone was playing back and/or off of the line. I realize he’s struggling the last week or two and they’re only in need of one run. I prefer the chance to swing away and hopefully get Torkelson over to 3rd. Obviously there’s risk of the double play and/or a runner on first with one out if he strikes out or flies out or it’s a fielder’s choice. Stavenhagen mentioned run expectancy is around 80% with a runner on 1st and none out and around 65% with a runner on 2nd and one out. I had no idea what either was in the moment. I do know that Torkelson ain’t exactly fleet of foot, so he at 2nd with one out ain’t exactly a winning situation with Cora waving anybody and everybody around 3rd. Luckily it all worked out. I really doubt their chances if that goes into extra innings. Vierling would have been the Manfred runner to start off the 10th, so that’s good. But the bullpen was too shaky to assume a clean top of the inning. What's bad is Toronto screwing up on defense. After the sac bunt, Javy hit a comebacker to the mound. Romano didn't even look at 3rd base. He would have had Tork by a mile. I didn't like the bunt either. After Tork blooped his single, I was calling for a pinch runner. Hinch should have used one, another poor manager decision, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 55 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: but overall those two numbers are so close that are likely to be lost in the noise variance Which I basically said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: but Baez is behind him with very low OBP and a fairly high GB rate, so if Wenceel doesn't move him odds are about 50% Javy ends the inning on a DP (javy with a 47% GB rate). Plus Javy does seem to bear down with RISP (though it didn't happen here). Global stats are just that, global. The Tigers have a lot of players that are nowhere near median, so that weakens the predictive value of global expectancies. It comes down to what narrowing assumptions you want to make in mentally recalculating run expectancy for the options of the particular situation - hitters and pitcher. So on the other side you have that Romano is not a huge GB pitcher either. I know Hinch would still not have bunted, but I have less issue with it. Sometimes just the confidence level that a guy does or does not have in what he can do counts too. If only the pitching would’of kept Toronto to single digits, then we wouldn’t have to worry about hypotheticals and theoreticals and the spreadsheets could’of had a day off, too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 minute ago, chasfh said: Which I basically said. right - and I made an edit above - that would still assume that the bunt can be gotten down with 100% efficiency so you can get from 1 on no out to man on 2nd one out at 100% efficiency- which is far far from true with the modern player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted May 27 Author Share Posted May 27 3 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: What's bad is Toronto screwing up on defense. After the sac bunt, Javy hit a comebacker to the mound. Romano didn't even look at 3rd base. He would have had Tork by a mile. I didn't like the bunt either. After Tork blooped his single, I was calling for a pinch runner. Hinch should have used one, another poor manager decision, IMO. I wondered about pinch running. Greene and McKinstry were on the bench. Either could have come in to PR and be used in LF with Canha moving from LF to 1B if the game went into extras. You might be right, they might have missed that. Like I said before, I think they needed to win that inning. The pitching just wasn’t dependable enough to put up a zero with the Manfred runner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: As the manager, he is responsible for what happens on his team. Maybe he sniffs it out before it gets going, talks with upper management, talks with players. Maybe, he did all that and it didn't work. None of us know exactly what he did or whether it was possible for him to do anything more. I believe there are some managers who command so much respect from the bosses and from their players, that something like that would not happen. It was probably a difficult situation. He's the manager though. I can't just say "Nothing he could do. No fault of his whatsover". I have to question him on that. I have no problems with him as Tigers manager to this point. If a guy is a workplace superstar and the big boss in the office wants them to cheat, they’re not going to listen to their immediate supervisor who is definitely not on the same page telling them he wishes they would not do it. That’s just Workplace Politics 101. Hinch’s only moves were to quit, or to try to navigate through it, because stopping them doing it just wasn’t going to happen, and it was literally an impossible situation to find himself in. I do not think any less of him as a leader for not being able to affect it. We’ll simply have to agree to disagree on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports_Freak Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 minute ago, chasfh said: If a guy is a workplace superstar and the big boss in the office wants them to cheat, they’re not going to listen to their immediate supervisor who is definitely not on the same page telling them he wishes they would not do it. That’s just Workplace Politics 101. Hinch’s only moves were to quit, or to try to navigate through it, because stopping them doing it just wasn’t going to happen, and it was literally an impossible situation to find himself in. I do not think any less of him as a leader for not being able to affect it. We’ll simply have to agree to disagree on this. But I really think Hinch learned an important lesson from that. He would never put up with that now, I bet. At least, I hope. Hiring Cora really isn't a good look, he was the bench coach in Houston at the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said: But I really think Hinch learned an important lesson from that. He would never put up with that now, I bet. At least, I hope. Hiring Cora really isn't a good look, he was the bench coach in Houston at the time? different Cora. We have the older brother now (Joe). Alex has also landed on his feet, managing the Red Sox now Edited May 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports_Freak Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 Just now, gehringer_2 said: different Cora. We have the older brother now Oh...ok. That makes sense, the other Cora was Boston manager, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalTiger Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 It's a game of outs and bunting gives them away so do not bunt. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.