Article: SEA 7, MIN 4: Sweepless in Seattle

[USAFChief]

 

Mr.Brooks posted in reply to my question about Berrios in game 3 of the series, "The team shouldn't make decisions for no other reason than padding a player's personal stats. It matters if the team wins. Which pitcher gets that W on his baseball card is meaningless."

 

I fully understand that and was not able to see the game but if I was Berrios I would be a little ticked unless I had totally lost it was hurt. Starting pitchers live and die by wins and losses and all he needed was a chance to get one more out. Rocco must have been irritated beyond Berrios simply having a bad inning. If he (Berrios) was unable to locate anything, I could see it.

In addition to Stirnger's post above, I'd add that it was obvious Baldelli gave Berrios every opportunity to get through the 5th. He was at 105 pitches, wasn't sharp, and leaving him out there just to get the W wasn't the right call, IMO.

 

He was lucky to get that far, despite not having allowed a run up to the fifth.

[h2oface]

There is getting him the win, and there is letting him continue to give up hit after hit after hit after hit...... after hit after hit. There is the thing about losing confidence, too, regardless of the win stat.

[yarnivek1972]

Frankly, Berrios didn’t pitch well enough to deserve the win. That’s on him, not Rocco.

[ashbury]

Frankly, Berrios didn’t pitch well enough to deserve the win. That’s on him, not Rocco.

IMO Rocco is doing little things here and there to tell his players, "this is MY team."

[Nine of twelve]

 

Great title for this article.

I agree, but I think it was lifted from the Strib or one of the commenters there.

[Nine of twelve]

 

Don't understand why Berrios was removed in game 3 one third of an inning away from a W still with a nice lead unless he had tweaked something.

 

The pitchers know that W is one of the least important pitching stats. Berrios had long stretches on the bench between innings and had lost it as a result. Rocco had to get him out and everyone, including Berrios, knew it. It's just not a big deal.

[Aerodeliria]

 

Coaches were telling Buxton to bunt since he was first called up. It did NOT work out well.

 

I hadn't heard this, and it does make me curious. Was he resistant to bunting? Did he claim he couldn't bunt? Those are the only two reasons I can think of for not being "able" to bunt.

[Mr. Brooks]

Mr.Brooks posted in reply to my question about Berrios in game 3 of the series, "The team shouldn't make decisions for no other reason than padding a player's personal stats. It matters if the team wins. Which pitcher gets that W on his baseball card is meaningless."

 

I fully understand that and was not able to see the game but if I was Berrios I would be a little ticked unless I had totally lost it was hurt. Starting pitchers live and die by wins and losses and all he needed was a chance to get one more out. Rocco must have been irritated beyond Berrios simply having a bad inning. If he (Berrios) was unable to locate anything, I could see it.

No financial decisions are made based on individual wins anymore. If Berrios is upset, it's because he puts his individual stats over the team, which would be very disappointing to me.

I think that if he is upset though, it's at himself for pitching poorly, not at Baldelli for removing him.

[Riverbrian]

 

We have an analytics department analyzing every little detail just to find slight advantages, for the purpose of making our team just a little bit better and using a "somewhat static" "small fluctuating" "almost permanent" slotting totally ignores any slight advantage uncovered by metrics.

 

Perhaps the analytics department determined that the best way to approach batting order is to determine who are the most likely hitters to perform well, based on more than the past 20 PAs, and trust that over time that will play out better than trying to predict who will go 2-4 tomorrow based on who went 2-4 today.

 

Perhaps

 

But... I'm not suggesting that it should be that reactionary. I'm asking the question... what damage is done if players hit in different spots in the lineup day to day? What damage is done if Buxton hits 9th and then moves to 1st and back to 9th? 

 

It's May 20th. 

 

Buxton has 142 AB's with an OBP of 335 and Kepler has 159 AB's with an OBP of .315. Kepler is getting the extra AB's by consistent hitting 1st while Buxton hits 9th. Why would it all fall apart if they swapped positions. 

 

Why does Astudillo simply plug into whatever spot in the order belongs to the player he's replacing. They bounce the turtle all around the lineup... Why can't they bounce Buxton around without injuring the consistency. Why is the Consistency important? 

 

Legit questions that will be very difficult for anyone (including Baldelli) to explain to me. 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

This is my assumption as well. Analytics may have derived an optimal lineup based on everyone's hitting profiles. And from a more qualitative perspective, there's something to be said for consistency and keeping every day the same regardless of how yesterday went. You don't have to think about how your lineup slot that day impacts your role, or how hitting behind/in front of someone different changes how you're pitched to. Maybe none of that really matters much, and I agree with Riverbrian that I expected to see matchups factored in a little more. But it's awfully tough to argue against a strategy that's resulting in one of the best offensive outputs in the league (and the best we've ever seen from a Twins team).

 

Absolutely agree... I can't argue against a strategy that's resulting in one of the best offensive outputs in the league. 

 

Actually I can and I kinda am but I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about the batting order so I don't want anyone to think that I'm losing sleep over it.

 

I just don't understand the asset of a template and I don't understand what consistency provides the hitter in the batter box. I mainly think it's ok to try and get Buxton (specifically) some more AB's.