The Ice King Cometh
Radke goes five strong.
I watched Radke warming up through the windows of bars as I brusquely made my way toward the Dome. A childhood hero in the twilight of his career, showing the grit, determination and cast iron will that has earned him that same title. As much as Radke's performance and health would mean to me over the next couple of hours, you know it means much more to him. He looks the same. A bit scruffy, that familiar throwing motion; everything looks systems-go on the surface, but I can't help but wonder if he feels any pain.
You know that this game and this appearance mean something to Brad, and it's what that fact implies that magnifies the situation. He's not just doing it for the Twins because they need some stability in the rotation going into the playoffs, but he's doing it for himself as well. This game and baseball in general still mean something to Radke, and he's determined not to leave it until he lets it go. This is his last campaign, and he's not about to let it be taken from him.
Inning one came and went with nothing to tell. Seven strikes, five balls, three outs and zero signs of trouble. The crowd stood and applauded, and just like every other inning in his career Radke began a slow walk toward the dugout; head down, no expression. Like every other inning he did his job, and he asked for no ovation.
For five innings the process repeated itself. He left the mound after those five innings and fifty-seven pitches, for what would be the last time. As I had every inning, I watched him leave the mound and cross the field, and descend the dugout steps. I told myself I was looking for signs of pain or signs of fatigue, but really I was trying to engrain the memory of a great player who is everything I admire in an athlete into my mind. This was the last time I'd see Brad Radke pitch in person, and I wanted to remember it.
Early on, there were probably a few more balls thrown than were intended, in the ball-to-strike ratio sense of the word. Yet over the course of his appearance, the only blemishes on his start were a misplayed ball by Torii Hunter and a ball that may or may not have been fair down the left field line.
But mostly, Brad Radke looked like the Brad Radke we've known for 12 years:
The man has an unflappable calm about him. It doesn't matter if he's getting shelled, throwing a pitcher's duel or comfortably in the lead, you can't tell any of it by looking at his eyes. Ice courses through his veins. His arsenal is the same...you'll find no searing heat, but a 90 MPH fastball that sets you up for anything else he wants to throw. Two-seamer fastballs to fool you, sliders you'll flail helplessly at, curveballs to throw you off, and a devastating, nearly untouchable changeup that by the time you've regained your balance it's just dropping through the zone.[...]Sweat builds, but if he feels it you can't tell. His pitches are always the same. His release is always the same. He turns his back to you and climbs the mound after every pitch...the same.
Tonight it was exactly the same, and yet it had the haunting feel of watching something happen that was already in the past. If you've had this feeling, and it's not deja-vu, you know what I mean. It's a strange and slightly chilling sensation, and it's sad because all I wanted to do was watch Radke pitch like he did every other game and remember it like every other game.
But then again, I can be a bit dramatic. Damn artsy people and their drama.
I'm not naive enough to think that what Radke tells the media and the public is anything but a shadow of his personal prognosis, but this is a positive sign for Brad, for the Twins and for you and me. The above quote, from MLB.com, tells me most of what I want to know: He felt he performed adequately and knows he'll still have to endure some pain, but he believes he'll be ready to pitch in the postseason.
In spite of Radke's performance, the offense once again struggled to muster any sort of a charge against Kansas City's own Cy Young award winner Luke Hudson. Hudson and Redman both shut down Minnesota the last time the Royals and Twins clashed, and they were doing the same this time. While only striking out one, Hudson allowed a mere four hits through his seven innings of work, giving his club a chance to win a second consecutive game against baseball's hottest team.
That is, of course, until the bottom of the ninth inning. For all the pessimists in the crowd (you know who you are), I couldn't help but thinking "These are the Royals...we're too good and they're too bad for them not to find a way to screw it up." And yet, they still managed to give my confidence a run for its money.
Nick Punto came to the plate and managed to last five pitches, taking the last and lashing it fairly hard right to second baseman Esteban "I'm perma-high, I'm hot shit and I'm a bitch" German. Jason Kubel then stepped to the dish, pinch-hitting for Alexi Casilla, who had collected his first career hit earlier in the night. Kubel looked rusty, taking a 1-2 pitch and grounding out weakly to, again, second base.
Then came Joe Mauer. The Sidesburns Kid. Pitch one sailed across the plate and the bat remained on Mauer's shoulder. He stepped back from the plate and, per his routine, smoothed the dirt in the batter's box with his foot. Back into the box, pitch two came in and missed the zone for a ball. With the crowd on its feet and the Twins' backs against the proverbial wall, Mauer dug in as Joe Nelson went into his windup and delivered...
Off the bat, you knew it was hit hard. Just a line drive, it wasn't screaming and didn't have the definite "sure thing" majestic arc. What it did have was just enough. Emil Brown tracked Mauer's drive back to the left field wall, but couldn't bring it in as the ball cleared the fence and threw the crowd into a frenzy.
In the darkest hour of defeat there shall come The Young One
Donned in white with the helmet of a warrior...
In the bottom of the tenth the Twins won the game on a Jason Bartlett ground rule double with the bases loaded. Why only one run counted as opposed to two I'm not certain, since walk-off home runs will count every runner. If anyone knows, feel free to explain.
One other thing I'm hoping someone can draw a picture of for me. With runners on first and third and one out in the bottom of the tenth inning, the Royals elected to intentionally walk Jason Tyner to get to Jason Bartlett. Now, I'll walk through a couple of things.
Why this made sense to me: Scott Dohmann and Jason Bartlett are both right-handers, giving the pitcher an "advantage" according to old baseball rules. Dohmann was also more successful against right-handed hitters. There becomes a force-out at every base.
WHY, IN SPITE OF THOSE REASONS, THE DECISION TO INTENTIONALLY WALK TYNER MADE NO DAMN SENSE AND IF I WERE A ROYALS FAN I'D BE PISSED: Jason Bartlett is a better all-around hitter than Tyner, and more importantly, has more pop in his bat. Bartlett's OBP and SLG versus RHP is higher than Tyner's.
On a hard-hit infield ground ball, you're not throwing home when the double play was still in order without walking Tyner. On a softly-hit infield ground ball where the double-play isn't possible, the chances of getting the runner out at the plate are nil. On a sacrifice fly, which would be much more plausible coming from Bartlett, the runner would score no matter who hit it as long as it was deep enough. In the end I'm just having a hard time envisioning a scenario where intentionally walking Tyner works to Kansas City's advantage. Please, paint me a picture.
Mauer's game-tying home run. The Twins tying the Tigers for first place in the AL Central and gaining a game on the Yankees for best record in the league. The Twins coming from behind for another dramatic victory. Of all the stories of importance tonight, Brad Radke's is the most important to me. He's healthy, he's effective and he's going to be ready for the Yankees, or for the Athletics.
Personally, I hope it's the Yankees...but more on that tomorrow.
Thanks for one last great start, 22. Good luck in the playoffs.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yankees
Actually, hell, I'll write it out.
I only have one problem with your post...
by djskilbr on Sep 29, 2006 2:33 AM EDT reply actions
I can't
I can't. It was a terrible decision, if only for the fact that Bartlett is just plain a better hitter than Tyner. Anyway, in the case against the move, I think you left out the part where A WALK TO BARTLETT COULD LOSE THE GAME. And then, if you get Bartlett, but only get one out, A WALK TO PUNTO COULD LOSE THE GAME. The Royals put their pitchers in a position where two good contact hitters knew the pitchers had to come right at them. That's pretty bad in my estimation.
Plus, check this out: So far this season, Tyner has grounded into DPs at a clip of 18.9%. Bartlett has grounded into DPs at a fairly league average rate of 13.2%. This is likely not a fluke, as Tyner has a 51.9% GB%, while Bartlett has a 43.7% GB%. So not only does giving Bartlett the bases loaded give the Twins more ways to win the game, it also gives the Royals a smaller chance to end the game in that at-bat with a DP.
Moss, over at SBG, points out that Ford would likely have stolen second, at which point IBB'ing Tyner to set up the DP would make sense. I guess I could see some sense to that, but shouldn't you try to get Ford at second base. Call me crazy, but even though things can go wrong on a throw to second base, these are major league baseball players after all, Morneau (standing at third) isn't exactly a speedster, and you're probably expecting Ford to go. Even if you don't directly throw to second, you could at least do the old throw to second base, have the SS cut it off and try to pick Morneau off third base. You're in a difficult spot the way it is, so it seems like you should try to get an out on the basepaths to help your cause.
I don't know, though, I guess if you think that throwing the ball around the infield a bit is too risky, then IBB'ing Tyner makes a little, Tyny bit of sense.
Tyner's GIDP
Maybe
Also, the 2nd run on the ground-rule double didn't count because Ford didn't touch home plate and Bartlett never touched 2nd. At least that is how I understood it.
Rule 4.11(c)
I posted this on yesterday's thread, but...this is what MLB.com has to say: If the home team scores the winning run in its half of the ninth inning (or its half of an extra inning after a tie), the game ends immediately when the winning run is scored. EXCEPTION: If the last batter in a game hits a home run out of the playing field, the batter-runner and all runners on base are permitted to score, in accordance with the base-running rules, and the game ends when the batter-runner touches home plate."
That's why Bartlett doesn't get credit for the extra RBI/base. The runner can't advance to score once the game is won (except on homers).
Walking in the winning run
The only way a batter walks is if the pitcher doesn't throw strikes. You would really have to lack confidence in your pitcher to make that a big issue. Walking in the winning run does happen, but its pretty rare.
shouldn't you try to get Ford at second base. Call me crazy, but even though things can go wrong on a throw to second base, these are major league baseball players after all
OK. You are crazy. There is no way you risk a throw to second with the winning run on third. Nor do you take goofy chances with cutting off the throw trying to trick Morneau into going. Morneau isn't going until Ford gets caught in a run down in any case.
, I guess if you think that throwing the ball around the infield a bit is too risky, then IBB'ing Tyner makes a little, Tyny bit of sense.
Actually its a no-brainer. Ford is not staying at first. Walking Tyner gives you a play at every base for a double play and the play at the plate is a force out. The difference between Tyner and Bartlett (and Punto) is inconsequential. There isn't a team in professional baseball that doesn't issue an intentional walk in that situation.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
GM's?
I also doubt you will find many GM's who make that decision for the manager. Thought, again, there have been some.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
by AdamOnFirst on Sep 29, 2006 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Damn...
In theory what you say makes sense, but practically it just doesn't apply. With the bases loaded, if the ball is hit hard enough where you have time to get a force out at home, you're probably going to have enough time to turn the double play that ends the inning. This same situation applies to the scenario with Tyner up and runners on the corners. Why would you choose the same situation with not only NO room for error, but with a better hitter at the plate?
Slow grounders
I don't think that is true. On any ball the fielder can charge they are going to have a shot at a force out at the plate. Getting the double play is a different story. Same with a ball down the line, step on third, throw to first is a lot more likely double play than an around the horn.
But I don't really think the question is first and third because I don't think a team will risk a throw to second in that situation. And I think it is likely a runner going to second would stop and force a rundown if they did.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
So...
- There's virtually no way a pitcher won't walk the hitter because it's so easy to throw strikes in that situation.
- It's so difficult to throw it to second base and have the second baseman catch it that it shouldn't be risked.
Yes but
Why not pitch carefully to the free-swinging Tyner and hope he makes an out without hte run scoring? If you put him on, you at least have tried to get an out and, in so doing, removed the sac fly option.
As you know, having one out and a runner on third means the outfield has to play really shallow. Tyner hits the ball to shallow left center a lot. With DeJesus' arm, the Twins would not risk sending the slow-footed Morneau home if DeJesus catches the ball where Tyner usually hits it.
It's at least worth a try. Instead, they would rather face a guy who hits the ball deeper in the outfield with no margin for error for an inexperienced pitcher.
Loaded Bases
There is clearly some disadvantage to having the bases full. But it is not nearly as great as people make it out to be.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
TT, meet Scott Dohmann
Seems like a lot of misplaced trust there.
ML teams don't throw to second in situations like that because they are too conservative. They're willing to take on an extra 14.5% chance that the run scores (plus the additional chance that even if they get JB, Punto walks in the next AB) in order to avoid the miniscule chance they'll throw the ball away trying to get Ford stealing.
I think they are judging the risks and rewards incorrectly in this situation. Feel free to go ahead and get in line behind tradition, but I disagree with tradition in this case.
Meet Mr Dohmann
ML teams don't throw to second in situations like that because they are too conservative.
No. They don't throw to second because the risk is greater than the reward. And because they never take the risk, you have no data that says they are wrong.
They're willing to take on an extra 14.5% chance that the run scores
The reality is that the run is more likely to score if they throw to second in this situation. That's the whole point.
I think they are judging the risks and rewards incorrectly in this situation.
I realize that. But its pretty clear that belief is based on little understanding of either.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Watch not, Walk not
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Odds
I guess I disagree with your assessment that every manager would have advised the catcher to hold the ball with a relatively slow runner on third and the chance to get out of the inning without any damage. I would say that your greatest odds of getting out of the inning are to throw out the runner at second, rather than hoping for an unlikely double play ball. If you throw the runner out, the next batter needs a hit to beat you. If the runner is safe, you can just go ahead and walk the next batter anyway. I really don't think Morneau would have risked an out at home in that situation in the event of a steal, and there is probably a minimal chance (i.e., less than 14.5%) that the catcher would make a bad throw or the infielder make an error.
If the manager has as much confidence in his catcher and middle infielders as you think he does in the pitcher throwing strikes with the bases loaded, it seems that he would at least take a shot at throwing out the runner at second base.
by MauerPower @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Holding the runner
As I point out below, this is not a case of advice. Whether to hold the runner is the manager's decision, not the catcher's.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Not Holding the Runner... Holding the ball
by MauerPower @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
They are the same thing
That is the same question. If you aren't holding the runner, no catcher is going to get a base stealer out. And there is no purpose in holding the runner in that situation unless you are going to try to throw him out.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions
What?
I was assuming that in a similar situation, it would just be the common sense to hold a potential base stealer on first base to increase your chance of turning a double play or deter a steal attempt in the event you actually pitch to the hitter rather than issuing an intentional walk. It certainly seems logical to at least keep the runner close to first and make the manager think twice about stealing, instead of just giving up a free base.
Can you explain why you wouldn't hold the runner in that situation? Even if you have no intention of throwing him out, shouldn't you try to keep him close in the event he may not actually be stealing? Even if you are in "optimal fielding position" as you stated below, refusing to hold the runner would seemingly decrease your ability to turn a double play because the runner from first would just take off. Second, why would the first baseman even need to be in optimal fielding position if, as you say, you would walk the hitter 100% of the time in that situation?
In the end, refusing to hold the runner signals to the other manager that you are simply going to let his guy steal second base without any effort and reducing your team's chance at a double play.
by MauerPower @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Right
I think we are thinking about this in different ways. You have two options, one is to play it as if it was a normal situation with runners on first and third. The other is to load the bases with an intentional walk.
Holding the runner at first has a defensive cost. Covering second in the event of a steal has a defensive cost. Throwing to first has a risk, if the ball gets away from the first baseman even for a short distance the game is over. Your pitcher may even have to adjust his pitch choices. You don't do those things unless you plan to throw to second if the runner goes. Its not that you couldn't, but why would you?
Second, I don't think the manager is going to hesitate. He is going to send the runner.
In the end, refusing to hold the runner signals to the other manager that you are simply going to let his guy steal second base without any effort and reducing your team's chance at a double play.
Right. Which is why you intentionally walk the batter to load the bases.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
That
Especially when it forces you to pitch to Bartlett instead of Tyner.
and
2. It's so difficult to throw it to second base and have the second baseman catch it that it shouldn't be risked.
That's right. You have a problem with that?
The fact is, I doubt you have ever seen a team throw to second in that situation.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 1:27 PM EDT reply actions
Wow
I beleive you load the bases to optimize your defensive options. Even with the infield in a slow roller will beat you since you won't be able to get the DP. I would load 'em up and unless it's a sure DP(hit right at someone) throw home and get the out at home at least. If the catcher has time to make a throw to first for the DP that way, take it. In that situation you HAVE to prevent the run and putting a force everywhere is the best way. Not to be a smart-ass, but it's playing it "by the book".
I think
However, as TT said, Ford probably would have soon stolen second anyway, meaning you'd have to walk Tyner regardless. Maybe in that way it would make sense to walk Tyner since Tyner could hit a grounder with Ford running screwing over the DP and forcing a more difficult play at home.
But if givin the choice, I would take Tyner 100% of the time, and it is the manager's resposibility to know the oposition well enough to judge that.
How Often Do They Try?
I do not see any wisdom in preferring Barlett in that situation, nor do I see any overwhelming gain in loading the bases.
Overwhelming gains are not the issue. Nor is preferring Bartlett. The question is whether there is some overwhelming reason to prefer Bartlett to Tyner.
The question is which one is more likely to hit a fly ball to the outfield - when they are trying to. Because the fly ball and groundball percentages are artifacts of the approach a batter takes. And batters can, and often do, choose to change their approach depending on the situation.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 2:50 PM EDT reply actions
The REAL question
No the real question is, which one is most likely to hit a fly ball to the outfield deep enough to score a run. The answer is Bartlett. It's not even close.
Deep fly balls
I don't think that is obvious. Bartlett clearly has more power than Tyner, but that is a different issue than hitting a fly ball deep enough to score a run.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Spray charts
Bartlett, on the other hand, hits a lot of deep fly balls to right field for outs. And when he does hit it elsewhere in the air, he hits it deeper than Tyner.
The defense in that situation calls for the outfielders to play shallow enough to where they'll catch any Texas leaguers. That's the way a lot of teams defense Tyner (perhaps a little deeper) all the time. I can't think of a lot of guys who are routinely played in the outfield like Tyner is. Bartlett is defensed straight up.
What does that mean?
The question is what that means in a situation where he is trying to just hit a ball and bring the runner home and the pitcher is trying to prevent that.
There is a level of denial here that players consciously play to the situation that is fascinating. The players say they do, but there seems to be a whole group of fans who refuse to believe it.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions
A Small World Maybe
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
OK
by MauerPower @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Popular
No one said it was right in every situation. Just this one and those like it.
I can see a team taking their chances if it had been Punto, rather than walking him and giving an at bat to Mauer if they don't get a double play.
I can see a team looking over at first base and seeing Matt LeCroy and deciding they don't have to hold him on base and can wait until the ball is hit to cover the base. They will still get him out by 10 feet. (Of course not pinch running for Matt LeCroy in that situation requires even more extraordinary circumstances.)
But there was nothing extraordinary about this situation.
he fact is, you don't have any data to back your claim.
So what? I have years of baseball history on my side, isn't that enough?
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 30, 2006 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions
You
Why not meet in the middle?
Risks and Rewards
I think this is one of those cases where what looks like a simple question is actually much more complicated.
- There is more to catching a runner than the decision to throw to second. The first baseman has to hold the runner instead of playing the optimal fielding position. The second baseman or shortstop need to cover second base, which opens another hole in the infield defense. And the pitcher needs to throw to first to hold the runner.
- Assuming you do all those things there are a couple different outcomes:
b) Assuming the batter doesn't hit the ball, the runner goes and the catcher throws it with three potential outcomes, assuming the throw is on the mark:
(1) The runner is thrown out. And the runner stays at third
(2) The runner stops and is caught in a rundown
- I have no idea what the odds are for the runner to score from third during a rundown. 50-50? And then there is the possibility of an error while they are throwing the ball around trying to catch him.
(3) The runner is safe. This will happen about 2/3 of the time, maybe more. It depends on the pitcher, catcher and runner.
- So what you have with all the risks is a one third chance of getting an out. About the same as pitching to the batter if you had not made all the defensive moves that decreased the chances of getting the batter out.
- The alternative is to let the runner go to second and walk the bases full.
What do you gain? A force at the plate. The possibility of a double play. Your optimal defense against the batter. And, of course, none of the risks from holding the runner or throwing to second base.
by TT @ Twinkie Town on Sep 29, 2006 4:08 PM EDT reply actions

by 


















