One Last Look Back: Francisco Liriano's Frustrating Fourth Frame
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose." - Captain Jean-Luc Picard to Lieutenant Commander Data, in response to Data's confusion at being beaten by Sirma Kolrami at Strategema.
Francisco Liriano made his mistakes yesterday. Of course he did. But he did a lot of things right, and he had a lot of things happen where a vast majority of the time the situation would play out in his favor. This didn't happen yesterday though, as that fourth inning destroyed his outing and any realistic chance of the Twins coming away with the win.
There was some gnashing of teeth in regards to Ron Gardenhire's comment that he'd like Liriano to "pitch to contact". Pitch to contact is one of those baseball terms that people generally feel they understand yet has never really been qualified. Around the blogosphere and Twitterverse, the general concensus that I got was that people interpreted "pitch to contact" to mean throw more strikes. Specifically, throw more strikes early. The idea was that a more aggressive stretegy would allow Liriano to go deeper into the game, and that his stuff and ability to miss bats would take care of itself.
In some sense, that worked. For a majority of Liriano's afternoon he got results. In fact, the Royals only had a few well-hit balls yesterday, and this is illustrated by Inside Edge's post-game pitcher report card.
| Key Stat |
13th April, 2011 |
MLB Average |
Grade |
| Well-hit avg vs off-speed strikes |
.042 |
.064 |
A |
|
Well-hit avg of at-bats |
.174 |
.203 |
A - |
| Well-hit avg of strikes |
.075 |
.075 |
B |
And there's more. Liriano was still getting plenty of swings and misses, he was efficient (although you can give the Royals plenty of credit for that, too), and he was inducing plenty of swings outside the strike zone.
But in that fourth inning, the hits just kept on falling.
We'll look at the hits in that fourth inning, so you can see exactly how good most of his pitches were, but first here's your necessary information inning summary:
Fastballs (Strikes): 11 (7)
Sliders (Strikes): 8 (7)
Changeups (Strikes): 8 (6)
Total Pitches (Strikes): 27 (20)
Batters Faced: 10
Hits: 8
(Images courtesy of the great Brooks Baseball):
Each location is a result pitch (all singles except Aviles, who somehow got that slider down the line for a double). Five of those pitches are either on the edge of the zone or out of it. Only two would be in areas that I'd call dangerous, and both were sliders left up and tailing away from the two left-handed batters Alex Gordon and Chris Getz.
I'm not trying to let Liriano off the hook here, but at the same time it's really hard to see such terrible results when he really wasn't pitching that badly. Ultimately, sometimes this is just the way it goes. This had to be a nightmare of an inning for Liriano; between weak grounders, flare and bloop singles, and balls either being misplayed or missing a fielder's glove by an inch, the top of the fourth simply was the epitome of Murphy's Law.
And for those Star Trek savvy among you, I know the quote at the top doesn't quite work completely here. Not just because Liriano wasn't actually perfect this inning, but also because in the end, the Strategema rematch isn't won by Data. Data just changes tactics and forces a stalemate. Kolrami forfeits, frustrated to no end because Data isn't actually playing to win, but playing to keep Kolrami from winning.
Liriano won't need to change tactics the next time he pitches against the Royals. He'll just need to hope that the law of averages swing back in his favor.
28 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Excellent post
There is a lot of interesting information here. Liriano’s outing wasn’t nearly as bad as the standard numbers would suggest.
Starting with a Star Trek quote?
(deep breath)
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDD!
(In all seriousness, very very good post.)
by Jon Marthaler on Apr 14, 2011 9:49 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Ha! Rec'd
I thought the same thing [A.) Nerd; B.) Great post].
And for the episode recap – wow, how interesting...
…watching 2 characters play a board game for a stalemate. You know you’ll never get that hour of your life back, right? It’s gone…forever.
"...and we'll see ya tomorrow night!" - Jack Buck, Game 6, 1991 World Series
by WindyCityTwinsFan on Apr 14, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
You Have to See It
It’s definitely better than watching a real chess game, it was computerized and all, and probably was less than 5 minutes of the actual episode.
Great way to start a post, although if it happened more often, it would become a little old.
The post shows how amazingly bad Liriano’s luck was. Unfortunately I can’t convince my friends it really was mostly bad luck, and not bad pitching. Though, they also don’t believe much in sabermetrics.
No, I didn't spell Maurer wrong. But I do get asked if I'm related to Joe a lot.
by Maurer Power on Apr 15, 2011 6:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Good stuff
I was at the game and had that same intuitive sense, but you put numbers on it. The first three innings I kept telling my wife how good it was to see Liriano back in form. And he looked almost as good after the 4th.
j
Reminded me of an Alan Anderson inning against the Royals
Gave up 14 hits on 12 pitches, all of them bloops or bleeders on low sliders or change-ups. Coincidentally, it was against the Royals the year after he won the ERA title.
What Larry needed to do there is throw a couple under their chins. They were leaning out and just sticking the bat out on the first pitch.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Sorry, should read 12 hits on 14 pitches. Doh
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
Cuddyer and Valencia make those plays
and we have a completely different game
The beard abides.
by Jason Kubel's Beard on Apr 14, 2011 11:42 AM EDT reply actions
Valencia should make the play
I’m shocked when Cuddyer makes any play at 2B the same way I am when my first grader catches a pop-up.
by DJL44 on Apr 14, 2011 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
But to Valencia's credit
He made a serious attempt at making that play down the line at third. He just couldn’t reach it, but I am happy for his effort.
Good post. Hmm. Makes me miss Nick Punto.
"It happened in the moment, and it happened." - Carlos Gomez
There are players better than Nick Punto
They were available as free agents and signed elsewhere for not much $$. Orlando Cabrera would be a pretty nice backup plan. Felipe Lopez would be fine also. If your backup plan is so bad that putting Cuddyer at 2B seems like a good idea then you didn’t plan very well.
At least Luke Hughes is accustomed to playing second base.
If nothing else I doubt he fumbles the relay from right field like Cuddyer did.
by tobynotjason on Apr 14, 2011 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I said this before in yesterday's game recap, And I'll say it again...
What happened yesterday is the fault of the coaches including Ron Gardenhire for failing to adjust the infield to counter Kansas City’s adjustments. Second, Drew Butera is at fault for not making sure the damage is limited as I suspected yesterday. He should have tried to go low and inside for the result pitch as it would result in a tee-ball player being able to field the ball for the out. I didn’t say this yesterday, but the pitching graphs feel that Lirlano might be trying to induce the double play after the second or third batter. Finally, the bullpen got into the same trouble in the sixth and 9th innings as well, and it is because we failed to make the adjustments and Kansas City did.
This is Gardenhire’s fault for playing Cuddyer at second base. This is what Luke Hughes was called up to do.
by Brady Eyestone on Apr 14, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I know, but what are you going to do?
The only thing short of relieving Gardy of his duties as manager is hope that Cuddy gets injured. Not that I would wish injury on him.
I would’ve put Cuddyer (.300/.417/.500 vs. Davies) at first base and sat Morneau (.136/.321/.186 vs. Davies) and put our second baseman at second base.
Someone should show Gardy baseball-reference.com.
by Brady Eyestone on Apr 14, 2011 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Small sample size matchups...
with no predictive value are about the only “advanced” statistical tool Gardenhire does use.
by tobynotjason on Apr 14, 2011 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
there is some predictive value
If the data is an outlier after a dozen plate appearances (8K, 1H or 4HR, 3BB) then it probably means something. Cuddyer’s line isn’t especially odd in this case and Morneau’s isn’t either.
Mmmmm...
Maybe if you have a truly bizarre, extreme outlier with a sample size a lot larger than that I’d let it be the deciding factor in an “all other things being equal” situation.
But mostly not, unless deeper analysis gives good reason to believe there’s something about the players’ general profiles underlying the numbers. Good discussion on Tango’s blog – the Book has a chapter on this that talks about player types. MGL right on as usual in pointing out that it may be just as good to ignore the exceptions (to forgetting about SSS matchup numbers) that may exist since acknowledging them would likely result in the frequency of “exceptions found” by baseball people being an order of magnitude greater than it actually is.
by tobynotjason on Apr 14, 2011 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s about 30 PAs that span Davies whole career.
by Brady Eyestone on Apr 14, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Which doesn't tell you much of anything, unless you identify a whole slew of other pitchers...
…with similar stuff and find that the hitters have similar numbers against them.
Per The Book, even 60 PAs in a match-up doesn’t mean much against a hitter with at least two or three full seasons’ full numbers.
You can actually read the beginning of chapter three, Mano a Mano, which shows you the predictive value 3 seasons of matchup outliers had for a 4th “test” season. (Answer: diddly.)
by tobynotjason on Apr 14, 2011 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
To be clear,
I have no problem with your Hughes > Cuddyer at 2nd base and Cuddyer spelling Morneau at 1st base v. LHP, especially if you just wanna get Morneau a day off. But the match-up numbers wouldn’t affect my thinking one way or the other.
by tobynotjason on Apr 14, 2011 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

by 



























