Saturday Morning Rangers Notes: The Rich Harden Conundrum
Elvis Andrus is mobbed at first base after hitting a walk-off single on Friday, April 23rd.A small sampling of things we observed last night: (1) Neftali Feliz not being impervious to the blown save in a game which came dangerously close to slipping away, (2) Justin Smoak (0-for-2, 2 BB) already looking like an asset on both sides of the ball, drawing the ninth-inning walk that eventually proved the game-winning run, (3) Elvis Andrus, in his second-ever ultra-high-leverage (>5.0 LI) at-bat, atoning for his failure in the first such situation by smoking an 0-2 fastball for the walk-off single on "Elvis Night," and (4) Joaquin Arias -- who clearly expected to be greeted by a throng of teammates as he scored the winning run -- looking very confused as he realized that nobody was there to greet him because the entire team was converging upon Andrus some 90 feet away:
● It's rather ironic, in a way: the spring hand-wringing over C.J. Wilson not being able to suppress his pitches-per-inning count as a starter has proven completely unfounded to date, but "staff ace" Rich Harden is being thoroughly victimized by that very problem, to the extent that his viability as a rotation option is eroding a little biit more with each passing start. The earned-run and strikeout components of his latest pitching line (4.1 IP, 6 H, 2 ER, 4 BB, 5 K, 99 pitches) belie the actual quality of the pitching; his command was yet again erratic both laterally and vertically, and by the fifth inning he was consistently teeing up his fastball at 88-89 mph. A very unaethestically pleasing start.
I don't know exactly what's wrong with Harden, and even if I did I wouldn't be telling you because I'd be trying to monetize that information, but it seems more and more as though the pre-season observations of ESPN.com's Keith Law -- including the statement that Harden was "visibly favoring his right shoulder, reducing his velocity and his command" -- were right on the money, in which case ... well, is he physically in pain and doing a poor job of compensating for it? Or is he just a mechanical mess?
Whatever the answer, he may have only one more start to show something positive before being jettisoned to the disabled list; Derek Holland is the sexy pick to be the Rangers' de facto No. 6 starter, but various sources have emphasized the importance of Holland remaining at Triple-A Oklahoma City and polishing his secondary pitches in a lower-pressure environment, which could ultimately render Brandon McCarthy the more appealing choice from the standpoint of wanting to effectively balance pitcher development and immediate major league run prevention.
● Hall of Fame-enshrined manager Earl Weaver once famously observed that "on offense, your most precious possessions are your 27 outs." Ron Washington does not appear to share this viewpoint, a reality which most recently manifested in him calling for Elvis Andrus to lay down a sacrifice bunt with the fleet-footed tandem of Julio Borbon and Andres Blanco on first and second base, respectively, and no outs in the bottom of the fifth inning. Andrus succeeded in this endeavor, bringing up Michael Young with runners on second and third base and one out; he summarily grounded into a run-scoring fielder's choice, and Josh Hamilton grounded out to end the frame. Total runs scored: one.
The sacrifice bunt is a sensible strategic gambit in certain situations (most notably, in late-and-close situations where you're gunning for just one run to tie/win the game), but I cannot fathom why you would take the bat out of the hands of one of your most productive/patient hitters to date, sacrifice an out and effectively diminish your chances of creating the big offensive inning in the fifth inning of a game which you lead by only one run. It's contradictory to the goal of maximizing run production, and it's emblematic of a manager trying to do too much to influence the game ... or, looking at it a different way, trying harder to not lose than to actually win. And it's really not smart baseball.
● Vladimir Guerrero's .400-plus wOBA entering Friday evening's series opener was all well and good, but many of us were still looking for some indication, some sign, some reason to believe that his power stroke was still intact; after all, good offensive production largely contingent on maintaining a high batting average is already dicey enough, but even more so when you have the slow, deliberate gait of someone afraid that they're going to land funny and blow out their knee for good. Understandable, of course, but the point is still there.
In any event, rumors of Guerrero's imminent demise may have been exaggerated, as he launched a two-out, two-run missile to Greene's Hill in the bottom of the first inning with a contact-to-landing time under four seconds and an estimated distance of 411 feet. An encouraging sign, given that his only other homer thus far this season was a high-arcing sub-400-foot shot hit back on April 7th, which hardly conformed with the customary Guerrero power profile; last season, his home runs averaged 411 feet, and six of his 15 homers carried more than 420 feet. Home run distance isn't a perfect proxy for raw power, of course, but it has some utility when applied in this way, and it would be nice if this denoted the beginning of vintage-era Guerrero coming out of his shell.
24 Comments | in Analysis, Game Recaps, The Season
Reader Comments (24)
Andrus succeeded in this endeavor, bringing up Michael Young with runners on second and third base and one out; he summarily grounded into a run-scoring fielder's choice, and Josh Hamilton grounded out to end the frame. Total runs scored: one.
If this team could score runs they wouldn't need to bunt. They scored ONLY because of the bunt in the situation you describe - they would NOT have scored otherwise. How can you not be pro-bunt in that situation?
And it's really not smart baseball.
The Rangers managed 6 hits last night, scoring 5 runs. They scored 2 of the runs on a Vlad HR in the first inning. Take that away (and the Andrus game winner) and innings 2-9 they managed 3 hits. I have to give it to Washington here, *he did the right thing*. I know sabermetrics say otherwise but sabermetrics isn't everything.
Curious: do you just dislike Guerrero?
James - Great point, I hadn't even thought of that. If we don't bunt there, that inning may go wasted, and we're sitting here talking about a 4-3 loss. So even though initially I agreed with Joey that you want to go for the big inning, it's hard to argue that in this case. Maybe once the offense comes along, Wash will be more inclined to wait for the big inning.
I have to agree the bunt move was the right one. Steal was not an option, this catcher/pitcher combination had already gunned down two of our would be base stealers. The perfect bunt by Andrus put runners at second and third with one out and gave Young and Hamilton a shot to drive the runners in. Youngs grounder would have been a double play ball and Hamilton grounded weakly out. If one of them had gotten a hit, we still had a chance at a big inning.
I though Washingtons over managing tonight happened with his pitching staff. With few relievers available, he pulled Fancisco even though he had thrown only 6 pitches. He left very little protection in case the Tigers rallied and forced extra innings. Good thing we rallied in the ninth.
I agree with Joey, not on the particular situation, but on the fact that Washigton continues to push a wrong button almost every game. Wash needs to go!
I have to agree with Rangerfan1974 that Washigton continues to push a wrong button almost every game.
Wanting to let Fancisco build back up his confidence, and he yanks him after only 6 pitches??????
and they were excellent effective pitches...
He is over managing, trying to be the difference in the game...
trying to "I guess" to save his job. BUT:
He is not a MLB quality manager...
He will make someone an excellent coach, who is a players friend.
Great insight from JMason, Joel, and RF74.
Joey, I love you man but, This is still baseball, and winning baseball is about executing fundamentals. The sacrifice in that situation is exactly the right thing. Every night is different, the opposition, their defense, and their pitching that night has to be factored in. All the indicators, as Mason points out above were trending low scoring affair, hence the sacrifice.
Harden, I'm right there with you. Love his stuff, but his command issues suggest someone not right mechanically. Find a way to let him work on that elsewhere, we're likely to need him later, and bring up Holland, "it's time".
My take on Guerrero is that he's bringing a lot to the table not just in the batters box but playing a big role with the young Latin contingent in the clubhouse. I would get scathing heat from this over at LSB but with him it's not all about the #s.
So what is the over/under for putting Harden on the DL and calling up Holland? Two? Three?
Using CD as a baseline the big boys want to win this year so I will take the under.
Also agree with Rf74 and bpowell that there was zero reason not to bring Francisco back after such a short inning. If he's ultimately going to get straightened out he's got to pitch, and the situation as it played out after his first inning was perfect for that.
Wait, last thing before I get scorched on here as well, I'm not suggesting that Vlad's #s don't matter at all. I also wouldn't support him if at the All Star break he's hitting .275/.310/.400 with a handful of rbi. Just saying that we can't over-react after 16 games in April. I'm out, gotta go throw some BP.
McCarthy has been through some drastic changes in mechanics and repertoire, so I don't see him as being any surer a bet than Holland. Both could ideally use a bit more time to solidify their projects, but the way Holland is going I can see the Rangers continuing their very active trend of rewarding guys for doing the right things.
Not to change the subject but, now that we have Smoak, why is Garko still here? Is he really as bad as he looks at the plate? Surely there are better ways to use that roster spot. Max Ramirez comes to mind.
All the above comments aside..........Ryan and Daniels just need to get rid of Washington and get someone at the helm that can really lead this club and instill some enthusiasm and agressiveness in the art of playing the game!
Putting runners at second and third with less than two outs and your best hitters coming to the plate when nobody is scoring many runs, and you say that's not good baseball? Gimme a break.
The problem with the sacrifice is very simple, it slightly increases your chances of scoring one run but greatly decreases your chances of scoring multiple runs. If you need one run in the 7th or later go for the sacrifice, but earlier in the game you could actually hurt yourself playing for one.
@craig - More aggression needed? I thought one of the problems was not enough patience at the plate. Ron W should tell them to swing at everything?? That would make Smoak a failure already...
Actually, the one person in the dugout who might show a little more aggression is Ron W himself! I don't recall him ever being thrown out of a game, I suspect because he has too much respect for baseball to get involved in such histrionics. But the first two games in Boston, where missed umpiring calls cost a run in each game might have been a good time to channel Billy Martin! But perhaps such a performance is best produced in a home game?
@texrollie: If you dump Garko then who is the backup firstbaseman?
"He is over managing"
Sorry billy - as I take you to task yet again - but come on, man. When Wash doesn't pull out a floundering pitcher, he is roundly chastised for being too stubborn and giving too long a leash. Then, when he is too careful with a guy, he is "over managing." If that's the way you are going to set up the rules, then there is no way Wash can win. Sorry, but someone needs to tell you that. You're letting your own personal dislike for him get in the way of ... well... sense.
On the same front, I noticed that there was not one call to dump Feliz after his meltdown last night, nor did anyone complain that Wash should be fired, like they did after Franky's first blown save. (Yes, go check the old blogs - it's true). Hmmm.... wonder why that is?
#1 -Feliz is a rookie
#2 - The hits off him were not rockets
#3 - Just HOW many times has Feliz failed in the Major Leagues?
@robm If you dump Garko then who is the backup firstbaseman?
I suggest they make the trade for Lowell, a leader.
Have we seen the last of Chris Davis?
Given his issues with hitting is he a tradable player?
Have we seen the last of Chris Davis?
He hit a homerun last night for OKC
"f this team could score runs they wouldn't need to bunt. They scored ONLY because of the bunt in the situation you describe - they would NOT have scored otherwise. How can you not be pro-bunt in that situation?
A fallacy is being committed here in that you assume that they would NOT have scored if Andrus hadn't dropped that bunt down, that everything would have played out identically if, say, Andrus had struck out and it had still been runners on first and second with one out. Here's the thing about the decision ... you're taking the bat out of the hands of one of your most consistent batters to date, somebody who was hitting .283/.421/.370 entering the game and has been showing refined patience/bat control. Why is the assumption here that Elvis, with Scherzer somewhat on the ropes, WOULDN'T have worked a walk or knocked a base hit, rather than acknowledging the relatively good probability that he WOULD have done so?
By playing it "safe" there, you're forgoing a large number of good outcomes that don't result in outs (e.g. base hit, walk, HBP) and might precipitate a huge inning in exchange for the assurance that one of several bad outcomes that results in an out and doesn't advance one/both baserunners (e.g. double play, pop out, strikeout) ... the thing is that if you're mostly scared of a rally-killing double play, Andrus probably isn't the right guy to worry about, because he only grounded into four double plays in 541 PA last season.
The Rangers managed 6 hits last night, scoring 5 runs. They scored 2 of the runs on a Vlad HR in the first inning. Take that away (and the Andrus game winner) and innings 2-9 they managed 3 hits. I have to give it to Washington here, *he did the right thing*. I know sabermetrics say otherwise but sabermetrics isn't everything.
Okay, but let's not make this out to be as though Scherzer was really difficult to reach base against ... up to the point where Elvis dropped down the sac bunt, the Rangers had amassed three singles, a double, a home run, two walks and a HBP in four innings. This wasn't trending towards being a low-scoring affair when Elvis stepped up to the plate and when Washington made the decision to bunt ... rather, this was a game where Texas was getting two baserunners on per inning against Scherzer and appeared to have a decent chance of pulling way ahead. This isn't about me clinging to some sabermetric maxim. This is about me hating the decision to play for one or two runs (at most) when you're ahead by one run in the fifth inning, as opposed to going for the throat.
James - Great point, I hadn't even thought of that. If we don't bunt there, that inning may go wasted, and we're sitting here talking about a 4-3 loss. So even though initially I agreed with Joey that you want to go for the big inning, it's hard to argue that in this case. Maybe once the offense comes along, Wash will be more inclined to wait for the big inning.
Or maybe if the Rangers don't bunt there, they end up blowing the doors off the game during that fifth inning, and we're talking about a 9-3 win. This game can be played both ways.
I wonder if a lot of people here also liked Ron Washington's decision to sac-bunt Borbon with runners on first and second and nobody out in Saturday's game when the Rangers were leading 2-0 after just one inning -- an inning in which Texas had drilled four hits against Brad Thomas, an inning which seemed to be a precursor to an offensive breakout. There was no indication of that being a low-scoring affair, either.
Or how about last Wednesday's game in Boston, where Texas was down 5-4 in the top of the fourth inning, Borbon had just stolen second base with nobody out, and Ron Washington again took the bat out of Andrus's hands by having him lay down a sacrifice bunt ... in a one-run game ... in the fourth inning. Why in the hell would you play for a tie in the fourth inning?
Why is the assumption here that Elvis, with Scherzer somewhat on the ropes, WOULDN'T have worked a walk or knocked a base hit, rather than acknowledging the relatively good probability that he WOULD have done so?
We can play "what if" until the cows come home. The fact is, the Rangers scored the run and as I said, didn't do diddly squat after that until the game-winner in the 9th.
Or maybe if the Rangers don't bunt there, they end up blowing the doors off the game during that fifth inning, and we're talking about a 9-3 win. This game can be played both ways.
True. And I was looking today at Sacrifice bunts and how much the high-scoring teams and the low-scoring teams sacrifice.
Conclusion: well Ithe only one I could draw (without much in-depth study, mind you) is that some teams don't do it at all (I believe the Orioles had zero when I looked - and they are lousy) and the White Sox (run-scoring machine, right now) is about the middle of the pact.
So what conclusions would you draw from that? (I know, not enough data.)
Look, the object of the game is to score. If you can score one measly run an inning, you are scoring 8 to 9 runs a game. ONE run. Not four.
I do indeed understand your points - all well made - but if Texas could just score a run (with a sacrifice coming into play every inning) I am sure they would be happy. A run is a run is a run.
Joey is right. Moving runners up 90' in exchange for an out is a bad play. Bet Wash forgot that Andrus was his leadoff hitter ... not is #9. If you are bunting with your leadoff hitter ... then you are taking the bat out of your best OBP guy ... and reducing your opportunity to drive in runs from 3 to 2.