Much has been made of Hillman's desire to make things happen on the basepaths. Most of us are skeptical, because efforts to score based on baserunning are generally inconsequential compared to those based on, you know, being good at hitting.

But, I ran across this study today and thought I would share it with all the naysayers: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/11/runners_relucta.php

The long and short of it is that runners are too conservative in taking the extra base. So there is statistical support for an attempt to "make things happen on the basepaths," in the context of advancing an extra base on hits to the outfield.

The basic point is that success rates on such attempts are way higher than the break even point, which suggests that runners should be trying to advance more often.

There's going to be a follow-up article that will look at the actual effect this has on the number of runs scored.

Pretty great article from the Onion about Curtis Leskanic, just one of the mercenaries cruelly stolen from the Royals by the Red Sox for their 2004 championship run. Tony Graffanino, also known as the man who brought us Chip Ambres, Juan Cedeno, and Jorge de la Rosa, also gets a shout-out.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/red_sox_attempt_to_break_fabled

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3060643

This is one Atlanta import I would be thrilled with. I know we are all pleased with the improvement under McClure, but the fact is that coaching staffs always get reorganized when I new manager is hired. I believe so strongly in the mythical powers of Leo Mazzone that I would be willing to hire basically any manager if Leo came with him.

Amazingly, the 2007 campaign does not seem to have yielded any strong candidates for the Andy Sisco award. This award, as you remember, is given to the Royals pitcher who best embodies the spirit of Andy Sisco, posting terrible numbers despite coming off a good year that made everyone excited about his potential. The original statement of the award reads:

One player who fans have hope for in the upcoming season will horribly regress and live on only potential for the next season - The Mark Quinn/Andy Sisco award.

Blame for the current dearth of viable Andy Sisco Award candidates primarily lies with the 2006 pitching staff. Nobody with "potential" had a good season, so we were left with candidates who are in the middle of their careers. The selection process is further hampered by injuries to two of the preseason nominees.

The Candidates

Luke Hudson: A strong preseason favorite for the award, Hudson only appeared in one game this year. Many still harbor hope that he will make the starting rotation next year, a hope that is incompatible with the Andy Sisco award.

Joe Nelson: A little old for the award to begin with, Nelson did not appear this season.

Todd Wellemeyer: A serviceable reliever in 2006, Wellemeyer struggled early on with the Royals, posting an ERA of 10.34 in 15.2 innings. Unfortunately, he went on to post a 3.11 ERA in 63.2 innings with the Cardinals.

Scott Elarton: Doesn't really fit the profile since nobody thought he was any good. But, some thought he could eat some innings, and he was just so extraordinarily bad (10.46 ERA in 37 innings, with 21 BB and only 13 K) that he merits some consideration.

Jorge de la Rosa: His candidacy relies more on preseason expectations than on past success. After his slightly above replacement level performance in 2006, I'm not sure we were expecting much more than what we got this year. Also, he wasn't terrible.

Odalis Perez: He is who we thought he was, so I say we let him off the hook.

Denny Bautista: If the award could be given in absentia, he fits the profile. After showing flashes of his dynamite arm in early 2006, Bautista was traded to the Rockies, for whom he has thrown 8.2 innings with an era of 12.46 in 2007.

Tyler Lumsden: Another reach, Lumsden was seen by many as a rotation candidate for 2008 and an eventual 2-3 starter after being acquired for Mike MacDougal in 2006 and posting good numbers in AA. This year, however, he has regressed tremendously, with a 5.88 ERA in only 119.1 innings for AAA Omaha.

A key consideration in this debate will be Wellemeyer's success with the Cardinals: does it count against him, since he was successful, or does it count for him, since it was for the Cardinals? Alternatively, can we give the award to an injured player? In my opinion, the pitcher who best embodies the spirit of the award is Tyler Lumsden. But can we crown a minor leaguer? The decision is not mine to make.

We all know Dayton Moore's penchant for acquiring personnel from his former organization. I haven't weighed in yet, but let me just say I am wholly in favor - we have come a long way in terms of respect, professionalism, etc., and I think importing these guys has a great deal to do with that. Along those lines, here's my first suggestion of possible candidates to replace Buddy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGZUKHtW7vg

Some of you have probably seen this, but I figured it had to be done.

Prompted by the Joe Girardi debate in another thread, I thought I'd devote a diary to pitch counts. There are competing views:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1477

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-pitch-counts-hath-wrought-part-deux/

Thanks to marbotty and mazoboom for those links. In addition, Bill James and other luminaries have weighed in on the issue, and their views are related in the second link.

Here are my thoughts:

The baseball prospectus study is highly imprecise. Individual variation between pitchers is far greater than the precision of the study, so very little can be said about controlling the workload of any pitcher.

Based on Rany's data, it might be worth setting a hard cap of 130 pitches. There is no reason to assume that a pitcher has to stop at 100.

There is no evidence that increased workload leads to higher rates of injury. However, this might not hold for pitchers younger than 24 or so.

Most of my objection to pitch counts comes from how arbitrary they are. Everyone assumes a pitcher can throw about 100 pitches. Why? The only reason is because it is a nice round number. It takes a long time for pitchers to build up the reputation that they can go any longer.

In short, I would have no problem hiring a manager who "hates" pitch counts.

A number on this board consider themselves, at least to some extent, sabermetricians. I'm writing this diary in response to what I perceive to be slightly inaccurate interpretations of various sabermetric results.

I will often read blanket statements citing sabermetric results like "clutch hitting doesn't exist" and "managers have no effect." I want to call out the people who say things like this, because these statements in particular are incorrectly stated. In truth, almost every sabermetric result is overstated.

Current research has failed to show that clutch hitting does not exist - it has also failed to show that it exists. We cannot make the claim that it doesn't exist. It is probably less important than once perceived, but the fact is there hasn't been a good study on this.

The statement "managers have no effect" is meaningless without further specification. What people mean when they say this is that in game managerial decisions have little effect. This is mostly due to the fact that all managers basically operate the same way. But, studies on this always take player performance as a given, and ignore the effect managers can have on player performance.

I don't mean to provide the final word on this - only to start a conversation. The point I really want to get across, though, is that it is easy to dilute sabermetric results, take simplified versions of them as axioms, or recast them in ways that aren't correct.

Articles of interest:
Bill James
http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.pdf

Managers have an effect
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/evaluating_managers_part_1_of_2 /

We've talked about this a lot, but I thought you all might like to see this. I'm largely in agreement with the view that, as infuriating as Buddy is, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference to wait until the end of the season. Also, we're more likely to hire somebody good in the offseason.

Ken Rosenthal on managers that could be fired:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6817896

The part about Buddy:

Buddy Bell, Royals

There's little evidence to suggest that Bell is the right choice to spark the Royals' turnaround. There's also little reason to dismiss him before his contract expires at the end of the season.

Bradford Doolittle of the Kansas City Star points out that of the 116 managers who have managed at least 1,000 games, Bell owns the second-worst career winning percentage, .413. Of course, the quality of Bell's teams has something to do with his record -- and the 2007 Royals are another stinker.

Granted, Buddy Bell isn't given much to work with, but his record is still less-than-stellar.

Bell is one of the game's most respected figures, and general manager Dayton Moore isn't likely to embarrass him, particularly when he lacks an alternative. Another disappointing finish, however, will give Moore the justification he needs to replace a manager he inherited after taking over last season.

Just when I thought you couldn't do anything dumber, you do something like this. And COMPLETELY redeem yourself.

All of you, I'm sure, remember Tony Pena's getting doubled off second on a short pop up to center a couple days ago. I'll let JoePo relate it since he is a better writer than I:

"Pena was almost certainly safe on the play. There is no way the tag got him before he got back to the bag. But Buddy Bell did not argue the play ... and when asked about it afterward, Buddy (to his everlasting credit) said: 'I don't argue for stupid baseball.'"

Somebody needs to say something good about Buddy, so there's my contribution.

I know it's irrational to latch onto one thing and complain about how it represents Buddy Bell's idiocy. I think two events in this game pretty well capture it though:

Fourth inning. 2-2. No outs, runners on first and second. Alex Gordon lays down a sacrifice bunt.

Sixth inning. 2-2. One out, runner on third. Alex Gordon is intentionally walked.

The pitcher was the same in the two situations.

Here's what this means: both managers would rather have John Buck hitting than Alex Gordon, in basically equivalent situations. In the fourth, Buddy was willingly creating a situation that the Angles preferred.

Note: By no means do I think Scioscia is a good manager, but I think Bell comes off worse here.