Trey Hillman, Supergenius

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1230

Quote:

---

Two on, two out, one-run lead, eighth inning.

Jim Thome batting.

You have Joakim Soria.

You use Kyle Farnsworth.

Gone.

I know it happens all the time, but it’s really freaking stupid every single time. This is what the creation of the closer position has wrought: teams losing games, frequently, without using their best reliever, for no reason other than the misguided notion that getting three outs is their role, and getting four isn’t.

(For that matter, you also have Ron Mahay. Why did you acquire him if not to have him face Jim Thome in the eighth inning of a one-run game? Ron Gardenhire lost the division last year for want of a similar clue and Jose Mijares.)

Some people deserve to lose.

---

Yup. He made pretty much the worst possible choice you can make.

Putting Farnsworth out there to start the 8th wasn't wise, but he did an okay job, it was a bunt single and then a soft hit on a hit and run that put runners on base, but after he struck out Quentin, leaving him in to face the lefty Thome is just unacceptable. That's the completely retarded part.

wow.

I wouldn't have signed Farnsworth to start with.

um Soria is a closer! Closers pitch in the 9th, this was clearly not the 9th inning and was in no way a situation where Soria should be pitching.

Not for that much money, but the misuse of him is the bad part. All teams have relievers that they aren't comfortable using in the 8th of a one run game, Hillman's problem is he can't distinguish between a good one and a bad one. Hell, he put Hideo Nomo into a close game early last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

um Soria is a closer! Closers pitch in the 9th, this was clearly not the 9th inning and was in no way a situation where Soria should be pitching.

---

I hope your being sarcastic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

um Soria is a closer! Closers pitch in the 9th, this was clearly not the 9th inning and was in no way a situation where Soria should be pitching.

---

Joke??

Soria, Cruz, Mahay, or leaving Gil out there were all better choices.

Soria, with his incredibly deep repertoire and history as a starter, would be a great guy to test out a return to the Gossage/Sutter style of closer usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Soria, with his incredibly deep repertoire and history as a starter, would be a great guy to test out a return to the Gossage/Sutter style of closer usage.

---

Or Dan Quinsberry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Soria, with his incredibly deep repertoire and history as a starter, would be a great guy to test out a return to the Gossage/Sutter style of closer usage.

---

The bad part is that Hillman and McClure (pitching coach) spent a lot of the offseason talking about how they were going to start using Soria for longer outings. I mean...what better opportunity than bringing him in against Thome. Just so so stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

um Soria is a closer! Closers pitch in the 9th, this was clearly not the 9th inning and was in no way a situation where Soria should be pitching.

---

I hope you're kidding. Bringing in a top closer with two outs already racked up in the 8th makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Or Dan Quinsberry

---

Or Dan Quisenberry even.

RSR : Exactly how long HAVE you been away from school? Your spelling is de-evolving before out very eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

RSR : Exactly how long HAVE you been away from school? Your spelling is de-evolving before our very eyes.

---

It helps if you spell everything in your sentence correctly when talking about someone's spelling :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

It helps if you spell everything in your sentence correctly when talking about someone's spelling :p

---

It helps if you... hmmmm, you forgot... you need to remember... damn, there's nothing to correct you on!

(Although you forgot punctuation.) :p

Forget Soria, where the hell is Juan Cruz?

But that's ok, cause Leyland effed up too. Brandon Lyon enters with 2 out in the 8th, gives up a single and then a homer to blow the lead. Brandon Inge bails him out with a game tying homer in the 9th, so what does Leyland do? Oh, throw not at all effective Brandon Lyon out there, and watch him give up a walk, a single, and eventually, the game.

At least they got the W :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

At least they got the W :D

---

Joke? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Joke? lol

---

Part joke part real I suppose; if that makes any sense :)

I don't get it. :confused:

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/roy...y/1130790.html

Posnanski article on the "Farnsworth incident"

Boy, you gotta be some special kind of ***** to come up with gems like this. He didn't want to bring in a lefty (Mahay) because he wasn't a "lefty specialist" and "is better in the 6th than in the 8th." Also, he's stunned that Posnanski, a freaking baseball writer, wanted to ask him a question about the game.

WHAT THE ALF:JD:LAFOIEAHFOIDHOIPFH!??!!??!?!?!

What the hell? Seriously. Wow.


Here's Rany's rant.

well Royal's fans, based on this quote :

Quote:

---

He [Hillman] paused: “I believe in Kyle Fansworth. This time, he got the pitch up. But I believe in him to get the out in that situation.”

---

Better luck next year.

Well, I can see any manager sticking with their guy, after one game (the first game, no less) with a bad outing. Especially with the $9mil (ack, cough) investment they put in him. Can't exactly come out and say 'Yah, shoot, he sucks, sorry guys, he's relegated to mop up for the next two years."

Signing Farnsworth at that rate was a bad move. Leaving him in (or even putting him in) was a bad move. Having faith in Farnsworth for whatever reasons, over another inning of Soria or a guy like Mahay or Cruz, appears to be a bad move.

But standing up for your guy no matter what - well, on the first day of the season, that's not a bad move.

As a side note; hiring a guy named Trey as your manager might be the problem. Everyone knows the rules of when to go with a guy named Trey:
1) as the lead guitarist for your Vermont-based neohippy jam band
2) as your co-writer and co-cartoonist for an animated series about 4 youngsters in Colorado
3) when you are looking for a good pot dealer

I don't see 'baseball manager' up there. If you are looking for Managers, you should go for guys named Ron, Joe, Tito, Lou, Dave or Tony. No Treys.

So the Manager should intentionally handicap himself becasue the GM screwed up?

From Rany's blog

Quote:

---

If Hillman decided that he needed to justify the fact that one reliever is making $4.5 million a year and the other one is making $3 million a year – or if Moore is forcing Hillman to make that decision – as far as I’m concerned, that’s a fireable offense.

---

There was NO reason that Farnsworth wasn't the 5th best option in that (Soria -Mahay- Cruz - Meche then Farnsworth.)

This wasn't a manager making a borderline decision that was defensible (like Cox putting Gonzales in on Opening day - or even Larussa using Motte)

This was a Manager making an awful decision that no one, other than him, thought was good, with no sound backing.

Sure, that's all true.

But do you expect the manager to come out and say he DOESN'T believe in Farnsworth getting an out? To slander his own reliever? What would that do for the guys playing under him, morale-wise (especially on the Royals, where losing might become a frequent occurence)?

I think we've already stated the bajillion ways in which this is a bad move. It's being analyzed everywhere as such. But you can't expect anyone to make a public statement that they don't believe in their reliever, for any situation. That stuff happens behind closed doors, or the guy gets sent down to AAA or has an "injury" (cough, Dontrelle Willis, cough)

Farnsworth isn't the greatest 8th inning guy, but a manager isn't going to say that. Even if Hillman had a change of heart and realized his massive error in judgement, and realizes Mahay/Cruz/Soria is better in the 8th, he's going to make a statement to confirm his belief in the pitcher, because he wants that pitcher to be an effective, confident contributor in the next 161 games.

Even if (hopefully) that contribution comes in the 6th/7th, or during lopsided mop-up situations.

I agree that what he says after the game means nothing, of course he's not going to say anything that causes a player to lose confidence or whatever.

However, if he puts Farnsworth out there in the 8th again, I might have to hop a flight to KC and kick some ass.

lol - you go KK.

I think Hillman should find himself back in Japan if he runs Farnsworth out there again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KowboyKoop

However, if he puts Farnsworth out there in the 8th again, I might have to hop a flight to KC and kick some ass.

---

Point is there never should have been a 1st time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Point is there never should have been a 1st time.

---

......I think everyone knows this. Well, everyone except the manager of the Royals.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=8721 subscriber only but good quote:

Quote:

---

On top of the Kyle Farnsworth/Trey Hillman rant yesterday, you may be thinking I'm becoming a bit shrill on this subject. Maybe so, but it's time for this nonsense to end. There shouldn't be "eighth-inning" and "ninth-inning" relievers. Partitioning relievers by how many outs are left in the game was stupid when managers started doing it, and it's even moreso now, as we find every bullpen in the game set up this way.

To all 30 managers, I issue this directive: Figure out who your best pitchers are, or more accurately, who your best pitchers are for various situations. For when you need a complete inning against the middle of the lineup; for when you need multiple innings; for when you need a ground ball; for when you need a strikeout; for when you need to get Jim Thome out. Then use them accordingly regardless of what time it is. Stop relying on the crutch of which inning you're in to make these decisions for you. Your pitchers want roles? Their role is to get guys out.

These are not difficult concepts. Facing the middle of the lineup in the eighth is harder than facing the bottom of the order in the ninth, no matter how many ex-players who are invested in the myth of "closer" say otherwise. Stop using your better pitchers in lower-leverage spots. Getting four outs instead of three isn't going to break anything that wasn't going to break anyway, so stop losing games without getting your best pitcher into them.

Bullpen management is horribly broken in today's game, and the first manager to fix it—Joe Maddon, I'm looking at you—is going to the Hall of Fame.

---

This thread is pretty funny.

No matter who was brought in, that guy might not've "had it" that day. That's the thing about bringing in relievers, even though you know their past track record, you don't really know what they'll have THAT day.

You do know, however, what you've seen the last 7 innings.

And only 90 couple pitches.

So sad.

So so sad.

I still scratch my head at how the human arm must've evolved so much in just 30 years because in the 60's and 70's, pitcher's threw [gasp!] over 100 pitches routinely. And a quick glance at the DL's shows pitchers today are hurt just as much (more I think) then back then.

I know you're all tired of hearing it........ but I'm just sayin'. :)

That is a good quote, and I agree with him about Maddon as well.

More on poor bullpen management...this time, about Bobby Cox and the Braves.

Yeah, no shortage of dumb decisions in the early going.

This is why I'm devoting my new blog to this sort of thing. Should be a fun time </shameless plug>

The one in your sig? I'll be sure to check it out.

Reading the intro, you sound just like me! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

More on poor bullpen management...this time, about Bobby Cox and the Braves.

---

Not sure i agree with this as much. I gues in game two he could have saved Gonzales and pitched Soriano 2 innings - as I assume he wasn't in game 3 base on his injury history.

But if the Boyer/Moylan/Campanillo combo coughed up a 7 run lead in game 3, why would using them in game 2 with a 4 run lead have been a better decision.

This is more revisionist history than the Hillman issue - guessing Farnsworth was a bad choice to pitch to Thome when you had 2 better pitchers warmed up - is different than any combo of 3 guys on a ML roster coughing up an 7 run lead and walking in 4 runs. - you have to assume you get 3 innings and not give up 8 runs from anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

But if the Boyer/Moylan/Campanillo combo coughed up a 7 run lead in game 3, why would using them in game 2 with a 4 run lead have been a better decision.

---

The chance of them giving up a 7 run lead is incredibly slim. They'll likely never do that again. Seidman says that you use the lesser reliever in the 4 run situation, and then, if they start to struggle, bring in the better one...that way, you save your best relievers for when they're really needed...like the next day when your bullpen does struggle incredibly.

A 4 run lead with one inning to go...the chances of your team winning, regardless of whose on the mound, are in the order of 98+%. You don't need your best reliever for that situation.

the thing with cox is, it's poor bullpen management, but that's not why they lost last night. they lost last night because boyer/moylan/etc. pitched like assholes. And frankly, if they can't hold that lead, what good is using them in the last 2 games gonna do? they would've just blown that lead instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

A 4 run lead with one inning to go...the chances of your team winning, regardless of whose on the mound, are in the order of 98+%. You don't need your best reliever for that situation.

---

True, but I also assume the odds of pretty close to the same if your up by seven runs with 3 innings.

And I agree that Cox made a gaffe by using both Gonzales (who I assume was unavail base on pitch 2 consec games) and Soriano ( who I assume was unvail do to not wanting to over use him with his injury history). But my point is that this was pretty minor, and only looks bad because of how huge a choke job three relievers did, and far less Cox's decision.

Of course, had game three gone inot the ninth 2-1 braves and Cox was in the same position it would have looked worse :)