Anger Management

Think back to last Sunday's Royals game, the last one before the All-Star Break. In the bottom of the ninth, with the Royals down by one run, Eric Hosmer tried to steal third. It was a close play, but I thought he was safe when it happened. Replays didn't prove it, but it certainly looked like there was a good chance Hosmer was safe. So instead of the tying run being on third with one out, there was no one on with two out. Hosmer argued (well, questioned might be a better word) briefly with the umpire as he got up. He insisted to the media after the game that he was safe.

I know lots of people didn't care for this gamble. Personally, I didn't have a problem with it. The Royals have obviously put an emphasis on stolen bases and baserunning as keys to their offense this year. While we can debate the merits of that strategy, I can't fault them for sticking to their guns in a game situation.

No, my problem with the play was that Ned Yost didn't even go out and argue the call. Now, it's true that manager-umpire arguments are mostly exercises in futility. But I think there is value in a manager sticking up for his players, particularly young players.

Tactics matter, but many times a manager has little or no effect on the outcome of a game. However, a manager can help his team every day by psychological means. I'm a stats kind of guy--I believe they can tell us a lot about who is actually a valuable player, who is overrated, where a guy is best suited to play in the field, and so on. But stats have never, and probably never will, tell us about the human aspect of the game.

Given that, I feel a manager can really help boost his team's confidence by standing up for them when they are on the wrong end of a bad call. It's just human nature to perform better when you know the boss has your back.

If I may switch sports...not to disappoint MU or K-State fans reading this, but I am a KU fan. And I'm one of those rare KU fans who cares as much about the football team as I do about the basketball team. And I believe with all my heart that Mark Mangino's comments after a horrible

offensive pass interference call cost the Jayhawks a game against Texas in 2004 helped make KU football competitive, at least for a few years. Starting the week after that game, KU went 39-21 until the end of Mangino's tenure. And many players pointed to that press conference as a turning point for the program.

Go watch the video I linked--fast-forward to the 3:40 mark for Mangino's postgame comments. It's commonly referred to as a rant, but watching it it's apparent that Mangino knows exactly what he's doing--sending a message to the league, the officials, and especially his own players that KU football would no longer be a pushover.

I'm not saying Yost needs to develop a Mangino-like attitude (insert eating joke here), especially given what we know now about Mangino's treatment of players and assistant coaches, which ended up being his downfall. But I do think it would help the Royals if Yost would stand up for his players a little more.

I think we all know that young players are not as likely as veterans to get the benefit of the doubt from umpires. It may not be fair, but it's been that way in baseball for decades. When a team is full of young players, the franchise has been irrelevant for almost 20 years now, and a joke for the better part of the last 15 years, it's going to be tough to get the umpires' respect. That's where a veteran manager, who has also played and coached in the majors, can help. I'm not saying Ned Yost should become Bobby Cox, but he has only been ejected once this year and once last year, as best as I can tell (if anybody knows where to find a comprehensive list of manager ejections, please let me know!). All these young players the Royals have? They have enough problems and pressure trying to figure out the game at its highest level. I think it would help them somewhat if Yost were a little more aggressive with the umpires.

I'm Just Sittin' On The Shelf

(From "All Over You")

Are the Royals using their bench enough?

I think the notion of a "set lineup" is not very realistic. Most players need a day of rest here and there, plus injuries--even if they are minor--are almost inevitable over 6 months of baseball. And normally catchers do not play day games after night games. So, while there are certainly regulars and a batting order that gets used the most, it is unlikely that a team will run the same order out there more than 20-25 times in a season. This is probably even truer in the American League, where a team can give that slugging outfielder or first baseman a game at DH and "rest" him that way.

But the Royals, with one-third of the season gone, seem intent on turning that conventional wisdom on its head. Maybe they've decided using the same nine players every day is the new market inefficiency.

This isn't a sermon on which batting order the Royals should use. Lots of studies by smarter people than me have decided that lineup order doesn't greatly effect a team's offensive output. The Royals could probably help themselves there by hitting David DeJesus first and Mike Aviles second.

No, this is more about the Royals basically ignoring Brayan Pena this season. Or about Mitch Maier needing Rick Ankiel's injury to get a chance. Or a mindset that keeps Kila Ka'aihue in Omaha.

In 56 games this season before Saturday, the Royals have used a batting order of Podsednik, Aviles, DeJesus, Butler, Guillen, Callaspo, Maier, Betancourt, Kendall a total of 10 times. I could say in 21 games this season, since Ned Yost went with that order in his first four games as manager, and he has been responsible for all 10 of those uses. You have to go back to 1989 to find an order the Royals used more frequently in one season (and that order was used 14 times).

I should add that I don't have major objections to that lineup. I would move Aviles to shortstop and put Chris Getz in at second base, but it's obvious the Royals love them some Yuniesky Betancourt. And hey, Yuni hasn't been a complete train wreck on offense so far this season. He even has managed to get his Ultimate Zone Rating up to 0.0 instead of last year's horrific -11.4. The problem is, this is probably about the best we can ever expect from Betancourt, and it's essentially a league-average shortstop.

Anyway, not only do the Royals use the same batting order every night, it seems like they are intent on having a team full of Cal Ripkens--playing every inning of every game. The Royals have six of the top 50 AL players in innings played. No one else has that many. Jason Kendall leads all AL catchers in innings played by a wide margin (65). He has been in there for 92.2% of all innings the Royals have played. That seems odd for a 36-year-old catcher. As a result of this, we still don't know if Brayan Pena can be a useful major league catcher. Sure, he hasn't played particularly well when he's been in there, but it might be tough to find a groove when you play 39 innings in two months.

To be fair, Kendall has been decent. He has no power, but he's done a decent job of getting on base. Defensively, he has at least helped the Royals cut down significantly on the wild pitches and passed balls that were such problems last year. The team has gone from 89 and 14 in 2009 to 17 and 2 this season, respectively. And he is throwing at basestealers at the same rate (25%) as Royals catchers did last year. I would just like to see Pena get more of a shot.

All over the field, there are Royals who have played practically every out this season. Alberto Callaspo has played 97.8% of the team's innings; he would be third in the AL at third base if he hadn't played 99 innings at second base. Billy Butler has played 97.4% of the innings; he is third in the league for first basemen. Scott Podsednik (91.8%, second in the league in left field), Betancourt (91.6%, 6th in the league at shortstop) and David DeJesus (91.2%, fifth in the league in right field) are all in the top 50 overall in innings. Even Jose Guillen has gotten in the act, starting 55 of the 56 games and pinch-hitting (and playing right field) in the other one.

Part of the problem is the Royals' insistence on carrying eight relief pitchers, which they have done for a good chunk of this season. Even now, with a more normal seven relievers, they don't have a true backup at first base, nor do they have anyone on the bench who you would want to give Guillen a day off at DH. This is where Ka'aihue could help. Like most Royals fans, I want to see Kila get a shot, a real shot, at the major league level. Although if the Royals are going to keep using their current philosophy of lineup management, perhaps he is better served getting regular playing time at Omaha. Still, as a left-handed hitter, he would be a nice option to have on the bench.

My main worry is that these guys will crash sometime in August if they don't get a day off here and there. I'm not calling for Willie Bloomquist or Wilson Betemit to get more playing time; in fact, I think the Royals are doing a better job this year of not overusing Bloomquist. It just seems to me that a bench of Kila, Bloomquist, Pena, Getz/Betancourt and an outfielder from Omaha (either David Lough or Jordan Parraz; the Royals have said they want to keep Alex Gordon there to keep working on being an outfielder, and I'm inclined to agree with that idea) would give Yost the ability to give everyone a little rest, plus some lineup and strategic flexibility.

It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

Well, that was sudden.

I think we all knew Trey Hillman would not be the Royals' manager for long, it was just a question of how long he would last. I admit I was surprised when Hillman was fired Thursday afternoon (or to be technical, when it was announced Thursday afternoon)--I figured he would last for a few more weeks, and there was even a good chance he'd finish out the year and his contract, then not brought back next year.

I don't take joy in anyone losing their job, but Hillman needed to go. When the Royals hired him, I really thought he had a chance to be a success. But I was wrong; I greatly underestimated the need for a manager to have spent some time in the majors as a player or coach before taking over a major league team. That sort of experience doesn't guarantee success, but it now seems obvious it helps give even a rookie manager some credibility. Looking back, it is apparent Hillman lost most of his team almost before his tenure even started, and I believe ultimately that doomed him as a manager. And then there were the odd strategic decisions, the irrational desire to use sacrifice bunts, and the inability to stand up to veteran players (letting Gil Meche talk him into leaving Meche in games, letting Jason Kendall play everyday, etc.), among Hillman's other failings.

I am OK with the Royals hiring Ned Yost as Hillman's replacement. Yost will probably never be confused with John McGraw, but he has played, coached and managed in the majors, and has even had some success (let's discuss that in a minute).

Ultimately, however, a manager is only as good as the players he's given. I do believe the Royals have more talent than their current 13-23 record shows, but not a lot more. Even if Hillman had managed every game perfectly this year (by which I mean, chosen the best option when he picked a relief pitcher or pinch hitter, or picked the right time to steal or bunt or whatever), how many more wins would that be worth? Three? Four? Whatever it would be, I'm sure it wouldn't be enough to vault the Royals into contention. For example, look at the May 6 game in Texas--Hillman brings in his best reliever (Joakim Soria) to hold a 1-run lead in the 8th inning. I suppose you could argue that Hillman should have let Robinson Tejeda, who had looked good getting the first two out in the inning, finish the job. But I think every Royals fan probably felt good about Soria coming in with a 1-run lead. Two homers later, the Royals had another loss.

That said, I believe one area where a manager can make a difference is in setting the atmosphere and mood of the team. At any level of baseball, it is impossible to play well if you are pressing too much or trying too hard. So I can only imagine what it's like for players at the highest level of the sport when they find themselves in a pennant race in September. And this is an area where Yost apparently failed in his previous managerial stint--the Brewers fired him with 12 games left in the 2008 season, as they desperately tried to hold on to a playoff spot. That Brewers team started September with the second-best record in the NL, 4.5 games behind the division-leading Cubs and with a 5.5 game lead in the wild-card race. They proceeded to go 3-11 over the next two weeks and blow the entire wild-card lead. That's when the Brewers replaced Yost, and they were able to capture the wild-card spot.

I suppose the bright side here is that the Royals are a long ways away from any sort of playoff contention. And to be fair, I think Yost deserves some credit for leading the Brewers' young talent from a 106-loss season the year before he took over to the brink of a playoff spot. It just looks to me that, based on history, if Yost helps the Royals get to playoff contention, they may need to find someone else to finish the job. For now, though, the emphasis should remain the same: getting young, talented players to the majors ready to play, and then put them in position to succeed. Yost is supposed to be good at this part of the job. We will see.