Diamondbacks 2, A's 1: J-Up 1-Ups Oakland
Record: 39-34. Pace: 87-75. Change on last season: -3
Pop quiz. Bottom of the seventh inning and it's a 1-1 game. However, you have runners on the corners, and only one man out. The pitcher's spot is up, and you have the following pinch-hitters available on your bench:
Player A: .268/.308/.479, 16% strikeout rate
Player B: .235/.356/.388, 33% strikeout rate
Player C: .261/.333/.370, 41% strikeout rate
If you said, emphatically, "Player C," you are Bob Melvin. Because, with the game on the line in exactly the manner outlined above, he sent up the player with the worst OPS and highest K rate, pitcher Micah Owings, to hit [the other two were Drew and Salazar, the former rewarded for his three-hit night by getting dropped from the line-up]. The result, inevitably, rather than the go-ahead run, was a swinging K and the runner ended up stranded at third.
Much as we love Micah, and his ability to give us an extra hitter, it's time for him to be taken out of the pinch-hitter equation. That's four straight appearances in the role where he has struck out, and since his two-run homer back in April, he is 1-for-8 with five K's off the bench. We have better options - but not to Melvin's eye: he has used Owings more as a PH in June than in any other month - more than Burke, Montero or Salazar. Is it just coincidence that his last four starts have also seen Micah go 0-3 with a 9.95 ERA? Or is the unnecessary and unproductive pinch-hitting proving a distraction to our young starter?
That wasn't the only poor decision made by Melvin in the late innings. He also used up his first out by getting Snyder to sacrifice Young from first to second - a move that dropped our Win Probability by 2.6%. And when Jackson walked after Upton's homer, he inexplicably put on the hit-and-run for CoJack, with Special K at the plate and a full count. Yes, Mark Reynolds, currently ranked second in the majors for strikeouts. To no-one's surprise - except, it would appear, Bob Melvin's - the result was a strike 'em out, throw 'em out double-play, which ended any chance of us adding an insurance run before sending Lyon out there. As mentioned in the Gameday Thread, this was a game we won in spite of the Mad Scientist, rather than because of him.
Fortunately, Justin Upton rescued us from the questionable decision of our manager, leading off the eighth with a what can only be described as a bomb into the pool area, on a full-count pitch from Foulke. He was the only Diamondback to touch home-plate from the right direction this afternoon, as he also scored our opening run, doubling to lead off the fourth, and eventually coming home on Chris Young's sacrifice fly. Could the recent discussion about sending Upton down to Tucson have concentrated his mind? Not according to Justin:
There’s no confidence issues. It’s just baseball. A lot of people who don’t play the game don’t know how tough it is mentally and how physically draining it is on the body. You can so quickly lose your swing and your mental approach at the plate, and you’ve just got to find it again... It has been pretty tough, but in the end, it’s a game where you’re going to fail a lot, and it’s something you have to live with. But to play the way I did today, hopefully it turns things around.
Doug Davis was stellar once again, and deserved better than yet another high quality no-decision. He has now allowed one earned run in the past thirteen innings of work - however, DD still hasn't won since May 23rd. The reason is simply a lack of run support: while he has been on the mound in his past four starts, now covering 22.2 innings, the Diamondbacks have scored just four runs. Today, he was a little less economical - it took him 103 pitches, ending with a very helpful double-play, to get through six innings. However, the only damage was a bloop RBI single down the line by Jack Cust in the sixth. Said Doug, "I had everything working out there for me once again. It was just like the last outing. I executed getting ahead and that was the big thing, getting ahead and getting strike one and being able to expand the zone from there."
After him, it was on to the bullpen, and the seven strong innings thrown by Haren in Wednesday's game meant that the A-group were fully rested. Qualls, Peña and Lyon responded impeccably, retiring all nine hitters they face, with the win going to Tony. I was somewhat concerned about Lyon, as the A's hitters had owned him when they first met on Tuesday; however, he was back to normal form this afternoon and picked up his fifteenth save with a 1-2-3 ninth to complete the three-hitter. Not that our offense was exactly on fire, managing only five hits themselves, with two each for Upton and Young. We did manage five walks though, with Reynolds getting a pair.

[Click to enlarge, in new window]
Master of his domain: Justin Upton, +27.7%
Honorable Mention: Davis, +20.9%; Lyon, +16.8%; Peña +11.0%
God-emperor of suck: Augie Ojeda, -15..8%
Dishonorable mention: Owings, -11.5%, Hudson, -11.0%, Snyder -10.2%
I hope you all failed miserably to get any work done this afternoon. I know I did. :-) Thanks to those who similarly tried to look busy: DbacksSkins, dbacksfan01, srdmad, kishi, emilylovesthedbacks, hotclaws, luckycc, dahlian, soco, TwinnerA, snakecharmer, Diamondhacks, seton hall snake pit, 4 Corners Fan, Wimb and bcloirao. It was great to take a series which felt a long, long way out of grasp after the nightmare which was the opening drubbing, and will hopefully give us some good momentum as we head off into the realm of the DH, to take on the Twins and Red Sox on their home turf.
Who do you think should DH for us? I am leaning towards Tracy at the moment, allowing everyone to get in the lineup without us having to play out of their normal positions [Conor, thank you for your efforts in left]. However, especially for the Twins series, before Byrnes comes back, I wouldn't be surprised to see Melvin exercise his man-crush and put Micah in the role for at least one of the games. I'll close with this interesting paragraph stolen from Athletics Nation and their recap of the game. I made some very minor changes: does this sound at all familiar?
Thanks to the Angels’ Dodgers' own troubles, we are still hanging in there in the AL NL West, 3.5 4.5 games out up, but it’s no secret that the A’s D-backs are still at least one key element away from being a competitive team; they have flashes of talent, and a couple of good, young players who will develop, but they are ETA: still too inconsistent to be a competitive team, and they are not the team you want in a close, low-scoring game. At some point, how many times can you excuse a poor offensive performance by crediting the pitching?
0 recs |
37
comments
Read Related
Comments
Since they want to get Tracy as many ABs as possible
he should DH. I think the bigger problem with Owings pinch hitting is that someone needs to take him aside and say, “look, we know you love to hit, but we’re sending you in for a role. So do your damn job.” It’s the same problem nearly everytime we’re in a simple situation like that, everyone starts swinging for the fences and coming out of their shoes instead of playing smart baseball.
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
by soco on Jun 20, 2008 12:39 AM EDT 0 recs
Also
BUNTING (BUNTING) IS A HABIT
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CHEVY WITH THE BUTTERFLY DOORS
BUNTING (BUNTING) IS A HABIT
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
by soco on Jun 20, 2008 12:40 AM EDT 0 recs
I like the replaced recap from the A’s site.
I love having Micah’s bat in games he pitches. It is great to feel like he won’t be an automatic out. However, I am not so fond of using him as a pinch hitter. If we have to use a pitcher, then sure. But, other times…. not really. I would say Tracy should be the DH when we go to AL parks.
Ah, this series felt like old times. (Minus the whole Brandon Webb fiasco Tuesday.) Win a series, get outscored. Destined to beat Pythagoras again? I hope we don’t have to.
by SongBird on Jun 20, 2008 1:30 AM EDT 0 recs
I love having Micah’s bat in games he pitches. It is great to feel like he won’t be an automatic out. However, I am not so fond of using him as a pinch hitter.
And therein lies the rub: as many have pointed out, Micah is just not that good a hitter on the ML level. He’s a good hitter for a pitcher. There’s a huge difference there, though.
Have the Dodgers lost yet?
by DbacksSkins on
Jun 20, 2008 1:41 AM EDT
up
0 recs
He probably could be a better hitter
if he stopped taking such huge cuts.
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
by soco on
Jun 20, 2008 9:31 AM EDT
up
0 recs
If he took smaller cuts
He wouldn’t be Micah Owings. You wouldn’t get many homers or extra base hits from him. He’s been taking that big ol hack since he played little league probably. I doubt he’ll ever change.
by shoewizard on
Jun 20, 2008 12:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'd rather have a consistant pitcher
who gets singles and gappers, than a guy who tries to go yard every time out.
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
by soco on
Jun 20, 2008 7:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't think
shoe would disagree with you. I think he was just pointing it out.
Have the Dodgers lost yet?
by DbacksSkins on
Jun 20, 2008 11:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
NO HE MUST BE WRONG AND I MUST BE WRITE
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
by soco on
Jun 21, 2008 12:45 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I was thinking the same thing, but I figured if I said it,
that everyone would just disagree with me, because I’m me.
I do what I can, sometimes more, depends on the situation.
by srdmad on
Jun 21, 2008 10:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
We'll let you pass
this time.
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
by soco on
Jun 21, 2008 10:34 AM EDT
up
0 recs
srdmad, you're so wrong,
because you’re you.
Have the Dodgers lost yet?
by DbacksSkins on
Jun 21, 2008 7:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If your're saying I'm wrong, then you are also saying that soco is wrong.
I do what I can, sometimes more, depends on the situation.
by srdmad on
Jun 22, 2008 1:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It was a joke,
responding to:
I was thinking the same thing, but I figured if I said it, that everyone would just disagree with me, because I’m me.
But, yeah. Actually, soco is wrong too, because he’s him.
Have the Dodgers lost yet?
by DbacksSkins on
Jun 22, 2008 7:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
People forget
Last year in his first 24 G, 42 PA’s, he was hitting just 205/220/359 fort a .579 OPS and 1 HR
Then he went off that great game in Atlanta. From that game to the end of the season he was 12 for 21 with 6 doubles and 3 homers.
This year for his first 13 G, 27 PA’s he was 10 for 24, with 3 doubles and a homer.
Since then…...2 for 23 with 14 K’s.
I don’t know if anyone really has a handle on what kind of hitter he is at this level. It’s all such a small sample size.
The totality of his MLB hitting experience is all of 116 PA’s.
Anyway….if he doesn’t start pitching better, nobody is going to care how good he hits.
by shoewizard on Jun 20, 2008 4:16 AM EDT 0 recs
I just find it so refreshing
To walk into work and be able to browse all the baseball sites i want without having to read about our woes :)
Good result last night, solid defence, great pitching, and just enough offence to get the job done.
I like our chances against the Twins, the pitching matchups seem in our favour but as has already been pointed out Micah has been woefull with both batt and ball lately. I can’t help but wonder if his struggles at the plate are affecting his overall confidence. The press and even BoMel is building him up so much as a hitter that maybe when he’s scuffling there it’s distracting him on the mound. For that very reason I wouldn’t DH the guy, I’d DH Tracy or maybe O-Dawg if he needs a day off to rest.
So...time for another drink then?
by Wimb on Jun 20, 2008 8:13 AM EDT 0 recs
Melvin Managerial Blunders
Bunting Upton to 2nd base: yuk.
Hit and run with CoJack and Reynolds – I don’t think it was a hit and run. I think Melvin was just sending CoJack on a 3-2 count (1 out) to stay out of the double play. However, it was still STUPID. After CoJack went the first time (foul ball) I was SCREAMING at Melvin not to send him again. He didn’t listen ;-)
Micah pinch hitting. I agree that Micah is not a great hitter, just a great hitter for a pitcher. However, to be fair to Melvin, there was a left-handed pitcher in the game. I think the Player A/B/C stats you show on the previous page should be splits against left-handers, at least for Drew and Salazar, since they probably have enough at bats for that to be a realistic comparison
by Craig from Az on Jun 20, 2008 2:21 PM EDT 0 recs
Ask and ye shall receive...
Drew is the only one to have a significant number of bats against LHP this year [Salazar is 2-for-8] – Stephen has a line of .253/.259/.494. He has more power, but doesn’t take any walks: one, in 87 PAs! His K’s are about the same rate [17 in 83, a 20% clip] His career OPS is basically identical: .748 vs RHP, .749 vs LHP. Micah’s career line vs. LHP is .205/.244/.333, for an OPS of .577, with 21 K’s in 39 at-bats. Small sample size, but basically, there is no way he should have been at the plate.
[ I think Melvin was just sending CoJack on a 3-2 count (1 out) to stay out of the double play. ]
That worked so well, didn’t it. :-)
by Jim McLennan on
Jun 20, 2008 2:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Stupid
That worked so well, didn’t it. :-)
I don’t think it was that. I think it WAS a hit n run—for the reason that Mark doesn’t ground into very many DPs.
Still, he strikes out a lot, so either way, it was f*ing stupid.
Have the Dodgers lost yet?
by DbacksSkins on
Jun 20, 2008 2:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Paging Mr Robinson
Small sample size, but basically, there is no way he [Owings] should have been at the plate.
I’ll concede Owings hasnt hit much lately, but dont you think you’re anti-Melvin bias is on display here? Owings still has a higher career OBP than Drew, and a higher OPS ( a lot higher, actually). I’m not saying Micah’s hands down the best choice, but to say he has no business being up there should probably be reserved for when Melvin plucks Micah off some fantasy bench, eschewing a young Frank Robinson.
The Melvin decision I question, and whose rationale I think has bigger ramifications for the team, is his decision to stick with Doug Davis in the sixth. We’ve seen this loyalty thing backfire with Randy, and I think we really lucked out with that hard hit double play yesterday. Daron Sutton’s “Cancer Man” was visibly falling apart that whole inning, batter by batter, pitch by pitch. And Bob just kind of let it happen, presumably to give DD a shot at the W. It’s an old debate, with short and long term, substantive and psychological ramifications, but that’s where it appears to me that Bob is almost cavalier with the game on the line.
by Diamondhacks on
Jun 20, 2008 5:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Are you serious?
Owings has 162 at bats in all of professional baseball. He has hit well, but for the most part it’s been the result of being pitched to as if he was just a pitcher. As a pinch hitter, he’s hitting .188/.316/.375. It’s a small sample size, to be sure, but everything is a small sample size with him.
Owings doesn’t have any business pinch hitting when there is a competent major league hitter like Drew available on the bench.
by dahlian on
Jun 20, 2008 6:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm serious
He has hit well, but for the most part it’s been the result of being pitched to as if he was just a pitcher.
That could be true, but it’s just speculation. Further, while Drew is establishing himself as a “competent” major league hitter, there’s early evidence that Owings might actually be a “good” one.
I dont think we really disagree that much on the numbers. I’m just saying there’s a lot that goes into these decisions, some of which we have zero visibility into, and to be stridently advocating one player over another (which you guys are doing and I’m not) based on these broad but small samples is overdoing it, IMO.
by Diamondhacks on
Jun 20, 2008 7:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sample sizes are not really relevant here
Before I choose to deliberately insert a player into a specific situation, I would want evidence that he can handle similar situations. Here, in particular, before I put a player in as a pinch-hitter against a southpaw, I would want to see some evidence from his regular at-bats that he can handle left-handed pitching.
There is no such evidence in the case of Owings. He has been chewed up and spat out by LHP since he arrived in the majors. There is, basically, almost zero evidence he can hit them.
I would love to have been able to ask Melvin why he opted for Owings over Drew: there may be hidden reasons. to which we’re not privy. But it equally well might just be one of Melvin’s irrational decisions, for which he is renowned – and but for Upton, this one could very easily have cost us the series.
by Jim McLennan on
Jun 20, 2008 7:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree about the sample sizes
in terms of Owings, but by saying he “cant hit” lefties based on those samples, arent you just cherrypicking and contradicting yourself? I could just as easily offer up these not terribly relevant splits:
Late and Close: Drew .693 OPS Owings .733
1st AB v Pitcher: Drew .736 Owings .902
High Leverage: Drew .704 Owings 1.065
It’s not just you – but there just seems to be this knee jerk, almost default position around here to blame Melvin when things go wrong – to find snips of data here and there to “prove” he’s a moron – and maybe in the euphoria of wins, a corresponding lack of managerial credit due.
by Diamondhacks on
Jun 20, 2008 8:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
[ It’s not just you – but there just seems to be this knee jerk, almost default position around here to blame Melvin when things go wrong ]
Check the Gameday Thread. In this case, we were blaming Melvin before things went wrong. As soon as we saw who was pinch-hitting, the disapproval started. We take no pleasure in being proven right. However, when the team is not playing well, and not getting the breaks, then errors of management such as this – and, really, there’s no other way to describe it – become all the more important. In a 7-1 game, I doubt anyone would have mentioned it much.
I don’t blame Melvin for things he can’t really control, such as Upton’s slump. But the choice of pinch-hitters is something that is entirely within his remit, and he should be held accountable for the consequences of those decisions, don’t you think? Our collective PH line this year is a woeful .198/.297/.267 – 218 points of OPS down on last year. Part of that is due to the different roster, unquestionably, but part of it is Melvin using the wrong hitters in the wrong situations, I believe.
by Jim McLennan on
Jun 21, 2008 12:12 AM EDT
up
0 recs
To the extent
that you praised BoMel last year for the MLB leading HR’s off the bench, I suppose you’re right, he can be “blamed” for the poor pinch hitting so far, but I believe it’s more a case of small sample sizes seeking a mean than evidence Bob suddenly forgot how to manage.
As you know, ph stats generally lag well below overall hitting numbers, and I wouldnt be surprised to see the Dback’s “woeful” bench numbers approach league norm bench numbers before too long.
I agree that you guys disparage many of Bob’s choices before the decision plays out – every time Chris Burke grabs a bat just adds to the list – but considering ph’s fail 70-75% of the time anyway, it seems like a preordained way to feel smarter than the manager most of the time.
by Diamondhacks on
Jun 21, 2008 2:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not so much the fail...
As the method of fail. At that point, we really needed someone to put the ball in play, but Melvin chose the player on his bench who was least likely to do that.
by Jim McLennan on
Jun 22, 2008 12:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If you wants splits against Lefties....
How about the guy with a .286/.375/.429 line against them this season? But no one talks about sending Webb out there to pinch hit…
Currently blaming the D-backs struggles on: the Diamondbacks scoring fewer runs than the other team. Well, I was bound to get it right eventually.
by kishi on
Jun 20, 2008 3:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Y'know
Over the past few games, I’d say Haren has been taking better swings than Owings. Six K’s in 33 at-bats is a pretty healthy ratio for a pitcher and he’s averaging more than 4 pitcher per plate-appearance.
by Jim McLennan on
Jun 20, 2008 3:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I should have a prospect profile on Rusty Ryal done.
But, I am sick as a dog today, so it’s just gonna have to wait till this weekend.
by Zephon on Jun 20, 2008 3:02 PM EDT 0 recs
Is it better to bunt or hit away?
I think this is actually a very complex question which the Win Expectancy Tool isnt designed to answer. First, it doesnt isolate sacrifices from the population of “like” plate situations (ie same inning, score, # of outs); indeed, Snyder’s successful bunts are actually included in that initial .669 “hit away” figure you champion.
Second, you’re comparing an output (runner on second, one out) with the input (runner on first, no outs), when we really need to evaluate alternative outcomes. IOW, we’re comparing win % when Snyder does something (advances the runner with an out) to Win % when he does nothing, and nothing is not an option (outcome) here. We need to somehow isolate what happens when he bunts (successfully and not) from what happens when he hits away (hits, walks, outs, double plays) – and this doesnt do it.
Third, the tool doesnt begin to account for the complex of individual matchups (hitting, pitching, baserunning, fielding) and environmental factors (ie park, does my hitter have the flu,etc), unique to each of these late inning situations – it, understandably, mushes all that together and spits out an aggregate result – one that lumps together PAs from Albert Pujols, BK Kim and Chris Snyder, within which mad scientists evaluate their real time chances. ( For instance, that .669 Win % (runner on first, no outs) is likely not .669 with Snyder at the plate – and secondary probabilities branch out from there.)
It’s a fascinating tool – I learned, for example, that two out Win % is actually higher in the middle innings with a runner on second compared to a runner on third – I just question it’s particular application here.
by Diamondhacks on Jun 20, 2008 4:17 PM EDT 0 recs
Put simply
Really, my key issue is that Melvin’s tactic, assuming the best-case scenario of a good bunt, actually reduced our odds of winning. We have a higher chance of winning before the sacrifice bunt than after it was successfully executed. I can’t get on board with a tactic that helps the opposition.
Certainly, there are other factors that come into play, but I can’t believe that the average production of a regular position player at the plate, in the seventh inning of a tied game, is worse than 2.6%. While there are scenarios that would be worse [a double-play being the most obvious]. the frequency and positive value of positive outcomes such as a walk, hit, etc. would appear likely to outweigh those. I haven’t done a full analysis, but I suspect, You’d need a very bad [sub.200] hitter to make the bunt a better option.
Yes, the .669 includes all hitters, not just Snyder – but he is not Pujols, nor Kim; and so it doesn’t appear to me that the odds would differ significantly from the .669 figure [especially as the quality of the hitter is only one fraction of the overall WP]. The better the hitter, the bigger the sin of using them to bunt – but, in my mind, the cutoff point below which a hitter should be bunting is a long way below Chris Snyder.
[ Owings still has a higher career OBP than Drew, and a higher OPS ( a lot higher, actually).... I’ll concede Owings hasnt hit much lately, but dont you think you’re anti-Melvin bias is on display here? ]
You must have missed the part where I pointed out that Micah has never been able to hit LHP – like the one on the mound he was brought in to face: his line against them is .205/.244/.333, for an OPS of .577, with 21 K’s in 39 at-bats. Questioning his use against a southpaw doesn’t require any “anti-Melvin” bias; I’d want a lot better evidence he can hit them before I considered using him in such a situation..
by Jim McLennan on
Jun 20, 2008 6:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
But the real question is:
Is the Win Expectancy Tool “true science”?
;-)
Have the Dodgers lost yet?
by DbacksSkins on
Jun 20, 2008 11:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Second, you’re comparing an output (runner on second, one out) with the input (runner on first, no outs), when we really need to evaluate alternative outcomes. IOW, we’re comparing win % when Snyder does something (advances the runner with an out) to Win % when he does nothing, and nothing is not an option (outcome) here. We need to somehow isolate what happens when he bunts (successfully and not) from what happens when he hits away (hits, walks, outs, double plays) – and this doesnt do it.
This already happens. The result of bunting is being compared to the result of “everything else”. Win expectancy actually portrays bunting in the best possible light, because it only looks at the succesful result and ignores the possibility of the bunter striking out or grounding into a double play. If doing anything results in a .669 WE and a succesful bunt lowers that WE, than logically, “not-bunting” must have a higher WE than .669.
by dahlian on Jun 20, 2008 6:11 PM EDT 0 recs
Couple things. First, you’re appying very aggregate data to a singular situation with entirely unique variables. I think Jim is on the right track re “cut off” points – although I think it’s more like a network of “cut offs (ie hitter, pitcher, baserunner, how good is my bullpen if I eke across one run, etc).
and a succesful bunt lowers that WE
The data doesnt really tell us that. At the risk of sounding pedantic, the data tells us that a number of scenarios, incl but not limited to successful sacrifice bunts, lowers that WE. There are a ton of non-bunt scenarios embedded in that .657, and even though the general WE of all these scenarios is slightly lower than the WE of all the man on first and no out scenarios(ie .669), attributing that aggregate decline to bunting outcomes sounds good but is not logically watertight.
It could be (I’m not saying it is) that runners who are generally bunted to second score more often than runners who advance on a groundout. Maybe the runners who are bunted over are faster than the general pool (Young certainly is) and are more prone to get caught stealing when they’re not sacrificed to second. My point is that, generally, and even less so to the specific case, the WE tool doesnt tell us any of that. Not about bunting.
by Diamondhacks on
Jun 20, 2008 7:58 PM EDT
up
0 recs

















