Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 213: The Royals and Not Hitting Homers/The Physical Signs of Scouting

Episode Date: May 30, 2013

Ben and Sam discuss the Royals’ power outage and the comments made by their hitting coach, then talk about surprising physical signs that scouts study.

Hi, Tom. Chicks dig the long ball. Good morning and welcome to episode 213 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Prospectus. I am Ben Lindberg, joined by Sam Miller. I got a... Howdy. start i got a tweet today uh from someone who who asked that we get a a logo for our podcast i don't get it because uh where does our wait our podcast is a non-physical thing where would the logo go uh apparently on itunes or the person who tweeted at me mentioned an iPhone podcast app. And I guess the, I think

if you go to our podcast on iTunes, I think it just shows the baseball prospectus logo, but now there is a new BP podcast from Paul Sporer and Doug Thorburn, and it also has the BP logo as its logo. So apparently this is, it is confusing and difficult to, to navigate and distinguish between the two podcasts. So, so you're saying that Doug and Paul should get a logo. Well, uh, you and I are not going to make a logo, but, uh, if we have any, any gifted listeners who feel like, uh, showing off their, their image manipulation skills or their logo design skills and winning our gratitude and the fame that would come from designing the logo for Effectively Wild. We are accepting submissions, I guess.

Yeah. Didn't Pete have a logo when we were doing the team? I guess. Didn't Pete have a logo when we were doing the team? Yes, there was a logo for the Squeeze, that segment. But it was not an Effectively Wild. I don't know what an Effectively Wild logo would be. It seems like it's kind of hard to convey that concept in in a still image i'm currently looking up entertainment weekly's logo to see if it can be stolen i don't know we could just do like a it is it's just a ew it says ew so we'll just use that ew yeah i don't know i mean we could we could use a foot stomping on a cricket or something.

Or, I don't know. Two on the nose. I'm sure we have very talented, creative listeners. What's your topic today, Ben? Other than the logo, I feel like we should probably talk about the Royals. Okay. And I want to talk about, I guess I want to talk about the international draft and its effect on scouting, I guess. Okay. So why don't you go first? Okay. So the last time we talked about the Royals, it was a happier time for the Royals. They, I don't think, have won since the day that we talked about them. And they've had kind of an incredible power outage.

They sort of got on base and sort of hit for some power in April and really haven't since then. And they have hit, did they hit me? They did not hit any home runs on Wednesday night. So they have still hit, I think, two home runs since May 14th. Both of those home runs by Miguel Tejada. And there are, of course, all kinds of funny punchline stats that people have come up with. Other teams pitching staffs out-homering the

Royals since then, or... Uniesky Betancourt out-homering the Royals. Or Deanna Navarro out-homering the Royals in one game on Wednesday night. So anyway, kind of incredible, incredible period of not hitting for power. incredible period of not hitting for power. And, uh, of course the, the Royals hitting coach spoke, uh, about this Jack, Jack Maloof. And if they do have to, they, this season have two, I don't know whether one is, is the primary and one is the assistant maybe. Um, but Jack Maloof, uh, had a bunch of comments on Fox sports,KansasCity.com in an interview by Jeffrey Flanagan yesterday. And it was kind of like, I guess on Tuesday, Eric Wedge's comments about Sabermetrics and Dustin Ackley kind of took Twitter by storm.

And there was a sort of a knee-jerk reaction to that. storm and there was a sort of a knee jerk reaction to that. And then there was the reaction to the reaction where people kind of considered whether maybe he actually had a point and, and the initial reaction had, had been an overreaction. So I wonder, I wonder, I mean, the, the initial reaction to Jack Maloof's comments has, has been, I guess, just as swift. And I mean, there have been just as many jokes made at the Royals expense. Why don't you tell us what Jack Maloof's comments were? Yes, I will do that. So basically he said, there is just no reward here for us to try and hit home runs.

We try to stay down on the ball, be more line drive oriented, and do more situational hitting, at least through the first two or three rounds at home runs. We try to stay down on the ball, be more line drive oriented and do more situational hitting at least through the first two or three rounds at home here. I don't know what two or three rounds means batting practice rounds. And then I guess the punchline line was that's why I'm not overly concerned because I think we'll lead the league in fewest home runs again this year, which is a leading the league in fewest home runs is an interesting way to put it uh and he and he is he is not concerned because they're going to do that which is also a strange way to put it right we're right on we're right on pace to lead the league

yes uh he says we don't we're leading the league we are right uh we don Right. It's a positive spin, I guess, on it. We don't have a 40-homer guy in the middle of the lineup. The Royals never have a 40-homer guy in the middle of the lineup. And then he kind of kept saying, I'm not making excuses, and then sort of made excuses and sort of pointed to the lack of service time that some of these players have. He said, we're looking at players, whether it's Sal Perez or Lorenzo Cain or Eric Hosmer or Mike Moustakis, they don't have much service time. Not an excuse, but it's a fact. And then, of course,

I guess it was Flanagan asked him why it is that other teams seem to be able to hit home runs in Kauffman. And I mean, to be clear, Kauffman is a tough place to hit home runs. It's not old Petco or Safeco or the Coliseum, but it's a tough place to hit home runs. It's sort of neutral-ish overall as far as runs scored, I believe, but not an easy place to hit home runs. overall as far as runs scored, I believe, but not an easy place to hit home runs. But the Royals have been out-homered at home, I think something like three to one this season. And his explanation of that was, here's the thing. Other teams come in here from Anaheim or wherever, and they have their swing already down. This park doesn't even enter into their minds when they hit here. They have their swings

the same swings because it pays dividends for them at home uh but what we try to do with our players is be better at situational hitting so he's saying that that these other teams that do not have to cope with uh a park that's hard to hit homers in just come in and they are still swinging for the fences and so they hit balls over them whereas the royals always have to play there so they have i guess adjusted their swing to kind of go the other way and not try to hit homers um because they think that that's not a winning strategy in 81 games a year so right so can can I, so there's basically, we're talking about three separate things going on here right now. And I think it's probably a mistake to, to conflate them. Uh,

one is what the words he used, which are obviously gibberish. I mean, they don't make any sense. Uh, they aren't particularly consistent with each other uh they're not uh i would i would say they're not particularly eloquent and my guess is that um jack maloof uh is probably not like the best guy to interview that he probably doesn't hasn't i don't know doesn't do a lot of interviews probably and um well, maybe, maybe he does. It's you almost wish he had just kind of said no comment. Uh, yeah. You want him to like, you know, defend himself or explain himself, but I guess better than that. Yeah. I mean, it sounds, my guess is that if you asked Jack Maloof like about Sal Perez's, uh, you know, back elbow or something like he would be

fairly articulate. That's something that he, you know, probably thinks about and talks about when you ask him to kind of do these big issue things. It doesn't surprise me that, um, you know, that maybe the thoughts weren't like super coherent. My, my guess is that he has never had this conversation with Ned Yost and said those same things. This is very clearly, probably, I might be wrong completely, but this could clearly be like this was his attempt to say, to give the kind of answers he thinks you're supposed to give in public, and they just came out all weird and mangled and awful. I mean, they're horrible answers.

They don't make any sense at all. They're horrible answers. They don't make any sense at all. Right. They're awful answers. So I think it's fair to say that Jack Maloof's answers in this case were poor. Second thing, though, is that it doesn't tell us anything about what Jack Maloof is telling hitters or what the Royals – is his name Jack Maloof? Yes. Okay, good. Or what the Royals' offensive strategy is or whether they're properly instructing their hitters.

My guess is that they're doing a great job instructing their hitters and that they're telling their hitters more or less what every other coach tells every other hitter and that they probably are telling them hit line drives and use all fields and go up the middle and stay back on the ball and all these things that are probably fairly mainstream thoughts. I mean, most, it's very rare that you're going to find a batting, a hitting instructor who's going to say, oh yeah, I tell my guys swing for the fences every time.

That's just not, that's not how they talk to the media. And for the most part, that's not really, I don't think how they talk to the players. Sometimes you do hear that from players, but it's usually a complaint, it seems like, from a guy who kind of naturally goes the other way, who's forced to try to pull. Oh, right, yes. Like the Martini example. Going back a bit more, like Sean Green in Toronto, I think, and Paul O'Neill in Cincinnati were examples of guys where the team just wanted them to try to hit home runs,

and they kind of wanted to go the other way, and then they left the team and went somewhere else and flourished outside of that team. Yeah, but presuming that we don't have a great reason to think otherwise, probably the words that Jack Maloof used don't necessarily reflect the instructions that he and the coaching staff are giving to the players. So that's part two. And part three is the Royals' offense has been really bad. Their players, well, I think that's true. That seems basically true to me, but maybe it's average. It's roughly average or something. I'll look it up.

I mean, obviously, they don't walk, and they don't hit for power, so those are both things that you would prefer your offense to do. Yeah, so they have an 88 OPS plus, so that's quite a bit below average. And, I mean, clearly, even if they were even if they, they were, you know, you give them more credit than that. I mean, it's hard not to acknowledge that Eric Hosmer is a gigantic disappointment. Mike Moustakis is a big disappointment. By true average, they are second worst in the AL after, after the White Sox. Uh-huh. Uh, you know, Jeff Rancourt is, is, is awful. And, um, you know, it's a combination of the players that they've put out there.

I mean, Chris Getz is not going to be a good hitter, and Jeff Frank Corr is probably not going to be a good hitter, and also players being, you know, tremendous flops. Yeah, so that's the more concerning thing. Because, I mean, it's concerning that a team maybe would give Jeff Frank Corr an everyday job, or Chris Getz an everyday job, and that's team maybe would give Jeff Francois an everyday job or Chris gets an everyday job. And that's not something that you, you want to see, but it's, it's even more disturbing when, when a top prospect comes up and, and sort of turns into one of those guys. And then you wonder whether the team is at all at fault for that. I mean, you, you kind of, you kind of played Royals hitting coach, uh, and, and you spent a week watching Eric Hosmer.

And I think you made a pretty convincing case that he is mechanically not the same guy that he was when he came up. And so that has to be either the Royals haven't identified or fixed the flaws that you seem to identify? I mean, in some of the images and gifs you showed, I mean, he's basically falling over every time he swings. He looks just incredibly unstable. And so I don't know whether they are at all to blame for that or whether that's something that he has just done on his own, but they've been unable to fix it, at least.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that the Royals have given us a lot of good reasons to question their personnel decisions. They've given us, I would say, some good reason to question their player development. And those are both some, you know, basically those are both serious issues, uh, that, that keep them from, you know, from winning. Um, the, the words that, that, that their hitting coach used in an interview seem like fairly low hanging fruit and not the most relevant thing, if that makes sense.

It's like when, it's like when they would say, it's like when they would sign Unibettencourt over and over again. Because it's fairly easy to identify, a lot of times we would make fun of the words that they would use in describing Unibettencourt. They would talk about how great his defense was. And so you'd mock the words, but the words don't really necessarily reflect any sort of truth. I mean, they have to say words. But they signed him. That's the thing.

They signed him. The thing that was mockable is that they signed him. The thing that was not really mockable is that they said good things about the guy they signed. Obviously, they're going to say good things about him. But they must have believed those things, right? No, not necessarily. I mean guy they signed obviously they're going to say good things but they must just believe those things right or no not necessarily i mean they signed him i mean they obviously they they well like i said i think that it's sort of conflating two issues i mean you they their actions say that they like him their words kind of dovetail with that, but don't really contribute anything to that. I mean, their words are meant, how do I put this?

Their actions are meant to win baseball games. And so they can be judged in good faith. Their words are meant to present a positive image of the team. And so you can't really take them in good faith. And so even though there should be some correlation between the two, I mean, there should be some correlation between the two, but one is, I think, fair game and the other one is sort of pointless. It's buying into the idea that their words mean anything, which they don't. I guess so.

Well, yeah, I mean, I guess it's almost, it's just extraneous to talk about the words because what counts is the actions. And yet, I mean, it's sort of a pattern with them saying certain words about certain players, I guess. I mean, there's no reason to think that their words don't reflect what they actually believe when they are signing those players, right? It's not like they were saddled with those players for some reason and sort of made the best of it. I mean, they went out and got those players. Yeah. It's not the Yankees getting Vernon Wells

and then like talking about how much upside he has when really it was just like a super by low fill a, fill a spot kind of thing. So, uh, so that's true. Um, and that's what I, I mean, that's why I say there's, there's a correlation there. It's just that, that one of the, one of the things that they did has a hundred percent, uh, uh, kind of, uh, significance in evaluating them. And the other one has like i don't know some percentage but it's a lot lower than 100 but would you feel more confident i mean what if maloof had said we're not hitting for enough power i wish we were hitting for more power we'll we'll try to hit for more power wouldn't that be more encouraging than – It would be.

I mean, it would be, but I don't know that it should be. I mean, we fall in love with coaching staffs that say the right things. I mean, this came up with Maniacta, right, where we – I think we talked about it on this show where Maniacta says all the right things. But, you know, none of us really has any idea whether maniacta is ever going to win and um uh you know i mean there's a reason that teams keep moving on from them and so it makes you wonder and i mean yeah i mean clearly it would have been nice to have a hitting instructor come out and sound completely grounded in reality and say i mean it's pretty easy to say the right things in this situation the right things are uh you know yeah we're working with all these guys we want to help them identify good pitches to hit and do some damage we'd love to

hit more home runs there's no doubt that homers are a good outcome but we're not going to be single-minded in our approach and i like a lot of the at-bats that they're having and you know they're putting they're putting good wood on the ball even when it doesn't go over the wall um the question that i mean the thing that's going through jack maloof's mind when he's having this conversation with a reporter, though, is how is what I'm going to say going to get misinterpreted by my players into something that makes them think I don't have confidence in them or that I'm criticizing them or that I'm passing the blame on them or that I don't have any hope. And so it's this weird triple filter that's probably going through his mind and that makes it hard for him to necessarily be eloquent in the moment. It does make them, it makes them look a little inconsistent as an organization philosophically, I think, just because, I mean, last year they didn't hit a lot of home runs and their hitting coach, Kevin Seitzer, who was kind of like a patience and go the other way type was replaced.

And I think basically from reading Joe Posnanski's story about it the other day, it was Ned Yost's decision. He wanted to hit for more power and wanted someone who encouraged hitters to hit for power. and wanted someone who encouraged hitters to hit for power. And so they replaced Seitzer, and Jost said that it was kind of to get more power out of the hitters and said that he thought that guys like Hosmer and Moustakis and Perez and Kane could hit 20 or more homers. And then here we are just a few months later, and the guy who replaced seitzer and

supposedly would help them hit for more power is going way out of his way to try to say that power doesn't matter or is counterproductive in kaufman or i don't know it it makes them seem like they're not on the same page. You kind of want the same message, I guess, from everyone on the coaching staff, at least publicly. Yeah, you do, but today's different than three months ago. Today, you have to think about what mindset the hitters are in right now and how they're going to read it. That's primarily what these guys are talking to the media for or what they're thinking. They're talking to the media for the players,

and so that's a big part of it. How are the players going to respond to this? And you're right. We don't know that this is anything like what he's telling his players, but if it were what he were telling his players, that's probably not such a good thing, right? I mean, you have Eric Hosmer come up with like 80 power or whatever. That doesn't seem like the kind of guy that you want to discourage

from hitting home runs, I would think. I don't think there's any guy that you want to discourage from hitting home runs. Well, I mean, there are guys. Well, no, anybody who you can get to hit home runs. I mean, there's Willie Mays. You would probably, there are guys you discourage from trying to hit home runs. Right. And Eric Hosmer is not a guy you would try to discourage from hitting home runs.

Okay. All right. Homers. Those are great. I think so all right resolved homers are good um so uh wow i don't have much time uh based on the based on the arbitrary limits of the show that i've set in my head the internal clock i have um because i actually want to talk about two things i i briefly want to just go over this uh this Jerry Krasnick piece that you sent me today, because it's a follow-up to what we talked about last week about the anti-Redhead bias among scouts.

And Krasnick for ESPN goes over some other biases that you probably don't know of. And maybe we'll just talk about that. Yeah, let's just talk about that and call it a day. How does that sound? All right. So if you weren't listening last week, it turns out that there's this bias against redheads that we weren't aware of. And Ben and I talked about why that would be. And so Krasnick quotes Jeff Lunow of the Astros saying, anytime you venture into territory that's not as populated, you're taking a little bit more of a gamble. And if you're wrong, people might look back and say, you should have known.

That makes it more difficult to be bold in those situations. And so Krasnick lists, I think, seven other things. And I just want to know if they surprise you, if you knew them, and if they make sense to you. So the first one is a weak handshake uh well i mean certainly grip strength seems like it would be important but i don't know that that a handshake is necessarily the best way to to assess that well and what he talks about one scout who does not limit himself to a handshake who actually carries around a pair of hand grips. Yes, right. So that's all sign he says. That makes sense. You know, there's a,

there's a common, there's a theme to a lot of these, which is that you hear them and then you kind of laugh and you think, wow, the, I mean, that's, that's a, that's a strange and kind of mystic way of evaluating players. And then you think, well, but on the other hand, there's, there's some, some sort of physical skill that it also might correlate to. And so you would want a guy with strong forearms, for instance, that makes perfect sense. If you're doing it because you think that a weak handshake is for sissies, that's kind of, well, maybe that's normal too. Maybe for a scout, that would be totally legitimate. Maybe sissy is a scouting red flag as well, whatever sissy means. But yeah, so weak grip.

All right. Number two, small hands, short fingers, thick wrists. Yeah, thick wrists is not something I would have. I wouldn't be able to identify it. I would never be able to identify a thick wrist. I don't know what a thick wrist looks like. Yeah, I guess I don't be able to identify it. I would never be able to identify a thick wrist. I don't know what a thick wrist looks like. Yeah, I guess I don't either, really. I mean, I can understand small hands.

I mean, you hear people talk about certain pictures and how big their hands are, how long their fingers are. People say, like, Pedro Martinez's fingers are freakishly long, and maybe that has something to do with Pedro Martinez like Pedro Martinez's fingers are freakishly long and maybe that has something to do with Pedro Martinez being Pedro Martinez I don't know that this is true for every pitcher but uh I guess I mean I don't know I guess big hands would be would be good yeah I've always heard big hands are great for pitchers and that you want to go with big hands and i remember uh there was a baseball card that probably half of our listeners will remember seeing i don't remember who it was

i want to say it was like frank viola it might have been steve avery some player in like about 1992 i think it was a pinnacle card and it showed him gripping like seven baseballs at once uh and uh so yeah big hands but what is a thick wrist even what is that i guess does that mean like less flexibility does it does does kresnik really say what it means no he he really doesn't he sort of glosses over the wrist he he refers to uh just to uh let's see jason marquis not having skinny wrists and he he talks about Steve Avery having supple wrists that were so prized by talent evaluators, but he doesn't really get into the specifics.

Yeah, I don't know. You hear people talk about Hank Aaron having slender but very strong wrists, but no, I don't know that I would recognize a thick wrist. That's why I'm not a scout. Square shoulders. Sure, I guess. I mean, a lot of these things don't seem necessarily baseball specific. I mean, these are things that we would kind of, we would scout.

I mean, picking players on the playground, we would look at this. Or sizing up someone and wondering if you can fight them and win a fight or something. I mean, first thing you look at is the wrist. Right. Yeah. If someone has thick wrists, you know that you can take them on. Punch them in the mouth. Just go over.

Don't even ask questions. Don't even wait to be offended. Just go over and punch that guy in the mouth. So, square shoulders, I don't know. and punch that guy in the back. So square shoulders, I don't know, because, I mean, square shoulders, it seems like in popular culture would be a sign of strength, I would think.

Yeah, I sort of think of a square shoulder as actually being a nice, firm body. And yeah, so they're saying that scouts prefer a sloped shoulder. Yes. Because it's believable. Square shoulders are considered the kiss of death because sloped shoulders are believed to allow greater flexibility and freedom of movement

well um that that is i don't know yeah that's not really something that i would i would have known um lack or surplus of height i think is a pretty obvious one uh reverse guys guys who swing uh right-handed and throw left-handed a very very small group of major leaguers in history uh eddie bain says uh right-handed right-handed hitters who are left-handed throwers are referred to as bass awkwardackward guys in the scouting community. Like redheads, they are looked at askance, not because there's some inherent baseball reason, but more because they're an oddity. Not something I was aware of, no. I mean, you're basically – I mean, there is an inherent baseball reason to look askance at those guys.

They hit from the wrong side, and they throw with the wrong hand. They're limited to about three positions, four positions, I guess. And so that hurts. I mean, basically, unless they can play center field, they're born on the wrong side of the defensive spectrum through no fault of their own except for what arm they throw with. And they are going to have the platoon disadvantage most of the time. So, I mean, that seems pretty natural.

I guess maybe it's not natural. It's certainly a reason that you wouldn't expect there to be many of those guys in the majors. But I don't know. If I saw a guy who could play, I don't know that I would hold it against him. But I don't know. The position, I mean, you want when you're scouting an amateur, you basically want him to be able to start at shortstop and move his way down the spectrum until he finds place in the majors.

So if he's, you know, if he's not a huge power guy and he's left-handed, that's sort of limiting. Okay. Pretty, I mean, it's very limiting. Yeah, makes sense. All right. Duck feet. That makes sense, I guess. I mean, they mention Octavio Dottel as a duck-footed player.

I guess I wouldn't have thought of it as such a factor for a pitcher, I wouldn't have thought of it as such a factor for a pitcher, but I guess it makes sense that a pitcher or a player whose feet point in some strange direction would not be as fast or would not run as naturally. I don't know. I didn't know duck feet was a thing. Right. It's not something that I have heard of as a scouting tell, I didn't know duck feet was a thing. Right.

It's not something that I have heard of as a scouting tell, but I guess if I were looking at a person and he had really pronounced duck feet, I guess I would discount his athletic ability somewhat. Yeah. When you run, good running position is basically the feet are, are pointed somewhat inward, right? That's how you're supposed to run. Yeah,

I guess just like a little bit inward. So if you can't run like that, then it would probably be bad that they mentioned, uh, Gene Segura, who according to Eddie Bain had some ducking, but he didn't when he ran for whatever reason. And finally, a sponge cake physique, which I think just means fat.

Yes. Oh, no, that's not finally. That's actually not finally. Yeah, so fat is not. Yeah, fat, clearly not good for a scout. And then the last one is the not so good face, which, you know, I don't know. I wonder if the good face is more myth than reality. I mean, I know that it's been around for many decades, and people hold to it,

and people hold to it and it's become in some ways sort of the stereotype about the scout that both scout lovers and non-scout lovers can both cling on to. There's this idea like, oh, those crazy scouts with their good face and then there's scouts who say, yeah, we can spot a guy with a good face, right? But then you look around the majors and I just – I don't know. I don't know that I buy it. I think that if you play and you're funny looking, you get a pretty good shot. I don't know. I'm not sure I buy it.

I just think that if you analyzed facial symmetry to talent level, it would not be that, you know, there wouldn't be that many missed players out there. I mean, I guess over a long period of time, I guess your face comes to reflect your personality in some sense, I guess. I mean, if you're a guy who's always frowning, then you will have frown lines. And if you're a guy who's always smiling and laughing, you will have laugh lines. I don't know whether that means you'll be a better baseball player or not. But maybe it kind of gives you some insight into a person's personality. I guess, maybe. Is that is that is that plausible at all it's not it's it's not the it's not it's not what i would have said okay so it says it says scouts tend to shy away from players with weak chins uh and the infamous deer in the headlights look. So, I mean, the deer in the headlights look seems like a more relevant thing. I mean, if that's something that you can actually identify, that a guy just looks uncomfortable, I guess, I mean, a weak chin doesn't really mean anything to me.

Yeah, I feel like I kind of want to do the all bad face team and now and so i don't know maybe if anybody wants to suggest bad faces and i don't mean bad i don't i don't mean i don't want a bunch of ugly people you know like i don't like people have done the ugliest ever and and i'm not i'm not into that idea it doesn't need to be done. I wouldn't feel good doing it. I specifically mean a face that you look at and you think, nope, not a ball player, and yet is a ball player. That's what I'm looking for. And probably I'll just save everybody the trouble. I know who Eric Sogard is, so who else?

All right. Okay. All right. So that's the end of that. Okay, we'll be back tomorrow, right? Yes, we will.