The Felix Thing, Revisited
Dave · July 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm · Filed Under Mariners
I’ve got a whole bunch of different posts that I’m working on but haven’t finished yet, so if you’re upset that you want to talk about a specific Mariner topic, have patience, the post is probably coming.
Until then, you can read about us. Kind of. Keegan Hamilton wrote an article for the Riverfront Times, the St. Louis version of the Seattle Weekly, about the whole Felix pitch charting thing. I believe it’s scheduled to run in the Weekly next week, so if you prefer a paper version, you can pick it up then, or you can read it online now.
Very cool article. Congratulations.
Tony LaRussa is kind of a weird dude. Comes across as both fairly bright and totally clueless at the same time.
Wow that story really has legs… Congratulations Dave.
The Postman
TLR is just old-school. Conventional baseball wisdom says that anything but conventional baseball wisdom is false, and “outsiders” who disagree with “insiders” are always wrong.
As a once-burned-out journalist (who regained his passion after a five-year haitus) I think bloggers are valuable because they are passionate about what they do. It’s their avocation, so they don’t get bogged down doing player profiles and covering the Moose’s visit to Children’s Hospital as the beat writers do. (They also aren’t beholden to them, as often happens with beat writers in section of the paper.) And with that Internet thingy, all the stats and other research are readily available to back up their positions. It’s a brave new world.
TLR is just old-school.
Yeah, but he’s also been an innovator of sorts – he’s arguably as responsible as anyone for the 1 inning closer. Maybe he’s only innovative on bad things but he has implemented newish stuff in the past.
Tony LaRussa has made changes that have worked for him. He’s been very successful developing “Tony’s Way” of doing things.
That’s human nature. We find things that work and stick with them, even in the face of someone else who can do something “better.”
By the way, just a few factual corrections from the article:
1. I didn’t chart pitches on the July 7th start. As noted, the game was blacked out. I “watched” the game via gamecast, and took note of the early game breaking balls, but I didn’t do any charting.
2. There’s no such thing as “the Venezuelan amateur leagues”. I’m not sure where Keegan got that from.
3. I’m not quite the nerd that this article makes me sound like. Close, but not quite.
Embrace your nerdiness, Dave. Give in to the Dark Side. Strike your father down and take his place… Oops, I didn’t mean that.
I think La Russa’s mostly right here, actually, at least on the issue of Felix, Chavez, and the open letter. I think what Dave did was great, and I Chavez seems good at his job. However, I think it would be reasonable to expect that Chavez both notice that Felix needed to mix his pitches a little more in the first (which according to Dave, he did) AND to convince Felix of that (it’s great that Dave’s letter was there to help, but…). Felix deserves some of that blame too, obviously (maybe most of it), but I would agree that on one level or another Chavez wasn’t doing his job there.
Now, no one is perfect at their job, and convincing Felix of this may have been a very difficult task. I’m not saying that the episode makes Chavez look bad or anything. But it’s also hard for me to really disagree with La Russa’s comment on a fundamental level. If Chavez was really doing his job, Dave’s letter would not have been necessary. And while I’m glad there are blogs and other things out there helping teams do their job, it’s still the teams’ job.
It’s Chaves. It’s always been Chaves. He’s a pitching coach, not a dictator.
and isn’t it doing your job to find the best way to convey information to your pitcher?
At least LaRussa proved why he’s a lousy manager with that quote.
10 (darrylzero) – If I recall, Chaves had been harping this to Felix before the Open Letter (or, at least he claimed to), and that he used the letter as further proof to Felix that he was well scouted and needed to mix his pitches.
Really, a lot of his struggles have been self inflicted. He shook Kenji off too much and wanted to establish his fastball. I don’t know that we can blame Chaves there.
Well, Chavez might have been able to “do his job” and convince Felix eventually. And he could’ve just thrown Dave’s article away without showing it to Felix. He did recognize this was another way to reinforce what he (apparently) had already been saying, and in the end it may have helped him get it done quicker than otherwise. I think we’ve all experienced situations where a close friend / family member / co-worker was deaf to a suggestion until it came from outside. And for a 21 year old, something coming off the internet might have more weight (for better or worse) than a bunch of “old farts” sitting around trying to pass on their wisdom.
Oops, and it’s not the civil rights and labor leader who founded the United Farm Workers, either. Sorry about that.
I don’t think people like La Russa really understand the heart of what’s at issue here. People that make suggestions based on factual evidence, like Dave did with Felix and his pitch selection, are not claiming that if coaches and players follow their advice then they’re going to toss a 2-hitter every time out there. What they are saying is that being less predictable, in this case, increases the chances of a successful outcome occurring more often. If Felix had allowed six runs in that Oakland game, which is possible for any pitcher, it wouldn’t have made the analysis worthless.
Sorry about the spelling. Usually I’m pretty good (and I even speak Spanish), just wasn’t paying close attention. And Dave, not to nitpick, but the President of Venezuela, for all of his problematic governance, is lawfully elected. So, we can call him dictatorial, and in some respects he is, but we can’t call him a dictator. Obviously, we shouldn’t get into this further; I just had to say that.
Anyway, Carson, my point was not to criticize our Chaves, really. I think that’s actually pretty clear from what I wrote (and I mentioned that by all accounts Chaves was trying to convey the same thing already). My point is only that getting that noticing that information and getting it across to Felix is exactly his job (and msb, you’re right that eventually he did do exactly that, in an effective way, with a little help from the outside, which I have no problem with).
Whether or not he can reasonably be blamed for not being able to do his job effectively before he did, up against a pretty substantial challenge (the will of a 21-year-old phenom), is another question to me entirely, and one I don’t have anything to say about. I’m just saying I can understand why La Russa would say that, and by the letter I think it’s actually accurate. But don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he had the help, I’m glad it worked, and I’m not particularly worked up about him not being able to get the information across earlier than he was able to.
Yeah. The funny thing is, a lot of managers (and people in general) intuit that results-based analysis is wrong-headed for things they have actual experience with. They just don’t grasp the underlying principle, and instead fall back on it when dealing with less-familiar areas. Look at Hargrove’s handling of struggling hitters: he understood, because he’d been a hitter himself, that guys have troubles sometimes but they generally return to their historical averages (less age-related declines). So he didn’t immediately bench guys when they went 0-for-whatever. You don’t expect immediate success, and you don’t throw away an-otherwise valid strategy if you don’t immediately get it.
Of course, age-related declines can turn into cliffs, and injuries (reported or not) can play havoc with expectations. A suggestion made on factual evidence has to be based on all the relevant facts. Dave didn’t know why Felix wasn’t mixing his pitches in the early innings (though ultimately that didn’t matter), just as we don’t know if there’s something unknown causing Ibanez and Sexson to do so poorly at the plate. If Ibanez has a bad shoulder, for instance, and it’s not getting better because he’s out their hacking every day, then it’s pretty pointless sending him out there every day expecting him to get better.
Tony Larussa knows more about baseball than anyone who has or ever will post on this blog. That being said, it is interesting to see information posted by fans being noticed and discussed by players/managers.
A lot of what baseball insiders “know” isn’t actually true, though.
If I were a baseball manager, I would be taking a look at every shred of information I could get my hands on that would help my team be successful on the field, regardless of the source.
I have a lot of respect for Tony LaRussa, but that respect diminishes somewhat when I see him dismiss factual information so offhandedly just because of where it came from.
Say what you will about La Russa, his general intelligence, his old-schooledness, whatever: It’s silly to call him a lousy manager. Flawed, sure, but he’s won two world series, with different teams and in each league; he’s won five league championships; he’s won eleven division championships (with three different teams). He’s a hall-of-fame manager.
At least LaRussa proved why he’s a lousy manager with that quote.
Dave Stewart might disagree with you.
There is no such thing as bad publicity. Just getting USSM in print is a good thing. Who cares if LaRussa is not complimentary?
By the way, just a few factual corrections from the article:
And wasn’t it Jason who coined “King Felix”?
You’re talking about this guy?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/larussamug1.html
If using fan research to prove a point means you’re not doing your job, then what is passing out at the wheel of a running vehicle? I take Tony with a pretty big grain of salt now.
LaRussa’s quote:
It’s a bit silly that LaRussa would dismiss all information from blogs, but at the same time, managers have often said similar things about the traditional media in the past. This isn’t really something new or unique to blogs.
It would also be interesting to know the exact context in which this quote was acquired. If LaRussa is under the impression that Chaves didn’t chart Felix’s pitches and needed Dave’s help to do that, then I can see why he would say Chaves wasn’t doing his job. If the story was related to him in a sloppy way, I can see how he might get that impression.
What seems most likely to me is that Chaves knew about this problem all along, and was having difficulty getting the message across to Felix–a 21-year old kid who probably likes to throw his fastball. So he tried something non-traditional to get the point across. If that’s how it went down, and that’s how it was explained to LaRussa, I’m guessing he wouldn’t have been quite so critical of Chaves in his quote.
If I recall, Chaves had been harping this to Felix before the Open Letter (or, at least he claimed to), and that he used the letter as further proof to Felix that he was well scouted and needed to mix his pitches.
That’s how I understand it, too. Basically, the Open Letter served to demostrate that even nerds on the internet knew Felix threw nothing but fastballs to open games, so Chaves argued that other teams were guaranteed to know it too, because they had professional scouts (and all the internet nerds had were polyhedral dice and PDP-11s).
Chaves the Coach: Hey Felix! You really should be mixing your pitches.
Chavez the Dictator: Hey Felix! Mix your pitches or its off to the salt mines!
While bloggers are still banned from major league press boxes and clubhouses
Are they banned or simply have press requests turned down when they ask? Dave, have you, Derek, Jason or Jeff every requested a press pass to a Mariners or minor league game?
30.
HA!
20 (biild) – You’re wrong.
23 (scraps) – I promise you that La Russa didn’t have much to do with the Cardinals winning the World Series last year. Of all the major sports, the manager in baseball has less to do with the outcome of a game than any other. Also, that was an average team that won a lousy division, and got hot at the right time. I’m sure it was La Russa giving them a pep talk, right?
Basing championships won does on one’s worth is generally not the best measurement. If you’re going to go with that logic, then I guess David Eckstein was clearly the best short stop in baseball last year.
Okay, I am dyslexic. I meant basing one’s worth on championships won… etc
33: If I’d only cited last year’s world series victory, you’d have a point. But La Russa is not KC Jones; he has a long record of managing winning teams and pennant winners, in long runs for three different teams.
I’m sure you can find ways to discount his entire record if you try hard enough, but it is still silly to call him “lousy”.
And wasn’t it Jason who coined “King Felix�
No. I was the first one to post it, but the name itself came from Dave; email conversations between the three of us.
I’m still inclined to agree with Scraps. We don’t have consistent evidence to support the assertion that Tony La Russa is, net, “a lousy manager”.
He has his old school biases to be sure, but his motivational skills, roster building decisions and in-game tactics haven’t hurt his teams badly enough to stop them winning consistently.
Also, how long until the M’s open up a Blog Box at Safeco?
As if.
35: You are absolutely correct in your assessment of Larussa
33: Your comments lend credibility to my point in comment 20
35 (scraps) – You’re right. After all, it couldn’t have been the talent on the field.
Like I said, and many others have said, baseball managers have little to do with the on field results. I would argue that they probably cost their teams more losses with bad decisions than they win their team with good decisions.
I’m sorry, but if you have Albert Pujols at the plate in a tie game, with a runner on a second, and 0 outs, it’s not like you have to decide if you’re going to bunt or not. He either gets a hit because he’s a solid player, or, he doesn’t.
No one is going to blame La Russa if Pujols pops out to short, so how can you praise him when he hits the game winning single?
LaRussa has the fourth-highest winning percentage (.535) of “qualified” active managers over at baseball-reference, behind Bobby Cox, Mike Soscia, and Joe Torre. He might not be the baseball genius that some make him out to be, but it seems pretty clear to me that he’s not “lousy” either. Or, perhaps I should just say that it seems like the burden of proof lies with those trying to assert that he’s lousy. What’s the evidence that he’s been so bad?
(Also, having seen him manage some games, I’ve liked some of the moves he’s made, and I haven’t liked others. Overall, he seems like a reasonably good manager to me, regardless of how he reaches his conclusions.)
40: The effect of managers is overrated. That doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent. When a manager has a long record of success, it may be that he deserves some credit for it. Certainly, you’d have a hard time making a case for “lousy”. Go ahead and post some evidence that La Russa has dragged his teams down over the years if you have any that isn’t purely anecdotal.
TLR is as arguably awesome as managers arguably can be, but I’ll take a robot every time. Conventional baseball strategy relies waayyy too heavily on luck.
And…Angels win anyway. Damn I hate that team.
42 (scraps) – I guess the best thing I can point to is, he’s had the benefit of managing some pretty decebnt ball clubs. Last year’s Cardinals team wasn’t one of his best, but they did get the job done. There aren’t any stats (that I know of..) for managers except wins and losses, so you’re right, I can’t really prove you wrong. It’s a matter of opinion.
In hindsight, lousy was a poor word choice. I have just never been a big fan. So, I will compromise with you on that.
I just don’t like when managers are put on a pedistal for what the players do. For example, if La Russa managed the Royals, I promise you his winning percentage would dip. No one could wave a magic wand and fix that train wreck as it stands constructed. Luck is when preperation and opportunity come together. So, he has done his part, and I can appreciate that. However I remain strong in my stance that the players had more to do with the rings he is wearing that he does.
Okay. There are a few things we can sort of maybe judge managers with other than wins and losses, though: for example, how does his win-loss record stack up to the runs scored/allowed ratio of his teams? And how does the runs scored match up with the complete batting records? Etc. (I don’t know how La Russa fares by those measures.)
Well, come on, no team in baseball would continue to employ a manager whose on-field strategy consistently hurt the team’s chances of winning…
Wait, what’s that you said? Har-WHO?
Nevermind.
Good news everyone. To turn our luck around the team has all cut their hair. Now we’re really gonna’ get rolling.
I hate superstition, sorry.
JMB lives!
Anyone see that the mariners scouts are out watchin Dontrell?
Being Venezuelan, Felix may have been a bit nervous the first time someone told him “Chavez want’s to see you.”
Nice piece. (What is a corporate cost analyst?)
Can someone tell me if that pitch Ichiro swung at was a strike?
What is a corporate cost analyst?
A cost accountant. In other words, the nerdiest profession without the words “actuary” or “web” in the job title.
Says the web site manager.
and all the internet nerds had were polyhedral dice and PDP-11s.
Screw you! Some of us have replica phasers and lightsabers too. And HP-41CVs in hip holsters.