In 2008 Texas Rangers manager Ron Washington led all of baseball with 20 Intentional Walks that bombed. Bill has been keeping this intentional walk stat for a while now. He breaks down all intentional walks into three categories:
1. Good -- these are the intentional walks that "work."
2. Not Good -- these are the intentional walks that don't quite "work" -- a run scores -- but doesn't lead to a big inning.
3. Bomb -- big innings.
There is a more detailed explanation in the Bill James Handbook, but for our purposes that's enough. Washington led the league with 20 intentional walk bombs in 2008, which was more or less in line with his philosophy on the subject. He intentionally walked his team into 11 bombs in 2007 which was also a very high number. I would not try to explain how Ron Washington manages baseball teams -- it seems to me some combination of feel, improvisational jazz, likability and Wile E. Coyote -- but it seemed pretty clear that he did not want other teams best players to beat him. This seemed to be a core philosophy. And this led to baseball disaster quite often.
Then last year, all of a sudden, without warning, Ron Washington basically stopped intentionally walking people. His total intentional walks dropped from 44 to 14. And his bombs dropped all the way to three. This actually led the American League in FEWEST bombs. This year, though Washington intentionally walked a few more guys (from 14 up to 24) he became the first manager since Bill has been tracking this stuff to not have a single intentional walk blow up in his face. Not even one.
That's a pretty remarkable turnaround. So ... what happened? We both figured that Wash probably had a heart-to-heart with the Rangers front office folks, who are savvy people, and they probably came to the conclusion that the intentional walk was hurting the team more than it was helping them.
But more ... we both figured that it spoke well of Washington that after getting burned a few times he stopped sticking his hand in the fire. One of the striking things we both have sensed after years of writing about sports is that it is absurdly rare that people actually CHANGE in sports.
Oh, people change in subtle ways all the time. They mature. They start laying off the in-the-dirt slider. They learn to sometimes throw the ball away. They learn use screens better to set up their shots. And so on. There are a million small changes like this.
But in core ways ... well, here's the funny thing: It sometimes feels like some people would rather be wrong than admit they are wrong. There are a million examples. A manager or general manager will pay someone a lot of money, realize quickly that it was a mistake, and keep playing that person even if it hurts the team. A player will decide a play can't work, go at it half-heartedly, and blow a play that MIGHT HAVE WORKED. A coach will stick with his conservative style even when he has players lose and are clearly better suited to aggressive and non-conservative play*.
*Why do we call a coach who punts the ball on fourth and 1 "conservative" but not call the coach who tries crazy stuff like onside kicking to start the game "liberal?"
More, people really don't change the core philosophies much. A manager who likes the sacrifice bunt usually sticks with it. A coach who enjoys wide open offenses usually coaches the team to play wide open. I always thought Don Shula was unusual because his 1972 Dolphins were about as conservative as a team can be -- two 1,000-yard rushers, 24th out of 26 teams in pass attempts, defense and field position -- and his Dan Marino Dolphins were about as wide open as a team can be.
But even then, Shula didn't change so much as he adapted to his surroundings -- a great trait for a coach but not exactly what I'm talking about here. It's possible that Ron Washington was simply ordered to stop walking people. But I don't think so. And I don't think he adapted to his environment either, not exactly. I think he listened to what people said, drew off his experience, and did a 180 (at least a 150) on something I suspect he had pretty strong feelings about. It is human nature to rebel against change, I think. It is human nature to say, "Well, these intentional walks are bombing on me, but I know they are right and they'll even out in the end." But Ron Washington didn't do that. He instead became extremely selective in when he used to the intentional walk. He challenged his pitchers to get out of jams without walks. And it worked for him.
And then, in the World Series, as you no doubt are screaming right now, he did NOT intentionally walk Edgar Renteria. I don't think he should have intentionally walked Renteria, but what I think doesn't matter -- Renteria homered, and I suppose that would have to go down as an anti-matter bomb, an non-intentional walk that failed.
And it's worth asking: Will that experience change Ron Washington again?
Nice.
ReplyDeleteChange or die, the eternal question. It's been my experience (subject to change) that 95+% will choose 'death' which hopefully in sports means losing your job. This will continue as long as players and managers get paid for not playing. Why would most change if there's a severence and a potential new job with another team? At least they can 'I did it my way'.
ReplyDeleteRandy "Macho Man" Savage (nee Poffo) made a career out of knowing just the right time to "wash (his) sins away".
ReplyDeleteSports managers/coaches could learn a lot from Pro Wrestlers.
I guess because the opposite of conservative is not liberal, but instead is aggressive or radical. And we hear aggressive applied to coaches all the time.
ReplyDelete'*Why do we call a coach who punts the ball on fourth and 1 "conservative" but not call the coach who tries crazy stuff like onside kicking to start the game "liberal?"'
ReplyDeleteBecause "liberal" is only the opposite of "conservative" in the context of politics (and specifically modern American politics). When we call the coach who punts on fourth and 1 "conservative", we are using the word in a different sense: something like "cautious". We see the same usage in finance. A "conservative" investment strategy seeks to minimize risk, sacrificing higher potential returns.
Look at Steve Spurrier at South Carolina. Totally different coaching style than at Florida; no more fun 'n gun. He'll hand the ball to a freshman 40 times a game to eat the clock, because that is the best opportunity to win with his current talent.
ReplyDeleteThis wasn't the first time Washington got reprimanded by the fron office for blowing things up his face.
ReplyDeleteWould love to pick Bill James' brain for 8 hours - love people who think unconventionally and contrarian. . . .
ReplyDeleteNitpick: in the last paragraph that wouldn't be a non-intentional walk, it would be an intentional non-walk, right?
A better word for a non-conservative coach would probably be "progressive" in that said coach probably accepts or embraces new ways of thinking.
ReplyDeletezac hit it on the head. There is a false dichotomy. "Progressive" is the opposite of "Conservative". "Liberal" is the opposite of "Totalitarian."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timferris.net/2010/02/timothy-ferris-conservative-is-not-opposite-liberal-thats-totalitarianism.html
Surprised you didn't return to Sparky Anderson's switch from "Captain Hook" to leading the league in complete games at the end of his career.
ReplyDeleteOh, and coaches who go for it on 4th and 1 are "unorthodox", but you rarely hear coaches called "orthodox".
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Renteria non-IBB, was the run expectancy with men on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out and Renteria at bat higher than if it was bases loaded, 1 out and Aaron Rowand up?
ReplyDeleteThe score was 0-0 at the time, also.
"Oh, people change in subtle ways all the time. They mature. They start laying off the in-the-dirt slider."
ReplyDeleteHaven't seen Jeff Francoeur hit lately, have you?
Thanks for clearing up that conservative/liberal thing guys.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why are players who are unhappy at a club described as being disgruntled . . . but you never hear about anyone who's gruntled.
ReplyDelete@ Graphite: Because saying "Betty was gruntled," sounds like something that would happen in prison.
ReplyDeleteDid Jerry Seinfeld die or something?
ReplyDeleteThe question of conservative and liberal labeling is one I need to punt.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing, Joe.
I think you're missing a third possibility: Wash is a totally erratic manager (tons of IBBs in 2008 and 2010, many fewer in 2009), but in 2010, the hitters who came up after an IBB just happened to not hit very well.
ReplyDeleteI think part of making a gutsy call is knowing that if you get it wrong, you will be hearing about it for the rest of your life. Tommy LaSorda is still being asked why he didn't walk Jack Clark with a base open.
ReplyDeleteJoe (or anybody): does Washington's about-face coincide with Nolan Ryan's taking charge? Because he seems like a guy that would order his manager not to issue so many cussin' intentional walks.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you would even consider walking Edgar Renteria to get to Aaron Rowand. (And by the way there were already two out, not one) I don't think Washington (or anyone else except a bad TV announcer) loses any sleep over that.
ReplyDeleteHis goal was to prevent any runs from scoring, as the game was 0-0 at the time. 2 on, 2 out, Renteria up, has a much better chance at getting out of the inning than 2 out bases loaded for Rowand. (With the fact that a walk, passed ball or wild pitch now scores a run.)
Renteria is not Pujols and Rowand is not Tony Pena JR.
*Why do we call a coach who punts the ball on fourth and 1 "conservative" but not call the coach who tries crazy stuff like onside kicking to start the game "liberal?"
ReplyDeleteWhy do we call liberals "progressives," and not call conservatives "regressives."
Does Bill James keep track of statistics, or have another term for, "bombs" when the intetional walk is not used? For example, the Renteria scenario? Or, for that matter, when the IBB works? Seems to me that, to be fair, you have to assess both the IBB's use and non-use.
ReplyDelete@Most Recent Anon poster:
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that is Bill would have to either a. have potential intentional walks with every player (as any situation could be an intentional walk situation) or b. figure out what a "potential intentional walk situation is" and assess based on that.
The a. is pretty stupid as I don't think many people are going to intentionally walk the pitcher leading off an inning even if it is a potential IBB situation. And b. creates problems because managers would use the IBB in different ways and nobody really has any idea what constitutes an IBB situation.
Either way you're in trouble. Also Joe said that Bill has 3 categories of IBB those that work, those are alright, and those that bomb. Joe just went and talked about those that bombed.
2009 was the first year Mike Maddox was with the Rangers. That could have played a part in Washington's decision making.
ReplyDelete"Joe (or anybody): does Washington's about-face coincide with Nolan Ryan's taking charge? Because he seems like a guy that would order his manager not to issue so many cussin' intentional walks."
ReplyDelete@Ken Raining: That would be because they would be too busy issuing so many unintentional walks, like Nolan Ryan. Ryan had 52.5% more walks than the #2 walker (Carlton), but only 17.2% more strikeouts than the #2 striker-outer (R. Johnson).
Though you are right about the intentional ones: Ryan had a total of 78 IBBs for his career (2.8% of his total).
Have any more Car Ride Essays been posted? I can't find them if they have.
ReplyDelete