On Jason Botts and perception vs. reality
Over at the DMN Rangers blog, in response to a question from Evan Grant about the future of Jason Botts with this organization, a reader makes the following comment:
Botts had 60 plate appearances in 2006, not 50, and he had 18 strikeouts -- still an unacceptably high rate, of course.
Of those 18 strikeouts, 11 were looking.
Now, when Botts was initially called up, he went through a roughly 3 week stretch where he was playing pretty regularly...from May 23 through June 12, Botts played in 10 games, starting 9, and had a line of .258/.385/.484.
In that 10 game stretch, Botts had 4 strikeouts looking. 1 was with none on and 2 out against Gil Meche, 1 was with 1 on and 2 out with a 12-5 lead in the 8th against Keith Foulke, and 2 were against Jose Contreras with none on, in a game where Contreras allowed 6 hits in 8 innings and struck out 11.
So up to that point, there's no basis for the claim that Botts is particularly prone to striking out looking with runners on base.
Strangely, though, Jason Botts pretty much quit playing regularly after that.
Over the next ten days, Botts played only twice, a pair of starts. He struck out four times in those games, all looking, twice against Brandon Webb with runners on base (2nd and 3rd, up 3-0 with 2 outs on a 3-2 pitch, and runner on 1st, up 3-0 with 1 out on a 1-2 pitch), and twice against Padre pitchers with no one on base.
After the June 22 game against the Padres, Botts didn't start again until July 3. He pinch hit 6 times, and didn't strike out looking in any of those appearances.
On July 3, he struck out looking 3 times, twice against Ted Lilly and once against Scott Downs, all with runners on base, all while the Rangers were leading.
Botts only appeared in one more game, a start on July 9, where his only strike out was swinging. He was sent back to the minors soon thereafter. After that promising start, Botts went 3 for 19 with a walk before heading back down.
So, what can be taken from this?
Well, complaining that Botts strikes out looking too much with runners on base seems off base. Of particular interest, to me, anyway, is that Brian Gorman was behind the plate for the 3-K-looking game, and Tony Randazza was behind the plate for the Brandon Webb game. As this chart indicates, Gorman has one of the highest K rates and lowest walk rates of any umpire, while Randazza is also above average in strikeout rates.
For a player like Botts, who relies on controlling the strike zone, being patient, letting borderline pitches go, and waiting for a pitch he can drive, an umpire like Gorman, with a big strike zone and a high rate of calling batters out on strike, is a nightmare.
And similarly, it would seem that a player like that, whose strength is patience and working the strike zone, erratic playing time doesn't appear to be the best way to get into a groove. A player of Botts' type, someone who works the strike zone rather than being a hacker, would seem to be the type of player who needs regular playing time to produce, and doesn't respond well to starting once a week.
And while there are obvious sample size issues, Botts' performance in the majors in 2006 would seem to bear that out. While playing regularly, Botts performed. And during a 27 day stretch, when Botts started only 4 times and went 3 for 19, he didn't perform.
I don't know...maybe it is nothing. Jason Botts may not be able to hit at the major league level.
But it bothers me when someone points at 20 plate appearances over a month, and says that, based on that, Jason Botts doesn't deserve a major league job.
And it bothers me when someone suggests that Jason Botts doesn't know baseball fundamentals because he strikes out looking too often with runners on base, when that happened a whopping half-dozen times in 2006, with 5 of them being in a two game stretch with umps with larger than usual strike zones.
And it bothers me when people claim that Botts needs to "earn" a regular job, since it seems to me that that was exactly what he was doing in the majors last season before he inexplicably got turned into a one-start-per-week guy, and what he did in the minors by posting a nearly 1000 OPS.
0 recs |
27
comments
Comments
Nice analysis, Adam.
by benmor78 on Mar 11, 2007 12:18 AM CST 0 recs
Nice.
f showalter.
by Longhorn on Mar 11, 2007 12:48 AM CST 0 recs
indeed
by thedirkatron on
Mar 11, 2007 5:35 AM CST
up
0 recs
And it's rants like that that keep me coming back
by RangerMoto on Mar 11, 2007 12:51 AM CST 0 recs
This should
by Ed Coffin on Mar 11, 2007 12:55 AM CST 0 recs
Great
by coolaid on Mar 11, 2007 1:01 AM CST 0 recs
Botts vs. Gold
I've seen several people point out that Nate Gold should be our next DH based on a handful of good hits, and a pretty good half year on the farm. What worries me is that everything I'm reading from both the fans as well as the media (How many stories have been written about Botts? How about Gold? It seems like every other story features Gold this year) seem to point out that the organization may indeed be priming Nate Gold for a full-time gig with the club. Maybe not this year, but soon.
And as much as I hate to say this, that sounds about like something the Rangers would do to those of us who believe in Botts. Pass on the good thing and try something else. Sigh. It sucks to be a Rangers fan sometimes.
by chief on Mar 11, 2007 1:15 AM CST 0 recs
funny
by ab03 on
Mar 11, 2007 9:37 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Offbase on Gold
Do I think they underappreciate Botts? Yes. But it has nothing to do with Gold.
by t ball on
Mar 11, 2007 12:11 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Articles on Gold
by chief on
Mar 11, 2007 8:34 PM CDT
up
0 recs
And?
"Gold will play at Triple-A Oklahoma this year and another big season could put him in the picture for a job as the Rangers designated hitter in 2008."
It was just a nice blurb about a guy who had a great season at Frisco, you're reading too much into it.
by t ball on
Mar 11, 2007 9:40 PM CDT
up
0 recs
That was awesome.
I think last year when I got back from that July 3rd game I griped about Botts's K's looking. The strike-outs looking may be defensible, but you have to admit, that there are few things more infuriating than player striking-out looking. Infuriating things are often blown out of proportion.
A 38 year old has-been circus clown diva making the team over a young team playing potential slugger, who kept his mouth shut while he paid his dues his rookie year is infuriating and possibly blown out of proportion. Slow down and consider that Botts will make the team regardless of what Sosa accomplishes. If Sosa sucks, Botts will play. Washington is dead set on keeping the clubhouse happy and leaving a Struggling Sammy (you like that alliteration? I could write for ESPN) in over a Battling Botts (I'm on fire) will infuriate the clubhouse and will be blown way out of proportion.
by kwellborn on Mar 11, 2007 10:49 AM CDT 0 recs
strike out looking
you know whats infuriating? watching a hitter consistently be ahead of a breaking ball in the dirt like soriano was his entire time in texas.
by ab03 on
Mar 11, 2007 11:29 AM CDT
up
0 recs
You can't hit
I agree that Botts has not been given a fair opportunity, but I think many on this board have had an overreaction and can't bring themselves to say anything the least bit critical of Botts. Let's be clear, I want Botts on this team over Sammy Sosa, but that doesn't mean I can't gripe about seeing him strike out looking 3 times with runners on.
by kwellborn on
Mar 11, 2007 11:55 AM CDT
up
0 recs
I believe you have identified the problem
Adam has correctly pointed out that the majority of his looking SOs resulted from a difference in his understanding of the strike zone and that of the umpire. My guess is that he will learn the umpires and take off like a rocket.
by jackbnimble on
Mar 11, 2007 12:53 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yep
Historically, he's started slow at new levels, as he's adjusted to the umpires' strike zones and what the pitchers at that level can throw for strikes.
And then, after an adjustment period, he's excelled.
by Adam J. Morris on
Mar 11, 2007 12:59 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yes
I don't know about four innings or less, but they'd certainly be getting tired by then. And if you get deep into that bullpen you're going to score runs, especially if it's the third game of a series and you did the same thing the two nights before. That's Yankee baseball.
So, yes, you bring up a very important point. It's why I was very much in favor of seeing Soriano cast off for Brad Wilkerson. Wilkerson is the type to make a pitcher work. It's why I like Catalanotto, Mike Young, and Mark Teixeira. Those are the types of hitters that help a team win consistently. Baseball's a grind, and they make it work for them.
by Dustin on
Mar 11, 2007 1:24 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Let me
My original point was and is that people may have the impression that he takes too many 3rd strikes because it is so infuriating when it happens. It was not a judgment on whether or not Botts should be playing on the major league roster. My later point was that we all want Botts to succeed and we are peeved that Buckles wouldn't play him, and some are too sensitive to the least bit of criticism that comes Botts way because of it.
I stand by what I said. Strike outs looking are more infuriating than strike outs swinging. The way to run up pitch counts is by taking pitches, but not by watching third strikes. To get to six pitch at bats a player will almost always have to foul some pitches off, unless they take 3 balls and 3 strikes. I need to see a stat before I buy into your impression that he takes 6 to 7 pitches an at bat. That might be the facts getting skewed by it happening a few times in crucial parts of one game. Like me getting the impression that he may strike out looking too often because he struck out looking 3 times in one game that we eventually lost.
by kwellborn on
Mar 11, 2007 1:43 PM CDT
up
0 recs
then let me say
minor leaguers are great at swinging away - they usually stay minor leaguers.
by ab03 on
Mar 11, 2007 1:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Word
A guy striking out looking on a grooved 85mph fastball right down the middle... that's another story.
by thedirkatron on
Mar 11, 2007 3:41 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yep
Because it isn't like there's a 50/50 chance on a borderline pitch like that that you are going to get a hit if you swing at it.
by Adam J. Morris on
Mar 11, 2007 3:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
But
I was really excited to see him play last year. I barely saw him swing the bat, but I did get to see him leave runners on while watching three 3rd strikes. He looked like a doofus. I hope I get to see him play again. Hopefully he will be in the lineup every time I go this year.
Besides, my wife thinks he is dreamy and it keeps interested in the games.
by kwellborn on
Mar 11, 2007 5:10 PM CDT
up
0 recs
4 innings or less
7-10 pitches per batter = 21-30 pitches per inning (at a minimum - probably closer to 30 if you figure in the one or two extra batters face).
30*4 innings=120. Pretty safe bet that if you can get 7-10 pitches a pitcher conistently he'll be done by the 5th at least
by ab03 on
Mar 11, 2007 1:49 PM CDT
up
0 recs
For the sake of accuracy
Mike Napoli 4.54
Bobby Abreu 4.45
Kevin Youkilis 4.42
Jason Giambi 4.37
Frank Thomas 4.36
That's obviously a pretty solid group of players, and Botts probably has more power than Abreu or Youkilis.
To continue the math a little... 4.41 pitches/PA, combined with that kind of on-base percentage, probably runs to about 16-20 pitches an inning. After five or six innings, starters are already running out of gas.
by a bebop a rebop on
Mar 11, 2007 1:58 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Like Bebop illustrated
It's not all about running up the pitch count but that does tend to happen when hitters are disciplined and try to get a good pitch to hit.
The Rangers have always been bad about hacking. They swing at pitchers' pitches too often. Soriano, while he was here, was one of the worst I'd ever seen in that regard. Gonzalez was bad, too, when he was slumping. When he was "on" he was actually pretty disciplined even if he didn't walk a lot.
Then you had Pudge, who could hit anything hard. All bets are off with guys like that. Not everybody has that talent, though.
And by the same token, not everybody has the eye to be a disciplined hitter, apparently.
by Dustin on
Mar 11, 2007 3:01 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Strikeouts
It's no more frustrating to me if they strikeout looking at a close pitch than if they were to hit a grounder to short. Depending on the pitch, they probably have a better chance at it being called a ball than hitting it safely.
Some hitters are more suited than others to fouling off close pitches with two strikes. Ideally, they'd do that until they got something to hit. But not all hitters are the same and not all of them have that ability.
by Dustin on
Mar 11, 2007 11:53 AM CDT
up
0 recs
And
They are simply different talents.
by Ed Coffin on
Mar 11, 2007 12:07 PM CDT
up
0 recs










