The Intangible Effect of Drew Stubbs

[mdccclxix]

These are all good questions, IMO. Enter Dusty freakin' Baker. And welcome in as well, Mr. David Price.

[Brisco]

By the same token, pitchers should get a nice mental pick-me-up when they take the mound with a 2-1 lead instead of a 1-1 tie, for example, thanks to the offensive boost Choo gives the team over Stubbs.

Would you changed the way you pitched if you were tied 1-1 versus up 2-1? I do not believe I would. I think I would pitch the same whether my team was down by a run, tied, or up by a run. My job is to get outs, not score runs. I get outs by k's or poor contact.

In the Stubbs intangible argument, I am not talking about some nebulous sub-conscious effect (like the "Ks make a batter feel dominated" comment by wheelhouse.) I am saying that if I was a pitcher, and I felt that my hard hit mistakes would often lead to outs, I would challenge every hitter except those with significant power.

[mattfeet]

#Indians manager Terry Francona just said Michael Brantley will play LF. Drew Stubbs will play RF.

[Brisco]

I would be amazed if Reds pitchers were not FULLY aware of Stubbs' routinely pulling up on fly balls. During game threads on this site, it was pointed out every time it happened. I think that would be extremely irritating and possibly lead to a meltdown by the pitcher who was on the mound and a "beneficiary" of Stubbs fielding.

Stubbs kinda reminds me of that line in Major League about Willie Mays Hayes: "You may run like Hayes, but you hit like ****"

I disagree. If I was the pitcher and a bloop single landed in front of Stubbs, it would not change the way I pitched unless there was a runner in scoring position. My job as pitcher is to prevent solid contact... if a poor contact bloop lands for a single, that is gonna happen from time to time even when I am pitching very well. I can give up one or two of these every inning and still pitch a shutout.

Conversely, if I gave up a bloop single that a CF dove to get, only to have the ball roll to the wall for a triple? That would have my blood pressure skyrocket.

The things that get into my head are my mistakes... be they walks or hard hit balls. If i give up a hard hit ball that I think is gonna be extra bases for sure and turn to see Stubbs calmly camping in front of it, I would relax.

[RichRed]

Would you changed the way you pitched if you were tied 1-1 versus up 2-1? I do not believe I would. I think I would pitch the same whether my team was down by a run, tied, or up by a run. My job is to get outs, not score runs. I get outs by k's or poor contact.

Ideally, but since we're talking intangibles, I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that a pitcher may be likely to press more if the team is trailing than if he's pitching with a lead.

Plus, while we know wins are an unreliable measure of pitching performance, pitchers still care about them, so the score of the game can have a psychological impact in that sense as well.

[Brisco]

Ideally, but since we're talking intangibles, I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that a pitcher is likely to press more if the team is trailing than if he's pitching with a lead.

Plus, while we know wins are an unreliable measure of pitching performance, pitchers still care about them, so the score of the game can have a psychological impact in that sense as well.

Yes.. all that is possible, but I am not dealing with possibilities but probablities.

I do not see any reason that the typical pitcher would press more down a run than up a run. Personally, it would seem more reasonable to presume a pitcher will press more in an effort to hold a lead.. then the game depends more on him. If you are down a run, you could be perfect and still lose.

[JB12]

I disagree. If I was the pitcher and a bloop single landed in front of Stubbs, it would not change the way I pitched unless there was a runner in scoring position. My job as pitcher is to prevent solid contact... if a poor contact bloop lands for a single, that is gonna happen from time to time even when I am pitching very well. I can give up one or two of these every inning and still pitch a shutout.

Although this makes complete sense (and I agree with you), many pitchers can't grasp this and apply it during the game setting. I've seen pitchers groove through the first half of a game, give up a bloop single (with none or 1 out) and let that spiral into a rough inning. I think this has to do mostly with the pitcher's psyche. Giving up a bloop hit off the hands on an otherwise great pitch is frustrating.

[RedsfaninMT]

The Reds "D won many games for them last year, and it was rare to see a game slip away because of a ball that fell in the outfield, or was pushed over the fence. BUT, I cannot imagine, if these intangibles that Stubbs has were a significant factor, that many teams in baseball would not covet Stubbs.

Given that the Indians just signed Bourn, Stubbs doesn't appear to posses enough intangibles to have a team want to start him on a daily basis.

That being said, I will be surprised if Bruce doesn't end up in center. IIRC, he played there for 20 games or so his rookie year. Choo sounds about as sure of himself out there as I do of him - which isn't saying much.

[_Sir_Charles_]

These are all good questions, IMO. Enter Dusty freakin' Baker. And welcome in as well, Mr. David Price.

Don't ya mean Bryan Price?

[M2]

The Intagible Stubbs Effect Theory would hold more water if the Reds had a quality pitching staff during most of his time with the club. With the exception of 2012, it was average-to-poor.

Meanwhile, we know the misfiring at the top of the lineup helped make the Reds the most inefficient offense in baseball last season. In general a player's tangibles outweigh his intangibles.

[westofyou]

Drew Stubb's caught more air with his bat than balls with his glove.

And at the end of the day the ledger was more often in the red than the black, no matter how many accounting tricks were applied to the columns.

[Kc61]

Would you changed the way you pitched if you were tied 1-1 versus up 2-1? I do not believe I would. I think I would pitch the same whether my team was down by a run, tied, or up by a run. My job is to get outs, not score runs. I get outs by k's or poor contact.

In the Stubbs intangible argument, I am not talking about some nebulous sub-conscious effect (like the "Ks make a batter feel dominated" comment by wheelhouse.) I am saying that if I was a pitcher, and I felt that my hard hit mistakes would often lead to outs, I would challenge every hitter except those with significant power.

Stubbs' hitting, I believe, had a non-nebulous adverse effect on the other Reds' hitters.

Hitters perform better, I'd suggest, when they are surrounded by other good hitters. Simply, the pitcher can't pitch around anybody. Putting men on base with a Choo or a Votto or a Bruce coming up is dangerous.

Enter Stubbs. He has a lifetime .655 OPS against righties in almost 1500 plate appearances. He hit .213 last year. His strikeout totals speak for themselves.

Put Stubbs in an NL lineup, with the pitcher hitting, and with the usual limitations on most shortstops and catchers who often are primarily defensive players.

The result is enormous pressure on a very few hitters. This is particularly so against righty pitchers, with the Reds having few hitters who hit them very well recently.

Everyone on the team can't be a hitting star, but when a Stubbs hits .213 with a .610 OPS and strikes out about 30 percent of the time, I'd suggest that it has a very tangible impact on (a) opposing pitchers who can pitch around others to get to Stubbs, and (b) the other Reds' hitters who have to manage in a lineup with very few potent threats against righty pitching.

[Scrap Irony]

I can't think of a hitter that doesn't want to hit the ball up the middle from the beginning of his at-bat. Those few hitters who are dead pull hitters aren't going to change their approach just against Cincinnati (or other poor CF defensive teams). Those that focus on hitting the ball the other way are typically situational hitters looking to advance runners; they, too, won't change their approach.

In other words, I don't think a lack of Stubbs in CF matters in the least to hitters.

As to pitchers, I believe they should recognize the pros and cons of the situation. For every gapper that gets through, Choo will be on base around how many times more than his predecessor?

As an aside, I vaguely remember Choo playing a very shallow RF against Cincinnati. If he does the same in CF, things may get interesting. I think Bruce and Ludwick can be solid to above average OFers with range enough to perhaps cover those gaps. (Both have proven plus to above average defenders for their careers.) I think it's possible that the Red OF defense may be much less of a hindrance for that very reason. The aggressiveness of Choo may boost the Red D almost as much as Stubbs' speed did. It would certainly help pitchers and pitcher memory/ aggressiveness.

[RedEye]

If this is the case that you want to make, and I think that's fine, one has to acknowledge that the same principle-perception-is at work in many other aspects of the game. Along these lines one might say that Chapman should close because he would be a presence in nearly every game played and would have to be accounted for in opponents' strategy. Sabermetrics says otherwise. One could argue that strikeouts demoralize an opponent and make them feel dominated by a pitcher, causing them to lose an edge as the game progresses. Sabermetrics says otherwise. If one wants to incorporate a mental aspect into evaluating the game and its players, one has to acknowledge that SABR is a only a partial measure of performance.

I'm definitely sympathetic to the idea that psychology plays a role in baseball. The problem is in generalizing.

Sure, Jay Bruce might get intimidated by a pitcher in one AB, which might then cause him to strike out. However, it is VERY difficult to say with any accuracy that ALL batters are intimidated in a certain set of circumstances -- much less to make a general principle out of that observation. There is so much variance that it makes "intimidation" almost impossible to predict or to test -- and quite a difficult thing to base the roles of your players on. When there are so many more measurable elements of the game, it makes to look at those, too, before just basing your decision on "psychology."

[mth123]

My take on baseball psychology in relation to Stubbs:

You'd have to be crazy to want Stubbs in the line-up every day instead of Shin Soo Choo..