Nelson Cruz and post-season homers from the 7-hole
Posted by Andy on October 17, 2011
Nelson Cruz's performance this year is all-the-more impressive considering that he bats 7th for the Rangers.
Here are the most post-season homers coming from the 7-hole:
| Rk | Player | HR ▾ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Andruw Jones | 6 |
| 2 | Nelson Cruz | 6 |
| 3 | Jason Varitek | 5 |
| 4 | Sandy Alomar | 5 |
| 5 | Gil McDougald | 4 |
| 6 | Gene Tenace | 4 |
| 7 | Alex Gonzalez | 4 |
| 8 | Shane Spencer | 3 |
| 9 | Paul O'Neill | 3 |
| 10 | Javy Lopez | 3 |
| 11 | David Freese | 3 |
| 12 | A.J. Pierzynski | 3 |
One would assume that nobody hits too many homers from so low in the batting order because, if they keep hitting them, they get moved up. We'll see where Cruz bats in the World Series...
October 17th, 2011 at 10:17 am
I guess McDougald and Tenace are the leaders in World Series homers from the seventh spot. Speaking of the Series, I hope Fox gets away from all those close-up shots between pitches. There is an entire field to view, other than the faces of the pitcher, batter, and each manager.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:19 am
FOX's coverage is horrible in all sports. As annoying as it was to see the bleepin' Cardinals beat the Brewers, at least the NLCS presentation on TBS was borderline decent.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Oh I love the close-ups! I feel like we get to see a lot more of what's actually going on in the game, although I will admit that my attention span is a little bit longer than the duration of their cuts.
October 17th, 2011 at 10:45 am
How ironic that the NLCS MVP, Freese is also on the list.
@2 Jiffy: Take heart. Just think how much more annoying it would've been if the Phillies and/or Yankees were going to the world series.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Stu B @4
On an irony scale of 1-10, I'd give it a zero. It is, however, an interesting coincidence.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:20 am
@1: I remember a poem in Mad magazine about the camera being focused on (former football coach) Weeb Ewbank's nose.
October 17th, 2011 at 11:29 am
The obvious winner for most annoying aspect of Fox Sports is that goddamn robot! It MIGHT have been mildly novel in the mid-90's, when that type of computer graphics (though I think it was actually just animated) was still relatively new. But now I'm pretty sure a 13-year-old with an iPod could make something cooler. And half the time, it does something completely unrelated to sports. I've witnessed it: jumping rope, playing air guitar, swinging a baseball bat (during a football game), and just walking with a menacing strut. REALLY FOX?!?!?! THAT IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO?!?!?!
October 17th, 2011 at 11:52 am
Don't you talk about Joe Buck that way!
October 17th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
@7: Fox has to pinch pennies. Hard to compete with ESPN & all the revenue they generate from non-sports fans $6.31 per month.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/pn_foes_grow_YIO92AxAE3kOE66mobOoUI?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
October 17th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Disney's ESPN charges cable operators about $600 million per month in subscriber fees. As much as $400 million coming from non-sports fans.
October 17th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Tony LaRussa just summed up my feelings about advanced statistics with this quote from yesterday "Albert's a truly great player, people sometimes take that to mean that he's a great stat-producing player. Albert is a great winning player....
October 17th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Tim P-
In 2008, the Cardinals finished in 4th place with a record of 86-76. They did not make the playoffs. Pujols had what might have been his finest season. Was he somehow a less great player that year, since the team did less winning?
October 17th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Scott-53
We can't pin ALL of that on ESPN. The cable providers can easily create seperate sports tiers, as many of them have begun to do. While ESPN is still included in most basic packages, their extended networks are often not. I recently made the choice to forgo many additional sports channels for financial reasons. My cable company gave me this option, though opting out of ESPN entirely is not yet an option. Ultimately, I think we are going to move to more a la carte programming. Which will lead to infinite more divorces as husbands and wives argue over whether to include HSN, ESPN, Lifetime, HGTV, etc. YIKES!
I get that Fox doesn't have the spending power of ESPN. But, they could spend what little they do have on something far less lame than the robot. Or just get rid of it altogether! Save money and annoy less fans. Does anyone except for 7-year-olds like the robot?!?!?!
Actually, that last point gets to the heart of Fox's biggest problem. While most sports broadcasting in general is geared toward the casual fan over the hardcore fan (and probably rightfully so), Fox seems to be even more extreme in this pursuit. From announcers to robots to analysis to gimmicks, they seem like their sole purpose is to attrack non-sports fans... children, women, etc. A good sportscast sells itself. Quality announcers, high production (good camera angles and picture/sound quality, effective replays, etc.), and less nonsense. Fox trots out Joe Buck because people like my mom think he's handsome and nice and the robot because 7-year-olds think it's cool. And they know they can do this becaus they know I'm going to tune in regardless, no matter how annoyed I am, because they have a monopoly (not just Fox, mind you; all the broadcasting partners have a monopoly over their broadcast rights).
October 17th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Fox productions are marred by:
1. Terrible announcing. Buck just isn't good at telling the story of the game being played, instead he and his partner ramble on about whatever stories have been fed to them before the game starts. It's probably just a problem with his voice, but he just doesn't seem interested in the games. It's OK to be excited, and most of the best announcers get caught up in the games. Buck remains aloof and detached, coming across as a swarmy d*** rather than what I suspect he's going for, a "professional". At least to me. I am given to understand some people even like him.
2. Terrible producing. Camera shots flitter about, like they are trying to make a highlight package in real time. It doesn't work, and it must drive the cameramen crazy. And the closeups of players are one thing, but the closeups of Nolan Ryan - please stop. It would make a hell of a drinking game, until everyone died in the second inning.
3. Gimmicks - the one that bugs me the most is the in-game sound effects for a 95mph+ fastball, a little flame shows on the screen, fine. But spare me the sounds effects, yeesh. It also doesn't help that Fox broadcasts have the faster radar guns anywhere. I expected Verlander to set of a bells and whistles fireworks display or something. The robot - m'eh, doesn't bug me much. But if you are going to go with stuff that appeals to young kids, how about insisting on a few games that start early enough so that kids might get to watch until the end?
Fox is not lacking money for broadcasts - ESPN has all of the same reasons to skimp on their broadcasts that Fox does. Fox brings in $$$ from advertising instead of cable bills, but it all spends the same. They bought the damn broadcast rights, make it good. The current broadcast smacks of 10 guys all needing to justify their existence by making suggestions and additions (how about a robot! sound effects! sideline reporter a la football! more camera shots per minute! a football announcer! Closeups! more closeups! closeups of Nolan Ryan! pitch tracking! virtual strikezones! virtual strikezones that disappear when a call is suspect!). Some wheat in with the chaff, but they need to thresh it out.
October 17th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Aweb-
Great point on the graphics. While the puck tracker was a good invention for hockey before HD, they also put the little tail on it that changed color/length based on the intensity of the shot. Which, in the non-HD days just made the game look like a bad screen saver. Bleh!
NBC does a good job with Sunday Night Football. Their hockey coverage seemed good, too, from what I watched. It's a shame they don't have the NFL beyond that or the NBA. Their SNF music always makes me feel like I'm watching something important without overdoing it. And their announcing team of Michaels and Collinsworth is great. It is far, far from impossible to put on a quality sports broadcast on over-the-air TV. Fox just opts for a different and, in my mind, far less approach.
October 17th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
@13,14 : BSK-Aweb,you both bring up valid points.
Seems to me the monopoly has had long enough. HBO since 1975. TBS since 1976. ESPN since 1979.
October 17th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
@15 and sunday night football on NBC --
i couldn't agree more.
i'm not much of a football fan, but i really enjoy al michaels and cris collinsworth calling these games. they're intelligent, clever, informative, critical, and when something exciting happens, they're excited about it.
(i never need to mute them, and i regularly need to mute mccarver and buck.)
October 17th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Wow. Looks like I got everyone a little off-topic. But NBC should never have given up MLB.
October 17th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Michaels just did a great podcast with Simmons. I'm not the biggest fan of Simmons, but his position at ESPN/Grantland gets him a ton of access to great guests. Michaels really is a star. Successful crossover guys are few and far between. Many guys master one sport and fake it at another (Marv Albert), some suck at both (Joe Buck), while a few can really just craft the story of the game without inserting themselves into the story itself. Michaels is one of those guys. Get him back doing baseball!
October 17th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
@18: Speaking of topic.Wonder why is Cruz is batting out of the 7-hole? Looks like he batted 5th or 6th early in the year.
October 17th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
@18 typo: Wonder why Cruz is batting out of the7-hole?
October 17th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
What I don't get is when certain batters like Ryan Howard is up while Fox and TBS don't show the defensive shifts on these type of hitters with a long range camera angle from high above and way back of home plate.
Instead they are scanning the crowd for pretty girls.
A good example was at the last AB that Albert Pujols had in game 4.
Bottom of the 8th inning.
Pujols hit a shot past the pitcher and it was bounding over 2nd base.
I immediately jumped up screaming "Pujols got a Hit".
But then the camera pulls back and up and there is Rickie Weeks 5 feet out on the grass directly behind 2nd base making an easy pick-up and throwing Albert out easily at first.
I was wondering who was playing 2nd base. The announcers did mention that K. Rod in his follow through put himself out of position to make the play.
The only give-away was there was no crown noise and the game was in St. Louis. But the crowd could see the defensive alignment which we never got to see.
Then in the next game # 5, also at St. Louis, first inning, Pujols first at bat against Zack Greinke the exact thing happened.
Ball shot past the pitcher, up the middle. 99% of the time it's a hit, but if you had a view of the whole field, even if for only a second, you would have known that it was an easy ground out to the 2nd baseman playing directly behind 2nd.
In the BB-Ref. Play by Play, both plays are referenced as:
Ground Out 2B-1B (SS-2B)
October 17th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Mike G-
I don't even know if the announcers themselves notice that all the time. Sometimes they react as if a ball is a sure hit when it is hit right into the shift. I get that it is hard to resist the natural inclination when 99% of balls hit a certain way go for a hit but... these guys are supposed to be pros. Know where the defense is.
October 17th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I don't like Buck because he's not a good announcer, not because he isn't animated. I do take offense to the general rhetoric witnessed in this country (my perception) against public figures (or person's in general) who are reserved or stoic, as being somehow less caring or less feeling. There are the types of people who wear their emotions on their sleeves and that are always very up or very down. There is another type of person who is more even-keel, rolls with the punches. Both are what they are, no better no worse. For every Joe Buck there is a John Grudden who's enthusiasm is not refreshing or even valuable (most often).
This aspect also crops up when managers are fired, and often is used as a scapegoat. When it comes to managers, I don't think it would be best to have everyone like Ozzie Guillen.
So Joe Buck is a tool, no question, but on the basis that '...what I suspect he's going for, a "professional"' I would argue that I would prefer seeing announcers include a bit more tact in their approaches to games. Announcers should not be the focus of any broadcast; I am not watching the game to listen to them. I would prefer less announcing and let the game and the sounds of the game showcase itself. Since we do have broadcasters, guys like Collingsworth or Costas do a nice job of blending both.
It is bad enough that the studio hosts guffaw and prance around taking the focus away from the sport and onto them, but I don't need the Dick Vitales of the world saturating the broadcast.
October 17th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Cheese-
That is a good point, but I don't think Buck is stoic or reserved. He often comes across as if he is too big for the moment. Like he is above being excited. Lots of announcers do a great job playing the "straight man" to a more comedic sidekick. His name is escaping me, but the older gentlemen who was partnered with Madden for years on Fox comes to mine. By the end, it was clear age and other factors I heard rumored about caught up with him, but he did a fine job and rarely got super excited. Buck just seems smug and arrogant.
McCarver, for all his foibles, at least seems to recognize the moment. I don't remember who he was paired with (might have been Buck, actually), but I thought the way he handled the 1st inning of the 2003 ALCS Game 7 was impressive. Sox-Yankees, Game 7 of an epic series, Pedro and Clemens on the hill, Clemens getting the game started in what many thought might be his last game, they remained silent for the first few pitches, just letting the moment and crowd resonate. I had a lot of respect for that, since it would have been very easy for someone to wax poetic in that moment. If I had to choose, I'd take McCarver over Buck in my booth any day of the week because of little wrinkles like that. Of course, that might have been someone else's call and Buck was probably in the booth as well, but it seemed McCarvery.
October 17th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I couldn't agree more about the close-ups. At the very least, show some shots of the supposedly beautiful new ballpark, usually funded by Joe Taxpayer. I watched six games in Miller Park this year and still have no clue where the bullpens are. And I had no clue until the two base wild pitch how far you have to trot to the backstop...
October 18th, 2011 at 12:17 am
BSK, Madden's partner was Pat Summerall.
I don't remember that '03 game (though I must have watched it), but I'm sure Buck was with McCarver. Actually, I think Bret Boone was with them too. I believe that was the first season Fox brought in players as a guest announcers during the Championship Series. I thought it was inane, suddenly using amateurs during the biggest games of the season. Predictably enough, Boone was useless -- in fact he hardly spoke. But Al Leiter guested on the NLCS broadcast and was a revelation.
I could bitch for ages about all the problems I have with baseball telecasts. I don't have the energy right now. I don't know if they think they're promoting the game to casual fans, but from my perspective they show very little understanding of the game and it drives me insane.
October 18th, 2011 at 12:25 am
I know you're a football fan so I wanted to share a link to Summerall's famous field goal in the '58 season (for the GIANTS!!!), but I can't find it. I know video exists, odd that it's not on Utube or some such.
October 18th, 2011 at 4:43 am
@9: Apparently I cannot ad & type at the same time.
ESPN $4.69 per month. ESPN2 .62 per month.
Total= $5.31 per month. 97.8 million subscribers as of 2009.
About $519 million a month in subscriber fees.
October 18th, 2011 at 10:35 am
@25 - that is exactly what I am trying to say about Buck. It's not the lack of excitement, it's how it comes across as smug. I don't actually think this is true, exactly, it's just how Buck expresses himself. But something about him rubs me (and many others) the wrong way.
I don't mind reserved announcers in general, as long as they tell the story of the game. Radio guys are almost always superior for this, but I don't have a local radio station that broadcasts games, and only have satellite in the car.
And as for the post (7-hole hitters), it seems unlikely the batting order would ever be shifted around this time of year, excepting injuries. Managers like to give players set roles, and players like to get them. There's a reason Cruz is hitting 7th in the lineup (it may not be a good one, but it exists), and that reason isn't changing based on 6 games.
October 18th, 2011 at 11:23 am
@30, Aweb -- Yes, I'd guess that the reason Cruz hits 7th is that Washington likes having a slugger in the bottom of the order, and (as do so many managers) likes wasting his #2 spot on one of his worst hitters.
That Cruz hit 6 HRs in the series is impressive, but not exactly shocking. He's one of the most prolific HR hitters in the game today.
Over the past 3 seasons, Cruz's HR rate ranks 5th among all MLB players at 5.7% (min. 1,000 PAs). The only player in the 2011 postseason with a higher HR rate than Cruz for 2009-11 was Albert Pujols. For this year alone, Cruz was 11th in MLB HR% (min. 300 PAs). He homered in 4 straight games in April of this year; last year, he hit 6 HRs in his first 8 games.
October 18th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Sumerall was great. My dad said that a drinking problem sapped much of his energy and effectiveness later in his career (probably most or all of the Madden years), but I was too young to see him before that. I think he started doing golf, right? It'd make sense if that conditioned him to a different type of announcing.
Nantz is also a good one who wears multiple hats well.
AWeb-
If not for the delay on television, I would almost always prefer to watch the TV and listen to the radio. Someone could make a killing if they had a way to synch these up. Since the TV is the one that lags behind, you can't use DVR to make up for it.
October 18th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
"If not for the delay on television, I would almost always prefer to watch the TV and listen to the radio"
It feels like I wrote this. Totally agree. But FOX's worst broadcasters are in the spanish telecast. With these guys you can have a no-hitter going on and they would only read all the crap that people writes to them on twitter, it's embarrasing. On the other hand ESPN Deportes have guys who, not only have knowledge of the game but also played it.
October 19th, 2011 at 12:59 am
@ 30 & 31
The Rangers lineup has been inconstant flux throughout the year.
The 2 most consistent spots have been 1 &2 with Kinsler and Andrus respectively. They are there mostly for speed. Kinsler likes to think he is a power hitter and someone who just looks at his HR numbers might think that. But the number of pop-fly outs he produces are staggering. There is always a huge debate locally about the priority and lenience Kinsler is give by Wash to stay in that 1 spot.
The 3 spot is just handed to Hamilton. Due to his track record it is hard to argue with that. Some TEX fans would like for him to be more disciplined at the plate, but many overlook the first pitch swinging and only see the power numbers.
At the beginning of this season Beltre was handed the 4 spot. With his performance this season it is hard to argue with that choice in retrospect. But a mid season leg injury bumped Young up from 5 to 4 and Young has stayed there for the remainder of the regular season and post-season. With Young hitting so well late in to the regular season, Wash kept him at 4 and put Beltre in at 5. I'm guessing Beltre would demand a trade if he was pushed any lower in the order.
Napoli got hot right after the all-star break and stayed hot the rest of the way, both at and behind the plate. A late season leg injury for Cruz and Napoli's career year (plus Torrealba sucking harder than an Oklahoma twister behind the plate) moved Napoli up while Cruz healed. Cruz's injury was after the minor league season ended so he had no rehab assignment and with TEX having the division well enough in hand, Wash didn't rush Cruz back. This showed as Cruz was basically non-existent through the last week of the season and the ALDS. Look those numbers up if you wanna' see statistical proof as to why he was sitting at 7 but breaking records. There was local chatter before the ALCS about sitting Cruz and getting Moreland (last year's only WS bright spot) into the mix. If that had happened, you'd be watching a DET STL series tomorrow 🙂
Don't expect things to change in the WS. Wash doesn't play it like that. Young was also cold through the ALDS and ALCS but never moved from the 4 hole. Ron is a "It ain't broke" type of guy.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:01 am
Yeah, I hate the gimmicks too. They dont do it much anymore, but, I remember they got crazy with catcher cam one year. Worse camera use ever, the lens must have come from a demonically posessed funhouse mirror because I never saw the damn ball EVER.
I also hate how they have to show 8 different replays of a HR, invevitably missing the first 2 pitches to the next batter. (who could also hit what they think is the only "interesting" thing in baseball, a HR with those 1st 2 pitches)
October 19th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
@34: Rangers may have to change things up. If you throw out game 6 of ALCS, Rangers have only batted .238 (73-307) in the other 9 post-season games.
.238 minus the DH with first 2 games in St.Louis probably won't get the job done.
6-3 in those 9 games though. Not broke yet.
October 19th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Nelson Cruz and post-season homers from the 7-hole » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive. Nelson Cruz and post-season homers from the 7-hole » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive
October 19th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
@36
Could you please explain to me WHICH bat is it exactly that TEX will be missing when they play at STL? I will guarantee you that Young will be at 1B and Napoli will catch barring injury. So "If you subtract generic DH" arguments aren't really valid because both TEX most effective DH's can actually play multiple positions... shocking I know.
October 19th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
@38: Does not matter where they play.
Someone has to sit & the (3-24).125 pitchers have to bat 2 behind the 7-hole.
October 19th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
And now Napoli homers out of the Texas #7 spot. (OK, a couple innings ago).