Soccer: The Confounding Game

/0 Comments/in /by

Every four years I avidly follow international soccer, a/k/a the World Cup, and conclude with a desire to watch the sport again…in four more years. While I am watching I pick a team to root for – generally based on hairstyles and uniform colors, thus putting Germany at the bottom of the pack – and spend the rest of my time counting the faults of the game itself, which were on full display this year.
Let’s start, and in a way end, with the refereeing. To my mind, the smaller the role played by the referee, the better the sport. This is the cardinal problem with basketball. With physical contact on every play, what is or is not a foul is totally in the domain of the referee, who can, and often does, decide a close game by either blowing his whistle or swallowing it. Was it a charge or a blocking foul? Was the shot cleanly blocked, or did the defender hit the shooter’s hand, or body? What is traveling? Carrying the ball? Is the game called the same for the star and the rookie? For the home team and the visitors? The role of the referee in making all these subjective calls is simply too great.
At least, however, the court is small and the three refs used in the NBA can see everything. The soccer field is much bigger, and one referee covers the entire pitch and 22 players, not 10. Yes, he has two assistants, but they are on the sidelines and don’t seem to have equal authority or voice. So the chances of a missed call, as with England’s non-goal and the U.S.’s phantom foul, are greater.
The bigger problem, though, is the relative importance of the referee’s decisions. A foul call in basketball can result in two, or on rare occasions three points; and in maybe half those situations two points would have been scored anyway, absent the foul. So one referee’s decision will affect approximately one percent of a team’s scoring. In soccer, in contrast, a foul call in the penalty area may result in 100% of the scoring for the entire game! A foul outside the penalty area will still result in a “set piece,” and an inordinate number of goals in the World Cup came from such set pieces.
With the stakes involved in creating a foul so high – and this is not even counting the unrelated value of getting an opponent yellow-carded or red-carded – players uniformly resort to the most extreme play-acting whenever a potential foul occurs. The sight of a player writhing on the ground in agony, only to continue running full speed a moment later is a universally recognized blot on the game; but again it is caused by the undue impact a referee’s foul call can have.
Hockey, the clearest comparative sport, has a penalty shot, too; but it is awarded only when an offensive player has a clean breakaway and is unfairly deprived of a good opportunity to score. This is occasionally the case with a soccer penalty kick, but more often the player fouled was not about to score. Moreover, a penalty kick is far easier to convert than a penalty shot in hockey and almost always far easier than the chance the fouled player would have had without the foul.
A goal that is scored off the “run-of-play” – i.e., after a series of passes such as the Argentines and the Spaniards excelled at – is indeed a beautiful affair, worth celebrating. But it is worth no more in determining the victor than a goal off a corner kick, a set piece or a penalty kick, and those goals require no more than one lucky strike or a head in the right place. I don’t know the statistics, but it seemed, especiallly in the opening round, that as many goals were scored off set pieces as in the run of play; and whenever that happened you had little confidence that the better team was being rewarded.
The foregoing issues all come down to the difficulty of scoring through regular play in soccer. This is also a problem in itself: a 0-0 or 1-0 game may have moments of tension, but Americans in general and myself in particular prefer to see more beautiful plays, more celebrations, more scores, even more great saves. There is also the problem that once a team gets ahead, it can simply play defense the rest of the way, which takes the flow out of the game. Worse, if a team goes ahead by two goals, the game is basically over. The great comebacks that occasionally enliven a baseball, basketball or football game are exceedingly rare in soccer.
None of these problems seem to matter to the international soccer fan. Referees’ bad calls are considered an integral part of the game. Ditto for the fact that the better team may lose on a penalty kick or set piece (Switzerland beat eventual champion Spain in the opening game, despite being outshot about 20-1, and the world didn’t end). And a nil-nil draw is perfectly acceptable.
If someone were to ask for my suggestion, however, I would improve the game simultaneously in two ways by modifying (not eliminating) the offsides rule. First, the offsides call stops the game dead in its tracks. Second, it encourages defenses to stop attacks not by defending the opponent but by tricking him into being offsides. But most significantly, it interferes with many of the best scoring opportunities, exciting plays that would make the game more vibrant. And more goals, in addition to being more fun to watch, would diminish the exaggerated importance of the referee’s whistle and, one hopes, the players’ whining and acting.
One last related complaint: removing a player from the game for two yellow-card infractions also sets soccer apart from American sports. Given the dubiousness of many yellow-card calls (see referee’s problem, above), it can be a wholly undeserved penalty. But in no case is there justification for changing the entire nature of the contest as a result, which is what happens if one team has fewer players the rest of the match. In basketball a player is ejected for accumulating excessive fouls, and in baseball a player may be thrown out of the game for arguing,but in both cases he is replaced by a substitute. In hockey, again the closest comparison, a penalized team must play shorthanded, but in general for only two minutes.
In short, someone versed in the experience of American sport (and I haven’t even gotten into instant replay), could make some tweaks to the rules of soccer and turn it into a truly beautiful game. But I don’t think the world is looking to America for leadership in this field, alas.

Instant Replay

/0 Comments/in /by

Very shortly after the Armando Gallarage/Jim Joyce unperfect-game situation occurred, I settled on the instant-replay solution that is being more and more talked about, and it is simply this:
Give each manager one challenge flag, but one flag only, that he can use at any point in the game for anything other than a ball-and-strike call.
First, challenges will be rare. Unlike football, with its fumbles, trapped passes and out-of-bounds steps, baseball has very few close calls that require a second look.
Second, if the manager is limited to one challenge, he will not use it unless it is at a significant juncture, and he will want to save it for the end of the game, when a call may be decisive.
Third, it will not delay the game. The rules should require that a challenge flag may only be thrown from the dugout before the manager has left it. Thus, it will replace what would otherwise often be a lengthy argument that is a real game-delayer. Similarly, the rules should state that it is an automatic ejection if a manager leaves the dugout after throwing the flag.
Fourth, there need be no confusion, as there is in the NFL, over what calls can be challenged. Any call that a replay shows to be clearly erroneous may be reversed. Through experience, a smart manager will learn which those calls are.
Fifth, human error will remain in the game. Old-timers who say, we’ve always lived with bad calls, they’re a part of the game, need not feel deprived. If the umpires make 100 calls in a game, only two can be challenged, leaving 98 possible errors to live with, not even counting balls and strikes.
So much for the objections. What is the upside? Quite simply, there is less chance that a game will be decided on an obviously wrong call, thus serving the demands of competitive justice. For the umpire, there is less chance that his name will live in infamy, a la Don Denkinger or Jim Joyce. For the fan, there is one more chance to second-guess the manager: should he have used his challenge there or not?
Baseball changes, not always for the better – look at the DH, interleague play, etc. Adding one instant reply would be relatively modest. I am ready, in fact, for something more drastic: a laser-defined strike zone. Why put up with umpires’ wildly inconsistent strike zones? Why stand for your favorite hitter’s being called out on a pitch six inches off the plate? Why should Joe Mauer’s strike zone be accorded more weight than a rookie’s? Look at how tennis has adapted, and survived, with “hawkeye” replacing linespersons on the service line. The game of baseball would be just as good, with a lot less whining, if we heard a beep, or saw a light go on, whenever the pitch passed through the strike zone. I don’t think the umpires union is quite ready, however.

The Save – Part 2

/0 Comments/in /by

After the Twins blew a four-run lead in the ninth inning Saturday night against the lowly Brewers, Star Tribune columnist Patrick Reusse astutely criticised Twins skipper Ron Gardenhire for managing for statistics. By that Reusse meant that if the lead had been three runs, Gardy would have brought in his closer, Jon Rauch, to pitch the 9th; but because the lead was four – and it was therefore not a “save” situation – he used the less dependable Ron Mahay, until Mahay had loaded the bases and the Twins turned to Rauch, unfortunately too late.
In any other situation, Gardenhire would bring in whichever reliever was best positioned to get the job done. Since the job here was closing the game, and Rauch is his closer and hadn’t pitched recently, Rauch was the logical choice. Except for the mindset that Gardenhire, like many other managers, won’t use his closer unless there is a save to be gained. But designating a three-run margin as a save situation is an arbitrary stat-driven determination – one that, like the closer role, didn’t exist for much of baseball history. In every other aspect I can think of, the game is played to win, and the statistics are compiled after the fact, and fall where they may. This is the only instance I can think of where an arbitrary statistic itself determines how the game is played.

Twins-Yankees

/0 Comments/in /by

The air went out of the Twins tonight – and I hope it was just for one game, not the whole season – when that least-admirable of Yankees, Alex Rodriguez, turned a painfully wrought 4-3 Twins edge into a 7-4 Yankee pounding with one swing of his bat. One must question why Ron Gardenhire brought in Matt Guerrier to face A-Rod with the bases loaded, even though Rodriguez was batting .750 against Guerrier, including three homers in only eight times at bat. But then we all know that Gardy is strictly a by-the-(obsolete)book manager, who plays the right-against-right “percentages,” just as Yankee manager Joe Girardi brought in lefthander Damaso Marte the same inning to face Joe Mauer, even though Mauer’s average against lefties is about 150 points higher than against righties. Mauer proceeded to drive in the tying run, then left Justin Morneau drove in Mauer to give the Twins their shortlived lead.
I feel sorry for Scott Baker, who left the game with the lead but will have the loss on his record, but even worse for Brian Duensing, my current favorite Twin pitcher. Brought in to relieve Baker with men on second and third and no outs, Duensing retired the dangerous Brett Gardner on a popup, then was told to intentionally walk Mark Texeira before giving way to Guerrier. Of the four runs Guerrier surrendered on the Rodriguez slam, two go against Baker’s ledger and Duensing is charged with one run in one-third inning pitched, seriously damaging his ERA even though he did absolutely everything asked of him.
The Twins’ TV announcers were noticeably deflated, and the players seemed to merely go through the motions in their final two at-bats. The damn Yankees, whom the Twins haven’t defeated in years, had done it again, and what is more depressing is that Baker pitched a good game, Kubel broke out of his slump, and the two big men, Mauer and Morneau, came through with big at bats. And still, it wasn’t enough.

O-Dog Paws the Ground

/0 Comments/in /by

A favorite moment from my first visit to the new Target Field came on Orlando Hudson’s first at-bat. I had heard he was loquacious, ebullient, effervescent and all the rest, but I had never witnessed him in person. He gave a love-pat to umpire Tim Tschida, then rubbed his hand over the head of Red Sox catcher Victor Martinez. Next, he methodically rubbed out every trace of the chalk line delineating the back of the batter’s box, which to that point hadn’t been touched. Finally, he brazenly planted his back foot well behind the line that was now missing its chalk. I don’t think Tschida said a word.
My other impression was a reaction against the common refrain that there isn’t a bad seat in the house. I can name one: Section 123, Row 27, Seat 11, the ticket I purchased, albeit for only $20, on the street. The problem is the overhang from the upper deck, which might be nice on a rainy day, but otherwise means you’re not sitting in the sun, you can’t follow the flight of fly balls, you can’t see the main scoreboard or the downtown skyline. There is a TV monitor, but at a day game it is backlit and hard to see. I also found I had to twist my body to watch home plate, a problem at the Metrodome that I thought would be ameliorated in the baseball-only park. The lines at concession stands were horrendous, largely due to inexperienced servers, and the hot dogs weren’t very good; but I’m hoping those problems can be rectified. As for the seats, I will try something different next time.

Twins Preview

/0 Comments/in /by

Before the first pitch of the 2010 season, I should make my predictions. First, however, is a resolution: to be patient. Last year was not the first time that I gave up on the Twins in midseason, only to have them ultimately win their division. I die a little with each loss, not accepting that 72 losses would still constitute a successful season. By the same token, I may despair of a player who is hitting .200 in April, only to find that he is among the league leaders by October. So, a hasty judge this year I will not be.

The Twins, remarkably, open the season with no rookies; so we should have a decent idea of what to expect. Except there are two areas of Unknown: 1., the middle infield, and 2. the closer. At short and second the Twins have brought in J.J. Hardy and Orlando Hudson. Both are Gold Glove winners and former All-Stars, which augurs well. But both fell out of favor with their teams last year, which is why they are Twins now. It would be nice, but wholly unlikely, for both to regain their All-Star form. More likely, one will have been replaced in the lineup before the season is over. The good news is that the players who would otherwise have started at these positions – Punto, Casilla, Tolbert – will still available. Third base is a perpetual issue, but I am content to have Punto and Harris to contend there, with Danny Valencia in the minors awaiting his turn. Both players will make the most of their opportunities, and neither is a sulker. Justin Morneau makes me nervous, only because his spring slump mirrors the late-season slumps he has produced the last two years. He can carry the team when he is hot, but I fear that more and more pitchers are learning his weak spot.

Young, Span and Cuddyer are set in the outfield, the only question being how much DH Kubel will sub in, and Mauer will catch. He isn’t the greatest clutch hitter I’ve seen, but it’s hard to argue with a .350 average and three batting titles in four years.

Which brings us to the closer. I haven’t been a Joe Nathan fan, although it’s also hard to argue with his record. For me, a dominant closer is Goose Gossage or Mariano Rivera, guys who give you no chance. Nathan let runners get on base, and his demeanor on the mound, the heavy breathing, made me nervous. But everyone knew his place, which let Gardy manage by the book, the way he likes. For now, Jon Rauch has been designated the closer. Few expected this, and fewer expect it to last all season. That’s okay, as many teams change, or find, closers in midstream. Two years ago, Jose Mijares looked like he had the stuff to be the closer of the future, but last year he couldn’t throw strikes to the first batter, which is a problem for a closer. Three years ago, Pat Neshek looked like a future closer. How well he comes back from arm surgery is still a question, but he has the temperament to close, which Mijares probably doesn’t, yet. Last year the best option looked like Francisco Liriano, who was devastating for two or three innings of each start, and then faltered. But he doesn’t want it, and to be a closer you’ve got to want it. Matt Guerrier has been mentioned, but to me he’s just steady, not dominant enough, and he tends to give up the long ball. My guess is that, unless Liriano flops as a starter and sees the light or Neshek comes back strong, the Twins will be in the market in July for one more reliever.

Will they win? If Baker, Slowey and Blackburn continue to improve and Pavano holds up, I’d say they should. Will I throw in the towel if they are not in first place in August? No. I promise.

T-Wolves’ Last Shot

/0 Comments/in /by

My season of Timberwolves-viewing got off on the same bad foot previous ones have ended on, with the T-Wolves unable to get off a decent shot with a chance to win the game. Last night it was against Kevin Garnett and the undefeated Celtics, who played a very losable game with the particular help of new addition Rasheed Wallace, who insisted on clanking three-pointers in the fourth quarter. Thus, the Wolves found themselves down 92-90 with the ball and 13 seconds left.
My complaint in years past has been their tendency, at this point, to stop cutting-and-passing, the way they play best, and leave the ball in the hands of the point guard, who dribbles the clock down to three seconds, then finds that he can’t make a play all by himself – the familiar isolation dribble that works fine if you have Allen Iverson or Dwyane Wade or LeBron James on your team. My complaint last night was the equally familiar NBA move: the coach calls timeout to “draw up a play” or “make sure the team knows what to do.”
First of all, any basketball player who doesn’t know that in this situation you wait for the last shot doesn’t belong in a gym, let alone the NBA. Second, it shouldn’t take a coaching genius to tell you that, facing a much stronger team, you should try for a three-pointer and the win, not overtime. Therefore, what wisdom is there left for the coach to impart during the timeout. Yes, he can “draw up a play,” but what have practices been for? And how many such plays ever get effectively executed, given the unknown of the opponent’s defense?
On the other hand, by calling timeout, the coach a) gives the defense time to make situational substitutions and organize itself, a greater advantage to the generally harried defense than the offense; b) loses precious seconds and perhaps even the ball by requiring his offense to run an in-bounds play; and c) kills the momentum the offense often has when it has made a defensive stop and is coming downcourt with a chance to win.
Last year, the Wolves couldn’t even get the ball in-bounds in this situation. Last night, they did – barely – then had to repeat themselves after the Celtics used their “foul-to-give,” another weapon the defense often forgets or is unable to employ absent a time-out called by the offense. The ensuing “play” consisted of Corey Brewer, one of their most erratic offensive weapons, driving to the basket, which in itself basically removed the chance of a three-point shot and victory. Kevin Garnett tied him up after a mild foul – but what ref would call a foul on a defensive player of the year in that situation? – and there went the Wolves’ chance.
I won’t mind if the Wolves play all their games this close and it comes down to the last shot. I will continue to be bothered, though, if in those games the Wolves don’t get off that last shot.

Twins Get Swept

/0 Comments/in /by

When one team is 0-10 for the year against another, it is pretty safe to say that that second team, in this case the Yankees, is better than the first, in this case the Twins; so it is not really worth harping on a) the Twins’ fatigue in Game One; b) the ump’s bad call on Mauer’s ‘double’ (the worst call I’ve ever seen in the Majors) in Game Two; or c) Punto’s baserunning gaffe in Game Three. As Mike Lupica opined on Sunday morning, the Yankees would still have found a way to win these games. They not only have a decided edge in talent, they have a not unrelated psychological edge that will only dissipate once the Twins win a series against them.
Nevertheless, the ALDS just concluded was instructive in pinpointing the gaps between these Twins and a championship-caliber squad. The most obvious is the closer. The Twins would have won Game Two if Joe Nathan hadn’t surrendered a two-run homer to A-Rod on a fastball right down the middle, and they would have had a slight chance in Game Three if he hadn’t given up hits to the first two batters he faced in that ninth inning. Nathan has great save stats, but I’ll bet that less than half are what I would call ‘quality’ saves (see The Save). His huffing and nervous mannerisms make me nervous and make me admire, all the more, Mariano Rivera, who comes in and calmly throws strikes. Fuentes of the Angels, the Majors’ saves-leader, inspires similar confidence. But we all know that the Twins are lucky to even have Nathan, and an upgrade in this area is not foreseeable.
Partly that is due to the shortcomings of the relief staff leading up to him. I had high hopes for Pat Neshek two years ago, but his effectiveness after Tommy John surgery will be a question. Jose Mijares looked like a stopper mid-year, but he got, literally, no one out the last two weeks and looked lost on the mound. Matt Guerrier is serviceable, no more, and I hope we can keep Jon Rauch; but the end of the game is no longer the lock is used to be when the Twins had a lead after seven.
Cuddyer and Span blossomed into front-line players – I could even see them cracking the Yankees lineup. I have no doubt that we will see another season of Punto, Tolbert and Cabrera in the middle infield. Morneau will be back at first, hopefully with more consistency; and despite his being overmatched this last week, I think Jose Morales will be an upgrade on Mike Redmond as backup catcher.
If Delmon Young continues to improve, which is possible, he can contribute. A platoon with Jason Kubel would limit the defensive liabilities of both. If we keep Pavano, the pitching is set: Slowey, Baker, Pavano, Duensing, Blackburn is a solid five, without even considering Perkins, Liriano or Bonser. That leaves holes, big holes, at third base and DH, both places where power is needed. As the playoffs with the Yankees showed, three singles is not as good as one home run.
Unfortunately, the Twins will have to spend all their money on retaining Mauer, not to mention Pavano and Cabrera, and it is not likely they can get a third baseman in trade for, say, Carlos Gomez and Bonser (throw in Liriano, too). Still, this team showed over the last month what it can do when it is inspired. If it remembers and plays at that level for the whole summer in the new ballpark, 2010 could be fun, indeed. We might even beat the Yankees.

Twins Win

/0 Comments/in /by

By coincidence or not, the Twins began their improbable 17-4 stretch run the same day Justin Morneau went out for the season and I posted my negative assessment of their play to-date (see Twins at the Far Turn). Since no one read my posting, it’s likely that Morneau’s absence had the greater impact, in an addition-by-subtraction way. First, Morneau’s injured presence in the middle of the lineup was a kind of black hole, sucking life from Twins’ rallies. Second, removing the anointed rbi-man prompted others, notably Cuddyer and Kubel, to expand their roles. Finally, it provided a day-to-day consistency to the Twins lineup that paid off with the new, improved Delmon Young a fixture in left.
But as Gardy says, it all comes down to pitching, and this is where the Twins of the second half far exceeded the team of the first. Here, the biggest change was addition-by-addition. Jon Rauch suddenly gave Gardy a middle-to-late-inning righthander he could insert with confidence to back up starters who were consistently good for five or six innings, then faltered. Rauch was a clear notch above the erratic Crain and Keppel – and their performance improved under less pressure, as well.
One more change: when injury-prone Joe Crede finally went down for good, Gardy threw his lot in with Matt Tolbert, the sparkplug-type player he prefers, after bouncing the position around among Crede, Harris and Buscher for so long. And I shouldn’t forget the midseason pickup of Orlando Cabrera, who solved the first-half quandary of whom to bat second. The result: down the stretch, the Twins, for the first time in 2009, had a set lineup, and the pitchers had an established pecking order.
But still, they had a lot of ground to make up, and they couldn’t have done it without the help of the other teams in the division: the Royals and the White Sox knocked down the Tigers, and the Tigers and White Sox generally stumbled. But even when the opposition didn’t falter, the Twins excelled. Most notable was Joe Mauer’s hit against Zack Greinke on Saturday, breaking up a scoreless tie in one of the tauter, better-played games I saw all year. Even more crowd-pleasing was Cuddyer’s game-winning home run two innings later. Some of the other wins in the final week were messier; but all was rescued by the one-game playoff against the Tigers, one of the best games outside a World Series that anyone has seen.
First, the evenness of the matchup set the stage for the titanic struggle. Both teams, of course, had identical records. While the Twins held an 11-7 season edge and resulting home-field advantage, the Tigers had been in first place since May. The Twins hadn’t played particularly well most of the year and few of their fans even felt the team deserved a spot in the playoffs. Conversely, Detroit is going through such tough times as a city, how could you not root for some psychic satisfaction for their citizens? But once the game began, all that mattered was my feeling for the Twins.
The game itself is amply documented elsewhere. All I will mention are the pivotal moments that particularly resonated for me. First, almost more than the team, I wanted Mauer to win his batting title on up note. Neither of his hits were crucial (typical for the year, the Greinke at-bat aside), but by going 2-for-4 he registered the highest batting average for a catcher, ever – no small achievement. Punto and Tolbert, remnant “piranhas,” performed well: Tolbert scored a run with his baserunning and drove in the tying run in the 10th; Punto had a hit, a walk, almost drove in the winning run with his line-out to left and made a game-saving defensive play. In fact, his effort on Inge’s bounder up the middle contrasted nicely with Polanco’s inability to reach Tolbert’s harder shot to the same spot. Guerrier gave up a homer to the first batter he faced – how often have we seen that? – and Nathan turned in yet another gutsy, but dicey, save-type appearance: after allowing two hits, he escapes when a hard-hit line drive becomes a double play. After using up its best pitchers in the first 9, the Twins have to survive extra innings on the arms of Crain, Mahay and Keppel. Keppel gets his first major-league win, but not without major luck: with the bases loaded, the umpire mistakenly rules that Brandon Inge has not been hit by a pitch, then Laird strikes out swinging on a low pitch that would have been ball four. But best of all, for the 2009 Twins, are the heroes of the 12th-inning run: Carlos Gomez, in as a defensive replacement for Kubel, hooks a single to left, and is driven home by a bouncer to right by Alexi Casilla, who came in as a pinch-runner for Brendan Harris, who was hit-by-a-pitch while batting for Jose Morales. Flukey? maybe. Great baseball? definitely!

Twins at the Far Turn

/0 Comments/in /by

Like water seeking its own level, the Twins gurgle inexorably toward a .500 finish with three weeks remaining in the 2009 season. It is not, however, the frequency with which they have followed a big win with a deflating loss that has been most frustrating. Rather, it has been the listlessness of their play, their lack of fight. If the opposing team puts together a big inning, regardless of when it occurs, it is game over.
The defining loss of the stretch run came when the Twins were one strike away from sweeping the White Sox. Joe Nathan gave up two home runs in a row, then two walks, and the Sox suddenly had a 4-2 lead. Instead of charging back, the Twins went down meekly, 1-2-3, in the bottom of the ninth. Last week the Twins held an early 3-0 lead over the Blue Jays. Out of the blue, the Jays scored six runs in the 5th. Although the Twins would have four more at-bats, you knew the game was over. And it was.
Three years ago when the “Piranhas” were biting, every game, win or lose, was exciting. The Twins scrapped. The team played “small ball,” and somehow it seemed there were always a couple runners on base. Come-from-behind wins were common. I don’t have actual statistics, but I’ll bet that the Twins’ percentage of come-from-behind wins this year is near or at league bottom.
The malaise seems general, so it is perhaps unfair to single any player out; but any discussion of the Twins starts with Justin Morneau. I have long said that the Twins will go only as far as Morneau takes them. When he is hot, they are hard to beat. When he slumps, they falter. And when he slumps, there is a depression that must infect others around him. He invariably swings at the first pitch, either thinking it the best he will see or fearing to fall behind in the count. Once he falls behind, the pitcher can toy with him: a breaking ball outside or a high fast ball will produce a strikeout or a weak fly ball.
Other than Denard Span, the other Twins are also prone to popping up on the first pitch they see, resulting in innings as short as they are futile. Joe Mauer, of course, is the exception. His ability to hit, however, is so metronomic that it becomes taken for granted. His composure helps him play the game at a very high level, but it also seemingly fails to inspire his teammates.
What to do? Although the Twins are about sticking-with-what-we’ve-got, I can’t help think that a significant shakeup is in order for next year. New manager? New hitting coach? New left side of the infield and outfield? The relief pitching was the Achilles’ heel the first half of the season, but now, if they keep Liriano in the bullpen, it could be a strength, especially if Pat Neshek can come back. Nathan, Mijares, Guerrier, Liriano, Rauch provide a solid core, with Crain, Neshek, Bonser, Keppel fighting any Minor Leaguers for the last two spots. After this year, you have to wonder about the starters, but Baker, Pavano and Slowey seem solid, especially if they only have to pitch six innings. That means finding two more from Blackburn, Perkins, Duensing and any newcomers.
So, the question remains, how to inject some spark into a bunch of regulars for whom giving up easily may have become habit-forming?
9/13/09