Are we still allowed to be made at Ned Yost?
Despite what seemed to be their manager’s best efforts to the contrary, the Kansas City Royals fought out a tough 9-8 victory over the Oakland A’s Tuesday night in the AL wild-card playoff. The Royals overcame what appeared to be a fatal decision by Yost in the sixth inning, taking starter James Shields out of the ballgame with a 3-2 lead. Shields allowed a leadoff single to Oakland’s Sam Fuld, followed by a walk to Josh Donaldson, compelling Yost to make a pitching change.
At that point, the Royals’ ace had thrown 88 pitches. Shields made 34 starts during the regular season and the fewest pitches he threw in one of those games was 95. As the New York Times‘ Tyler Kepner pointed out on Twitter, Shields had thrown more than 88 pitches in every single start he’s made for the Royals over the past two seasons.
Of course, that doesn’t mean Yost was obligated to leave his No. 1 starter in until he crossed the 95- to 100-pitch threshold. But it could certainly be argued that Shields earned some benefit of the doubt during the two seasons he’s pitched in Kansas City, and perhaps Yost should have put a bit more trust in the pitcher who helped this team take that next step into a postseason contender.
Taking Shields out looked like a panic move by Yost. The next batter up for Oakland was Brandon Moss, who launched a two-run homer off Shields in the first inning. Prior to that, however, Shields had success against the A’s designated hitter, holding him to a .214 average with no extra-base hits in 14 plate appearances. Granted, that’s a small sample size to work from — but it was a far larger sample than the one Yost was apparently basing his decision on.
Maybe this was a gutsy call by Yost. While Shields is the Royals’ ace and should seemingly be accorded the same respect as a Jon Lester, Justin Verlander or Felix Hernandez, the Royals skipper felt his team had a better chance with a fresh arm, one that could throw 100 mph and blow Moss away.
But it was one thing to take Shields out when he had previously been dominating the A’s, had control of the ballgame and didn’t appear to be worn out. That decision was questionable by itself. Yost compounded the problem by bringing in Yordano Ventura, who’s pitched as a starter in 33 of hs 34 career appearances for the Royals. Asking a rookie to perform in a role to which he’s not normally accustomed is flirting with trouble.
It’s not just that Ventura typically starts a ballgame. Plenty of starters have come in to pitch relief during the postseason. But they’re usually brought in to begin an inning with no one on base and no outs, similar to starting a ballgame. Managers don’t often bring in starters to pitch relief with two runners on, no outs in the inning, and a one-run lead at stake. That’s an entirely different situation with an entirely different mindset, one which relievers prepare themselves for during the regular season because that’s their role. This was not Ventura’s role.
So it couldn’t have been a complete surprise when the 23-year-old fell behind on a two-ball, no-strike count to Moss, forcing him to throw a strike. Unfortunately, Ventura grooved a fastball down the middle of the strike zone — low, and a little bit toward the outside, just where a left-handed batter typically loves the ball. Even though the pitch was 98 mph, it was in a place where Moss could do some damage with it and he obliged by crushing a three-run homer, giving the A’s a 6-3 lead.
It should have been a knockout blow. The fact that the Royals kept fighting back — rallying from what looked like an insurmountable deficit and twice tying the score before eventually winning in the 12th inning — is a testament to their persistence and the confidence built from winning games like this frequently over the past six weeks while keeping pace with the Tigers and Mariners in the AL playoff race.
Maybe Yost deserves some credit for that. A team, as they say, is a reflection of its manager. Perhaps the Royals’ consistent refusal to stay down is fueled by a skipper who stubbornly sticks to his philosophies and whatever he and his coaches mapped out beforehand, even when the game seems to dictate a change in direction is necessary.
After the game, Yost explained that he opted for Ventura instead of reliever Kelvin Herrera — who’s pitched effectively in high-leverage situations all season — because he didn’t want his setup man to pitch more than one inning. In other words, he didn’t want Herrera to work in a role he wasn’t accustomed to. You know, like he asked Ventura to. That justification seems even more silly considering that Herrera eventually pitched 1.2 innings — nearly two innings! During that span, Herrera allowed one run and four hits.
Going into the Royals’ playoff game, fans, analysts and observers were ready to pounce on Yost as soon as he committed the glaring mistake everyone expected him to make. Either he would expose himself as a postseason newbie by failing to adapt to the dictates of postseason baseball — such as using a reliever for more than one inning, if necessary — or cost the Royals a chance to score multiple runs because of his insistence on bunting, giving away outs and playing for one run.
Yost bet that his team’s speed, especially off the bench, and penchant for the timely hit would result in the one run that gave Kansas City its first postseason victory in 29 years. On Tuesday night, it worked. The Royals won, giving K.C. fans a moment they’ll surely remember for years to come, even if this turns out to be just the beginning of a sustained run of success. Consequently, Yost appears vindicated. His strategies — as misguided as they seem — paid off.
Maybe that will continue throughout the postseason. We’ll all grind our teeth at the Royals’ constant bunting, grabbing for pennies when dollars are within reach. We’ll probably have at least one more opportunity to criticize how Yost uses his bullpen, questioning when he takes out a starter or brings in a reliever. All the while, the prevailing belief will be that the Royals are winning despite the inexplicable decisions of their manager.
Though Yost’s strategies worked in a one-game playoff setting, can he and his team keep walking that tightrope in a five-game series against an Angels club that finished with the best record in baseball? It sure seems doubtful. Yost’s managing eventually has to cost the Royals, right? Or somehow, the final results will justify Yost’s head-scratching decisions. Which side ends up correct could be the most intriguing question of the 2014 MLB postseason.
