Years ago, former Red Sox manager Joe Morgan was signing autographs one March morning in Winter Haven, Fla. As Morgan dutifully signed one baseball after another, he engaged in conversations with fans, some of whom were firing questions to him about lineup construction and in-game decisions.
One fan, tired of the team's rather stationary offensive approach, had a simple query.
"Joe, why don't we run?'' asked the fan.
"Why don't we run?'' responded Morgan, barely looking up from the baseball to which he was affixing his signature. "Because we can't, sir.''
That was typical of Morgan: no-nonsense and unapologetic.
Morgan's point was obvious: the Red Sox were not a particularly speedy team, so asking them to try to steal bases, or go from first-to-third, was not only unwise but self-defeating.
Now, more than 30 years later, Kyle Hudson is trying to change that.
It can be argued that the 2023 Red Sox, because of how the game has evolved and the general improvements in conditioning, nutrition and other factors, are more athletic than their 1990 counterparts. Players are generally faster today than they were then. Still, it's all relative. Few Red Sox players are viewed as stolen base threats, and while they're not as sedentary as Jack Clark, they're not going to make anyone forget Rickey Henderson, either.
Hudson, however, thinks there's room for improvement. So, after being hired from the Cleveland Indians over the winter, Hudson has made it a project to make the Red Sox better on the bases. Maybe that means that players who have never stolen more than four bases in a season -- as is the case with Kiké Hernandez -- will now steal 10 or 12. And instead of going first-to-third on a double, perhaps more Red Sox baserunners will come around to score thanks to better technique and better jumps.
Every little competitive advantage can mean the difference between winning -- or losing -- a handful of games each season. And maybe that margin is the difference between securing a wild card spot, or going home for the winter when the regular season ends.
Hudson had a huge impact on the Cleveland Guardians, which is one of the things that attracted the Sox to him when they were looking for a first base coach/outfield instructor/baserunning coach. As a small market team, the Indians don't have a lot of thump in the lineup because such hitters are, by definition, expensive. So teams like the Indians seek to find other ways to beat opponents, and smarter baserunning is one of them.
Last year, the Guardians stole 119 bases, a figure topped by just two other clubs -- Texas (128) and Miami (122). But more tellingly, perhaps, is the fact that the Guardians went first-to-third (or home) on a single 115 times. No other American League team did so more than 93 times.
It's precisely that kind of controlled aggression that Hudson is trying to bring to the Red Sox.
"Baserunning and base stealing, those are two separate things for me,'' said Hudson. "The baserunning part of it is 90-95 percent of the battle. In one of our first team meetings of the year, AC (Alex Cora) said, 'We're going to get out of the (batter's) box (faster).' That's the baserunning side of it -- putting yourself in position to get an extra 90 feet. I want to build on that mentality. That's where we gain an advantage. If we're out of the box hard, we're putting pressure on the defense, we're taking the extra 90 feet whenever it presents itself.
''That's where most of the baserunning part lies. If I think about the baserunning aspect, it's 95 percent effort and intent and putting yourself in position to take the extra 90 feet and the remaining five percent is basestealing.''
Already, Hudson is seeing some yield. On Thursday, for example, Alex Verdugo read a Wall-ball double at Fenway expertly and easily scored all the way from first. The Sox want to apply that same attitude and approach to the rest of the lineup.
"We want to make sure that taking the extra base is at the forefront of what these guys are thinking,'' explained Hudson, "and how much that thinking can help us win games. Yeah, you can steal a base in low-leverage situations. But you can really impact a game when you take an extra 90 feet in high-leverage situations. Essentially, that's what we're trying to do.''
Teaching runners to be more aware and aggressive takes time, but Hudson has already seen Red Sox baserunners adopt the new mentality.
"It's a continuous process,'' he said. "We're going to continue to make it a priority, continue to talk about it every single day, continue to focus on it. I think we've already seen some improvements in that area and I think you're going to continue to see it.''
Part of that is dependent on Hudson developing trust with the players on the roster. It began in spring training and continues here, in the first month of the season. Hudson wants the players to know that the information he's relaying -- about a pitcher's move to first, or some other factor that can increase a baserunner's odds of success -- is reliable.
"That's a lot of the battle,'' he said. "If I give them a tell or a key, and then they see it in a game, a lightbulb kind of goes off, where they think, 'I'm comfortable now selling out for that particular thing.' It's an adjustment for everyone.''
As for pure basestealing, Hudson has identified Hernandez and Verdugo as the two Sox players capable of stealing more.
Hudson concedes, up front, that the current Red Sox roster isn't one blessed with elite speed.
"But,'' he cautioned, "that doesn't mean you can't steal bases. With Dugie, you see the athleticism, you see the speed. I know it necessarily hasn't shown in the basestealing department in the past. But I think that's because there hasn't been a focus on it. When you have a guy of that skill set and with those tools, if you are able to develop the ability to see certain things -- a tell or a key from a pitcher -- and bring that to the surface, guys key in a little bit. I just don't think Dugie has been comfortable seeing those things in the past, and as I continue to bring it to the forefront with him, his ability to put in play during games comes out.
"With Kiké, he doesn't have the speed of a Verdugo. But he has in-game speed. You see it in center field. He's not necessarily a speed guy, but he covers a ton of ground. His ability to get jumps, to see certain things, he has that ability. But if he's able to get a better jump or a better reaction (on the bases), he's going to be able to steal more bases.''
Hudson has been working extensively on video with both, preparing the players for certain cues from that night's starting pitcher.
"If you see it, then you can use it,'' said Hudson.
As Hudson notes, it's not necessary for the Red Sox to replicate a track meet to make an impact. Simply the threat of a stolen base can help win a game.
"You can do your job at first base and not try to steal,'' said Hudson. "If (the opponent) knows you're on it if the opportunity presents itself, that might be just enough for (the pitcher) to miss a spot and give us a better pitch to hit. It's just one more thing that team have to prepare for and defend against.''
______________________
The new rules in place for 2023 are, to my mind at least, generally positive.
The banning of infield shifts has had its intended effect: more balls in play, and more base hits. We've seen overall batting average spike some, and the hope is, in the long term, players will eventually realize that, with defenders no longer stacked on one side of the infield, there's no need to think that the only approach should be trying to hit the ball out of the ballpark.
Stolen bases are up, too, and that's another positive. I'm not sure the bigger bases are the main reason, but certainly the pickoff limits are encouraging baserunners to run more. The more athleticism on display, and the more close plays -- as almost every stole base attempt invariably is -- the better for the game.
And finally, who could argue against the impact of the pitch clock? Games are being completed in about 30 minutes less time than a season ago. And here's the key thing: what have we lost with those 30 minutes? Nothing of substance, certainly -- players stepping out of the box, readjusting batting gloves, taking practice swings, and interminable staredowns between pitchers and hitters. Nobody misses any of that.
As for claims that the game is being artificially hurried along, I say: nonsense. The game now unfolds at a natural pace. There's plenty of enjoyment to be had at a game that lasts "only'' 2:40, the way it did 30-40 years ago. Nothing is being sacrificed. The suggestion that fans are somehow being deprived because games aren't lasting 3:15 is also ridiculous.
In fact, anecdotally, more fans are staying longer at the ballpark. In recent years, especially on weeknights, Fenway would be half empty by the seventh inning; I'm seeing far less of that now because fans instinctively understand that the game isn't going to finish at 10:25. And, importantly, the games don't drag.
For those worried that all of a sudden, games under two hours are going to become the norm: fret not. The Red Sox-Angels game last weekend that finished in 1:57 was so brief because it was a 2-1 game with a total of 11 hits. A 2-1 game is supposed to be brief because there are far fewer scoring opportunities and baserunners.
That said, I am not on-board with at least one of the rules that MLB is currently auditioning in the independent Atlantic League.
Among the experimental rules: limiting "disengagements'' -- pickoffs or step-offs -- by the pitcher to one per plate appearance, as opposed to the current limit of two. That seems unnecessary for now at least.
Another is labeled the "double hook'' and would result in a team losing its DH if its starting pitcher doesn't pitch at least five innings. In theory, this would encourage teams to have starters pitch longer in games and would theoretically eliminate the use of the opener, since no team would voluntarily go into a game having chosen to have the pitcher hit while the opponents have the benefit of the DH.
I miss the days when starters would routinely go seven or eight innings, but is mandating that they go a minimum of five innings going to change much? Is it going to make the game more interesting? Doubtful.
But the absolute worst proposal is known as the "designated pinch runner,'' which would allow teams to insert a pinch-runner into games without losing the use of player for whom the pinch-runner is replacing.
It would work this way: Say Triston Casas draws a seventh-inning leadoff walk in a game in which the Red Sox are trailing. The Red Sox could then, say, elect to have Adalberto Mondesi pinch-run for him, thus giving themselves a far better chance at a stolen base, or, at minimum, a far speedier baserunner as they attempt to tie the game or take the lead. And, when the inning is over, Casas could retake his position at first base and remain in the game,
No. Negative. No chance.
This is a fundamental change to the game, which has always been played with the understanding that if a player is removed from the game, he's removed permanently. That's part of the strategy a manager has to consider when he inserts a pinch-hitter, a pinch-runner or makes a defensive substitution. If you want to make a move, there's a tradeoff and the understanding that the player being substituted will no longer be eligible for the remainder of the game.
This would toss that aside and make a mockery of late-inning strategy. Now, you can proverbially have your cake and eat it, too.
From there, it's a very slippery slope to the proposal of a few years ago -- the so-called Golden Batter rule -- in which teams could identify one hitter in the lineup and have him bat whenever they chose in the ninth inning. Did Mike Trout make the final out in the eighth inning? No problem! No, you can have him hit again if the first two runners get on base in the ninth.
Some rule changes are enhancements that can act as a corrective -- as the pitch clock clearly has done. But to invite wholesale changes to the basic tenets of the game is to risk making it unrecognizable to fans who loved it in the first place.
