sending overbay

[az240zz]

How could Williams send Overbay on Mileys hit. Especially with Parra coming up.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Made even worse by the fact that there were 2 outs... you never make the last out at 3rd or home plate... Stupid call by Willliams...

 

[azsportsfan01]

You have a 4 run lead, you can be aggressive.

 

[AZ Native]

You have a 4 run lead, you can be aggressive.

agressive, not stupid.

 

[Gaddabout]

you never make the last out at 3rd or home plate

This. It's baseball law, although I think home plate it more forgivable than 3rd base.

 

[DWKB]

This. It's baseball law, although I think home plate it more forgivable than 3rd base.

Right, you never make the last out at 3B because there is no sac benefit with 2 outs. Stay at 2B. The statistical gain of a runner on second with two outs vs a runner on third with two outs is only 0.043 Runs on average.

You can make the last out at home because the chance for the run is worth the risk. The statistical gain of a runner on third with two outs vs a runner scoring is 0.613 Runs on average.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Right, you never make the last out at 3B because there is no sac benefit with 2 outs. Stay at 2B. The statistical gain of a runner on second with two outs vs a runner on third with two outs is only 0.043 Runs on average.

You can make the last out at home because the chance for the run is worth the risk. The statistical gain of a runner on third with two outs vs a runner scoring is 0.613 Runs on average.

Not when you have Overbay as the runner and Parra coming to the plate.

 

[DWKB]

Not when you have Overbay as the runner and Parra coming to the plate.

Yes, yes you can. Parra is a career .281 hitter and is hitting .244 this year. That's an over 7/10 chance Overbay stays on 3B after the Parra AB.

Secondly, Parra has a career .329 OBP with a .271 OBP this year. That's almost a 7/10 chance the inning ends with Overbay left on 3B.

Trying for the run is worth the risk.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Yes, yes you can. Parra is a career .281 hitter and is hitting .244 this year. That's an over 7/10 chance Overbay stays on 3B after the Parra AB.

Secondly, Parra has a career .329 OBP with a .271 OBP this year. That's almost a 7/10 chance the inning ends with Overbay left on 3B.

Trying for the run is worth the risk.

Well, let me restate...

Not when you have a turtle running the bases and your leadoff hitter steppng to the plate.

Also, the throw beat Overbay by a mile... it wasn't as if it took a perfect throw to get him. Matty should've seen that as well. It was simply far batter off to hold Overbay at 3rd and let Parra have a shot. He's been showing improvement at the plate the past few games (hit a grand slam on Sunday), and with Hill and Upton up after him, there is just no way sending Overbay there makes any sense...

 

[DWKB]

Well, let me restate...

Not when you have a turtle running the bases and your leadoff hitter steppng to the plate.

Also, the throw beat Overbay by a mile... it wasn't as if it took a perfect throw to get him. Matty should've seen that as well. It was simply far batter off to hold Overbay at 3rd and let Parra have a shot. He's been showing improvement at the plate the past few games (hit a grand slam on Sunday), and with Hill and Upton up after him, there is just no way sending Overbay there makes any sense...

I did not see the play so I don't know how close it was or not. My original point is that the statement that you never make the last out at 3B is correct, the statement that you never make the last out at home is absolutely wrong. The numbers say the risk is worth it a high percentage of the time.

 

[82CardsGrad]

I did not see the play so I don't know how close it was or not. My original point is that the statement that you never make the last out at 3B is correct, the statement that you never make the last out at home is absolutely wrong. The numbers say the risk is worth it a high percentage of the time.

I was always taught that if you're going to try to score with 2 outs, you need to be damn sure of the situation (score, location of the ball, who is on deck). The odds you are quoting are most likely generic odds. If you go deeper and examine who the runner is (age, lack of speed) and who is on deck, I am certain the odds would lean more in favor of holding the runner at 3rd.

 

[DWKB]

I was always taught that if you're going to try to score with 2 outs, you need to be damn sure of the situation (score, location of the ball, who is on deck). The odds you are quoting are most likely generic odds. If you go deeper and examine who the runner is (age, lack of speed) and who is on deck, I am certain the odds would lean more in favor of holding the runner at 3rd.

This isn't what you originally said. Are you changing your opinion from "never" to "make sure the risk is worth it"?

 

[82CardsGrad]

This isn't what you originally said. Are you changing your opinion from "never" to "make sure the risk is worth it"?

No...Truth is that whenever anyone made the last out at home, they were scolded as much as those who made the last out at 3rd base.
I know the odds suggest it's more appropriate to take the shot and score than it is to try to reach 3rd base. However, MY view is that it's never worth making the last out at either base.
I was taught by a range of coaching styles. Some hyper aggressive, some ultra conservative and everything in between. It was only the hyper aggressive coaches who would remotely concede to taking the shot at home - and even then, ONLY if you were damn sure of the situation.
And, looking back over the 20 or so years of my playing time (Little League, Babe Ruth, Junior High, High School, College and post-college Amateur leagues), I can easily say that those hyper aggressive coaches were no more successful - and in many cases less successful, than the others. Further, the impact of making the last out at home on the team is quite deflating. It's not just the out itself. It's a major buzz-kill...

 

[DWKB]

No...Truth is that whenever anyone made the last out at home, they were scolded as much as those who made the last out at 3rd base.
I know the odds suggest it's more appropriate to take the shot and score than it is to try to reach 3rd base. However, MY view is that it's never worth making the last out at either base.
I was taught by a range of coaching styles. Some hyper aggressive, some ultra conservative and everything in between. It was only the hyper aggressive coaches who would remotely concede to taking the shot at home - and even then, ONLY if you were damn sure of the situation.
And, looking back over the 20 or so years of my playing time (Little League, Babe Ruth, Junior High, High School, College and post-college Amateur leagues), I can easily say that those hyper aggressive coaches were no more successful - and in many cases less successful, than the others. Further, the impact of making the last out at home on the team is quite deflating. It's not just the out itself. It's a major buzz-kill...

I'm sure your anecdotal experiences have biased your personal perspective on this play to swing one way, but everyone has experiences and they range the whole spectrum of what they think is best to do. That's why we have statistics. To cut through the ******** expertise that everyone professes to have and get to actual results.

People who play poker and blackjack would laugh you off the table and probably take all your money if you went only by gut and ignored the percentages. The same should be true for baseball.

Winning teams embrace change (edit: not chance) when new information comes along, losing teams do it the way it's always been done and ignore the data.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Sending a runner that has no chance of scoring is exactly what cost us Stephen Drew.

 

[az240zz]

Isn't Parra a career .400+ hitter with the bases loaded?

 

[DWKB]

Isn't Parra a career .400+ hitter with the bases loaded?

In 24 ABs?

He's a career .250 in RISP w/2 outs in 120 ABs.

 

[82CardsGrad]

I'm sure your anecdotal experiences have biased your personal perspective on this play to swing one way, but everyone has experiences and they range the whole spectrum of what they think is best to do. That's why we have statistics. To cut through the ******** expertise that everyone professes to have and get to actual results.

People who play poker and blackjack would laugh you off the table and probably take all your money if you went only by gut and ignored the percentages. The same should be true for baseball.

Winning teams embrace change (edit: not chance) when new information comes along, losing teams do it the way it's always been done and ignore the data.

You would be wrong in that case as well... FWIW, I play strictly by the book when it comes to Black Jack - never waver.

 

[DWKB]

You would be wrong in that case as well... FWIW, I play strictly by the book when it comes to Black Jack - never waver.

I'm thoroughly confused. I would be wrong because you do exactly what I said you should do?

If you play strictly "by the book" and never waiver, then aren't you playing the percentages? Is "the book" in Black Jack based upon the percentages? It sounds like you're making my argument for me.

 

[82CardsGrad]

I'm thoroughly confused. I would be wrong because you do exactly what I said you should do?

If you play strictly "by the book" and never waiver, then aren't you playing the percentages? Is "the book" in Black Jack based upon the percentages? It sounds like you're making my argument for me.

You said people at the black jack table would "laugh me off the table"... so you would be wrong there.
But yes - when it comes to my money, I certainly do play the %'s... most of the time, but always in black jack!

 

[DWKB]

You said people at the black jack table would "laugh me off the table"... so you would be wrong there.
But yes - when it comes to my money, I certainly do play the %'s... most of the time, but always in black jack!

Did you quit reading that sentence half way through? I said if you played only by gut and ignored the percentages. Your baseball argument that you NEVER send the runner with 2 outs is just that, a gut call ignoring the percentages.

In fact, with 2 outs it's the best time to send the runner compared to 1 out or 0 outs. This should be common sense. If you NEVER send on 2 outs, essentially you never send.

Percentage of success needed to break even on sending the runner from 3B based upon outs:

0 out: 78%
1 out: 65%
2 out: 37%

 

[82CardsGrad]

Did you quit reading that sentence half way through? I said if you played only by gut and ignored the percentages. Your baseball argument that you NEVER send the runner with 2 outs is just that, a gut call ignoring the percentages.

In fact, with 2 outs it's the best time to send the runner compared to 1 out or 0 outs. This should be common sense. If you NEVER send on 2 outs, essentially you never send.

Percentage of success needed to break even on sending the runner from 3B based upon outs:

0 out: 78%
1 out: 65%
2 out: 37%

Yes...

As for the rest of your comments... if only baseball was as easy as simply managing to the numbers. It's not. At all. And no matter how many numbers you choose to crunch, the reality is that when it comes to baseball (most other sports as well), many choose to factor in dynamics that extend beyond numbers. Sports involves humans. And while there is no doubt that professional sports can be boiled down to %'s and frequencies and probabilities, there is also the human element that many choose to consider along with, or, exclusive of the numbers...

 

[DWKB]

Yes...

As for the rest of your comments... if only baseball was as easy as simply managing to the numbers. It's not. At all. And no matter how many numbers you choose to crunch, the reality is that when it comes to baseball (most other sports as well), many choose to factor in dynamics that extend beyond numbers. Sports involves humans. And while there is no doubt that professional sports can be boiled down to %'s and frequencies and probabilities, there is also the human element that many choose to consider along with, or, exclusive of the numbers...

Rationally argue to us that if you NEVER send a runner from 3B with 2 outs that you'd send him with 1 out or 0 outs or that you never send the runner from 3B at all. Don't use stats or numbers, just baseball understanding and sequences.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Rationally argue to us that if you NEVER send a runner from 3B with 2 outs that you'd send him with 1 out or 0 outs or that you never send the runner from 3B. Don't use stats or numbers, just baseball understanding and sequences.

Here's the deal... there are few absolutes in baseball. In this case, the specific situation that occured with Overbay is perhaps one of those absolutes - at least for me.
Extremely slow runner. A cleanly played ball by the outfielder. 2 outs with the leadoff hitter stepping to the plate. I really wouldn't care what the generic %'s would say. In this instance, I would never, ever send Overbay. Even though we were already up 4 - 0... as Patterson showed later in the game, a 4 run lead is certainly not insurmountable.

That said, I will grant you that there could be other situations where sending the runner would be adviseable. For instance, if the #9 batter were on deck (even though you really wouldn't want your pitcher leading off the next inning - only a NL issue). Or, if there is 1 or 0 outs, you're up by a few runs early in the game and the top of the order is about to step to the plate - AND, you are more certain that the play at the plate will be less close (that it would take a perfect strike to nail the runner - which was NOT the case with Overbay).
There are myriad scenarios that can be further examined based upon number of outs, point in the game, ahead or behind the opposition, speed of runner, who is on deck (don't forget that managers have reems of data regarding batters' historical performances against every pitcher, and that will also weigh into the decision...it could be that the on-deck batter possesses great historical #'s against the pitcher. Why would you want to run the chance of taking the bat out of his hands with runners on base?)
For me - I would typically lean in the direction of not wanting to make the last out at home - period. But again, there could be specific scenarios where I might want to take that shot. The Overbay situation was simply not one of them.

 

[DWKB]

Here's the deal... there are few absolutes in baseball. In this case, the specific situation that occured with Overbay is perhaps one of those absolutes - at least for me.
Extremely slow runner. A cleanly played ball by the outfielder. 2 outs with the leadoff hitter stepping to the plate. I really wouldn't care what the generic %'s would say. In this instance, I would never, ever send Overbay. Even though we were already up 4 - 0... as Patterson showed later in the game, a 4 run lead is certainly not insurmountable.

That said, I will grant you that there could be other situations where sending the runner would be adviseable. For instance, if the #9 batter were on deck (even though you really wouldn't want your pitcher leading off the next inning - only a NL issue). Or, if there is 1 or 0 outs, you're up by a few runs early in the game and the top of the order is about to step to the plate - AND, you are more certain that the play at the plate will be less close (that it would take a perfect strike to nail the runner - which was NOT the case with Overbay).
There are myriad scenarios that can be further examined based upon number of outs, point in the game, ahead or behind the opposition, speed of runner, who is on deck (don't forget that managers have reems of data regarding batters' historical performances against every pitcher, and that will also weigh into the decision...it could be that the on-deck batter possesses great historical #'s against the pitcher. Why would you want to run the chance of taking the bat out of his hands with runners on base?)
For me - I would typically lean in the direction of not wanting to make the last out at home - period. But again, there could be specific scenarios where I might want to take that shot. The Overbay situation was simply not one of them.

So....the statement "you never make the last out at home plate" is wrong. You admit here that sometimes it is worth the risk. This is what I said, and you told me I was wrong. I just want you to admit I'm not and that you were. Cause you are.