Bochy vs Craig

[klaiggeb]

No way to ever prove my point, because it's OPINION, but I loved Roger sitting in the booth the other day.

For me, he did more with less, than ANY Giant manager I've ever seen.

He never had the pitching staff that Bochy had. Not even close.

Both are outstanding managers, for sure.

But I'll take Craig in a heartbeat.

Why? He's more aggressive.

These last two years, Bochy has almost become a station-to-station manager.

Though we haven't got a lot of guys who can steal bases, I've simply lost count of the times I've said, and Krukow and Kuiper have said; "Steal situation."

And we don't.

Same thing again yesterday.

Few hit and run plays, and the ONLY aggressive part of his staff is our 3rd base coach.

I contend Roger would NEVER have hit Sanchez 5th in the line up like he did Friday.

That was beyond stupid.

And yes, STUPID is the word I mean.

Holy crap! Move people around if you're sitting guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have hit Crawford 2 hole, Pence 3rd, Morris 4th and Pablo 5th.


Pablo in the 3 hole, and I've said this over and over and over, is RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Without Scutaro, and with our regulars out there, I have no problem, overall with what he's been donig.

But enough is enough. Neither Pablo, nor Posey, Nor Morse can run, but I want my BEST HITTER up there more often, and THAT guy is Posey.

My lineup?
Right NOW ONLY?

Pagan
Crawford
Pence
Posey
Pablo
Morris
Belt
Arias/Hicks/Adrianza


Ideally, when Belt is hitting the ball okay, I change that.

Pagan
Belt
Pence
Posey
Pablo
Morris
Crawford
2nd base

Once again, he confounds me, I don't CARE how many WS he's won.

boly

[rxmeister]

I have to agree with you, Boly, the guy puts absolutely no thought into his lineups. If you're starting for the number three hitter, then you're the number three hitter that day. OBP means nothing to the guy. The hitters struggling the most are the number two and three hitters, Pence and Sandoval, and right now he thinks it's wise to put them in front of his best hitter. He had his homerun leader sitting on the bench yesterday, but somehow managed to not get him a pinch hitting appearance in a1-0 loss, although he did have a situation with the tying run in scoring position and he thought it wise to use career minor leaguer Brandon Hicks instead because of the whole lefty-righty nonsense. Last week he had Posey on the bench and used him as a pinch hitter with first base open which of course resulted in an intentional walk. I'd take the 84 year old Craig over him RIGHT NOW!

[Rog]

Boly -- Pablo in the 3 hole, and I've said this over and over and over, is RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rog -- Ideally the Giants would have a big power hitter batting cleanup. Who knows? Maybe Michael Morse will prove to be that guy.

For now though, Buster Posey is probably the best candidate to bat cleanup. Or maybe he should be the one to bat third.

Research has shown that a team's best hitter should usually bat 2nd, 3rd or cleanup. The Giants' three best hitters may include Pablo. That may mean he should be batting 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

I would say that the Giants' three best hitters come from among Pablo, Buster, Belt and Pence. Morse might have a chance to challenge them. Possibly Scutaro when Marco returns -- but probably not.

One can argue that either Belt or Hunter should replace Pablo in the top three hitters, but to say it's ridiculous to bat Pablo 3rd seems a bit over the top to me.

If we assume Buster should hit cleanup, Brandon Belt seems like the #2 guy. He gets on base and can run a little (not a lot). That leaves either Pablo or Pence for #3 in the lineup. Pablo gets on base more; Hunter hits for more power. That sounds like Pablo at #3 and Hunter at #5 to me.

Or one could hit Pablo 3rd against right-handers and Hunter 3rd against southpaws. Or one could bat Pablo 5th, figuring his being a switch hitter would best protect Buster. That would also take advantage of Hunter's Pence higher in the order.

One could simply go with the hot hand batting 3rd.

My point is that one can make a decent argument in a lot of directions, one of which is to bat Pablo 3rd -- against righties at the very least. Not sure how batting him 3rd is ridiculous.

This certainly doesn't make it right, but Pablo has in fact hit 3rd more than any other Giant. And he hasn't done a bad job there.

I say let's at least keep an open mind on the subject. And perhaps see who's having a good year and who's having a poor one. Based on how they've performed so far this year, NEITHER Pablo nor Pence should be batting 3rd. Pablo has at least gotten on base more often though, so perhaps he would thus far have been the better choice.

Based on how the players have hit thus far this season, Angel Pagan might have been the best candidate to hit 3rd. Or maybe Brandon Hicks! Or Brandon Crawford!
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2232/bochy-craig#ixzz2ysWtQ9z5

[Rog]

Boly -- Though we haven't got a lot of guys who can steal bases, I've simply lost count of the times I've said, and Krukow and Kuiper have said; "Steal situation."

And we don't.

Rog -- I'm surprised that teams don't steal more often with a runner on first base, a good hitter at the plate, two outs, and two strikes on the hitter. At least until teams started pitching out a lot against them.

Angel Pagan has probably been their best. He has 40 steals and has been successful 77% of the time. That's probably been worth an extra run or two.

As you point out though, the Giants are somewhat limited in other situations by their not having a lot of good base stealers. Still, I see three potential problems in sending him more:

First, if he gets on first base leading off an inning, batting ahead of the team's best hitters, he should score a high percentage of the time without having to risk a steal.

Second, if the batter has to take a pitch to allow Angel to attempt to steal, that could cost the hitter 50 or so points in his bating average in the at bat, depending on who the hitter is.

Third, while we know that Angel has been successful 77% of the time overall, how likely is he to be successful if we give him the must-go signal?

There are a lot of factors to consider when deciding whether to send a hitter. Hopefully the Giants are in good position to judge those factors. I don't believe any of us are.

IMO I would be more apt to steal based on the following factors:

. The later and closer the game, the more likely I would be to steal.

. The less power the upcoming hitters have, the more likely I would be to steal.

. The more outs, the more likely I would be to steal.

. Obviously the more likely the base stealer is to be successful, the more likely I would be to steal.

. The less likely a taken strike is to bother the hitter, the more likely I would be to steal.

. The less likely being caught stealing is going to cause the pitcher to lead off, the more likely I would be to steal.

. The easier the pitcher and catcher are to steal on, the more likley I would be to steal.

As a coach, how much advantage do you think it is for the average good base stealer to go when he feels he has the best chance as opposed to going when his coach instructs him to do so? I suspect that varies from base stealer to base stealer. And I suspect we should know that factor before requiring the runner to go.

Your thoughts?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2232/bochy-craig#ixzz2ysy7stYm

[Rog]

Mark -- I have to agree with you, Boly, the guy puts absolutely no thought into his lineups.

Rog -- How do you know this, Mark? I realize you are saying you disagree with his choice of lineups, but it's unlike you to say a guy puts absolutely no thought into something just because he disagrees with you.

Mark -- If you're starting for the number three hitter, then you're the number three hitter that day.

Rog -- A few years ago Bruce had the most starting lineups of any manager in the game. It sounds to me as if he has more flexibility than you are giving him credit for.

Mark -- OBP means nothing to the guy.

Rog --Like most managers, he proably undervalues it, but I can't say it doesn't mean a thing to him.

Mark -- The hitters struggling the most are the number two and three hitters, Pence and Sandoval, and right now he thinks it's wise to put them in front of his best hitter.

Rog -- Doesn't this come down the philosophical question of when to keep hitters in their best positions because the odds are they will start hitting again or moving them around until they do so? At what point do you move a guy? I would probably be more aggressie in making changes too, but there are plenty of managers who wouldn't.

Mark -- He had his homerun leader sitting on the bench yesterday, but somehow managed to not get him a pinch hitting appearance in a1-0 loss, although he did have a situation with the tying run in scoring position and he thought it wise to use career minor leaguer Brandon Hicks instead because of the whole lefty-righty nonsense.

Rog -- We don't really know Bruce's reasons for using one Brandon instead of the other, do we? Possibly he used Hicks because Hicks has hit better than Belt of late. You just criticized him for using Pence and Pablo ahead of lesser career hitters. Now you're taking the opposite tack with the two Brandons. We don't truly know what Bruce was thinking, do we?

Mark -- Last week he had Posey on the bench and used him as a pinch hitter with first base open which of course resulted in an intentional walk.

Rog -- I found that one a bit baffling as well.

Mark -- I'd take the 84 year old Craig over him RIGHT NOW!

Rog -- I was disappointed in how much Roger had obviously slowed down. I suspect you were joking, but it was sad to see how much he appeared to have slipped.

I really liked Roger as a manager. He had a great name, of course, but of obviously lesser importance, he was able to teach pitchers the splitter and was very aggressive offensively. I LOVED how often he squeezed!

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2232/bochy-craig?page=1#scrollTo=19608#ixzz2yt9FD400

[islandboagie]

Roger Craig didn't have that many tough decisions to make with the lineup card. I liked Craig a lot, I probably agreed more with Craig's style of managing. But Bochy's style has proven to work despite a lot of second guessing from this board.

[klaiggeb]

Island--Roger Craig didn't have that many tough decisions to make with the lineup card. I liked Craig a lot, I probably agreed more with Craig's style of managing. But Bochy's style has proven to work despite a lot of second guessing from this board

---boly says---

Really can't argue with Bochy's success.

But I've always said the same things;

1-He confounds me with his lineups

2-He's not aggressive enough for me.


All I'm saying is that I prefered Roger's style. Like he said, he didn't sit back and wait for the 3 run homerun.

boly

[Rog]

Boly -- Really can't argue with Bochy's success.

But I've always said the same things;

1-He confounds me with his lineups

Rog -- This is another area in which we may not know or be considering as much as the manager. I haven't really analyzed Bruce's lineups, but I think we could improve on the lineups of most managers. Keep in mind too that there are many different ideas just on this board about lineup construction.

And our ideas can change over time, meaning something we might criticize today we might begin to realize the wisdom of tomorrow.

Boly -- 2-He's not aggressive enough for me.

Rog -- Again, there are a lot of different thoughts on that. Sometimes being aggressive wins games. On other occasions such as when Juan Perez was thrown out trying to steal (likely on a failed hit-and-run play), the inning progresses in a way that makes one wonder why the out was risked.

Using Perez's being thrown out as a for instance, Brandon Hicks soon walked, which would have gotten Perez to second anyway (had he still been on the bases).

It's all well and good to be aggressive (and as we have discussed here, there are better and worse situations for doing so), but if a guy doesn't steal successfully over 70% of the time, he's not really helping his team at all by trying to steal.

Perhaps we should talk about some of the costs of making an out on the bases:

. A runner is lost, and every runner has a certain chance of scoring, even if he's only on first base.

. The chance of a top hitter's coming to the plate that one extra time is reduced.

. A third of the inning is used up, limiting not only the chances of scoring, but particularly the chance of the big inning.

In short, it is far more costly to lose both an out and a base runner than is gained by stealing a base. Too often we look at the advantage to be gained without looking at the cost of being unsuccessful.


Boly -- All I'm saying is that I prefered Roger's style. Like he said, he didn't sit back and wait for the 3 run homerun.

Rog -- Roger's style was far more exciting, but I think we would need to look very closely at all the games both Roger and Bruce managed in order to see if that aggressiveness paid off.

Sitting back and waiting for the 3-run homer got Earl Weaver into the Hall of Fame. Obviously part of the decision as to how aggressive to be depends on the offensive and defensive players and pitchers on the team.

If I were given the choice of whether to be more aggressive or more SELECTIVELY aggressive, I think I would usually choose the latter. The players on a team and the game situation itself can make a big difference in how wise being aggressive is.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2232/bochy-craig#ixzz2z2AZ1Q3t

[islandboagie]

Rog -- This is another area in which we may not know or be considering as much as the manager. I haven't really analyzed Bruce's lineups, but I think we could improve on the lineups of most managers. Keep in mind too that there are many different ideas just on this board about lineup construction.

And our ideas can change over time, meaning something we might criticize today we might begin to realize the wisdom of tomorrow.

Boagie- I don't think there's any wisdom in batting Aaron Rowand leadoff for nearly a year and a half.

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- Roger's style was far more exciting, but I think we would need to look very closely at all the games both Roger and Bruce managed in order to see if that aggressiveness paid off.

---boly says---

Rog, you've missed my entire point.

Of course I want success, but all I said was, "Bochy is not aggressive enough for me."

and he's not.

Me. No one else.

He has some guys who can run, and if not steal, then Hit and Run.

But too often, way too often for MY TASTES, he sits back... and doesn't do anything.

boly

[Rog]

Rog -- Roger's style was far more exciting, but I think we would need to look very closely at all the games both Roger and Bruce managed in order to see if that aggressiveness paid off.

---boly says---

Rog, you've missed my entire point.

Of course I want success, but all I said was, "Bochy is not aggressive enough for me."

and he's not.

Me. No one else.

He has some guys who can run, and if not steal, then Hit and Run.

But too often, way too often for MY TASTES, he sits back... and doesn't do anything.

Rog -- You and I both prefer aggressive baseball from an excitement point. The way Roger Craig ran those squeeze plays -- hardly ever getting pitched out on -- was just fabulous.

My point though is that we need to analyze how EFFECTIVE being more aggressive would likely be for the Giants.

I have often mentioned that a team's good base stealers should probably steal more, while its poor base stealers should almost always attempt to steal less often. But really, whom do the Giants have who is likely to make a significant difference on the bases?

Angel Pagan is one such player. He's been successful 77% of the time for the Giants. 77% helps a team, and as long as a guy can keep up that percentage, he should go a LOT.

But here are the questions we should ask about Pagan:

. How likely is he to make it when he is given the steal sign as opposed to going when he feels he can get a good jump?

. Are there pitcher/catcher combinations against whom he should rarely try to steal?

. On the other hand, are there pitcher/catcher combinations against whom he should almost ALWAYS try to steal?

. At what point would his stealing frequency lead to pitchouts and a likely drop in his success rate?

. How likely is he to get picked off if he takes the extra risk of getting a good jump when he's stealing as opposed to being able to take the more conservative leadoff when he's not going?

. How much would it hurt the batter at the plate to take a strike or two in order to facilitate Angel's increased steal attempts?

. How much would extra steals by Angel rattle the opposing pitchers and defenses?


In other words, we know it would be exciting if Angel stole more often. But would it help or hurt the team? Perhaps the analysis of Bruce Bochy and the Giants' coaching staff is that it would hurt more than help.

As for hitting and running, that's a tricky dynamic that depends on the batter as well as the runner. As an example, on the surface it would seem that Buster Posey, a very good contact hitter, would be a fine candidate for the hit and run play. But his best ability seems to be waiting for the pitch he WANTS to hit. In addition, hitting and running would almost certainly rob him of some of his power.

For non-contact hitters, it could result in a lot of caught stealings. It could also result in unnecessary strikes on the batter, making him more prone to strikeouts.

More stealing and hitting and running might help the Giants. It also might hurt them.

It would be exciting. But would it be effective?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2232/bochy-craig#ixzz2z7W4OoLL

[klaiggeb]

Rog--My point though is that we need to analyze how EFFECTIVE being more aggressive would likely be for the Giants.

---boly says---

Again, you're using that arguement "we just don't know," and I disagree with your logic.

You look at uncertainties, and I look at how much better the team would be.

For example, a 77% steal rate is very good.

That leaves 23% failure.

But, and here's where you arguement begins to fall apart: do we poo-poo a hitter because they ONLY hit .300?

That means THEY FAIL 70% of the time!


I'm not advocating squeezes like Craig did.

I'm not advocating Pagan trying to steal 100 bases.


I AM ADVOCATING Bochy being MORE aggressive when the opportunites present themselves.


Again I ask this question; how often had we heard both Krukow and Kuiper say, 'this is a steal situation,' at a critical juncture of the game?

And I'VE advocating running more than they do!


Bochy should turn it up a couple notches.



I mean, for crying out loud, the press and all of us all bitch about "TORTURE!"

But I contend Bochy gets HIMSELF and the team, into those situations all too often.

It doesn't have to be like that.


You see the cost of failure, I see the benefits when the likey hood of success is in my favor: again, my exampl 77% chance to succeed, on 23% to fail... DEPENDING of course, on how well the pitcher and catcher do their jobs.

Most catchers are NOT Yadier Molina, and most pitchers DON'T hold runners at an exceptional rate.

boly

[Rog]

Again, you're using that arguement "we just don't know," and I disagree with your logic.



You look at uncertainties, and I look at how much better the team would be.



For example, a 77% steal rate is very good.



That leaves 23% failure.



But, and here's where you arguement begins to fall apart: do we poo-poo a hitter because they ONLY hit .300?



That means THEY FAIL 70% of the time!





I'm not advocating squeezes like Craig did.



I'm not advocating Pagan trying to steal 100 bases.





I AM ADVOCATING Bochy being MORE aggressive when the opportunites present themselves.



Rog -- If I'm not understanding you, Boly, you're also not understanding me. Let me go through your points, not necessarily in order.



First, and this will likely surprise you, I WOULD use the squeeze in the right situations. If a batter is going to make an out to gain a base, he should gain the most important one or ones. By far the two most important bases are home (because it guarantees a run) and first, since it means the batter DIDN'T make an out. So in terms of using an out to gain a base, home is easily the most important; thus the squeeze.



The other time it most makes sense to advance a runner with an out is when the out advances MORE than one runner, increasing the bases from one to two. Sacrificing with runners on first AND second usually is more rewarding than bunting with a runner on first OR second.



Now, one to stolen bases. The "breakeven" point is about 7 successful steals for every 10 attempts. I have mentioned how I would steal more with two outs -- especially with a good but not powerful batter at the plate. Two strikes and two outs? I would go for it a high percentage of the time, with the top or middle of the order up. To me the purpose of the bottom of the order isn't simply to score the odd run; it's to get back to the TOP of the order where the serious runs are scored.



So I would leverage my team's steal attempts, attempting to steal not merely to be more aggressive, but to take advantage of the positive leverage of the right situations and avoid the negative leverage of less desirable spots.



I have pointed out that I want my best base stealers to steal more often and my bad ones to steal less. So generally speaking I would encourage a guy like Pagan (77% success, and as you point out, only 23% failure) to go more often. But the question is would I give him the MUST STEAL sign very often? I can't answer that without knowing how often he is successful when he HAS to steal. If it's the same 77%, I'm directing him to go A LOT. But what if his success rate falls to 67% in must-go situations? That's just below break-even, so I'm going to send him only when the leverage is clearly in his favor.



This is an extreme, but if a guy can steal home 67% of the time, I'm going to have him steal A LOT. If he can steal second with two outs and two strikes on the batter, I'm going to send him in that situation A LOT. IF he can steal third 67% of the time, I'm going to send him with runners on first and second A LOT.



What I'm saying is that I would steal strategically more than indiscriminately. I realize you wouldn't simply steal for the sake of stealing, either. But my point is that the average base stealer in the average situation is almost certainly going to cost his team more runs than he gains it.



If Pagan leads off the game with a single or a walk, I'm not going to give him the don't steal sign (unless he has bad judgment as to when to steal). But with no outs and what are in theory the best hitters on the team coming up, his chances of scoring WITHOUT stealing are already quite good. The chances of scoring multiple runs in the inning are at least decent. If he gets caught stealing, the chance of scoring one run goes down -- and the chances of scoring MULTIPLE runs goes WAY down.



But perhaps the most important factor to me as to whether to give Angel the MUST STEAL sign or not is: How often can he be successful if I force him to run? 77%? Go for it. 67%? Strategically. 57% (4 out of 7)? Not very often.



I think you and I are saying much the same thing. I think where we differ is that you would steal more often to put pressure on the defense, while I would steal more often in leveraged situations. Perhaps you appreciate the advantage of taking the extra base more than I do. Perhaps I appreciate the advantage of NOT making an out more than you.



I may be wrong here, but I feel that to an extent you would be aggressive for the sake of being aggressive. I too would be aggressive -- but I would do it more to be strategic than simply to be aggressive.



As an example, with two outs, I'll be you I would steal at least as often as you. With no outs, I would likely steal much less often than you would.



You would bunt more often than I. I might be at least as aggressive at taking the extra base on hit balls as you, but I would do so primarily because advancing runners have a much higher success rate than stealing base runners do. Again, I would be most aggressive with two outs, and most aggressive in trying to SCORE.



I'm with you on Tim Flannery, and not just because he hit the last foul ball I caught (which tells you how long THAT has been). He is STRATEGICALLY aggressive. I guess I might summarize our slight differences by this sentence and emphasis: I would be STRATEGICALLY aggressive, while you would be strategically AGGRESSIVE. The difference is subtle, but perhaps not quite as small.



You would force more defensive mistakes and take more bases. I would make fewer outs, but hopefully still take more bases in what I deem to be the right situations. I would have to be really on top of my game, because I would be making decisions based on a PLETHORA of data. Strangely, it would be somewhat like officiating basketball in that I would need to assimilate a LOT of data very quickly.



My guess is that you would make the better manager, since I believe you would be the better motivator. I might make the better bench coach, since I would likely be more interested in true percentage plays, not necessarily the ones that are conventionally considered to be so. I would of course have you make the final decision, but I would let you know, for instance, what percentage of the time of the time Angel was successful when he stole ON COMMAND. I would let you know what percentage of the time base stealers in general were successful against the pitcher-catcher combination. I might even have the success percentage of GOOD base stealers against that particular battery. And perhaps Angel's success percentage against similar pitcher-catcher combinations (or simply against left-handers or right-handers).



You would already have a good idea of the percentages. I would try to have them cross-referenced as many pertinent ways as possible. If you already were making the "right" call 80% of the time, I would try to help you make it 90%.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2232/bochy-craig#ixzz2zMW9TaMf