Passivity on the basepaths

[sfgdood]

The Giants lack of aggressiveness killed them in the 9th inning. Everything was set up perfectly to at least tie and perhaps win. But instead of taking initiative and putting pressure on the defense, the team sat back and just waited and waited and eventually gave the game to the Rangers.

First, with Duffy up, two on, one out and a 3-2 count...I believe the runners should have been sent on the pitch. Duffy is more likely to hit a hard grounder than a strikeout. But of course, if he does strikeout, it's likely a DP and the game ends...I can understand the decision, though I'd have chosen the aggressive tact. If the runners go, Pagan scores, Aoki is at third and Posey is up with the tying run at 3rd and one out.

Second, and more egregiously, Kelly's failure to send the tying run on Posey's hit. People were on Roberto early in the year but I needed to see more before pronouncing judgment. I don't like Kelly coaching 3rd base. It's kind of surprising because he as a player was very aggressive on the basepaths. The play is to send the runner there. If the runner is thrown out you still have the tying run in scoring position with Pence up.

We should have tied the game, if not won it, in that inning.

[Islandboagie]

I agree, Randy. I'd even go a step further on being more aggressive with speed. Why are our faster players never trying to bunt for a hit when our offense is struggling?

[klaiggeb]

I guess I'm going to be the dissenting vote here when it comes to sending or not sending the runners.

I think Kelly made the right decision both times.

I do.

Aoki had JUST GOTTEN TO THE BAG, when hamilton, who is KNOWN for having a strong, accurate arm, was picking up the ball.

He was playing shallower tthan usual, any normal, not even accurate throw, would have gotten him.

No one could know he'd air mail the ball. That's just not something he normally does.

Same with Shin-Soo can I buy a vowel in RF. Yeah, his throw was terrible and the run WOULD have scored, but you can't bank on that happening.

I've BEEN that guy coaching third, and ya'all are making sound easy; a slam dunk decision. It isn't.

As Krukow said, "those decisions are made BEFORE the game."

Kelly could not and SHOULD NOT have foolishly gambled by making a very HIGH RISK move.

In other words, to ME, the juice wouldn't have been worth the squeeze, because 9 times out of 10, both runners would have been out by 30 feet.


If that had happened, Kelly would have been run out of town by the fans.

boly

[sfgdood]

Boly...in every inning BEFORE the 9th I might agree with you. But when you're behind in the final inning you need to be aggressive and force the defense to make a play. Yes the percentage play is to be conservative...but what did that get us? A series loss and knocked out of playoff position. No, when you're nearly out of outs and you have a chance to tie the game, you need to be aggressive, IMO. It wasn't Benjie Molina running from second. Aoki has speed. When the tying run has speed, that's the time to force the action. Like I said, if Aoki gets thrown out, we still have a chance with Duffy at 2nd base.

[klaiggeb]

Sorry, Randy, but I still disagree.

Go to the Giant website, and Listen to what Kuiper and Kruk say AS THE PLAY IS UNFOLDING.

Kuip"...And Aoki WISELY holds at third."

Kruk: "And that is the right play"

Kuip: "all this is decided in advance."

boly

[sfgdood]

I disagree very often with Kruk and Kuip...if you listen to them as much as I do, you know that they often will comment as though they are protecting friends from criticism

[Islandboagie]

Aoki was past 3rd base before the ball was even fielded. I think you have to put the pressure on the defense to make a perfect throw in that situation. I think Kruk and Kuip were quick to come to Kelly's defense because they knew it was going to be second guessed.

I'm sorry, I've seen enough of Kelly at third. Move Hayes over to third and put Kelly back at first.

But, of course, most of the blame for losing yesterday goes to the Giants inability to score that runner from third base with less than two outs. That's what championship teams are supposed to do.

[sfgdood]

I'm not a fan of Kelly at 3rd base coach but that said who's to say Hayes would be any better? It's most reasonable to get a new guy in the offseason.

[rxmeister]

Kelly is too conservative but I thought he was right in this case. A good throw gets him and I like Pence coming up with the bases loaded one out. You send him with two outs for sure, but it's the right play with only one out.

[Rog]

Let's not forget that Aoki was also coming off a broken ankle and isn't yet the base runner he was before the injury.

I guessed before the season that Roberto Kelly would cost the Giants two games, but it was only a guess. He certainly makes us appreciate Tim Flannery. On this play though, he may have been right. It didn't happen in this situation, but the Giants are the best team in the league in hitting with RISP.

As for not running with Matt Duffy at the plate, I do agree the Giants should have. Matt seems more likely to hit into a double play than strike out. The only reason I can think of for not sending the runner(s) is that it might make Matt more likely to swing at a pitch he felt was too close to take and then have it break well out of the strike zone.

[Rog]

As for Kelly, he might still grow into a good 3rd-base coach. I'm not overly optimistic, but I wouldn't give up quite yet.

[sfgdood]

Before Aoki returned, I kept hearing they were bringing him back slowly because they wanted him to be 100%. Pavlovic asked Bochy the day Aoki returned how limited Nori would be. Bochy said NOT ONE BIT. WE WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT HIM BACK IF HE WAS STILL LIMITED.

[Rog]

in every inning BEFORE the 9th I might agree with you. But when you're behind in the final inning you need to be aggressive and force the defense to make a play. Yes the percentage play is to be conservative..

Rog -- Unless there is some overriding factor which would make SENDING the runner the overriding factor (in which case IT would become the percentage play), there is a reason a play is called the percentage play. It works out a higher percentage of the time than other plays. Why would one not make the play that works the highest percentage of the time? Because he wants to LOSE a higher percentage of the time?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2955/passivity-on-basepaths#ixzz3jGBpi1qq

[Islandboagie]

If they always followed the best percentage they would only move runners up 90 feet on every play, since that would be the highest percentage. That doesn't seem logical.

[Rog]

If they always followed the best percentage they would only move runners up 90 feet on every play, since that would be the highest percentage. That doesn't seem logical.



Rog -- Isn't that kind of like saying that if the pitcher followed the best percentage play, he'd never throw a pitch, since he'd have a no-hitter every time? The "percentage play" is the one that offers the best reward/risk ratio.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2955/passivity-on-basepaths#ixzz3jf3ZbloJ

[Rog]

A coach probably tries not to throw a base runner just coming back from a broken ankle into a possible collision play at the plate.

Regarding this play, my general rule has been that if the runner hits third base before the fielder catches the ball, he will usually score. Speed, throwing arm, depth and fielding position can each throw off that general rule, but overall I think it makes sense. The coach has a lot to evaluate, including the game situation, in making his call. In a way, it's like a referee's call in that it involves a lot of factors and has to be made in a hurry.

It is also like a fielder's decision on which base to throw the ball to.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- Isn't that kind of like saying that if the pitcher followed the best percentage play, he'd never throw a pitch, since he'd have a no-hitter every time? The "percentage play" is the one that offers the best reward/risk ratio.

Boagie- Before, you said it was the play that worked the highest percentage of the time.

[Rog]

Rog -- Isn't that kind of like saying that if the pitcher followed the best percentage play, he'd never throw a pitch, since he'd have a no-hitter every time? The "percentage play" is the one that offers the best reward/risk ratio.

Boagie- Before, you said it was the play that worked the highest percentage of the time.

Rog -- I did indeed, but perhaps I didn't properly state the context. If by holding Aoki at third in 100 identical situations, the Giants were more likely to score on a subsequent play more than half the time, that would be the percentage play. If by sending him they would fare better if the play were run 100 times, sending him would be the percentage play.

Willie Mays provided an example of where taking more risk is the percentage play. With two outs and a weak hitter coming to the plate, he would be more aggressive (i.e., take more chances) than he would if a stronger hitter were coming up next with fewer than two outs. In the former case, playing it safe would be the percentage play, while in the latter situation, being more aggressive would be the percentage play.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but do you understand now what I was saying?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2955/passivity-on-basepaths#ixzz3kHHs4m00

[sfgdood]

yet another beauty from the "stats pulled out of my ass" file

[Rog]

yet another beauty from the "stats pulled out of my ass" file


Rog -- I don't think that's a fair comment, Randy.

Getting back to the original point, I think the Giants would indeed have sent a single runner with Duffy at the plate with one out and a full count, but with the hurting Angel Pagan at second base, I don't think it would have been the right play. Pagan isn't a good base stealer this season, and I don't recall his being great at stealing third anyway.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2955/passivity-on-basepaths#ixzz3kn1onrhT

[sfgdood]

The point of sending Pagan was not about stealing third. It's about putting pressure on the defense and taking advantage of Duffy being a contact hitter.

[Rog]

The point of sending Pagan was not about stealing third. It's about putting pressure on the defense and taking advantage of Duffy being a contact hitter.

Rog -- Isn't the point of the play making the decision that is most likely to work the best overall if the play were put on 100 times in that circumstance (the percentage play)? The play should be designed to take advantage of the contact by Duffy considered along with avoiding the double play with or without contact.

Since Pagan's chances of stealing third likely aren't good, the risk of a strike-him-out, throw-him-out double play is increased.

The basics of the decision are based on factors such as Matt's swing and miss percentage, the chance he will take strike three (likely pretty low), how likely he is to hit the ball on the ground hard enough for a double play, how likely he is to get a hit where the running start will make a difference, and how likely Pagan is to be thrown out at third base if Matt swings and misses or is called out on strikes.

Here are some facts we know:

. Matt swings at about a third of all pitches outside the strike zone (likely a higher percentage with two strikes).

. He misses about a third of those pitches when he does swing (likely a lower percentage with two strikes).

. He swings at about two-thirds of pitches in the strike zone (obviously more with two strikes).

. He misses about one in 11 strikes he swings at.

. He grounds into a double play about once every five opportunities.

. He strikes out about once every three plate appearances with two strikes.

In short, he was more likely to swing at or take a third strike than to ground into a double play.

Those are some of the things Bruce Bochy had to consider when deciding whether to run. The base runner, pitcher and catcher involved other factors.

Pagan's being in the position of attempting to steal third base rather than the easier second base might have been the deciding factor. I think if Pagan had been stealing second base, he would have sent him -- in part because there was no runner already in scoring position. With a runner already in scoring position and the more difficult base of third to steal, I don't think Bruce felt the odds of running favored the Giants.

He may have been right, and he may have been wrong. If we knew all the factors involved, we could make a fairly decent calculation of the advantages and disadvantages of either choice. But clearly it wasn't anything approaching a no-brainer decision.

And, yes, stealing third base and already having a runner in scoring position might have been the deciding factors.

I believe we benefit more from examining the factors that go into the decision than we do from simply saying, he should have been more aggressive to put pressure on the defense, or with a runner already in scoring position, he should simply have played it safe.

I don't feel comfortable criticizing Bruce for a decision I don't really know was wrong or was right. And while I agree it is often a good idea to put pressure on the defense, it is a strategy that should be used prudently.

Would this have been a prudent time? There are tens of factors that go into such a decision. We don't have time to research and discuss them all. Bruce himself had to make the decision in just a few seconds.

I certainly thought about running at the time. In reality, the decision had to be a close one. At best, either decision was likely right no more than three out of five times, and likely less.

To criticize a manager for making such a close decision seems rather fruitless, doesn't it?

It's fun to talk about such a decision. But it would take us a long time to know whether the decision was actually a good one, a bad one, or (most likely), one that wasn't likely to make much difference if the same situation arose 100 times.

Often when we criticize a manager, we reveal more about what we DON'T know than about what we do.






Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2955/passivity-on-basepaths#ixzz3l5eVOJBt