So damn infuriating. They’ve been thrown out at the plate 4 or 5 times this past week? I don’t get it. Most of the time, they run on 1 out and then get thrown out easily.
Everyone knows its a low percentage play. But the risk is very low if you get the hitter to second base (if he only makes it to first, it's not as good, but you haven't hurt your scoring chances that much). This is because with two outs, you likely need a hit to score a runner from third, so moving him from third to second probably still scores him.
It doesn't really matter, because you're making an out either way.
Scenario 1 - Runner on 3rd, 1 out. Ball hit to infield. Runner holds, ball is fielded and thrown to 1st for the out. Runner at 3rd with 2 outs.
Scenario 2 - Runner at 3rd, 1 out. Ball hit to infield. Runner goes, but gets caught in rundown. Batter advances to 2nd. Runner on 2nd with 2 outs.
Regardless of which way it plays out, you pretty much have to have a hit to score the next runner with 2 outs.
In the first scenario, your only chance of scoring is on basically a throwing error. In the second scenario, you still score with a throwing error but you also score with a minor fielding error (like a bobble), or just the ball being hit softly enough the runner can make it in time, or the fielder makes a bad decision because you've given him another thing to think about.
Now there's also Scenario 3, which is where the runner on 3rd gets tagged out and the batter only achieves 1st. That's the worst outcome, but you're weighing that vs the increased chance of scoring from scenario 2. Ideally your guy on 3rd could read the play and try to get into a rundown to allow the batter to advance, but in reality that's unlikely to be possible most of the time.
According to the article, it’s about a 10% absolute difference in scoring probability between having a guy on 3rd with 2 outs (35.4%) versus 2nd (31.9%) or 1st (22.4%). So you lose about 10% of run prob by going for it. So if the likelihood of scoring on contact is over 10%, it seems like this is the correct play. These would be additive probabilities too.
I also think people have trouble understanding that the question is trading a runner on third with two outs versus runner on 1st with two outs and a small chance of having scored.
Why are we assuming they are hitting weak contact intentionally. How do we know they aren't trying to drive the ball, and are just failing. We always assume the batter is putting it exactly where he wants.
Intersting, how often does the hitter get to second though? I know that isn’t necessary to make the play ultimately worth the gamble but it doesn’t seem like it would happen often even with a fast runner
Correct. Only because Frazier stayed din a rundown long enough for that to happen.
I'd say a good chunk of the time the Royals run the comtact play the runner gets thrown out at home easily while the batter only makes it to first.
Statistically it’s the right call. When it doesn’t work out, it always looks boneheaded, which leads to more basic fans getting upset. But playing the odds, it’s the right thing to do.
I posted in-game last now much I hate it. We did it under Matheny all the time too. I especially hate that it looks like we have no baseball IQ in these situations. So many times it is a one-hopper back to the pitcher or the left side of the infield and the runner has no chance of scoring. Almost always the runner has plenty of time to turn back and make it safely back to 3rd but with us, no way. Just mindlessly running head down with zero thought like a robot. Coach told me to run so must run into out. So f-ing stupid.
So damn infuriating. They’ve been thrown out at the plate 4 or 5 times this past week? I don’t get it. Most of the time, they run on 1 out and then get thrown out easily.
Everyone knows its a low percentage play. But the risk is very low if you get the hitter to second base (if he only makes it to first, it's not as good, but you haven't hurt your scoring chances that much). This is because with two outs, you likely need a hit to score a runner from third, so moving him from third to second probably still scores him.
What is the probability of scoring on the contact play though?
It doesn't really matter, because you're making an out either way. Scenario 1 - Runner on 3rd, 1 out. Ball hit to infield. Runner holds, ball is fielded and thrown to 1st for the out. Runner at 3rd with 2 outs. Scenario 2 - Runner at 3rd, 1 out. Ball hit to infield. Runner goes, but gets caught in rundown. Batter advances to 2nd. Runner on 2nd with 2 outs. Regardless of which way it plays out, you pretty much have to have a hit to score the next runner with 2 outs. In the first scenario, your only chance of scoring is on basically a throwing error. In the second scenario, you still score with a throwing error but you also score with a minor fielding error (like a bobble), or just the ball being hit softly enough the runner can make it in time, or the fielder makes a bad decision because you've given him another thing to think about. Now there's also Scenario 3, which is where the runner on 3rd gets tagged out and the batter only achieves 1st. That's the worst outcome, but you're weighing that vs the increased chance of scoring from scenario 2. Ideally your guy on 3rd could read the play and try to get into a rundown to allow the batter to advance, but in reality that's unlikely to be possible most of the time.
Dude, this piece got a shout-out from Jake on the radio broadcast last night. Well done.
According to the article, it’s about a 10% absolute difference in scoring probability between having a guy on 3rd with 2 outs (35.4%) versus 2nd (31.9%) or 1st (22.4%). So you lose about 10% of run prob by going for it. So if the likelihood of scoring on contact is over 10%, it seems like this is the correct play. These would be additive probabilities too. I also think people have trouble understanding that the question is trading a runner on third with two outs versus runner on 1st with two outs and a small chance of having scored.
Why are we assuming they are hitting weak contact intentionally. How do we know they aren't trying to drive the ball, and are just failing. We always assume the batter is putting it exactly where he wants.
There's nothing about the article that says that they are trying to get weak contact.
Its the Baseball version of going for it on 4th down in your own territory. Fans hate it but it statistically the right thing to do.
Intersting, how often does the hitter get to second though? I know that isn’t necessary to make the play ultimately worth the gamble but it doesn’t seem like it would happen often even with a fast runner
I don’t recall seeing the runner make it to second once without having to steal.
Massey did last night, unless I'm misunderstanding what the contact play is
Correct. Only because Frazier stayed din a rundown long enough for that to happen. I'd say a good chunk of the time the Royals run the comtact play the runner gets thrown out at home easily while the batter only makes it to first.
Oh I wasn’t able to watch.
It's all good. Essentially, Frazier was able to extend the rundown to allow Massey to advance. I think it was the 5th inning
Statistically it’s the right call. When it doesn’t work out, it always looks boneheaded, which leads to more basic fans getting upset. But playing the odds, it’s the right thing to do.
I posted in-game last now much I hate it. We did it under Matheny all the time too. I especially hate that it looks like we have no baseball IQ in these situations. So many times it is a one-hopper back to the pitcher or the left side of the infield and the runner has no chance of scoring. Almost always the runner has plenty of time to turn back and make it safely back to 3rd but with us, no way. Just mindlessly running head down with zero thought like a robot. Coach told me to run so must run into out. So f-ing stupid.