World Series Strategy: Pinch Running

[2001MUgrad]

I haven't seen a thread about this and am really curious if I'm the only one that saw this as a huge mistake. In the end it did not matter what so ever. But, Why did Leyland think when he pinch ran for Sean Cassey in the 9th?? He hit that double there was an out and the Tigers were down by 2. That base runner at second base means nothing unless the guy at the plate or on deck scores too. Cassey isn't in the business of making dumb base running decisions either, I know he is slow, but still. Maybe in certain circumstances I could see that philosophy. But, Cassey has basically been the only bat you've had in the series. If something happens it gets tied up and ends up going 12 innings. Guess who can't bat again?

I saw Narron do that a few times with Dunn for defensive subs this year at the end of games. And, with the BP struggles Dunn's spot came up to bat again and would have been relevant.

Am I using too much common sense where as baseball managers go strictly by a book or what?

[IslandRed]

Yeah, I didn't get that at all either.

[cincinnati chili]

Unless Casey was hurt, that was a stupid stupid move. McCarver picked it up immediately.

[westofyou]

Unless Casey was hurt, that was a stupid stupid move. McCarver picked it up immediately.

What made it stupid (and he did look horrible running and does have an injured calf , also he now wears leg protection) was that the DS was going to move Santiago in and Guillen over to 1st.

Weakening the offense and strengthening the defense, while trailing in the deciding game????

That's the time you think about getting Marcus Thames in there, not Santiago.

[blumj]

Unless Casey was hurt, that was a stupid stupid move. McCarver picked it up immediately.
Well, that was the one thing I thought of, that maybe Casey was struggling so much with an injury that really hurts when he runs, that Leyland was almost giving up. You know, in a "we can't ask this guy to run in a lost cause" kind of way. But down by only 2 runs, how can you give up?

How about this one: Marcus Thames hit 26 HRs this season, he gets 1 AB in the entire series. Alexis Gomez and Ramon Santiago are getting PH ABs while Thames is warming the bench the whole time.

You beat me to it.

[2001MUgrad]

Unless Casey was hurt, that was a stupid stupid move. McCarver picked it up immediately.

Oh okay, my bad. I wasn't really listening to the TV much. I was flipping between that and the footbal game and something else, I can't remember now. I just didn't want to see Jim Edmonds and Tony LaRusa win the WS, so I was trying my best not to see the final out.

[vaticanplum]

I guess I'm alone, but I thought it was a fine move, and odd that McCarver criticized it so much. Casey is not a fast runner and I'm willing to bet his calf is still not 100%. He was in scoring position. Last inning, down two runs, you do everything you can. No, that runner alone could not have saved the game, and a replacement would have had to go in at first, but still, you pull out all the stops in that situation.

[jimbo]

I didn't think the move made any sense at all, but then I don't claim to have big league manager knowledge. Casey was not a critical baserunner in that situation. The only thing that would have made sense is if Casey was still having trouble with that calf, but if it was I'd think it would have had an affect on his hitting, which it obviously didn't.

I think that decision and the decision not to pitch Rogers were both questionable.

[Highlifeman21]

Tim McCarver criticizing a move, in my book, means you probably did the right thing.

Sean Casey's landspeed ability is usually timed with either a calendar or a sundial. It would have taken at least a double for him to score, to bring the game back to just 1 run.

Taking Sean Casey out of the lineup wouldn't hurt the Tigers defensively, as The Mayor's never been known for his Gold Glove ability. Sacrifice his lack of defense for speed everyday of the week in that situation.

[jimbo]

Sean Casey's landspeed ability is usually timed with either a calendar or a sundial. It would have taken at least a double for him to score, to bring the game back to just 1 run.

Taking Sean Casey out of the lineup wouldn't hurt the Tigers defensively, as The Mayor's never been known for his Gold Glove ability. Sacrifice his lack of defense for speed everyday of the week in that situation.

In my opinion, his speed is irrelevant in that situation though. If he couldn't score on a single, then hold him at third. The runner in front of him is the crucial one and if he scores then Casey would have eventually also. It just wasn't worth the risk of taking out the only hitter that is actually hitting out of the lineup, in the case that the Tigers tied, IMO.

And I don't think his defense is that bad. He's no gold glover, but he's above average and more than adequate.

[cincinnati chili]

Tim McCarver criticizing a move, in my book, means you probably did the right thing.




I've never had much problem with McCarver's baseball acumen. He always annoyed me with his lame attempts at humor, but I think he's toned that down. I saw 60% of the series, and thought both he and Buck were great.

[vaticanplum]

I saw 60% of the series, and thought both he and Buck were great.

I agree that McCarver was pretty toned down through the majority of the playoffs, but he was off the charts last night. He informed us that the team that scores the most runs will win. And when Pujols made that throw from his back, McCarver told us that "that's one of those cases when a 13 and a half beats a nine and a half." (Fortunately Buck translated -- he was referring to Pujols's shoe size in comparison to the runner Polanco's.)

[Matt700wlw]

I agree that McCarver was pretty toned down through the majority of the playoffs, but he was off the charts last night. He informed us that the team that scores the most runs will win.


He was probably up all night trying to figure that one out...

[IslandRed]

In retrospect, I should give Leyland a little more credit. There are situations, albeit unlikely, where a faster runner would pay dividends even though he's not the tying run. It's not the sort of thing I would do in any other situation but "tie or die" puts a different spin on things.

An example of such a situation: The hitter behind Casey walks, putting runners on first and second. Then Wainwright throws a wild pitch that's not that wild, but the difference between a hobbled Casey and a fast guy as the lead runner is the difference between the runners advancing (putting the tying run into scoring position) or not advancing, and therefore tying the game on a base hit or not tying the game.

Like I said, a negligible thing but when the season's on the line...

[bradmu]

I guess I'm alone, but I thought it was a fine move, and odd that McCarver criticized it so much. Casey is not a fast runner and I'm willing to bet his calf is still not 100%. He was in scoring position. Last inning, down two runs, you do everything you can. No, that runner alone could not have saved the game, and a replacement would have had to go in at first, but still, you pull out all the stops in that situation.


Thats exactly what I was thinking. When you are down to your last atbat and have to score or else your season is over, you pull out all the stops to try and extend the game. You never know what could happen and if you have to deal with not having Casey later in the game, then it means you are still alive in the game.

[blumj]

Except, I don't see any strategic reason to want a faster runner there, at least, not until there's another runner on base. Am I just missing it? I understand, if another batter gets on base, you make the switch so there's nothing to prevent the tying run from advancing, but without that other runner on, there's no benefit that I can find. Meanwhile, if someone hits a game tying HR, you're in extra innings without Casey.