PDA

View Full Version : Runner at 3rd,less than 2 outs killing this team



CentralKYRedfan
07-10-2010, 09:03 PM
This team fails at this 5 or 6 times a week. They've done it in 3 straight games. It's uncanny how they just can't get it done.

Spazzrico
07-10-2010, 09:25 PM
I was just thinking how bad this team has been for awhile at this. Although a few weeks ago, I was feeling that this team had actually finally started to get the job done. Lately, you are right, they've sucked. I'd love to see some stats on this.

CentralKYRedfan
07-10-2010, 09:42 PM
And again. It's simply pathetic. Strikeout or popout is almost guaranteed.

GIDP
07-10-2010, 10:33 PM
So are sac bunts.

ILoveWilly
07-10-2010, 10:34 PM
Yeah it's a freaking joke. Unbelievable how bad we are at the plate and at the managerial decision making in this position.

George Foster
07-10-2010, 10:52 PM
No way I sac bunt with a guy on 2nd and no out. You are giving away an out. If you don't bunt you have 3 chances to get a hit and score.

GIDP
07-10-2010, 10:56 PM
No way I sac bunt with a guy on 2nd and no out. You are giving away an out. If you don't bunt you have 3 chances to get a hit and score.
Yep, and in most cases a ball put in play moves that runner to 3rd anyways.

Id rather take my 3 outs and see what happens instead of 2 and likely needing a hit anyways if the sac fly doesnt happen.

sabometrics
07-10-2010, 11:16 PM
We've been very good (and lucky) at succeeding to drive in the run up until this stretch. So we've had a stretch of poor hitting/bad luck, we were due as far as I'm concerned.

Mr Larkin
07-10-2010, 11:24 PM
We've been very good (and lucky) at succeeding to drive in the run up until this stretch. So we've had a stretch of poor hitting/bad luck, we were due as far as I'm concerned.

You are right. A team that is 10 games over .500 at this point has had its share of key hits so far. We are in a dry spell against the NL cha,ps of the last two years - it was going to happen at some point.

For those of you who would not bunt with a guy on second and no outs, you are in the majority of most of the great baseball minds of the last century. Early Weaver may agree with you, but in such a game as tonight I think you need the guy on third with less than two outs because so much could happen.

The Reds are a very good team, but we have run into a team that has been good for a longer stretch and they are getting the key hits right now which is nothing to worry about. That's why we play 162. We took two of three from them in Cincy and have been in position to win all three in Philly. Those are good, not bad things.

BigPoppa
07-10-2010, 11:51 PM
........... We took two of three from them in Cincy and have been in position to win all three in Philly. Those are good, not bad things.

I tend to agree, but...........damn these last 2 hurt bad.

Mr Larkin
07-10-2010, 11:53 PM
I tend to agree, but...........damn these last 2 hurt bad.

No doubt. We are still playing at a high level and have an excellent chance at making the post season. How often at the ASB have we been able to say that in the last decade or two?

Griffey012
07-11-2010, 12:17 AM
No way I sac bunt with a guy on 2nd and no out. You are giving away an out. If you don't bunt you have 3 chances to get a hit and score.

Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. Tonight, I liked the bunt with Cairo at the plate, and Hanigan up next. Hanigan is good as gold to drive in a runner from 3rd with less than 2 outs because he usually makes good contact and doesnt strike out. However he struck out twice. It's just one of those things that all depends on the situation.

This offense is really lacking timely hitting lately. Outside of Cairo's in the bottom of 9th on Thursday, we havent had a big hit all series.

GIDP
07-11-2010, 12:28 AM
The problem with sac bunting a guy to 3rd is that you guarantee you get out barring some major defensive flub. That leave 1 chance to lift a ball deep enough to the outfield to score, and if you dont you have to then get a hit. If you dont sac bunt you still could move him to 3rd, and if you dont you have 2 chances to get a hit. All moving a guy to 3rd give you 1 extra way of scoring a guy. If that 1 way doesnt happen you basically gained nothing by giving up an out.

Scoring a run from 3rd with 2 outs is only slightly better than scoring a guy from 2nd with 2 outs. Chances you score more than 1 run with 1 out and a guy at 3rd is also substantially lower than you score more than 1 with no outs and a guy on 2nd. The chances you score more than 1 run with a guy on 2nd and 1 out is barely lower than guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs.

I just realized how confusing that is while typing it so I dont blame you guys if you ignore my post rofl.

bshall2105
07-11-2010, 12:39 AM
The problem with sac bunting a guy to 3rd is that you guarantee you get out barring some major defensive flub. That leave 1 chance to lift a ball deep enough to the outfield to score, and if you dont you have to then get a hit. If you dont sac bunt you still could move him to 3rd, and if you dont you have 2 chances to get a hit. All moving a guy to 3rd give you 1 extra way of scoring a guy. If that 1 way doesnt happen you basically gained nothing by giving up an out.

Scoring a run from 3rd with 2 outs is only slightly better than scoring a guy from 2nd with 2 outs. Chances you score more than 1 run with 1 out and a guy at 3rd is also substantially lower than you score more than 1 with no outs and a guy on 2nd. The chances you score more than 1 run with a guy on 2nd and 1 out is barely lower than guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs.

I just realized how confusing that is while typing it so I dont blame you guys if you ignore my post rofl.

Basically buting the runner to third after a leadoff double has not been working, so there is no need to continue to do so.

Maker_84
07-11-2010, 12:47 AM
and everybody thought we a clutch hitting team..not really

Lockdwn11
07-11-2010, 12:58 AM
This team fails at this 5 or 6 times a week. They've done it in 3 straight games. It's uncanny how they just can't get it done.
nm

FlightRick
07-11-2010, 01:28 AM
No way I sac bunt with a guy on 2nd and no out. You are giving away an out. If you don't bunt you have 3 chances to get a hit and score.

"No way"? Are you sure?

Because in SOME ways, I definitely agree. But in others, years and years of data shows you EXACTLY why you bunt to advance a runner with no outs. It's not about the mere act of sacrificing, it's about the CONTEXT.

This is stuff I'm interested in, so I have the info saved in my documents folder, so I don't know precisely which SABR-wanker site I stole this from, but I assure you, it's as accurate as SABR-wankers can be...

In all MLB games since 1955, the following numbers tell the tale:

When there is a runner on 2nd and zero outs, at least one run has scored 62% of the time.

When there is a runner on 3rd and one out, at least one run has scored 67% of the time.

When there is a runner on 2nd and zero outs, the "runs expection" is 1.2 runs per chance.

When there is a runner on 3rd and two outs, the "runs expectation" is 0.9 runs per chance.

SYNTHESIS: if you have a runner on 2nd and zero outs in a close game where 1 run matters, YOU F'N BUNT THE GUY OVER TO THIRD because the chances of scoring a single run are increased by doing so by 5%. But if you've got a runner on 2nd and zero outs in a game where you're way behind, then you do NOT bunt the guy over because you will -- on average -- score 0.3 more runs per instance by swinging away, and you need a Big Inning instead of just one run.

THAT is why you bunt, sometimes. SOMEtimes. Every bunt the Reds tried tonight was OK by me, in context. It was close. One run mattered. That's how you get one run. We didn't execute, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the play we called was correct.

Now: say the same "no way" thing about bunting a guy over and "giving up an out" with 1 out, instead of 0 outs? Then you're onto something. The data pretty much shows that's a diptard move. Scoring Expectancy (the probability of scoring at least ONE run) drops from 66% to 23% if you go from runner-on-2nd-one-out to runner-on-third-2-outs, and the Run Expectancy goes from .73 runs-per-chance to .38 runs-per-chance.

What kind of idiot halves his chances to succeed by sacrificing with 1 out? A surprisingly large constituency of idiots, as it turns out, but that doesn't make it right.

Sacrificing with zero outs, however, can often be the right move. In the words of Ron Burgandy: It's science, people.



Rick

sabometrics
07-11-2010, 01:38 AM
and everybody thought we a clutch hitting team..not really

We lead the league in BA w/RISP not like a week ago (?) with a .287 avg. We've had a rough stretch. We'll see how we continue after the break.

scott91575
07-11-2010, 04:09 AM
"No way"? Are you sure?

Because in SOME ways, I definitely agree. But in others, years and years of data shows you EXACTLY why you bunt to advance a runner with no outs. It's not about the mere act of sacrificing, it's about the CONTEXT.

This is stuff I'm interested in, so I have the info saved in my documents folder, so I don't know precisely which SABR-wanker site I stole this from, but I assure you, it's as accurate as SABR-wankers can be...

In all MLB games since 1955, the following numbers tell the tale:

When there is a runner on 2nd and zero outs, at least one run has scored 62% of the time.

When there is a runner on 3rd and one out, at least one run has scored 67% of the time.

When there is a runner on 2nd and zero outs, the "runs expection" is 1.2 runs per chance.

When there is a runner on 3rd and two outs, the "runs expectation" is 0.9 runs per chance.

SYNTHESIS: if you have a runner on 2nd and zero outs in a close game where 1 run matters, YOU F'N BUNT THE GUY OVER TO THIRD because the chances of scoring a single run are increased by doing so by 5%. But if you've got a runner on 2nd and zero outs in a game where you're way behind, then you do NOT bunt the guy over because you will -- on average -- score 0.3 more runs per instance by swinging away, and you need a Big Inning instead of just one run.

THAT is why you bunt, sometimes. SOMEtimes. Every bunt the Reds tried tonight was OK by me, in context. It was close. One run mattered. That's how you get one run. We didn't execute, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the play we called was correct.

Now: say the same "no way" thing about bunting a guy over and "giving up an out" with 1 out, instead of 0 outs? Then you're onto something. The data pretty much shows that's a diptard move. Scoring Expectancy (the probability of scoring at least ONE run) drops from 66% to 23% if you go from runner-on-2nd-one-out to runner-on-third-2-outs, and the Run Expectancy goes from .73 runs-per-chance to .38 runs-per-chance.

What kind of idiot halves his chances to succeed by sacrificing with 1 out? A surprisingly large constituency of idiots, as it turns out, but that doesn't make it right.

Sacrificing with zero outs, however, can often be the right move. In the words of Ron Burgandy: It's science, people.



Rick

I was going to post something similar. I think most have an inning and situation where it works. Late in the game (opponent has 2 or less at bats left) and a tied or one run game many agree bunting is the right call. Prior to that or a greater run differential if you are behind, you do not bunt. Most of the time Dusty actually follows that rule except when facing a top pitcher (which I don't really agree with, but debatable).

The only problem I had tonight was doing it with the pitcher hitting 4th in the inning. I was surprised the Phillies did not walk Hanigan. Their original plan may have been to pitch around him, but Halladay got ahead in the count (I think he actually missed his first pitch and it was a strike).

Orodle
07-11-2010, 01:03 PM
Yes this cost us so badly last night. Definitely the worst at this over the entire season has been Bruce. Last night it was Hanigan who is a guy I would usually be happy with in that type of situation.

Vottomatic
07-11-2010, 01:06 PM
Yes this cost us so badly last night. Definitely the worst at this over the entire season has been Bruce. Last night it was Hanigan who is a guy I would usually be happy with in that type of situation.

I dread watching Jay Bruce come to the plate with runners in scoring position. Pitiful.

I'd consider trading Bruce right now for someone equal who can hit with RISP, while Bruce's value is high and he's obviously young enough for other teams to get excited about.

GIDP
07-11-2010, 01:39 PM
Yes this cost us so badly last night. Definitely the worst at this over the entire season has been Bruce. Last night it was Hanigan who is a guy I would usually be happy with in that type of situation.

.333/.350/.533

Jay Bruce this year with man on 3rd less than 2 outs. Talk about being awful...

Kingspoint
07-11-2010, 05:39 PM
This team fails at this 5 or 6 times a week. They've done it in 3 straight games. It's uncanny how they just can't get it done.

They are the worst in the league at this.

It's Duhsty's fault.

RiverRat13
07-11-2010, 07:30 PM
They are the worst in the league at this.

It's Duhsty's fault.

Any stats to back up that they are the worst in the league in that situation?

sabometrics
07-12-2010, 01:02 AM
He's being facetious. As I already said, up until very recently they lead the league in BA w/RISP.

Kingspoint
07-12-2010, 02:36 AM
Any stats to back up that they are the worst in the league in that situation?

I was actually telling the truth.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2010-situational-batting.shtml

Look under the last heading that says, "Advances", then under the sub-category that shows, "%". Highlight your mouse over it and it will say, "PA's with less than two out, runner on third and runner scored", and you'll see that only 46% of the REDS' Plate Appearances causes the runner to score from 3rd and less than two outs. That's tied for last in the National League with Milwaukie. San Diego is 1st at 58%, followed by the Mets and Giants at 57%.

What teams do in the American League doesn't matter as they don't have Pitchers hitting and they get to add any bat to their lineup to sub for the Pitcher. They should be better, but they aren't. Only one American League team is better than 53%, Kansas City at 57%, while Cleveland is only at 43%. The American League average is at 50%, while the National League average is at 52%.

Cincy's average was 50% in 2007, 50% in 2008 and 48% in 2009. They've gotten worse each of the last two years. They have yet to improve from one year to the next under Dusty Baker in this area.

Dusty's last three years in Chicago, his team was 49% in 2006, 46% in 2005, and 51% in 2004, the last time a Dusty Baker managed team was better than "league average", which was 50% in 2004.

The last time the REDS led the league in this department was 1998, when they had a 56% success rate. Jack McKeon was the Manager. They finished 77-85. They did win 96 games the next season.

They also led the league in '93 under Tony Perez for 44 games before being replaced by Davey Johnson.

For perspective, the 1976 REDS were the same percentage this year's Club is....at 46% (but, they weren't last in the League, they were middle where the league average was 47%).

sabometrics
07-12-2010, 02:44 AM
I need to stop equating RISP with this specific scenario then obviously. Pardon my faulty logic.

lidspinner
07-12-2010, 06:19 AM
I dread watching Jay Bruce come to the plate with runners in scoring position. Pitiful.

I'd consider trading Bruce right now for someone equal who can hit with RISP, while Bruce's value is high and he's obviously young enough for other teams to get excited about.


whoaaaa nellie. i agree that JB looks like a high schooler trying to score a run but lets still give him time....remember, Drew Stubbs bats after him and Drew couldnt make contact in slowpitch softball.....so pitchers are giving JB everything in their arsenal.

BigJohn
07-12-2010, 07:51 AM
Get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in! George Grande!

BigJohn
07-12-2010, 07:52 AM
whoaaaa nellie. i agree that JB looks like a high schooler trying to score a run but lets still give him time....remember, Drew Stubbs bats after him and Drew couldnt make contact in slowpitch softball.....so pitchers are giving JB everything in their arsenal.

Boy needs Protection! LOL!!!!!

markymark69
07-12-2010, 09:26 AM
And again. It's simply pathetic. Strikeout or popout is almost guaranteed.

Agreed. Part of it is not hitting their pitch. A straight pitch is alot easier to hit than one with a hook in it (unless it's a hanger). I've watched them take a lot of straight pitches right in the zone for two strikes. You're screwed at that point with a good pitcher (Halladay). Because he isn't going to give you another one. You are going to have hit his pitch and most of the time that isn't happening.

Situation dictates this as well. Yesterday, bases loaded - nobody out. Hamels had just walked two guys and Gomes swings at the first pitch (using the philosophy above). That situation dictated at least taking one pitch.

krm1580
07-12-2010, 11:39 AM
That is what made this series SO frustrating. 1 lousy hit in each game and we could have gone 4-0. Actually we did not even need a hit. A sac fly, a productive groundout. Brandon Phillips and Jay Bruce were dreadful going a combined 4-for-38 .105, 2 Runs scored, 0 RBI and 22 LOB

demas863
07-12-2010, 12:47 PM
No way I sac bunt with a guy on 2nd and no out. You are giving away an out. If you don't bunt you have 3 chances to get a hit and score.

Right on. It's also an admission to your players (who are leading the league in hitting by the way) that you don't have confidence in their ability to deliver in the clutch. It is also a statement that over the course of the game they won't be able to hit the opposing pitcher. Thus, more often than it should, it becomes self-fulfilling.

Baker is wrong-headed. He tries to figure out how not to lose rather than how to win although he defends himself to the press in just the opposite way. He sounds more like a politician than a manager. I've been following baseball for many years and I've never seen a manager with such self-imposed negative karma.

One of the most ridiculous/clueless statement ever:
"Dusty Baker is a winner." - Bob Castellini on his hiring.

Kingspoint
07-13-2010, 03:03 AM
For some perspective, here are the best efforts since 1970 by people who have tried to get the Runner in from 3rd and less than two outs. Several seasons since 1970 didn't have anyone who was excellent at it (77% or better with at least 23 attempts, or 73% or better with at least 30 attempts).

There was a trend where there were players who had really good seasons from 1988 to 2001 (the heavy steroids era, though I don't think that's the reason for any of these guys being successful in these situations....these were just some really good player with outstanding seasons), but before that and after that, there haven't been very many.

I'll list the Year, Name, Team, Successes/Plate Appearances, Success %

1970....nobody
1971....nobody
1972....Darrell Evans, ATL, 21/28, 75%
1973....nobody
1974....nobody
1975....nobody
1976....nobody
1977....Ted Simmons, STL, 28/37, 76%
1978....nobody
1979....Jerry Royster, 21/28, 75%
1980....nobody
1981....nobody
1982....Luis Salazar, SDP, 25/32, 78%
1983....nobody
1984....Dave Concepcion, CIN, 20/27, 74%
1985....nobody (but, Bo Diaz was 11/11 (6/6 for CIN & 5/5 for PHI)
1986....Sid Bream, PIT, 22/28, 79%
1987....Bo Diaz, CIN 20/26, 77%
1988....Tony Gwynn, SDP, 25/34, 74%
1989....Charlie Hayes, PHI, 19/23, 83%
1990....Todd Benzinger, CIN, 25/34, 74%
1990....Tim Raines, MON, 27/37, 73%
1991....Delino DeShields, MON, 23/30, 77%
1991....Mariano Duncan, CIN, 13/17, 76% (I listed that one because he was a RED and it was a good number with 17 chances.)
1992....nobody
1993....Ozzie Smith, STL, 20/25, 80%
1993....Jose Offerman, LAD, 33/44, 75%
1994....Larry Walker, MON, 27/36, 75%
1995....Derek Bell, HOU, 31/39, 79%
1995....Mark Grace, CHI, 34/45/76%
1996....Mark Grace, CHI, 23/31, 74%
1996....Lance Johnson, NYM, 25/33, 76%
1996....Brian Jordan, STL, 34/41, 83%
1997....Tony Gwynn, SDP, 35/44, 80%
1998....nobody
1999....Brian Jordan, ATL, 33/43, 77%
1999....Mark Grace, CHI, 23/31, 74%
1999....Carl Everett, HOU, 33/42, 79%
2000....Danny Bautista, ARI, 20/25, 80%
2000....Jeremy Burnitz, MIL, 28/38, 74%
2001....Paul LoDuca, LAD, 24/32, 75%
2002....nobody
2003....nobody
2004....nobody
2005....nobody
2006....Russell Martin, LAD, 23/31, 74%
2007....nobody
2008....nobody
2009....Omir Santos, NYM, 18/24, 75%

That's only 25 guys covering 40 years who were could be consistent for a whole year (75%) in this situation (with 24+ chances). Mark Grace and Tony Gwynn were clearly the best over the last 40 years at this.


Notable 2010 numbers (that if they doubled this, would be among the list from above....but based on the trends since 2002, they won't keep this up through the second half of the season):

2010....Rafael Furcal, LAD, 10/11, 91%
2010....Corey Hart, MIL, 11/13, 85%
2010....Aaron Rowand, SFG, 12/15, 80%
2010....Freddy Sanchez, SFG, 13/17, 76%
2010....Pablo Sandoval, SFG, 16/22, 73%
2010....Jeff Francouer, NYM, 19/26, 73%

Kingspoint
07-13-2010, 03:15 AM
And, here are how the REDS are doing this year (through 89 games):

Bronson Arroyo.....1/3, 33%
Chris Heisey.....1/3, 33%
Chris Dickerson.....0/2, 0%
Cody Miller.....0/1, 0%
Homer Bailey.....1/2, 50%
Drew Sutton.....0/0
Aaron Harang.....0/2, 0%
Carlos Fisher.....0/0
Paul Janish.....1/1, 100%
Drew Stubbs.....9/27, 33%
Jonny Gomes.....19/26, 66% (best player on the team in this situation this year)
Jay Bruce.....7/20, 35%
Matt Maloney.....0/0
Scott Rolen.....15/38, 54% (league average is 52%, he gets it done)
Johnny Cueto.....0/1, 0%
Miguel Cairo.....4/4, 100% (can't do better than perfect)
Daniel Ray Herrera.....0/0
Juan Francisco.....0/0
Brandon Phillips.....4/12, 33%
Logan Ondrusek.....0/0
Travis Wood.....0/1, 0%
Mike Lincoln.....0/0
Jordan Smith.....0/0
Orlando Cabrera.....12/23, 52% (the Veteran in him steps forward)
Sam LeCure.....0/0
Ramon Hernandez.....6/8, 75% (excellent, so far)
Ryan Hanigan.....2/6, 33%
Laynce Nix.....1/3, 33%
Mike Leake.....0/2, 0%
Micah Owings.....0/0
Joey Votto.....9/23, 39%

The youth of the team really shows itself with this stat, which is definitely a pressure situation. Consistently, it's the Veterans that get the job done in this situation with Phillips the lone exception.

Kingspoint
07-13-2010, 03:41 AM
The facts are there that you've got about a 33% chance of getting the guy in from 3rd w/ less than 2 outs when a Veteran hitter isn't at the plate. Even w/ a Veteran, you've got about a 52-58% chance.

If you are assuming that you can't get a hit in 3 at-bats to score the runner, and that's the only reason to sacrifice a runner to 3rd with no outs, then you are also assuming that you can't score the runner from 3rd with two outs. (If you don't think you can get 1 single in 3 chances, then you certainly don't think you can get 1 single in 1 chance.) So, you're putting all your eggs in 1 basket...that situation where there's a runner at 3rd and one out.

That's a 33% chance of success with a young player (Stubbs, Bruce, Miller, etc.), which was the situation. That's not as good a chance than if you let Stubbs and Miller hit away, as together they probably had better than a 33% chance of one of them getting a hit. The last guy to hit in either situation is mute. It's basically the same with a runner on 2nd or a runner on 3rd once there's two outs, as the guy on 2nd is running on two outs.

Unless I've got a Veteran due up immediately after the Sacrifice, I think it's a bad play to sacrifice. Unless you plan on a suicide squeeze, then I wouldn't do it with a younger player up next.