Dodgers-Rays World Series

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Two more hits in the bottom 3rd and they can do a socially distanced appointment together!

As in "early exit" for both! (Although, these days, that term is an anachronism.)

[Westheim]

If the Rays have a guy on third with no outs and can't score him I'm gonna cry.

[Westheim]

...!

[Déjà Bru]

That steal of home play worked as well as whenever I try doing it in OOTPB.

[Déjà Bru]

CB is right about L.A. living off of the homer. (When he is right, he is right. When he is right. )

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

That steal of home play worked as well as whenever I try doing it in OOTPB.

I'm not even doing that with a 3-run lead in a random Sunday afternoon game in Milwaukee in late May. Doing it as the tying run in Game 5 of the World Series takes either extra testicles or extra stupidity. Maybe both. And you better have a good mea culpa ready if you don't make it....

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I'm not even doing that with a 3-run lead in a random Sunday afternoon game in Milwaukee in late May. Doing it as the tying run in Game 5 of the World Series takes either extra testicles or extra stupidity. Maybe both. And you better have a good mea culpa ready if you don't make it....

I know the play works occasionally, but it's hard to fathom how. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that the only time it does work is if the pitcher is not paying sufficient attention.

The runner can go at any time, I believe, so it's not a matter that the pitcher has to be on the pitching rubber. So if he is looking down or away or is otherwise distracted by gnats perhaps, then the runner may get a sufficient jump to get in and score.

Otherwise, as Kershaw demonstrated, the pitcher can get the ball to the plate rather quickly.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I'm not even doing that with a 3-run lead in a random Sunday afternoon game in Milwaukee in late May. Doing it as the tying run in Game 5 of the World Series takes either extra testicles or extra stupidity. Maybe both. And you better have a good mea culpa ready if you don't make it....

Nope
Nope, nope, nope

The misogyny aside

With a runner at third and 2 out, you only need to be successful around 1/3 of the time for it to be the right play.

The reasoning is obvious. Batters get out about 2/3 of the time anyway. There's no real difference between making the 3rd out at the plate on a steal, or at the plate by the hitter.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Two more hits in the bottom 3rd and they can do a socially distanced appointment together!

Heh, now the hirsute fellow that puts those other two guys to shame is in there, displaying his flowing locks!

[Déjà Bru]

Okay. The stage is set. Another crazy finish tonight?!?

[Westheim]

(groans!)

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Okay. The stage is set. Another crazy finish tonight?!?

Nope, not tonight. Now the Rays have a tough row to hoe. See you Tuesday.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Nope
Nope, nope, nope

The misogyny aside

With a runner at third and 2 out, you only need to be successful around 1/3 of the time for it to be the right play.

The reasoning is obvious. Batters get out about 2/3 of the time anyway. There's no real difference between making the 3rd out at the plate on a steal, or at the plate by the hitter.

With zero outs in the inning, an 87% success rate is required. With one out, a 70% success rate is required. Finally, with two outs only a 34% success rate is required.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/breaking...ak-even-points

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by neugey

(expect the Sooners beating Penn St)

C'mon! IU beats a top 10 team for the first time in 30 years or so and you call them the Sooners!

Hoosiers!

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I know the play works occasionally, but it's hard to fathom how. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that the only time it does work is if the pitcher is not paying sufficient attention.

The runner can go at any time, I believe, so it's not a matter that the pitcher has to be on the pitching rubber. So if he is looking down or away or is otherwise distracted by gnats perhaps, then the runner may get a sufficient jump to get in and score.

Otherwise, as Kershaw demonstrated, the pitcher can get the ball to the plate rather quickly.

And the runner was out by mere inches

The keys
-a left-handed pitcher isn't looking at the runner
-has to remember to step off the rubber so it's not a balk
-still has to make the play (a bad throw, or, like from game 4, a missed catch and tag)

The video (of Harold Reynolds) in this link does a decent break down
https://www.mlb.com/news/manuel-marg...-at-home-plate

And, again, despite popular opinion, it doesn't have to be successful much more than 1/3 ofmthe time for it to be the right play.

[dkgo]

There is always a break-even point evaluating the risk vs reward. Yes it is possible to never throw an interception if you just throw it away or take a sack when you aren't 100% sure, but playing so conservatively means you are sacrificing way too many chances at completions. In poker you could never lose a showdown if you fold everything but the nuts, but then you are going to be bluffed off every single other hand and hardly ever win pots.

And in baseball, you can play super safe one base at a time with zero risks if you want but then you are giving up too many opportunities which would increase your expected runs. If you never make an out on the basepaths then you aren't being aggressive enough. There are definitely bad times to be aggressive (if you are down 3 runs in the ninth then taking a risk is obviously not worth it) but this doesn't seem like one of them. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by dkgo

There is always a break-even point evaluating the risk vs reward. Yes it is possible to never throw an interception if you just throw it away or take a sack when you aren't 100% sure, but playing so conservatively means you are sacrificing way too many chances at completions. In poker you could never lose a showdown if you fold everything but the nuts, but then you are going to be bluffed off every single other hand and hardly ever win pots.

And in baseball, you can play super safe one base at a time with zero risks if you want but then you are giving up too many opportunities which would increase your expected runs. If you never make an out on the basepaths then you aren't being aggressive enough. There are definitely bad times to be aggressive (if you are down 3 runs in the ninth then taking a risk is obviously not worth it) but this doesn't seem like one of them. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.

Right

If a runner tries to steal home 100 times and gets thrown out 60 of them, then they created more runs than if they had never tried to steal home (assuming a break even point of 33%).

The reasoning, again, is obvious. The batter at the plate would get out more than 60% of the time.


It's exactly the same as the "the hitters strike out too much" argument.

Hitters don't want to strike out. And, if they wanted, they could almost never strike out. They could give up trying to drive the ball and bunt every time up or just try to make weak contact to avoid the K. But, that wouldn't be maximizing their hitting. So, they take bigger swings (not to mention taking more pitches which results in more two-strike counts) which increases the reward (extra base hits) but also the risk (strike outs)

Edit:
Someone posted that there is a positive correlation between strike outs and (maybe) wOBA.

This is evidence for the above. Each hitter has their own break even rate for striking out. Hitters who K a lot have to do more damage when they do make contact than hitters who make contact more often.

So a graph of wOBA vs K rate would start near 0,0 (never K'ing but producing minimal offense) increase to some point (their break-even K rate) then decrease as they struck out too often.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

And the runner was out by mere inches

The keys
-a left-handed pitcher isn't looking at the runner
-has to remember to step off the rubber so it's not a balk
-still has to make the play (a bad throw, or, like from game 4, a missed catch and tag)

The video (of Harold Reynolds) in this link does a decent break down
https://www.mlb.com/news/manuel-marg...-at-home-plate

And, again, despite popular opinion, it doesn't have to be successful much more than 1/3 ofmthe time for it to be the right play.

Perhaps you will consent to consult for my OOTPB team in order to determine as to why the play is unsuccessful whenever I try it (although I have been burned by the opposition's use of it at least twice that I have noticed).

[Déjà Bru]

I imagine Kershaw will be the Dodgers' Game 7 starter, if the Series goes that far, but a poor performance in that game notwithstanding, I would say that he has dispelled the "Kershaw Postseason Curse" with his performances this year:

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I imagine Kershaw will be the Dodgers' Game 7 starter, if the Series goes that far, but a poor performance in that game notwithstanding, I would say that he has dispelled the "Kershaw Postseason Curse" with his performances this year:

It'll be Buehler.
Not Kershaw on 2 day's rest

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Perhaps you will consent to consult for my OOTPB team in order to determine as to why the play is unsuccessful whenever I try it (although I have been burned by the opposition's use of it at least twice that I have noticed).

You'll need to talk to the developers about that.


In can say that if your team is something like 0-4 and your opponents are something like 2-4 that's likely not an unreasonable outcome