theplayer said:Farrell just said that if it was a tie game he would have had WM butting...??? thoughts....that doesn't make sense to me.
theplayer said:Farrell just said that if it was a tie game he would have had WM butting...??? thoughts....that doesn't make sense to me.
I agree with you that there are other factors to consider. My belief, without hard numbers to back it up, is that the combination of the guy hitting .227 on the season facing one of the best pitchers in the game (as you point out when discussing the possibility that the situation is less favorable than Tango's average) backed up by an obviously injured and otherwise generally poor fielding third baseman tilt towards the bunt.smastroyin said:The problem with the argument is the presumption that once you decide to bunt it is foregone conclusion that it will be successful.
Running the gamut of the entire league, sac bunts are successful about 70% of the time over the last ten years. Because sacrifice attempts are down, we can also pretty much assume that in the vast majority of cases, guys who should be bunting are actually bunting. What I mean is, the overall league average rate is actually made up by a sample of players who should be above average at bunting (compared to the population of all players).
WMB has executed two sac bunts in his career. Once, 5 years ago, in short season ball, and once this year. The one this year was against Josh Roenicke and his pedestrian fastball/change-up stuff. Now, maybe WMB has a bunting skill that they just haven't used but the late action on Verlander's pitches makes it harder to successfully execute a bunt. However, I can't really say for sure what the sacrifice success % was for him because I don't have easy access to that data.
Regardless, I don't think there is any reason to think the chances were any better than 70% that this attempt would be successful.
Here, from Tango, expectancy of scoring a single run.
With none out and a runner on second, it is .637.
With one out and a runner on third, it is .674.
With one out and a runner on second, it is .418.
Based on a 70% success rate, the play changes the chances of scoring a single run by (.7*(.674-.637)+.3*(.418-.637), or -.0398.
So no, there is not evidence that "you need to bunt."
This isn't the entire analysis of course. For instance, if you were convinced that WMB were going to make an out that wouldn't otherwise advance the baserunner (his ball, if it had been a bit more straightaway, would have done this, but we'll ignore that), then obviously the bunt attempt value of -.0398 is better than the "sure out that doesn't advance the baserunner" value of -.219.
But, let's say the only choices are single or out if you let him swing away. Futhermore, let's guarantee that Drew will advance exactly one base. What chance of getting a single do we need to make the bunt decision?
With none out and runners on first and third, the chances of scoring a single run are .868.
So, we know the value of the bunt attempt is -.0398. To find the percentage that WMB needs to get a single, we can apply this formula: -.0398 >= (x(.868-.637)+(1-x)(.418-.637)). Here, x = .4, roughly. So if there is a 40% chance of the good outcome, it is better than trying the bunt. Obviously, we wouldn't give WMB a 40% chance of getting a hit. But again, this isn't the whole story, since there are a myriad of outcomes. Let's add a 70% chance that Drew scores on the theoretical single. Now what are the odds? I'll spare the algebra, but here x would be .26 or 26%. And if we add a 10% chance that a WMB out would advance Drew even without a sacrifice, the the "x" goes down to 12%.
If don't disagree with the logic of bunting especially from the point of view of trying to score one run if you think there is not much chance WMB, Ellsbury, Vic combine to advance Drew two bases without making three outs. But, the math isn't quite as obvious as you want it to be unless you are willing to assume a successful sacrifice.
(also, apologies if any of the math comes out wrong, but the point should remain)
MentalDisabldLst said:smas - just a quick nomenclature question. when you're quoting the odds of "scoring a single run", should I read that as "odds of scoring at least one run", or as "odds of scoring exactly one run"?
Regardless, I think your analysis is really interesting and I'm willing to bet we can come to a pretty accurate conclusion by following that process.
The following table presents the chance that a run will score at some point in the inning, from each base/out state
Plympton91 said:Another potential catastrophically slow hook by Farrell
This. I do think JF is right in taking the longer view. If this score holds, it's just 2-2 and you still have home field advantage. If you start throwing the pen in early in the game, what do you do in a game 5 that's going extra innings? and if you stumble through that, you still have a game 6 (and maybe 7) and your pen is running on fumes.smastroyin said:Pedroia didn't do it himself and didn't give up the 2B or 1B that followed. Peavy didn't make the catch that recorded an out either. So the defense gave and took.
All of that said, you have a 2-1 series lead, you are not going to pull your starter in the second inning.
amarshal2 said:Really? You have two long men on the staff - one of whom is highly capable. There's a day off on Friday. If Lester doesn't make it deep tomorrow they probably lose. This was inexcusable managing in my opinion. Peavy couldn't buy a strike and Farrell just decided to give away a playoff game. Ridiculous.
Of course it's fair if you think a manager didnt remove a failing player quickly enough.normstalls said:I don't think it's fair to blame the manager when players completely fail at executing their job.
It seems like he was unusually worried about contact, so he threw a preponderance of off-speed pitches and primarily out of zone. Just from memory in the 2nd inning (pitchfx doesn't have anything up yet), Avila got 1 fastball and only 2 pitches in the zone en route to a walk and Jackson got 1 fastball and zero pitches in the zone en route to his walk. It looked ugly. But maybe it was as simple as his control was shit tonight.Otis Foster said:What's happening with Jake? Is he over-amped?
Plympton91 said:John Farrell really doesn't like Will Middlebrooks, does he? I am starting to think that there's a good chance Drew is resigned and Bogaerts gets 3B, with Will as trade bait.
amarshal2 said:Every guy on the team can pitch two days in a row. Further, they have two long men!
amarshal2 said:There's nothing ridiculous about it. It's a completely reasonable position. It's ridiculous that you called it ridiculous.
amarshal2 said:Maybe the word "decided" should have been modified by the word "effectively." Obviously Farrell didn't choose to lose but his actions suggested that he was not nearly as concerned with preventing marginal runs as he was saving Ryan Dempster for tomorrow.
My point wasn't "childish", but thanks for your thoughts.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
His actions and words after the game indicated that while he didn't think Peavy pitched very well, he was also the victim of some bad luck when Pedroia dropped the double-play grounder which allowed the inning to continue. IIRC he did get Workman up in the pen during that inning. In the next inning Peavy gave him a 1-2-3, so he was likely hoping that Peavy might be able to give them a bit more to avoid going through the pen. With the Sox' hitters doing a decent job this series of driving up pitch counts (if not actually scoring runs) it's hardly unreasonable to think that they might be able to close the gap against Detroit's weaker pen.
Just saw this, but to close the loop and because it still may be relevant the next three games, because of the fact that Koji is a much better pitcher and I dont put lots of stock into 4 at bat sample sizes.DrewDawg said:
Based on what?
Cabrera is hurting, is apparently having an issue with fastballs (swung through 8 of them tonight, per MLB Network, is that correct?) and beyond that, has better numbers against Uehara. Why would you want the less advantageous matchup?
esfr said:Over 162-game season Daniel Nava was the best hitter on the Red Sox not named David Ortiz - avg. obp. ops - you name it. The best hitting position player on the team. The best hitting outfielder. I don't know on what planet THAT GUY is relegated to the bench at the whim of the manager but it shouldn't be this planet. There is no slump to speak of - hell, in the 2 games he wasn't cast aside like a bubble boy he posted the highest obp on the team - doing exactly what he has done all season. The only thing that makes this more ridiculous is that when has played he's virtually the only one doing exactly. what he did all season. If Farrell wants to get Gomes at bats he needs to be a helluva lot more creative than benching the teams best hitting position player. And Xander needs to replace Middlebrooks.
The gods favor the bold...
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:I am actually fairly certain Nava is dinged up. No idea with what or when he did it, but the playing time decisions almost certainly point to something. We'll find out after the season is over, I guess.
This is an excellent post and summarizes my feelings exactly. When a guy literally can't throw a strike and walks three batters in an inning and gives up two runs, why do you leave him in there to face Tori Hunter, Miguel Cabrera, and Prince Fielder? That's where the game was lost.amarshal2 said:There's nothing ridiculous about it. It's a completely reasonable position. It's ridiculous that you called it ridiculous.
Peavy fell behind nearly every better he faced. Anybody could see that he had no command. He walked the worst hitter in the series on 4 pitches with the bases loaded...and it was his third walk in the inning.
How would he have burned every long man in the pen? Every guy on the team can pitch two days in a row. Further, they have two long men! He could have brought in Doubront for several innings and then reevaluated based on where they were in the game. If they're out of it, Morales and Workman can finish up. You save Dempster for tomorrow. (Or you do what he did tonight, which is pitch both of them, thereby "burning" them..?)
Peavy had 7 ER tonight. Farrell cost the Red Sox several runs by pretending he needs to protect his pen as though it's the regular season. The Red Sox got 12 hits tonight which is not surprising - it's the best matchup of the series. This easily could have been a game and gone the other way if he's pulled peavy after the walk...or the double...or the single...or the 3rd where he started off nearly every hitter 2-0 and got lucky outs.
Of course none of us know the counter factual, but I can't remember many times I was this upset at a manager's decision before it went bad. I hope the media fries him for it. It's not an elimination game but you've got to manage with a short term focus in the playoffs.
Bone Chips said:This is an excellent post and summarizes my feelings exactly. When a guy literally can't throw a strike and walks three batters in an inning and gives up two runs, why do you leave him in there to face Tori Hunter, Miguel Cabrera, and Prince Fielder? That's where the game was lost.
I can see both sides of this and I honestly don't know when I would've pulled Peavy. But that grounder was hit pretty hard and it happened to be right at Pedroia. I don't think Peavy should get much extra credit for inducing a hard hit ball that, if it was 5-10 feet to Pedroia's left, would've been a 2 run single instead.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
IMO the game was lost when Pedroia bobbled a routine double play ball, which prevented Peavy from getting out of the inning down only 1-0. If Peavy was a mortal lock to implode after walking Jackson, he sure showed it strangely by getting a ground ball that should have ended the inning with no further damage.
smastroyin said:The real question is what do you do with him if they advance? I'm completely serious. He looked like a hopped up deer in headlights on that stage and I'm worried it would be even worse in a World Series start. Shades of Bronson Arroyo in Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS - he did not get another start and was not sharp in his later relief appearances. At least with his next start I think you have to treat it like he is Jeremy Hellickson. I wish I was kidding. It wasn't just the results. That happens once in a while. But, his body language was terrible even in the 1-2-3 first, he had no command, he didn't once seem to know what the plan was for each hitter. The dugout shots of him after the second inning looked like he was shell shocked. I hate to be "sideline psychologist" and I honestly don't know what was really going on in his head, but he just looked bad all around.
I am 100% sure that I am overreacting, but you have to seriously wonder after that performance.
For the record I was and am a big fan of the trade and will happily take him next year, and yes I know he pitched great against the Rays in that game 4. Maybe too much rest keyed him up too much for this start or something. Who knows.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
IMO the game was lost when Pedroia bobbled a routine double play ball, which prevented Peavy from getting out of the inning down only 1-0. If Peavy was a mortal lock to implode after walking Jackson, he sure showed it strangely by getting a ground ball that should have ended the inning with no further damage.