Outs at Home 2017

Greenwells Gator Farm · Aug 12, 2017

There's an assumption that being aggressive (i.e., taking extra bases) should also lead to more outs on the bases, and the Red Sox have just decided it's worth being more aggressive.

Looking at data for outs on the bases and extra bases taken since 2013 in the AL, this is actually not the case. There is no relationship between extra bases taken and outs on the bases. If you tell me how many extra bases a team took in a given year, that tells me basically nothing about how many outs on the bases they had (r-squared=0.01).

This is a poor model of outs on the bases (BOS in red):

On the other hand, the identity of the team across the past four seasons is quite a good predictor of how many outs on the bases a team will have. Tell me a team's outs on the bases in 2014, and I can give you a pretty good guess how many outs they made in 2013 and 2015 and 2016. The Red Sox have been the second-worst team in making outs on the bases in that time. The only team worse is the Angels. So I guess the hard-ass manager theory is out the window (although BAL has made by far the fewest outs on the bases during that time). Worth noting that the teams with greater variation tended to have more than one manager, the teams with little variation tended to have just one.

This is a good model of outs on the bases:

absintheofmalaise · Aug 12, 2017

toekneearmass wrote about the Nunez play at third last night for the .com.

grimshaw · Aug 12, 2017

Pitt the Elder said:
According to Fangraphs, the Red Sox are 14th in MLB and 5th in the AL with a BsR of 0.6. The Rays and Diamondbacks lead their respective leagues with a 20.2 BsR while the Mets (-19.1) and Mariners (-16.5) are bringing up the rears.

So the Red Sox, on the whole, are a slightly above average base running team, despite the salient nature of these outs.

Beni, despite some frustrating miscues lately, is actually rated among the best on the team with a BsR of 2.0, behind only Betts (6.2 - is there anything he's not good at?) and Bogaerts (5.5). If you want to look at who is really hurting the Sox on the basepaths, you're looking at the seasoned veterans (Pedroia, Hanley, and Leon), not the inexperienced young guys.

just a note in general about BsR. Grounding into double plays is one of the calculating factors, and the Red Sox have grounded into the 2nd most (107 with 91 being league average). That's one of the consequences of a team that is hard to strike out, has a lot of base runners and aren't getting balls in the air with as much frequency as the best teams.

In terms of UBR which doesn't factor in steals or GIDP the worst culprits are:

Pedey -4.6
Leon -3.7
Hanley -1.7 (and then another -1.3 from caught stealing)

These guys are slow, so it is hurting them more that they are more often station to station than if they were being overly aggressive. Not that their instincts are all that great either.

And the best

Xander 4.2 (another 1.5 from steals)
Mookie 4.0 (another 1.8 from steals)
Nunez 2.4 (another 1.8 from steals)
Beni 1.6 (another 1.2 from steals)

X, Mookie, and Nunez have netted 3 of the top 11 runs above average in steals in MLB, so apparently have great judgement in that aspect.

On the flip side, speed makes up for a lot.

Greenwells Gator Farm · Aug 12, 2017

Greenwells Gator Farm said:
This is a poor model of outs on the bases (BOS in red):

Given that there's no correlation b/w extra bases taken and outs on the bases, you can divide teams into four groups along two axes: above/below average in extra bases taken ("aggressive" or "safe") and above/below average in outs made on the bases ("stupid" or "smart"). Most teams move around on the graph, so not consistently in one of those four categories. However, all four years:

-Boston and LAA have been aggressive and stupid
-Cleveland has been aggressive and smart
-Baltimore, KC and Houston have been safe and smart
-There haven't been any teams that have been consistently safe and stupid, although CHW comes closest

joe dokes · Aug 12, 2017

Greenwells Gator Farm said:
Given that there's no correlation b/w extra bases taken and outs on the bases, you can divide teams into four groups along two axes: above/below average in extra bases taken ("aggressive" or "safe") and above/below average in outs made on the bases ("stupid" or "smart"). Most teams move around on the graph, so not consistently in one of those four categories. However, all four years:

-Boston and LAA have been aggressive and stupid
-Cleveland has been aggressive and smart
-Baltimore, KC and Houston have been safe and smart
-There haven't been any teams that have been consistently safe and stupid, although CHW comes closest

This suggests to me that there seems to be little correlation between whatever it is you are attempting to show and winning.

Greenwells Gator Farm · Aug 12, 2017

joe dokes said:
This suggests to me that there seems to be little correlation between whatever it is you are attempting to show and winning.

Making outs on the bases makes it less likely that you'll score a run. In baseball, the team that scores the most runs wins the game.

Pitt the Elder · Aug 12, 2017

You obviously want to be aggressive and smart but guess is that there's a somewhat thin line between being aggressive and smart and aggressive and dumb.

As for the Nunez play, what's the win expectancy for a runner on 3rd vs runner on 2nd in that situation? I'm sure it's meaningfully different. However, I'm sure that the success rate of tagging up at 2nd on a ball to left field is fairly low. In the abstract, I think the strategy (attempting 3rd with one out down by a run) is sound but the tactic (tagging up on a fly to left) is not.

soxeast · Aug 12, 2017

Pitt the Elder said:
You obviously want to be aggressive and smart but guess is that there's a somewhat thin line between being aggressive and smart and aggressive and dumb.

As for the Nunez play, what's the win expectancy for a runner on 3rd vs runner on 2nd in that situation? I'm sure it's meaningfully different. However, I'm sure that the success rate of tagging up at 2nd on a ball to left field is fairly low. In the abstract, I think the strategy (attempting 3rd with one out down by a run) is sound but the tactic (tagging up on a fly to left) is not.

Especially that the left fielder has a strong arm. And teh ball wasn't in the warning track and the ball was shaded more toward 3b than left-center.

kazuneko · Aug 13, 2017

soxeast said:
Especially that the left fielder has a strong arm. And teh ball wasn't in the warning track and the ball was shaded more toward 3b and left-center.

The Sox seem to have a default aggressiveness regardless of both the situation and the runner with little to no ability to recognize bad risks. That play with Nunez was a mistake. Period. It's a one run game and Chapman can't find the plate. Meanwhile Hicks has a gun of an arm.
Even more frustrating than the mistake is the reaction of both player and manager.
Per Nunez: "If it happened tomorrow, I would take the chance tomorrow again," Nunez said after the loss. "That's how we play the game". And the manager agrees: "We're forcing him to throw a strike," Farrell said. "Eduardo is such a good baserunner with the speed that he has. The height of the ball right there with the depth of it, the height of it, he's back in plenty of time to read it and if he doesn't feel like he's got a chance to get there, he's probably not going".
Now I don't expect Farrell to blast Nunez in his press conference, but its pretty clear this is not simply a case of a managing protecting his player - this is Farrell's baserunning strategy in action.
And I'm sorry, some plays are just stupid and shouldn't be attempted, and there are far too many examples of that type of baserunning on this team. This team has the potential to be a great baserunning team, but to get there they need to do more than just be blindly aggressive- they need to be smart.

joe dokes · Aug 13, 2017

kazuneko said:
The Sox seem to have a default aggressiveness regardless of both the situation and the runner with little to no ability to recognize bad risks. That play with Nunez was a mistake. Period. It's a one run game and Chapman can't find the plate. Meanwhile Hicks is has a gun of an arm.
Even more frustrating than the mistake is the reaction of both player and manager.
Per Nunez: "If it happened tomorrow, I would take the chance tomorrow again," Nunez said after the loss. "That's how we play the game". And the manager agrees: "We're forcing him to throw a strike," Farrell said. "Eduardo is such a good baserunner with the speed that he has. The height of the ball right there with the depth of it, the height of it, he's back in plenty of time to read it and if he doesn't feel like he's got a chance to get there, he's probably not going".
Now I don't expect Farrell to blast Nunez in his press conference, but its pretty clear this is not simply a case of a managing protecting his player - this is Farrell's baserunning strategy in action.
And I'm sorry, some plays are just stupid and shouldn't be attempted, and there are far too many examples of that type of baserunning on this team. This team has the potential to be a great baserunning team, but to get there they need to do more than just be blindly aggressive- they need to be smart.

Is teaching players to be "smart" like teaching Sandy Leon to be "fast"?

soxeast · Aug 13, 2017

joe dokes said:
Is teaching players to be "smart" like teaching Sandy Leon to be "fast"?

I don't think so.

I think it has to be on the manager to define to his players what is smart/acceptable. But as the other poster suggested the manager seems okay with it. IMO players pick up on it. For example last year early in season Hanley ran by Butter's stop sign and ended up scoring. Afterwards in the dugout they were laughing it up. This tells the player it is okay to blow past the 3b coach. It made Hanley more cavalier (I know now he still does it but I thought last year after he did it- he was going to be even more blatantly cavalier until being caught.). Just as now John Farrell not speaking out against the poor running decision from Nunez - his philosophy encourages stupidity.

ricopetro6 · Aug 13, 2017

soxeast said:
I don't think so.

I think it has to be on the manager to define to his players what is smart/acceptable. But as the other poster suggested the manager seems okay with it. IMO players pick up on it. For example last year early in season Hanley ran by Butter's stop sign and ended up scoring. Afterwards in the dugout they were laughing it up. This tells the player it is okay to blow past the 3b coach. It made Hanley more cavalier (I know now he still does it but I thought last year after he did it- he was going to be even more blatantly cavalier until being caught.). Just as now John Farrell not speaking out against the poor running decision from Nunez - his philosophy encourages stupidity.

not a poor decision, just a bad outcome. You really think X had a chance vs Chapman?

soxeast · Aug 13, 2017

ricopetro6 said:
not a poor decision, just a bad outcome. You really think X had a chance vs Chapman?

It was a poor decision and the outcome was the result of the poor decision. When you make poor decisions usually poor outcomes will follow.

And yes ofc X had a chance of Chapman. Chapman was in full-implosion. Did you think the start of the inning Chapman would walk the bases loaded with no outs? IMO the Chapman you are thinking of wasn't the the Chapman that was on the mound at that moment. He was highly vulnerable. OFC it was a poor decision.

joe dokes · Aug 13, 2017

soxeast said:
I don't think so.

I think it has to be on the manager to define to his players what is smart/acceptable. But as the other poster suggested the manager seems okay with it. IMO players pick up on it. For example last year early in season Hanley ran by Butter's stop sign and ended up scoring. Afterwards in the dugout they were laughing it up. This tells the player it is okay to blow past the 3b coach. It made Hanley more cavalier (I know now he still does it but I thought last year after he did it- he was going to be even more blatantly cavalier until being caught.). Just as now John Farrell not speaking out against the poor running decision from Nunez - his philosophy encourages stupidity.

I've never totally bought into the idea that the mental side of the game is somehow not a skill. I don't know, of course.
Obviously a player who lacks superior mental skills better have other skills.

Alex cora and his spectacular brain comes to mind.

ricopetro6 · Aug 13, 2017

soxeast said:
It was a poor decision and the outcome was the result of the poor decision. When you make poor decisions usually poor outcomes will follow.

And yes ofc X had a chance of Chapman. Chapman was in full-implosion. Did you think the start of the inning Chapman would walk the bases loaded with no outs? IMO the Chapman you are thinking of wasn't the the Chapman that was on the mound at that moment. He was highly vulnerable. OFC it was a poor decision.

disagree...trying to get the tying run to third(and go ahead run to 2nd) with only 1 out was worth the risk. Took a great play by Frazier for the out.

Dewey'sCannon · Aug 13, 2017

ricopetro6 said:
disagree...trying to get the tying run to third(and go ahead run to 2nd) with only 1 out was worth the risk. Took a great play by Frazier for the out.

No. You're already in scoring position at second base. Sure, it's better to be on third with only one out. But if you're going to try to take third (whether on a tag play like this, or going first to third (especially on a single to left or center), or even a steal of third or advancing on a WP) you'd better be damn sure that you're going to make it. Or at least that it takes an outstanding play to get you. This was not an outstanding play by the defense - merely a good one, with a strong throw and a good tag (the throw beat him by plenty). LF in Yankee Stadium is not that deep, and it was not a long or difficult throw. If the ball was hit more to left center, so that momentum was taking Hicks away from 3B, and he'd have to stop and/or spin to make the throw back to third, then maybe. Or if Ells is playing LF, ok. But any competent LF is licking his chops when he sees the runner tagging on that play.

To me, the most troubling thing is that Nunez said he'd do the same thing again. I'd be ok if he said he didn't think Hicks would be able to get so much on the throw. But it was a bad play, based on a serious misjudgment. I don't know that Farrell's comments were necessarily an endorsement of Nunez' decision, or just supporting his playing, and generally the concept of being aggressive. And I'm a strong supporter of being aggressive on the bases (I thought they should be attempting more SBs when they were having trouble scoring). But you've got to be smart about it - all base running situations are not the same.. Getting thrown out at third, or getting thrown out at home with nobody out, is just bad base running.

drbretto · Aug 13, 2017

joe dokes said:
Is teaching players to be "smart" like teaching Sandy Leon to be "fast"?

Is teaching a kid math like teaching a kid to grown taller? Nobody needs to get faster. They just need to make better decisions. That should be on the manager to recognize a problem and work on it. I'm not saying fire the guy, but this seems to be a valid criticism.

Toekneearmass' write up was really good, but you have, at best, a statistical wash. With the implosion on the mound, that just equates to an unnecessary risk. Bottom line, not a head's up play, IMO.

I don't think this is a fireable offense, but I do think this is something a manager should recognize as an issue to be worked on.

Mighty Joe Young · Aug 13, 2017

Dewey'sCannon said:
No. You're already in scoring position at second base. Sure, it's better to be on third with only one out. But if you're going to try to take third (whether on a tag play like this, or going first to third (especially on a single to left or center), or even a steal of third or advancing on a WP) you'd better be damn sure that you're going to make it. Or at least that it takes an outstanding play to get you. This was not an outstanding play by the defense - merely a good one, with a strong throw and a good tag (the throw beat him by plenty). LF in Yankee Stadium is not that deep, and it was not a long or difficult throw. If the ball was hit more to left center, so that momentum was taking Hicks away from 3B, and he'd have to stop and/or spin to make the throw back to third, then maybe. Or if Ells is playing LF, ok. But any competent LF is licking his chops when he sees the runner tagging on that play.

To me, the most troubling thing is that Nunez said he'd do the same thing again. I'd be ok if he said he didn't think Hicks would be able to get so much on the throw. But it was a bad play, based on a serious misjudgment. I don't know that Farrell's comments were necessarily an endorsement of Nunez' decision, or just supporting his playing, and generally the concept of being aggressive. And I'm a strong supporter of being aggressive on the bases (I thought they should be attempting more SBs when they were having trouble scoring). But you've got to be smart about it - all base running situations are not the same.. Getting thrown out at third, or getting thrown out at home with nobody out, is just bad base running.

I think you are missing the fact that it wasn't just getting a guy to third ,, but to second as well. The old adage of playing for a win instead of a tie on the road and all that.

soxeast · Aug 13, 2017

ricopetro6 said:
disagree...trying to get the tying run to third(and go ahead run to 2nd) with only 1 out was worth the risk. Took a great play by Frazier for the out.

There are degrees of risk. A ground ball to the 3rd baseman - a player could try to run to 3rd- and hope the 3rd baseman doesn't see teh runner at 2nd - the runner is also trying to get the tying run to 3rd. Teh chance of that guy getting to 3rd, is slim. Just because their was a possibility of getting to 3rd, doesn't mean it was worth the risk.

The left fielder has a strong arm and he was shaded heavily toward 3rd. It wasn't a great play by Frazier - it was a baseball play he should make. He's a pro. The play wasn't close for a reason.

soxeast · Aug 13, 2017

BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I think you are missing the fact that it wasn't just getting a guy to third ,, but to second as well. The old adage of playing for a win instead of a tie on the road and all that.

The "old adage" is just that; "old."

The Sox are a hot team that plays well in extra innings in which the Yanks closer was imploding in which the chance to get to 3rd was extremely slim.

ricopetro6 · Aug 13, 2017

soxeast said:
There are degrees of risk. A ground ball to the 3rd baseman - a player could try to run to 3rd- and hope the 3rd baseman doesn't see teh runner at 2nd - the runner is also trying to get the tying run to 3rd. Teh chance of that guy getting to 3rd, is slim. Just because their was a possibility of getting to 3rd, doesn't mean it was worth the risk.

The left fielder has a strong arm and he was shaded heavily toward 3rd. It wasn't a great play by Frazier - it was a baseball play he should make. He's a pro. The play wasn't close for a reason.

the play was close and the chance he makes it is much greater than you are stating, My guess is he would be safe 7 out of 10 times. The ball was just short of the track and it took a very strong and accurate throw(plus a short hop pick by Frazier) to get the out. Nunez stated he would do it again and he should...well worth the risk. Obviously, we see it differently..but had no confidence in X getting a hit against Chapman. Getting a guy to 3rd with 1 out is huge...and the go ahead run to second to boot.

soxeast · Aug 13, 2017

ricopetro6 said:
the play was close and the chance he makes it is much greater than you are stating, My guess is he would be safe 7 out of 10 times. The ball was just short of the track and it took a very strong and accurate throw(plus a short hop pick by Frazier) to get the out. Nunez stated he would do it again and he should...well worth the risk. Obviously, we see it differently..but had no confidence in X getting a hit against Chapman. Getting a guy to 3rd with 1 out is huge...and the go ahead run to second to boot.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I respect what you're saying.

The play was not close imo. It took the worst possible in-between high-bounce and he still had easily enough time to make the tag. My guess is that he'd be out at least 8 out of ten times because that throw wasn't that hard for a guy like Hicks. He didn't have to re-position his feet or anything like that. The ball wasn't on the warning track and he was moving forward. That's where we disagree I suppose. That's a professional left-fielder out there who has a strong arm and the ball was shaded to 3b. That 3b is not Pablo.

I know what Nunez says and it scares me. And the coach scares me even more because he seems oblivious to how often the Red Sox get thrown out. The philosophy of being okay being thrown out in which the chances are slim to me is something I feel has cost us and will continue to cost us.

rajendra82 · Aug 13, 2017

Dewey'sCannon said:
No. You're already in scoring position at second base. Sure, it's better to be on third with only one out. But if you're going to try to take third (whether on a tag play like this, or going first to third (especially on a single to left or center), or even a steal of third or advancing on a WP) you'd better be damn sure that you're going to make it. Or at least that it takes an outstanding play to get you. This was not an outstanding play by the defense - merely a good one, with a strong throw and a good tag (the throw beat him by plenty). LF in Yankee Stadium is not that deep, and it was not a long or difficult throw. If the ball was hit more to left center, so that momentum was taking Hicks away from 3B, and he'd have to stop and/or spin to make the throw back to third, then maybe. Or if Ells is playing LF, ok. But any competent LF is licking his chops when he sees the runner tagging on that play.

To me, the most troubling thing is that Nunez said he'd do the same thing again. I'd be ok if he said he didn't think Hicks would be able to get so much on the throw. But it was a bad play, based on a serious misjudgment. I don't know that Farrell's comments were necessarily an endorsement of Nunez' decision, or just supporting his playing, and generally the concept of being aggressive. And I'm a strong supporter of being aggressive on the bases (I thought they should be attempting more SBs when they were having trouble scoring). But you've got to be smart about it - all base running situations are not the same.. Getting thrown out at third, or getting thrown out at home with nobody out, is just bad base running.

The bolded part is where you are wrong. Let me try to explain. On an average day the win probability of the situation with runners at first and second with one out and down by one run is about 26.7%. If the runners are at second and third the win probability is 57.1%, if the runner gets thrown out trying to advance and there is only a runner on second and two outs, the win probability drops to 8.3%. Based on these odds, the runner should try to advance on a play if he has 38% certainty if he could make it. I do disagree with your assessment that Nunez gets thrown out 8 out of 10 times trying. I think it was a 50-50 shot because of the speed he has. Hicks had to immediately throw the ball. A perfect throw gets him, but there wasn't enough time to make a perfect throw. The positioning being off a little, and Nunez makes it, as he almost did anyway.

You may try to counter that, this was not an average day as Chapman was struggling, and we had a better chance of winning than average. Let's throw in another 20% chance of the winning to each outcome (i,.e, 56.7% chance of winning if holding at second, 77.1% if making it to second and third and 28.7% if getting thrown out trying at third). How certain should Nunez be before trying to not lower the overall winning odds in this custom situation? The answer is exactly 38%. Even on a struggling Chapman, trying for third does not require Nunez to be damn sure.

joe dokes · Aug 13, 2017

drbretto said:
Is teaching a kid math like teaching a kid to grown taller? Nobody needs to get faster. They just need to make better decisions. That should be on the manager to recognize a problem and work on it. I'm not saying fire the guy, but this seems to be a valid criticism.

Toekneearmass' write up was really good, but you have, at best, a statistical wash. With the implosion on the mound, that just equates to an unnecessary risk. Bottom line, not a head's up play, IMO.

I don't think this is a fireable offense, but I do think this is something a manager should recognize as an issue to be worked on.

I know some pretty intelligent adults that have a shitload of trouble with simple arithmetic.

We won't agree, which is fine. I think it's harder to teach baserunning judgment to some players than is being suggested.

soxeast · Aug 13, 2017

rajendra82 said:
The bolded part is where you are wrong. Let me try to explain. On an average day the win probability of the situation with runners at first and second with one out and down by one run is about 26.7%. If the runners are at second and third the win probability is 57.1%, if the runner gets thrown out trying to advance and there is only a runner on second and two outs, the win probability drops to 8.3%. Based on these odds, the runner should try to advance on a play if he has 38% certainty if he could make it. I do disagree with your assessment that Nunez gets thrown out 8 out of 10 times trying. I think it was a 50-50 shot because of the speed he has. Hicks had to immediately throw the ball. A perfect throw gets him, but there wasn't enough time to make a perfect throw. The positioning being off a little, and Nunez makes it, as he almost did anyway.

You may try to counter that, this was not an average day as Chapman was struggling, and we had a better chance of winning than average. Let's throw in another 20% chance of the winning to each outcome (i,.e, 56.7% chance of winning if holding at second, 77.1% if making it to second and third and 28.7% if getting thrown out trying at third). How certain should Nunez be before trying to not lower the overall winning odds in this custom situation? The answer is exactly 38%. Even on a struggling Chapman, trying for third does not require Nunez to be damn sure.

I think you are vastly under-estimating that the ball wasn't deep, and it was shaded much farther to 3rd and that Hicks has a gun. IMO no chance it is even close to 50-50. IMO those stats you cite for success aren't guys that have a gun for an arm and that aren't deep. You can't use "averages' of the left-fielder when many don't have the gun that Hicks has and they aren't very deep and they are near 3b side.

IMO your use of the stats is like in late innings - you're losing 2-0 vs a prime Pedro or Sale or Kershaw etc and there is a runner on 3rd with one out and you don't bring in the infield because you cite averages of of playing the infield in is not good. You have to consider who is pitching/ what arm is out there in left-field. That play at 3b that wasn't deep there was minimal chance getting to 3rd. He didn't need to make a perfect throw nor did he. Even the in between high bounce - he still got him easily. Just take a look at the links below of Hicks gun. That throw was nothing for Hicks. Hicks has a gun. You must consider who is out there when taking the risk along with Chapman struggling in the manner he was.

kazuneko · Aug 13, 2017

To put the the team's OOB ( outs on base) numbers in historical context I looked up where this team's current pace (85 OOB) would rank them since 1930 (I can't find OOB statistics before 1930).
Here are the 7 highest seasons of 80+ OOB during that period:

1. 102 (1945 Washington Senators)
2. 92 (2004 Anaheim Angels)
3. 89 (1936 New York Yankees)
(4.) 85 (pace of the 2017 Boston Red Sox)
4. 85 (1932 Philadelphia A's)
5. 84 (1932 Brooklyn Dodgers)
6. 80 (1932 St. Louis Cardinals)
7. 80 (1986 San Francisco Giants)

So the Sox, if they continue at their current OOB rate, will have put up the most outs on base in over a decade and the 2nd most since 1945.

Dewey'sCannon · Aug 14, 2017

rajendra82 said:
The bolded part is where you are wrong. Let me try to explain. On an average day the win probability of the situation with runners at first and second with one out and down by one run is about 26.7%. If the runners are at second and third the win probability is 57.1%, if the runner gets thrown out trying to advance and there is only a runner on second and two outs, the win probability drops to 8.3%. Based on these odds, the runner should try to advance on a play if he has 38% certainty if he could make it. I do disagree with your assessment that Nunez gets thrown out 8 out of 10 times trying. I think it was a 50-50 shot because of the speed he has. Hicks had to immediately throw the ball. A perfect throw gets him, but there wasn't enough time to make a perfect throw. The positioning being off a little, and Nunez makes it, as he almost did anyway.

You may try to counter that, this was not an average day as Chapman was struggling, and we had a better chance of winning than average. Let's throw in another 20% chance of the winning to each outcome (i,.e, 56.7% chance of winning if holding at second, 77.1% if making it to second and third and 28.7% if getting thrown out trying at third). How certain should Nunez be before trying to not lower the overall winning odds in this custom situation? The answer is exactly 38%. Even on a struggling Chapman, trying for third does not require Nunez to be damn sure.

I'd like to know how you calculated that 38% break-even rate, given the differences in run probability.

But I don't think in this specific case he had a 38% chance of making it, given where the ball was hit and Hicks' arm. Would seem to me more like 10% (a bad throw by Hicks, or a drop by Frazier). YMMV.

rajendra82 · Aug 14, 2017

Dewey'sCannon said:
I'd like to know how you calculated that 38% break-even rate, given the differences in run probability.

But I don't think in this specific case he had a 38% chance of making it, given where the ball was hit and Hicks' arm. Would seem to me more like 10% (a bad throw by Hicks, or a drop by Frazier). YMMV.

The 38% break even rate is based on the visiting team expected win probability of 0.267, based on historical data if there were runners on first and second in the bottom of the ninth with one out and a -1 run differential. If the runners instead were at second and third with one out, which is one possible outcome of trying to go for it, the win probability increases to 0.571. Another possible outcome is a runner on second and two outs, for which the win probability drops to 0.083. For simplicity, let's assume just these two binary outcomes. If Nunez had 100 hypothetical chances to try and made it 38 times and got thrown out 62 times, the average win probability by trying to go for it in these 100 hypothetical games is (38*0.571 + 62*.083)/100 = 0.268, i.e., about the same as another game where he did not go for it. So the risk of going for it is worth it if he can make it just 38% of the time. If the play is riskier than that, he should hold for a better likelihood of winning. If the play is easier to make than 38%, he lost the chance of going for a better outcome.

soxeast · Aug 14, 2017

BestGameEvah said:
Hicks has 2 assists this year.
Guys with good arms throw off line.
Girardi said Nunez has always been aggressive.
He could have thought, with the 'gun' and all, that Hicks would have tried for Bradley at the plate
(since he wasn't too deep!)

1-- Hicks only has two assists this year because he has not only been hurt but no one is usually dumb enough to run on him when he's not deep.
2-- Jackie Bradley has just 3 assists and has played more games. So what is the significance of 2 assists vs Hicks?
3-- Guys with good arms will usually thrown off line a lot more when they are threatened. Guy with accurate and strong arms that aren't that deep will usually not throw off line.
4-- I don't know why Nunez being aggressive means anything. As you suggest a pro ball player can throw offline. Similarly, an aggressive runner can make poor running decisions.
5-- I think your suggestion that Hicks isn't a believable comment. By that train of thought when I say "because he wasn't too deep" it means a throw to 3rd is nearly the same as a throw to home? You couldn't take the leap that a throw to 3rd isn't deep but a throw to home might be? Otherwise what is the point of your comment other than to be argumentative? Just like your comment of assists. What if a Yankee fan would tell you JBJ doesn't have a good arm/accurate arm because he only has 3 assists. Are you really going to believe that's relevant?

soxeast · Aug 14, 2017

rajendra82 said:
The 38% break even rate is based on the visiting team expected win probability of 0.267, based on historical data if there were runners on first and second in the bottom of the ninth with one out and a -1 run differential. If the runners instead were at second and third with one out, which is one possible outcome of trying to go for it, the win probability increases to 0.571. Another possible outcome is a runner on second and two outs, for which the win probability drops to 0.083. For simplicity, let's assume just these two binary outcomes. If Nunez had 100 hypothetical chances to try and made it 38 times and got thrown out 62 times, the average win probability by trying to go for it in these 100 hypothetical games is (38*0.571 + 62*.083)/100 = 0.268, i.e., about the same as another game where he did not go for it. So the risk of going for it is worth it if he can make it just 38% of the time. If the play is riskier than that, he should hold for a better likelihood of winning. If the play is easier to make than 38%, he lost the chance of going for a better outcome.

And imo that's why you can't use what you are trying to use. Not every left fielder is the same. You're lumping in poor arms vs strong arms. Your odds of getting the base are better with the combination of the farther away the base is and who the thrower is. If you aren't too deep / shaded pretty much toward 3b and the guy is pretty experienced and has a gun, that 38% means nothing. It's 15-20% for Hicks as an example. Another left fielder with a weak arm you're going to run on him more with probably much greater success. There are certain guys that are below that 38% average and a guy with Hicks arm certainly is.

rajendra82 · Aug 14, 2017

soxeast said:
And imo that's why you can't use what you are trying to use. Not every left fielder is the same. You're lumping in poor arms vs strong arms. Your odds of getting the base are better with the combination of the farther away the base is and who the thrower is. If you aren't too deep / shaded pretty much toward 3b and the guy is pretty experienced and has a gun, that 38% means nothing. It's 15-20% for Hicks as an example. Another left fielder with a weak arm you're going to run on him more with probably much greater success. There are certain guys that are below that 38% average and a guy with Hicks arm certainly is.

I am not trying to prove that there was a 38% chance of making it on that particular play. Proving something like that is beyond my skill, as it would require a much more through understanding of physics, biology, psychology, and mechanical properties of ball and grass than I possess. The statement I am trying to dispute is that Nunez should have never gone unless he is damn sure he could make it. If you keep being that cautious, there are games you lose that could have been won by being more aggressive.

soxeast · Aug 14, 2017

rajendra82 said:
I am not trying to prove that there was a 38% chance of making it on that particular play. Proving something like that is beyond my skill, as it would require a much more through understanding of physics, biology, psychology, and mechanical properties of ball and grass than I possess. The statement I am trying to dispute is that Nunez should have never gone unless he is damn sure he could make it. If you keep being that cautious, there are games you lose that could have been won by being more aggressive.

Okay sorry about that.

But I don't agree in any form of what you're implying suggesting/stating. The throw was a "cupcake throw" for a guy like Hicks. There is such thing as "smart aggression" and "dumb aggression." That's an easy throw for Hicks. So the %'s of 38% or 56% mean nothing. In this case the guy with a gun arm wasn't throwing the ball that far. It's an easy throw for him. Nunez is going to get gunned down 80% etc of the time.

Being smart is better than being low chance aggressive.

Greenwells Gator Farm · Aug 14, 2017

Perhaps of interest, there were six times in 2016 in the AL where the situation was the same as Nuñez's boner: men on 2nd and 3rd, less than two outs, sacrifice fly to LF, runner scores and runner tries to advance to third. In 2016, the runner was safe at third five of six times:

4/26: Top 4, A's up 1-0, no outs. Crisp flies to LF, Lowrie scores, Vogt(!) to 3B. It was a very shallow fly to left, when the throw went home, Vogt took off. Castellanos cut the throw off and had him at third, but he bobbled it and Vogt was safe.

4/30: Bottom 3, Rangers up 1-0, no outs. Mazara flies to deep LF, DeShields scores, Odor to 3B. Ball was hit to the warning track with LFer (Ortega) backing up; he throws to cut-off at SS but nobody was really near 3B.

7/24: Top 4, Cleveland up 1-0, one out. Perez flies out to deep LF-CF, Chisenhall scores, Naquin to 3rd. Ball was hit to the wall in left center, SS cut the ball of, Naquin made it standing up.

8/24: Top 9, NYY up 4-0, one out. Castro flies to LF-CF, Gardner scores, Gregorious to 3rd, Sanchez to 2nd. Aoki caught the ball in shallow LF, airmailed the catcher (at which point runners advance).

8/13: Top 13, time game, no outs. McCann flies to LF-CF, Gregorious scores, Castro to 3rd. Gordon plays the ball poorly, back to the infield. Ball was hit medium depth, Castro was safe, but this was the closest play - the ball arrived a few feet off the bag as he was sliding in.

The one time the runner was out:

9/6: Top 4, Angels up 1-0, 1 out. Cowart lines to LF, Pujols scores, Simmons out at 3rd. Khris Davis nailed the throw, it looked like it was going through to get Pujols at home, so Simmons appears to try to draw the throw. Simmons runs into Semien right as he's cutting the ball off and backs up to allow Pujols to score.

From 2007 to 2016 in MLB, there have been 56 successful advances to 3rd in that situation, and 31 times a runner was thrown out (36%).

soxeast · Aug 14, 2017

Greenwells Gator Farm said:
Perhaps of interest, there were six times in 2016 in the AL where the situation was the same as Nuñez's boner: men on 2nd and 3rd, less than two outs, sacrifice fly to LF, runner scores and runner tries to advance to third. In 2016, the runner was safe at third five of six times:

4/26: Top 4, A's up 1-0, no outs. Crisp flies to LF, Lowrie scores, Vogt(!) to 3B. It was a very shallow fly to left, when the throw went home, Vogt took off. Castellanos cut the throw off and had him at third, but he bobbled it and Vogt was safe.

4/30: Bottom 3, Rangers up 1-0, no outs. Mazara flies to deep LF, DeShields scores, Odor to 3B. Ball was hit to the warning track with LFer (Ortega) backing up; he throws to cut-off at SS but nobody was really near 3B.

7/24: Top 4, Cleveland up 1-0, one out. Perez flies out to deep LF-CF, Chisenhall scores, Naquin to 3rd. Ball was hit to the wall in left center, SS cut the ball of, Naquin made it standing up.

8/24: Top 9, NYY up 4-0, one out. Castro flies to LF-CF, Gardner scores, Gregorious to 3rd, Sanchez to 2nd. Aoki caught the ball in shallow LF, airmailed the catcher (at which point runners advance).

8/13: Top 13, time game, no outs. McCann flies to LF-CF, Gregorious scores, Castro to 3rd. Gordon plays the ball poorly, back to the infield. Ball was hit medium depth, Castro was safe, but this was the closest play - the ball arrived a few feet off the bag as he was sliding in.

The one time the runner was out:

9/6: Top 4, Angels up 1-0, 1 out. Cowart lines to LF, Pujols scores, Simmons out at 3rd. Khris Davis nailed the throw, it looked like it was going through to get Pujols at home, so Simmons appears to try to draw the throw. Simmons runs into Semien right as he's cutting the ball off and backs up to allow Pujols to score.

From 2007 to 2016 in MLB, there have been 56 successful advances to 3rd in that situation, and 31 times a runner was thrown out (36%).

Just an initial point. How is any ball that was hit to lf-cf the same as where Hicks caught the ball? The examples you gave are not the same. Are they?

joe dokes · Aug 15, 2017

Greenwells Gator Farm said:
Perhaps of interest, there were six times in 2016 in the AL where the situation was the same as Nuñez's boner: men on 2nd and 3rd, less than two outs, sacrifice fly to LF, runner scores and runner tries to advance to third. In 2016, the runner was safe at third five of six times:

4/26: Top 4, A's up 1-0, no outs. Crisp flies to LF, Lowrie scores, Vogt(!) to 3B. It was a very shallow fly to left, when the throw went home, Vogt took off. Castellanos cut the throw off and had him at third, but he bobbled it and Vogt was safe.

4/30: Bottom 3, Rangers up 1-0, no outs. Mazara flies to deep LF, DeShields scores, Odor to 3B. Ball was hit to the warning track with LFer (Ortega) backing up; he throws to cut-off at SS but nobody was really near 3B.

7/24: Top 4, Cleveland up 1-0, one out. Perez flies out to deep LF-CF, Chisenhall scores, Naquin to 3rd. Ball was hit to the wall in left center, SS cut the ball of, Naquin made it standing up.

8/24: Top 9, NYY up 4-0, one out. Castro flies to LF-CF, Gardner scores, Gregorious to 3rd, Sanchez to 2nd. Aoki caught the ball in shallow LF, airmailed the catcher (at which point runners advance).

8/13: Top 13, time game, no outs. McCann flies to LF-CF, Gregorious scores, Castro to 3rd. Gordon plays the ball poorly, back to the infield. Ball was hit medium depth, Castro was safe, but this was the closest play - the ball arrived a few feet off the bag as he was sliding in.

The one time the runner was out:

9/6: Top 4, Angels up 1-0, 1 out. Cowart lines to LF, Pujols scores, Simmons out at 3rd. Khris Davis nailed the throw, it looked like it was going through to get Pujols at home, so Simmons appears to try to draw the throw. Simmons runs into Semien right as he's cutting the ball off and backs up to allow Pujols to score.

From 2007 to 2016 in MLB, there have been 56 successful advances to 3rd in that situation, and 31 times a runner was thrown out (36%).

Nunez ran when the bases were loaded. I dont know how much getting a runner to 2nd at the same time the out is potentially made at 3rd makes a difference.

What's interesting in this small group is that 3 of the safes (4/26, 4/30 and 8/24) involved -- or at least mention -- some sort of defensive mistake. Its hard to tell from the narrative if those mistakes were causative, but it speaks to the general point that some part of the aggressive approach is forcing the defense to do it right.

Greenwells Gator Farm · Aug 15, 2017

joe dokes said:
Nunez ran when the bases were loaded. I dont know how much getting a runner to 2nd at the same time the out is potentially made at 3rd makes a difference.

What's interesting in this small group is that 3 of the safes (4/26, 4/30 and 8/24) involved -- or at least mention -- some sort of defensive mistake. Its hard to tell from the narrative if those mistakes were causative, but it speaks to the general point that some part of the aggressive approach is forcing the defense to do it right.

In every situation there was a man on second and a man on third. Limiting to just bases loaded would have reduced the sample to one. I worded it carefully.

4/26, Vogt absolutely forced the error. 4/30 was poor defensive positioning that Odor took advantage of, but he would have been safe even with a good throw. 8/24 was the other way around - the runners weren't going until Aoki let it fly.

soxeast · Aug 16, 2017

BestGameEvah said:
I simply made some bullet points contrasting your observations. Not argumentative.
I have not seen too many runners who won't run on Bradley. He showed us last year his accuracy has been compromised. Some posters suggested his added bulk to hit, has jeopardized his throws. Or his concentration on hitting vs. fielding. Last night, again, throw off line. Cleveland was certainly going to advance on him. Again, this year, he has not made accurate throws. FACT.

Benny and Holt have thrown runners out at home from where Hicks was playing.

And I made both argumentative statements and ones that contrasted yours. JBJ threw out 13 runners last year. And again I don't agree with your any point you are trying to make about throwing out at home. The throw was to 3rd base, not to home. You saw hicks throws I provided previously. The guy has a gun. He had an easy throw to 3rd base to get out a runner that had 20% or less chance to make it. Hicks arm too strong. The distance too short to run on. Because Hicks or Beni or Betts can make potentially a great throw doesn't take away from the fact they can't make a MUCH EASIER throw and get an easy out. Odds much better to get the easy out. If the Red Sox are bascically giving the Yanks out-- the Yanks said "thank you."

Lose Remerswaal · Aug 17, 2017

Good night last night, with JBJ throwing a guy coming from third base out at home (on a SINGLE!) and, well, the ending.

joe dokes · Aug 17, 2017

And another aggressive-running data point. It had everything. Jbj could've been out. It was probably a good send. It would've been a really good play by the OF. Yadi had a chance but dropped it.
Takeaway for me remains that the number of "outs on the bases" doesn't tell much of a story.

dwainw · Aug 17, 2017

joe dokes said:
And another aggressive-running data point. It had everything. Jbj could've been out. It was probably a good send. It would've been a really good play by the OF. Yadi had a chance but dropped it.
Takeaway for me remains that the number of "outs on the bases" doesn't tell much of a story.

I thought it was a good send, primarily because they had already tied the game, so at worst we have extra innings, and it would have required a good throw and catch by Molina to get him (not perfect, since the throw was ahead of him). Bradley started his dive too early, so he was very fortunate the Cardinals didn't execute.

Also, did anyone else notice Farrell at the end of the game during the celebration? In the midst of the hysteria he had a very interesting "discussion" with Butterfield, whom he seemed to seek out immediately and the two of them had a very lively interaction for several seconds. Obviously, they were both elated, but Farrell was about as animated as I've seen him. He was either telling Butter it was a great send, or he was one lucky SOB for taking that risk. Or maybe both.

SoxInTheMist · Aug 17, 2017

dwainw said:
Also, did anyone else notice Farrell at the end of the game during the celebration? In the midst of the hysteria he had a very interesting "discussion" with Butterfield, whom he seemed to seek out immediately and the two of them had a very lively interaction for several seconds. Obviously, they were both elated, but Farrell was about as animated as I've seen him. He was either telling Butter it was a great send, or he was one lucky SOB for taking that risk. Or maybe both.

Yep, I definitely noticed it. I interpreted it as he was congratulating Butter on the send. It's also nice to see a Molina drop the ball. So sick of the brothers and seeing their backsides on their never-ending trips to the mound.

Al Zarilla · Aug 17, 2017

SoxInTheMist said:
Yep, I definitely noticed it. I interpreted it as he was congratulating Butter on the send. It's also nice to see a Molina drop the ball. So sick of the brothers and seeing their backsides on their never-ending trips to the mound.

Well, Bengie hasn't played since 2010 and Jose since 2014, unless you're seeing them in some non-MLB games...

Larry Gardner · Aug 17, 2017

Greenwells Gator Farm said:
Perhaps of interest, there were six times in 2016 in the AL where the situation was the same as Nuñez's boner: men on 2nd and 3rd, less than two outs, sacrifice fly to LF, runner scores and runner tries to advance to third. In 2016, the runner was safe at third five of six times:

I always preface anything I say by saying I don't post much....
Great research! Only problem I see here is that in 5 of the 6 examples, the player advancing to 3rd's team was winning-- and in the other example, the team was tied in extra innings.

Would love to see other examples in recent history where a runner is out at 3rd, when he was the potential tying run in the 9th.....Thanks!

Mighty Joe Young · Aug 17, 2017

dwainw said:
I thought it was a good send, primarily because they had already tied the game, so at worst we have extra innings, and it would have required a good throw and catch by Molina to get him (not perfect, since the throw was ahead of him). Bradley started his dive too early, so he was very fortunate the Cardinals didn't execute.

Also, did anyone else notice Farrell at the end of the game during the celebration? In the midst of the hysteria he had a very interesting "discussion" with Butterfield, whom he seemed to seek out immediately and the two of them had a very lively interaction for several seconds. Obviously, they were both elated, but Farrell was about as animated as I've seen him. He was either telling Butter it was a great send, or he was one lucky SOB for taking that risk. Or maybe both.

Also thought it was a great send. One would think the minimum safe chance to be around 30% to make it a good play. Obviously based on what the next guy's chance is of driving him in.

Skiponzo · Aug 17, 2017

dwainw said:
Also, did anyone else notice Farrell at the end of the game during the celebration? In the midst of the hysteria he had a very interesting "discussion" with Butterfield, whom he seemed to seek out immediately and the two of them had a very lively interaction for several seconds. Obviously, they were both elated, but Farrell was about as animated as I've seen him. He was either telling Butter it was a great send, or he was one lucky SOB for taking that risk. Or maybe both.

I noticed this as well and got the distinct feeling from the quick exchange that they were feeling a bit vindicated in the send. Kinda like he said "We've been pushing all along and they final didn't execute one."

ledsox · Aug 17, 2017

BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Also thought it was a great send. One would think the minimum safe chance to be around 30% to make it a good play. Obviously based on what the next guy's chance is of driving him in.

That seems about right since a steal of home with 2 outs comes in at about a 34% success break even point.

Outs at Home 2017

New Member

too many flowers

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

The North remembers

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

elimination day disfunction

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

elimination day disfunction

New Member

New Member

elimination day disfunction

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Experiencing Furry Panic

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

The North remembers

Member

Member