91 replies to this topic

[mabrowndog]

The Sox are playing lousy enough baseball. They really don't need an incompetent coach assisting them in their quest to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Yet that's precisely what Tim Bogar has done. Let's review, shall we?

* APRIL 16 vs TAMPA BAY - With the score tied 1-1, Youkilis leads off the bottom of the 6th with a walk against Grant Balfour. Ortiz pulls a hard grounder down the RF line, which is fielded in the corner by Ben Zobrist. Youk attempts to score all the way from first base, but the relay from Carlos Pena to Dioner Navarro beats Youkilis by about 10 feet. Instead of having runners on 2nd and 3rd with no outs, they're left with Ortiz on 2nd and one out. A Beltre grounder gets him to 3B, but a Hermida whiff strands him. The Sox lose 3-1 in 12 innings. It's not a stretch to conclude that a run that inning gives the Sox a 9-inning win. Video here. Game thread carnage here. Next-day venting here.




* APRIL 26 at TORONTO - With the bases loaded and one out in the 1st, Drew grounds a single into medium RF that scores Scutaro from 3B. It's charged by Travis Snider, who fields it quickly and cleanly and then almost immediately uncorks a strong throw that reaches the plate in the air. John Buck catches the ball in front of the LHH batter's box before Youkilis even encroaches on the home plate circle. Youk appears to touch the plate before Buck's sweeping left-handed mitt tags him. Ed Hickox calls him out. Instead of having the bases loaded and one out, the Sox end up with men on 1st and 2nd with 2 out. A whiff by Tek ends the inning. The Sox go on to win 13-12. Most game thread posters are angrier with the blown call by the home plate ump than with Bogar's decision to send Youk. Video here. In the photo below, Buck has just caught the ball.




* MAY 2 at BALTIMORE - Tek's on 2nd and Scutaro's on 1st with 2 out in the 8th with the score tied 2-2. Pedroia singles to short LF, where Nolan Reimold charges the ball from left to right, fields it cleanly, and guns a throw to Craig Tatum. Tek, about 5 huge strides away from the plate when the ball arrives, realizes he's a dead duck and slows to a jog as Tatum applies the tag. There's no need whatsoever for a slide. The Sox go on to lose 3-2 in 10 innings. Game thread outrage and profanity-laced tirades begin here. Jerry Remy brushes off the decision by stating, "You gotta send him there with 2 outs and just hope for a bad throw." Francona also dismisses any notions of a mistake by Bogar in a postgame interview on NESN. No video of the play has been posted at MLB.com, and I can't find any photos showing the cavernous gap between Tek and Tatum. But NESN has a postgame snippet from Tek about the decision, in which he clearly and laughably attempts to take one for the team by blaming himself for not being fast enough to score. Video here.

EDIT #1 - Found a pic of Tatum applying the tag. I'm pretty sure he completed the NY Times crossword puzzle while Tek took the four strides before reaching him.




EDIT #2 - Found the video on the Orioles' site. What's even worse is that Tatum is 6 feet up the line when he makes the catch (yes, that white blur is the ball), and Tek's STILL 20 feet away from him.




So in 25 games, Bogar has made two indisputably horrible decisions to send a runner home, each of which directly cost the Red Sox a win, and another decision that, while not nearly as conclusive and one that didn't contribute to a loss, is clearly grounds for critical discussion.

I didn't think it was possible for a third-base coach to make a worse wave-em-in call than Bogar did against the Rays, but today he raised the bar to a whole new level of ineptitude.

Edited by mabrowndog, 03 May 2010 - 07:02 AM.

[Detts]

Wendell approves this thread.

Regards

[Titoschew]

I couldn't believe how Remy brushed today's gaffe under the rug. I'd be curious how it was portrayed by the radio folks or any of the Baltimore analysts. The "you had to send him" was baffling, Drew was coming up and he had just hit a HR in his previous AB, granted looking silly in the two K's prior to that.

If it was someone with marginal speed, say like Youk or Drew, then you send them, but Tek is at the very bottom of the speed chart and you're struggling as is. Literally, he walked into an out. Real tough decision at a critical point in the ball game. I'm not ready to crucify Bogar, but he is not endearing himself thus far.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I think that his decisions have largely been a case of a guy being way too aggressive and trying to make something happen; not unlike many of the Sox hitters. It's unacceptable; sending Youks home in the Tampa Bay game with nobody out was inexcusable, as was sending Tek to get nailed when you've got your #3 hitter coming up. None of these plays were especially close, at all. Having a bunch of lead footed baserunners certainly hasn't helped this club; while he gets a lot of crap on the board I do think that the loss of Ellsbury has been an underrated aspect to the Sox struggles.

[irinmike]

I was listening to the Orioles broadcast on XM radio. They said it was a huge gaffe. However they felt an even bigger one was not pinch running for Varitek, with the score tied, and the go ahead run on second.

[OttoC]

Jerry Remy brushes off the decision by stating, "You gotta send him there with 2 outs and just hope for a bad throw."

It's one thing to send a runner if it's going to take a perfect throw to get him on a close play but when the runner is going to be out by 30 feet, the throw doesn't have to be that accurate.

[TheoShmeo]

Great opening post, Mark.

When DeMarlo Hale got "promoted" to bench coach, the obvious concern was that coaching third is a much more specialized skill than giving the manager ideas and that Hale had already demonstrated that he was very good at the former. It would be nice if the Sox quickly recognized their mistake and switched Bogar and Hale. That will not happen for a number of reasons, and the likely result will be that more blunders will be made by Bogar during the course of this season than Hale made during the course of career as the Sox third base coach.

[mabrowndog]

I was listening to the Orioles broadcast on XM radio. They said it was a huge gaffe. However they felt an even bigger one was not pinch running for Varitek, with the score tied, and the go ahead run on second.

I agree it was a strategic error, but it wouldn't have made a difference on that play. Rickey Henderson would've been thrown out.

Martinez had already pinch-hit for JVE, and Hall ended up taking over in the outfield. Hall could have pinch-run and Victor could have replaced Tek behind the dish. Other than that, with Youk injured Hermida was the only other available option to pinch-run, unless you want to get into using a pitcher, and at that point you've emptied the bench.

[Adirondack jack]

Someone claimed in the gamethread that the MASN replay showed indecision by Bogar in that he stopped Varitek then had a change of heart deciding to green light the speedy, ageing catcher.

That to me makes the decision even worse, if true. Poor game awareness and indecision are not tolerable qualities for a third base coach. Hopefully Bogar improves quickly. He's been unimpressive to date at his new duties.

Edited by Adirondack jack, 02 May 2010 - 09:16 PM.

[mabrowndog]

I found the video of today's debacle and revised the opening post. The screen grab is just ridiculous.

[Harry Hooper]

I agree it was a strategic error, but it wouldn't have made a difference on that play. Rickey Henderson would've been thrown out.

Martinez had already pinch-hit for JVE, and Hall ended up taking over in the outfield. Hall could have pinch-run and Victor could have replaced Tek behind the dish. Other than that, with Youk injured Hermida was the only other available option to pinch-run, unless you want to get into using a pitcher, and at that point you've emptied the bench.

I don't think you can assume that Rickey would have been out, as the fielders are very aware of who is running. Tek on the basepaths means much less pressure on the LF to make a good throw. Tito's decision not to send Hall in to PR looks even worse when Beckett didn't come out to pitch the 8th, negating the best argument for keeping Tek behind the dish.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Great opening post, Mark.

When DeMarlo Hale got "promoted" to bench coach, the obvious concern was that coaching third is a much more specialized skill than giving the manager ideas and that Hale had already demonstrated that he was very good at the former. It would be nice if the Sox quickly recognized their mistake and switched Bogar and Hale. That will not happen for a number of reasons, and the likely result will be that more blunders will be made by Bogar during the course of this season than Hale made during the course of career as the Sox third base coach.

What I don't understand is that when Brad Mills departed, the man "called up" to fill his spot was Ron Johnson. As far as I know, Johnson coached third a lot while managing at Pawtucket. So why exactly isn't Johnson coaching third now? Seems like that would have been the simplest fit, shifting two coaches roles (Hale and Johnson) rather than three by moving Bogar as well.

Of course, I have no idea if Johnson would actually be any better than Bogar at the job, but given what we've seen so far, could he really be worse?

[Eric Van]

It's one thing to send a runner if it's going to take a perfect throw to get him on a close play but when the runner is going to be out by 30 feet, the throw doesn't have to be that accurate.

Remy's comment is a reflection of the fact that, with an average hitter coming up next, the break-even on that play is a tiny 43%. (It would be 54% in the first inning of a scoreless game; it's a better gamble late in a tied game on the road.) So even with Drew coming up, the 3B coach should be asking himself, is there a 50-50 chance of getting him in here?

As we saw, there was almost no chance.

[bosockboy]

I was listening to the Orioles broadcast on XM radio. They said it was a huge gaffe. However they felt an even bigger one was not pinch running for Varitek, with the score tied, and the go ahead run on second.

To me the big question is if you weren't running for Tek, why waste an out with a bunt? If you're trying to manufacture a run, go all the way with it. Just brutal decision making there.

[soxfan121]

Great opening post, Mark.

When DeMarlo Hale got "promoted" to bench coach, the obvious concern was that coaching third is a much more specialized skill than giving the manager ideas and that Hale had already demonstrated that he was very good at the former. It would be nice if the Sox quickly recognized their mistake and switched Bogar and Hale. That will not happen for a number of reasons, and the likely result will be that more blunders will be made by Bogar during the course of this season than Hale made during the course of career as the Sox third base coach.

Sorry for the tangent, but DeMarlo Hale is the next manager of the Red Sox and given Tito's health concerns, his most valuable contributions this year and into the future are on the bench, preparing for his big day (Opening Day 2011, at this pace).

Bogar might suck at 3b but "switch them" is not a well thought out, long term solution to the problem. Veteran minor manager Ron Johnson would be next in line, if it were at all likely that the Red Sox are going to fire the 3b coach on May 2nd.

[Rough Carrigan]

The thing that really sucked about that April 16 send was that you could see way in advance that it was the wrong call. Fris and I were in section 28 looking at the whole play and the Rays didn't even make the relay throws all that well. It wasn't like it was Clemente to Mazeroskii to home. The throws were pretty ehh and they got Youks easily. With no out. With a pitcher who didn't look solid on the mound. Stupid mental mistake by the coach.

[E5 Yaz]

* Terry Francona said he thought about having Bill Hall run for Jason Varitek in the eighth inning but didn't want to take Varitek out of the game. "The way the game was going, I wanted to leave Tek catching," he said.

Can this be read as anything other than a concession that they have concerns about VMart's defense? Hall running might not have made it either; but he likely would have gotten a better jump and made it a closer play.

I mean, if the Sox score there with a pinch-runner, you're talking about two half-innings of Martinez behind the plate.

* Francona supported third base coach Tim Bogar's decision to send Varitek, saying in that situation the Sox needed to play for a bad throw. "I would have sent [Varitek], too," Francona said.

Francona's just covering for his coaches there. Has to be. He knows who's running and saw the play develop. He can't truly believe Bogar made the right decision.

* Varitek said he got a good jump, turned third base well and ran as hard as he could. He just didn't have enough to score. He couldn't have run the catcher over because he was out of gas.

Which is why it not only was wrong to send him, but to leave him on the bases in the first place.

I'd like to know if Bogar actually did change his mind mid-play (as stated above) and if Tek actually saw the change in signals. I doubt we'll get that, but it would add to the understanding of what happened.

Bogar's made some bad calls, but this whole team seems to be doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

http://www.boston.co...as/extra_bases/

[paulftodd]

To me the big question is if you weren't running for Tek, why waste an out with a bunt? If you're trying to manufacture a run, go all the way with it. Just brutal decision making there.

This is really the key point. Although already mentioned, it's worth repeating. By pinch hitting V-Mart for Van Every, you had Bill Hall in the game anyways and V-Mart could have caught for Tek, otherwise he was lost for the game (so you would have had no back up in any case for whatever catcher you had out there). There was no reason for Tek to be out there. On the road, you must play for the win there and not look ahead to extra innings and having Teks bat in the 10th. Maybe if there was a faster runner the throw would have been rushed.

With 2 outs, and JD Drew up next, there is a 65% chance Tek gets stranded. Obviously, Tek was not going to score with a halfway decent throw, which it was, so the expectation, I guess, was that were there was a higher chance of a bad throw than of Drew getting a hit. Not sure I agree with that as Drew has had a pretty good series. Also, Reimold has poor range but he has a plus arm, and was +3 runs saved per DRS-arm in limited play in LF last year.

I don't think this one is as bad as the other send, as in that case there was only 1 out. Maybe the outcome would have been different if Bill Hall was running as Reimold might have hurried the throw a bit more. Maybe not.

The real problem in the game was scoring only 2 runs.

edit: It occurred to me that Tito may have wanted Tek catching not because of his bat, but because he might be doing a better job handling the pen. This is SSS so is not conclusive by any means, but it is suggestive, and what else could it be really.

Tek/V-Mart-Opp OPS against pitcher

Paps 414/708
Bard 164/793
Okajima 579/1262
MDC 576/274
RR 919/872

Both Bard and Paps were used after Tek was left in the game by not pinch running for him.

Edited by paulftodd, 02 May 2010 - 11:54 PM.

[Eric Van]

Few more comments:

-- The April 16th play was the sixth inning, not the first. April 26th was the first (I'm guessing this was an edit that went in the wrong place).

-- The break-even on April 16 was 86%. I mean, it's bad enough that he was out by a mile, but you don't send the man in that situation unless he can score standing up.

-- The break-even on April 26 was 63%. Given that the runner was actually safe, you have to say that there was indeed a 63% chance of scoring him. That's just a good aggressive move. Teams in general (the Angels under Scioscia a noticeable exception) are too cautious about sending runners.

-- In terms of difference between the break-even point and the actual chance, I still think that April 16th was worse than tonight. There you needed 90% and there was probably something like a 40% chance. Tonight you needed 50% and there was probably a 10% chance (complete botch of the relay).

[Harry Hooper]

That's an interesting message (intentional or not) that Tito is sending to the FO: "I don't trust my starting catcher."

Is the unstated wish then "Please dump 1 or 2 of my DHs (Martinez, Ortiz, and Lowell)."?

[Pandemonium67]

Someone claimed in the gamethread that the MASN replay showed indecision by Bogar in that he stopped Varitek then had a change of heart

I was one of the two who said this in the game thread. The MASN replay was very clear that Bogar initially held up the stop sign, waffled, then waved him on.

[Harry Hooper]

I was one of the two who said this in the game thread. The MASN replay was very clear that Bogar initially held up the stop sign, waffled, then waved him on.

MacPherson at Projo had this:

Francona pinch-hit Victor Martinez for Jonathan Van Every with one out, choosing at the same time to let Varitek run for himself at second base. The decision was curious at best: Bill Hall was going to have to come into the game to play left field, anyway, and Martinez could have stayed in the game to catch in place of Varitek.

But Varitek stayed out on second base. Martinez lofted a soft fly ball to center field that failed even to move the runner along, and Marco Scutaro followed by drawing a six-pitch walk.

That brought up Dustin Pedroia, who almost inarguably has been the most valuable Red Sox player to this point in the season. Pedroia hit a single to shallow left field that might or might not have been enough to score Hall from second base - but it wasn't close to enough to score Varitek.

Third-base coach Tim Bogar hesitated briefly with both hands in the air before waving Varitek home - the catcher did not appear to slow down at any point - but Reimold gunned down Varitek without any trouble at all.

and according to Browne on Red:

Another key sequence came in the top of the eighth. With runners on first and second and two outs, Pedroia ripped a single to left. Red Sox third-base coach Tim Bogar went for it, giving Jason Varitek the green light. However, Varitek was thrown out by several feet. Francona said that Bogar made the right call.

On a hot and humid afternoon, Varitek said he ran out of steam.

"I actually wasn't running fast enough to get there," Varitek said. "I gave it what I had. I had a good turn, a good jump and the wheels weren't quite moving."

[Pumpsie]

Great opening post, Mark.

When DeMarlo Hale got "promoted" to bench coach, the obvious concern was that coaching third is a much more specialized skill than giving the manager ideas and that Hale had already demonstrated that he was very good at the former. It would be nice if the Sox quickly recognized their mistake and switched Bogar and Hale. That will not happen for a number of reasons, and the likely result will be that more blunders will be made by Bogar during the course of this season than Hale made during the course of career as the Sox third base coach.

As far as making running decisions on the fly, Hale was quite exceptional. In the last season or two, mishaps were almost non-existent, and whenever someone WAS thrown out, it was close and it took a great play to get them. Time and again, Hale made the right call. He rarely left runs on the bases and he rarely got runners thrown out.

So far, Bogar has demonstrated almost no ability to do this job. You could put the names of all SOSHers into a hat, draw one out and that person could probably do at least as good a job as Bogar has done so far. For a guy who's played the game and seen thousands of games up close and personal, he seems to have remarkably no feel for making these kinds of calls.

[BucketOBalls]

As far as making running decisions on the fly, Hale was quite exceptional. In the last season or two, mishaps were almost non-existent, and whenever someone WAS thrown out, it was close and it took a great play to get them. Time and again, Hale made the right call. He rarely left runs on the bases and he rarely got runners thrown out.

So far, Bogar has demonstrated almost no ability to do this job. You could put the names of all SOSHers into a hat, draw one out and that person could probably do at least as good a job as Bogar has done so far. For a guy who's played the game and seen thousands of games up close and personal, he seems to have remarkably no feel for making these kinds of calls.

This might be one of those things that takes a while for a guy to get up to speed. I seem to recall Hale making a couple fairly bad calls in 2007. (Maybe 2006 also, but they ended up not mattering). He was pretty good for the next two years though.

[TheoShmeo]

Sorry for the tangent, but DeMarlo Hale is the next manager of the Red Sox and given Tito's health concerns, his most valuable contributions this year and into the future are on the bench, preparing for his big day (Opening Day 2011, at this pace).

Bogar might suck at 3b but "switch them" is not a well thought out, long term solution to the problem. Veteran minor manager Ron Johnson would be next in line, if it were at all likely that the Red Sox are going to fire the 3b coach on May 2nd.

First, there's no reason why Hale couldn't move from the third base coach box to the manager's seat. The idea that he needs seasoning as bench coach to be able to function as manager is silly. Would he benefit from being bench coach? Probably. But he can think along with Tito and make suggestions between innings just fine from the third base coaching position.

Second, John Farrell might be the next coach of the Red Sox, too. It's true that bench coaches move up more to the manager job than pitching coaches, but I don't think that Hale getting the job over Farrell (or someone from the outside) is as pre-ordained as you're suggesting.

A switch might be unusual, and the light might suddenly click on for Bogar, but one thing that is not debatable is that Hale is appreciably better coaching third than Bogar.

Late edit: typos

Edited by TheoShmeo, 03 May 2010 - 07:33 AM.

[4-6-3]

First, therer's no reason why Hale couldn't move from the third base coach box to the manager's seat. The idea that he needs seasoning as bench coach to be able to function as manager is silly. Would he benefit from being bench coach? Probably. But he can think along with Tito and make suggestions between innings just fine from the third base coaching position.

Second, John Farrell might be the next coach of the Red Sox, too. It's true that bench coaches move up more to the manager job than pitching coaches, but I don't think that Hale getting the job over Farrell (or someone from the outside) is as pre-ordained as you suggesting.

A switch might be unusual, and the light might suddenly click on for Bogar, but one thing that is not debatable is that Hale is appreciably better coaching third than Bogar.

Maybe Bogar is just a bridge to the next great thirdbase coach. It would be nice to know how the FO determines succession planning for thirdbase coaches. How much of it is determined by the Manager.

[luckysox]

I was one of the two who said this in the game thread. The MASN replay was very clear that Bogar initially held up the stop sign, waffled, then waved him on.

I was at the game. Bogar DID have both hands up for a second, but changed his mind quickly. It did not, however, appear to make a noticeable change to Tek's stride. It didn't matter, though - even if he had not put the hands up, Tek was dead meat. Dead. He should have held him, and it was overwhelmingly clear in real time at the game that Tek was going to be out unless Reimold had a very bad error on the throw and it got by the catcher, or Tek did a flying, two footed kick into the catcher's chest. It was a terrible decision. Just awful.

[Rudy Pemberton]

That's an interesting message (intentional or not) that Tito is sending to the FO: "I don't trust my starting catcher."

Is the unstated wish then "Please dump 1 or 2 of my DHs (Martinez, Ortiz, and Lowell)."?

Well, does Tito have a point here? This season, the Red Sox have a 5.05 ERA when Martinez catches; 4.30 with Tek. Last season, it was 3.87 wit Tek and 5.22 with Victor. With the Indians last season, the staff had a 5.76 ERA with Victor and 4.66 with Shoppach.

Maybe it means nothing; but it certainly isn't what you want to see.

[Eric Van]

Few more comments:

I knew I left one out ...

-- OK, so the new 3B coach has made two horrendous mistakes. The first mistake cost us, on average, 1.32 runs and .163 wins (Leverage Index = .163 * 10.1 / 1.32 = 1.24). The second cost us, on average, .78 runs and .144 wins (Leverage Index = 1.86).

One of these couldn't have happened in a blowout? The high LI of each reflects that the score was tied in the bottom of the 6th and top of the 8th respectively, which is already terribly unlikely ... but they both had to happen in games where neither team scored after the mistake until we lost in extra innings? What are the odds of that? I mean, we are capable pf scoring runs -- couldn't we have won one of those games in regulation or extra innings, rendering the mistake moot? You can't say for certain that we would have scored a run either time and hence won the game, but rounding the cost in Run Expectancy of each mistake to the nearest run, yes, each blunder cost a run and hence a win.

Two mistakes that cost, on average, 2.1 total runs, but so ill timed and so badly followed by causally unrelated game events that they seem to have cost us 2 wins instead of .21 wins as usual. Or even .31 wins because of when they happened.

And there are folks asserting in the other thread that the team hasn't been unlucky.

[RetractableRoof]

I agree it was a strategic error, but it wouldn't have made a difference on that play. Rickey Henderson would've been thrown out.

Martinez had already pinch-hit for JVE, and Hall ended up taking over in the outfield. Hall could have pinch-run and Victor could have replaced Tek behind the dish. Other than that, with Youk injured Hermida was the only other available option to pinch-run, unless you want to get into using a pitcher, and at that point you've emptied the bench.

It makes me sound like a Patriots "redundancy" fanboy (and repeating your thought about a pitcher), but Buchholz could have pinch run... give him instructions not to slide or cause contact and send him out there. It ticks me off that they need to steal a game here or there and aren't doing it... are costing themselves opportunities.

[donutogre]

It makes me sound like a Patriots "redundancy" fanboy (and repeating your thought about a pitcher), but Buchholz could have pinch run... give him instructions not to slide or cause contact and send him out there. It ticks me off that they need to steal a game here or there and aren't doing it... are costing themselves opportunities.

Something like this happening is all the reason in the world why you don't pinch-run your most consistent starting pitcher in a May game against the O's.

I know the chances are small, but nevertheless...so not worth it.

[SeoulSoxFan]

...and WEEI (Dale) gives a shout-out to this thread, speaking of Bogar and his decisions.

[PortageeExpress]

It makes me sound like a Patriots "redundancy" fanboy (and repeating your thought about a pitcher), but Buchholz could have pinch run... give him instructions not to slide or cause contact and send him out there. It ticks me off that they need to steal a game here or there and aren't doing it... are costing themselves opportunities.

Buchholz pinch ran in Texas last year, and it wasn't pretty. After finally figuring out which jersey he should be wearing, he completely misread the play and was thrown out at the plate. Being fast doesn't mean he's a good baserunner.

[BucketOBalls]

Well, does Tito have a point here? This season, the Red Sox have a 5.05 ERA when Martinez catches; 4.30 with Tek. Last season, it was 3.87 wit Tek and 5.22 with Victor. With the Indians last season, the staff had a 5.76 ERA with Victor and 4.66 with Shoppach.

VMart caught Wake, who has pretty big tendency to blow up(especially in the second half). This is why catcher defense is so hard to measure. You never get a case where the same pitcher is caught by two different catchers under similar conditions with a reasonable sample size. And the "familiarity" argument means that a given pitcher and catcher are often paired.

[Jnai]

Two mistakes that cost, on average, 2.1 total runs, but so ill timed and so badly followed by causally unrelated game events that they seem to have cost us 2 wins instead of .21 wins as usual. Or even .31 wins because of when they happened.

And there are folks asserting in the other thread that the team hasn't been unlucky.

I'm not so good at math, but isn't the usual runs to wins conversion something like 10 runs per win?

So, are you saying that each of these mistakes, because of the time at which they occurred in the game, cost us 2.0 wins total? Or, 20 runs?

Doesn't that seem a little bit... fishy?

Edited by Jnai, 03 May 2010 - 02:05 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'm not so good at math, but isn't the usual runs to wins conversion something like 10 runs per win?

So, are you saying that each of these mistakes, because of the time at which they occurred in the game, cost us 2.0 wins total? Or, 20 runs?

Doesn't that seem a little bit... fishy?

I think what EV was referring to is the knee-jerk sports-radio reaction to the timing of the play is what makes it "feel" like it cost 2.0 wins. In other words the eyes/heart says 2.0 even though the math says .21.

[Jnai]

I think what EV was referring to is the knee-jerk sports-radio reaction to the timing of the play is what makes it "feel" like it cost 2.0 wins. In other words the eyes/heart says 2.0 even though the math says .21.

Ah, gotcha.

[TheRooster]

So far, Bogar has demonstrated almost no ability to do this job. You could put the names of all SOSHers into a hat, draw one out and that person could probably do at least as good a job as Bogar has done so far. For a guy who's played the game and seen thousands of games up close and personal, he seems to have remarkably no feel for making these kinds of calls.

Extremely well put. Before Pedroia got up yesterday, Bogar should have thought to himself "on anything reasonably well hit to left I MUST plan on holding Tek." Not one thing about the sequence would lead anyone to think that sending the runner was a good idea. It was very, very bad and Remy looked more like an outright shill than ever for defending it.

[Eric Van]

I'm not so good at math, but isn't the usual runs to wins conversion something like 10 runs per win?

So, are you saying that each of these mistakes, because of the time at which they occurred in the game, cost us 2.0 wins total? Or, 20 runs?

Doesn't that seem a little bit... fishy?

I'm saying that 2 runs usually means 0.2 wins. The most a single run can translate into is a win, if it's in the exact right place. If every game you played were a scoreless tie heading into the ninth, and you won them all, you'd be 162-0 and have 162 RS and 0 RA. So the maximum leverage for a run is 10.

The two mistakes combined cost 2 runs total. They also seem to have cost us 2 wins -- although it is NOT guaranteed that we would have scored a run in both cases had the runner been held.

Let's see ... with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 0 out you score at least 1 run 87% of the time. With bases full and 2 out it's just 33%, but in that situation it boils down to a relatively hot J.D. Drew's OBP vs. Will Ohman (assuming he was warm and ready to come into the game) which is probably a tick higher.

In reality the two blunders cost 1.2 wins, maybe 1.25. That's a leverage of about 6.0 or a bit more. The combined leverage because of the game situation at the time was 1.5 (2 runs equaling .3 wins), so the failure of either team to score subsequently makes, in retrospect, the two mistakes 4 times as costly as they seemed at the time.

Breaking it down separately:

4/16: 1.32 runs, .163 wins at the time, .87 wins in retrospect; LI = 1.2 at the time x 5.3 retrospective = 6.6 LI.

4/26: .78 runs, .144 wins at the time, .35 wins in retrospect; LI = 1.9 x 2.4 = 4.5 LI.

Edit: premature reply, saw this:

I think what EV was referring to is the knee-jerk sports-radio reaction to the timing of the play is what makes it "feel" like it cost 2.0 wins. In other words the eyes/heart says 2.0 even though the math says .21.

That's half of it. It's .21 wins if the blunders happen at random times in the game. It's .31 wins because they were both late in tie games. The failure of either team to score subsequently arguably drives it up to 1.2 wins but you can argue that's bogus since who knows how the games would have played out had the runners been held? And of course, yes, it feels like a full 2.0 wins.

Edited by Eric Van, 03 May 2010 - 02:34 PM.

[smastroyin]

Just to counter Eric's point a little - one difference between these situations and something like a ball going for a GR2B instead of scoring the man for first (e.g.) is that these decisions are context dependent.

What I mean is I doubt a decision like this would happen in a blowout because being aggressive like this typically happens in closer games. Once in a while you will get one very early in a game and your formerly world-beating DH will then hit a HR off of Kevin Brown on the way to making the point moot. But most of the time it is because runs have been hard to come by so the coach tries to steal one.

[Eric Van]

Just to counter Eric's point a little - one difference between these situations and something like a ball going for a GR2B instead of scoring the man for first (e.g.) is that these decisions are context dependent.

What I mean is I doubt a decision like this would happen in a blowout because being aggressive like this typically happens in closer games. Once in a while you will get one very early in a game and your formerly world-beating DH will then hit a HR off of Kevin Brown on the way to making the point moot. But most of the time it is because runs have been hard to come by so the coach tries to steal one.

Great point, Steve -- the 1.5 leverage is built into the situation and can't be ascribed to crap luck. But that they seemed to end up as 6.0 leverage because neither team scored until the opposition won the game in extra innings -- that's kind of crap luck. If you think about how many times a bad call or blunder in a close game is rendered moot rather than remaining as the difference maker ... it's more often than not (far more often than not, when it's in the sixth inning). And it's not just the failure of the Sox to score subsequently -- had the bullpen surrendered a couple of runs before the ninth it would have been one of the (far more common) "that sucked but it didn't cost us the game" sorts of mistakes. I think we've all actually had a relief reaction in those cases, e.g., ump makes a horrible call, it costs you a run, but you end up losing by 4, you don't beat yourself up with what-might-have-beens.

[SoxScout]

PeteAbe: Drew blew right through Bogar's stop sign and scored. Been a rough start for the new 3B coach

http://twitter.com/P...tus/13339342170

[Pumpsie]

http://twitter.com/P...tus/13339342170

Drew has excellent judgment on the basepaths. Bogar...not so much.

[bosockboy]

The problem with 3B coaching gaffes is they try to compensate too much the other way. I bet we see a lot of ill-advised stop signs the next couple weeks.

[TFisNEXT]

Drew has excellent judgment on the basepaths. Bogar...not so much.

J.D. Drew is hardly ever criticized for a "dumb" baseball decision around here and that is a pretty nice trait that sometimes gets overlooked with him. I never worry about him with defense and baserunning...people (including me) occasionally get miffed when he takes a called third strike at a bad time, but it goes with the territory when he draws a lot of walks.

That was slightly OT, but back on topic, Bogar is also probably getting excessive heat because the Red Sox are struggling and one of many errors he will make (like so many other 3b coaches) will get magnified if it ends up playing an important role in the outcome of a game.

The spotlight will move away from him once the Sox go on a tear. Then likely finds its way back when they hit another rough patch and someone gets thrown out at the plate and people need a scape goat.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

J.D. Drew is hardly ever criticized for a "dumb" baseball decision around here and that is a pretty nice trait that sometimes gets overlooked with him. I never worry about him with defense and baserunning...people (including me) occasionally get miffed when he takes a called third strike at a bad time, but it goes with the territory when he draws a lot of walks.

That was slightly OT, but back on topic, Bogar is also probably getting excessive heat because the Red Sox are struggling and one of many errors he will make (like so many other 3b coaches) will get magnified if it ends up playing an important role in the outcome of a game.

The spotlight will move away from him once the Sox go on a tear. Then likely finds its way back when they hit another rough patch and someone gets thrown out at the plate and people need a scape goat.

I think we've already talked more about Bogar's poor decisions at 3B this season than we did about Hale's decisions in 3 years over there. Bogar's work at 3B has been clearly inferior to Hale's so far. I wouldn't call it Sveum-esque, just yet, but there's still time.

Regarding Drew, his superior baserunning skills are one thing that Theo has mentioned over and over and over again when discussing his merits when various media types get their Underoos in a wad and whine about RBIs. He is a fantastic base runner: not the fastest guy in the world, of course, but one with exceedingly good base running judgment and sneaky-quick speed. If Drew blows through Bogar's stop signs, I'm always going to assume that he is right and Bogar is wrong. Every time.

[mabrowndog]

Bogar is also probably getting excessive heat because the Red Sox are struggling and one of many errors he will make (like so many other 3b coaches) will get magnified if it ends up playing an important role in the outcome of a game.

The spotlight will move away from him once the Sox go on a tear. Then likely finds its way back when they hit another rough patch and someone gets thrown out at the plate and people need a scape goat.

Agreed, but the reason this will continue to be a thorn in our collective paw is that the specter of this happening in the postseason (provided they can actually get there) will hover over this club like a black cloud. There aren't many low-leverage run-scoring situations in the playoffs.

[seantoo]

Great point, Steve -- the 1.5 leverage is built into the situation and can't be ascribed to crap luck. But that they seemed to end up as 6.0 leverage because neither team scored until the opposition won the game in extra innings -- that's kind of crap luck. If you think about how many times a bad call or blunder in a close game is rendered moot rather than remaining as the difference maker ... it's more often than not (far more often than not, when it's in the sixth inning). And it's not just the failure of the Sox to score subsequently -- had the bullpen surrendered a couple of runs before the ninth it would have been one of the (far more common) "that sucked but it didn't cost us the game" sorts of mistakes. I think we've all actually had a relief reaction in those cases, e.g., ump makes a horrible call, it costs you a run, but you end up losing by 4, you don't beat yourself up with what-might-have-beens.

Even, when the end result is different, say 4 runs, everything effects everything like ripples in a pond. How someone is pitched to, whether someone is guarding the line, ect ect. When an ump, player makes a mistake costing one run I argue that even in a, say 4 run game, that play COULD have been the difference. Far to often people point to the end result and claim that the error/bad call was irrelivent. I beg to differ, maybe it would have been maybe not.
What really bugs me about this is we do not get to see what should/may have happened and the person at fault is left off the hook because people erronouesly look at the end result and cannot make the connection.

[absintheofmalaise]

Even, when the end result is different, say 4 runs, everything effects everything like ripples in a pond. How someone is pitched to, whether someone is guarding the line, ect ect. When an ump, player makes a mistake costing one run I argue that even in a, say 4 run game, that play COULD have been the difference. Far to often people point to the end result and claim that the error/bad call was irrelivent. I beg to differ, maybe it would have been maybe not.
What really bugs me about this is we do not get to see what should/may have happened and the person at fault is left off the hook because people erronouesly look at the end result and cannot make the connection.

Back when some people were making stupid assertions that Drew was not worth his contract because he doesn't accumulate enough RBIs, one of the main arguments to counter that bit of bad logic was that one of his best offensive skills was that he makes fewer outs than almost every player in the game, even when a walk doesn't score a run. By not making outs he turns over the line up creating more opportunities to produce runs. It's not just the cost of the run when a coach screws up, it's the cost of the out and what that out potentially costs the team. We all know the odds of scoring from Base A with one out are worse than scoring from Base A with no outs. The base/out situation also changes how a pitcher will throw to a batter and how the hitter approaches the AB. a coaches job is to not make mental mistakes. It's bad enough when a player does, but it's much worse when a coach does.

You made good points.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Another awful decision by Bogar tonight. The ball was in Matsui's glove before Scutaro was even at 3rd.

This guy's a menace.