Game 128, Athletics at Mariners
DMZ · August 22, 2008 at 6:10 pm · Filed Under Game Threads
7:10. Gonzalez v Feierabend
Wlad to center!
LaHair to DH!
Cairo to first!
Now that… that’s excitement.
Comments
100 Responses to “Game 128, Athletics at Mariners”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I guess the A’s are almost as offensively challenged as the Mariners so a 3 run lead is “substantial”.
Beltre IS that good.
While I can understand why people overrate offense (even though I don’t agree with that) I don’t get how people can so undervalue defense.
He’s the best 3B we’ve ever had.
The Mariners believe in the usefulness of bunts. They shouldn’t, but they do.
Suicide squeeze, perhaps literally. He was wincing in pain after he stopped running. It was a good one; almost a base hit.
Pretty much of the suicide nature, Clement had a walking lead and was clearly moving towards the plate before Gonzalez (who was not throwing from the stretch) released the pitch.
hey! I just found “Spaced” sitting on my doorstep in its Amazon box! and here we are with a kinda entertaining game…
I had to laugh when our commentators first mentioned that Ryan’s had success against AAA batting, but the hitters up here don’t allow mistakes, blah, blah.
Then, a couple innings later, they’re crowing about how he’s shutting down the A’s hitters. But aren’t they mostly AAA hitters?
Yuni’s still out there at second? I forgot about him. Like how he started his headfirst slide about half way between first and second. Expected a big berm of dirt in front of his face by the time he hit the base.
Uh, Green, please find your stuff soon. No more HBP, please.
Sean Green watches the Olympics, and is a Strasburg fan.
Hmmm. Should be a couple of minutes. I’ll go check on that.
Sorry, Ryan. Your team sucks.
STRASBURG!
51.
Here’s the problem with making generalizations about bunting and it’s effectiveness. Fangraphs and “The Book” don’t take the following into account. . .
Bryan LaHair career numbers in minors vs LHP:
.197/.274/.304 with 127 strikeouts in 395 at bats
Miguel Cairo is Miguel Cairo
Now’s let just say that both are excellent bunters.
How will that impact your scoring probability with a runner at 2nd base and no outs ?
I will argue that the Mariners chances of scoring 1 or more runs in the 4th inning increased because they bunted twice, based on the exact situation described above. Yes, I know that I don’t know if LaHair and Cairo are excellent bunters, but I’m going to give Riggleman the benefit of the doubt there.
Jimenez doesn’t seem to like working with inherited runners on base.
Wait, so I go away for a bit and suddenly we’re losing?
If I wasn’t such a big fan I’d really hate the M’s.
May the Strasburg be with us
I take back what I said earlier. Beltre is very good.
Now watch us not score.
Clement looking good….
Wow, nevermind. I guess we can score!
Why?
68. Why not ?
because he’s got Rigglemania!
While I normally favor “why not” over “why” as The Question, I’m with Jeff here. Riggleman hasn’t done anything to earn the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that changes, maybe not.
Also, can someone tell me what the attraction of The Wave is? I mean, sure the team is bad, but they’re actually winning right now so there shouldn’t be any need for extra entertainment at the ballpark.
Why can’t you guys just assume that Riggleman knows whether or not those guys can bunt then try to pick apart the premise of my post. I find it kind of humorous that all chose the Riggleman route in responding.
In an organization that has a long history of being overly in love with the bunt, and with a manager whose tactical skills are questionable at best…
Isn’t it more appropriate to “assume” it was just a crappy tactical decision, as opposed to the product of some secret insider knowledge?
If several people are all saying the same thing about an assertion you make, wouldn’t that mean that you might want to at least take a second look at what you’re saying?
I have no faith that JJ holds the lead here. The only consolation is that we’re playing the Bad News Bears.
I’m so conflicted. I want to see JJ do well but I want to lose. I no longer know what to think.
You know what you want… First worst.
Make it happen Putz.
In the spirit of T. Boone Pickens, I propose the PaulMolitorCocktail plan to get Strasburg.
1. Raul in Center.
2. Batista back in the rotation.
3. Cairo at 2B.
4. Bloomy behind the plate (“catcher of the future.”)
5. Yuni at shortstop.
Game! Be it bittersweet, still, it’s a win.
you know, as much as I’d love to have the first overall pick, I think you’re putting too much emphasis on it. Yes, Strasburg would be awesome but as Dave pointed out earlier today pitching prospects flame out all the time. And I can’t root for the team to lose. So I’m very happy that JJ pitched well and we won.
the battle for strasburg will continue
Jeff Nye,
The point of my post was to offer an alternative to the commonly held generalization (in these parts) that bunting is almost always a bad tactical decision. I was simply offering a reason why bunting may have been a good tactical decision in that situation.
fwiw, I was only giving Riggleman “the benefit of the doubt” with regards his ability to know whether or not LaHair and Cairo were capable of getting their bunts down.
Yeah but have you seen him pitch? Yeah, I guess Ackley would be good, he’s hit .400 in his last two seasons but I mean Strasburg is well Strasburg.
Tim Linc… 8 IP, 4 hits, 3 walks, 8 k’s, 0 er’s tonight……Brandon Morrow…just becoming a starter
When Clement catches:
.274 AVG
.331 OBP
.469 SLG
.800 OPS
5 2B, all 5 of his HR’s
When Clement DH’s:
.069 AVG
.169 OBP
.086 SLG
.255 OPS
1 2B
Stats don’t include tonight’s game.
Bunting is almost always a bad tactical decision.
If you want to convince everyone that this particular instance wasn’t, you’re going to need to bring more to the table than “well maybe Riggleman knows that these guys are awesome bunters!”
I’d like someone who listens to the postgame with Rig report what he says about the bunts. That is, if he’s asked.
Jeff Nye,
Read the post again, I think you’ve got Rigglemania, you can’t get past the manager. Just accept they can bunt, then try to tell me my premise is wrong. I’m offering a opinion that’s different than yours, prove me wrong. But don’t mention the manager, he has nothing to do with my premise that bunting was a good tactical decision in that specific situation.
I’m just trying to poke holes in the typical FanGraphs/The Book comments that bunting is almost always a bad decision. These statistical analysis don’t take into account the individuals involved.
Being a good bunter isn’t a good reason to bunt. YOu’re giving up an out. That’s ALWAYS bad. Most of the poorer major league hitters have a chance a non-negligible chance of getting a hit. A one in five chance of getting a hit is better than giving one up delibrately.
The only time it makes sense to bunt that early in a game is when a batter is so poor of a hitter, is so unlikely to get a hit, that you may has well use it to do SOMETHING. That means a pitcher.
Of course, that may mean Miguel Cairo, too, so maybe it’s not that far off…
Feierabend had fun being introduced to the M’s Bullpen.
I just got back from the game. What a crowd: the only time they really got excited was doing the wave in the top of the eighth with Corcoran struggling.
They also pretty much unanimously loved the two bunts. I’m sitting there appalled. Here is the game situation: you’ve just scored three runs, have a runner on second and no one out. The pitcher is reeling. The guy you have chosen to act as your designated hitter is at bat. The whole point of him playing (and presumably DHing) is that he’s got to prove he can hit lefties. You’ve got a lefty on the ropes, who has already issued a walk that inning to one lefty (Ibanez) and a double to another (Clement).
Here’s what you have when it’s over: one run, but two outs and no one on base. And given that he was allowed off the ropes, the pitcher then strikes out Ichiro, instead of facing him with men on base.
So basically, the two bunts increased the possibility (which became the reality) of scoring the fourth run in that inning, but completely took away the chance to score more than four runs. Which, given that there were none out at all, was a pretty good possibility, no matter who was up. If for no other reason than that three guys would have to bat before Yuni could hit into another double play, like the night before.
From the helpfully linked at the top of the page USSM Orientation:
“The burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion, and the wilder your assertion, the better your evidence should be. If you want to argue that Raul Ibanez is the best defensive left fielder ever, or that clutch hitting exists, or whatever, you need to bring the proof. “You need to disprove my theory†is not an acceptable argument, ever.”
This stuff is linked for a reason.
And people mention Riggleman because he’s the one making the stupid tactical decision in this case; accusing people who point out that what you’re saying makes no sense of having “Rigglemania” and/or some sort of personal grudge against Riggleman is neither helpful nor particularly tone-appropriate.
I am late to the party but to respond to JR’s question the quality of a batter and his proficiency in bunting do obviously matter when deciding whether to bunt. THE BOOK has a 50 page chapter on the issue, analysing it from all possible angles including batter quality, his ability to bunt, defensive positioning, game situation and count. If you’re interested in the details, THE BOOK is definitely worth a read. With regard to bunting with no outs and a runner on second (i.e. the situation when LaHair bunted) bunting is not advised except when you have a pitcher batting. I think LaHair is still significantly better hitter than an average pitcher. So, in that situation a bunt was not good.
The following squeeze play with Cairo is different. I think Dave Cameron once said that if he were a manager, he’d lead the league in squeeze plays and that it is an underused play. Seems plausible to me (a quick and dirty calculation suggests that if they swing away, both Cairo and Ichiro will make outs than not). The precise analysis would depend on all possible outcomes (walk, strikeout, single, double, tripple, homerun, hit-by-pitch) for each batter and their respective likelyhood.
Jeff Nye,
My original post asked this . . .
How will “that” impact your scoring probability with a runner at 2nd base and no outs ?
“That” equals the situation described above. My contention was the Mariners were actually better off bunting twice due to my perceived chances of LaHair/Cairo/Ichiro getting a hit. This was based on LaHair’s abilities vs LHP as well as how he looked in his first at bat, and Cairo.
I never once contended that Riggleman was taking this into account, I never once suggested Riggleman was a good or bad tactician. I was simply asking the audience to accept the fact the players involved were good bunters, so that we could draw a reasonable expectation of their success in actually getting the bunts down.
I figured I had to add that piece of info to the puzzle due to all the fabulous bunting we have seen this season.
I believe in the statistical data, I fully accept that bunting (in general) is normally a bad tactical decision. I was simply pointing out a situation where I felt there was potential to go against “The Book”.
You and others immediately turned this into a Riggleman thing, while VJ (95.) offered an opinion that actually answered and countered my original premise. That was my goal with the original post. What is the best tactical decision for this situation ? Thanks for your input, VJ.
Part of the flaw in your analysis is that you are comparing the possible results of a bunt to a hit, as though a hit is the only run-enhancing outcome of an at-bat if a bunt is not attempted. Anything hit on the ground to the right side would have the same result, as would anything hit deep to right or center, plus an error (already had one that inning; Barton looked awful at first all game). Plus, a hit if it occurred would enhance the run possibilities well beyond one.
Moreover, “how he looked in his first at bat” is a red herring argument. It’s like assuming that how Washburn looks in one of his one-two-three first innings is material to whether he’s pitching well in the fourth when he’s being battered around. That was the case with Gonzalez here. As far as I’m concerned, the only time to do what the M’s did here is in the ninth inning in a tie game at home.
In the spirit of both Johnny Mac and a comment from many game threads ago, it’s about bunting time this bunch of bunts won a bunting game. The team has given fans bunt-all to cheer about lately, and if it takes a bunting bunt to win the bunting game, then I’ll bunting take it, but what-the-bunt was Riggleman thinking bunting twice in a bunting row? BTW, I bunting loved Clement’s bunting two doubles of left-bunting-handed pitching.
97. All good points. How would one quantify the situation I described ? That’s what Im curious about, rather than an applying a “one size fits all” generalization to the described situation. In my thinking about this situation, I did take into account all the possible types of outs/errors that also result in getting the runner to 3rd with one/zero outs.
How high should one rate probability of getting two consecutive sac bunts to advance and score the runner, and what probability (of scoring more runs) are you left with for Ichiro batting with two outs and no runners on base.
99: It takes a lot of math. The best source for how you’d do the calculations is The Book http://www.insidethebook.com/cl.shtml
To answer your last question, with Betancourt batting behind him, I suspect the run-scoring likelihood of Ichiro up with two outs and no one on is pretty low. His own home run percentage is very low, and Betancourt’s numbers with two outs and men on base this year (courtesy ESPN.com) are 264/281/333.