Bottom of the eighth, Jackson leads off with a pinch hit single. Peralta, Avila and Inge are the next three hitters and literally only Cabrera and Jackson have gotten a hit to this point in the game. Why did Jackson not attempt the steal or at least get put in motion in a hit and run? Can anybody explain to me why this is? The best explanation I've been given is that "no manager would ever run in the eighth inning of a 2-0 game".
OT: Situation in today's Tigers game
I also want to make the point that Jackson has been an excellent basestealer and that Torrealba is average at throwing runners out. What harm or risk is entailed by trying to get a runner to second when literally nobody has hit the ball all game?
If it's a 1 run game I agree with you a 100%, but you need to get 2 runs in. If the tying run makes it in, in theory that means Jackson would have scored as well. It was the 8th inning so it's not complete desperation time yet. This is MGOBLOG so you need a chart. Based on the situation you described with horrid hitters and my Rotisseries OF on 1st. I would suggest this
1st thru 7th innings-Definite steal
8th inning-Probably not but not the worst idea in the world
9th inning-Nope..can't steal in this spot.
Exactly. Its a 2 run game, you dont put a potential run at risk of being an out by being too greedy. You need to be aggressive by putting a hit and run in play but dont risk being caught stealing. I actually dont think Jackson is that great of a base runner. He might be but hes not in position enough to show me he can consistantly steal.
Either way Tigers bats did look dead the last few games but through 10 games...the bullpen is the glaring hole in my book. When do Zumaya and Perry come back?
I made it clear in the OP that I would have liked to have seen a hit and run. My complaint is that they did NOTHING to move Jackson over or to get him in motion.
on this team is anything/body not named Verlander/Cabrera. (Jhonny won't keep this pace up)
... but stealing 2nd when you're down by two is not a great idea. You're better off hoping for a 2 run homer. Down 1, it's a different story.
If nobody is hitting what's the point of risking an out when you need 2 runs? In other words, you are going to need to string together a couple of hits and I wouldn't risk running myself out of the inning. Secondly, the hit and run needs a good contact hitter. I'm not sure if Peralta meets that standard.
On the other hand, if you steal a base you put a guy in scoring position, needing maybe only a hit to score him. Still down one though. Secondly, steal the base or hit and run and you likely avoid a ground ball DP. Did they hit into a DP? Did anyone follow Jackson with a hit?
No, nobody got a hit. Nobody else in the entire game had a hit except for Cabrera with 2 and Jackson with the aforementioned single. Part of my argument was that if nobody is swinging the bat well, there's no way they are going to put Jackson in scoring position by hitting the ball. Their best chance to was to try to manufacture a run in the 8th, allowing the top of the order to have to score 1 and not 2 runs against Feliz in the 9th.
but Raburn had a double.
My bad, you're right.
by scoring one run in the eighth and one run in the ninth, but lowering your chances of getting two in the eighth (not only by a homer, but also, say, a double/triple followed by a single).
If singles are hard to come by, then the multiple hits in both innings strategy isn't the most probable way of scoring at least two runs.
You don't steal when the tying run is at the plate that late in the game. Either way someone had to hit the ball to score him, so taking 2nd wouldn't make a difference (and therefore not worth the risk). Choosing not to pinch run for cabrera at first base as the tying run in the bottom of the 9th, well that's a different story.
If he steals second with no outs, two sacrifices would have scored the run....especially a player as fast as Jackson. That way, the hitter wouldn't even have to get a base hit, they'd only have to put the ball in play.
So then we are still down 1 with 2 less outs to go.
If you run him you either:
-Lose a baserunner and go from 6 to 5 outs left
-Do what you said and get a run but go from 6-4 outs left
If you don't run him:
-You have a baserunner with 6 outs left with 3 batters that have done pretty well this year so far.
But at that point, you're essentially giving up on scoring multiple runs in the 8th, and you'd go to the 9th down a run.
That's almost a worst case scenario though. Getting a guy in from second with no outs is far easier than getting him in from first with no outs.
That's all well and good, but if you don't get base hits, all you've accomplished is losing 2-1 instead of 2-0. Down two runs you're gonna have to get multiple guys on base no matter what. You're talking about manufacturing a run, which you can do even if nobody else gets on base. There's no such thing as manufacturing two runs.
Again, the probablity of scoring one run against Feliz in the 9th is much higher than scoring two on him. He's one of the top closers in the game. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. You have your best baserunner on with no outs down by two, and do NOTHING to try to get him over. Why not even attempt the hit-and-run?
If you're going mathematical, the chances of scoring two runs are probably not that different than scoring one run, while the chances of scoring at all are much lower than scoring one.
You need to stop looking at this as a high-percentage play. The hit-and-run is even riskier than the outright steal. Yes, it works spectacularly when it works. You're a lot more likely to just foul it off and give away your strategy, or put your hitter in an 0-2 hole. If the hit-and-run were that amazingly high-percentage of a tactic, don't you think teams would do more often?
I would reply that I'm not so sure what's so hard to understand about this either, but I know exactly what the problem is: you're assuming everything will be successful. Gee, who wouldn't want the guy on second instead of first? Here's what you didn't seem to get: No matter what happens with that baserunner, you must get another guy on base in order to tie the game. Whether that's this inning or next, that's what must happen. So what is the point of taking unnecessary risks with the baserunner you have? What purpose does "getting him over" serve? Why is that your big priority? That baserunner is only valuable to you on the basepaths, and frankly he's not really that much more valuable to you on second than on first. Not so much that you should be willing to risk his elimination. Get the tying run on base, and then talk about "getting him over."
There is absolutely no way you run for Cabrera there. First of all with 2 outs we were probably actually more likely to get a 3 run homer than something to score 2. And there is no way you can take Cabrera out in case it goes extras. Sure you have to tie it up before worrying about extras, but if we do get to extras and Cabrera is out we have zero chance of getting another run.
Not to mention who do you run for him? Jackson was already put in and so was Raburn. That leaves Casper and Santiago on the bench and neither is enough of a speed upgrade to take out your best player by far.
To the first comment, I don't think you sacrifice twice to cut the score to 2-1 in the 8th, you need that second run. As you mentioned, hits were scarce. Plus Oliver is a lefty on the mound, makes it a little tougher to steal anyway.
To the second, I think you have to play to get to the extra innings first. I don't know how a 3-run homer is more likely than a double (which could bring in whoever was running at first to tie). Cabrera also wouldn't get his at-bat until the 11th or 12th. To your point, however, we had already made a few subs so the usual replacements to run wouldn't make sense.
1. one run game by all means run him, but down 2 that late, stealing 2nd wont really get you much
2. Peralta, Avila, and Inge might not have done much today, but they have been pretty good this year
3. You can't lost outs at that point
4. It wasn't the starter anymore anyway. The pitcher that was in at that point had faced one batter and given up 1 hit. No indication that he would be able to shut us down.
Aside from the mentioned reasons, you always need to take into consideration the pitcher's ability to hold runners and the catcher's ability to throw them out. If both are bad, you may play more aggressive than other posters have described, but otherwise there's not much incentive to steal that late down two.
To re-say what others have said, but a little more succinctly: You don't risk giving up an out with the non-tying run. That's kind of a rule of thumb whether the tying run is at the plate or still on the bench.
How much higher is the risk of stealing second, where Jackson has been almost 90% successful (albeit in a short career and EDIT 83%) than to let him stand around while cold bats can't move him over? Aren't you supposed to utilize your player's strengths? What better time than to utilize his speed than in that situation? I understand the normal rule of thumb completely, but in the confines of this game and this situation, I think there's room for an exception.
If you're operating on the assumption that the bats are cold and not going to get a hit, then what's the point of anything? The tying run isn't going to get on base regardless.
Even though there is a good chance he makes it to 2nd you'd rather take 3 outs with that 3 hitter black hole and live to see the 9th than lead off with one of them the next inning.
Is is that we fricking stink. I said last week
I was scared and everyone jumped my nuts. Since then we have gotten beaten all over the field. Anyone think we are still "ok"??
Taking a look at a win probability chart for a team with a 2-run deficit in the bottom of the 8th...
Runner on 1st, 0 out: .238 win probability.
Runner on 2nd, 0 out: .269 win probability.
Nobody on, 1 out: .118 win probability.
If Austin Jackson has a 75 percent chance of success, the "expected value" of a steal attempt is (.269 * .75) + (.118 * .25) = .231 win probability. So the Tigers should not steal if Jackson has a 75 percent chance of success.
If Jackson has an 80 percent chance of success, the expected value of a steal attempt is (.269 * .80) + (.118 * .20) = .239 win probability. So the Tigers should steal if Jackson has an 80 percent chance of success.
I don't think Jackson had anywhere close to an 80 percent chance of success in that situation, so the decision not to steal was correct.
Jackson is 29 for 35 in his career stealing. That's about 83%. No sabers to back this up, but just based on the percentages of his career, he's pretty much average at throwing runners out. I'd say that leaves him somewhere in the neighborhood of an 80% chance of success.
But the thing you're missing is that if it's 80%, stealing raises your chances of winning by one-tenth of one percent. So "in the neighborhood" doesn't cut it - if his chances are 79%, mathematically you shouldn't do it. Jackson might be an 83% base-stealer, but base-stealers against Torrealba are successful only 70% of the time. So maybe the chances of success are more like 76, 77%.
tried the hit and run only on a 2-1 or 3-2 count.
this depends 100% on who's at the plate. high contact person, perhaps... on a 3-2 pitch though, that's a tough call- but i like the idea of making the hitter aggressive and having to swing on the next pitch.
it all depends on who has the stick in his hands.
Most of you nailed it. Down by two with one man on, don't steal; especially if less than two outs, but not even then. you cannot risk losing that baserunner.
any earlier in the game though, i would agree with you. i'm all about manufacturing runs at the bottom of the order.
one of my biggest complaints is ordonez still being allowed to play RF. he has the range of a flower anymore. i decent RF makes both those plays that went over his head, which allowed both runs to be scored. i guarantee even boesch makes one of those catches. hell, one bounced on the warning track; the other hit the bottom of the wall.
with all the ground to cover in RF, ordonez and boesch/raburn should switch.
Uhh no. You put your worst fielding outfielder in right field, even if it is a large area, because there are generally fewer balls hit that way. No way you put Ordonez in left, that would be asking for trouble.
isnt quite the best fielder in the world either
worst fielder is almost always in LF unless he has a rocket arm. ordonez clearly doesn't.. i know raburn isn't great, but he and boesch cover way more ground than ordonez. and i think both have better arms than ordonez too.
why did manny play LF and ichiro RF? the stiffs almost always play LF.
and i don't know where you get your facts about more hits to LF. i think you're making that up, especially with the tigers. guys like verlander, bonderman, porcello, scherzer and galarraga gave up way more hits to lefties than righties as a group.
On the other hand, Ruben Sierra was a right fielder mostly, and so was Jose Canseco. Conventional wisdom sez lots more right-handed hitters = lots more balls hit to left field. Manny was a left fielder because he played in Fenway where the fence is damn near right next to second base and he didn't have to go chasing all over the outfield. Right field, on the other hand, is huge there. He was primarily a right fielder in Cleveland.
it could be sierra played RF because texas had the likes of pete incaviglia and juan gonzalez in left (stiffs). similarly a young manny was probably better than albert belle and richie sexson types in LF (more stiffs). Canseco played RF in Oakland while Rickie played LF; primarily due to arm strength. remember, canseco was a good athlete and pretty fast in his younger days.
Maybe in little league or beer league softball, but in real baseball you ALWAYS put the guy with the better arm in RF, no exceptions. The point is to keep the runner from going from 1st to 3rd on a single to right.
I wouldn't say "no exceptions." All other things being equal, yes. In general, though, you'd rather have a more mobile player in left (ballpark considerations being neutral and not Fenway-esque) because the majority of hitters are right-handed and therefore the majority of balls will be hit to left field. Plus, a right-handed center fielder has an easier time ranging to his left (i.e. right field) so all other things being equal, you'd want your stronger arm in right but your faster, more mobile player in left.
is putting out the best lineup possible i think that Scott Sizemore should be in the majors and that Will Rhymes is not suited to hit in the majors he just doesnt have the power. I also think that Ajax needs to be moved down to the bottom of the order until he gets his swing down or give him a couple days off. This team is mediocre because Leyland didn't want Dombroski to get anymore players after V-mart and i dont think we were in the position to say our team is good enough to compete with only the addition of a DH. I hope the Tigers win a lot this season and win the central but i don't see it happening with the hitting and lack of run support and poor pitching outside of scherzer and JV but Coke did really well the other day but no one scored so it was pointless. Brad Penny should be shipped out of here if he doesnt get his act together tomorrow and call up Andy Oliver because i think he would be a lot better and bring in another lefty to the rotation. Go Tigers
Jackson is a nice player, but I have huge doubts he'll be even a good major league hitter long term. I have watched the game for 30 years. I have never seen a guy get so many dunk hits where he didn't hit it hard but it dropped, as he did last year. He doesn't walk enough and strikes out too much.
If he hovers around .300 this year throughout like he did last year, consider me wrong. If he doesn't do what he did last year, this team is .500 at best.
i just hope jackson get hit > .270. his defense saves a lot of runs in CF. he's already one of the best i've ever seen. a young andruw jones has a slight edge.
Please, for the love of all that is holy in this terrible world, do not re-sign Old Man Leyland.
Anyone who's thought enough about baseball to ask a question like this should really read The Book, by Tom Tango. The answer's in there. Basically, the risk of getting thrown out at second outweighs the reward of getting to second. The Book is an easy read and really changes the way you watch baseball.
Leyland does a lot of really, really dumb things. Some of them work, some don't. People normally complain about him making the wrong decision, mathematically, statistically, sabermetrically, and using his gut to make decisions. This was not one of them
My only complaint, strategy-wise yesterday was taking the double in the ninth with two outs and Cabrera on deck. By going to second, he (was it Rayburn?) effectively took the bat out of Cabrera's hands and let the Royals intentionally walk him. I understand that we picked up Martinez for situations like this, but come on... give Cabrera a chance to hit!