THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

First of all, you don’t ignore the take sign or just not look for it and then get vocal about it to reporters after the game.  That’s how employees get fired, or at least fined or benched.  However, that pitch was probably going to be called a strike.  It was a little closer to the outside corner than pitch 2 when it crossed the front of the plate and was curving back toward the plate more than pitch 2, so on 3-0 I think the pitcher gets the call.  The question then becomes: Is that the best pitch to hit Phillips would expect to see in the remainder of his at bat.  Probably not.

I can understand Phillips frustration though.  And here is what he was probably thinking but couldn’t say in public.  “If I take this pitch and its a ball and I walk, I load the bases for Laynce Nix.  Nix is a lifetime .238 hitter who is 0 for his last 9 ABs and today has swung at the ball 7 times and only hit it fair once.  So does my team have a better chance of scoring if I hit this pitch or if Nix hits against a relief pitcher?” And that’s a pretty tough question to answer.

Here’s what Phillips was really thinking:

“I’m the face of the franchise and here is my chance to make ESPN tonight...it’s been a while”.

"We’re struggling. We’re not getting anybody on base.”

Sounds like a good opportunity to try to coax a walk to me.

I’m confused by the notion in Peter’s #1 that Laynce Nix is some kind of bum (t-i-c to set up what follows).  I know a Reds fan that thinks he’s the next Ryan Ludwick, but hopefully “without as much regression next year”.  I had too much compassion to say “I agree...he’ll be doing all of his regressing this year.”

Patriot,

You’re not upbeat about the Reds chances this season?

I don’t even understand Phillips “reasoning” so there is no reason to discuss it. It makes no sense and whatever sense it may make is probably wrong anyway.

You can’t fault a player one way or another when observing one play, unless you know how often he was planning on swinging.  And he probably does not even know that.

Obviously with 2 outs, you swing more often than with 0 or 1 out and with runners on base, you swing more often than with no runners on base.

And of course, the pitcher, the score, the inning, etc., goes into the equation.

Given that they were down 2 runs with 2 runners on base (first and second - I don’t know why the graphic above only shows a runner on second) in only the 5th inning, it is clearly more of a swing than a “typical” situation, given the pitcher, etc.

And there is no “standard” 3-0 zone, unless you mean an “average” one.  But the zone in each situation can be completely different from the average one.  With no outs and no one on base, almost every batter should be taking almost 100% of the time.  With 2 outs and a runner on second or third, you take WAY less frequently.  Same with a runner on third and 1 out. If you are down by more than a run or two (and you are not the tying or go-ahead run) late in the game, again, you almost always take. Etc.

Where a pitch is when a batter swings is not very helpful to the discussion either.  I doubt that Phillips or anyone else would intentionally swing at a pitch on the corner with a 3-0 count in any situation.  Obviously when a batter decides that he is going to swing only at a fat pitch, he is sometimes going to swing at a bad one, even one outside of the strike zone.

The bottom line in that situation is that he wants to swing at a pitch that he thinks he can hit hard some percentage of the time.  Whether his thinking should be, “I will only swing if I think it is right down the middle” I really have no idea. Maybe that IS what he was thinking and he was just making up some BS after being criticized for swinging at a bad pitch. Who knows?

What is even more curious than this situation was why Francona pinch hit Big Papi with runners on 1st and 3rd and a lefty pitcher on the mound in the top of the 5th inning last night…

Terry, I wouldn’t put it quite like that.  After all, I’m quite bullish on their chance to finish fourth.

Even giving Phillips the benefit of the doubt (that he intended to swing only at a fat pitch and saw the ball wrong)--isn’t that a big part of the reason the manager put the take sign on? That Phillips, an aggressive batter with mediocre pitch selection, couldn’t be trusted with a ‘swing away’ sign to only swing at a fat pitch? I think it’s pretty egregious of him to ignore the take sign (or not even check for the sign, which amounts to the same thing). If I were the manager, I’d fine Phillips for the double violation of ignoring a sign, and then telling the press about it.

There is no excuse for ignoring a sign.  If you get the take sign, you’re supposed to take, period.  You learn that in Little League.

And there is no “standard” 3-0 zone, unless you mean an “average” one.  But the zone in each situation can be completely different from the average one.  With no outs and no one on base, almost every batter should be taking almost 100% of the time.  With 2 outs and a runner on second or third, you take WAY less frequently.  Same with a runner on third and 1 out. If you are down by more than a run or two (and you are not the tying or go-ahead run) late in the game, again, you almost always take. Etc.

Excellent.  By “standard” zone I mean the size of the strike zone a batter has implicitly given himself based on the count.  Good point that his zone will change furthermore by the game state, not to mention the type of pitcher he is facing.

Given Phillips’ reaction, it is clear that he thought that a 3-0 count was NOT a hitter’s count, that he thought that a walk there was a bad idea (that he’d have preferred to remain at 3-0 if that was possible than go to 4-0!).

When you go from 3-0 to 4-0, you are adding a bit over +.10 runs.  With 2 outs and runners on base, it’s worth a bit less.  I dunno, maybe +.07 runs or something.

If a pitcher is at bat, he’ll be -.15 runs per PA or so.  I suppose it is possible that the batter on deck (Nix / cleanup!) is so bad (halfway between an average hitter and a pitcher batting) that having Phillips get on base is a net negative.  That is, the defense could have very well WANTED to (implicitly) IBB him, and Phillips was trying to challenge that.