THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

While watching the Reds, Padres game last night, I had to switch from the Reds broadcast to the Pads because the Reds’ announcers were going on and on about how bad Corey Patterson’s attempted double steal with 2 outs was with the Reds trailing 1-0, and other annoying, childish, whining, “criticize someone or something because of the results” things.  Of course it took an absolutely perfect throw to nail him.  It was clear that he would have been safe 90% of the time, which is far above the BE point with runners on 1st and 2nd and 2 outs.  While the announcers admitted that it took a prefect throw to nail him (in fact, it looked like he was safe), they had no concept of the idea of a BE point.  They assumed that the old axiom of “never make the 1st or 3rd out at third base” means never, as in zero percent of the time.  Not to mention the fact that with the double steal, the BE is lower (I think).

They were also going on (in a really stupid way) about how they couldn’t believe that Patterson had switched to hitting away after trying to bunt with no outs and runners on first and second.  They really got on him for that.  For one thing, the manager probably took off the bunt.  For another, that is a brilliant play that managers use far too infrequently, which is to “switch up” in the middle of the AB in a bunt situation.  That is the best way, or at least one way, to randomize your bunts and non-bunts, which is essential in bunt situations.  Again, managers and players have no concept of game theory when it comes to sac bunt attempts.  That is one of the few areas in baseball where game theory and randomizing your strategy is critical (that and pitch selection of course).

Then in addition to that, they said something like, “If you can’t hit the ball to the right side, you have no business swinging away (Patterson hit a “come backer” to the pitcher).  As if Patterson was trying to do that!

The next time someone says to an analyst, “Yeah, but you have never played the game before,” be thankful that you haven’t, because as far as correct strategies and approaches to the game go, if you did, you would be dumb as a brick (not on everything of course, just on SOME things), and you can quote me on that!

Honestly, I kinda wish more baseball players subscribed to a version of the Vlad Guerrero school of hitting: if you see a pitch you think you can hit, you swing.  I’m not much fond of “situational taking”.  Don’t swing at balls.  If you’re ahead in the count, don’t swing at “bad strikes”.  Otherwise, you better swing.  I don’t like the entire idea of “giving the batter the green light” vs “having him take a pitch”.  Let him hit what is hittable, and ignore the rest.

Managers don’t usually give red lights unless the count is 3-0 and even then, only certain batters get red lights.  However, on 3-0 and 3-1 counts, it completely depends on whether you “want” a walk or a hit, and especially an extra base hit.  That is the largest determining factor.  With 2 outs and runners on 2 and 3 (and down by a run), of course, the walk means very little. You want a hit.  There is no way on earth you want to be taking on 3-1.  On 3-0, I am not sure.  And of course it depends on the batter and pitcher also. 

The sad part is that it is not that hard to figure out from the pitch f/x data.  Taking or not on a 3-0 for example is simply a matter of which gives you the best WE or RE.  If the pitcher throws a strike 60% of the time, then your expectancy is 40% walk plus 60% 3-1 count.  If you swing at some strikes then you simply have to figure out how often you swing at a strike (probably 80-90% of the time), how often you swing at a ball, and when you swing what the average result is.  It is not that hard to do.  You start out with the average batter and average pitchers.  That will tell you if you should even keep on going.  In other words, if it is not even close - let’s say that taking is WAY better for the average batter and pitcher - then you probably don’t need to go on.  If it is close, then you can make rules of thumb for different types of batters and pitchers.

If anyone watched that AB last night (with Victorino) and the plate, even though he is highly trained and paid professional athlete, he looked like a scared rookie trying to get a walk so that Utley could be the hero or the goat. Clearly not the optimal play.  As I said, if he was actually taking on the 3-1 pitcher, which it looked like he was, although there is no way to know for sure, that is just a horrible play, I think.  I would have to look at some numbers to be sure.  You would think that “baseball players” and coaches and managers would know THAT - that you don’t take a 3-1 pitch with runners on 2 and 3 and 2 outs and you are down by 1 run. That should be basic Little League level baseball knowledge.

At the risk of repeating myself, which I am, when I hear the line, “You’ve never played the game (at the professional level),” I laugh to myself. I think, “How come after 20 years of playing and/or coaching/managing the game, you still can’t get it right?”

MGL,

Which feed of the Phils/Stros did you watch?  The Phillies are my team and I was livid last night.  It wasn’t as if Nick Punto was at the plate in the sense that Victorino might not be a significant power threat but he does have hitting talent; and if the manager didn’t have confidence he should not have been up to bat in that situation to begin with.

Gary Matthews Jr is the only Phillies announcer that was a former player and it’s a shame he didn’t get to chime in with his thoughts because he doesn’t back down from his thoughts and isn’t a “team” guy.  Last year he rode Ryan Howard most of the time for arguing at pitches that were clearly strikes and for taking those pitches to begin with.. and I mean really riding him.. to the point that my dad, who used to produce TV for the Phillies, actually thought Matthews would be let go.

Sure, Valverde had been hit in the head with a line drive a couple of batters prior but he came right back to strike out Chris Coste so it wasn’t as if he was walking people like crazy.

Not to say Shane would’ve hit an RBI single or anything but he should at least be given the chance to bat while being significantly ahead of the pitcher when he works a 3-0 count in a crucial situation.

I can’t remember the feed.  Sarge is a pretty good commentator, as commentators go (they ALL say stupid things ALL the time, including the ones that people think are the best, like Stoney, Palmer, etc.). 

Actually the only one that does NOT say stupid things all the time, because he never tries to analyze the game, is Scully, which is why he is the only one I can listen do without having that little bit of throw-up in the back of my throat.

Fact of the matter is that regardless of who is up, and who is pitching, it is not correct to take 3-1 with runners on 2 and 3 and 2 outs (and down less than 3 runs).  That should be obvious to ANYONE who has ever played competitive baseball.  I seriously doubt that Victorino was given the take sign at 3-1.  Maybe 3-0, but not 3-1.  One of the reasons why batters don’t swing at 3-0 and 3-1 when they should swing at a hittable pitch is because if they make out weakly, they are going to get criticized.  It is the same thing with taking close pitches at 3-2 when a baserunner is needed.  They are afraid that if they take and get rung up they will get criticized.

The CIN announcers were a perfect example of baseball “insiders” criticizing players because the outcome was bad even if the effort was correct (Patterson swinging away rather than bunting and then getting thrown out at 3rd on a steal with 2 outs).  Both of these things were correct but Patterson got lambasted by the commentators because they don’t understand the different between process-based evaluation and results-based evaluation.  Don’t understand it at all.

Here is another one from the other day that amused me.  A pitcher, I forgot who, but it was one with a good fastball, threw 4 changeups in a row.  I think it was a Marlins pitcher, maybe Pinto. The Marlins announcers were going on and on how it can’t possibly be correct to throw that many changeups in a row. One, maybe two, in their words, but not 4 in a row.

Incredible how stupid and uninformed about baseball these guys who “played the game” are.  If you know anything about a pitcher randomizing his pitches, then SOMETIMES a pitcher will throw X number of the same pitches in a row, with X being ANY number.  I doubt that there is any player or manager who realizes that.  If a pitcher does not realize that, how can he pitch optimally?

Yesterday at my baseball game, I was batting and the first two pitches were balls. The next pitch was fat so I hit it and got a single. I probably would never take a fat pitch like that because I know that I can hit a line drive with it.

I have to wildly disagree with the idea that Sarge is a pretty good commentator.  His favorite form of analysis is to give play by play on the instant replay.  He’ll sit silent for long stretches of time (which, I guess, is a plus), only to open his mouth to tease the even-worse Chris Wheeler about....something.

Just to pad things out a little.  Victorino was hitting second in the lineup in front of Utley and Howard.  Victorino hits somewhat better from the right side than from the left, but mostly it is in the form of more power (which is not particularly significant in the context).

The win expectancy with the bases loaded, one out, and Utley and Howard up would be significantly higher than with Victorino, Utley and Howard up and runners on second and third.  Still, the only justification for giving Victorino the 3-1 take would be if he had horrible strike zone judgment. He doesn’t, and if he did, having him hit second in the order would be a pretty bad mistake.