THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

100 percent.  Seriously, if I was a coach and my player attempted that, he’d be benched the next game.  That’s just inexcusable.

When I read the scenario, I was surprised that any player would do such a thing. However, when I read the second part that said Torii Hunter had attempted it, my level of surprise disappeared.

Not a shocker coming from Hunter.

But as Dave said, the break even point is 100%. No question about it.

Why is the breakeven point 100%?  If you succeed, you take away the double play.  That’s worth something.

Also, doesn’t game theory suggest that, in such a situation, the defense shouldn’t be holding you on quite as intensely?  If stealing helps so little, why create a hole for the next batter to single through? 

This latter argument doesn’t affect the breakeven point, but it *does* affect the actual success rate.  Perhaps you need 90% to break even, and Hunter thought he had a 92% chance?  Possible, no?  Unlikely, but possible.

It is not exactly 100%, but for all practical purposes it is. After a walk or HBP, first and second is slightly worse (for the batting team) than first and third, no matter the score.

And of course, there is no such thing as 100% certainty on an attempted steal, since you can always trip or slip.

So yes, it was a bizarre, inexcusable play.  Is Hunter known for that?  I thought he was a smart player?

Benching him though?  What would that accomplish?  It is not like he wasn’t hustling when he should.  It was a brain cramp or something like that.

The guy that should be benched is Nyger Morgan.  How many times has he been caught stealing or picked off this year?  At what point do you not allow a fast player to attempt a steal or take a big lead?

Phil, he is on SECOND base, not first!

Using the Win Expectancy tables from the book and assuming the probability of a throwing error is zero, I calculated the break even rate to be 93.75%.

Actually that is the number if the probability of ANY kind of error is zero. Could be a catching error at third.

It’s got to be damn close to 100%.  All I can think of is that Torii forgot what the score was and thought it was a 1 run game. 

Even there, his jump was terrible, and you’re up against a strong-armed catcher.

There has to be a mistake in the win expectancy charts in The Book for this (either that, or I’m terrible at reading this chart - well, Tommy can confirm that I am, but still).

Was trying to eyeball the effects of a throwing error, and with runner on second, no outs, and +2 runs the home team win expectancy is .825. Assume that Hunter scores on a throwing error, so now you’re bases empty, no outs, and +1 runs and the win expectancy is still .825. That can’t be right, can it?

Oops, didn’t read properly that he was on second.  Sorry.  Never mind!

Colin, this thread probably predates you my a few months:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/quirks_in_the_win_expectancy_tables/

You can instead try using empirical numbers to see if the results make any more sense:

http://www.tangotiger.net/wins.html

Looked at the empirical data: it doesn’t make much more sense.  It does in Colin’s scenario, but it doesn’t in Torii’s scenario.  In Torii’s case, the sample size is very small.

Colin, of course.  The possible force and double plays, if another batter should walk, make the two WE unequal.  How much, I don’t know off the top of my head.

I doubt that Hunter forgot the score.  I think he just had a complete brain cramp.

Does he often do things like that?

Torii Hunter is only 9 out of 20 in SB attempts this season.  In a game against the Brewers in June (6/15) he was caught stealing 3B with no outs in the 7th inning and his team down by 6 runs!!!  Swear to God - you can look up the boxscore.  Then a few days later against the Dodgers (6/24) he was again caught stealing 3B with 2 outs in the bottom of the first inning.

This is more than a cramp.  I think it’s a sign of a desperate veteran, whose skills are rapidly deteriorating, trying to hang on to glory he once knew.

Scott/15: His offense is better than ever somehow (I didn’t look at park adjusted numbers).

I can’t believe it took this long for a team to get him out of CF, but notice how quickly and without debate the Angels did it? I think they’ve known for a while that Hunter is now a bad defensive CF.

This is a quote by Hunter from a FG article about “the play”:

“That was stupid,” Hunter said softly. “That was so stupid. Can’t take it back, killed the rally, terrible. They teach you that in Little League — don’t make the first out at third. [It] might have been the dumbest thing I’ve done in years.”

Now, maybe there is more to what he said, but of course his mistake had nothing to do with the outs.  In fact, if there were 1 out, the steal would probably be a little worse.  He makes no mention of the score, which is the key to the mistake, not the outs. And of course, the old adage of “never making the first or third out at third” is ridiculous. It should be, “Make an out less often at third with 0 or 1 out.”

Perhaps Hunter is the stupidest player in baseball. I don’t know. He doesn’t sound dumb when he speaks.  But first he makes one of the all-time worst base running plays in MLB.  Then he says something stupid about the play.  And Scott above tells us that he makes these horrible base running decisions on a routine basis.  All I can say is, “Wow!”

He’s not the stupidest player in baseball, at least as long as Jose Lopez still has a job. 

We should note that his problems getting caught at third this year are new.  He’s 3 for 7 in stealing third this year, but was 35 for 43 coming into the season.  He’s historically been pretty good at taking third.

This discussion reminds me of a discussion in Dan Harrington’s Texas Hold-Em Poker Books. The situation is that you are on the bubble in a small 10 person tournament, where if any player drops other than you, you win money. Some players have as many chips as you do, and some have less. You are dealt a pair of aces on the button with everyone else folding, leaving just unknown active players in the small and big blind who have the same amount of chips as you do.

Harrington’s argument is to fold. He suggests that even with the best hand in poker and the high win expectancy, there is still a chance you can lose and be out of the tournament and at best, you win one or maybe two stacks. If you fold the aces, there is a good chance that one of the smaller stacks will bust out before you do.

Similarly, it doesn’t matter if Hunter had a 99% chance to steal third base because of a bad throwing catcher and a pitcher with a slow pitching motion, because there is still the chance he’d be thrown out and one run won’t win the game.

It is not the stealing third percentage which is troubling, but the timing (the score, inning, etc.)…