Lou on SportsCenter

[imb]

But I suppose I had to?

 

It was obvious that by 99% I was just saying "vast majority" and not referencing some advanced statistical study on base stealing. That didn't really need any explaining.

 

Are you implying that this

 

Let me ask you this. How often does a player hit a home run per at bat? Is it less than 9% and if it is shouldn't he forgo that and just try to hit a single which increases his chances to get on base?

 

is an actual opinion that you hold? I'm confused.

 

Anyway, this is a stupid offshoot of the actual argument, so unless you have anything else to add, I think we can both agree that this is going nowhere.

[CuseCubFan69]

But I suppose I had to?

 

It was obvious that by 99% I was just saying "vast majority" and not referencing some advanced statistical study on base stealing. That didn't really need any explaining.

 

Are you implying that this

 

Let me ask you this. How often does a player hit a home run per at bat? Is it less than 9% and if it is shouldn't he forgo that and just try to hit a single which increases his chances to get on base?

 

is an actual opinion that you hold? I'm confused.

 

Anyway, this is a stupid offshoot of the actual argument, so unless you have anything else to add, I think we can both agree that this is going nowhere.

 

My point is that if something has a low percentage of working why keep doing it?

[David]

But I suppose I had to?

 

It was obvious that by 99% I was just saying "vast majority" and not referencing some advanced statistical study on base stealing. That didn't really need any explaining.

 

Are you implying that this

 

Let me ask you this. How often does a player hit a home run per at bat? Is it less than 9% and if it is shouldn't he forgo that and just try to hit a single which increases his chances to get on base?

 

is an actual opinion that you hold? I'm confused.

 

Anyway, this is a stupid offshoot of the actual argument, so unless you have anything else to add, I think we can both agree that this is going nowhere.

 

My point is that if something has a low percentage of working why keep doing it?

 

It's a very bad comparison.

[imb]

But I suppose I had to?

 

It was obvious that by 99% I was just saying "vast majority" and not referencing some advanced statistical study on base stealing. That didn't really need any explaining.

 

Are you implying that this

 

Let me ask you this. How often does a player hit a home run per at bat? Is it less than 9% and if it is shouldn't he forgo that and just try to hit a single which increases his chances to get on base?

 

is an actual opinion that you hold? I'm confused.

 

Anyway, this is a stupid offshoot of the actual argument, so unless you have anything else to add, I think we can both agree that this is going nowhere.

 

My point is that if something has a low percentage of working why keep doing it?

 

I think we agree then?

 

Attempting to steal third has a very low rate of success/usefulness, and should only be tried during extreme circumstances.

 

I don't know what point you're bringing up with the 9% homerun thing, though. I don't think the percentage of batters that go to the plate trying to hit a homerun every at bat is very high, but the amount of runners attempting to steal third when they attempt to steal third is probably 100%.

[David]

Exactly what IMB said. Plus, even if the hitter was trying to hit a home run, it's not a zero-sum proposition. The hitter could, quite obviously, wind up with a positive result that isn't a home run, even if he was trying to hit a home run (which, incidentally, probably doesn't happen all that often).

[CuseCubFan69]

But I suppose I had to?

 

It was obvious that by 99% I was just saying "vast majority" and not referencing some advanced statistical study on base stealing. That didn't really need any explaining.

 

Are you implying that this

 

Let me ask you this. How often does a player hit a home run per at bat? Is it less than 9% and if it is shouldn't he forgo that and just try to hit a single which increases his chances to get on base?

 

is an actual opinion that you hold? I'm confused.

 

Anyway, this is a stupid offshoot of the actual argument, so unless you have anything else to add, I think we can both agree that this is going nowhere.

 

My point is that if something has a low percentage of working why keep doing it?

 

I think we agree then?

 

Attempting to steal third has a very low rate of success/usefulness, and should only be tried during extreme circumstances.

 

I don't know what point you're bringing up with the 9% homerun thing, though. I don't think the percentage of batters that go to the plate trying to hit a homerun every at bat is very high, but the amount of runners attempting to steal third when they attempt to steal third is probably 100%.

 

I'll give you that! I still disagree with you about the .01% thing though. I'd love to see a stat that shows how well this works for Lou this year, stealing third that is but I still don't think you can effectively put a number on this. Why do I think this. Say Soriano gets thrown out at 3rd making it 2 outs. DeRosa then singles. Who's to say that he would have had the same pitch and location if Soriano is on? Who's to say that DeRosa didn't change his approach at the plate? IMO there too many hidden or unknown variables for this to be a 93% thing.

[imb]

Even so, if Soriano gets thrown out at third, it's a bad thing. Regardless of whether DeRosa hits a 550 foot homerun or weakly grounds out to the pitcher.

 

In your scenario, DeRosa reaches base safely, something he will do, best case scenario 35% of the time, and it was a net failure because we lost a man in scoring position during his at-bat. Had Soriano stayed at second, and DeRosa struck out, we're still in better shape, runner on 2nd and 2 outs as opposed to a runner on first and two outs.

[CuseCubFan69]

Even so, if Soriano gets thrown out at third, it's a bad thing. Regardless of whether DeRosa hits a 550 foot homerun or weakly grounds out to the pitcher.

 

In your scenario, DeRosa reaches base safely, something he will do, best case scenario 35% of the time, and it was a net failure because we lost a man in scoring position during his at-bat. Had Soriano stayed at second, and DeRosa struck out, we're still in better shape, runner on 2nd and 2 outs as opposed to a runner on first and two outs.

 

Again though those are flat line stats...DeRosa at 35%. What if it's a pitcher he is 22% successful against along with the next hitter? I think if I can get Soriano over to third on a steal and DeRosa can battle and get a ground ball or flyball I get a run instead of 2 ground outs in a row and nothing. I understand that you're playing the percentages but sometimes as a coach or manager you see something and you take advantage of that...IMO the good ones do. I'm not talking a gut feeling but to notice a pattern or weakness and take advantage of it.

[imb]

Even so, if Soriano gets thrown out at third, it's a bad thing. Regardless of whether DeRosa hits a 550 foot homerun or weakly grounds out to the pitcher.

 

In your scenario, DeRosa reaches base safely, something he will do, best case scenario 35% of the time, and it was a net failure because we lost a man in scoring position during his at-bat. Had Soriano stayed at second, and DeRosa struck out, we're still in better shape, runner on 2nd and 2 outs as opposed to a runner on first and two outs.

 

Again though those are flat line stats...DeRosa at 35%. What if it's a pitcher he is 22% successful against along with the next hitter? I think if I can get Soriano over to third on a steal and DeRosa can battle and get a ground ball or flyball I get a run instead of 2 ground outs in a row and nothing. I understand that you're playing the percentages but sometimes as a coach or manager you see something and you take advantage of that...IMO the good ones do. I'm not talking a gut feeling but to notice a pattern or weakness and take advantage of it.

 

I don't care if DeRosa is 22% successful against the pitcher or 12% successful or 7% successful because for one thing, that number is likey based on a handful of at-bats where the 35% number (which is likely best case, mind you) is based on a far larger sample.

 

Let's say that he is 22% rather than 35% for the sake of argument. You're willing to risk a losing a runner in scoring position based on a few at-bats that show the hitter at the plate is 13% worse than normal against the present pitcher?

[CuseCubFan69]

Even so, if Soriano gets thrown out at third, it's a bad thing. Regardless of whether DeRosa hits a 550 foot homerun or weakly grounds out to the pitcher.

 

In your scenario, DeRosa reaches base safely, something he will do, best case scenario 35% of the time, and it was a net failure because we lost a man in scoring position during his at-bat. Had Soriano stayed at second, and DeRosa struck out, we're still in better shape, runner on 2nd and 2 outs as opposed to a runner on first and two outs.

 

Again though those are flat line stats...DeRosa at 35%. What if it's a pitcher he is 22% successful against along with the next hitter? I think if I can get Soriano over to third on a steal and DeRosa can battle and get a ground ball or flyball I get a run instead of 2 ground outs in a row and nothing. I understand that you're playing the percentages but sometimes as a coach or manager you see something and you take advantage of that...IMO the good ones do. I'm not talking a gut feeling but to notice a pattern or weakness and take advantage of it.

 

I don't care if DeRosa is 22% successful against the pitcher or 12% successful or 7% successful because for one thing, that number is likey based on a handful of at-bats where the 35% number (which is likely best case, mind you) is based on a far larger sample.

 

Let's say that he is 22% rather than 35% for the sake of argument. You're willing to risk a losing a runner in scoring position based on a few at-bats that show the hitter at the plate is 13% worse than normal against the present pitcher?

 

What I'm willing to gamble is getting the runner to third when I see an opportunity to do so. I understand that percentages say this and they say that but I think knowing your team and certain aspects of what the competition is capable of increases the chances. Do I know the numbers no, so I can't prove it the way you want me to.

 

Also, if a pitcher and catcher never have to worry about a threat to steal it changes the dynamic of what can happen and what does happen. If I have a pitcher that is so worried about the hitter and I notice that, I take off. A good baserunner can notice these things. I'm still talking about stealing third.

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

[imb]

What I'm willing to gamble is getting the runner to third when I see an opportunity to do so. I understand that percentages say this and they say that but I think knowing your team and certain aspects of what the competition is capable of increases the chances. Do I know the numbers no, so I can't prove it the way you want me to.

 

Also, if a pitcher and catcher never have to worry about a threat to steal it changes the dynamic of what can happen and what does happen. If I have a pitcher that is so worried about the hitter and I notice that, I take off. A good baserunner can notice these things. I'm still talking about stealing third.

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

Why do you equate not trying to steal third with having a manager who sits around and does nothing? You coach, you know that there is more to game decisions than just "should I steal or not". I want a coach to worry about lefty/right match ups, defensive positioning, pinch hitting, etc...not to attempt a steal when it's likely harmful.

[Mizzou]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

I guess every single manager in baseball is doing his job wrong then.

[Mephistopheles]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

I guess every single manager in baseball is doing his job wrong then.

This isn't a new development. While I agree with a lot of the things said this thread about generally speaking sac's and stealing third are bad ideas. There are some times that it's an asset. Looking at the tables people brought up actually understate the amount of time it's useful.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

I have posted this else where before, so I wont fill in all the detail. Runner at 1 and 2 with no outs. The pitcher had walked the runners on 1 and 2 on nine pitches. The coach comes out, reading his body language and that of his pitchers I can tell it isnt a happy conversation. I put on the Run and Hit on the first pitch on the next batter. I am throwing the book and percentages out the window because I know the pitcher is going to throw a get me over pitch to try and get strike one.

 

The result is a triple off the fence that missed being a homer by two or three feet. A five run inning that inning and a huge shift in momentum.

 

In those circumstances when every thing converged at the right moment you do what a coach does.

 

I believe in OBP and teach strike zone recognition. Driving the ball to all fields. I play a pretty straight forward game. But, when it presents itself, you are the coach and you make the tough calls as well as the easy ones.

 

That IMB is why you never say never on a baseball diamond.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

I guess every single manager in baseball is doing his job wrong then.

 

any manager that doesn't simply perpetuate the company's philosophy on the field isn't doing his job right.

 

with the cubs, the company's philosophy is bad so it really doesn't matter what piniella does, it has to be better than what hendry wants, though.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

I guess every single manager in baseball is doing his job wrong then.

 

any manager that doesn't simply perpetuate the company's philosophy on the field isn't doing his job right.

 

with the cubs, the company's philosophy is bad so it really doesn't matter what piniella does, it has to be better than what hendry wants, though.

 

No any GM that dosent get the people to fit the manager isnt doing his job right. The opposite is a GM who dosent hire a manager to use the people in place correctly.

 

Either way you get Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

From what I see you would have a manager basically fill out the lineup and pretty much not do another thing until he has to make a substitution.

 

which is pretty much what a manager's job should be.

I guess every single manager in baseball is doing his job wrong then.

 

any manager that doesn't simply perpetuate the company's philosophy on the field isn't doing his job right.

 

with the cubs, the company's philosophy is bad so it really doesn't matter what piniella does, it has to be better than what hendry wants, though.

 

No any GM that dosent get the people to fit the manager isnt doing his job right. The opposite is a GM who dosent hire a manager to use the people in place correctly.

 

Either way you get Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker.

 

i'm not sure exactly what you mean, do you mean that a team should be put together to suit a management style? that's absurd.

 

a team should be put together with pitching and production at the plate--the manager should be there to look wise and talk nice to the media. it should be a virtually meaningless job.

[Mephistopheles]

cue Billy Beane comparison.

[Magnetic Curses]

cue Billy Beane comparison.

 

[whispers]shuuuuuuuut uuuuuuuuup[/whispers]

[Mephistopheles]

I don't know. These threads seem to follow the same pattern.

 

1.) OMG STATS SUCK/ CHIVALROUS TRADITIONALISM ROCKS

2.) cites a bunch of numbers the person citing cant use properly

3.) OMG NERD!

4.) OMG IT WORKS

5.) NO WAY!

6.) Explanation

7.) REALLY!?

8.) Billy Beane, TTO and Adam Dunn are Gods. Convert or Die.

9.) Go back to #1 in another thread.

[USSoccer]

I don't know. These threads seem to follow the same pattern.

 

2.) cites a bunch of numbers the person citing cant use properly

 

Are you saying I can't use numbers properly?

[Magnetic Curses]

I don't know. These threads seem to follow the same pattern.

 

1.) OMG STATS SUCK/ CHIVALROUS TRADITIONALISM ROCKS

2.) cites a bunch of numbers the person citing cant use properly

3.) OMG NERD!

4.) OMG IT WORKS

5.) NO WAY!

6.) Explanation

7.) REALLY!?

8.) Billy Beane, TTO and Adam Dunn are Gods. Convert or Die.

9.) Go back to #1 in another thread.

 

you forgot:

 

10.) I'm sorry, i didn't mean to be mean

11.) let's hug.

12.) you're nice

13.) you're nice

14.) i'm naughty

15.) PM me.

16.) Okay, but no weird stuff.

17.) Okay.

[Mephistopheles]

No, I am saying that most people who cite them don't. I wasn't mentioning names.

[Magnetic Curses]

I don't know. These threads seem to follow the same pattern.

 

2.) cites a bunch of numbers the person citing cant use properly

 

Are you saying I can't use numbers properly?

 

i think he was, seabass.