There is absolutely nothing I hate more in baseball than the hit and run. Quick baseball lesson from "The Book on The Book" by Bill Felber. "In each category, we begin by calculating the manager's success percentage...The next step is to compare that success percentage to the league average... " Moving some decimals around, you come up with a number that looks like win%, where the average manager must have .500. All these numbers taken from the 2003 season. Sacrifice Bunts: Macha - .448 Piniella - .442 Steal: Macha - .553 Piniella - .551 Hit-and-Run: Piniella - .637 Macha - .616 "Given Macha's evident abilities at both the steal and hit-and-run, what would be the effect on run production of A's management unleashing him? Let's assume each success nets a base and each failure costs on (at twice the penalty in terms of run production). If Macha had used both tactics at the frequency of the league average (130 steal attempts and 72 hit-and-run attempts) wih no performance decline on the part of either himself or his runners, the A's would gain seven-tenths of one run over the course of the season." As you can see, Piniella rates out slightly above Macha in terms of success, and I'm sure he probably attempted many times more steals and hit-and-runs than league average. Based on what Macha would have gained, I'd say it'd be a stretch to say Piniella gained 4-5 runs over the course of the entire season, in what would be rated as a very good season of managing. It's a very risky play, and it only takes Lou being wrong 6-8 times more over the course of the season to drive it into negative territory. In other words, unless Lou is absolutely sure it's the perfect thing to do, it's a pretty horrible idea.