Master Index of Archived Threads


A little-used strategy---why?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 15 2006 11:29 AM

It's the 6th, 7th inning, you're behind by seven or eight runs. You've got to catch up fast. You've got a flyball pitcher on the mound. You've got a weak hitting secondbaseman. Why not, a la, football's five DB-defense prevent defense, put four outfielders in the game (a good-hitting outfielder instead of your no-stick 2b-man) (no direct insult to Matsui intended) and basically invite the other team to hit groundballs to the right of second base (some of which will get nabbed by the shortstop, some by your 1B man, some by your pitcher), all of which will go for singles anyway, and none of which will go into the gaps because you're playing four outfielders? I understand that some teams have good hitting 2bmen, and have no slugging OFers on the bench, etc. but this scenario must come up for some teams some times, perhaps 10 or 20 games a year. I've seen something like it maybe 10 times in my life. Why is that?

KC Jan 15 2006 03:04 PM

Why not a keg at third base and four fouls you're out too? And any ball hit over that cheap left field fence inside that line in left center is a ground rule double.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 15 2006 03:44 PM

Does this mean you don't like my idea?

KC Jan 15 2006 03:52 PM

It's an interesting idea topic for a thread, I guess ... I couldn't begin to answer the "why" though.

MFS62 Jan 15 2006 04:47 PM

Bret, are you sure you're not really Tim McCarver? That sounds like something he would think of. He likes to question "traditional" defensive positioning. He has droned on for long stretches of air time about how to properly guard the line. Later

Frayed Knot Jan 15 2006 04:56 PM

"Why not?" Common sense?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 15 2006 05:36 PM

I hate common sense. If you think about it (go ahead, FK, it won't hurt a bit) it's just a situational variation on the Williams/Thome/etc. shift, only it's ceding a little bingle to everyone on the other team. In the situation I'm discussing, one or two more runs by the opposition doesn't really matter much--do you care if you get beaten by 8 runs or 10 runs?--and the pitcher would be challenging the opposition to put groundball to the right side of the infield with stuff that usually gets a lot of fly balls. I'm thinking it wouldn't be that easy to do, and not really worth doing because you need four straight grounders to second base (to the 1Bman's right, the ss's left, and too hard for the pitcher to nab it) just to get a single run. Meanwhile the pitcher is throwing mostly strikes (because he's not pitching too fine) and it would be damned hard to get a ball to land in the outfield. I'm not saying you'd do this a lot, but it just strikes me as strange that positioning in baseball is so conservative. Hell, I'd do this once in a while just to keep the other side trying to figure out a good strategy to defeat it. Here's another one: with a very slow runner up at bat, and with no men on base, wouldn't you think that, with a groundball pitcher, you'd play the outfield way in sometimes? In other words, you'd be willing to risk an extra-base hit, but only if the very slow batter can hit a fairly long fly ball (off a groundball pitcher). I'd think it would mess with the batter's head to know that he's being challenged to hit a particular type of hit. I'd love to see the 9-1 groundout once in a while.

Frayed Knot Jan 15 2006 08:34 PM

"I hate common sense" Obviously. So your point here seems to be that this defensive lineup would make it more difficult for the other team to have a BIG inning even as it makes it easier to allow them to score just a couple of runs ... or does it prevent runs being scored in general? --- Maybe teams should look into this more often then. But then it's OK even if they score more anyway since we'll now get 1 AB (or maybe even 2) from a somewhat better hitter since our weak-hitting MI-er has been replaced by that all important and frequently available slugging 4th OFer!! No telling how many runs he could erase during his AB(s). Essentially it sounds like you're trying a Chinese defensive scheme in order to get an extra AB from one of your bench players. Why not just PH him for your 2nd sacker and leave the big sloppy brute in to play 2nd if you're that desperate for offense?

Nymr83 Jan 15 2006 08:35 PM

Bret- my reasoning for NOT doig what you suggest is as follows- in a 162 game season every player is going to need some time off, and i'd prefer that my best players take that time at the least important times. down by 7 runs in the 7th inning i'd argue that the last 3 innings of that game will be amongst the least important of the season, so rather than replace my 2Bman with my 4th OFer i want to replace my best OFer with my 4th OFer and get him the rest of that game off.

smg58 Jan 15 2006 08:55 PM

It's not really any different than hockey teams pulling their goalie. I could see it in an elimination game, at least. Get the best combination of hitters you can out on the field and hope for the best.

Elster88 Jan 15 2006 10:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 15 2006 11:50 PM

.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 15 2006 11:40 PM

I don't think you'd come close to making back the runs you'd give away simply by replacing one hitter with another, especially considering that other hitter might come to bat only once. I figure a good team could score an awful lot of runs against an opponent with no second baseman. I don't think the strategy would be popular with the pitcher, but perhaps to solve that you make the shitty second baseman become the pitcher, since his bat is presumably better than the pitcher's.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 06:24 AM

="Nymr83"]Bret- my reasoning for NOT doig what you suggest is as follows- in a 162 game season every player is going to need some time off, and i'd prefer that my best players take that time at the least important times. down by 7 runs in the 7th inning i'd argue that the last 3 innings of that game will be amongst the least important of the season, so rather than replace my 2Bman with my 4th OFer i want to replace my best OFer with my 4th OFer and get him the rest of that game off. Well, this is just "giving up." Not that there's anything wrong with giving up, but I'm arguing that in a give-up situation you try some different strategy that will get you back into a game. I don't understand why your weak-hitting 2B man (who plays in the field all the time) wouuld need less rest than a slugging outfielder. That makes no sense. He could of course need more rest, but he could just as well need less rest, too. FK wrote: you're trying a Chinese defensive scheme in order to get an extra AB from one of your bench players. Why not just PH him for your 2nd sacker and leave the big sloppy brute in to play 2nd if you're that desperate for offense? Well, of course, the 4th outfielder WOULD be the secondbaseman, technically. What I'm saying is that positioning him IN the infield is the part that doesn't make much sense to me. You'd get the extra ABs, you'd avoid having to use an extra PHer, and you'd be challenging the other team to put runs together with a long series of one-station-at-a-time bingles, which I think may be contrary to their impulses. With a big lead, the general tendancy is to swing for the fences and try to accumulate a lot of XBHs--this would counteract that. It's not that different from DJ playing HoJo at short on days when Sid Fernandez pitched. His thinking was that Sid gave up very few grounders anyway, and Hojo hit a hell of a lot better than Elster. I'm just particularlizing a situation where you'd have even less reason than that to position HoJo in the infield, is all. As to the business of discouraging big- or little-innings, you do hear it said all the time (as in guarding the lines situations) that there are spots where teams try to encourage the opposition to score one run at a time, at the risk of allowing more big innings than usual. If that's the thinking behind the strategy, well, here you'd be doing the opposite. Nothing radical about that thinking, though I don't have any stats (other than that the practice obviously exists) to back me up. As to Dickshot's point that "a good team could score an awful lot of runs against an opponent with no second baseman", mebbe so. But there are big-slugging teams that, even when the opposition HAS a 2b-man, are loath to put together long sequences of single, single, single, single, etc to score a run. With a Sid Fernandez on the mound, this sort of team would be frustrated trying to aim hit after hit between the ss, the 1bman and pitcher, I think.

Nymr83 Jan 16 2006 08:57 AM

]Well, this is just "giving up." Not that there's anything wrong with giving up, but I'm arguing that in a give-up situation you try some different strategy that will get you back into a game. I don't understand why your weak-hitting 2B man (who plays in the field all the time) wouuld need less rest than a slugging outfielder. That makes no sense. He could of course need more rest, but he could just as well need less rest, too. my 2Bman will presumably be replaced by a backup IFer as well. Getting backups into games that are well out of reach serves not only to rest the starters but to get the backups some ABs and hopefully keep them a bit fresher.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 16 2006 10:35 AM

]As to Dickshot's point that "a good team could score an awful lot of runs against an opponent with no second baseman", mebbe so. But there are big-slugging teams that, even when the opposition HAS a 2b-man, are loath to put together long sequences of single, single, single, single, etc to score a run. With a Sid Fernandez on the mound, this sort of team would be frustrated trying to aim hit after hit between the ss, the 1bman and pitcher, I think. I guess. But what's Sid Fernandez still doing on the mound in this game, and why is the opposing manager telling his big sluggers to swing for the downs when he can see a junk defense? Why doesn't he get his second string, bunt-and-run guys in there? I just don't think the whole thing makes a lotta sense.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 11:42 AM

Well, Sid Fernandez isn't the point--I was just naming you an extreme flyball pitcher. There are hundreds of Fernandez types in MLB history--not all stars, not all fat, not all Hawaiian. Okay so you get all the good longball hitters out of the lineup? Maybe that's the point at which you put in your backup infielder (which you would have had to do the next half-inning after PHing your slugging outfielder for your weakhitting 2B -man anyway.) That's worst-case scenario, in which you're no worse off and the other team has all its subs in the game by the sixth inning with their bench totally depleted. You've used one-pinchhitter. I call that an advantage. My larger point is that most managers just go with the lineup, the game plan, that they had when the score was 0-0 in the first. It just strikes me as a very conservative, very traditional approach to strategy that could use some innovation. if you put your extreme flyball relievers into games where you're down by a lot in the middle innings, and you used a 4 outfielders strategy, and instead of losing 19 out of 20 games where you were down by more than six runs by the sixth, you only lost 17 out of 20, I promise you this would become standard practice. How many MORE games do you think you could lose with this strategy, anyway? It's not as though this is a very high risk, is it?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 11:47 AM

Nymr83 wrote: [my 2Bman will presumably be replaced by a backup IFer as well. You're putting a primarily defensive player into a game where you're down by seven runs? Why? So you can keep the score the way it is? This is my point--in a game where you're up by seven runs in the sixth inning, you want your defensively gifted subs to get into the game so you can keep the scoring low (for both sides, because that is the effect these players have on the game), so why would you use the same strategy when you're in the opposite position? Because that was the strategy you were told to use when you got your first can of Desenex? If you want to load up on defensive specialists when you're up by a lot, doesn't that kinda mean that when you're down by a lot you want to try to jam all the hitters into the game that you can, whatever the defensive costs? Isn't that the point where you'd put Kevin Mitchell in for Raffy Santana? I think all I'm saying is that that's also the point where you would want to adjust your positioning radically as well.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 16 2006 11:52 AM

As stated above, most managers see these kinds of blowouts as a chance to get their regulars some needed rest, and a chance for the bench guys to shake off some rust. If it's July 1, and you're down 12-1 in the fourth, I think you get the greater benefit by pulling the regulars and hoping that the bench guys stage an improbable comeback. An innovative manager might think otherwise if it's the fourth game of the LCS, and every game is important to win. Maybe in such a case it might make sense to do something unorthodox. Of course, you could argue that the smartest of managers would give this strategy (or any other similarly extreme strategy) a test run in July just in case he's ever in that situation in October.

Elster88 Jan 16 2006 12:01 PM

] I think all I'm saying is that that's also the point where you would want to adjust your positioning radically as well. Do you really think moving the second baseman into the fourth outfielder would result in less runs for the other team? If so, why not just play them that way the entire game, regardless of the score?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 12:06 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: As stated above, most managers see these kinds of blowouts as a chance to get their regulars some needed rest, and a chance for the bench guys to shake off some rust. If it's July 1, and you're down 12-1 in the fourth, I think you get the greater benefit by pulling the regulars and hoping that the bench guys stage an improbable comeback. An innovative manager might think otherwise if it's the fourth game of the LCS, and every game is important to win. Maybe in such a case it might make sense to do something unorthodox. Of course, you could argue that the smartest of managers would give this strategy (or any other similarly extreme strategy) a test run in July just in case he's ever in that situation in October. Yancy--I'm not making myself clear. I'm NOT talking about going with your starters longer, or not resting your starters, or not giving your bench guys some innings. I'm talking strategy. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm talking about putting Victor Diaz into the game instead of Joe McEwing at 2b and positioning him 100 feet further back . One player off your bench instead of another player, only the player I'm talking about has more offensive ability, which is what you're primarily in need of in a game where you're down by a lot, and you're positioning him to concede a few extra singles and prevent some extra base hits.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 12:10 PM

Elster88 wrote: ] I think all I'm saying is that that's also the point where you would want to adjust your positioning radically as well. Do you really think moving the second baseman into the fourth outfielder would result in less runs for the other team? If so, why not just play them that way the entire game, regardless of the score? Do you really think moving the first baseman and third baseman closer to the lines prevents runs from scoring? Then why not play them that way the entire game, regardless of the score?

Elster88 Jan 16 2006 12:24 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 16 2006 12:29 PM

You play the lines when trying to avoid doubles. Personally, I don't believe in a no-doubles defense, for the same question I posed to you. (This being the question that you said back to me instead of answering.) You play your new defense when trying to....what exactly? Get the other team to try to hit singles in the vacated hole because that will keep them from scoring runs? Sounds like something that should be played permanently, if it works.

Frayed Knot Jan 16 2006 12:26 PM

There's also the notion of the "extreme fly ball pitcher" that's part of the basis for this whole thing. A quick check of the NL pitchers with significant innings shows only 7 with GB/FB ratios of less than 1/1. Fly ball pitchers are not like ground ball specialists where it's difficult to hit them "the other way"; Brandon Webb, Derrick Lowe and the like can have 3/1 or even 4/1 ratios of GBs to FBs while the results from all but the most extreme FB pitchers are still on the ground [u:495a5bbd02]half the time or more[/u:495a5bbd02]. So it's not like this newly formed hole in the defense is going to go unexploited due to the guy on the mound or that the batters are going to have to tie themselves in knots (frayed or otherwise) trying to take advantage of it.

Nymr83 Jan 16 2006 12:28 PM

]I'm talking about putting Victor Diaz into the game instead of Joe McEwing at 2b and positioning him 100 feet further back Considering that Diaz was once a 2Bman he can't be bad enough there that you wouldn't just leave him in the infield... I still think resting the regulars is the best thing you can do when you fall down by that many runs, the better question YOU should be asking is whether this strategy of yours is at all viable in a situation where you aren't going to pull the regulars because you have a much better chance at a comeback (say down 2 runs.)

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 12:34 PM

Elster88 wrote: You play the lines when trying to avoid doubles. Personally, I don't believe in a no-doubles defense, for the same question I posed to you. (This being the question that you said back to me instead of answering.) You play your new defense when trying to....what exactly? Get the other team to try to hit singles in the vacated hole because that will keep them from scoring runs? Sounds like something that should be played permanently, if it works. \\ I was trying to respond to "facile answer." So is there any form of defensive positioning you DO believe in? Do you think managers are dumbasses for drinking the "no-doubles defense "Kool-aid?

Johnny Dickshot Jan 16 2006 12:45 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: My larger point is that most managers just go with the lineup, the game plan, that they had when the score was 0-0 in the first. They do?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 12:47 PM

Nymr83 wrote: I still think resting the regulars is the best thing you can do when you fall down by that many runs, How is putting Diaz, a good offensive/poor defensive bench player, into the game instead of Joe McEwing, a worse offensive/better defensive bench player, not giving your starting 2Bman the same exact amount of rest?

Elster88 Jan 16 2006 12:50 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"]You play the lines when trying to avoid doubles. Personally, I don't believe in a no-doubles defense, for the same question I posed to you. (This being the question that you said back to me instead of answering.) You play your new defense when trying to....what exactly? Get the other team to try to hit singles in the vacated hole because that will keep them from scoring runs? Sounds like something that should be played permanently, if it works. \\ I was trying to respond to "facile answer." So is there any form of defensive positioning you DO believe in? Do you think managers are dumbasses for drinking the "no-doubles defense "Kool-aid? Do you really want to know what defensive positioning I believe in? Or are you just trying to avoid answering the question? I don't see why your defense, if it works when down by a lot of runs, wouldn't work all the time. If you really want to know more about how I feel about defensive positioning, then I can answer your new questions. But right now I'm curious about your defensive strategy. Edit: I said facile analogy, not answer. I took it out because I figured it would offend you, and I don't want you to feel like you're being picked on.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 01:00 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"] My larger point is that most managers just go with the lineup, the game plan, that they had when the score was 0-0 in the first. They do? Tell me how they change their basic strategies when they get behind in the game. I'm not talking about give-up strategies--giving your starters a rest so they can play better in games beyond this one. I'm talking about strategies designed to win this one, despite being far behind. I'm saying that they don't do everything they can to maximize the chances of coming back big. Think of all they do to preserve big leads--they'll put defensive specialists in wherever they can, even if they're too weak with the bat to play regularly--they have specific moves to preserve leads. I'm arguing that there are other, unused moves they have at their disposal when they're on the other end of blowouts that they don't really use.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 01:15 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 16 2006 03:28 PM

Elster88 wrote: [Do you really want to know what defensive positioning I believe in? Or are you just trying to avoid answering the question? I don't see why your defense, if it works when down by a lot of runs, wouldn't work all the time. Sure I want to hear your answer. The advantage to my defense is that it's geared for a high scoring game--you get all your best offensive players (usually outfielders) into the game and you raise the other team's OBP considerably (and lower their SLG pct). Since OBP is, over the long haul, the other team's primary offensive weapon, you'll get killed with this in the long run as an every day strategy. You will give up more runs more that way, no doubt. But the runs will be distributed differently. With a high OBP offense, the other team will have a lot of big innings. They'll score 50 runs over ten full games, but they'll be distributed more like 8, 6, 1, 7, 0, 1, 9, 7, 5, 6, while with a more normal defense they'll score only 47 runs over the same 10 game period, but the distribution will be 7, 5, 2, 6, 1, 2, 8, 6, 4, 6. Obviously, you want to give up the 4.7 runs per game as a general policy rather than the 5.0 rpg, but in this special situation your goal is to maximize the chances of giving up 0 runs, which the first model provides.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 16 2006 01:16 PM

It would be interesting to know what managers have done in important (such as postseason) games in which they've fallen way behind. One thing I can think of is using one of your better pitchers in relief, instead of your standard mop-up man. (Example: Dwight Gooden pitching in relief of Ron Darling in 1988 NLCS Game 7.) But that doesn't address what I think is Bret's point: Is there a desperation way of increasing your offense, that you can switch to mid-game? When a team has a big lead and switches to a better defensive alignment, they're possibly sacrificing additional offense in an attempt to keep their big lead. (When you're up 12-1, scoring that 13th run isn't as important as avoiding the error that can lead to a big inning.) But is the reverse true? If you're down 12-1, can you switch to your best offensive lineup? Is defense less important when you're down by many runs?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 01:20 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: It would be interesting to know what managers have done in important (such as postseason) games in which they've fallen way behind. One thing I can think of is using one of your better pitchers in relief, instead of your standard mop-up man. (Example: Dwight Gooden pitching in relief of Ron Darling in 1988 NLCS Game 7.) But that doesn't address what I think is Bret's point: Is there a desperation way of increasing your offense, that you can switch to mid-game? When a team has a big lead and switches to a better defensive alignment, they're possibly sacrificing additional offense in an attempt to keep their big lead. (When you're up 12-1, scoring that 13th run isn't as important as avoiding the error that can lead to a big inning.) But is the reverse true? If you're down 12-1, can you switch to your best offensive lineup? Is defense less important when you're down by many runs? You've gotten my point, and probably expressed it better than I did, Yancy.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 16 2006 01:29 PM

I understand your point too. But understanding your point and advocating that a manager remove the second baseman aren't the same thing. I in fact think removing the second baseman would be a good strategy if you wanted to fall further behind.

Nymr83 Jan 16 2006 01:40 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Nymr83"]I still think resting the regulars is the best thing you can do when you fall down by that many runs, How is putting Diaz, a good offensive/poor defensive bench player, into the game instead of Joe McEwing, a worse offensive/better defensive bench player, not giving your starting 2Bman the same exact amount of rest? you're trying to change my words around, its not going to work. i'm not putting diaz in the game INSTEAD of mcewing, i'm putting them BOTH in at different positions so as to rest MORE of my starters

Nymr83 Jan 16 2006 01:43 PM

]But is the reverse true? If you're down 12-1, can you switch to your best offensive lineup? Is defense less important when you're down by many runs? even if your sole objective is winning the game (ignoring everything about resting players etc) i still say no. your chances of scoring more runs may have gone up but your chances of allowing even more runs even if you do score has gone up as well, and i'd have to say that it has gone up even more than your chance to score, if not why isnt that guy starting in the first place?

Yancy Street Gang Jan 16 2006 01:47 PM

Well, the reason he may not be starting could be because when you're making out the lineup, the score is 0-0 and you're looking for a balance of offense and defense. Once you're up 12-1, it's probably safe to jettison some offense and increase the defense. I agree that the opposite doesn't appear to be true. Putting a bunch of hitters who can't field into the game (assuming you have many such players on the bench) might result in the score becoming 18-9 instead of 12-1. But either way you're on the losing end.

Elster88 Jan 16 2006 02:10 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Elster88"][Do you really want to know what defensive positioning I believe in? Or are you just trying to avoid answering the question? I don't see why your defense, if it works when down by a lot of runs, wouldn't work all the time. Sure I want to hear your answer. The advantage to my defense is that it's geared for a high scoring game--you get all your best offensive players (usually outfielders) into the game and you raise the other team's OBP considerably (and lower their SLG pct). Since OBP is, over the long haul, the other team's primary offensive weapon, you'll get killed with this in the long run as an every day strategy. You will give up more up more that way, no doubt. But the runs will be distributed differently. With a high OBP offense, the other team will have a lot of big innings. They'll score 50 runs over ten full games, but they'll be distributed more like 8, 6, 1, 7, 0, 1, 9, 7, 5, 6, while with a more normal defense they'll score only 47 runs over the same 10 game period, but the distribution will be 7, 5, 2, 6, 1, 2, 8, 6, 4, 6. Obviously, you want to give up the 4.7 runs per game as a general policy rather than the 5.0 rpg, but in this special situation your goal is to maximize the chances of giving up 0 runs, which the first model provides. An excellent explanation, if the numbers work out that way. I see your argument now. I just don't think removing the second baseman would work out this way. It'd be interesting to see in practice. One problem I see is that once a batter reaches first you'd want to put your second baseman back in his normal position for the force play, right? And since OBP is being raised, odds are good on someone reaching first.

Elster88 Jan 16 2006 02:22 PM

Thinking about it some more: I just think that the rise in OBP would be so great that it would offset the decrease in SLG. Someone should try this out with their little league team.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 03:14 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 16 2006 03:31 PM

Elster88 wrote: [ It'd be interesting to see in practice. The funny part is that you almost never get back a 7 or 8 run lead anyway, so you could experiment witih putting your players' wives on the field for all the difference it will make in your final W-L record--that's one of the reasons I wonder more managers don't try some experimental strategies like this. I'm not even arguing that this strategy is inevitably right. I'm arguing "What do you have to lose, really?" So it doesn't work and you get killed worse-- dead is dead, correct? But it could work, and you could have figured out a strategy that nets you a win or two per year. nymr86--You're just talking about the same old "get your regulars out of the game and give up" philosophy that I'm trying to improve. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that, and it's what's been done for centuries now, but that's the philosophy I'm calling into question. It's not much of a response to say "No, try this" when "this" is the status quo. I wouldn't dream of trying to twist your timeless words around.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 03:23 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I understand your point too. But understanding your point and advocating that a manager remove the second baseman aren't the same thing. I in fact think removing the second baseman would be a good strategy if you wanted to fall further behind. You're probably right. I don't disagree a bit. Over ten games, if you institute the defense and offense I'm suggesting, you might give up 50 runs and score 40 with a team that normally scores and surrenders equal amounts of runs. But do you care how runs you give up, or how many you score? Not ultimately.You're interested in how many games you win. In this situation, you're just interested in turning these games into slugfests, because when you're down seven runs in the seventh, a slugfest is your only chance of getting back in it. If you set up ten slugfest scenarios, and you lose nine of them, which will happen if youre starting out 7 runs down, so what? You were going to lose those games anyway. It's the off-chance that one of those times, with Victor Diaz playing a ridiculously deep 2b and Piazza in for Mientkiewicz (with Castro in for Piazza), your offense might just explode to 10 runs in the last few innings, and you will have stolen a win. That's my theory, anyway.

Rotblatt Jan 16 2006 04:26 PM

Interesting idea! It'd be really fun to run simulations (ala Baseball Prospectus) of this strategy a couple million times to see what happens. I have a feeling, though, that the impact of the move would be negligible, even over the course of an entire season. I mean, we're talking about maybe 3 or 4 innings worth of offense at best, right? And that probably equates with maybe two extra at bats for our fourth outfielder per game. Now, we had only 17 games last year where we lost by 5 or more runs; even if we round that up to 20, we're only talking about 80 at bats. Matsui contributed .09 RC every plate appearance last year, while Victor Diaz contributed .14, so in our best-case scenario, we would net 4 RC over the span of the season--not even enough to affect the outcome of one 5-run blowout. And that's BEFORE taking into account whatever negative impact our 4th outfielder would have defensively. If we had, say, Rey Ordonez playing short, his clone playing 2nd and HIS clone playing center, it'd be a different story, but that's a pretty unrealistic example . . .

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 05:47 PM

I get it that this has few, if any, practical ramefactions, most likely. It is funny, isn't it, that the exact opposite measures (putting in glove guys for your big offensive threats) is standard practice, practically a no-brainer, when you HAVE a huge lead, no? I'm not sure what the huge difference is here. We accept the one (largely, I think, because it happens all the time, and has for decades) and totally reject the other (because it's weird, it doesn't look like baseball, it's four outs and a keg on third base, as KC put it.) I'm not so sure that this isn't just blind idolatry of tradition.

Nymr83 Jan 16 2006 05:52 PM

] It is funny, isn't it, that the exact opposite measures (putting in glove guys for your big offensive threats) is standard practice, practically a no-brainer, when you HAVE a huge lead, no? I'm not sure what the huge difference is here. going to defensive replacements in the LAST inning has no downside, just as pinch-hitting in your last at-bat has none, but to do it earlier is something i have criticized in the past.... i can remember Piazza specifically being pulled from games where the Mets had a small lead and then him not being there when it suddenly got tied up again.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 06:01 PM

Nymr83 wrote: [going to defensive replacements in the LAST inning has no downside. Well, it does if the defensive replacements screw the pooch and the other side ties the game up, and you have to bat all through extra innings with your scrubinnies, doesn't it?

Elster88 Jan 16 2006 08:07 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: It is funny, isn't it, that the exact opposite measures (putting in glove guys for your big offensive threats) is standard practice, practically a no-brainer, when you HAVE a huge lead, no? I'm not sure what the huge difference is here. We accept the one (largely, I think, because it happens all the time, and has for decades) and totally reject the other (because it's weird, it doesn't look like baseball, it's four outs and a keg on third base, as KC put it.) This is stretching it a bit. The opposite of subbing in your best fielders is done, too. I've seen pinch hitters used before. They just don't stay in the rest of the game the way a defensive sub.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 16 2006 10:49 PM

Well, pinch-hitters are used with a big lead, with a small lead, with a tie, with a small deficit, and with a big deficit. What I'm talking about is focussed on having a big lead, and saying "To hell with D, what we need is O," more or less analogous to putting in the gloves with a lead and saying "To hell with O, what we need now is D."

Johnny Dickshot Jan 16 2006 11:27 PM

How to come back from a big deficit late in a game you have to win: 5-0 after 5: METS 6TH: Alfonzo doubled to center; Olerud singled to center [Alfonzo to third]; Piazza out on a sacrifice fly to left [Alfonzo scored]; Ventura doubled to right [Olerud to third]; Hamilton singled to second [Olerud scored, Ventura scored]; MULHOLLAND REPLACED MILLWOOD (PITCHING); AGBAYANI BATTED FOR CEDENO; Agbayani walked [Hamilton to second]; Ordonez lined into a double play (shortstop unassisted) [Hamilton out at second]; 3 R, 4 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Mets 3, Braves 5. 7-3 after 6: METS 7TH: SMOLTZ REPLACED HERNANDEZ (PITCHING); M. FRANCO BATTED FOR COOK; M. Franco doubled to center; Henderson doubled to left [M. Franco scored]; Alfonzo flied to right [Henderson to third]; Olerud singled to right [Henderson scored]; Piazza homered [Olerud scored]; REMLINGER REPLACED SMOLTZ (PITCHING); Ventura flied to right; Hamilton grounded out (first unassisted); 4 R, 4 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Mets 7, Braves 7. 7-7 after 7: METS 8TH: Agbayani singled to right; Ordonez out on a sacrifice bunt (pitcher unassisted) [Agbayani to second]; MORA BATTED FOR HERSHISER; Mora singled to center [Agbayani scored]; Henderson forced Mora (shortstop to second); Henderson stole second; Alfonzo walked; Olerud flied to left; 1 R, 2 H, 0 E, 2 LOB. Mets 8, Braves 7. I won't remind you how it ended, but seems like, in this game, the best chance for the O to come back came with strategic pinch-hitting when it was needed, and not before: For instance, had Agbayani replaced Ordonez as this strategy might have suggested, then Cedeno has to face Mulholland, or Mora has to PH 2 innings earlier, leaving a guy like Hershiser to hit for himself with the go-ahead run on base. On obvious edit: Let's not overlook the importance of your starting lineup hitting a shitload of doubles & home runs.

Zvon Jan 17 2006 01:05 AM

This is a most interesting thread. ^That game was a classic JD, and great post there. And Yancys post of support was really well put. Bret, I commend your yearning for new strategies in this old game. But like in JDs breakdown above, so many things have to go right for it to payoff. In either case, of going with a conventional strategy or a novel one like yours, so many things have to end up going right for you. Baseballs a game where, when managed well, options used will create other options, and if you play them in the right order, it pays off. But ill tell you what. Id try that in just the right situation. Say the 2nd baseman is slated for a rest, and slumping to boot. And the pitcher shows that he is, on that day, getting pop ups and fly outs primarily. If my gut said I had a 4th outfielder who had a better chance of continuing any offensive flow set in motion, Id give that strategy a shot. For a game that wasnt important. Because truthfully, Id do it for the wrong reason, because i would only try that if i had actually given up on the game,....pretty much. And if the O steps up and delivers those needed runs, and the opposing team cant take advantage of the holy defense, I look like a brainiac. But soooo many things have to go just right. I could more so seeing it done only against certain batters during an attempt to make that comeback, splitting the 4th outfielder from 2nd to OF when %s dictated. And like someone mentioned, if they do get afew seeing eye bingles thru that hole, you do eventually want a guy to be there for the force play at that point, i would think. If the other team is able to hit grounders off the fly ball pitcher, you have to be flexable and start thinkin conventional double play. Anyone remember when Gil Hodges put on the 4 outfield deep shift vs McCovey in '69? Most interesting thread, which more than likely shows im not such a good manager as well as G.M.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 17 2006 06:51 AM

="Johnny Dickshot"]How to come back from a big deficit late in a game you have to win: 5-0 after 5: METS 6TH: Alfonzo doubled to center; Olerud singled to center [Alfonzo to third]; Piazza out on a sacrifice fly to left [Alfonzo scored]; Ventura doubled to right [Olerud to third]; Hamilton singled to second [Olerud scored, Ventura scored]; MULHOLLAND REPLACED MILLWOOD (PITCHING); AGBAYANI BATTED FOR CEDENO; Agbayani walked [Hamilton to second]; Ordonez lined into a double play (shortstop unassisted) [Hamilton out at second]; 3 R, 4 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Mets 3, Braves 5. I'm not saying that catching up by conventional means is imposssible, and I'm not saying that flooding your lineup with early pinch-hitters is the only way to go. But please notice that in the example you chose NOT pinch-hitting for Rey (the key difference between your conventional strategy and my loopy radical one) got you the worst possible, most rally-killing, event. At that point in the game, the Mets were only down by two runs, with runners on first and second and one out. You don't know (none of us can, of course) whether pinchhitting for Rey in that unconventional spot would have simply caused the game to be tied up, or the Mets ahead even, innings before it actually happened. Of course by that point you were only down by two, so maybe this strategy comes off the table anyway. Good job tracking down a specific example, JD.