Master Index of Archived Threads


Corresponding with Bob Keiser

Edgy DC Nov 06 2006 12:05 PM

I found a column by aa man named Bob Keiser, in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, with the following quote: In the wake of the Cardinals win, one pivotal moment could have changed everything. Mets manager Willie Randolph made the boneheaded move of the postseason in Game 7 of the NLCS when, with runners on first and second and no out in the bottom if the ninth, trailing St. Louis 3-1, he sent Cliff Floyd up to pinch hit. The right move was to bunt the runners up. Floyd can't bunt, and the Cardinals knew that, and struck him out, and the Mets' season ended a few minutes later. Now, we discussed the move here at the time, and most of us participating were of the opinion that Wilie could have gone either way, and he showed guts in going the way he did. The move wasn't necessarily right, but it was certainly defensible (not so boneheaded), and Willie so defended it when asked. So, I wrote to him, defending it, even though I was eh about it. This move didn't hurt the Mets in the least. In actual effects, the team got the exact same result that a bunt would have accomplished, getting the tying run into scoring position with Carlos Beltran up. Now, it's probably more illustrative to look at possible outcomes than actual ones, as the same sequence (lineout by Reyes, walk to Lo Duca) is unlikely to happen after a bunt, so feel free to argue that it's easier to get a guy home from second with one out than to get a guy home from first with zero, but I'd like to see the data. Willie was also playing against the book here, playing for the win at home, sending up a batter that can do more than bring the tying run around but the winning one, with a homer. But playing against the book is no sin, playing against the odds is. I'm not particularly for the move or against it. (As a fan, I admire the guts it took, but at the same time, my heart breaks if Floyd hits a grounder into an easy double play.) But I'd like to see the odds tell me it was the wrong move He replied: Hi Edgy... Bill James has done several examinations of the sacrifice bunt, and while I can't quote exact numbers, his conclusion is that the sac is ONLY of value in that exact situation --- last at-bat, getting the tying or winning run to second base with less than two out, and making the defense adjust. Plus, the rule of thumb is to play for the tie at home. By using Floyd, he put the Cards on notice that he wasn't bunting, which changes the way they play defense. Cliff Floyd's last sacrifice bunt came in --- 1997! I should have dug up that stat and used it when I wrote the item. You can argue a Floyd single makes the point moot. I just prefer to look at the long view. The Mets do not move the runners up, we'll never know how the next sequence would have played out, the Cards win the game, and a week later they win the series with Jeff Weaver winning Game 7. Why I love baseball. Thanks for writing. Bob And I just answered: Thanks for responding. I don't think the idea that Floyd's no bunter really enters into examining the move. The Mets were looking for an extra-base hit. I knew it, you knew it, the American people knew it. (Assumption here is that Floyd could take an extra base, but you know what I mean.) Sending Woodward or Franco or Hernandez up to the plate against a righthander like Wainwright doesn't increase the possiblity even if it does make the corners pinch up for the bunt. What really enters into it as a downside for me was the vastly increased possiblitiy of erasing the tying run with a double play. So, does this fella really have Bill James in his corner? I'm really interested in sending this one to the man himself. I do believe that if Floyd grounds into a double play, there wouldn't be enough room at Shea to hold the hate that would be directed at Wilile.

Frayed Knot Nov 06 2006 12:17 PM

Well James probably wouldn't base his decision on a whole lot more than what we discussed here. Our numbers crunching showed (in a generic sort of way) that a succesful bunt would have slightly increased the odds of tying the game (getting 2 runs in) while decreasing the odds of winning it in that inning (3 or more). We touched upon that to truly do it right you'd need to factor in the odds of actually pulling off the sac bunt (and sending anyone other than Floyd screams that the bunt was ON as loudly as Cliff did that it was off) plus consider the chance that the Cards would screw it up to our benefit, but didn't have those numbers handy when we did. P.S. What I suspect is that James (or James-ians) have cited the 1st + 2nd/no-out situation as one where they find the sac bunt acceptable in that it doesn't decrease your run-scoring odds and that this writer is somewhat aware of that and quickly made the leap to from his knowledge of this "fact" to calling something that didn't follow it "boneheaded"

cooby Nov 06 2006 11:02 PM

Hindsight is 20/20. Cliffy also could have boomed it against the fence.

Nymr83 Nov 06 2006 11:16 PM

sending Floyd up there was definetaly defensible even if you don't agree with it, to say otherwise is to over-dramatize the situation because you're a writer trying to sound like you've got something worth complaining about.

Elster88 Nov 07 2006 01:40 AM

cooby wrote: Hindsight is 20/20. As is foresight.