Master Index of Archived Threads


How Crazy a Play Was It?

AG/DC May 16 2008 09:57 AM

I'm wondering about Reyes play. It sucks tha the got out, but if he hadn't, it may have been the momentum changer (assuming there esists such a beast) this team needed. The Nats one on two plays that were marvelous and kind of dumb --- Guzman should have been in position earlier, and, in the ninth, Harris probably should have played that ball on the hop. But how crazy? I turned to the win expectancy finder. Lacking data from 2007 or 2008, I went with the data from 2001 to 2006. Entering the bottom of the eighth, down a run, with nobody yet up, the home team has a 29.5% chance of winning. (Keep in mind that this figure is independent of wheher Albert Pujols is due up or Scott Strickland.) Reyes' infield hit here, then, is huge. The leadoff man reaches first and that expectancy explodes from 29.5% to 41.9%. And again, that's for everyman. With a baserunner like Reyes, that should creep toward 50/50. In theory, having two recent MVP candidates like Wright and Beltran in the hole should also bump that, but they haven't been hitting. For our purposes, we'll stick with 41.9%. Then we get to the bunt. I don't want hang Randolph too high, because he's acting as part of greater culture of bunting sin, but the bunt here stinks like yesterday's fish. Assuming the bunt works (never really a safe assumption, but it did in this case), and the win expectancy drops to 35.5%. Ugh! Thanks for the mayonnaise sandwich, boys! No wonder Reyes wants to get more out of the play. His instincts knew that they were stepping backwards. So Reyes is looking at the big juicy falafel platter that is third base and he just can't help himself. How good would that be? Well, a typical man on third (and Reyes is atypical) in that situation gives a team a 55.7% chance of victory. We fans have reason to beleive we're going home winners. So somebody help me fill in the blank right now, because algebra is failing me. Reyes going for third there is a good play if he can make it successfully __% of the time.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 16 2008 10:01 AM

I have no idea of the percentages. But it wasn;t completely crazy. Seems to me he could have made it if -- a) he didn't hesitate at 2nd to think it over (though that was prolly the right thing to do) b) he better anticipated the throw arriving while Guznman was off the base. I think he could have dived beneath him and scrambled to the bag. I wonder what if any help Sandy Sr. was offering.

Benjamin Grimm May 16 2008 10:02 AM

I don't really think it was a crazy play. It took an extraordinary tag to get him out. He saw an opportunity (with one out; you're allowed to make the second out at third base) and went for it. As you said, it sucks that he was out, and Keith Hernandez was clucking that it was a bad move, but I can't really fault Jose for making the attempt. He's the guy whose job it is is to "make things happen." I'm much more down on Castillo for not scoring on that two-out fly-ball error earlier in the game. They're now spinning it to say he wouldn't have scored even if he had been running hard, but I don't buy it.

metirish May 16 2008 10:03 AM

Reyes had a slight hesitation , that didn't help , but Reyes scores form second on a hit so ..... I would like to add that I can't fault him for being aggressive.

AG/DC May 16 2008 10:11 AM

A number I forgot to add is that Reyes getting thrown out left the Mets with a win expectancy of 18.5%

batmagadanleadoff May 16 2008 10:31 AM

Assuming all your figures are correct, Reyes would have to reach third successfully slightly more than 45% of the time in order to justify his attempt -- that is, in order to increase the Mets chances of winning, over and above the 35.5% with Reyes remaining on second base. Now the trick here is to determine precisely how successfully Reyes' dash to third would be, in and of itself, under those same game conditions.

batmagadanleadoff May 16 2008 10:35 AM

One way to analyze that play is with a lot of hindsight. In other words, it was a bad play because Reyes was out. Reyes thought that he'd cover the 90 feet to the bag before the Nats third basemen could move 10 or 15 feet back into position. And as it turned out, the third baseman didn't even have to get all the way back to the base.

AG/DC May 16 2008 10:45 AM

Can you show your work? If you're right, it's hard to argue that it was the wrong play. Considering how superlative Guzman's effort had to be, it's hard to argue that Reyes doesn't slide in successfully more than 45.5% of the time. Add to that the possiblity of Boone throwing the ball away.

batmagadanleadoff May 16 2008 10:58 AM

AG/DC wrote: Can you show your work? Sure. The starting point here is that the Mets chances of winning were 35.5% had Reyes remained on second. Therefore, Reyes would have had to increase the Mets chances of winning (>35.5%) in order to justify his base attempt. According to your figures, the Mets chances of winning would have risen to 55.7 % had Reyes reached third safely, but dropped to 18.5% with Reyes getting thrown out. So ... Safe at third = 55.7%, Out at third = 18.5% Calculating a 45% success rate yields (.45 x 55.7) + (.55 x 18.5) = almost 35.5 -- the break-even point. _____________ Here is the formula: (break even success rate x 55.7) +((1-break even success rate) x 18.5) = 35.5 When you work out the formula, you get a break even success rate of slightly over 45%

AG/DC May 16 2008 11:06 AM

That's the formula I was looking for, though I'm still not seeing how you solved for X. Good job.

batmagadanleadoff May 16 2008 11:07 AM

AG/DC wrote: Can you show your work? If you're right, it's hard to argue that it was the wrong play. Considering how superlative Guzman's effort had to be, it's hard to argue that Reyes doesn't slide in successfully more than 45.5% of the time. Add to that the possiblity of Boone throwing the ball away. But this is pure speculation. First of all, how sure are you that Reyes makes that play more than 45% of the time? And even if he does, the next question to ask is how much more than 45% of the time would Reyes be successful. For example, if we could determine that Reyes makes that play 48% of the time, or 55% of the time, or some other number slightly higher thatn 45%, then Reyes would be risking a lot to gain a little. To say that the play in question needs to be successful 45% of the time to break-even, means that over the course of time, a team is neither better or worse at 45%.

AG/DC May 16 2008 11:09 AM

I don't know that. Baserunning takes judgment. Thanks to your formula, it's informed judgment. But eyeballing that play and what it took to make it, my judgement is that Reyes is safe more than 45.5% of the time.

batmagadanleadoff May 16 2008 11:13 AM

AG/DC wrote: I don't know that. Baserunning takes judgment. Thanks to your formula, it's informed judgment. But eyeballing that play and what it took to make it, my judgement is that Reyes is safe more than 45.5% of the time. I agree with the eyeballing part. I think that the best way to judge the play is probably by eyeballing it, by seeing it develop and processing all the baseball information in the fraction of a second it takes to decide if the runner should stay or go. But who's eyeballs are we using here?

Frayed Knot May 16 2008 12:03 PM

="metirish"]Reyes had a slight hesitation , that didn't help , Slight hesitation? -- Hell, he had all but stopped by the time he got to 2nd, which is the first problem right there. If he went into 2nd *thinking agressively* he'd be in MUCH better position to pull it off. Instead, he looked as if the play first occured to him right then, at which point he had to re-start from a dead stop and out-race the guy to 3rd. btw, it wasn't the 3rd baseman getting back to 3rd (he was fielding the bunt) it was the SS Guzman who realized *before Reyes did* that 3rd was open and therefore took off sooner. It ws similar to the play where Jeter got his shoulder busted up on opening day a few seasons back. In that case, it was the catcher covering up the uncovered base. ]I would like to add that I can't fault him for being aggressive. As noted above, if only he WAS being agressive. At least not soon enough.

attgig May 16 2008 01:20 PM

exactly FN. Guzman took off first. REyes should've seen Guzman 2-3 steps ahead of him and thought... ok, i'm fast, but he runs pretty good too. and stopped after a couple steps. If reyes was running full speed from the beginning, there's a lot better chance that he goes off without guzman realizing. stupid play. if he saw guzman running, and thought he could beat him... cocky play.

smg58 May 16 2008 01:23 PM

FK hit it on the head. To be aggressive and successful, you can't hesitate around the bases; you run to second and then see if the opportunity is there.

AG/DC May 16 2008 01:28 PM

Sometimes it's only after you've slowed to pin yourself to your current base that you see the opportunity for the next one open up. Sometimes that's what makes the opportunity for the next base open up. Sometimes, if you run aggressively all the way just in case an opportunity for another base opens up, the defense throws behind you and catches you over-running. He made the decision to go after he slowed, knowing he had slowed, but subesquently seeing an opportunity. That's where he made his judgment and that's what we have to judge ourselves. It's not like he decided, "I'm going to slow down, then run hard for third."

Frayed Knot May 16 2008 02:12 PM

Slowing down wasn't the problem. Walking into 2nd and coming to a complete stop before deciding that 3rd base was a possibility and then having to re-start w/no momentum was. If you go in even thinking about the next base then you lessen the chances of falling behind the eightball.