From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: DUMB inexcusable play
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:34:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <19920410113206SASCHO@mvs.sas.com> SASCHO@mvs.sas.com (SASCHO) writes:
>>>In baseball, you never make the third out at third. NEVER. You can score
>>>from second on everything that would allow you to score from third.
>>>The only exception is a PB/WP.
>>
>>Well, or an infield hit, or a ground ball error, or a balk.
> 
>You're right, but those are rare. 

Actually, not as rare (collectively) as passed balls/wild pitches.  Anyone
have exact counts for last year?

>An error will still allow most
>guys to score, if they hustle. Assuming the ball bounces away
>from the fielder, or the throw bounces a few feet away from first.

Most guys will score from second on a ground ball where the throw to first
isn't handled cleanly but doesn't go into right field?  I don't think I buy
that.  Besides, as Sherri pointed out recently, the vast majority of errors
are not throwing errors, and do not allow runners to advance extra bases.

>>Actually, we can compute just how dumb this was, to some extent.

[gory details deleted]

>>On the whole, I'd say that it was not a wise decision, but was probably less
>>stupid than a sacrifice bunt in the fourth inning...
> 
>OK, I knew this day would come. Stats prove a lot, and are valuable.
>However, they don't (can't) show emotion and attitude. The general rules
>(unwritten, of course) of baserunning are: never make the first out at
>third, never make the third out at third, make the defense make the
>third out at home. i.e., sending a runner on a base hit w/ 2 outs and
>a runner on second. Put pressure on the defense.

Oddly enough, I agree with you. :-)

>As a player for several years, at a fairly high level, I can tell
>you that these rules make sense. They work most of the time, and
>guys generally believe them. The psychological impact of a guy
>getting thrown at at third w/ 2 outs puts stress on the team.
>If he steals and makes it, guys generally aren't elated. They are
>relieved that they dodged a bullet. I don't think it is wise. 

Sure.  Besides, there's a bigger lift to the team (whatever that is) from
having a guy score from second on a hit than there is from having him score
from third on a balk.  If the two are about equal in expected value, then
there's no reason not to play for the one that's more fun.

(Unless, that is, Jason Grimsley is on the mound, or Jack Morris.  If you've
got a guy with an above-average WP/balk/etc. rate, then by God you're better
off at third base.  If the team knows *why* you're stealing, they probably
won't stress out as much if you don't make it...  Conversely, if Jeff Robinson
is on the mound, you should just stand on the bag and wait.)

>I think for all of the importance of stats, there are things that
>can't be measured. 

As I'm sure is obvious to everyone by now, I equate "can't be measured" with
"doesn't matter".  However, the stuff you're describing should be measurable.
If batters really do "press" and hit worse after seeing lots of DPs early in
the game, that will show up in the numbers.  I have no trouble believing that
some kinds of play affect team morale adversely, but I've yet to see anything
to back up the notion that players with good morale outperform those same 
players with bad morale.  That, too, should be measurable, just by comparing
enough plate appearances of obvious high-morale and low-morale situations...


-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball