Bases-loaded intentional walks

[Gobias Industries]

I don't know how many people saw this but last night Ray's manager Joe Maddon elected to have Grant Balfour IBB Josh Hamilton with his club leading 7-3, bottom of the 9th with 2 outs.

 

It did wind up working, as he brought in Dan Wheeler to face Marlon Byrd, which resulted in a strikeout. But in hindsight, I think it's a horrible move by the Ray's skipper. Josh Hamilton is a very good hitter, but he still makes an out 63% of the time. I know he's afraid of the grand slam there, but IF that happens you're facing Byrd with no one on and 2 outs; most likely going into extra innings. I think the odds of Byrd hitting a bases clearing double after the IBB are probably greater than a Hamilton HR. Also, why not do the intentional unintentional walk, trying to get Hamilton to at least chase a pitch and hit himself into an out?

 

I think the only way you could justify this is if you're facing 2002-03 Barry Bonds.

 

 

(edit: changed thread title to make it a fit for this forum rather than the non-Brewers in-game thread --1992)

[bball123h]

You pretty much took the words out of my mouth: (Chances of Hamilton HR) < (Chances of Byrd double, triple, or home run). I'm sure it is slightly more complicated than that, but it seemed like a silly move. A Byrd HR (and he has been "hot" lately) ends the game. Glad it worked out, as I'm pulling for a Rays division title.

[Brian the Automator]

Wow, I'm sure Juan Salas was thrilled that Maddon essentially just charged him for an earned run.

[1992casey]

Inning recap, courtesy of USAToday:

Rangers ninth. Saltalamacchia singled to right. Davis walked on a full count, Saltalamacchia to second. Metcalf struck out. Balfour pitching. Vazquez walked on a full count, Saltalamacchia to third, Davis to second. Boggs grounded into fielder's choice, second baseman Zobrist to shortstop Bartlett, Saltalamacchia scored, Davis to third, Vazquez out. On defensive indifference, Boggs to second. Young walked. Hamilton was intentionally walked, Davis scored, Boggs to third, Young to second. Wheeler pitching. Byrd struck out.

 

2 runs, 1 hit, 0 errors, 3 left on. Rays 7, Rangers 4.

[eanelson4]

I think you have to call it a good decision because they won the game. Easy as that.

 

Yeah, Hamilton may have made an out, but he is as good of an RBI hitter as there is in baseball. A simple scenario like this changes that whole game:

 

Hamilton singles - 2 runs score (7-5)

Byrd Doubles - 2 runs score (7-7)

 

if Hamilton gets a hit there, the entire momentum of the game changes. I believe this has a lot to do with the outcome of a game.

[bball123h]

You don't need to call anything a good decision just because the results are good. His decision lowered the chances of success (winning), but a bad decision does not mean you are guaranteed to fail. Total guesstimation, but say before the walk, the Rays had a 15% chance of giving up 4 or more runs and, after the walk, that was raised to 20%. Still a bad decision, but a wide window of success.

 

Edit: Logan did my homework. Chance of winning dropped 5.2%, down to 89.8%. Bad decision with high likelihood of success.

[TSack27]

Anyone know the history of this happening?

 

I recall this being done with Bonds years ago (maybe even back to his Pirates day), but how often does this happen vs. how often does it turn out the desired results?

[logan82]

IBB changed the odds of winning from 95% to 89.8%.

 

There are very few times when an IBB would be a good idea. I wouldn't call this one of them. There is only a 5% chance that Hamilton would have hit a HR.

[Beast Light]

Didn't the Blue Jays intentionally walk Frank Thomas with the bases loaded when they met in the ALCS?

[MJLiverock]

I like it. Especially with 2 outs in the ninth. A four run lead, giving away one run to avoid pitching to a guy who can tie it with one swing isn't too bad of a gamble. Hamilton is lefty, kills righties, Balfour can't find the zone on that day (mistake pitch equals gone and tie game), and Byrd is no where near the hitter Hamilton is. I

 

n Hamilton's short career vs. righties he hits a HR 1/14 AB's or an extra base hit 1/7 AB's. Marlon Byrd in his career gets an extra base 1/13.4 AB's or hits a HR 1/55 AB's. So the chances of Hamilton hitting a HR was pretty much equal to Byrd getting an extra base hit, not to mention Wheeler being much more effective vs. RH'ers.

[eanelson4]

If the only positive outcome is to win the game, can't you make it simple and say that any decision which leads to that outcome is a good decision?

[cwolf2012]

"If the only positive outcome is to win the game, can't you make it simple and say that any decision which leads to that outcome is a good decision?"

 

Because hindsight is never a good way to judge the validity of a decision.

 

EDIT: Let's use a poker analogy to illustrate the point: You have a 2 and 7 preflop. An opponent pushes all in and shows you AA. You call anyway. You win the hand with 3 twos. Does that make it the correct decision to have called in the first place? Or every time in that same situation?

 

If you say 'yes', then there is no argument here because you don't know probability and game theory.

[markedman5]

So walking Craig Counsell to pitch to Ryan Braun is a good idea as long as Braun makes an out?

 

Just want to make sure I understand the logic correctly.

[Gobias Industries]

You make some good points MJLiverock, but I still can't defend this.

 

A Marlon Byrd bloop double at worst puts runners on 2nd and 3rd, leaving the Rangers only needing a single to win it.

 

I think the IBB walk just put the Rays in a vulnerable spot. Wheeler could have made two great pitches to the next two batters, and still could have lost because of check swing double and ten-hopper up the middle, or some other luck based hit.

[eanelson4]

"If the only positive outcome is to win the game, can't you make it simple and say that any decision which leads to that outcome is a good decision?"

 

Because hindsight is never a good way to judge the validity of a decision.

 

EDIT: Let's use a poker analogy to illustrate the point: You have a 2 and 7 preflop. An opponent pushes all in and shows you AA. You call anyway. You win the hand with 3 twos. Does that make it the correct decision to have called in the first place? Or every time in that same situation?

 

If you say 'yes', then there is no argument here because you don't know probability and game theory.

I do know probability and game theory. I'm simply saying that he took a chance, and the outcome was positive, there for it appears to be a good decision based on his information at hand. I would also like to think that baseball is much more dynamic than is poker. I think momentum has more to do with the outcome of a baseball game than a poker game.

 

Markredmanman5 - I guess it depends on what you are looking at, short term or long term. My statement was directed at short term results in that they won the game that night, so it was a good choice. So based on this, yeah I guess walking CC to get RB to make an out would be a good short-term decision, not long term (nor do I think that is a decision anybody would ever make).

 

Overall, I am taking the subjective approach just to play devils advocate, but I understand both sides of the argument. It is much more objective to say that the win odds decreased from X% to Y% so he shouldn't do it. I like to see managers/coaches gamble a little bit. If we only went by the statistics of things, there wouldn't ever be any intentional walks, sacrifice bunts, nobody would go for it on 4th down, etc. I like the dynamic nature of these high-stress situations which is probably the main reason I am arguing that I like this decision (that and they won), but as I said, your point is completely valid. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

 

 

 

[markedman5]

"So based on this, yeah I guess walking CC to get RB to make an out would be a good short-term decision"

 

Actually it would just be a bad decision that worked out well.

 

Just like playing seven, two unsuited against pocket Aces......winning doesn't make the decision any better....it just means you got lucky.

[Gobias Industries]

eanelson4[/b]]I would also like to think that baseball is much more dynamic than is poker. I think momentum has more to do with the outcome of a baseball game than a poker game.

It seems like an odd comparison, but both poker and baseball involve a lot of the same types of probability scenarios. One of the best cash game players in the world, Gabe Thaler, once said the two remind him a lot of each other.

 

If you think you hear small sample size a lot on a baseball board, go to a poker board. Bad players that win a lot of money tend to continue their bad habits and eventually as their sample size gets larger, their results tend to get closer to their expected value.

 

The same could be said of Maddon's decision. If you could recreate the same scenario thousands of times, you'd probably start to be able to see that the IBB is not the right choice and would cost the team more runs in the long run.

[MJLiverock]

I don't think comparing Counsell to Hamilton and Byrd to Braun is a very fair comparison, it is about 180 degrees the opposite way. Why make any comparison, the scenario happend in real life with Hamilton and Byrd in that situation. It doesn't have anything to do with some other pair of guys or other situations.

[owbc]

On paper it seems like the wrong decision.

However, I think it was the right decision, even though it lowered the win probability.

1. The win probability was only lowered 5% by letting in a run for free, which really isn't that much for the 9th inning, where it can sway dramatically.
2. Win probability is based on history, that's it. It doesn't take into account who is pitching, who is batting, which ballpark they are playing in, which runners are on base, etc.

Taking that into cousideration, here's an argument on why Maddon was right:

Hamilton isn't exactly known for his speed. He has 7 SB this year, so the odds of him making it all the way home on a Byrd double are fairly slim, especially since I assume the outfield was guarding against that. Thus, only a Byrd HR or triple would tie the game, and maybe a double 25% of the time. Byrd has 8 HR, 2 triples, and 19 doubles--not exactly big slugging numbers. Hamilton has 28 HR. Thus, Hamilton was much more likely to tie the game than Byrd, especially if you consider that Hamilton has hit 17 of his home runs at home. Although it is impossible to accurately measure the actual win probability, I suspect that if this scenario was played out 100 times either way, the Rays would win slightly more often by walking Hamilton.

[cwolf2012]

"nobody would go for it on 4th down"

 

As a sidenote, I think more coaches would be going for it on 4th down if they were going by true probabilities. They just don't want to face the consequences of losing a long-run winning decision.

[Legacy25GT]

Really tough decision. The percentages some of you are throwing out about the chance of winning going down from 95% to 98.8% don't take into account the batters that are being faced. I could be wrong, but I think fangraphs simply looks at run differential combined with game situation, so their computer just saw that it was 9th inning with 2 outs and bases loaded, but not that it was Hamilton at the plate and Byrd on deck, with Balfour on the mound.

 

In the ninth inning with a lead, the runners that are already on base really don't have an impact on the game if they're not the winning or tying run (unless they give you a chance at a double play, or if they're so slow that they keep the tying run from advancing around the bases). So intentionally walking a guy in with the bases loaded, 2 outs, and a 4-run lead really isn't all that different than intentionally walking a guy with the bases empty, 2 outs, and a 1-run lead. I don't think anyone would question the decision to put Hamilton on base in the 2nd situation (bases empty, 2 outs, 1-run lead).

 

I think the Rays did what gave them the best chance of winning the game because if Hamilton either doubled or homered, the Rangers would have kept the momentum and would have needed only a single to tie the game if Hamilton doubled. Although if it was my decision, I probably would have pitched to Hamilton bacause of the media firestorm that would have ensued if we lost after I put the tying run on base.

[logan82]

Legacy25GT wrote:

I don't think anyone would question the decision to put Hamilton on base in the 2nd situation (bases empty, 2 outs, 1-run

I would question that decision.

 

Edit: I will go one step further and say that may be an even worse situation to walk Hamilton. With the bases empty you would have to then either hold him at 1B and have one of your defenders out of position leaving a hole on the right side or let him move to 2nd on defensive indifference.

 

With 2 outs almost every player should be able to go 1st to 3rd on anything that isn't hit directly at a fielder. So, most likley scenario if Byrd gets a hit is 1st and 3rd with 2 outs. WP or passed ball ties the game.

[rluzinski]

Up by 3 on road, with the bases loaded and 2002 Bonds up, Tangotiger says to walk him:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/walkbondschart2.html

 

But Hamilton isn't 2002 Bonds. Not even close. And if a grandslam only tieing the game, I think walking Hamilton was 100% the wrong move. It's really tough to try and even estimate this stuff without a simulator.

[ecjimg]

I had a conversation with a Cub fan last week that told me he went to school (i think it was college) with Brad Nelson. He said an opposing team intentionally walked Nelson with the bases loaded TO SCORE THE TYING RUN in hopes of getting a 3rd out with the game tied instead of losing!! THATS respect!

[Patrick425]

Up by 3 on road, with the bases loaded and 2002 Bonds up, Tangotiger says to walk him:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/walkbondschart2.html

 

Does this take into account who is up after Bonds? Or who you have in your bullpen (i.e. righty, lefty situation, etc)?

 

Isn't this all about mitigating risk. Someone mentioned that the chance of winning dropped by 5.2%. However, aren't those situational odds of winning pretty much done in a vacuum without any consideration about who is batting, who is on deck, who is pitching, who is in the bullpen, how much the bullpen has been used lately, is the current hitter tearing the cover off the ball lately, is the on deck batter in a bad slump or maybe battling an injury?

 

I realize that 90% of the people that post things here are very much into using stats to explain everything, however I would guess that most seasoned managers would say that it's impossible to make all decisions based on probability tables. Stats do not always tell the whole story and there are intangibles that are always at work in every situation.