Yost's comments on "Aggressive Baserunning" and "Sacrificing Baserunners"

[Fatter than Joey]

"Hardy's wasn't a baserunning mistake; it's aggressive baserunning," the skipper added. "You can't just stop on a double there, because if they make a play at the plate, he walks into third. You're either going to make them make a play on you at third base or a play at the plate, and you get the run."

Yost said the above regarding a play where Hardy was thrown out at 3rd, and Durham scored. It seems to me Yost is developing a different (to MLB norms) philosophy of "Sacrificing Baserunners"

 

Let's adhere to the following guidelines for this discussion.

 

1.) As per Yost, this was not a "mistake" by Hardy, rather a philosophical approach by the team.

 

2.) I hate that Yost manages the Brewers, but I really do not want to talk about Yost here -- rather the concept, is it cool to sacrifice baserunners to "ensure the run". This discussion does not need to be about Yost, or any specific plays last night -- only general concepts.

 

3.) I really don't want to discuss "Aggressive Baserunning" as a whole, rather only situations where one baserunner "sacrifices" himself to "ensure the run".

[lcbj68c]

I don't have a problem with the play. It was just good defense for the catcher to have him cut the ball and get the out at 3rd. I don't think it was truly sacrificing anything. If the catcher feels the play at the plate was close, he wouldn't have cut the ball. JJ didn't deliberately get himself in a rundown so Durham could score. If Yost believes that, I may suddenly start to feel the opposite way about him. Just good defense, led by the catcher.

[bcf5575]

the brewers baserunning has been awful all year. i can not remember ever seeing a team get so many guys thrown out at home. the always have the "contact play" on with a guy on 3rd with less than 2 outs. once in a while it works, but it is such an easy out when it goes to the 3b or ss. unless the pitcher is on deck, there is no need for that play imo.

then svuem likes to send guys when they have no chance (like cameron last night).

[eanelson4]

If there is a good chance the runner would otherwise be out at the plate, I say absolutely its okay to sacrafice a baserunner. This gives you a guaranteed run vs. the potential of a run if the other guy gets hit in.

 

Going into more depth, however, leads me to thin that it depends on the situation. If you are down 3 runs in the 8th with 2 outs, you don't want to sacrafice the runner because you'll still be down 2 runs. Certain situations call for sacraficing the baserunner and certain don't. I didn't have a problem with the play last night.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

It is never worth it to sacrifice the out, except possibly in a tie game, late game situation. But if the single run has become that important, it is highly doubtful the idiotic "hey, look at me, stupid, throw me out at 3rd!" ploy is going to draw the throw. If the run seems that important to you, it will seem that important to the other team.

 

Really, the stupidity of this concept is amply demonstrated by the fact that the opposing team consistently takes the free out that you're offering over the chance to throw the runner out at home and prevent any runs from scoring. If the free out is worth more to the opposition (every opposition) than the chance that the runner is thrown out at home, doesn't that tell you something about what should be more important to you?

[Legacy25GT]

I don't think it was planned strategy in this case. I think it was simply Hardy/Svuem thinking he could get to 3rd on the throw home. But with that said, I think it was a bad choice to take a chance in that situation... 1st inning with no outs and a 1 run lead. If he holds at 2nd, Durham probably still scores, and they have 3 chances to hit Hardy home from 2nd base. According to BP, the expected run difference between being on 2nd with 0 outs and being on 3rd with 0 outs is small (1.15 to 1.46) compared to the difference between man on 2nd with 0 outs and noone on with 1 out (1.15 to 0.28). So if Hardy gets to 3rd he gains the equivalent of 0.31 runs, but if he's thrown out, he loses the equivalent of 0.87 runs. That means he should have a success rate of stretching it into a triple of about 3 out of 4 to make it worth trying for the extra base. Of course if Durham would have been thrown out otherwise, then it was also a bad decision to send him home.

 

As far was sacrificing runs for baserunners, I really don't like the idea unless you're pretty sure that the runner going home will get thrown out if you don't. Also depends on the situation. If its mid/late in the game with a lead, I don't have a problem with taking a few chances on the basepaths to add insurance runs, but if you're behind, those baserunners (and outs) are too valuable to lose haphazardly.

[craigharmann]

The Hardy play was frustrating, but I understand it. Had the throw gone to the plate, OK, you've got a runner at 3rd, no outs. The Cameron situation was moronic. There is no explanation, no excuse, no reason at all that play should happen. That was a chance for a really big inning, and that was a game changer in my eyes.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

I completely disagree that their baserunning has been bad this year. On the contrary, I believe their aggressive style has led to a net increase in runs. They have forced outfielders into making bad throws and scored. Granted, last night was not a good one. Sveum was very upfront and admitted his poor decision in the post-game interview. Mistakes happen, but from a season long philosphical perspective, the windmill at third is net ahead IMO.

 

As far as whether or not to sacrifice the base runner to get the run across, I think it often depends on the situation. The baserunner must determine whether the runner going home needs that protection. Last night it did not appear he did, so it was likely a poor decision. Is it early or late...there are times, especially in a close game late that it makes sense if a runner can get in a rundown to draw the throw away from the plate. Doing it early may take you out of a big inning.

[tristarscoop]

Can't the argument be made that the only reason they stop going after the play at the plate and go after the baserunner is that they know they're not going to get the run at home, therefore the run is scoring and the guy on the basepaths isn't distracting anyone or ensuring a run?

[Thurston Fluff]

I like the concept of debating strategy in general so this is a much appreciated thread.

 

If the free out is worth more to the opposition (every opposition) than the chance that the runner is thrown out at home, doesn't that tell you something about what should be more important to you?

 

If they go for the runner at home they either get an out and still have a man on third or they don't get any outs, the run scores and the man is still one third. In many instances it makes sense to take the easy out vs risk the alternative. Since the offense knows the logical choice is to take the man at third it is also equally sensible to have the runner go to third to guarantee the run in those same circumstances.

[Fatter than Joey]

The baserunner must determine whether the runner going home needs that protection.

 

Is this reasonable?? -- for a baserunner to determine whether a guy going home is 20% toast or 80% toast?

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Since the offense knows the logical choice is to take the man at third it is also equally sensible to have the runner go to third to guarantee the run in those same circumstances.

 

Why? Why not just see whether they can throw the guy at home out? If they can't, you get a run, and you still have a runner in scoring position. A bird in the hand is not always worth two in the bush. It depends on your odds of getting that second bird, and on how desperately you need at least one bird. In general, people who coach and analyze professional sports are incredibly too risk-averse.

[Thurston Fluff]

Why? Why not just see whether they can throw the guy at home out?

 

The obvious answer is they want to guarantee the run score not take a chance it scores.

 

If they can't, you get a run, and you still have a runner in scoring position.

 

Because if they can you don't score the run.

 

A bird in the hand is not always worth two in the bush. It depends on your odds of getting that second bird, and on how desperately you need at least one bird.

 

Absolustely correct. Never argeued that it wasn't. What I was saying is this

 

But if the single run has become that important, it is highly doubtful the idiotic "hey, look at me, stupid, throw me out at 3rd!" ploy is going to draw the throw. If the run seems that important to you, it will seem that important to the other team.

 

 

Really, the stupidity of this concept is amply demonstrated by the fact that the opposing team consistently takes the free out that you're offering over the chance to throw the runner out at home and prevent any runs from scoring. If the free out is worth more to the opposition (every opposition) than the chance that the runner is thrown out at home, doesn't that tell you something about what should be more important to you?

 

was not logically sound since it can be both a good offensive and defensive strategy by both teams at the same time. It can even be a sound strategy if every other team takes the easy out.

[rluzinski]

Using run expectency from the perspective of the catcher and assuming the out at 3B is a sure one (defined as only needing a good throw and tag, which might be 90%), this what I get:

 

Conceed runner to 3B and get out at home: 1.5 runs

Conceed run at plate for 90?% chance at 3B: 1.06 runs

 

Breakeven = 71%

 

So unless the catcher thinks he has over a 71% of getting the runner out at the plate (which is VERY high), he should just throw to 3B. Of course, that means that the 3B coach shouldn't have sent him in the first place!

 

So, the catcher is generally right for taking the free out at 3B and the 3B coach is always wrong for trying to take the extra base at 3rd. Either I screwed this up royally or the average 3B coach in the majors is ignorant of these numbers, since they say the risk isn't worth it.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

was not logically sound since it can be both a good offensive and defensive strategy by both teams at the same time. It can even be a sound strategy if every other team takes the easy out.

 

Really don't think it can. Given that the runner from 3rd has already been sent home, either the guaranteed run plus the guaranteed out at 3rd is more valuable than the chance at an outless run / risk of a runless out, or it isn't more valuable. There is no way for it to be both more and less valuable at the same time, unless we're scrapping Aristotlean logic for something more extravagent (I could see Hegel arguing your side...). The fact that every team takes the free out at third is good evidence that they consider the guaranteed run plus the guaranteed out to be a more advantageous situation for them than the chance at a runless out at home. Either they are correct to do so or they are incorrect.

 

rluz's numbers seem about right to me. Not sure if you'd need to factor in the opportunity cost of an out; probably that's already accomplished by looking at a good run expectancy table.

[olliegjw]

I would think that we'd have to compare five run expectancies:

 

1. Runner on 2nd, nobody out, 1 run in.

2. Runner on 2nd, one out, nobody in.

3. Nobody on, one out, 1 run in.

4. Runner on 3rd, one out, nobody in.

5. Runner on 3rd, none out, 1 run in.

 

You would have to compare the run values of 1 and 2, versus 3-5. It also matters on how likely the guy at the plate would have been out. I am guessing he had about a 60% chance of being safe. It would have been a lot less, had the throw from the outfield gone towards home, instead of 3rd.

[Postseason2006]

Never make the first out at 3rd. Common rule in the managerial for Dummies book.

[holybannana]

Never make the first out at 3rd. Common rule in the managerial for Dummies book.

Yup.

 

With no outs then don't take a risky stretch to home. Keep your guys on with no outs. But then again with the way these guys hit with RISP....

[Thurston Fluff]

Really don't think it can. Given that the runner from 3rd has already been sent home, either the guaranteed run plus the guaranteed out at 3rd is more valuable than the chance at an outless run / risk of a runless out, or it isn't more valuable. There is no way for it to be both more and less valuable at the same time, unless we're scrapping Aristotlean logic for something more extravagent (I could see Hegel arguing your side...).

 

Actually I am using Aristotlean logic. You are making a very common mistake in the either or statement. You are assuming if A is true that B has to follow. That is not true in this case.

What you are saying is if every team takes the easy out then it is wrong for the team to give the easy out. If A then B. I am saying B does not have to logically follow in your syllogism. It is possible, actually likely, that a team can force the opponent to make a decision. It is forcing the team to take the lesser of two evils.

[JohnBriggs12]

The situation should dictate it. There were no outs in the first inning. If you have to intice a throw to 3rd to insure the run scoring, the runner should have been held at 3rd, especially with the heart of the order coming up.

 

The only way you can win a game in the first inning is with a huge inning. You don't get that sacrificing outs for one run that is likely to score anyway.

 

Yost defending it as "philosophy" is the absolute example of why this guy should not be managing this or any other team. It shows he doesn't have the capacity for refining his philosophy to fit situations.

[rluzinski]

The run expectency numbers I provided considered the base situation, the out situation and whether a run would be scored. It suggests that unless the catcher is waiting (with the ball) for the runner to get to him, so he can make the sure out at home, he should just throw to 3B and take his 90% chance of an out there.

[bigredrobbo]

If Hardy didn't possess the speed of a sleepy Johnny Estrada, he makes it to 3rd and we aren't having this debate!

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Once again, this is just another case of Yost defending his players. I'm sure he was angry at Hardy for making the out, he just doesn't like to rip his players in the media so he lies. Hardy trying to take 3rd there didn't make too much sense, and ending innings early for one run needs to be stopped.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

You can't get from point A to point B in a single syllogism, but that doesn't mean the logic is wrong.


If every team takes the free out at 3rd over the chance to prevent the run at home, then it is extraordinarily likely that the free out at 3rd is more valuable than the chance to prevent the run at home.

Every team takes the free out at 3rd.

Therefore, it is extraordinarily likely that the free out at 3rd is more valuable than the chance to prevent the run at home.


If it is extraordinarily likely that the free out at 3rd is more valuable than the chance to prevent the run at home, then the team giving up the free out at 3rd is almost certainly helping the other team by giving them the free out at third.

It is extraordinarily likely that the free out at 3rd is more valuable than the chance to prevent the run at home.

Therefore, the team giving up the free out at 3rd is almost certainly helping the other team by giving them an out.


I have to add the qualifiers because it is possible that every single team is wrong to take the free out -- just not remotely likely. I'm sure it won't be too hard for small ball fans to find a premise they disagree with here -- I've just seen way too many studies that conclude that every small ball strategy you can think of costs you runs in the long run because it underestimates the value of an out. Out conservation is paramount.

Moreover, it should not be up to the runner at 2nd to decide whether Sveum was an idiot for sending the runner home, and by how much he was an idiot, and then (if he was a huge idiot that time) sacrifice himself to prevent Sveum from being exposed (as a huge idiot). The runner at 2nd should make his turn, wait to see if the throw goes home, then take 3rd if he thinks he can make it safely. If he doesn't think he can, or if they cut the throw off, he parks his keister on 2nd. If the runner is thrown out at home, that's on Sveum and not on the runner at 2nd. If Sveum is a huge idiot all the time, maybe they should think about getting a new 3rd base coach.

[endaround]

In the vent thread it was determined that Sveum signaled Hardy to 3B, so its Sveum all the time.