The "This Cost Us the Playoffs in 2014" thread

[Ennder]

I think if we miss the playoffs this year it will likely just be due to lack of depth. We have a solid lineup, solid starting pitching, solid defense and a solid bullpen. Everything is in place to be a playoff team. The bench is pretty poor and for the most part there isn't much quality depth to step in when people do go down.

 

My opinion of the team hasn't changed over the start of the year. Good enough to compete for the wild card. The Pirates were never going to be in the race imo so it was really the Reds I worried about and them starting slow and us hot has certainly tilted things in our favor.

[logan82]

I think if we miss the playoffs this year it will likely just be due to lack of depth. We have a solid lineup, solid starting pitching, solid defense and a solid bullpen. Everything is in place to be a playoff team. The bench is pretty poor and for the most part there isn't much quality depth to step in when people do go down.

Depth and age were the two big concerns going into the year. Especially on the offensive side. Everything had to go right for us to make the playoffs. The hot start gave us a little leeway but we are still an old thin team.

[Oxy]

Depth and age were the two big concerns going into the year. Especially on the offensive side. Everything had to go right for us to make the playoffs. The hot start gave us a little leeway but we are still an old thin team.

 

Really? Old? Ramirez, Overbay, Lohse and....??? We are a bit thin on the offensive side, but I'm not sure how you could say that we are old.

 

Even our bullpen is young, which is kind of amazing. Braun is a little injury prone I guess, but that is different than old (even if it has the same affect). We have a bunch of other guys who are in their prime or nearing the end of their prime, but that certainly isn't old. Those might be concerns for the direction of the franchise, but they aren't concerns for "this year."

[Baldkin]

Depth and age were the two big concerns going into the year. Especially on the offensive side. Everything had to go right for us to make the playoffs. The hot start gave us a little leeway but we are still an old thin team.

 

Really? Old? Ramirez, Overbay, Lohse and....??? We are a bit thin on the offensive side, but I'm not sure how you could say that we are old.

 

Even our bullpen is young, which is kind of amazing. Braun is a little injury prone I guess, but that is different than old (even if it has the same affect). We have a bunch of other guys who are in their prime or nearing the end of their prime, but that certainly isn't old. Those might be concerns for the direction of the franchise, but they aren't concerns for "this year."

 

Yes, when you list our #2 starter, and half the opening day infield.... I'd say age can be listed as a concern.

[Fear The Chorizo]

most contending teams have a mix of veterans in key spots on their roster...the difference right now between them and the Brewers is that they may have better secondary or bench options compared to the Crew. It's not so much age as it is a lack of depth at many positions on the field. The current Brewers 40-man roster is heavy on pitching simply because they don't have enough position player prospects worth protecting in the high minors.

 

on paper, the 25 man roster going into the season could contend for the Brewers. Expanding the review to include the 40 man roster would give alot of reason to be skeptical of winning a division, especially compared to a 40-man like the Cardinals going into this season.

[HiAndTight]

I don't mind perspective, and I agree that RR has made some excellent decisions this year. But I'll respond to some of the condescending pushback above by wondering why some posters here will forgive this manager absolutely everything, completely whitewashing his many mistakes.

 

He extols Falu, a bad hitter, because Falu doesn't strike out. Hmmm . . . Why is it patently moronic again to fetishize bad hitters who make contact? Does Falu's game-ending double play ring any bells?

How about tonight's choke-fest? Garza, our worst starting pitcher by a considerable margin, is over 100 pitches in the 7th. His shortstop screws up a dp ball. RR visits the mound. Does he pull his pitcher? No, because he has his Eighth Inning Guy warming up in the pen, and this is only the seventh inning! My goodness -- you have to leave your starter in! It's not like you have other relief pitchers on your payroll.

 

Yes, other teams make mistakes too, and we do a lot of things well. But to make the playoffs, especially over a more talented team, you have to meet a higher standard. You get to lose some games, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to projectile vomit four games in just over a week. We'll see. If we still make the postseason, then I'll happily confess to overreacting.

 

 

I am absolutely with you on the last paragraph. We are a less talented team than probably 6 or 7 teams in the NL. So we're going to have to do things better and we're going to have to have some players play beyond expectations.

 

But I just totally, totally disagree with the bolded part. First, Garza is NOT our worst starting pitcher. That honor belongs to Marco Estrada.

Estrada has a 5.43 FIP, Garza has a 3.86. Garza is not pitching as well as he could, but he's historically been a very good pitcher.

Estrada has a .240 BABIP, Garza a .297. And of course Estrada leads the team in HR's.

 

But this argument that he didn't take Garza out because he has these set roles in the BP have been dis-proven time and time again(including tonight). Your veteran pitcher who's pitched in big games and has been a very good pitcher throughout his career was still throwing well. Segura had a costly error and I agree, you still have to get out of the mess. Garza didn't. That's on him. But this is what I'm talking about with regard to how managers just cannot win. You trust your proven starter and he gives up the lead, you're an idiot for taking him out. You consistently yank them early and you're stressing the BP. I had no problem giving Garza one more hitter, especially when it was the #8 hitter in the lineup.

 

 

And Roenicke has used his relievers in so many different situations this year and been very unconventional(relative to the most managers) that I don't see how you could even begin to argue that his thought process had anything to do with not bringing Smith in because he's the 8th inning guy and it was only the 7th inning. Smith has 11 appearances in the 7th inning this year and 16 in the 8th. So he's used him whenever he's needed him. This team has the least established "8th inning guy," or "7th inning guy," or literally any Brewers team I've seen in the last 15 years. The ONLY difference is some of those teams had pens so bad that nobody could keep their job as the SU man. Roenicke has said he has several guys he's confident going to in SU situations. Henderson when healthy, Smith, Thornburg, and Kintlzer, and we're going to need all 4 by the end of the year. Henderson coming back healthy would be a big boost, hopefully by the end of June.

 

 

For the record, I'm not "whitewashing," anything. I simply find it absurd that RR is costing us a shot at the playoffs and I think there is a lot of knee jerk type reactions to relatively routine

 

He extols Falu, a bad hitter, because Falu doesn't strike out. Hmmm . . . Why is it patently moronic again to fetishize bad hitters who make contact? Does Falu's game-ending double play ring any bells?

 

This one...I don't even know what to do with. When did he "fetishize," Falu? I'm just going to assume you're using "fetish," in this instance to mean have an irrational or over the top commitment to a player as opposed to other definitions. Falu has TWO plate appearances and literally BOTH times he was the LAST guy to get an at bat. So I would argue there is absolutely zero evidence that he has some strong commitment to Falu. Could you show me where he was signing the praises of Falu? Who incidentally has historically been a pretty good hitter for average. One double play is so irrelevant in the large scheme, ESPECIALLY given the fact that his only other choice would have been to bring in a pitcher, I don't know what it has to do with anything.

[HiAndTight]

RRR says "we run on contact with runners on 2nd and 3rd. He just did what he was told."

 

He also said that was the first time in his entire tenure here with us that the contact play has backfired on us. So I'm not sure he's actually caught the end of all our games.

 

 

Actually that's not really what he said at all.

This is;

RR "Last night there was a line drive to hit to the shortstop and they doubled us off. In the three-plus years I've been here, that's the first time that's happened to us." So it's a funny insult, but it's also just simply NOT what Roenicke said.

 

 

RoCoBrewFan:

Games won and lost in May count exactly as much as games won and lost in September, yes? Brewers got 100% lucky tonight. First, they blow a 5 run lead, then Machado put them back in the game with a 2 out, 9th inning error, and then Showalter Yosted his club by intentionally walking the winning run, with a historically decent hitting pitcher on deck.

 

Whatever we debate about the importance of wins in May, or a single win (or 2 or 3) not costing them the playoffs, of the massive amounts of hyperbole getting thrown about in this thread, I think for tonight, we can all agree it's nice to be on the other side of a win like this for once, right?

 

 

You really would have pitched to Reynolds as opposed to one of the Brewers pitchers(it wasn't even a certainty that Gallardo was going to hit due to RR's concerns about his ankle until the IBB to Reynolds). And while Gallardo is absolutely a decent hitting pitcher, he was hitting .077 this year prior to that double and again, he was hurt.

 

And of course they were on the road in a tie game, so there is almost no margin for error. The odds of walking Reynolds and having Gallardo bounce one off the wall are a LOT-LOT lower than having Reynolds go up there and hit his 13th HR of the year. I don't know that I've seen a move that was more of a no-brainer all year long than that one.

 

Other moves Showalter made were..dubious at best, but that one was pretty obvious.

[RightFieldCoder]

But this argument that he didn't take Garza out because he has these set roles in the BP have been dis-proven time and time again(including tonight). Your veteran pitcher who's pitched in big games and has been a very good pitcher throughout his career was still throwing well. Segura had a costly error and I agree, you still have to get out of the mess. Garza didn't. That's on him. But this is what I'm talking about with regard to how managers just cannot win. You trust your proven starter and he gives up the lead, you're an idiot for taking him out. You consistently yank them early and you're stressing the BP. I had no problem giving Garza one more hitter, especially when it was the #8 hitter in the lineup.

Another factor in leaving Garza in was that he was due to hit next. To bring in the Fresh Prince we had to either double switch Maldonado out of the game or only have our best reliever face only one hitter.

Other moves Showalter made were..dubious at best, but that one was pretty obvious.

I had just got in the car in the bottom of the 10th. As soon as I heard KRod was due up 4th I thought for sure Reynolds would get walked.

[torts]

Small sample but

 

we'll just stop you right there

[Baldkin]

And of course they were on the road in a tie game, so there is almost no margin for error. The odds of walking Reynolds and having Gallardo bounce one off the wall are a LOT-LOT lower than having Reynolds go up there and hit his 13th HR of the year. I don't know that I've seen a move that was more of a no-brainer all year long than that one.

 

Other moves Showalter made were..dubious at best, but that one was pretty obvious.

 

Well, that's simply the incorrect assessment. Reynolds, over the past 3 years has hovered under a 5% HR rate. So, we'll just go with 5% to make the math easy.

 

Gallardo, OTOH, has had a 5.9% XBH% over the last 3 years. So, in that alone it's a bad decision.

 

That also doesn't include Gallardo getting on and it not being an XBH and the next guy coming up to the plate.

[adambr2]

RRR says "we run on contact with runners on 2nd and 3rd. He just did what he was told."

 

He also said that was the first time in his entire tenure here with us that the contact play has backfired on us. So I'm not sure he's actually caught the end of all our games.

 

 

Actually that's not really what he said at all.

This is;

RR "Last night there was a line drive to hit to the shortstop and they doubled us off. In the three-plus years I've been here, that's the first time that's happened to us." So it's a funny insult, but it's also just simply NOT what Roenicke said.

 

http://m.brewers.mlb.com/news/2014/05/2 ... era-monday

 

Roenicke said the Brewers had run the contact play successfully many times since he began managing the team in 2011, and Monday night was the first time it had backfired.

 

Then this is somewhat irresponsible journalism on the part of the Brewers website.

[Oxy]

Roenicke said the Brewers had run the contact play successfully many times since he began managing the team in 2011, and Monday night was the first time it had backfired.

 

Then this is somewhat irresponsible journalism on the part of the Brewers website.

 

I'm not quite following you. Is there another time the Brewers have been doubled off due to the contact play? Perhaps there is, but I don't remember it. Also, of course Roenicke is covering for Herrera here, as the contact play should imply going as soon as it is obvious that the ball will hit the ground off of the bat.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Roenicke said the Brewers had run the contact play successfully many times since he began managing the team in 2011, and Monday night was the first time it had backfired.

 

Then this is somewhat irresponsible journalism on the part of the Brewers website.

 

I'm not quite following you. Is there another time the Brewers have been doubled off due to the contact play? Perhaps there is, but I don't remember it. Also, of course Roenicke is covering for Herrera here, as the contact play should imply going as soon as it is obvious that the ball will hit the ground off of the bat.

 

 

I recall times (not specific dates) when we ran the contact play and players got thrown out at home.

[adambr2]

Like Roco, I don't recall specific dates although I do remember numerous times of it backfiring.

 

Here's an article from June 30th of last year. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/milwaukee-brewers-10-reasons-why-fair-criticize-manager-194700953.html

 

Scroll down to #6. Question the credibility of the source if you like but it would be pretty incredible if they stated that it had cost the Brewers multiple times (just in 2013) if it had never actually cost them once.

[Oxy]

Getting thrown out at home is not an instance of the contact play "not working." A double play IS in instance of that, I admit. But I still put that on Herrera in this instance.

 

I'll keep preaching it for as long as it takes, but an out at the plate is only bad if the out would not have otherwise occurred. Getting a run is a big deal, while exchanging runners between the bases is not. Particularly if you have a good pitching staff/bullpen.

[gregmag]

I don't mind perspective, and I agree that RR has made some excellent decisions this year. But I'll respond to some of the condescending pushback above by wondering why some posters here will forgive this manager absolutely everything, completely whitewashing his many mistakes.

 

He extols Falu, a bad hitter, because Falu doesn't strike out. Hmmm . . . Why is it patently moronic again to fetishize bad hitters who make contact? Does Falu's game-ending double play ring any bells?

How about tonight's choke-fest? Garza, our worst starting pitcher by a considerable margin, is over 100 pitches in the 7th. His shortstop screws up a dp ball. RR visits the mound. Does he pull his pitcher? No, because he has his Eighth Inning Guy warming up in the pen, and this is only the seventh inning! My goodness -- you have to leave your starter in! It's not like you have other relief pitchers on your payroll.

 

Yes, other teams make mistakes too, and we do a lot of things well. But to make the playoffs, especially over a more talented team, you have to meet a higher standard. You get to lose some games, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to projectile vomit four games in just over a week. We'll see. If we still make the postseason, then I'll happily confess to overreacting.

 

 

I am absolutely with you on the last paragraph. We are a less talented team than probably 6 or 7 teams in the NL. So we're going to have to do things better and we're going to have to have some players play beyond expectations.

 

But I just totally, totally disagree with the bolded part. First, Garza is NOT our worst starting pitcher. That honor belongs to Marco Estrada.

Estrada has a 5.43 FIP, Garza has a 3.86. Garza is not pitching as well as he could, but he's historically been a very good pitcher.

Estrada has a .240 BABIP, Garza a .297. And of course Estrada leads the team in HR's.

 

But this argument that he didn't take Garza out because he has these set roles in the BP have been dis-proven time and time again(including tonight). Your veteran pitcher who's pitched in big games and has been a very good pitcher throughout his career was still throwing well. Segura had a costly error and I agree, you still have to get out of the mess. Garza didn't. That's on him. But this is what I'm talking about with regard to how managers just cannot win. You trust your proven starter and he gives up the lead, you're an idiot for taking him out. You consistently yank them early and you're stressing the BP. I had no problem giving Garza one more hitter, especially when it was the #8 hitter in the lineup.

 

 

And Roenicke has used his relievers in so many different situations this year and been very unconventional(relative to the most managers) that I don't see how you could even begin to argue that his thought process had anything to do with not bringing Smith in because he's the 8th inning guy and it was only the 7th inning. Smith has 11 appearances in the 7th inning this year and 16 in the 8th. So he's used him whenever he's needed him. This team has the least established "8th inning guy," or "7th inning guy," or literally any Brewers team I've seen in the last 15 years. The ONLY difference is some of those teams had pens so bad that nobody could keep their job as the SU man. Roenicke has said he has several guys he's confident going to in SU situations. Henderson when healthy, Smith, Thornburg, and Kintlzer, and we're going to need all 4 by the end of the year. Henderson coming back healthy would be a big boost, hopefully by the end of June.

 

 

For the record, I'm not "whitewashing," anything. I simply find it absurd that RR is costing us a shot at the playoffs and I think there is a lot of knee jerk type reactions to relatively routine

 

He extols Falu, a bad hitter, because Falu doesn't strike out. Hmmm . . . Why is it patently moronic again to fetishize bad hitters who make contact? Does Falu's game-ending double play ring any bells?

 

This one...I don't even know what to do with. When did he "fetishize," Falu? I'm just going to assume you're using "fetish," in this instance to mean have an irrational or over the top commitment to a player as opposed to other definitions. Falu has TWO plate appearances and literally BOTH times he was the LAST guy to get an at bat. So I would argue there is absolutely zero evidence that he has some strong commitment to Falu. Could you show me where he was signing the praises of Falu? Who incidentally has historically been a pretty good hitter for average. One double play is so irrelevant in the large scheme, ESPECIALLY given the fact that his only other choice would have been to bring in a pitcher, I don't know what it has to do with anything.

 

The point about Falu is pretty simple. RR said he valued Falu offensively because he can make contact. Nothing else; just that he can make contact. I think that's fairly obviously a stupid reason to value a hitter. I'm not going to try to out-snark you here, because I know when I'm beaten, but I think my point is fairly simple. If you think I'm wrong, and you feel like explaining why it makes sense to promote and rely on a hitter who can do nothing other than not strike out, that's fine.

 

You say that my complaint about the Garza decision is invalid because I'd complain just as much if RR brought in a reliever there and he failed. Actually, I wouldn't. You made that up, pulled it out of your butt, and pinned it on me. I really, truly, desperately wanted RR to pull Garza at that point. You don't just get to assert whatever the hell you feel like asserting, posit that some people think your assertion is too hot while other people think it's too cold, and conclude based on that variety of imagined objections that you're obviously right, let alone that a particular person with a distinct objection to your view is obviously wrong. That's exactly the kind of whitewash I was talking about.

[Oxy]

I don't mind perspective, and I agree that RR has made some excellent decisions this year. But I'll respond to some of the condescending pushback above by wondering why some posters here will forgive this manager absolutely everything, completely whitewashing his many mistakes.

 

He extols Falu, a bad hitter, because Falu doesn't strike out. Hmmm . . . Why is it patently moronic again to fetishize bad hitters who make contact? Does Falu's game-ending double play ring any bells?

How about tonight's choke-fest? Garza, our worst starting pitcher by a considerable margin, is over 100 pitches in the 7th. His shortstop screws up a dp ball. RR visits the mound. Does he pull his pitcher? No, because he has his Eighth Inning Guy warming up in the pen, and this is only the seventh inning! My goodness -- you have to leave your starter in! It's not like you have other relief pitchers on your payroll.

 

Yes, other teams make mistakes too, and we do a lot of things well. But to make the playoffs, especially over a more talented team, you have to meet a higher standard. You get to lose some games, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to projectile vomit four games in just over a week. We'll see. If we still make the postseason, then I'll happily confess to overreacting.

 

 

I am absolutely with you on the last paragraph. We are a less talented team than probably 6 or 7 teams in the NL. So we're going to have to do things better and we're going to have to have some players play beyond expectations.

 

But I just totally, totally disagree with the bolded part. First, Garza is NOT our worst starting pitcher. That honor belongs to Marco Estrada.

Estrada has a 5.43 FIP, Garza has a 3.86. Garza is not pitching as well as he could, but he's historically been a very good pitcher.

Estrada has a .240 BABIP, Garza a .297. And of course Estrada leads the team in HR's.

 

But this argument that he didn't take Garza out because he has these set roles in the BP have been dis-proven time and time again(including tonight). Your veteran pitcher who's pitched in big games and has been a very good pitcher throughout his career was still throwing well. Segura had a costly error and I agree, you still have to get out of the mess. Garza didn't. That's on him. But this is what I'm talking about with regard to how managers just cannot win. You trust your proven starter and he gives up the lead, you're an idiot for taking him out. You consistently yank them early and you're stressing the BP. I had no problem giving Garza one more hitter, especially when it was the #8 hitter in the lineup.

 

 

And Roenicke has used his relievers in so many different situations this year and been very unconventional(relative to the most managers) that I don't see how you could even begin to argue that his thought process had anything to do with not bringing Smith in because he's the 8th inning guy and it was only the 7th inning. Smith has 11 appearances in the 7th inning this year and 16 in the 8th. So he's used him whenever he's needed him. This team has the least established "8th inning guy," or "7th inning guy," or literally any Brewers team I've seen in the last 15 years. The ONLY difference is some of those teams had pens so bad that nobody could keep their job as the SU man. Roenicke has said he has several guys he's confident going to in SU situations. Henderson when healthy, Smith, Thornburg, and Kintlzer, and we're going to need all 4 by the end of the year. Henderson coming back healthy would be a big boost, hopefully by the end of June.

 

 

For the record, I'm not "whitewashing," anything. I simply find it absurd that RR is costing us a shot at the playoffs and I think there is a lot of knee jerk type reactions to relatively routine

 

He extols Falu, a bad hitter, because Falu doesn't strike out. Hmmm . . . Why is it patently moronic again to fetishize bad hitters who make contact? Does Falu's game-ending double play ring any bells?

 

This one...I don't even know what to do with. When did he "fetishize," Falu? I'm just going to assume you're using "fetish," in this instance to mean have an irrational or over the top commitment to a player as opposed to other definitions. Falu has TWO plate appearances and literally BOTH times he was the LAST guy to get an at bat. So I would argue there is absolutely zero evidence that he has some strong commitment to Falu. Could you show me where he was signing the praises of Falu? Who incidentally has historically been a pretty good hitter for average. One double play is so irrelevant in the large scheme, ESPECIALLY given the fact that his only other choice would have been to bring in a pitcher, I don't know what it has to do with anything.

 

The point about Falu is pretty simple. RR said he valued Falu offensively because he can make contact. Nothing else; just that he can make contact. I think that's fairly obviously a stupid reason to value a hitter. I'm not going to try to out-snark you here, because I know when I'm beaten, but I think my point is fairly simple. If you think I'm wrong, and you feel like explaining why it makes sense to promote and rely on a hitter who can do nothing other than not strike out, that's fine.

 

You say that my complaint about the Garza decision is invalid because I'd complain just as much if RR brought in a reliever there and he failed. Actually, I wouldn't. You made that up, pulled it out of your butt, and pinned it on me. I really, truly, desperately wanted RR to pull Garza at that point. You don't just get to assert whatever the hell you feel like asserting, posit that some people think your assertion is too hot while other people think it's too cold, and conclude based on that variety of imagined objections that you're obviously right, let alone that a particular person with a distinct objection to your view is obviously wrong. That's exactly the kind of whitewash I was talking about.

 

For a pinch hitter, "making contact" is a big deal. You can selectively choose when he gets to hit...e.g. when there is a guy on 3rd with 0/1 out.

[TooLiveBrew]

Getting thrown out at home is not an instance of the contact play "not working."

This is, for me, the one & only determinant as to whether or not a 'contact play' worked. I HATE the 'contact play'. It's bad strategy. Trust a professional baseball player to use his instincts and judgment, & read the ball off the bat to determine whether or not he tries to score on a groundball in the infield.

 

Imo the 'contact play' is the equivalent of telling a runner on 3B to attempt to tag up & score on any flyball, no matter how deep or shallow it is, and without considering if the OF throwing the ball has an arm like Khris Davis or like Carlos Gomez.

[Baldkin]

Getting thrown out at home is not an instance of the contact play "not working."

This is, for me, the one & only determinant as to whether or not a 'contact play' worked. I HATE the 'contact play'. It's bad strategy. Trust a professional baseball player to use his instincts and judgment, & read the ball off the bat to determine whether or not he tries to score on a groundball in the infield.

 

Imo the 'contact play' is the equivalent of telling a runner on 3B to attempt to tag up & score on any flyball, no matter how deep or shallow it is, and without considering if the OF throwing the ball has an arm like Khris Davis or like Carlos Gomez.

 

http://media.tumblr.com/33a00d5d0fa1500b4bc5d5ee69ffa345/tumblr_inline_mp9hhkPFjS1qz4rgp.gif

[Oxy]

Getting thrown out at home is not an instance of the contact play "not working."

This is, for me, the one & only determinant as to whether or not a 'contact play' worked. I HATE the 'contact play'. It's bad strategy. Trust a professional baseball player to use his instincts and judgment, & read the ball off the bat to determine whether or not he tries to score on a groundball in the infield.

 

Imo the 'contact play' is the equivalent of telling a runner on 3B to attempt to tag up & score on any flyball, no matter how deep or shallow it is, and without considering if the OF throwing the ball has an arm like Khris Davis or like Carlos Gomez.

 

The problem is that part of the contact play is getting a very, very big secondary lead off of 3rd base (since you are going no matter what when the ball is on the ground). Which means that you will be able to score on ground balls that you wouldn't normally score on if you left it up to the runner.

 

The contact play is NOTHING like going on all fly balls. You actually lose both an out AND a baserunner (on 3rd even!) when you get thrown out at home on a sacrifice. You lose NEITHER an out NOR a baserunner when you get thrown out at the plate on the contact play. You exchange positions on the basepaths when it "doesn't work." That's it. Same number of outs, same number of baserunners. It makes it worth the risk to get that one run.

[adambr2]

Getting thrown out at home is not an instance of the contact play "not working." A double play IS in instance of that, I admit. But I still put that on Herrera in this instance.

 

I'll keep preaching it for as long as it takes, but an out at the plate is only bad if the out would not have otherwise occurred. Getting a run is a big deal, while exchanging runners between the bases is not. Particularly if you have a good pitching staff/bullpen.

 

I can't believe that you would say this without at least disclaiming it as being situation dependent.

 

If you run on contact with a runner on 3rd and nobody out and get thrown out, that is most certainly a bad play. As it is even if done with 1 out. Particularly in a close late game, but anytime, trading a runner on 3rd for a runner on 1st is a big deal. You've removed a ton of scoring scenarios on the next AB.

 

Trading a runner on 3rd for a runner on 2nd isn't as bad, but its not harmless. The one and only situation where its entirely irrelevant is with runners on 2nd and 3rd at home in the 9th or later needing just 1 run to win or tie. Any other time trading a runner from 3rd for 1st/2nd can certainly end up having a negative impact.

[jjgott]

Lohse pitching the complete game. How are our relievers supposed to stay sharp?

[lcbj68c]

ESPN broadcasting our game on National Television. That always ends well.

[topper09er]

Getting thrown out at home is not an instance of the contact play "not working."

This is, for me, the one & only determinant as to whether or not a 'contact play' worked. I HATE the 'contact play'. It's bad strategy. Trust a professional baseball player to use his instincts and judgment, & read the ball off the bat to determine whether or not he tries to score on a groundball in the infield.

 

Imo the 'contact play' is the equivalent of telling a runner on 3B to attempt to tag up & score on any flyball, no matter how deep or shallow it is, and without considering if the OF throwing the ball has an arm like Khris Davis or like Carlos Gomez.

 

Runner's should try to tag from 3rd on every flyball (to an outfielder) just to draw a throw and then go back if you will be clearly out. It can allow other runners to advance or lead to a bad throw that you could score on. The difference is that you have the time to get back to the base because the ball is in the air. On the infield grounder contact play you cannot start running, notice the ball was a 2 hopper to the SS, and then go back to 3rd because you will be too far off. So really what you have to do it wait until the ball gets through, but then you lose the chance to score on balls that require the infielder to dive, or when they make a bad throw. The contact play allows you to score a run when no other play would allow you to score a run, so it is not a bad strategy. The question is if it is worth it in terms of the net WPA before and after, and I'm not sure how to get that data. It's also not that rare on these plays when no out occurs because the infielder throws home late and does not take the out at first.

 

Of course the contact play does not override the "freeze on a liner" rule because in that scenario you can wait for the ball to get through and score easily. Infact, with the contact play on you should start running back to the base on a liner as soon as possible instead of freeze

[Baldkin]

Of course the contact play does not override the "freeze on a liner" rule because in that scenario you can wait for the ball to get through and score easily. Infact, with the contact play on you should start running back to the base on a liner as soon as possible instead of freeze

 

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a player freezing on contact AND going on contact.