Diamond Mind Baseball - Sending the runner on a 3-2 count (October 28, 2003)
With a full count on the hitter, you've got a DP rate of 5.5% if you send the runner and a DP rate of 5.4% if you don't. Sounds like it doesn't matter much either way. But these are overall averages, and averages don't always apply to specific situations.
Excellent look...
--posted by TangoTiger at 09:32 AM EDT
Posted 4:35 p.m.,
October 28, 2003
(#1) -
Scott B
I'm interested to know what happens to the batter when the runner is sent on the full count. Does the batter tend to draw the walk as often? Does he get a hit as often? Does he hit with power as often? I don't know - I can guess that his BB's decreases and K's increase but it is only a guess. This could play a big role in deciding whether or not to run, though.
Posted 7:44 p.m.,
October 28, 2003
(#2) -
Michael
But, if all else is equal, you'd rather send the runner. Because in the times the ball is a hit you'd rather the runner be going so he can advance further.
Posted 8:23 p.m.,
October 28, 2003
(#3) -
OCF
Because in the times the ball is a hit you'd rather the runner be going so he can advance further.
I don't have any data, but I don't believe this is all that large or valuable an effect. I have seen runners who were going on the pitch stop at 2nd on singles, including ground singles to left. On a ball in the air - a looper, a Texas leaguer, a liner to the shallow outfield - the runner often needs to hesitate to decide whether the ball is likely to be caught. Once that happens, he's in nearly the same place as a runner who wasn't going. Against the occasional gain of a base on a ball in play, you must balance the expensive risk of the line-drive double play.
My gut instinct is the call that Bill James made a while back - that the risks and benefits are very similar to those for sending the runner on any other count, just with a greater likelyhood of irrelevance. In other words, I wouldn't do it with a bad baserunner. I certainly wouldn't do it with anyone likely to get tagged out standing up 5 feet short of the base.
Posted 1:23 p.m.,
October 29, 2003
(#4) -
MGL
1) I think it needs a lot more study to determine the "break even points."
2) I think assuming that the runners only gets thrown out 1/3 of the time is quite wrong. First, lots of non-base stealers (those who would get thrown out 2/3 of the time if they tries to steal a base) are sent on 3-2 counts.
3) I agree that batters are forced to swing more on marginal pitches with the runner going. Batters already swing too often on 3-2 counts (because they are afraid to take a called third strike). It is probably not a good idea to "force" them to swing even more often.
I think a good rule of thumb is to send above average base stealers only (then again, if they are above average, why were they not stealing before the 3-2 count?)
An interesting question is what about with runners on 1st and 2nd? Is it EVER correct to send the runners? Managers do this all the time.
Posted 6:07 p.m.,
October 29, 2003
(#5) -
MGL
In #2 above, I meant to add..
Second, for some strange reason, many otherwise fast runners and/or good basestealers seem to think that it is OK to get bad jumps and jog down to second on a 3-2 count, rather than the correct approacj which is to treat it as a straight steal...
Posted 11:50 p.m.,
October 29, 2003
(#6) -
Glenn
Kudos, yay, and hip hooray for this study. I felt that sending the runner somewhat indiscriminately was bad strategy.