Stupid play, sending Mo.

On Jul 6, 6:53 pm, "Fred Burton" <fbur....RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
> "Throws like Mary" <yank_ees_s....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1183765094.049766.266250@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Not nearly deep enough.
>
> Is it only "smart" to send the runner when it's 100% certain that the runner
> will score? Or is it "smart" to send the runner when it requires a perfect
> throw to get him?

I don't find the term "perfect throw" to be useful. It depends on the
difficulty of the play. When the throw isn't that long, it isn't that
difficult. There were several different throws that could have caused
the runner to be out, not just one "perfect" result. For instance, if
Granderson had put more on the throw, it is possible to have thrown
him out by several steps. The ball could have bounced or been up the
line a step or two. Your choice of words makes the task sound more
difficult than it actually was.
 >> Stay informed about: Stupid play, sending Mo. 

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:38:14 -0700, Throws like Mary, during a pipe dream
babbled:

> Not nearly deep enough.

I'd agree considering that it was the first out.

But - this is the first complaint I've heard about a 3rd base coach so far
this year, so I guess he can't be doing too bad a job.

--
Quis corriget ipsos correctores?
 >> Stay informed about: Stupid play, sending Mo. 

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 08:57:58 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:


>>
>> I don't know what risk is acceptable or sensible. Obviously, you
>> should take less risk with one or no outs than with two outs. With two
>> outs, I'd guess it is okay to go if the chance of success is 40% or
>> more. With one out, I'd think you need at leeast a 60% chance of
>> success. Perhaps 80% with no outs. But these are guesses, and they
>> need to be adjusted, depending on who is up next. With two outs and
>> Lugo up next, it might be okay to go with a 25% chance of shccess,
>> whereas if Ortiz is next up, you might want closer to 45%.
>
>I'm sure that there are a lot of factors. And you are correct to point out
>that who is up next should be one of those factors.
>
>I'd guess that among these factors are strength and accuracy of the player's
>arm, depth of the flyball, speed of the runner, number of outs, next hitter,
>and current score. I'm sure that I'm probably missing some other factors,
>but these are certainly some of them.
>

We are not disagreeing on much. I would note, however, that stuff like
the arm of the defender and speed of the runner goes to assessment of
the risk, whereas the number of outs and the next guy up goes to the
amount of risk worth taking. I was dealing only with the latter.
 >> Stay informed about: Stupid play, sending Mo. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Stupid play, sending Mo.