Yes they do take two steps toward the line and catch the ball all the time. But thats not all the way to the line. By guarding the lines, you play closer to the lines to get the the ball right on the line that they couldn't get to by playing in their normal position. Most doubles are hit right down the line. Not two steps off of it because they can get to that ball.

 

We're having trouble getting on the same page.

 

You said you guard the line to cut off the double but yet he can still get to a ball hit back to his left. You said I underestimated the Professional Athlete.

 

If , as you say, you player closer to the lines "to the ball right on the line that they couldn't get to by playing in their normal position" the effect of that is said F5 can't get to the ball to his left that he would normally have gotten to.

 

IMO the percentages are higher that he'll hit one to that spot instead of down the line.

 

I completely know WHY managers do it. I simply disagree with it due to the laws of probability. Can you do it for a particular batter? Absolutely. Just don't use it as a blanket rule.

We're having trouble getting on the same page.

 

You said you guard the line to cut off the double but yet he can still get to a ball hit back to his left. You said I underestimated the Professional Athlete.

 

If , as you say, you player closer to the lines "to the ball right on the line that they couldn't get to by playing in their normal position" the effect of that is said F5 can't get to the ball to his left that he would normally have gotten to.

 

IMO the percentages are higher that he'll hit one to that spot instead of down the line.

 

I completely know WHY managers do it. I simply disagree with it due to the laws of probability. Can you do it for a particular batter? Absolutely. Just don't use it as a blanket rule.

 

Lets say a 3B is playing 4 steps off the line. He's able to go 2 steps either way. Then he play's two steps closer to the line. He is now able to defend anywhere from the line to his normal position. But before he couldn't get to the line. There are a lot of ball's hit right at the 3B , which he can still get to by guarding the line. Most balls in the hole between SS and 3B are balls that the 3B can't get to anyway so late in the game they are taking away the double while still being able to get to where the majority of their balls are anyway (which is right at them).

Here's the problem with your logic (and not just yours but many others).

 

Unless the game rules get changed in the 9th and its no longer based on getting 3 outs, why not try to get the runner stealing? Ex: 2 outs today and Carbera (a 36 year old by the way)for the Reds gets on first with the Reds down 2 runs. He steals second. What's the harm in trying to throw him out? By your own response there is no downside. If you throw him out, game over. If the throw sails to the outfield, his run doesn't matter,right? The Sox TWICE today made no attempt to end the game when Cabrera stole 2nd AND 3rd.

 

You mention not wanting to open up a hole. If I've got a good catcher behind the plate, the chances of my catcher throwing out the runner are MUCH higher than this batter on this pitch hitting it in the one spot I don't have a fielder. Instead, you prolong the inning and take a chance that a bopper takes you deep. Classic old-school cliche logic by baseball folks.

 

They've been playing baseball for a long, long time now--it's pretty hard to argue with the logic that's been proven to work for years. :thumb:

 

My response did not say that there was no downside to trying to throw him out--it said quite the opposite. To have a chance to throw the runner out, 36 year old or not (and Cabrera's only 35 until December and he still has average to above average speed) you have to hold him on and have either your second baseman or shortstop cover the bag. That creates TWO holes, not one. Bako is a pretty good catcher but he only throws out 30% of baserunners attempting to steal so your chances of getting the runner are less than 1 in 3. Give a major league hitter two extra holes in the infield and you turn a .250 hitter into a .350 hitter. It is not a worthwhile gamble since the only way, except for hitting a homerun, that the hitter can tie the game is by getting on base. Once he gets on base there are many more ways to get him home and tie the game, let alone the fact that the batter can now win the game with a homerun. Managers that worry about a baserunner with 2 outs and a multi-run lead will soon be color commentators.

I guess its simply a matter of percentages. I don't like to "give" a team baserunners. Too many bad things can happen. Of course, if I KNEW a guy was going to hit a screamer down the line, I'd of course "guard the corners." But, as a matter of percentages, the smart thing to do in my "book" is to not allow the gun on first base when I could have gotten him out.

 

Besides, by your own logic, a MLB third baseman or Professional Athlete could just as easily "take two steps" to his right to catch the potential double, right?

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You don't want to "give" a team baserunners but you are okay with trying to throw out a runner whose run is meaningless? If you hold the runner on first base you are more than guarding the line, you are playing RIGHT ON THE LINE, correct? Then you have to take into account that a middle infielder has to move directly second base so he is in effect "guarding" second base and would be unable to move to catch a ball hit in the direction from which he came, correct? That means that you don't want to give the hitters a hole to hit it into by guarding the lines but it is okay to do the same thing to try and throw out a meaningless runner.

They've been playing baseball for a long, long time now--it's pretty hard to argue with the logic that's been proven to work for years. :thumb:

 

My response did not say that there was no downside to trying to throw him out--it said quite the opposite. To have a chance to throw the runner out, 36 year old or not (and Cabrera's only 35 until December and he still has average to above average speed) you have to hold him on and have either your second baseman or shortstop cover the bag. That creates TWO holes, not one. Bako is a pretty good catcher but he only throws out 30% of baserunners attempting to steal so your chances of getting the runner are less than 1 in 3. Give a major league hitter two extra holes in the infield and you turn a .250 hitter into a .350 hitter. It is not a worthwhile gamble since the only way, except for hitting a homerun, that the hitter can tie the game is by getting on base. Once he gets on base there are many more ways to get him home and tie the game, let alone the fact that the batter can now win the game with a homerun. Managers that worry about a baserunner with 2 outs and a multi-run lead will soon be color commentators.

 

Good info but let me point out flaws if I may be so bold.

 

I would say that , in reality, there is only one potential hole against most batters. Most are not adept at hitting the opposite way plus your pitcher can pitch to where his defense is to help minimize the chances of , say, a lefty going to the 6 hole.

 

The "Bako throws out only 30%" is only relevant on the stealing of 2nd situation. You know the game. You would surely agree that EVERY MLB catcher has a much better chance of throwing a runner out from 90 feet than he does from 127 feet, correct?

 

Lastly, even if I concede that a 35 year old Cabrera has "above average" speed by MLB standards, that's not enough to say he's likely to be safe at 3rd on a steal. Stealing 3rd requires great speed and/or a unique ability to read pitchers.

 

Granted, my next MLB win as a manager will be my first but your statement that "its pretty hard to argue with logic that has been working for years" is simply not correct unless you simply disregard the Moneyball-type of thinking.

 

As Billy Beane said, the old school thinking makes you draft guys that would look good selling jeans vs someone like Sean Casey or Scott Hatteberg - solid MLBers.

He won't get to the ball that he would normally get to (and much more likely to occur) had he not been "guarding the line." Secondly, your guy is not going to catch a hard hit groundball that my guy would already be in front of.

 

Why give them an extra out?

 

Simple. The "extra out" doesn't really matter. A shot to the 3Bman's left results in a single, obviously putting the runner at first. Now it will still take an extra base hit to score the runner from first. However a shot down the line that results in a double puts the runner in a position to score on ANY base hit. In situation A a texas leaguer into the OF can't beat you, in situation B it can.

 

And as far as not holding the runner, it is simple, what advantage do you gain by holding him? He most certainly won't run if you do, as his run doesn't matter. However you give up a "hole" in the IF. The best argument you could make for holding him is that you keep the DP intact, thus forcing your pitcher to face one less batter.

Good info but let me point out flaws if I may be so bold.

 

I would say that , in reality, there is only one potential hole against most batters. Most are not adept at hitting the opposite way plus your pitcher can pitch to where his defense is to help minimize the chances of , say, a lefty going to the 6 hole.

 

The "Bako throws out only 30%" is only relevant on the stealing of 2nd situation. You know the game. You would surely agree that EVERY MLB catcher has a much better chance of throwing a runner out from 90 feet than he does from 127 feet, correct?

 

Lastly, even if I concede that a 35 year old Cabrera has "above average" speed by MLB standards, that's not enough to say he's likely to be safe at 3rd on a steal. Stealing 3rd requires great speed and/or a unique ability to read pitchers.

 

Granted, my next MLB win as a manager will be my first but your statement that "its pretty hard to argue with logic that has been working for years" is simply not correct unless you simply disregard the Moneyball-type of thinking.

 

As Billy Beane said, the old school thinking makes you draft guys that would look good selling jeans vs someone like Sean Casey or Scott Hatteberg - solid MLBers.

 

 

When is the last time that Moneyball-type of thinking won a World Championship?

Simple. The "extra out" doesn't really matter. A shot to the 3Bman's left results in a single, obviously putting the runner at first. Now it will still take an extra base hit to score the runner from first. However a shot down the line that results in a double puts the runner in a position to score on ANY base hit. In situation A a texas leaguer into the OF can't beat you, in situation B it can.

 

And as far as not holding the runner, it is simple, what advantage do you gain by holding him? He most certainly won't run if you do, as his run doesn't matter. However you give up a "hole" in the IF. The best argument you could make for holding him is that you keep the DP intact, thus forcing your pitcher to face one less batter.

 

With two outs, the "extra out" doesn't matter?

When is the last time that Moneyball-type of thinking won a World Championship?

 

Classic response from Joe Morgan and many others.

 

However, explain to me why every other team besides teams like the A's deploy the "old school" mentality of putting a team together yet they never make the playoffs despite outspending the A's?

 

Its simply one example of traditional baseball logic that has failed MOST teams.

With two outs, the "extra out" doesn't matter?

 

It makes even more sense to guard the lines with two outs. If a player hits a double down the line with two outs then all it takes is a single to score him. If he hits a single through the hole, it'll take an extra base hit (with the OF playing deep) or two more singles. Which is more likely to happen?

Good info but let me point out flaws if I may be so bold.

 

I would say that , in reality, there is only one potential hole against most batters. Most are not adept at hitting the opposite way plus your pitcher can pitch to where his defense is to help minimize the chances of , say, a lefty going to the 6 hole.

 

The "Bako throws out only 30%" is only relevant on the stealing of 2nd situation. You know the game. You would surely agree that EVERY MLB catcher has a much better chance of throwing a runner out from 90 feet than he does from 127 feet, correct?

 

Lastly, even if I concede that a 35 year old Cabrera has "above average" speed by MLB standards, that's not enough to say he's likely to be safe at 3rd on a steal. Stealing 3rd requires great speed and/or a unique ability to read pitchers.

 

Granted, my next MLB win as a manager will be my first but your statement that "its pretty hard to argue with logic that has been working for years" is simply not correct unless you simply disregard the Moneyball-type of thinking.

 

As Billy Beane said, the old school thinking makes you draft guys that would look good selling jeans vs someone like Sean Casey or Scott Hatteberg - solid MLBers.

 

You can only throw the runner out at 3rd if you A) hold him, and B) don't put the shift on Griffey. What is more likely to result in an out, holding the runner or putting the shift on?

 

And Sean Casey and Hatteberg are solid BENCH players with defensive liabilities, nothing more. I think solid MLBer is a bit of a stretch.....

Classic response from Joe Morgan and many others.

 

However, explain to me why every other team besides teams like the A's deploy the "old school" mentality of putting a team together yet they never make the playoffs despite outspending the A's?

 

Its simply one example of traditional baseball logic that has failed MOST teams.

 

While I'm sure it's nice to go to the playoffs a lot, in Professional Sports, anything but a World Championship is considered a failure. Simple as that.

It makes even more sense to guard the lines with two outs. If a player hits a double down the line with two outs then all it takes is a single to score him. If he hits a single through the hole, it'll take an extra base hit (with the OF playing deep) or two more singles. Which is more likely to happen?

 

Which is more likely to happen? I say the groundball that can now not be gotten to is more likely to happen (3rd out) vs the double.

 

I guess its obvious we disagree but I have enjoyed the banter.

You can only throw the runner out at 3rd if you A) hold him, and B) don't put the shift on Griffey. What is more likely to result in an out, holding the runner or putting the shift on?

 

And Sean Casey and Hatteberg are solid BENCH players with defensive liabilities, nothing more. I think solid MLBer is a bit of a stretch.....

 

 

They are true professionals which every team would love to have. But they are not everyday players.

You can only throw the runner out at 3rd if you A) hold him, and B) don't put the shift on Griffey. What is more likely to result in an out, holding the runner or putting the shift on?

 

And Sean Casey and Hatteberg are solid BENCH players with defensive liabilities, nothing more. I think solid MLBer is a bit of a stretch.....

 

Unless this strategy is ONLY used on Griffey, my point still stands.

 

How many bench players have collected 1500 hits in their careers?