Baseball Toaster Dodger Thoughts
Jon Weisman's outlet
for dealing psychologically
with the Los Angeles Dodgers
and baseball.
Frozen Toast
Google Search
Dodger Thoughts

02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

09  08  07 
About Jon
Thank You For Not ...

1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

Nice Debut for Navarro
2005-08-01 11:06
by Jon Weisman

No stolen bases were attempted by St. Louis in the 29 innings Dioner Navarro caught over the weekend. Is fear a powerful weapon? Navarro also went 3 for 9 with four walks.

St. Louis is eighth in the National League with 51 steals. The Dodgers' next opponent, Washington, is the worst basestealing team in the league, with 28 steals in 58 attempts, and the following opponent, Pittsburgh, is near the bottom as well.

Navarro's first big test will come beginning August 9 against Philadelphia, which has stolen 72 bases in 94 attempts and four players with 10 or more.

Comments (97)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2005-08-01 11:17:49
1.   Bob Timmermann
So somebody has to win those games between Washington and Los Angeles right? They won't all be declared "no contest" will they?

This road trip has all the makings of a 3-3 trip.

Which could vault the Dodgers into second!

Actually, it wouldn't since the Dodgers are four games behind the two teams in first. But I won't let mathematics get in the way of a funny line.

2005-08-01 11:26:31
2.   fanerman
3-3 is probably as reasonable an expectation as one can have. I'd expect 4-2 if certain managerial moves, though unlikely to happen, were made.
2005-08-01 11:38:06
3.   Sam DC
Hi all. Back from a week offline. Missed about 3,500 comments it seems and apparently one brouhaha. I'll just say, when I happened to hear on the radio that Broxton and Navarro had been called up, it was pretty cool to know as much as I did about those guys. Dodger Thoughts makes me a better fan, no doubt about it. Thanks Jon and all for that. No doubt the blustering, whatever it was will pass as it has before.

Assuming we don't have a joint-forfeit situation and they actually play the games, I'll be RFK tomorrow and wednesday night, hands over my eyes. So far, the Dodgers are 1-0 this season when I'm in attendance. says I'll see Weaver and DJ Houlton. But Wash Post has this: "The struggling Dodgers, probably more banged-up than the Nationals have been this year, come for three games and will pitch their top two starters, Brad Penny, left, and Derek Lowe, in the series." Anyone know who's right?

2005-08-01 11:44:23
4.   Sam DC
ps much -- though slow -- fun unfolding at humbug
2005-08-01 11:45:07
5.   fanerman
Yeah I've been checking that regularly the last few days. Wish it had more of a DT-pace.
2005-08-01 11:45:37
6.   Jon Weisman
Lowe is reportedly getting an extra day off to let his blister heal, so I think you'll see Houlton.
2005-08-01 12:03:42
7.   Howard Fox
6 - yeah, the Times mentioned that this morning
2005-08-01 12:04:37
8.   rageon
#3 - well put. I wouldn't know much of anything about Broxton beyond his stats if it wasn't for DT. And I certainly wouldn't have been excited to know he had been called up. I'm definetly grateful for the insights of everyone here. And when it comes to prospects, Nate and Fearing Blue are invaluable. I used to post all the time back when was still around and then later at MLB Fans, but drifted away for a while when I couldn't find anywhere intelligent to post anymore. DT has done that; so a big thank you to Jon for making this happen.
2005-08-01 12:07:36
9.   Mark
Palmeiro released a statement:

"Unfortunately, I wasn't able to explain to the arbitrator how the banned substance entered my body."

"If my situation results in the education of current and future players about the dangers of taking anything without a prescription from a licensed physician -- that is a positive."

2005-08-01 12:13:23
10.   King of the Hobos
Houlton vs Drese could go either way, and Weaver vs Loaiza figues to be a pitching duel of sorts. Penny vs Armas Jr should be a Dodger win. Lowe vs Fogg should be a Dodger win. Duke vs Perez is probably in the Pirates favor (Duke had 30 IP without giving up an earned run before today's game). Wells vs Weaver should be similar to Weaver vs Loaiza. 4-2 is fully possible, gthe Duke game is the only one that really scares me, and the Dodgers could treat him like Dontrelle Willis

And I'm not happy with McClendon, who pitched Duke on short rest (he pitched 2 innings before a rain delay) so he will face us and not the Padres

2005-08-01 12:15:35
11.   fanerman
Why would McClendon want to pitch Duke against us and not the padres?
2005-08-01 12:16:44
12.   Bob Timmermann
The way the Padres are going right now, they could be facing a guy with just one win and an ERA over 8 and lose.

Oh wait, they just did that.

2005-08-01 12:38:54
13.   Mark
Prediction: GNC is going to lose a lot of business.
2005-08-01 12:57:56
14.   rageon
GNC is going to be massively hurt by all of this by the time the dust settles. Eventually, you will probably need federal approval for most supplements, and I'm guessing that 75% of everything they sell is complete garbage and wouldn't get approved.

One of my health teachers during undergrad used to tell people that he could be a millionare if he only could look past his morals. He was primarily referring to throwing anything in a bottle, calling it a supplement, and selling to naive kids.

2005-08-01 13:11:27
15.   GoBears
Wow. Looks like I picked a good day to turn off the computer and just yell at the TV in private. Couldn't believe (but then again, I could) that Tracy (1) wasted Antonio Perez, (2) had Bradley bunt, which wasted him AND Kent and gave up an out, and (3) had Braz intentionally walk a scrub (uh, Rodriguez, I think). On the plus side, I thought he was smart to pull Odalis earlier rather than later. If it had been Weaver, JT would have let him rot, most likely.

I have a working theory that JT is just a rank pessimist. He manages in such a way as to make the WORST possible outcome less likely. That's what all the bunting is about, anyway. Maybe with the team full of AAA players that made a little sense. But when you've got Bradley/Kent/Saenz/Ledee coming up with no outs and men on base, let the guys hit! LaRussa does the same thing - he just has more weapons throughout the team.

Anyway, I'd like to echo the sentiments of those who find DT a stimulating refuge. I hope it stays that way. After reading Jon's post about yesterday's apparent flame-fest, I considered staying away. But I think I'm addicted, and I'll try to be part of the solution.

2005-08-01 13:25:35
16.   Sam DC
Well, if folks are feeling a bit weary of Jim Tracey, three days of watching Frank Robinson in action may prove somewhat bracing. I can't promise that he'll bring in his key lefty reliever solely to intentionally walk a single batter, but I can't promise that he won't.
2005-08-01 13:26:48
17.   stubbs
15-Bradley has been pretty bad since he came back, i dont fault JT for having him bunt. This is isnt Milton Bradley from May. Olmedo Saenz choked, plan and simple.

Is this the ideal lineup right now?

1. Perez 3B
2. Izturis SS
3. Bradley CF
4. Kent 2B
5. Saenz 1B
6. Ledee RF
7. Valentin LF
8. Navarro C

2005-08-01 13:32:08
18.   GoBears
17: Agreed that Bradley hasn't done much, but it's only been a few games. The question boiled down to this: there's already a runner in scoring position (and a pretty fast one). Would you rather have 3 chances at a hit with Bradley/Kent/Saenz, or 2? They didn't need 2 runs, only 1. I'm pretty sure the bunt LOWERED the chance of scoring at all, but especially when 2 of the better hitters in the lineup were then wasted (Bradley and Kent). Yes, the chance of scoring WITHOUT a hit (SF, WP) went up with the bunt, but those are much lower-probability events than one of 3 guys getting a single.

Had the 3 guys involved been, say, Repko, Edwards, and Saenz, then "wasting" Repko and Edwards in teh way he wasted Bradley and Kent wouldn't have been as dumb. But it seemed obvious to me that Bradley should have been allowed to hit, which, in turn, would have given Kent a chance.

2005-08-01 13:32:26
19.   Sam DC
grrr . . re 16 -- Jim Tracy. A certain someone that I'm married to spells her Tracey with an "e" and my DT references to JT thus always seem to include that durn extra e.
2005-08-01 13:33:13
20.   GoBears
17: On stubbs's proposed lineup, I would agree, with the caveat that I'd platoon Choi and Saenz. But Tracy won't.
2005-08-01 13:35:06
21.   GoBears
19: Sam DC: Just don't mix it up the other way. What greater insult than to associate your wife with our beloved manager? Yowch. She'd be justified in whatever form retaliation she were to choose.
2005-08-01 13:35:21
22.   Steelyeri
17: stubbs, I like that lineup as well. I also agree with gobears that choi and saenz should platoon.
2005-08-01 13:36:24
23.   fanerman
I agree (not that that should be surprising). Saenz and Choi in a REAL platoon is probably the best line-up out there.

Stats from "DePodesta For President":
Last Two Months
Choi: .233/.318/.475 .793 OPS
Saenz: .252/.315/.420 .735 OPS

Last Month
Choi: .277/.382/.426 .808 OPS
Saenz: .250/.304/.481 .785 OPS

2005-08-01 13:44:43
24.   stubbs
23-Robles should rarely play over Perez anymore, that was a nice little run but lets get back to reality.

starts per week with that lineup:

Phillips: 2
Choi: 1
Repko: 2
Robles: 1
Edwards and Robles

2005-08-01 13:46:42
25.   fanerman
Agreed about Robles. Maybe when Lowe pitches, but otherwise, Perez should get the first nod.
2005-08-01 13:51:13
26.   Telemachos
Totally off-topic here, guys, and sorry for the digression:

I'm looking to get my hands on a copy of yesterday's game. Does anyone have it TiVOed, and willing to make a VHS copy of it?

I'd be happy to reimburse the cost of the tape or give you a new one.

Email me at telemachos712 (at) yahoo (dot) com.

2005-08-01 13:54:37
27.   stubbs
26-try calling fox west 2 and pulling something.
2005-08-01 13:57:13
28.   jasonungar05
17. stubbs
15-Bradley has been pretty bad since he came back, i dont fault JT for having him bunt.

I do. It's not about Bradley. It's about knowingly and willingly allowing the other team to not have to face Jeff Kent who just happens to be the ML leader in Batting with RISP. He took the bat right out of his hands while also saying without saying, Bradley won't get it done and yeah he has grounded into two DP's all year, but here comes number 3.

It's about managing out of fear of the worst case sceniaro. Thats the wrong message to send IMO

I'll ask it this way, same situation but move it up one slot in the lineup. 0 outs, runners and first and second, saenz and valentin on deck, Kent is up to bat. Do u make him bunt? Of course not.

2005-08-01 14:04:19
29.   fanerman
We're all attributing Milton Bradley's struggles to rust and getting back in the "swing" of things right?
2005-08-01 14:06:11
30.   FirstMohican
This may have already been discussed... "Five stabbed in dispute over T-shirts" outside of Dodger Stadium.

2005-08-01 14:06:36
31.   bokonon42
Saenz choked because he grounded in to one double play. Got it. How about Ledee? He choked, but then he came up clutch. So, is his choke half-full or half-empty?
2005-08-01 14:06:53
32.   db1022
24 - Defense, defense, defense. Tracy doesn't like the way Perez plays 3rd. Robles handles the position nicely, and I would rather see him out there than Edwards.
2005-08-01 14:15:15
33.   GoBears
32: Well, I think you're right if you mean that JT seems to be trying to start the best defensive team that he can (as long as it means never starting Choi). But defense can't help when your pitchers are giving up HRs. And this ain't football or basketball. You can't score with good defense. I don't mind seeing Robles in there, or Izturis, but not both. And not leading off.
2005-08-01 14:17:32
34.   Linkmeister
#s 4 and 5, if Humbug ran at a DT pace the poor Scorebard would have to be thinking up new answers about every five minutes. That said, it's a fun game, and I'm glad you mentioned it.
2005-08-01 14:19:17
35.   fanerman
We know that's what Tracy prefers. But I think Perez's bat offsets the downgrade in defense. I don't think Perez is THAT bad at 3rd base. He has a Rate2 of 92, compared to Robles's Rate2 of 100 (free Baseball Prospectus!). Granted those are only in a couple dozen games each, but it's not horrible.
2005-08-01 14:21:39
36.   Jim Hitchcock
Charlie Steiner On CNN RE: Palmeiro: "This is huge on the stupid meter..."
2005-08-01 14:23:04
37.   Jim Hitchcock
Meanwhile, bakers world wide are denying rumors that poppy seeds contain trace amounts of steroids...
2005-08-01 14:29:45
38.   bokonon42
Robles has fallen off, but he's still out OPSing Beltre by forty points.
2005-08-01 14:31:43
39.   capdodger
21, 19: What if that revenge involved playing Phillips at first and Ledee, Repko and Weth across the outfield?
2005-08-01 14:43:57
40.   Jon Weisman
I think the obvious and unanswered question about yesterday's Bradley bunt is:

Why was Tracy worried Bradley would hit into a double play but not worried that Saenz would hit into one, when Saenz hits into them more frequently.

2005-08-01 14:46:04
41.   Sam DC
39 I'm afraid the most likely retaliation would involve trading for Mondesi and maybe Charles Johnson.
2005-08-01 14:48:52
42.   db1022
40 - Productive outs. Bradley's "PO" led to a runner on 3rd, less than two outs. That sets the table for Saenz' "PO". Game over.

Just stating what could've been the logic, not that I support it.

2005-08-01 14:53:58
43.   db1022
40 - Also, unless it was explicitly stated by Tracy, he might not have been 100% afraid of Bradley hitting into a DP. Any kind of flyball or popup or strike out really puts a damper on the inning. This at least assured that you get a runner at 3rd, less than two outs.

Allowing Bradley to swing there sounds like you are playing for more than one run, when only one is needed.

2005-08-01 15:05:20
44.   stubbs
43-Agreed. Bradley striking out there is possibly what Tracy was avoiding. Id rather have saenz up with a runner on 3rd than kent up with a runner on 2nd.
2005-08-01 15:09:13
45.   fanerman
I'm guessing that could be Tracy's thinking but I don't agree with it. Oh well.
2005-08-01 15:15:58
46.   Marty
44. Not knowing their stats with runners on 2nd and third, I think I'd rather see Kent up there than Saenz in any situation. He's the best hitter on the team.
2005-08-01 15:16:37
47.   King of the Hobos
Off Topic
The difference in our remaining schedule and DBacks is: the Dodgers get a 3 game vs the Nats, 3 vs the Cubs, 4 vs the Pirates, and extra game against the Marlins and Giants, whereas the DBacks have 3 vs the Cards, the Reds, the Brewers, and an extra game vs Mets. Which one is easier in your opinion? We also have 2 more games to play than they do, the rest of the schedule is the same. Let's just hope pitching matchups are worse for them
2005-08-01 15:18:34
48.   jasonungar05
I wouldn't have cared so much if it didn't mean taking the bat out of Kent's hand and setting up a double play with one of our slowest players.

I don't totally disagree with this: (although, given how money kent has been with RISP i sorta do)

Id rather have saenz up with a runner on 3rd than kent up with a runner on 2nd.

But to get Olmedo up with a runner at third meant KNOWING (as trace admits) that means also runners at 1b and 2b...hence "the issue" that many of us have.

Again, I doubt he asks Kent to bunt if Bradley is on deck with Olmedo and Jose in the hole.

2005-08-01 15:19:42
49.   capdodger
43 - A deep flyball to right of center field probably moves the runner on second over to third with less than two outs. A strikeout does nothing except force the Cardinals to pitch to Kent.

But a hit wins.

2005-08-01 15:28:15
50.   ddger
Is there any way to evaluate a manager's performance (like VORP for players)? This year Tracy seems to be making a lot more wrong decisions than last year or is it just that we're losing lot more?
Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2005-08-01 15:38:24
51.   Benaiah
Man he is really taking his time over on humbug.
2005-08-01 15:39:25
52.   FirstMohican
50 - That's a good idea, but imagine trying to structure managerial stats. Is there a stat for non-moves? You'd have to factor in available choices, their performace versus the expected performance of other possible moves or non-moves.

Anyone have any ideas on how they'd begin to do something like that?

2005-08-01 15:40:22
53.   Nick Iyengar
Do we think STL's failure to steal any bases on Navarro was a direct consequence of his reputation as a good defensive catcher, or just a coincidence?

If I'm a manager, I think I'd run all over a kid just called up from AAA, just to make him prove that he can do the job at the highest level. I guess I just don't really understand La Russa not testing Navarro ... is his reputation so good that making him prove himself is too risky?

2005-08-01 15:43:24
54.   Xeifrank
40. I've quit trying to logic to explain Buntermaker's in game strategies. I am in "acceptance" that Buntermaker like many other MLB managers is a very poor one. vr, Xei
2005-08-01 15:47:32
55.   Steve
There is no argument for a bunt in that situation, and I don't understand why anybody would try to craft one. It simply doesn't exist.
2005-08-01 15:51:43
56.   ddger
Tracy was probably praying for wild pitch or passed ball to win the game.
2005-08-01 15:55:45
57.   db1022
55 - I made this argument during the infamous "Drew Bunt" situation from a few months ago. I argued that there was NO situation to ever justify your #3 hitter bunting.

I then amended that to say "maybe...MAYBE...if there was a runner on 2nd, no outs, tie game, last of an inning (a 'walk off' situation)."

What's more likely to happen - Bradley or Kent getting a base hit, or Saenz hitting a "productive out" anywhere in the field of play with the infield and outfield's in emergency mode?

I'm not saying I completely agree with it, just that it isn't completely unfathomable to make that call.

2005-08-01 16:01:27
58.   jasonungar05
runner on 2nd, no outs. fine bunt him.

But again, if it was kent up with runners on 1b/2b no outs, what do u think Kent would have done with that Bunt sign?

2005-08-01 16:02:32
59.   ddger
Interesting statistic that should be kept is what pct a successful bunt leads to a run.

And also how often the bunt attempt is successful.

We might have one of the lower pct in the league.

2005-08-01 16:04:05
60.   db1022
58 - runner on 2nd, no outs. fine bunt him.

So you agree?

I've seen Milton bunt before, he doesn't seem completely incompetent. He used to bat leadoff frequently for Cleveland, so I'm sure he's familiar with the skill.

Kent, not so sure. He doesn't look like he's done much bunting in his career.

2005-08-01 16:04:28
61.   natepurcell
especially with bradley being a left handed hitter up there, and not grounding into a lot of DPs, i dont think he should have bunted.

anyways best lineup possible:
ss robles
3b perez
cf bradley
2b kent
rf ledee
1b saenz/choi
lf valentin
c navarro

2005-08-01 16:07:06
62.   db1022
61 - isn't it a little late to be trading Izturis?
2005-08-01 16:07:10
63.   fanerman
Steve is right. The best option was to give our #3 and #4 hitters the chance to hit with runners at 1st and 2nd. The chance they ground into a DP is low, and even if one of them does, both still have a chance with at least 2 runners on base. If neither produces but makes an out, we our #5 hitter coming up in nearly the same situation. This maximizes the number of opportunities to score.

What JT did was give our #5 hitter a chance to hit with runners at 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. While this MIGHT maximize the opportunity to score on ONE opportunity, the chance that it's better than having at least TWO opportunities to score (with better hitters) is pretty low.

2005-08-01 16:08:49
64.   natepurcell
isn't it a little late to be trading Izturis?

we dont have to trade him. fine we can play him, but pleaseee, not at the top of the order.

2005-08-01 16:10:59
65.   db1022
63 - Given this season's bunting fiascos, I can't believe he actually got it down. Chalk that up to "even when we succeed, we fail".
2005-08-01 16:11:39
66.   ddger
61. I doubt if Tracy will bench one of his favorites "Phillips". Tracy will find a way to put him in the lineup.
2005-08-01 16:11:53
67.   GoBears
63: And I can see the argument for moving the 2nd runner into scoring position if you need 2 runs to tie the game. But it was the bottom of the 9th. They only needed 1 to win. Runner was already in scoring position. Let your best hitters hit.
2005-08-01 16:12:48
68.   fanerman
Addendum to #63
I should add that I don't have data to back that up but my educated guess is 3 opportunities to score with runners on 1st and 2nd is better than 2 opportunities to score with runners at 2nd and 3rd, especially when the first batter of the latter choice has a higher chance of hitting into a DP than the first 2 batters of the former choice..
2005-08-01 16:14:31
69.   fanerman
The last line of #67 is pretty much what I'm trying to say.
2005-08-01 16:16:40
70.   jasonungar05
What JT did was give our #5 hitter a chance to hit with runners at 2nd and 3rd and 1 out.

which is great if it was true. what happened was it put the 2nd slowest guy on our team up with the bases loaded and 1 out.

2005-08-01 16:20:28
71.   db1022
68 - What about putting your team in a situation where a simple sac fly (even less than that - considering the positioning of the OF/IF) wins the game?

And its not like it was Weaver ending up having to hit or something.

2005-08-01 16:23:35
72.   fanerman
Maybe if it weren't my #3, 4 and 5 hitters.
2005-08-01 16:27:37
73.   ddger
Now that Navarro is up here,
we won't see Phillips catch any more I hope,
but he will probably take lot of Choi's at bats at 1st base.
2005-08-01 16:29:46
74.   fanerman
Choi's position on the depth charts is equal to the number of other 1st base options Jim Tracy has at his disposal.
2005-08-01 16:30:14
75.   fanerman
I mean,
+ 1
2005-08-01 16:34:06
76.   coachbean
As far as which situation is more likely to score... From Nichols' Expected Run table:

1st-2nd-0outs the expected runs scored is 1.5 but the probability of scoring is 63.6%.

2nd-3rd-1out the expected runs scored is 1.4, but the probability of scoring is 68.6%

Bases Loaded 1out the expected runs scored is 1.57, but the probability of scoring is 67.8%

What is obvious is that early in the game with 3-4-5 coming up you don't bunt and play for the most runs you can get... Bottom 9th of a tie game however you improve your chances to score by bunting.

I don't like Tracy much but statistically he did the "right thing."

That said when discussing the "right thing" the expected runs tables don't consider GiDP% for the hitters in these situations. And 4-5% difference is fairly small, and I would have been inclined to give Milton (who has decent speed) the benefit of the doubt.

2005-08-01 16:43:36
77.   fanerman
Very well I concede defeat. Though I think our best chance is having the bat in Jeff Kent's hands, regardless of where the runners are (as long as they're on the base paths).
2005-08-01 16:45:30
78.   King of the Hobos
Off Topic again, but Bonds had an MRI that shows fluid that was suppose to be gone by now. Doctors recommend he conditions during the offseason rather than rush a return right now. In other words, the Giants are pretty much out of it
2005-08-01 16:46:31
79.   ddger
76. Those statistics are based on the fact that it doesn't matter who is at bat. I think who bats makes a lot of difference in those stats.

Yesterday we took the bat out of our 3 best hitters (Perez, Bradley, and Kent).

2005-08-01 16:48:01
80.   King of the Hobos
Tracy feared a triple play (nevermind that 3 of our fastest guys were running), so he had Bradley bunt in hopes that he either fail, or LaRussa went crazy, so a more professional player (Kent) could bat
2005-08-01 16:48:21
81.   coachbean
After dissecting Tracy's move statistically, it occurred to me that if the situation was reversed Tracy may not have done the same thing. In other words if it was Olmedo batting third and Bradley batting fifth, would he have asked Saenz to but?

My guess is that he would not, even though it would seem to be a better opportunity to score because Milton's low GiDP%.

We'll never know what Tracy would do, but I'm inclined to think that Tracy bases many decisions on which players have currently earned his favorite status and been dubbed "Proffessional Hitters", thus Olmedo would not have bunted.

Another interesting question we can't answer but can definitely speculate about is whether Tracy would have asked Phillips to bunt. Just thinking about the answer to that one makes me sick though.

2005-08-01 16:52:17
82.   db1022
79 - It also doesn't take into account that it was a game-ending situation.

Putting the game-winning run at 3rd base with less than two outs and one of your most productive hitters at the plate can't be such a bad idea.

2005-08-01 16:55:16
83.   fanerman
The problem isn't if that in itself is a bad idea or not (because it's not), but rather if there are better ideas out there.
2005-08-01 16:55:24
84.   db1022
81 - There has to be some amount of weight placed on the hitter's ability to bunt. Maybe Milton is particularly good at bunting. I said earlier that with his experience in the leadoff position, it is likely that Milton could be a good bunter.

If Tracy felt confident that Milton could successfully bunt them over, its not a bad play.

2005-08-01 16:55:27
85.   ddger
We should have tried squeeze bunt with Saenz. That would have caught everyone by surprise. :)
2005-08-01 16:58:29
86.   db1022
Geez, now I sound like chief apologist for Tracy. I swear I didn't intend for this to happen.

Not sure how you can so emphatically state that there are "better ideas" out there. Tracy managed to get his team to within a boring medium flyball away from victory, with one of his best hitters at the plate.

2005-08-01 17:01:43
87.   fanerman
Yeah. Fair enough. The difference in actual chance of scoring is probably small enough so that it doesn't really matter what Tracy did at that point.
2005-08-01 17:09:18
88.   King of the Hobos
Takatsu and Boone have been released. Personally, I'm hoping Boone signs with the Padres, they could another mediocre player that will hurt more than help. Is Takatsu any better than Carrara? I think Osoria is better than either, but that's just me
2005-08-01 17:10:53
89.   King of the Hobos
I forgot Aaron Sele, he was released too. If he signs with the Yankees, that reduces our chances of getting of Erickson
2005-08-01 17:12:42
90.   ddger
Is Alvarez done? Maybe he can retire so we don't have to wait like we did for Erickson.

If he retires is his salary for next year guaranteed?

2005-08-01 17:15:04
91.   GoBears
76. OK, so the probability of scoring looks like it goes up. But there's a hidden "other things equal" assumption in that analysis. Namely that the same batter is facing those 3 different situations. But of course, that's not true. That's why I and others admitted that it wouldn't be such a dumb move in other parts of the batting order, if you were "wasting" scrubs so that good hitters would get the remaining chance(s). But by wasting 2 of your 3-4 best hitters (counting Saenz and Ledee as the other two), you're lowering your chances of scoring.
2005-08-01 17:17:45
92.   GoBears
91: Oops. ddger already made my point in 79. Sorry about the redundancy.
2005-08-01 17:20:21
93.   db1022
91 - Tracy has shown a great deal of faith in Saenz all year, and for the most part he's come up big. I think things would've been managed differently had he known Phillips or Repko (or Choi :-) ) were coming up.

And yes, I do believe that he knew that Kent would be walked, giving Saenz a crack at the game. Not sure I would've managed it that way, but I don't chalk this up to one of the things that should get him canned.

2005-08-01 17:30:18
94.   GoBears
92: Tracy has shown a great deal of faith in Saenz all year, and for the most part he's come up big.

I get your point, but let me pick another nit. Vinny yesterday said something similar about Kent. He noted that JK leads the team in GiDPs, but that that was partly because, batting 4th, he "usually" comes up with runners on, and "the majority of the time" he drives them in. We all have the same impression that Vinny was trying to express - namely, that Kent is clutch. But "usually," and "the majority of the time" were of course hyperbole. Kent's BA with RISP sure ain't higher than .500. Kent has now had 88 ABs with RISP, 180 with the bases empty.

I don't just bring this up to be anal. It's also because we need to keep reminding ourselves that even the best hitters usually fail. Only Bonds gets on half the time, and that's more often by BB than by hit.

So I guess the argument against having Bradley bunt was that it gave us only 1-2 chances for success, instead of 2-3.

2005-08-01 17:33:38
95.   GoBears
Now I'm looking at Kent's splits and feel silly. I was literally correct, but not by much:

Runners on: .333/.407/.544, 180 ABs
RISP: .409/.500/.607, 88 ABs


2005-08-01 18:17:23
96.   db1022
94 - Guess I don't understand your point. The "Tracy Solution" didn't require a batter to get a hit, rather simply fail productively.
2005-08-01 18:41:11
97.   GoBears
True, but Olneys that result in runs are not as easy as some seem to think. SFs are actually pretty darn rare. What was that stat - that fly-ball hitter Adam Dunn hasn't had a SF in 3 yrs?

The percentages showed that OTHER THINGS EQUAL, the probability of one run goes up a smidge doing what Tracy did. But given the hitters (or, as it happens, non-hitters) involved, other things were not equal. I'm sure that if one cared enough, one could plug in the individual numbers of Bradley, Kent, and Saenz (and even Navarro, who would have batted had Saenz made only one unproductive out), and found that the sacrifice was, in net, a bad idea.

db, you're right to suggest that it was a close call, and one that we might let the manager have the benefit of the doubt to make. I think what was so infuriating was that JT's choice was 100% predictable, as though no thought was required.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.