Welcome to Miami Hawk Talk!

This website is a fan-operated and fan-oriented site primarily about athletics at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.

This website is not affiliated with Miami University, the Mid-American Conference (MAC), the National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC) the NCAA, or any other collegiate or professional organization.

2019 MLB thread

1911131415

Comments

  • The_SackmanThe_Sackman Wealthy Alum
    Thank God they have Osuna.
  • QuinoaburgerQuinoaburger Wealthy Alum

    Thank God they have Osuna.

    Thank god the Yankees have Chapman.
    Mowch
  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    Another good one brewing. 2-2 in the 6th.
  • DevilGradDevilGrad Wealthy Alum
    Not anymore
  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    The intentional walk of Soto was the FIRST issued by the Astros all year long.

    I like that gamble better than giving away the out on a bunt earlier in the inning. *facepalm*
  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    Nats pouring it on in the 7th. Now 6-2 after a Bergman error and a 2-run single.
  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    8-2. Wow.
  • DICKDICK Wealthy Alum
    TruckCrew said:

    The intentional walk of Soto was the FIRST issued by the Astros all year long.

    I like that gamble better than giving away the out on a bunt earlier in the inning. *facepalm*

    That bunt actually was excellent strategy.  Tie game in the 7th inning.  You statistically INCREASE your chance of getting one or two runs. In that situation, getting the lead is the most important thing.  The Reds would have swung away trying for a 3-run homer.  That is one reason why they were so poor in close games.

    Intentional walks open the possibility of giving up a big inning ( which actually happened this time) but also increase the possibility of getting out of the inning giving up no runs, which the Astros felt they needed to do.
  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    edited October 2019
    1. The Nats were already up 3-2 when they used the bunt.
    2. There is no scenario where run expectancy increases after giving up an out.
    3. Correct re: the intentional walk, which is why I’m generally against IBB, but there was no way I pitch to Soto in that situation.
    4. The pitcher got a ground ball that Bregman couldn’t convert. The pitcher did all he could and had Bregman fielded it cleanly the inning ends with a 3-2 score. (The official scorer giving that play a single is a head scratcher)
  • DevilGradDevilGrad Wealthy Alum
    Thanks, Mister Analytics.  It's a damn shame the Nats had that turn around and bite them in the ass.  Time to head home to Washington.  

  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    DevilGrad said:

    Thanks, Mister Analytics.  It's a damn shame the Nats had that turn around and bite them in the ass.  Time to head home to Washington.  


    You’re welcome. I’m enjoying watching the games and commenting/debating on in-game decisions as they are happening just as we’ve done on this site for Miami games (or previous versions of) for a couple decades.

    Congrats to Nats fans, one heck of an opening to the World Series.
    redhawk11
  • DevilGradDevilGrad Wealthy Alum
    And I am busting your balls, as sports fans have been wont to do since the first Olympics in Ancient Greece.
  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    DevilGrad said:

    And I am busting your balls, as sports fans have been wont to do since the first Olympics in Ancient Greece.

    I bet it happened way before that.

    (It wouldn’t be MHT if I didn’t debate that statement.)
  • BlackbirdBlackbird Off-Campus Slummer
    First time this postseason the Astros BP imploded, uncharacteristic defensive blunders, and a terrible RISP average . . . a combination that never ends well.  Gotta reset.   Nats played loose as the underdog.  Will be interesting to see how the ‘Stros respond. 
  • MazMaz Senior Barfly
    Late in the game last night, the Astros seemed to be just going through the paces ... almost sleep-walking toward the end of the game.  They were stunned, I guess.  Kinda punch-drunk.  I suppose that's understandable, but if you're an Astros fan, it has to be worrying.  They basically quit last night.  Now, I fully expect them to put that behind them going into Game 3 ... but, when the Nats punch them in the mouth again, will they quit then, too?  There's no doubt that the Astros are a great team with great players, but baseball is exceptionally mental/emotional (what goes on between the ears is important in all sports, of course), so this may be the biggest question remaining.  Conversely, the Nats just don't quit.  For 5 months now, they have made a habit of staying focused in the late innings - regardless of score - which made them one of the best (the best?) teams in baseball at scoring runs in the 7th inning or later.  I'm sure part of that is because with their historically awful bullpen they knew that no lead was safe.  But, part of it is also that they believe that they can come back from any deficit.  Last night, the Astros didn't believe they could.  

    Go Nats!
  • DevilGradDevilGrad Wealthy Alum
    edited October 2019
    One of the best things that happened to the Nats this season was their September 3rd game against the Mets.  The stupid bullpen gave up five runs in the top of the ninth to complete blowing a lead and going down 10-4.  But they somehow managed to score seven in the bottom of the ninth and walk off.

    Every team mouths the cliche about "it ain't over 'til it's over."  The Nats have a veteran group who really believe it.  

  • MazMaz Senior Barfly
    DevilGrad said:

    One of the best things that happened to the Nats this season was their September 3rd game against the Mets.  The stupid bullpen gave up five runs in the top of the ninth to complete blowing a lead and going down 10-4.  But they somehow managed to score seven in the bottom of the ninth and walk off.


    Every team mouths the cliche about "it ain't over 'til it's over."  The Nats have a veteran group who really believe it.  

    I probably watch (at least parts of) about 110 of the Nats games each year.  In baseball, you can usually feel pretty comfortable about going to bed after the 6 or 7th inning with a decent lead.  Not with the Nats this year.  If you miss the last 3 innings, you probably miss the game. 

    In related news, I can't stop yawning.  
  • DICKDICK Wealthy Alum
    TruckCrew said:

    1. The Nats were already up 3-2 when they used the bunt.
    2. There is no scenario where run expectancy increases after giving up an out.
    3. Correct re: the intentional walk, which is why I’m generally against IBB, but there was no way I pitch to Soto in that situation.
    4. The pitcher got a ground ball that Bregman couldn’t convert. The pitcher did all he could and had Bregman fielded it cleanly the inning ends with a 3-2 score. (The official scorer giving that play a single is a head scratcher)

    Your comment #2 is not clear to me.  What I stated is correct, bunting with runners on first and second with no one out statistically increases your chance of scoring 1 or 2 runs.  Now if you mean that you will score more runs total over the course of a season by not bunting, that is also correct.  The point of my comment here is that this was a correct time to bunt and increase your chances of getting a run or two, which would likely win the game.  All year you seem to have a hard time with that concept.  So evidently do Reds management/coaching staff.  That is a prime contributor to the fact that the Reds total run differential should normally lead to more wins that they were able to get this year.

  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    DICK said:

    TruckCrew said:

    1. The Nats were already up 3-2 when they used the bunt.
    2. There is no scenario where run expectancy increases after giving up an out.
    3. Correct re: the intentional walk, which is why I’m generally against IBB, but there was no way I pitch to Soto in that situation.
    4. The pitcher got a ground ball that Bregman couldn’t convert. The pitcher did all he could and had Bregman fielded it cleanly the inning ends with a 3-2 score. (The official scorer giving that play a single is a head scratcher)

    Your comment #2 is not clear to me.  What I stated is correct, bunting with runners on first and second with no one out statistically increases your chance of scoring 1 or 2 runs.  Now if you mean that you will score more runs total over the course of a season by not bunting, that is also correct.  The point of my comment here is that this was a correct time to bunt and increase your chances of getting a run or two, which would likely win the game.  All year you seem to have a hard time with that concept.  So evidently do Reds management/coaching staff.  That is a prime contributor to the fact that the Reds total run differential should normally lead to more wins that they were able to get this year.

    I'm following you I just don't agree about bunting in that situation. Tie score? Bunt away (although doing it in the 7th may still have been a tad early for my liking). But they were already winning 3-2 after the Suzuki HR. My preference would have been to swing away (especially after seeing the bunt backfire in inning 1 of Game 1 and even more so after seeing what happened when Robles swung away after 2 failed bunt attempts in the 5th inning of Game 1). 

    Yes, as you mentioned I was focused in on runs expected to score in a given situation. And, according to the Baseball Prospectus Run Expectations matrix, you can see that in no scenario does your total run expectancy INCREASE after an out. With runners on 1st and 2nd and no out MLB teams in 2019 have a run expectancy of 1.5371. With runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out (following said bunt), that number drops to 1.3679. So the likelihood of a big inning has taken a slight decrease and that is where I would gear my strategy. Big innings (except for the 9th of extras, especially as a home team). 

    But yes, to support your point about likelihood of scoring ONLY 1 or 2 runs, this table shows that with runners on 1st and 2nd and no out you're likely to score 1 or 2 runs 38% of the time. With runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out you're likely to score 1 or 2 runs 48% of the time. I still say, especially in this run environment (even with the interesting ball flight patterns emerging during the postseason) that you're better off playing for the big inning. Especially against an offense like the Astros with a bullpen like the Nationals. 


  • MazMaz Senior Barfly
    Dave Martinez knows his bullpen.  So, he knew damn well that one run was not enough. (It wasn't.) He needed to do anything he could to get another run.  The one thing he couldn't have happen is to have Eaton ground into a double play - like he did in the 5th.
    DICK
  • DICKDICK Wealthy Alum
    TruckCrew said:

    DICK said:

    TruckCrew said:

    1. The Nats were already up 3-2 when they used the bunt.
    2. There is no scenario where run expectancy increases after giving up an out.
    3. Correct re: the intentional walk, which is why I’m generally against IBB, but there was no way I pitch to Soto in that situation.
    4. The pitcher got a ground ball that Bregman couldn’t convert. The pitcher did all he could and had Bregman fielded it cleanly the inning ends with a 3-2 score. (The official scorer giving that play a single is a head scratcher)

    Your comment #2 is not clear to me.  What I stated is correct, bunting with runners on first and second with no one out statistically increases your chance of scoring 1 or 2 runs.  Now if you mean that you will score more runs total over the course of a season by not bunting, that is also correct.  The point of my comment here is that this was a correct time to bunt and increase your chances of getting a run or two, which would likely win the game.  All year you seem to have a hard time with that concept.  So evidently do Reds management/coaching staff.  That is a prime contributor to the fact that the Reds total run differential should normally lead to more wins that they were able to get this year.

    I'm following you I just don't agree about bunting in that situation. Tie score? Bunt away (although doing it in the 7th may still have been a tad early for my liking). But they were already winning 3-2 after the Suzuki HR. My preference would have been to swing away (especially after seeing the bunt backfire in inning 1 of Game 1 and even more so after seeing what happened when Robles swung away after 2 failed bunt attempts in the 5th inning of Game 1). 

    Yes, as you mentioned I was focused in on runs expected to score in a given situation. And, according to the Baseball Prospectus Run Expectations matrix, you can see that in no scenario does your total run expectancy INCREASE after an out. With runners on 1st and 2nd and no out MLB teams in 2019 have a run expectancy of 1.5371. With runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out (following said bunt), that number drops to 1.3679. So the likelihood of a big inning has taken a slight decrease and that is where I would gear my strategy. Big innings (except for the 9th of extras, especially as a home team). 

    But yes, to support your point about likelihood of scoring ONLY 1 or 2 runs, this table shows that with runners on 1st and 2nd and no out you're likely to score 1 or 2 runs 38% of the time. With runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out you're likely to score 1 or 2 runs 48% of the time. I still say, especially in this run environment (even with the interesting ball flight patterns emerging during the postseason) that you're better off playing for the big inning. Especially against an offense like the Astros with a bullpen like the Nationals. 


    Everything you are saying here is clear and makes sense.  Where we are going to disagree is the idea of playing for the big inning instead of trying to tie or take the lead or add on a run, especially so in late innings.  I watched the Indians and Reds this year and I saw how often the Indians used small ball strategies to add a run ( mostly steals and bunts and SF's) and how the Reds just kept playing for big innings and I think the Indians overachieved for their talent and I felt the Reds underachieved for their talents.  After the Indians added Puig and Reyes after the trade deadline, Francona's lineup had changed and I think he did less of the one/two run strategies and more of the play for the big inning or 3-run homer.
  • DICKDICK Wealthy Alum
    What are the "emerging ball flight patterns during this postseason"?
  • DevilGradDevilGrad Wealthy Alum
    Conspiracy theorists think they ditched the juiced ball for the post-season.  Others of us have noted anecdotally that for whatever reason more balls seem to be dying on the warning track in the colder October air.  Either way, my uninformed hunch is that launch angle or bust hitting doesn't work as well in the playoffs as it does in the regular season, and teams that have a more traditional mix of ways to manufacture runs are doing better.  
    DICK
  • TruckCrewTruckCrew Wealthy Alum
    There was some interesting data early in the postseason that raised some eyebrows regarding the baseballs used in postseason games. To the point where teams were noting the ball was flying differently.

    It is amazing to me that the word “launch angle” has such a negative connotation. It’s the same stuff Ted Williams preached 50+ years ago. But because it’s now being measured everyone seems to detest the approach.
    DICK
  • DevilGradDevilGrad Wealthy Alum
    No, because it's being measured, everyone is trying to do it, even if they don't have the strength or skill to do it well. Fifty years ago, scrubs didn't try to hit like Ted Williams because they knew they he was a hitting god.  Eventually, there will be an analytics discontinuity causing teams to go chase some guys who hit Charlie Lau-style, spray the ball, and are shift-proof.  The game tends to balance itself out over time.  
    DICK
  • MazMaz Senior Barfly
    DevilGrad said:

    No, because it's being measured, everyone is trying to do it, even if they don't have the strength or skill to do it well. Fifty years ago, scrubs didn't try to hit like Ted Williams because they knew they he was a hitting god.  Eventually, there will be an analytics discontinuity causing teams to go chase some guys who hit Charlie Lau-style, spray the ball, and are shift-proof.  The game tends to balance itself out over time.  

    Juan Soto asks "Can't you do both?"
    DICK
  • DevilGradDevilGrad Wealthy Alum
    I know the Nats wanted me to feel at home last night, but there were better ways to do that than putting Fernando F’n Rodney out there. My life expectancy is now shorter.
  • JohnnyMacJohnnyMac Wealthy Alum
    DevilGrad said:

    I know the Nats wanted me to feel at home last night, but there were better ways to do that than putting Fernando F’n Rodney out there. My life expectancy is now shorter.

    Who’s your Tiger?

  • DevilGradDevilGrad Wealthy Alum
    In that era?  Curtis Granderson.  As I used to tell the kids, "Seventy-five percent of the earth is covered by water; the rest is covered by Curtis Granderson."  The best thing going for the Nats last night was Victor Robles's outfield defense.  He can really go get it.  
  • JohnnyMacJohnnyMac Wealthy Alum
    DevilGrad said:

    In that era?  Curtis Granderson.  As I used to tell the kids, "Seventy-five percent of the earth is covered by water; the rest is covered by Curtis Granderson."  The best thing going for the Nats last night was Victor Robles's outfield defense.  He can really go get it.  

    When Granderson was coming through Toledo, the three centerfielders that year were him, Dewayne Wise (who preserved Mark Buerle’s perfect game), and Nook Logan, who could run anything down. They have to be the best minor-league outfield trio ever, defensively.

Sign In or Register to comment.