Seperate dumb question

[roger_that]

I asked this in last night's IGT, and got no answers, understandable since it wasn't really part of the thread other than referring to something that happened during the game.

It relates better to baseball strategies in general. Another thought this morning concerns speedy runners like Lindor attempting to steal bases, or to advance on pitches in the dirt, and other such risky plays on which a 75% success rate is considered good. But on this tag-up play, it seems a higher bar is set--80 or 90% or more before tagging up to 2B on a deep fly to the outfield is deemed worthy of the attempt. Anyway here's my dumb question:

\

Dumb question: why is the play, with Lindor on first and Soto batting with less than two out, for Lindor to go halfway to second when Soto hits an eminently catchable deep fly to left field? Why isn't that a tag-up play? With Lindor tagging, you put pressure on the Miami LFer to get off a quick throw, and with Lindor's speed, he tags up the vast majority of the time. The only time he doesn't make second base safely is if the LF makes a smooth transition, throws perfectly to 2bman covering, and the 2Bman makes a perfect catch and tag. I'm not sure I get why that's not the standard play, but you very rarely see it.

[Centerfield]

On a deep fly ball it’s not usually clear that it’s a routine play. Outfielders get twisted around. You have to go halfway in case it drops. Allows you to get to third and the batter to get to second. If you tag and you’re wrong, you give your batter a long single.

By the time you realize the outfielder is under the ball, there isn’t enough time to go back and tag.

[roger_that]

Did you see the play last night I'm talking about? If you've got it on tape, as I do, it was the bottom of the 3rd, the Mets down 4-2, and Lindor led off the inning with a single. Soto lofted one out to LFer Troy Johnson, high in the air, and Johnson perched underneath it on the warning track.

There was no way Johnson doesn't catch that ball easy, 999 times out of 1000. There was no "in case it drops"--maybe it would have gone out of the park if Johnson misjudged it badly but he was waiting underneath it from the get-go.

My dumb question concerns these types of plays only. Obviously if the fielder is hustling ,and there's a real chance it drops, or if he has to catch on the run, you stay between first and second and hope he messes it up.

Or if the runner isn't fast, no sense in tagging up. Or if the fielder has a notorious gun for an arm, or the ball isn't hit that deep.

But none of those applied to last night's play. In fact, the Miami announcers had been commenting on how Soto and Alonso led the Mets with 16 and 20 GIDPs so a steal attempt wasn't a bad play here.

And you know Lindor makes a successful steal 3 out of 4, or 4 out of 5, but certainly short of a sure thing.

I have him at least 4 out of 5 to tag up successfully in that spot.

(Remember, most clubs put their weakest outfield arm in LF, and the 2Bman must take the throw with his back to the runner.)

If you've got it recorded, go back and see if you disagree on that play. If not, take my word that the situation is as I've described it.

[Frayed Knot]

Tagging from 1st is rarely a good idea. The ball has to be seen as easily catchable early enough in its flight for the runner to recognize that and have time to tag, yet deep enough to where he can get to the base ahead of what is almost always the shortest throw for an outfielder. If the runner is wrong on his judgment of the hit itself and it drops for a hit then his tagging just turned his teammate's XBH into a single. And if he's wrong on his ability to get to 2nd ahead of the throw then he runs into a really stupid DP.

So it's like one of those Venn diagrams where three different circles might each be a decent size but their intersection is usually very small. Plus, being wrong in any of those calculations carries a downside that's much bigger than the small upside of 1st to 2nd. Hell, given the SB success rates these days it would be much easier just to steal the base after the catch than to risk trying to finesse your way through a small window for the same result.

[MFS62]

That may be the first ever mention of a Venn diagram on the CPF.

Well played.

Later

[roger_that]

Tagging from 1st is rarely a good idea. The ball has to be seen as easily catchable early enough in its flight for the runner to recognize that and have time to tag, yet deep enough to where he can get to the base ahead of what is almost always the shortest throw for an outfielder. If the runner is wrong on his judgment of the hit itself and it drops for a hit then his tagging just turned his teammate's XBH into a single. And if he's wrong on his ability to get to 2nd ahead of the throw then he runs into a really stupid DP.

So it's like one of those Venn diagrams where three different circles might each be a decent size but their intersection is usually very small. Plus, being wrong in any of those calculations carries a downside that's much bigger than the small upside of 1st to 2nd. Hell, given the SB success rates these days it would be much easier just to steal the base after the catch than to risk trying to finesse your way through a small window for the same result.

I think you're forgetting about the role played by the coach here.

Oddly enough, on the Miami broadcast (I don't know about the NYC broadcast), there was a quick shot of Soto admiring his blast for a long second. Obviously what he could tell was that the ball was either going to go out of the park (which it very nearly did) or be caught by the LFer, who was positioned perfectly. The Mets' first base coach could see the same, of course, and he could have yelled to Lindor "Tag" (and then "Go") in that second, reducing the need for Lindor to make any of your complicated calculations.

I'm not quarreling with you that the circumstances (fast runner, deep fly with OFer positioned perfectly, long throw) arise very often, or even that last night's play was especially poor judgment, but more generally, you almost never see an advance on a sac fly with a runner on first, no matter how promising the conditions. I can't remember the last time I saw it. And I continue to maintain that in some instances, like last night, the runner on first has a MUCH greater chance of success than attempting a stolen base. To me, it looked as if Lindor could have taken second base easily on Soto's fly ball.

And BTW if we're going to play retrospective vision games, that particular advance turned out to be unnecessary since instead of hitting into the DP that my plan would have prevented, Alonso hit a HR that scored Lindor anyway.