I was rooting rather than analyzing....

[roger_that]

when I suggested in the IGT of last night's game that I thought Mauricio might try for home on Vientos' 9th inning double, and Frayed Knot was probably correct in asserting that he would have been dead out if he had. Frayed Knot was as good as his user name in countering my suggestion that Mauricio should have made the attempt in asserting "'Fraid not."

But I wonder. Was it worth a try?

Even if he'd been out at the plate by a lot, the Mets were desperate for a run, and they only had two more outs to work with, so maybe it was worth the gamble to have him running full tilt on contact (or better yet to have Acuna doing the pinch-running, and saving Mauricio to run for Vientos instead of the other way around--the tying run being much more critical than the winning run at that point). There is always the chance that a throw goes wild, or that Realmuto loses the ball on a contact play, or that Castellanos bobbles the transfer if he's under time-pressure, or that the cut-off man ****s up the throw--not much of a chance, but a chance. 5%? 10%? More? Less?

If he's out, Vientos can advance to third, where you still have a chance to move him (or his pinch-runner) if McNeil gets a hit, or if McNeil walks and Alvarez gets a hit, neither of which happened as it turned out, so we lost the game. We do KNOW for a solid fact that holding Mauricio up at third did NOT work, that's the base of our assumptions. And there is that small chance that Mauricio (or Acuna) makes it home, and the small chance that if either of them gets thrown out, we could still get the man on 3B home with 2 outs.

I like gambling, especially in a game where runs are hard to come by. And especially in retrospect.

ETA: I see now that Acuna was already in the game, so skip him. (I was misled by Edgy's writing that Acuna would have made it--apparently, Edgy was just asserting that Acuna's the better baserunner, but how much better he is than Mauricio, I can't really say. A foot faster? Half a foot faster?) Let's just go with Mauricio which was what happened anyway. ****, if we were going to hold him at 3B, you might as well have left Alonso in there. Mauricio was in the game because he is much faster on the bases than Pete, and Pete would have been on 3b on Vientos' double. He was sitting in the dugout, looking at Mauricio on 3B, maybe thinking in disgust, "****, I coulda done THAT!"

I hate his ever-lasting guts, more than anyone in baseball's history, except maybe Pete Rose, but Leo Durocher would definitely have sent the runner home. So would Rose, come to think of it. "If you're scared, go home," was how Leo justified such crazy gambles.

Besides all which, can you imagine the fun we would have here if Mauricio had been thrown out at the plate, the Mets losing the game, and all of us jumping up and down on the Mets' insane coaching?

[The Hot Corner]

If Mauricio had mad the turn and headed home, I believe the likelihood of him being safe was minimal. The Phillies would have needed to throw the relay away or the catcher drop the ball for Mauricio to have had a chance of scoring. With smart (percentage play) in my mind, was to hold him and hope that McNeil can get a hit (or hit a sacrifice fly). Unfortunately, McNeil and Alvarez both struck out to end the game.

I feel confident, that sending Mauricio would have simply ended the game one batter sooner (on McNeil's strike out) and spared Alvarez his noncompetitive flailing at bat.

[roger_that]

But it's exciting, aggressive baseball, no? Forces the opposition to make the play, instead of flailing weakly at pitches.

[MFS62]

I hate his ever-lasting guts, more than anyone in baseball's history, except maybe Pete Rose, but Leo Durocher would definitely have sent the runner home. So would Rose, come to think of it. "If you're scared, go home," was how Leo justified such crazy gambles.

 

 

That made me chuckle and think what two other managers of that era might have done.

Earl Weaver would have waited for a three run homer and Gene Mauch would have done his usual unexpected and have the batter bunt for a base hit.

Good analysis.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

This is just rehashing the same argument with different verbiage. The problem isn't a simple choice of 'taking chance' vs 'not taking chance', it's that the odds of success were so small that taking the chance there would have been not just risky but stupid. Sarbaugh is a reasonably aggressive coach and he was holding up Mauricio before he got near 3B. He wasn't even doing to 'go until I tell you to stop' wave. It was stop all the way.

 

Was it worth a try? ... Even if he'd been out at the plate by a lot, the Mets were desperate for a run, and they only had two more outs to work with

 

Which is why you don't give up Half the outs you have remaining for a player with a 5-10% chance of succeeding (I think it was more like sub-2% but I'll play along). And if Mauricio isn't getting to home then the much slower and without a jump Vientos is low odds at getting to 3rd.

Wasn't it you who posted that 1986 Dykstra-to-Gibbons-to-HoJo game-ending double play clip recently? Well whether it was you or someone else, this would have been that only with the throw coming from deep 1st-2nd base rather than CF, and with neither play being close, and with neither runner having the option to barrel over the ball handler.

And EVEN IF the whole intent is to make the defense 'make a play' AND EVEN IF it succeeds in getting Vientos gets to 3rd on the throw, we've now gone from 2nd & 3rd/1out [not sending] to 3rd only/2 outs [forcing the action] meaning that the upside of failing in the first objective also puts you in a worse position in the supposed fallback upside: runner on 3rd (where one would have been anyway), NO runner on 2nd [now need a HR or successive hits to tie, not a mere single], and there are two outs so no way to score via an out!

I enjoy aggressive base running but this one just wouldn't have been within the length of a Pete HR of being smart.

[roger_that]

I conceded that your analysis of the play more sense than mine, and the odds of success may well be more like 1-2% than my speculated 5-10%--but we should explore how often the rightfielder bobbles the transfer under pressure, the throw home goes off line, the catcher mishandles a perfect throw, the cutoff man messes the play up, or some combination of those mishaps occur. I think it's more common than 1-2%--at least with the Mets it is.

I think you're incorrect, though, in asserting that Vientos doesn't make 3B if Mauricio tries for home. A slug sitting on the back of a turtle makes 3B (unless the cutoff goes to 3B, in which case, Mauricio scores which is all you want there). The play at the plate is a contact play in which the catcher usually gets so tangled up and turned around that he can't make a throw to 3B that would nail a one-legged six-year-old.

And yes 'twas I who posted that 1986 game-ending DP. Very exciting play, don't you agree?

[Frayed Knot]

Thing is, by the time the 3rd base coach makes his decision to send or not he already knows that the RF didn't fumble the carom off the wall and he already sees the throw en route toward the IF ins't going awry, so those possible conditions are off the board. This leaves only bad throw/muffed catch left and, considering the ground still to be covered by the runner, it would have to be horrid throw/total whiff with no pitcher/backup in order to maybe score the run. As far as Vientos goes, he has to read the runner in front of him before he can even think about heading to 3rd so he doesn't, you know, wind up like the back runner in the Mets play referenced. And the fact that I think Mauricio had no chance is the same reason I don't think Vientos automatically advances even if we force the Phils throw home as he has less speed and further still to run. I doubt he was even at 2nd yet when (Stott?/Harper? ... probably Stott) gets the relay. And even all that doesn't negate the main point of my last post which was that I don't like the situation we wind up in even if he gets his ass to 3rd with two outs!

 

Very exciting play, don't you agree?

 

Yup. Thought so at the time and still do.

[roger_that]

No doubt your reading of the play is the correct one.

I'm just frustrated, as we all are, by the Mets' failure to get a run across with fast men on 2B and 3B and only one out. Maybe the moment of elation I felt when I thought "Can Mauricio score here?" overtook me. Alvarez swinging a limp noodle at 3 pitches chafes my undershorts.

[MFS62]

Since you were talking about Leo, I think one of the "old time" managers would have given Alvarez the take sign on the first pitch, just to calm him down and force him to focus.

Giving the take sign used to be common practice, but I'm not sure if it is done any more.

Later

[roger_that]

Here's Vientos' double.

230K views · 2.2K reactions | Mark Vientos rips a double the other...

WWW.FACEBOOK.COM

---

Mark Vientos rips a double the other way!

The exciting moment for me came when Castellanos had a bit of trouble finding the ball bouncing off the RF fence. I couldn't see where Mauricio was, but I thought maybe he's busting it (he was looking to see if it dropped in apparently) and he seemed not to be running full speed when the camera caught up with him.

If you read the "comments" on the FB link, I wasn't the only one who thought Mauricio did a poor job on the bases. For a fast runner to take home from first base on a long shot to the RF corner is not completely unheard of. Some of those comments are blistering....

...and none of them are mine.

Edited September 10, 2025 by roger_that

[The Hot Corner]

Definitely, it was possible for Mauricio to have scored from first on Vientos' double, but it required a better read and a much quicker break than Mauricio got on the play. Also, Mauricio never seemed to be running all out, he appeared to have assumed that he would be stopped at third base. Mauricio's delayed break on the hit gave Sarbaugh no reasonable option, but to stop him at third base.

[roger_that]

Oh, Frayed Knot, the relay guy was Stott, per the clip above.

[Frayed Knot]

Yes, and if you watch the clip you linked we see Stott taking the relay as Mauricio is pulling up to 3rd base having already been halted by Sarbaugh.

So even though, as I noted in my opening post on the IGT thread of this discussion, Mauricio did hesitate briefly to check on whether the hit was catchable,

the ball simply got out to the wall too quickly to score even a good runner from 1st, and it wasn't particularly close.

[roger_that]

Yes, although we don't actually see him hesitating, or how long that took, or even whether the hesitation was reasonable. A more astute baserunner might have decided it simply wasn't catchable (from the way Castellanos was running to fetch it?) and he (esp. Acuna) might have been more than halfway home by the time Stott first touched the ball. No way of knowing, really.

You seem to be giving Mauricio credit for some smarts, I'm definitely giving him less credit, but did you read some of the comments on the FB clip I posted? You should. Some of those folks are claiming that Mauricio (or even Pete if they'd left him in) could have made home plate easily. You read that and you'd think he should have been shot at sunrise for dereliction of duty.

Here's a small sample:

Mike Long Jr.

Did Mendoza pinch run Mauricio for Alonso? Lol did anyone notice how slow he looked running the bases? Alonso would’ve had a better chance to score.

1d

Reply

Patrick de Courcey

Mike Long Jr. I agree with you Mike he should have scored 😔 with his speed but to me 😕 he looked like he was in slow motion 😭

1d

Reply

Edwin Haddock

Mike Long Jr. He would have had acuna if he didn't constantly put him in late oh and lost another at bat for baty.....

1d

Reply

Cheng Tsai

Mike Long Jr. Should of also hold Young to pinch hit for Alvarez.....

1d

Reply

David Goldman

Mike Long Jr. he even held up to see if ball would drop. What a mistake

1d

Reply

Jay Hillegass

Mike Long Jr.Yeah why not put acuna in he would have def scored with veintos hit but whatever they seem to like to make it harder than it need to be to get into post season.

1d

Reply

Sean Gerard

Mike Long Jr. Another questionable move by Mendoza

21h

Reply

Keith Dempster

Mike Long Jr. Mauricio didn't look good running the bases, but he's still faster than Alonso on the bases, and you don't have to wonder if Mauricio will fall down while running.

1d

Reply

Steve Schubert

Mike Long Jr. Totally agreed, I was like wtf?

1d

Reply

Angelo Fiouris

Mike Long Jr. Yeah he looked slow but Pete wasn't scoring from first on that

1d

Reply

Michael Fernandez

Mike Long Jr. did not hustle , every other team in same situation would have scored

1d

Reply

Timo Brew

Only for Alvarez to swing at 3 a foot or more off the plate with eyes closed to end it ... 💩

1d

Reply

Jeremy Mozak

Thanks for getting my hopes up for nothing. Chokers.

1d

Reply

Ben Caldas

How Mauricio didn’t score on this ball has me scratching my head.

1d

Reply

Jimmy Alexander

-Nola w/ a 6.78 ERA threw 6 scoreless

-Mullins struck out w/ 1st and 3rd, 2 outs and popped up a bunt w/ the leadoff man on 1st

-Mauricio misread Vientos double and doesn’t score as a PR… See more

6 of 363

[Frayed Knot]

Not crediting Mauricio at all. There was no need to hesitate (but he did, I saw it at the time) as that ball was nowhere near Castellanos. A good runner checks where the OFs are prior to the pitch so he should have read it better off the bat. We/the cameras don't see Mauricio again really until he's shutting it down as he approaches 3rd, but by that time the ball is already en route to the cut off man and Sarbaugh is giving the stop sign. So those comments above about how slow he was running are made mostly out of ignorance and/or from fans looking for scapegoats following another 'L'

[Centerfield]

I think Mauricio needed to be aware of the possibility that the ball could be caught, but not only did he pause too long, he paused too close to first. That's a young player trying not to make a mistake. Was it readable that Castellanos had no chance off the bat? Maybe, but we can't see it from Ronny's angle. His mistake was not getting closer to second and understanding that if Castellanos made the catch, it would be with all of his momentum taking him into the corner. Ronny could have been around second and had time to make it back.

But let's go back to the 8th inning. The real mistake was Mendoza batting our pinch runner making him unavailable. This is a mistake he makes repeatedly. Luisangel Acuna cannot hit. He's here to run and play defense. And by batting him in the 8th, you make him unavailable for the role where he's elite. He's also an amazing defender. So maybe he reads Vientos ball differently and runs more aggressively.

Baty has a .653 OPS against lefties. Acuna hits .659 against lefties. Is it better? Not really. And by burning him as a pinch hitter, you make him unavailable as a pinch runner. Now, maybe he also reads the ball poorly and holds up. Or maybe he tries stealing and gets caught. But the one thing Mendoza has to stop doing is burning Acuna by using him at the plate. He's not here for that.

[roger_that]

those comments above about how slow he was running are made mostly out of ignorance and/or from fans looking for scapegoats following another 'L'

 

Yeah, those guys are haters and dumb haters (though there sure are a lot of them--I just quoted a very small sample) but I don't think Mauricio got a good read or a good jump, so that gives them material to hate on.

CF--excellent point about wasting Acuna. I'd sure like to see the 9th inning with Acuna running for Pete.

[roger_that]

Someone on FB posted a chart of the Mets' footspeed, with this comment:

9th inning, Mets down by a run. Alonso leads off with a single. Mendoza calls for a pinch runner for the lumbering Alonso…and picks one of the slowest runners on the team, Mauricio. The Baseball Savant numbers below show that Mauricio is barely faster

than Alonso. In picking Mauricio, Mendoza leaves the much faster Young on the bench and Mauricio fails to score on Vientos’ drive to right field. Mendoza then uses Young as the trail pinch runner at 2nd. Had he used Young first, the score most likely would have been tied. 2 feet per second is a huge difference in that situation.

Thomson takes plenty of heat for his decisions. But what kind of manager uses his slowest bench player as the tying run? Thanks, Carlos!

 

The chart had Acuna at 29.6 feet/second, Jared Young 27.8, Mauricio 25.8, and Pete Alonso 25.4.

Does Mendoza not know his personnel? That would be inexcusable.

Even racist? "Mauricio's young, skinny, and black--must be much faster than an older chunkier white dude."