IGT 04/03, Mets at Redbirds

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Thank you and goodnight.

[Guest Edgy DC]

How about La Roster burning that bench? I think Rick Ankiel was in the on-deck circle.

[metirish]

Wasn't Bennent the last guy left....?

[Guest Edgy DC]

If'n you mean Bennet, yup.

I was being ironical.

[Guest iramets]

Frayed Knot wrote: ="Gwreck"] ="iramets"]What's the thinking behind Endy coming for D for Green rather than Alou? Simple: Alou is a better hitter and will be up in the order sooner. Yeah, it's just a double switch and Green was the last out. Green may not be the fielder he used to be but Alou never was particularly good and certainly isn't getting better at age 40.

Let's see if Green comes out when Alou's the last out. So far, Endy's substituted for Green both nights. My point being that it's SOMEWHAT discretionary as to when the double switch gets pulled, and Willie may be telling us that Green's a worse fielder in his opinion than Alou if he keeps doing the doubleswitch when Green's the last out, not Alou.

You've got to interpret his actions to understand his thinking, because listening to what he says is meaningless. I'm still trying to figure out why he kept dicking around with the BA in ST--I just know he had to be thinking something other than "Huh, Wright bats #2--maybe. Looks cool. What the hell. Me hungry. Want Subway sandwich. Gotta pee," like he tells us.

[soupcan]

Okay I've got a question.

I thought y'all might have addressed this in the IGT at the beginning but surprisingly (to me at least) no one brought it up.

First inning, Reyes on second no outs. Why is LoDuca laying down a sac bunt? It's the first inning, he's my #2 guy, I've got my meat coming up, why am I giving up an out to move a runner to third in the first inning?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to baseball stratagem and I understand the upside of scoring first, etc. but don't you go for the big inning in that situation? Especially since its the first inning?

[metirish]

I don't remember that bunt ,but it makes no sense really when Reyes scores from second on a single,nothing was mentioned on the post-game either.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I don't know. From what we've seen, Willie is willing to play small ball, but certainly not married to it. It's possible that the infield was giving him the bunt, so he took it. It's also possible that Randoph is more willing to bunt earlier in the year, to challenge peeps to play for it later in the year.

Historically, in such situations, it's been a distinguishing characteristic between US ball and Japanese ball --- with US managers tending to go for the big inning and Japanese managers tending to go for the first run.

[soupcan]

I'll buy that but I'm still shaking my head at it a little.

If it were Johann Santana and not Kip Wells I would've been fine with that, runs may be harder to come by, yadda yadda....but the fact that it was Wells and it was the first inning and there were no outs and it was the top of the order....strange choice.

[Guest iramets]

I thought it was strange, too. About the only play that gets Reyes home from third with one out that doesn't get him home from second is th play that occured, the sac fly, which of couse cost Willie an out.

With Wright batting second, of course he doesn't bunt in that stuation, and maybe that run stays stranded, but (the radio guys argued at the time--see page 1 of this thread) moving Reyes over is how WWSB conceives of Loduca's role. If he were to have Loduca hit away all the time, the more logical question would be (and is) "Wouldn't you rather have Wright hitting away the extra 54 times per season?"

I was watching the game on radio, so I couldn't see how deep the infielders were playing, but the only real rationale I can give the bunt there is to mess with the other team's heads a little: play us deep and we'll bunt on you.

Despite the result, I don't like the bunt there.

[soupcan]

iramets wrote: Despite the result, I don't like the bunt there.

Yeah, neither do I.

[Guest Edgy DC]

iramets wrote: With Wright batting second, of course he doesn't bunt in that stuation, and maybe that run stays stranded, but (the radio guys argued at the time--see page 1 of this thread) moving Reyes over is how WWSB conceives of Loduca's role.

But I don't think sacrificing is a summation of Lo Duca's role. I think moving Reyes over is more the residue than the meat of what you're hoping for from Lo Duca.

iramets wrote: If he were to have Loduca hit away all the time, the more logical question would be (and is) "Wouldn't you rather have Wright hitting away the extra 54 times per season?"

I don't think we're talking about 54 trips.

[Frayed Knot]

]First inning, Reyes on second no outs. Why is LoDuca laying down a sac bunt? It's the first inning, he's my #2 guy, I've got my meat coming up, why am I giving up an out to move a runner to third in the first inning?

I don't like it - although I hate moving the runner to 3rd w/a bunt less than I do moving him to 2nd. The bunt wasn't on until Reyes got to 2nd via the wild pickoff throw and, in this case, it did help build a hitless run: BB, E, SacB, SacF

Maybe it's because I've seen more of Alou over the years than Green, but I can't imagine Green being considered the poorer fielder or the one who covers less ground.
Also, given their spots in the lineup (so far anyway), Green's spot is always going to be further away except on those occasions where Alou himself is the final out of the inning - at which point double-switching for anyone else wouldn't make sense. As it is now, and based solely on lineup construction, Green is the logical OF guy to be rotated out if the inning ends on any of the other 8 spots so I'm not sure that simply keeping a running total will tell us much about Willie's opinion of their gloves.

[Guest Edgy DC]

By the way, I'm not partial to the bunt there either.

[Guest iramets]

Frayed Knot wrote: [Also, given their spots in the lineup (so far anyway), Green's spot is always going to be further away except on those occasions where Alou himself is the final out of the inning - at which point double-switching for anyone else wouldn't make sense. As it is now, and based solely on lineup construction, Green is the logical OF guy to be rotated out.

That's right, but:
the lineup won't always be constructed this way--if Alou and Green get flipped at some point, it will be interesting to see if the doubleswitches occur as frequently to remove Alou from the lineup and leave Green in (they probably will)

my main point here was that the doubleswitch is discretionary. There's no hard and fast rule about employing it with a 1 run lead, a 3-run lead. a blowout, or in the 7th inning or the ninth, so if Alou makes the final out in the 7th inning of a game with a one-run lead, it might be telling if Willie decides to put off the doubleswitch one more inning, and get Green an extra at bat (and then remove him rather than Alou).

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: ="iramets"]With Wright batting second, of course he doesn't bunt in that stuation, and maybe that run stays stranded, but (the radio guys argued at the time--see page 1 of this thread) moving Reyes over is how WWSB conceives of Loduca's role. But I don't think sacrificing is a summation of Lo Duca's role. I think moving Reyes over is more the residue than the meat of what you're hoping for from Lo Duca..

No, it's more like not-sacrificing is an accurate summation of Wright's role. It's an option for Lo Duca that isn't there (correctly) for D. Wright.

="iramets"]If he were to have Loduca hit away all the time, the more logical question would be (and is) "Wouldn't you rather have Wright hitting away the extra 54 times per season?"

Edgy DC wrote: I don't think we're talking about 54 trips.

W/o a backup 3b man, pretty close to 54. Will you buy 52? However many games you expect Wright to play, divide by three and there's your number for the difference of ABs between batting #5 and batting #2.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The doubleswitch has to come in the inning before you expect the pitcher to bat, though, if you want the option of retaining the pitcher beyond the end of the inning.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: The doubleswitch has to come in the inning before you expect the pitcher to bat, though, if you want the option of retaining the pitcher beyond the end of the inning.

True, but this becomes less important as late inning pitchers lasting more than an inning becomes rarer and rarer.

In a way, this "12-man staff, everyone pitches to two or three batters" stuff covers up some of Willie's problems using the doubleswitch, since the removal of the pitcher is routine anyway, and the scenario where the pitcher's spot needs to be protected doesn't really mean that much.

[metsmarathon]

iramets wrote: W/o a backup 3b man, pretty close to 54. Will you buy 52? However many games you expect Wright to play, divide by three and there's your number for the difference of ABs between batting #5 and batting #2.

league-wide, the difference between plate appearances for a #2 and a #5 is 53. for the mets, it was 60.

[Guest Edgy DC]

So, really, you see the move as a defensive replacement, with the doubleswitch as gravy, I guess.

I think it's altogether possible that Willie thinks less of Green. Alou's got less range, but Green less skills.

And if he thinks equally poorly of them, then the opportunity to make the double-switch is the tie-breaker.

And how silly does it look in 2006 to have a very good-to-excellent arm (Endy's) go into left while a clearly poor arm (Green's) remains in right?

I'd like to see confidence in Milledge grow to the point where both corner outfielders are replaced. I haven't seen the Mets pull that one since they sent Ellis Valentine and Joel Youngblood in for late-inning small lead defense, in replacement of Dave Kingman and Gelorge Foster. But, as benches are shorter these days, I imagine that's an nnot about to happen.

[Guest iramets]

metsmarathon wrote: ="iramets"]W/o a backup 3b man, pretty close to 54. Will you buy 52? However many games you expect Wright to play, divide by three and there's your number for the difference of ABs between batting #5 and batting #2. league-wide, the difference between plate appearances for a #2 and a #5 is 53. for the mets, it was 60.

How ya figure? Every team plays 162, and every lineup slot removed from #1 subtracts 18 Abs, so why would it differ from team to team?

[Guest Edgy DC]

metsmarathon wrote: ="iramets"]W/o a backup 3b man, pretty close to 54. Will you buy 52? However many games you expect Wright to play, divide by three and there's your number for the difference of ABs between batting #5 and batting #2. league-wide, the difference between plate appearances for a #2 and a #5 is 53. for the mets, it was 60.

That's over 162 games. The number of games that Lo Duca and Wright are both in the starting lineup should be no more than 75% of that.

[Guest Edgy DC]

iramets wrote: How ya figure? Every team plays 162, and every lineup slot removed from #1 subtracts 18 Abs, so why would it differ from team to team?

Because some teams make a greater percentage of their third outs in the bottom of the order than others. The odds of a game ending with the number seven hitter are greater than the odds of a game ending with the number four hitter, but the actual difference varies from team to team.

[soupcan]

Too...much...math...head hurt.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Too...much...math...head hurt.

Me hungry. Want Subway sandwich. Gotta pee.

[Guest Rotblatt]

I hated the bunt play. For some reason, I decided it was a spur of the moment decision by LoDuca rather than Willie's call but I have absolutely no reason to believe that--it just popped into my head after the play.

Regarding hitting from the 2 hole, obviously I'd rather have Wright there (mostly for at bats, and also to give Beltran & Delgado more runners to drive in), but I don't think it's going to make a big difference for us, IF Lo Duca hits as well as he did last season.

Last year, Lo Duca was a good contact hitter overall (.318 AVG & only 38 K) who excelled with runners on base (.327 AVG/.381 OBP)--a split that on average holds up over his career.

I don't think that's such a bad thing to have in the 2 hole, although obviously David's better OBP & vastly superior SLG would be an improvement. Anyway, unless it looks like Lo Duca's declining, I'm cool with leaving him there.

As to why Willie tried Wright out there in the Spring, it might be as simple as figuring out who to bat #2 when Lo Duca has an off-day, because obviously it's not going to be Castro.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: So, really, you see the move as a defensive replacement, with the doubleswitch as gravy, I guess. I think it's altogether possible that Willie thinks less of Green. Alou's got less range, but Green less skills. And if he thinks equally poorly of them, then the opportunity to make the double-switch is the tie-breaker. And how silly does it look in 2006 to have a very good-to-excellent arm (Endy's) go into left while a clearly poor arm (Green's) remains in right? I'd like to see confidence in Milledge grow to the point where both corner outfielders are replaced. I haven't seen the Mets pull that one since they sent Ellis Valentine and Joel Youngblood in for late-inning small lead defense, in replacement of Dave Kingman and Gelorge Foster. But, as benches are shorter these days, I imagine that's an nnot about to happen.

Why "2006'? Asuming that's a typo, I agree that putting Endy's arm in left suggests that Willie is surprisiingly unaware of basic strategy sometimes (or he's far wiser than other managers--for now, I'll go with "surprisingly unaware"). The fact that he gets away with some moves that are hard to explain just shows, I think, how little a role managerial strategy plays most of the time. If there are ten key controversal managerial moves per games, and Willie screws up three of them, some of the three will work out anyway (as in the first inning bunt) and some of the three won't matter
because some game will be blowouts either way, so a bad manager will get to kick a lot of dirt over his mistakes.

And why a "small" lead? I'd think a defensive replacement in the OF would be even more important to protecting a big lead. The only reason you'd want Foster/Kingman rather than Valentine/Youngblood would be if you lose the lead, no?

[Guest iramets]

Rotblatt wrote: As to why Willie tried Wright out there in the Spring, it might be as simple as figuring out who to bat #2 when Lo Duca has an off-day, because obviously it's not going to be Castro.

Could you apply for the job of Willie's PR spokesman, Rot? This is the first explanation I've read that makes some sense to me, giving D. Wright some familiarity with the #2 role because Willlie's (correctly) decided that his secondbaseman isn't a good choice for the #2 slot this year.

"I just thought I'd expose David to batting behind Jose a little bit, because that's where he'll be batting sometimes this year when LoDuca takes a day off" is the kind of "confession" that I was askng for from Willie, and that he seems so reluctant to give.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="iramets"]Why "2006'? Asuming that's a typo...

No, a mental error, not a typing one.

="iramets"]I agree that putting Endy's arm in left suggests that Willie is surprisiingly unaware of basic strategy sometimes (or he's far wiser than other managers--for now, I'll go with "surprisingly unaware"). The fact that he gets away with some moves that are hard to explain just shows, I think, how little a role managerial strategy plays most of the time.

It could suggest that. Let's not speak as if it's happened.

="iramets"]And why a "small" lead? I'd think a defensive replacement in the OF would be even more important to protecting a big lead. The only reason you'd want Foster/Kingman rather than Valentine/Youngblood would be if you lose the lead, no?

You don't see defensive replacements as something that occurs in save-like situations? Else it's just resting a guy with a big lead.

[metsmarathon]

iramets wrote: ="metsmarathon"] iramets wrote: W/o a backup 3b man, pretty close to 54. Will you buy 52? However many games you expect Wright to play, divide by three and there's your number for the difference of ABs between batting #5 and batting #2. league-wide, the difference between plate appearances for a #2 and a #5 is 53. for the mets, it was 60. How ya figure? Every team plays 162, and every lineup slot removed from #1 subtracts 18 Abs, so why would it differ from team to team?

sorry. meant to say "in 2006..."

i went to ESPN, looked at the team stats for 2006, and clicked on the pulldown menu to filter first for #2 hitters, then for #5 hitters. the league-wide average plate appearances for a #2 hitter was 750, and for a #5 hitter was 697. for the mets, it was 754 and 694, respectively.

750 - 697 = 53
754 - 694 = 60