Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Jose Mota on the "Contact Play"


Recommended Posts

The assumption made about the 1-out contact play is it should allow the hitter to get to second while the play happens at the plate or the runner at third is in a run down. Thereby a runner at second with 2 outs isn't much worse than a runner at third, minus the infield hit.

Runner hustling down the line to first on a ground ball, always runs past the bag trying to beat the throw, never turns and heads for 2nd.

Jus sayin..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very generic way to look at it...if you don't do ROC with 1 out, that means to drive in the run you most likely need a hit by the next batter (passed ball, balk, etc. would work as well...but statistically that wouldn't move the needle much)...so, in essence you need a base hit. If you say the average occurrence of a base hit is .300...that means ROC needs to work approximately 3 out of 10 times to break even.

 

So, let's be generous...let's say it needs to work 4 out of 10 times to be considered "successful", and then you take in to consideration that if the runner gets thrown out at home...but stays alive long enough to let the hitter advance to scoring position, a scenario in which a base hit more often than not scores the runner (obviously not as much as from 3rd base, but I'm guessing it's a fairly high ratio).

 

So, back of the napkin...it's really not a huge statistical risk and I'm guessing depending on the general speed of the team it might make the the team more likely to score that inning, and because it doesn't change the number of outs, doesn't have a significant impact on limiting the "big inning".

 

As for why Scioscia has "fallen in love with it". Much like Black Jack...the best way to play the odds is play it consistently. If you are going to buy insurance, you always buy it, or you always don't. If a team "knows it's coming", it doesn't really make any difference, they still have to execute.

The problem with saying to even it out would be .300, is that the Angel hitters that are asked to hit in a ROC are usually hitting about .200 - .220.  The odds of this play working just got worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with saying to even it out would be .300, is that the Angel hitters that are asked to hit in a ROC are usually hitting about .200 - .220.  The odds of this play working just got worse.

Actually, that would make the odds of this play working, better. At that point it only needs to work 2-3 out of every 10 times to be considered successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the play for the Angels is predictability. It's overused to the point that the element of surprise is eliminated. This is a play that should be used infrequently as a strategic play and with the right kind of players on the bases and in the box. It is not a play that should be used every time the opportunity presents itself. Being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive is not smart baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the contact play is ridiculous. come on, a mlb infielder is supposed to get flustered and make a mistake because a guy is trying to take home on a groundout?

this play belongs in the 1960's play for one run defense and pitching era and it should have been retired there. every time i see the angels use it, "there goes a waste of a runner in scoring position".

and, i have to add, it REALLY pizzes me off to the point that it makes me question wether the people that call it have any faith in thier teams ability to drive in runs OR if the people who call this pos play are just mired in a huge rut strategically and philosophically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the odds of a guy on third scoring with 2 out is is 25%

the odds of a guy on second scoring with 2 out is 23%

the odds of a guy on first scoring with 2 out is 13%

 

these numbers are across baseball and estimations.  they obviously do not take into account individual situations that could increase or decrease the odds relative to a players speed, hit ability, contact rate etc.

 

for all comers, it makes sense that if you can get that runner to 2b then your odds of scoring are virtually the same.  Problem is that the guy gets to second about 25% of the time so your averaged odds are .25*23 + .75*13 or about 15%.  So you drop from a 25% chance of scoring to about a 15% chance.  So if the contact play never worked in 100 chances, you would score about 15 runs and if you never ran it in 100 chances you would score 25 runs. 

 

So in order to break even, it has to work 10/100 times or 10% of the time.  BUT, when it works, you also have a man on first and 1 out with a probability of scoring at 25% so for every time it works, you add an additional run 25% of the time.  So if it works 8% of the time, you get about 10 runs in 100 chances. 

 

So with 1 out, it needs to works about 8-10% of time to justify it. 

 

I agree with lifetime that it should be more situational then automatic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the play for the Angels is predictability. It's overused to the point that the element of surprise is eliminated. This is a play that should be used infrequently as a strategic play and with the right kind of players on the bases and in the box. It is not a play that should be used every time the opportunity presents itself. Being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive is not smart baseball.

 

It also puts pressure on the defense knowing the play is on. It's not necessarily a surprise play like the suicide squeeze play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the odds of a guy on third scoring with 2 out is is 25%

the odds of a guy on second scoring with 2 out is 23%

the odds of a guy on first scoring with 2 out is 13%

 

these numbers are across baseball and estimations.  they obviously do not take into account individual situations that could increase or decrease the odds relative to a players speed, hit ability, contact rate etc.

 

for all comers, it makes sense that if you can get that runner to 2b then your odds of scoring are virtually the same.  Problem is that the guy gets to second about 25% of the time so your averaged odds are .25*23 + .75*13 or about 15%.  So you drop from a 25% chance of scoring to about a 15% chance.  So if the contact play never worked in 100 chances, you would score about 15 runs and if you never ran it in 100 chances you would score 25 runs. 

 

So in order to break even, it has to work 10/100 times or 10% of the time.  BUT, when it works, you also have a man on first and 1 out with a probability of scoring at 25% so for every time it works, you add an additional run 25% of the time.  So if it works 8% of the time, you get about 10 runs in 100 chances. 

 

So with 1 out, it needs to works about 8-10% of time to justify it. 

 

I agree with lifetime that it should be more situational then automatic. 

so.. runner on 3rd no contact play player scores 25%

runner on 3rd contact play runner scores 15%

 

thanks for grinding the numbers. anybody in any type of game that purposely decreases thier % chance to score  has something badly wrong with themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so.. runner on 3rd no contact play player scores 25%

runner on 3rd contact play runner scores 15%

 

thanks for grinding the numbers. anybody in any type of game that purposely decreases thier % chance to score  has something badly wrong with themselves.

you should read that again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The infield is always aware on the contact play ... you have to assume it's always on no matter what them you're defending against.

 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

so what. that doesn't make it harder on the defense. in fact, it makes it easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not just the ROC play.  Its all the other stupid outs the Angels make on the basepaths.

 

Don't we lead the league every year in outs on basepaths?

 

Hopfeully Hunter being gone will help those numbers reduce.

 

But yeah, Pujols in particular last year made a lot of stupid outs on the basepaths. I really hope we improve in this area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...