What happened in the 9th inning?

[BTH]

12 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I have no idea. But Adell stole the base and it no longer made sense to bunt. 

They needed to score two runs and not just one.

Probability of the home team scoring two runs in the bottom of the 9th, down two runs, with runners at 1B and 3B, and 0 outs: 17.5%

Probability of the hone team scoring two runs in the bottom of the 9th, down two runs, with runners at 2B and 3B, and 1 out: 23.13%

https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/stats.html#H.-2.9.1.7.0.0

Edited April 24 by BTH

[BTH]

Just now, Stradling said:

He deleted it. 

Had to fix the link

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, BTH said:

They needed to score two runs and not just one.

Probability of the home team scoring two runs in the bottom of the 9th, down two runs, with runners at 1B and 2B, and 0 outs: 17.5%

Probability of the hone team scoring two runs in the bottom of the 9th, down two runs, with runners at 2B and 3B, and 1 out: 23.13%

https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/stats.html#H.-2.9.1.7.0.0

Ok and what is it with 1st and 3rd no outs in the bottom of the ninth?

[BTH]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok and what is it with 1st and 3rd no outs in the bottom of the ninth?

My bad. Typo.

The 17.5% is with 1st and 3rd 0 outs, not 1st and 2nd.

https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/stats.html#H.-2.9.0.6.0.0

Edited April 24 by BTH

[m0nkey]

Forget run probability, what’s the probability of Washington and Co. actually using these charts and adjusting mid at bat in the middle of the at bat with the pitch clock? Seems unlikely 

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, m0nkey said:

Forget run probability, what’s the probability of Washington and Co. actually using these charts and adjusting mid at bat in the middle of the at bat with the pitch clock? Seems unlikely 

The same as BTH being happy with any answer provided to him. 

[BTH]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

The same as BTH being happy with any answer provided to him. 

Yet your explanation for the decision in question was the run expectancy charts.

[m0nkey]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

The same as BTH being happy with any answer provided to him. 

I mean we don't really know if Washington hasn't said anything so it's ok to say "I don't know" and leave it at that

[Blarg]

Meanwhile you idiots are arguing over last night's game while tonight the Angels are filling the birds with buckshot. 

[m0nkey]

Old man who is wrong calls others idiots

[Blarg]

You guys are not right. That is the real point. BTH decided that leaving a left handed hitter Andriazi to face a right handed pitcher was a mistake and refuses to believe Drury wasn't available, he isn't tonight. Rengifo was going to replace Neto so you are out of infielders. 

Him going ape shit over Andriazi not squaring to bunt after Adell's stolen base is more nonsense. There is no compelling reason to sacrifice to move only one runner which would have been the probable outcome. 

This is an argument based on stubbornness rather than following the logical series events and the most important is Trout fucked up. After all the work to get the bases loaded he fucked up.

Andriazi didn't fuck up, he played his role. 

Washington didn't fuck up, he played with what he thought would maximize his resources and leave him something to use if the gamecwent extras. 

Trout fucked up, the Angels lost. 

[BTH]

12 minutes ago, Blarg said:

You guys are not right. That is the real point. BTH decided that leaving a left handed hitter Andriazi to face a right handed pitcher was a mistake and refuses to believe Drury wasn't available, he isn't tonight. Rengifo was going to replace Neto so you are out of infielders. 

Simple left vs. right matchups are thrown out the window when you’re talking about a guy with a lifetime 80 wRC+

Wash said in his post game interview that Drury was available. My OP was way before tonight’s lineup came out with no Drury. And, btw, we don’t know Drury’s status because (as Jeff said), they didn’t ask Wash that pre-game.

14 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Him going ape shit over Andriazi not squaring to bunt after Adell's stolen base is more nonsense. There is no compelling reason to sacrifice to move only one runner which would have been the probable outcome. 

The reason for sacrificing one runner over is the same reason for sacrificing two runners over: to get the winning run into scoring position.

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, BTH said:

False.

No one has explained why Adell taking 3B resulted in the bunt call being taken off.

 

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

Here you go, less runs expected with runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out than 1st and 3rd with zero outs  

 

I gave you AN explanation which is what you asked for.  I don’t have Washington’s explanation because it doesn’t matter. 

[BTH]

15 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Andriazi didn't fuck up, he played his role. 

Washington didn't fuck up, he played with what he thought would maximize his resources and leave him something to use if the gamecwent extras. 

Trout fucked up, the Angels lost. 

Adrianza and Trout both made outs, so their contributions were the same.

Yet, you say he “played his role” by striking out.

[BTH]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

 

I gave you AN explanation which is what you asked for.  I don’t have Washington’s explanation because it doesn’t matter. 

It does matter because he’s the one who made the decision and knows what went into it, unlike you.

I wanted to hear any possible explanations from others because I couldn’t determine why he made those moves.

Thanks for contributing a possible explanation, but that doesn’t mean your explanation is accurate.

[Blarg]

5 minutes ago, BTH said:

Simple left vs. right matchups are thrown out the window when you’re talking about a guy with a lifetime 80 wRC+

Wash said in his post game interview that Drury was available. My OP was way before tonight’s lineup came out with no Drury. And, btw, we don’t know Drury’s status because (as Jeff said), they didn’t ask Wash that pre-game.

The reason for sacrificing one runner over is the same reason for sacrificing two runners over: to get the winning run into scoring position.

No, it's not the same, it's diminishing a return. Trading two bases for one out is not the same as one for one. 

[BTH]

1 minute ago, Blarg said:

No, it's not the same, it's diminishing a return. Trading two bases for one out is not the same as one for one. 

The input (giving up an out) and the output (runners at second and third with 1 out) are the same.

So if your goal was having second and third with 1 out, who cares about “diminishing returns?”

[m0nkey]

Ok at this point I admit, @Blarg is right, we’re all idiots. Lock this thread up

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, BTH said:

It does matter because he’s the one who made the decision and knows what went into it, unlike you.

I wanted to hear any possible explanations from others because I couldn’t determine why he made those moves.

Thanks for contributing a possible explanation, but that doesn’t mean your explanation is accurate.

No shit.  Your personality wants THE answer and when offered an answer you fall back on your opinion which is you are owed THE answer. 

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, BTH said:

The input (giving up an out) and the output (runners at second and third with 1 out) are the same.

So if your goal was having second and third with 1 out, who cares about “diminishing returns?”

Because a better outcome became more available. It simply didn’t work. 

[BTH]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

No shit.  Your personality wants THE answer and when offered an answer you fall back on your opinion which is you are owed THE answer. 

Yeah, I’d prefer THE answer if possible.

I know I’m not always gonna get it, but I’m gonna ask.

[m0nkey]

 

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Because a better outcome became more available. It simply didn’t work. 

There was always the possible outcome of him getting a hit to begin with lol

[BTH]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Because a better outcome became more available. It simply didn’t work. 

We’re not getting anywhere, obviously.

But the runner moving to 3B doesn’t create a better outcome that became more available, since they originally wanted to get the tying run at 1B into scoring position, and that player was still at 1B.

[samwum]

I love reading these and not being on a side. If anyone wants to talk about how Adrianza shouldn't be on the roster or on the field in the first place, feel free to tap me in WWE style.

[T.G.]

4 minutes ago, BTH said:

We’re not getting anywhere, obviously

That's been obvious for a long time.