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.

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.

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.

Seeing that replay of Trout’s last leadoff HR reminds me that Texas’ old stadium was way, way better than their current stadium.

Too bad they couldn’t just put a roof over the old stadium.

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.

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

Just now, Stradling said:

He deleted it. 

Had to fix the link

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

12 minutes 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  

 

If Wash’s decisions were based on run expectancy, then why did he want Adrianza to bunt so it’d be 2B and 3B with 1 out (1.38) vs. 1st and 2nd with 0 outs (1.44)?

Phil Nevin is back in NY… as a fan, to watch his son play.

@Swordsman78

32 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Yes, plenty of sensible reasons have been explained to you but you don't want to accept them. That's a you problem. 

False.

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

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Nope. But I don’t pretend I know I’m right and the manager is wrong nor do I think I’m entitled to answers. I also don’t say things like, “well that specific question was never asked”. 

If someone wants to provide a legitimate explanation that makes sense, I’m happy to admit I’m wrong.

But no one has done that, which lends credence to the notion that the manager made a bad move.

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

And you think you are smarter than everyone because you demand questions be asked. Before you pretend that isn’t the case need I remind you getting into it with Erica Weston where you questioned her ability to do her job. 

No one has given me an explanation to indicate that I’m wrong.

I don’t think I’m smarter than anyone else, because other people had the same question.

I probably am more aggressive in asking the question than others, which is what happened in your example, but I’m not on some island asking a ridiculous question.

I’m asking a fair question.

No one has an answer to my fundamental question and is instead skirting around it because that specific question wasn’t asked and everyone with decent baseball IQ knows the decision made no sense.

Instead of admitting it, there a number of people on here who are acting like we should just believe whatever they say, like dumb idiots.

Just now, Stradling said:

You, personally, live in a world where you feel entitled to all the answers. 

You, personally, conform to whatever the Angels do and refuse to have an original thought.

You think that whatever the Angels do must be right, and it shouldn’t be questioned.

23 minutes ago, T.G. said:

Sometimes we don't get to know "the why." That's life.

Especially if that specific question is never asked to the guy who made the decision.

9 minutes ago, Kendo36 said:

I trust Wash. Ultimately, the bases were loaded and the bums couldn’t come through. There is going to be some feel to Wash’s managing rather than a straight analytical approach. He’s building a culture.

I generally agree, but I’d at least like to try and understand his thinking and not blindly believe everything he does is right.

9 minutes ago, Tank said:

when you're behind by two runs, scoring one is a necessary step to scoring two.

And scoring one run is meaningless if you don’t score the second run.

9 minutes ago, Tank said:

all of this would be an unnecessary distraction if trout would have gotten a clutch hit with the bases loaded, which he didn't do. 

Sure. Or if Schanuel did. Or if Rengifo hit an XBH.

But I’m still curious about the thinking there, as a similar situation could come up again, and I don’t get what they were thinking.

1 minute ago, Tank said:

because adell is a moron on the bases and probably would have been thrown out at home by 40 feet.

I hope that’s not the answer.

And if it was, that’d be easily preventable by telling him to stay at third or having Hicks run for him.

4 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

I like that no one’s answered this part of your question lol

This is the only real gripe I have, because I don’t understand it.

I can understand the reasoning behind other decisions, but this one made no sense.

5 minutes ago, Blarg said:

BTH. You are focused on Adrianza's plate appearance, which really wasn't a critical moment. Trout with bases loaded was the critical moment and he froze. That is where focus should be, the Angels #1 player is not capable of putting together a decent plate appearance. 

I’m not focusing on that because what’s there to focus on?

He’s who you’d want up in that spot, and he didn’t get the job done.

Not much more to discuss there.

There’s nothing anyone but Trout could’ve done up there.

How is Adrianza’s plate appearance not a critical moment? When you’re down to 3 outs left and the tying run is at 1B with the winning run at the plate, that is a critical moment.

But there was a strategic decision involved with Adrianza’s plate appearance, which is why I’m focused on it. First, he was left in the game despite hitters with better career numbers on the bench. Then, the bunt was taken off despite the tying run still being at 1B.

17 minutes ago, Blarg said:

So you now want Washington to pull Adrianna after a 1-1 count to put Drury in? Do you even, for one second, think maybe you are just too stubborn to realize when your argument has jumped the shark? 

Look, I acknowledge that it doesn’t happen much, but just because it doesn‘t happen doesn’t mean that it should be the case.

Just because something is always done a certain way doesn’t make it right.

And still, despite everyone arguing with me, no one has addressed my main (and the biggest question): why does Adell stealing 3B change the equation on bunting? The tying run was still at 1B, and the goal of bunting would be to get the tying run into scoring position.

27 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

He said he wanted Adrianza to bunt. It wouldn’t surprise me if Adell stole third on his own, which then changed the equation. You’re not going to then lift Adrianza for Drury in the middle of the AB.

But why does Adell stealing change the equation?

Wouldn’t the point of bunting be to get the tying runner (at 1B) to second?

After Adell’s SB, the tying run still wasn’t in scoring position.

And why not lift Adrianza for Drury if the equation changed? It was only one pitch into the AB.

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

Of course you do, from your couch. 

?

The numbers tell you it was a bad decision.

It’s not that complicated for most people.