BTH

You’re right, he shouldn’t be on the roster or on the field in the first place. But he is because Perry built no depth. Unfortunately, he probably is the 13th best, healthy position player in the Angels organization right now due to that lack of depth.

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.

Yeah, I’d prefer THE answer if possible. I know I’m not always gonna get it, but I’m gonna ask.

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?”

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.

Adrianza and Trout both made outs, so their contributions were the same. Yet, you say he “played his role” by striking out.

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.

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.

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

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

Had to fix the link

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.