The Penthouse and Doghouse

link

LF – Ankiel, CF-Rasmus, RF-Ludwick

I think that Ankiel’s arm is overrrated….it is strong but not accurate. I would rather leave Ludwick in right where he caught and threw great last year and is likely to stay beyond this year. Furthermore, having Ankiel’s gun in left would deter many a baserunner from scoring on singles and sac flies.

Obviously I voted for “Other” as this was not one of the options presented.

i voted the same as you. i like ankiel’s arm in right, and figure ludwick can play wherever. he’s played 686.2 innings in left field in the majors, so its not as though he’d need to adjust to it.

Absolutely. But, we weren’t in that position last night, which is my point. This is game situation specific. The score, the inning, and where you are in the order. Obviously, if it’s the ninth of a one-run or tie game and you get a leadoff double, you bunt the man over because you are playing for a single run. Also, if it were Carp at the plate (I’d have him bunt every time after Arizona)—But, seriously, if it is a poor hitter, the probabilities shift and the bunt is the better play.

but sometimes it’s not just a numbers game. Scoring first and adding run(s) late have a psychological effect on the game. With the way the Cubs have been hitting this series, being down even 1 run had to feel like a mountain and 2 runs probably felt like everest. I get that the numbers say you might have a better chance swinging away and that sac bunts have less possible outcomes, but puting down a sac bunt gives the defense a feeling of helplessness. No matter what they do, a good sac will still move the runner over and then you get 1 PA with multiple chances to get that run home. Obviously if 2 or more runs are needed you would swing away, but sometimes 1 run is worth more than 1 run.

With the runner on third there are now many more situations that can lead to him scoring. Sac fly, squeeze play, and base hit are the common ones. But even a pass ball or balk scores that runner when he wouldn’t of if on second.

Plus having a runner on third w/ less than two outs forces the defense to “play in” in anticipation of a possible squeeze play. This gives the batter a better chance of getting a ball through the infield on a base hit that may not be a base hit if the defense were playing normally with a runner on second.

duncan’s got sneaky speed

i’m just saying there are two sides to this coin and saying barden had no chance of getting a hit is not giving him credit

i’d have rather seen him swing away, but i also see the merit of laying down the bunt

I wonder what the odds are of Barden advancing the runner in an out/getting a hit vs him bunting?

Bunting gives away an out and moves the runner to third.

Hitting will score a run and get barden on base with no outs about 25-30% of the time (assuming Barden hits about .300), may get Barden on first through a walk (~5-10% of the time), and a large proportion of the remaining 60-65% of the time it will achieve the same result as a bunt. The only time it does WORSE than a bunt is the 30% of the time (or so) Barden Ks or hits an infield flyball. Most OF FB will advance the runner, as will most GB, and you give the defence a chance to make an error on those occasions (although of course a bunt does the same job).

I just think that the 30%-odd of the time that we avoid an out there is SO MUCH better than a successful bunt, that it’s worth taking the 30%-odd chance that Barden won’t advance the runner. Bear in mind that the ONLY time the bunt helps us at all is when the NEXT BATTER hits a deep enough FB (or a right-sided GB) to sacrifice the runner home. Any time the next runner gets a hit, the sac bunt is immaterial, and any time the batter after that gets a hit, the sac bunt is immaterial. Any time the hitter AFTER that gets a hit, heck, the sac bunt HURTS us, because the out we gave away may mean he’ll be getting the hit in the next inning with no-one on.

I can see your argument but, even if Barden is made to hit there, we still get that run in 8 or 9 times out of ten. I’m not sure we really improve those odds much by bunting, and we gave the offense less chance of tacking on more than one run. Bad call IMO.

His Speed Score on FanGraphs is 3.7. For comparison’s sake, Skippy’s is 4.0 and Ludwick’s is 2.8.

In 2006, Duncan’s EqBRR was 1.3. In 2007, it was 3.3. Last year, it was much worse (1.6), but I connect that to his neck injury. For comparison, Carl Crawford’s was 4.2 last season and 6.7 in 2007. So, Duncan isn’t Crawford on the basepaths, but he’s an effective baserunner.

and all hell breaks loose. Either way, TLR gets the blame or praise or the player involved’s success or failure. Even though in this case, it appears he’s getting the blame for success.

We aren’t going to score a ton or runs with the next 4-5 hitters that were due up.

According to Baseball Cube, Barden had 18 sac bunts in 3073 minor league PAs and only 1 in the show. Not sure that screams to me he is getting it down.

			OUTS
RUNNERS		0	1	2
---		0.5165	0.2796	0.1075
1--		0.8968	0.5487	0.2370
-2-		1.1385	0.6911	0.3502
12-		1.4693	0.9143	0.4433
--3		1.5120	0.9795	0.3718
1-3		1.8228	1.1830	0.4931
-23		2.0363	1.4144	0.6073
123		2.3109	1.5279	0.7485

1. It was the correct call because the Cards scored the run and won the game. Whether having Barden swing away would have also been the correct call is unknowable.

2. Someone should make an analogy to playing poker in these situations. In the abstract, is there a statistically probable call that correlates to the most likely to succeed? Yes (though I don’t know that that means it is always the “correct” one). But given the particular situation, the players involved, tells, momentum, stamina, or any other little piece of information that the player (i.e. manager) computes that sways the probabilitites, another action may be taken. No one (I don’t think) would suggest that ALWAYS making the statistically probable call will result in being the absolute best poker player. Sometimes you make judgment calls, and that’s what TLR did (and it resulted in a victory).

unemployed, bored

We’d have to PAY PEAVY once we got him, too: 11M, 15M, 16M, 17M. So it’s not just dudes for dude, it’s the cost of their projected production compared to the cost of his. We’d be giving up something simply for the right to pay him his contract. Peavy was worth an average of 17.6M across the last three years, with a big decline from 2007 to 2008.

I was torn about changing mine, but you made the decision for me.

I just pictured my Mom saying this about DP…

make it stop.

Goold’s 10@10 the other day had a poll in which the respondents voted overwhelmingly in favor of an OF allignment of Ludwick in LF, Colby in CF, and Rick Ankiel in RF. I personally voted for this as well thinking that it gave us the best balance of Offense and Defense. Obviously Dunc slides out of the equation with the OF, but for the forseeable future this season, I think it’s the best scenario. The potential problem would be if it stalls development for 2010 if Luddy has to go back to RF, would it affect him? I think he can probably handle the switch, and it allows Rick’s Arm to play in RF where it’s more of an asset.

Curious, did anybody else in the VEB community vote on this and/or feel this way?