Re: Yes, Francona messed up again IMO (merits of suicide squeeze)

On May 30, 9:19 pm, "mr. lee" <leonel.picard...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Throws like Mary wrote:
On May 30, 8:34 pm, "mr. lee" <leonel.picard...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If it had succeeded the game would be over, Red Sox 3 Orioles 2.
Francona would have been a genius except to the Francona haters here.

IF? If your uncle had tits and a half a brain she would be smarter
than you. Complete hindsight idiocy. If the runner had been left on
third and the out preserved, what would have happened?

There are several possible outcomes including no run being scored.
But seeing you obviously don't engage in hindsight, you wouldn't
understand that.

Not making an out (and obviously, not having that out be the runner at
third) yields higher run probability AND higher run expectancy. (You
wouldn't understand that, but I will try to explain anyway.)

Run probability from Hardball Times (scoring %):

Base | Out: 0 | 1 | 2
Empty .293 | .173 | .077
.......1st .437 | .283 | .136
.......2nd .632 | .406 | .223
.......3rd .864 | .662 | .263 <------1 out, 66%
1st/2nd .641 | .426 | .231
1st/3rd .876 | .655 | .285
2nd/3rd .856 | .695 | .276
Loaded .872 | .670 | .325

Run Expectancy 99-02 (average runs scored)

......... 0 outs | 1 outs | 2 outs
Empty 0.555 | 0.297 | 0.117
.....1st 0.953 | 0.573 | 0.251
.....2nd 1.189 | 0.725 | 0.344
.....3rd 1.482 | 0.983 | 0.387 <----------1 out, 0.983
1st_2nd 1.573 | 0.971 | 0.466
1st_3rd 1.904 | 1.243 | 0.538
2nd_3rd 2.052 | 1.467 | 0.634
Loaded 2.417 | 1.650 | 0.815

So, with a runner on third and one out, the Sox had roughly a 66%
chance of scoring one run, and a run expectancy of nearly one run, .
983 (the average of runs scored in that situation over a three year
period). If the suicide squeeze improves on those odds/runs they would
be doing it every time a man reached third with less than two
outs...and it is tough to improve on nearly one run when the play in
question is only designed to score one run.

Bottom line, you don't break even with a suicide squeeze, you trade
equivalent run expectancy for the *perception* of increased run
probability, and the potential gain in run probability is doubtful.
Three years of data shows that the average runs scored in that
situation is nearly one run--the same as if you executed the sacrifice
play correctly. When you factor in execution, and the need for the
pitch to be around the plate, the odds of a squeeze scoring a run
aren't likely to be better than the combined odds of all the other
ways you can score a run in that situation. (I can't find stats on
suicide squeeze success rates, probably because they are attempted so
rarely, but I don't need them. Run expectancy can't be greater than
one in that situation.)

There are many different opinions on the merits of the sacrifice in
baseball, but virtually all agree on one thing: usefulness aside, you
only attempt a squeeze when you know you only need one run. You
*can't* know that in the second inning.

QED.

And judging by your reply, there is not much you do understand.

Please feel free to continue your mindless comments.


Love that irony.
.