Usually the pitcher will just ask the catcher to come out to the mound to talk things over. But, I guess with a two run lead, that runner made no difference anyway.

That's kind of clever, actually. Kudos to Wickman for thinking outside the box.

Actually, he walked Stewart to set up the old fake-to-third-throw-to-first pickoff move.

What did Wedge think of the clever balk?

The balk wasn't the only thing Wickman used in the ninth. He repeatedly paced around the back of the mound, tied his shoe, and did all sorts of just strange things. It was quite an act that he put on yesterday.

SportsCenter didn't mention it, but they said there were runners on second and third when he K'ed LeCroy. Apparently, Matt didn't get relayed the sign.

I wonder if this is just a clever story so his manager does not come down on him for balking in the 9th inning?

Yeah, the intentional balk only works if you don't walk the next guy and then let him take second on defensive indifference. It was a good idea though. Not only do you remove the chance to steal signs, but you also the eliminate the potential of having a runner distracting the infielders while fielding a hit ball. Minor improvements, both, but there is really no downside to moving him along there.

beyond moving him 90 feet closer to home

********

GregQ just won a home version of our game.

********

Hafner's coming round, isn't he?

His being 90 feet closer to home makes no difference, though. It could only affect his stats, not the outcome of the game.

He then could score on a weaker hit or even an infield hit. That's enough potential effect on the outcome of the game for me to believe Greg Q.

That's pretty cool. I was really confused watching the game - I'd never seen a dumber balk, he just lifted his knee into his windup, then thought, "eh, not now," and put it back down again.

But his run doesn't affect the game, Malcom. They were up by 2 in the bottom of the 9th. The first run that could affect the outcome of the game was Stewart.

Having said that, without seeing the tape I'd tend to doubt that it was REALLY intentional. But I've seen crazier things, and the logic certainly works.

But his run doesn't affect the game, Malcom. They were up by 2 in the bottom of the 9th. The first run that could affect the outcome of the game was Stewart.

You would admit that one would tend to lead to the other though....I just don't see doing that with the game on the line more or less.

Bob Wickman is evil, and consequently it is only natural that he is clever.

And I can assure you that the Cleveland bullpen will give me a heart attack at some point this season.

Having said that, without seeing the tape I'd tend to doubt that it was REALLY intentional.

I saw it, and if it wasn't intentional, it was really stupid (I certainly thought it was stupid at the time). It was a textbook balk - he lifted up his leg, put it down, and then stepped off the rubber.

Considering he'd made it this far in his career without balking, I guess I can believe he did it on purpose.

Using the ever popular Win Expectancy, with 2 outs, Twins down by two and Cuddyer on 2nd, the probability that the Twins go on to win is about 0.023 (using BPro's 2004 expected win matrix). After the balk, the Twins probability of winning becomes approx. 0.091 (using the same matrix). How much is stealing signs worth?

Are .023 and .091 percentages? What I means is is that 23/1000 chance of winning or 23/100000 chance of winning?

Either way, the odds of Cuddyer making an out in that situation are incredibly close to zero. It doesn't matter so much if Cuddyer scores or not, just as long as he doesn't make an out. The guy behind him needs to score to tie, so as long as Cuddyer doesn't make an out, he's done the best that he can do in the situation. He should be playing incredibly conservative...staying close to the base and only advancing if he is 100% sure that he can make it. Advancing to third would decrease the chances of him making an out normally, but if he is playing smart based on this situation, the decrease would be incredibly small. Basically, the only way it makes a difference is if makes a huge mental error, or he injures himself and is unable to make it to the next base.

Christ, how smart is it in a one-run ballgame to advance a man to where he can score on an infield hit or an error? I suppose that's easier to take if you imagine that Garret Anderson is so sucktastic he could get a hit off you only because he got a stolen sign. What a complete idiot.

It was a two-run ballgame, though.

Yes, I'm the idiot.

I'm working on too little sleep, I think. I'm f-----g up at work a lot, too.

The 0.023 = 23/1000 and 0.091 = 91/1000 are not percentages, they are probabilities.

You know, I was just looking over the matrix again...according to it, with 2 outs and a man on first, down by two, the probability of the Twins winning is 0.065. When Cuddyer took 2nd on the defensive indifference, the chance of the Twins winning decreased to 0.023. This is based off of the 2004 base-state outs. Intuitively, we would guess that the probability would increase. I wonder what the sample size was?

I meant base-out states.

That seems dubious. According to tangotiger's chart the rates of tying the game seem to go up as the runner moves up, but it is an incredibly slight change.

Why doesn't the catcher just change the signs?

The Tribe has to have different sets for all situations that come up....you would think

According to Tango's chart the chance of both tying and winning the game remains virtually constant no matter what base a single run is on with 2 outs in the ninth, down by 2 runs (4.9% to 5% to tie and 1.6% to 1.7% to win).

single runNER.

When I was in HS, the football coach had a great defensive team but no offense...he's up 3-0 with like five minutes to go...pinned on his own 5-yd line...tells the kid to snap it out of the endzone...nobody even lines up to catch the snap...

gave up the safety, still leading 3-2...free kick from the 20-yd line...

I was impressed...and I'm glad I've got Wickman on my fantasy team...and that he just barely got the save...bastage...

I suppose that's easier to take if you imagine that Garret Anderson is so sucktastic he could get a hit off you only because he got a stolen sign.

Since Garret Anderson was in Seattle the whole time, I don't know that even a stolen sign would have done him much good.

Oh, I see, he was referencing an old game. Ignore me.

An opposing team can refuse a balk, correct? For some reason I have that idea in my head.

An opposing team can refuse a balk, correct?

I know they can refuse a balk if it's on a no-pitch - that is to say, if a pitcher throws a balk on a pitch that is subsequently launched over the center-field fence, the batting team can elect to take the homer.

I don't know if they can refuse the balk in a situation like this, where no pitch was thrown.

It would be awfully suspicious to refuse a balk in this circumstance, where the only advantage to being on second is stealing signs.

And that hiking out of the end zone thing in #29 is pretty common, at least in the NFL.

Down by 2, man on 2b, 2 out, chance of winning is .052. Move him to 3B, and it's .053. That's a +.001 win change, or the equivalent of +.01 run change in a random situation. i.e., virtually useless.

(Even the defensive indifference of 1b to 2b went from .048 to .052, making Wickman's move much more indifferent in comparison.)

If Wickman believed just a bit about that sign stealing, it was definitely a great move on his part.

Not to mention the possible benefit of confusing the heck out of the Twins, if the balk was done so deliberately... although Stewart's subsequent walk showed maybe only Wickman got confused.

Now if he did an intentional balk when there are men on 2nd and 3rd in a 2-run game, that would take some serious cojones...