I think once you consider the downside of a CS trailing by 2 runs there and with Holliday and Berkman up next, there is quite simply no way to justify the decision.

The downside of the K/CS is exactly the same as the downside of the GIDP.

The conclusion here is very simple: You are in the 9th inning of Game 5 of the World Series. You trail by 2 runs, with a runner on first and three top hitters due up. Therefore (the conclusion) you cannot worry about the GI double play at the cost of losing the baserunner.

Perhaps he hits into the double play. So be it. Making decisions is not about guaranteeing outcomes, but about putting your team in the best position available to it. It's about making the odds as favorable to you as possible.

Any gain from staying out of the GI double play is offset by the chance of Pujols lining into a double play. And then you get the cost of a CS, which makes the decision not to run not just clear, but crystal.

If you found someone who had never heard of baseball before and took 10 minutes to explain the game to them, they would immediately see that you don't run in that situation. And therefore they would immediately see that if you have previously delegated authority to make this decision to Pujols, you need to signal to him that you are removing that authority for this PA. Especially given that he had already screwed this thing up just two innings earlier.

This isn't that difficult.

I'll never understand why some people have this need to think that because somebody is great at something, it means that they're a genius and that they're great at everything

Because of the way Pujols plays the game. I don't get to see him everyday but watching him in the field he seems pretty astute, he's generally a very good base runner (though last night he erred) and he's a disciplined hitter with a clear understanding of the strike zone.

I'm not saying he's a genius because he's great, I'm saying he appears to have a high Baseball IQ.

The downside of the K/CS is exactly the same as the downside of the GIDP.

Do you defend the hit and run there?

Ray is right here, and as is almost always the case Lassus is wrong.

You've turned your sentence inside out.

Echoing #150 - It was a bad play. I'm simply arguing for Pujols being given the latitude to make the play, prior to it not working.


I'll never understand why some people have this need to think that because somebody is great at something, it means that they're a genius and that they're great at everything.

Damn, you really see things in simple alphabet-block terms. I haven't said anything remotely close to this.

Jose nailed it. There are two things to consider here. The first is a general question whether all world hitters should be given the authority to make certain calls on their own. The second is the specific question of whether Albert Pujols should be allowed to call hit and runs. I have no problem answering yes to number one. Ichiro? Tony Gwynn? Rod Carew? Sure, give those guys the authority to call a hit and run, sac bunt, etc. If I were managing one of those guys, the questions I would ask myself is 1) Would I ever call a hit and run with one of those guys, and 2) Do I trust their judgment and ability enough to allow them to make that decision on their own. If the answer to both is "Yes", then I grant that authority.

But with Pujols, the answer to question 1) is almost always no. Even if I trust him enough as a hitter to make his own judgments, I would never use him to hit and run, and therefore I wouldn't grant him the authority to call his own hit and run. He passes the general test, but fails the specific test.

Wow, thanks for the love for my little phone-tree parody. "Transcendent brilliance," eh? Can I put that on my CV?
I'll also throw some kudos #112's way.

The downside of the K/CS is exactly the same as the downside of the GIDP

I think that managers who keep worrying about the downside of every play end up fulfilling their fears.

It's been a little like this with Wash this postseason. Kinsler's been on base a lot, but then it seems almost like Wash figures, with the leadoff man on first, I'm clearly doomed. Can't have Andrus (a .279 hitter) simply hit away, there'll be a double play. Gotta bunt, or start the runner no matter what. You'd think that a runner on first was a positive liability.

Do you defend the hit and run there?

I'm not defending or attacking; I'm just trying to frame the question properly. The fact that it was a 2-run deficit and that Holliday/Berkman were coming up doesn't make the K/CS any worse than a GIDP would be--the outcome is the same. That's not an extra factor to "consider" when weighing these two potential outcomes, as you state in #126.

It looks like a much closer call than you, and others, are allowing. The chances of a K/CS appear to be comparable, if not smaller, than the chances of a GIDP--though I'm not sure the extent to which sending Craig decreases the chances of a GIDP.

Any gain from staying out of the GI double play is offset by the chance of Pujols lining into a double play.

Evidence?

I'm simply arguing for Pujols being given the latitude to make the play, prior to it not working.

Well you should just stop, because the argument is ludicrous on its face. Pujols should NOT have the latitude to make that decision, especially in the game situation that the Cardinals were in at that time.

The fact that it turned out disastrous almost isn't even relevant. As many people have already pointed out, even if the runner reaches second safely, all that does is take the bat out of Pujols' hands anyway!

Pujols has outstanding judgment on the bases and in the field. I've heard people talk about Joe Morgan being a brilliant baseball player, and while I have no memory of watching Joe play, I imagine him having the same degree of awareness and instantaneous judgment as Pujols. Albert is the gimpy 1B who wins games by scoring from second on a groundout or who throws Utley out at third in a memorable play from the NLDS, and he does things like this on a regular basis.

That said, a strong grasp of seat-of-the-pants tactics does not make you a good strategist, and neither of those plays demonstrated a particularly good strategic grasp of the situation. It's a shame that the Cardinals--a mostly plodding, high-percentages team that rarely steals or sacrifices--became so antsy and so hellbent on making something happen on the biggest stage that they are now within a whisker of throwing away a series that they easily could've won. Less frustrating but equally surprising is the discovery that TLR--and presumably other managers--allow some hitters the latitude to put on whatever play tickles their fancy at any given time. Make something happen, be aggressive, throw away outs and runners and have baseball's best player flailing away at ball four.

Until some brave GM separates leader-of-men duties from decision-making, we're going to continue to be treated to the brand of high strategery that we saw last night and, more memorably, in 2001. I don't doubt that some people find that entertaining and part of baseball's charm, but for me it's the baseball equivalent of watching a grandmaster try to castle into check.

Some quick and dirty numbers from 2011:

Pujols had two strikes on him 257 times and struck out 58 times: 22.6%
Pujols had 133 GIDP opportunities and hit into 29 DP : 21.8% (PI says 30, but regular B-R says 29)
Napoli caught 12 of 33 runners this year: 36%

The way I read this is, it's more or less a wash. The risk of a strikeout is almost exactly that of a GIDP.

You can say that with a K pitcher on the mound, the K risk goes up. Fine, but then it isn't 100% that the runner is thrown out. So...the risk of a DP is more or less the same. Maybe a little more risk due to a line drive but, looking at the numbers, I think it's less stupid than I originally thought.


As to the hit and run in the 7th, the testimony we've heard all contradicts. Therefore, I think every one is simply covering for whoever missed the signal / made the bad decision. Given that, I'm going to assume either TLR made the call or Craig missed the signal because having Pujols make the call and then not swing doesn't make sense twice over. TLR making a questionable decision or a baserunner missing a sign are both routine events.

I've never once read or heard about Pujols calling strategy while at the plate and, if he did call it, he'd have swung at the pitch (couldn't hit it? BS - he can hit anything).


So, any Cards fans out there: is it known that Pujols sometimes calls plays like this?

To all fans: any video of Pujols between pitches? Did he actually send a signal to Oquendo?

Well you should just stop, because the argument is ludicrous on its face. Pujols should NOT have the latitude to make that decision, especially in the game situation that the Cardinals were in at that time.

Here is the question: Does one trust Albert Pujols enough to call a strategerial play during an AB? My answer is yes. I think the reason he called that play was to try and score the runner from first on a hit. Maybe he felt his swings were only line-drive swings that night, who knows?

Let me blow your mind even more: Would I be far less likely to trust Albert Pujols to make that decision now, after that AB last night? Why, yes, I absolutely would! Look, flexibility!

As Bunyon said, if he DID make that decision himself last night, it seems a damned new thing.

Any gain from staying out of the GI double play is offset by the chance of Pujols lining into a double play. And then you get the cost of a CS, which makes the decision not to run not just clear, but crystal.

If you found someone who had never heard of baseball before and took 10 minutes to explain the game to them, they would immediately see that you don't run in that situation

I think the first question they would ask is what are the odds of lining into a DP versus GIDP? Interestingly enuf this thread has gone on for a while w/o anyone trying to put a number on that. In a similar vein one would have to assume Napoli is virtual certainty to gun down whomever in the 9th before you can assume that the odds of a K out/DP would be equivalent to a GIDP.

I think the idea in Pujols mind was to open up the infield and increase his chances of a hit as well as avoid the DP. If this was not a factor and/or if the Line out DP was such a risk, I dont think anyone would try the hit/run unless the guy was very fast getting to first.

There seem to at least several factors that have to weighed both for and against this play e..g GIDP; Line into DP, CS etc As well as a number of tangential issues e..g pitch count, likely pitch selection, effect on the batter etc.

NOt a big fan of his decision and it seems like they were pressing a bit but not insane idea.

****

Regarding whether Pujols really has this authority. It's probably already been addressed somewhat but for what its worth; they asked Oz Guillen on ESPN if he had ever given his players that authority and he said soemthing like 'not often, but once in a while." or something like that. So I guess it does happen in MLB. Some ppl were actually questioning whether it was even true....

As Bunyon said, if he DID make that decision himself last night, it seems a damned new thing.

In the article linked above in #148, Lance Berkman says that Pujols does sometimes call for a H&R by himself:

It's not out of the ordinary for Pujols to flash his own hit-and-run signs during the course of a game. Sometimes it works, but on the big World Series stage on Monday night, it didn't.

"Sometimes Albert will put a hit-and-run on from the plate for himself," Cardinals outfielder Lance Berkman said. "I think he put the hit-and-run on and recognized that the pitch was so up and away that he couldn't really hit it. I don't think he wanted to give a strike away right there."

I was under the assumption that Bo Jackson was the best there ever was at this sort of thing. I remember him putting the bat on his head and pulling down on both ends and shattering it.

I could swear I once saw Jackson merely hold the bat in front of himself and just flat-out snap it in half like we lesser mortals might do with a pencil. Seriously. Now, did he *actually* do it, I dunno. Doubt I'd believe it if it were anyone else but Bo...

BTW, contrary to what someone said upthread, Punto is not "small". He is short, but he is actually stocky. He might could break a bat if he was of a mind. I think last night he was just pantomiming (although I too wondered what he was doing with his bat; perhaps he was too transfixed by Murphy's attempt to react like a normal batter, or maybe he always carries his bat, I wouldn't know).

Here is the question: Does one trust Albert Pujols enough to call a strategerial play during an AB? My answer is yes. I think the reason he called that play was to try and score the runner from first on a hit. Maybe he felt his swings were only line-drive swings that night, who knows?

But you're still missing the more important part of the question, which is "should Albert be given the full menu of options to choose from"? Many of us are saying "No!". Quite frankly, a hit and run should not be in Albert's repertoire. I may allow my very excellent catcher to call pitches, but that doesn't mean I give him the authority to call for a knuckleball from Carpenter.

Think of it this way - what would your argument be if Albert had put on a sac bunt? You can trust a guy to make calls, but for some guys, there should be calls that are completely off limits. This is one of them.

Some quick and dirty numbers from 2011:

Pujols had two strikes on him 257 times and struck out 58 times: 22.6%
Pujols had 133 GIDP opportunities and hit into 29 DP : 21.8% (PI says 30, but regular B-R says 29)
Napoli caught 12 of 33 runners this year: 36%

I don't think it's a nitpick to observe we surely need the numbers on a full-count, not just the number for all at-bats, starting w 0-0, w a runner on 1B. Btw, do those numbers account for things like, the runner goes on a 1-1 pitch, and safely steals 2B, or does that just get lumped in with the overall result?

As I recall, TLR's explanation for this afterward was that Suppan thought he heard Oquendo yell "no, no, no" rather than "go, go , go!"

It seems beyond ludicrous for a team to have such similar sounding signals to mean such completely different things. One reason it's beyond ludicrous is you'd have the problem of what the third-base coach is yelling more often than once in blue moon. I mean, seriously? In a stadium filled with 50,000 screaming fans you're going to depend on a runner being able to tell the difference between an "n" and a "g" sound?

From what I've seen over the last few years, it looks very much like LaRussa is still good at getting many players to perform well, but is only intermittently sharp during games. He's, what, 67 years old? He'd be far from the first guy to lose a couple of steps at that age, particularly on the tactical level.

I'd venture to say that if LaRussa hasn't lost something on a tactical level, he'd be one of the very, very few men his age who hasn't. He seems like a good ballplayer nearing 40. He can still play well, but only some of the time. He's not what he was. There's no shame in that. No shame at all.

edit: in addition to what everyone else has noted, Pujols would have to have an excellent idea of the pitcher's move to be able to intelligently call for the hit-and-run. Does he consult the book on the Rangers' relievers prior to the game? Does he base his decision on a couple of at-bats, which may not have involved a player on first? As other people have noted, is that what you want the best hitter in the world thinking about?

If I hear TLR call Scrabble "Rep-zin-ski" one more time, I may scream.

Think of it this way - what would your argument be if Albert had put on a sac bunt? You can trust a guy to make calls, but for some guys, there should be calls that are completely off limits. This is one of them.

So, one of the superlative hitters of our generation should be completely off-limits from deciding on a play that involves hitting? That to me seems to defy logic. "You, brilliant, HOF hitter! No decisions about hitting, you aren't qualified!"

I'm still not saying it's a good play, mind you. That was never, ever, even once my argument.

Hit-and-runs often fail, and badly. Hell, they fail most of the time, right? Why this failure is somehow cataclysmically worse than all those escapes me, I admit. (I've always thought a hit-and-run was a weird play anyhow. If it was that easy to decide when to hit, why aren't more people doing it?)

Punto is not "small"

Punto looks like he should be wearing a beret and a striped shirt and playing an accordion in a black-and-white French movie.

It seems beyond ludicrous for a team to have such similar sounding signals to mean such completely different things. One reason it's beyond ludicrous is you'd have the problem of what the third-base coach is yelling more often than once in blue moon. I mean, seriously? In a stadium filled with 50,000 screaming fans you're going to depend on a runner being able to tell the difference between an "n" and a "g" sound?

I'm guessing the third base coach didn't have any planned system of voice signals, since they usually communicate to the runner by means of wild arm gesticulations, and the runner usually only relies on the third base coach's signals in situations where he can't see what's going on on the field because he's running toward third base. In other words, the coach should have just done nothing there because Suppan could see for himself that he should be running.

But you're still missing the more important part of the question, which is "should Albert be given the full menu of options to choose from"? Many of us are saying "No!". Quite frankly, a hit and run should not be in Albert's repertoire. I may allow my very excellent catcher to call pitches, but that doesn't mean I give him the authority to call for a knuckleball from Carpenter.

Think of it this way - what would your argument be if Albert had put on a sac bunt? You can trust a guy to make calls, but for some guys, there should be calls that are completely off limits. This is one of them.

So perhaps Pujols can call hit and runs...from first base!

In the article linked above in #148, Lance Berkman says that Pujols does sometimes call for a H&R by himself:

It's not out of the ordinary for Pujols to flash his own hit-and-run signs during the course of a game. Sometimes it works, but on the big World Series stage on Monday night, it didn't.

"Sometimes Albert will put a hit-and-run on from the plate for himself," Cardinals outfielder Lance Berkman said. "I think he put the hit-and-run on and recognized that the pitch was so up and away that he couldn't really hit it. I don't think he wanted to give a strike away right there."

Thanks. That seems to point toward Pujols making the call himself. I simply had never heard of it before.

"Sometimes Albert will put a hit-and-run on from the plate for himself," Cardinals outfielder Lance Berkman said. "I think he put the hit-and-run on and recognized that the pitch was so up and away that he couldn't really hit it. I don't think he wanted to give a strike away right there."

And Berkman of course knows what everybody who seriously follows baseball knows: when a hit and run is on, the hitter is supposed to swing at the pitch no matter where it is, even if he has to throw the bat at the ball in a desperate effort to foul it off. This is Baseball 101 for Pete's sake.

Not that I expect Berkman to throw Pujols under the bus. He's doing exactly what he should do: trying to cover for his teammate's colossal screwup.

So, one of the superlative hitters of our generation should be completely off-limits from deciding on a play that involves hitting? That to me seems to defy logic. "You, brilliant, HOF hitter! No decisions about hitting, you aren't qualified!"

I think it's the difference between

1) Can Pujols execute a hit and run better than most MLB hitters? I'd guess the answer is YES (despite his rather poor performance in that regard last night)

2) SHOULD Pujols be in the habit of hitting and running? I'm less certain of the answer to that one, and it's the one that seems to be under debate in this thread. Pujols' agency in the matter is almost immaterial, (or at least that's the impression I'm getting from Ray and Joey B's argument. No matter who is making the decision, it's wrong to hit and run with Pujols. An outcome of that position is that therefore Pujols should not be given the option of deciding to do it. But neither should LaRussa be given the option of ordering it either)

Not that I expect Berkman to throw Pujols under the bus. He's doing exactly what he should do: trying to cover for his teammate's colossal screwup.

Yup. There'd have to be real animosity between them for Berkman to say anything else.

Oh, and the bullpen thing absolutely illustrates the problem with bullpen phones these days:

"To continue in English, press 1. Para continuar en español, presione 2."
[LaRussa presses 1]
"If you'd like to warm up a reliever, press 1."
[beep]
"If you know the name of the reliever you'd like to warm up, please enter the first three letters of his name now."
[LaRussa attempts to enter M-O-T but accidentally enters M-R-T. Unfortunately, this does not result in Mr. T entering the game.]
"I'm sorry. I don't recognize that extension. To select a reliever by question tree, press 1."
[LaRussa briefly reconsiders his bullpen usage that forces him to go through this system at least 7 times a game, but reminds himself that momentary platoon advantages must trump all, and presses 1.]
"For a white reliever, press 1. For a black reliever, press 2. For a Latino reliever, press 3. For an Asian reliever, direct more resources to Pacific Rim scouting."
[1]
"For a right-handed white reliever, press 1. For a left-handed white reliever, spell out as many consonants in a row as you can."
[1]
"For a right-handed white reliever with a beard, press 1-"
[Getting impatient, LaRussa presses 1 and hangs up, thinking that by now the system should damn well know which guy he wants. We know the rest. Sadly, had he known, he could have pressed 0 at any time to speak to a call-center worker in India pretending to be a bullpen coach.]

Quoting this because it deserves to be on every page.

"You, brilliant, HOF hitter! No decisions about hitting, you aren't qualified!"

I think if one of the superlative hitters of our time is taking the bat out of his own hands, we've pretty much answered the question with regard to his brilliance. How about this. Albert is never given the take sign. But if his decision is "become a punch and judy hitter in this at bat", then he shouldn't be allowed to make that decision.

Or maybe you let him make these kinds of calls during the first few months of the regular season, but before he takes the plate as the go ahead RBI or tying run late in game five of the World Series you say "You don't get to make the call this time, Albert". Giving a player discretion does not mean giving him discretion for every type of call in any and all situations.

2) SHOULD Pujols be in the habit of hitting and running? I'm less certain of the answer to that one

Really? I think the answer is pretty much NO, in almost every situation. If I'm managing Pujols, I want singles to be the result of hard hit balls that didn't get through to the wall, not calculated attempts to hit singles. In fact, Pujols calling his own number here is probably much worse. If LaRussa calls for the hit and run, then at least there's a chance Albert says "OK, just hit it hard somewhere". If he's calling it himself, it's probably an indication that he thinks he can poke one through the hole, which is pretty much the definition of making himself a singles hitter. I want guys like Jeff Mathis thinking about avoiding double plays. I want Albert Pujols thinking about hitting the ball very, very hard. Which means I don't want him swinging at pitches just to put the ball in play.

179 - I missed that, that is outstanding. I love the idea of the guy in the India call center taking the call.

Also, why did he slow for a step or two between first and second when Holliday hit the ball? No need to look for the ball; look to the coach because you know where he is.

No idea why he slowed down there but I have no problem with watching the ball if it's directly in front of you, as a hit to Left-center is when running from 1B (Like say, Hollidays hit last night) . It's easy to follow as it never gets out of sight and it's often more disruptive to run from 1B to 2B while looking at the 3B coach and then have to relocate the base. If a ball is behind you at all then the coach is the only place you look.

I wonder if Albert is costing himself some money this Post-Season? I see him a fair amount and he just doesn't seem to be moving as well as I remember. He looks a little inflexible and awkward, as athletes will as they age. The lunge for the cutoff and just in general his movement as he runs the bases. He looks very inflexible through his hips which is a normal aging thing. He's only 31 but if you were thinking of throwing bags of cash at him you might be wary of a big guy who is showing signs of aging.

"You, brilliant, HOF hitter! No decisions about hitting, you aren't qualified!"

Need I point out that swinging a baseball bat is extremely instinctive behavior, honed by tens of thousands of repetitions? And that calling a hit-an-run isn't remotely the same?

I guess I do.

edit: btw, how'd "brilliant" get in there? Are all HOFers by definition brilliant tacticians? How did the HOFers who managed do at the in-game stuff--we they routinely, notably excellent at it?

I see him a fair amount and he just doesn't seem to be moving as well as I remember. He looks a little inflexible and awkward, as athletes will as they age. The lunge for the cutoff and just in general his movement as he runs the bases. He looks very inflexible through his hips which is a normal aging thing. He's only 31 but if you were thinking of throwing bags of cash at him you might be wary of a big guy who is showing signs of aging.

His left ankle is in bad shape atm. He limps noticeably when he returns to first base on a foul ball.

Need I point out that swinging a baseball bat is extremely instinctive behavior, honed by tens of thousands of repetitions? And that calling a hit-an-run isn't remotely the same? I guess I do. edit: btw, how'd "brilliant" get in there? Are all HOFers by definition brilliant tacticians? How did the HOFers who managed do at the in-game stuff--we they routinely, notably excellent at it?

Good hitters actually think while they are hitting, they aren't blind animals acting on instinct. I would even say it's similiar to singing, also heavily dependent on muscle memory. But a lot of people can enact that, it's when you move beyond that repetition, that's what separates the Dawn Upshaws and Thomas Quasthoffs from everyone else.

-sigh-

This argument has become too big. My only point was that in such a siutuation, Albert Pujols has proven himself smart and talented enough to be trusted to make a good decision regarding a hitting play, in my opinion. That's it. I think he's a good enough hitter and a smart enough person to be trusted there. Even if he screws it up, which he did.

I don't have an issue with Pujols being able to call the hit-and-run for himself, because he has such incredible plate coverage and he doesn't swing and miss all that often.

The play didn't work last night mostly because Ogando threw the functional equivalent of a pitchout - a pitch that was so far off the plate that it was essentially unreachable for Pujols, and which was also in a position that gave Napoli plenty of time to set up and throw.

-- MWE

Thanks jdbkaput, I wasn't aware of the ankle thing.

So, one of the superlative hitters of our generation should be completely off-limits from deciding on a play that involves hitting? That to me seems to defy logic. "You, brilliant, HOF hitter! No decisions about hitting, you aren't qualified!"

Why do we assume that there is a connection between being a great hitter and knowing when to hit and run?

In a more general sense, why aren't all HOF'ers great managers then?

As far as I see it, the biggest problem with allowing Pujols to call H&R is that when it fails on a big stage (like it did last night) it's now the player's fault for making the wrong call. He shouldn't be in that position. Even if he's calling it, LaRussa should be taking the blame.

Why do we assume that there is a connection between being a great hitter and knowing when to hit and run? In a more general sense, why aren't all HOF'ers great managers then?

Why when I make the point that Pujols would be smart enough to know when to hit and run withi himself it is read by everyone that I think he can make pitching changes and dictate lineup construction, I have nofuckingidea, as I have said nothing close to that.

So, one of the superlative hitters of our generation should be completely off-limits from deciding on a play that involves hitting? That to me seems to defy logic. "You, brilliant, HOF hitter! No decisions about hitting, you aren't qualified!"

Sorry, but this was a decision that also involved running (and not Pujols's running) and, more importantly, run expectancy and strategy. Why Pujols would be charged with that decision in that moment is the question.

I'm on board with giving players wide latitude in playing decisions. What should we throw this hitter? Should I be expecting a curveball here? Should I take a strike? But this is a manager decision, and unless Pujols is the manager he shouldn't be making it, at least, not in the 9th inning of Game 5 of a WS game.

I'm still not saying it's a good play, mind you. That was never, ever, even once my argument.

Hit-and-runs often fail, and badly. Hell, they fail most of the time, right? Why this failure is somehow cataclysmically worse than all those escapes me, I admit.

Part of the reason is because Craig's run, in and of itself, means nothing. Craig's run only means something if they score a second run in the inning. And so the usual upside that goes into a hit and run decision -- e.g., that if Craig is running and scores on a gapper as a result, you've gained something significant -- is washed away by it being the 9th inning with your team down by 2 runs.

Why do we assume that there is a connection between being a great hitter and knowing when to hit and run?

In a more general sense, why aren't all HOF'ers great managers then?

I know I'm not assuming that and I don't think Lassus is either. In the specific case of Albert Pujols however, I think there is a connection. As I've said upthread, he comes across as a cerebral ballplayer. I think he would be "scrappy" if he didn't have the flaw of being "ridiculously talented."

And of course being a great manager involves motivating people and a variety of other things that have nothing to do with tactical know how.

But this is a manager decision, and unless Pujols is the manager he shouldn't be making it, at least, not in the 9th inning of Game 5 of a WS game.

I don't think he called the one in the 9th.

The ninth-inning play should not have been an instance of Pujols calling for a hit-and-run, because you can't have a hit-and-run on a 3-2 pitch. You can decide whether or not to send the runner, and Pujols may have made that decision, but you can't tell the hitter to automatically swing at a 3-2 pitch.

OTOH, Pujols seemed to think it was a hit-and-run, since he swung at ball four a couple of times. This would seem to argue against letting him call his own hit-and-runs.

I don't have an issue with Pujols being able to call the hit-and-run for himself, because he has such incredible plate coverage and he doesn't swing and miss all that often.

I have no doubt that Albert Pujols possesses the ability to execute a hit and run. In fact, he probably has the skills to be one of the best "hit and runners" in MLB. The question is, why would you want him to try?

OTOH, Pujols seemed to think it was a hit-and-run, since he swung at ball four a couple of times. This would seem to argue against letting him call his own hit-and-runs.

This seems to be a general flaw in the "send the runner on 3-2" around the league. I have no data for support but it appears to me that guys definitely expand the zone when the runner is going beyond the "protect with two strikes" approach.

179 - I missed that, that is outstanding. I love the idea of the guy in the India call center taking the call.

The only way it could've been better is if the call center employee identified himself, complete with incomprehensible accent, as "Derek Lilliquist."

I have no doubt that Albert Pujols possesses the ability to execute a hit and run. In fact, he probably has the skills to be one of the best "hit and runners" in MLB. The question is, why would you want him to try?

I know this sounds like the ol' YOU NEW KIDS IN YOUR BASEMENTS, but in this particular case I'd say because the game wasn't being played by the Run Expectancytron TLR8100. It had something to do with a serious offensive malaise over the last 17 innings by the Cardinals and offering a high-risk surprising move to see if it could be broken out of as a result.

Why when I make the point that Pujols would be smart enough to know when to hit and run withi himself it is read by everyone that I think he can make pitching changes and dictate lineup construction, I have nofuckingidea, as I have said nothing close to that.

Yes, why would anyone think that when you support the idea of delegating one manager decision to a player, you would support the idea of delegating other manager decisions to the player?

That is crazy.

One argument that favors the notion of Pujols calling his own H/R is that Pujols himself might be the best judge of whether he can put the ball in play or not. He might not know the catcher's ability to throw down or the pitchers KO percentage, but if he is quite sure he can make contact then you might let him do it.

I'm just saying, it's not a question of Pujols ability to strategize it might be a question of him being the best judge of his ability to make contact. A little bit simpler.