BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: The Book Blog: Tango: What was Izturis thinking?

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, October 18, 2009

The Book Blog: Tango: What was Izturis thinking?

Chance of home team winning

0.7283: Bottom of extra innings, runners on 1b, 2b, 1 out, tie game
0.674: Get the out at 1b, leave runners at 2b, 3b, 2 outs
0.661: Get the out at 2b, leave runners at corners, 2 outs
0.8408: bases loaded, 1 out

Are you kidding me? Are you !@#$% kidding me? There is virtually no difference between getting the out at 1b or getting the out at 2b. You don’t go for a .013 win gain, when the chance for disaster is possible.

The tradeoff was this: suppose you throw to 1B, and you have a 95% chance of getting the out. That leaves you with .682 chance for the Yanks. In order to throw to 2B instead, Izturis needs to have at least an 88% chance of getting the out. (Or, if you think 90% at 1B, then at least 83% at 2B… 7% difference.)

There was zero chance of getting the DP. Even if the chance for an error was the same whether throwing at 2b or 1b (hard to believe), a wild throw toward 1B (and by extension getting the catcher to come out, and the pitcher to cover home) would make it harder, I would think, for the runner to try for home than a wild throw past 2B (and by extension) past 3B. That makes the breakeven point even closer (that is, if 95% chance of getting the out at 1B, then at least 90% chance of getting the out at 2B).

Repoz Posted: October 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM | 37 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: angels, projections, sabermetrics, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Liver of blaspheming 'zop Posted: October 18, 2009 at 01:44 PM (#3356658)

He just made a brain fart. How hard is it to understand? Do we really feel the compulsion to make the guy say, "I ###### up. I'm so sorry."? If I were him, I'd also politely tell everyone to screw off. He obviously ###### up, it sucks, now move on.

2. AROM Posted: October 18, 2009 at 02:02 PM (#3356663)

Pretty much. There isn't time to think there, just react. It's too bad he didn't go over the possibilities before the ball was hit. Hit to my right, go to 2nd, hit to my left, go to first, unless I have a shot at the DP.

I don't think he needs a manager or coach to scream at him about what he should have done, I'm sure he realized it before he even got off the field.

3. TVerik Posted: October 18, 2009 at 02:21 PM (#3356676)

I agree. Respectfully, Tango, I don't think that post adds much to the discussion. Even without knowing specific win expectancies, I instantly knew it was a horrible decision. As, I'm sure, Izzy did.

Now let's play "which second baseman had a worse game in the field". Given that a long game ended on Izturis's play, there's no reason why it should be as close as it is.

4. Tricky Dick Posted: October 18, 2009 at 03:27 PM (#3356735)

When I saw the play, I thought perhaps Izturis believed he had a shot at the DP at 2d base. It's true that the DP was not really feasible, as Tango says, but the guy just had a bad initial reaction or miscalculation. Maybe it comes from wanting to make a DP so badly that his split second decision was wrong.

5. Best Regards, Larry M. Posted: October 18, 2009 at 03:30 PM (#3356738)

What was Izturis thinking?

I'm pretty sure that the percentages wasn't it.

6. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 04:03 PM (#3356769)

Izturis was thinking: Turn two. I thought this was obvious.

7. frannyzoo Posted: October 18, 2009 at 04:47 PM (#3356827)

Wet field...maybe the runner going to first slips a bit, you never know. It turned out a mistake, but on top of the physicality involved, I don't know if I have a 1% idea of how a MLB-level 2b thinks. All I remember is high school ball and thinking "please go in the glove" when I wasn't thinking "please don't hit it to me, please don't hit it to me".

8. Shredder Posted: October 18, 2009 at 05:06 PM (#3356839)

0.674: Get the out at 1b, leave runners at 2b, 3b, 2 outs
0.661: Get the out at 2b, leave runners at corners, 2 outs

I'm sure he was doing all of this in his head, but just forgot to carry a one or something.

9. Jeff R., P***y Mainlander Posted: October 18, 2009 at 05:09 PM (#3356843)

thinking "please go in the glove" when I wasn't thinking "please don't hit it to me, please don't hit it to me".

"Please don't hit to Steve Sax, either."

10. Ray (RDP)

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 05:18 PM (#3356846)

0.674: Get the out at 1b, leave runners at 2b, 3b, 2 outs
0.661: Get the out at 2b, leave runners at corners, 2 outs

I was shocked to see him go for the out at second. He had no shot at the double play, and the chance for error (circus throw, wet field) was significant. Most importantly, the out at second doesn't buy you much.

But I thought the biggest problem with the move was that Melky would have stolen second anyway. No way Mathis throws down to try to get him, either.

There was really just one play, and one play only. But there's not much you can do; he made a mental error.

Note also: if Figgins is able to come up with the ball cleanly -- as he really should have -- a good throw gets Hairston at the plate pretty easily, I think. So even after the Izturis error, the Angels still had a great chance to get the out anyway.

11. Ray (RDP)

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 05:22 PM (#3356847)

Respectfully, Tango, I don't think that post adds much to the discussion.

I thought the percentages he posted were interesting. Why wouldn't they be? The players have their own version of these percentages in their head anyway. "Ground ball to my left I need to make sure of one" or whatever. Izturis just had a brain cramp. It happens. These guys have such great skills that sometimes they don't factor in that their chance for error is higher than they think it is. Izturis probably makes that play over and over again without that happening.

12. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: October 18, 2009 at 05:29 PM (#3356854)

Tango's post is the kind of thing that gives statheads a bad name. Pointless, 'hey look at me, I know math' post. Everyone instantly knew it was a bad decision.

13. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: October 18, 2009 at 05:50 PM (#3356874)

He knows he made an error, like all players do sometimes. He probably thought, to the extent that any thinking beyond instincts was going on, that he had an excellent chance at getting the out at second base, and that there was a chance - even a small chance - of getting the double play. Obviously, if you think there is any meaningful chance at turning two in that situation, that is a very tempting thing to try to get...it's the difference between ending the inning, and facing Posada with the winning run on third base...

On another note, given the frigid weather, I'm really glad MLB gives the teams like five days to set up shop between the ALDS and the ALCS. We wouldn't want the World Series to end before Halloween or anything...

14. Shock Posted: October 18, 2009 at 06:05 PM (#3356885)

I agree with Ray. We all "knew" it was bad, but it is interesting to see the actual numbers.

Also would have been interesting to see the reaction from people if Izturis had gotten the out.

15. Mike Emeigh

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 06:13 PM (#3356893)

He probably thought, to the extent that any thinking beyond instincts was going on, that he had an excellent chance at getting the out at second base, and that there was a chance - even a small chance - of getting the double play.

Spot-on. Players don't have time to think in these situations, normally - they react based on instinct and training. If they DO think, they often wind up getting nothing from a play.

-- MWE

16. Ray (RDP)

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 06:13 PM (#3356894)

Also would have been interesting to see the reaction from people if Izturis had gotten the out.

"Well, that was kind of dumb, but it worked out anyway."

17. Gaelan Posted: October 18, 2009 at 06:15 PM (#3356895)

Izturis was thinking: Turn two. I thought this was obvious.

Right. The mistake was thinking he could get two not that he was trying to get the lead runner.

18. Shock Posted: October 18, 2009 at 06:16 PM (#3356896)

"Well, that was kind of dumb, but it worked out anyway."

I'm thinking more "Oh, what an agressive play from Izturis. That's Angels baseball!"

(From the MSM)

19. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 18, 2009 at 06:28 PM (#3356907)

Even getting the lead runner gets you nothing.

20. Walt Davis Posted: October 18, 2009 at 06:32 PM (#3356909)

It's too bad he didn't go over the possibilities before the ball was hit. Hit to my right, go to 2nd, hit to my left, go to first, unless I have a shot at the DP.

The problem might have been he did go over those possibilities. It happens all the time -- we even had a fairly recent link about it. You tell yourself not to go for the force at second unless it's easy or you have a chance at two and this makes it more likely you'll end up doing what you just told yourself not to do.

This is a silly example, but a game of softball in college and the batter was clearly aiming my direction at 1B. I reminded myself "all you have to do is knock it down and keep it in front of you" and then I'd beat him to the bag and make the out. So he hit a medium liner just above my head. Instead of just catching it like I normally would (it was an easy play), I knocked it down, kept it in front of me and stood there ... because my brain had told me that if I did those two things he'd be out. Not a shining moment.

This visualisation stuff is tricky.

21. Matt Welch Posted: October 18, 2009 at 07:26 PM (#3356942)

The Angels, especially but not only Kendry Morales, are very aggressive in going after double plays in situations where most teams would settle for the out at first. It's one of the reasons they led the league in DPs.

22. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: October 18, 2009 at 07:27 PM (#3356945)

He was thinking "I can get the out at second."

WTF do you think he was thinking? "Getting the out at second will improve the chance of winning from 27.17% to 43.9%, which is clearly better than the 32.6% that it would improve to if I got the out at first instead, and so much so that in fact it's obviously better to try getting the out at second even after taking into account the minimal chance of an error occurring which would decrease the chance of winning significantly, so I will therefore throw to second - OK, here I go, I am throwing to second - Oh no! It's actually twenty-three point nine percent, not thirty-three point nine percent! I should have double checked my arithmetic!"

23. Zac Schmitt Posted: October 18, 2009 at 08:37 PM (#3357007)

I often wonder what the percentages for such plays are...when I'm sitting at home. I think the problem some people have with the post is that it's titled "What was Izturis thinking?" and then proceeds to throw numbers at us that Izturis couldn't possibly have been thinking. The numbers themselves are certainly useful in that they show even further than immediate instinct that it was the wrong play to make, but to present them in the context of a post which purportedly speculates as to a player's thought process is maybe a little confusing.

24. nick swisher hygiene Posted: October 18, 2009 at 08:44 PM (#3357014)

21--Interesting; does the downside of this aggressiveness show up in the stats?

25. Ray (RDP)

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3357031)

I often wonder what the percentages for such plays are...when I'm sitting at home. I think the problem some people have with the post is that it's titled "What was Izturis thinking?" and then proceeds to throw numbers at us that Izturis couldn't possibly have been thinking.

People are being hostile to Tango's blog post for no good reason. His basic point was to show that there was no upside to going for the out at second there. Yes, that conclusion is intuitive, but he's just putting numbers to it. He wasn't -- unless one adopts an overly literal interpretation of his words -- saying that Izturis should have had the number .013 in his head or whatever. Please with this.

26. Gazizza, my Dilznoofuses! Posted: October 18, 2009 at 09:07 PM (#3357039)

Players don't have time to think in these situations, normally - they react based on instinct and training. If they DO think, they often wind up getting nothing from a play.

"Don't think; you'll only hurt the ballclub."

27. Mike Emeigh

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 09:16 PM (#3357048)

People are being hostile to Tango's blog post for no good reason.

Well, when you title a blog post "What was Izturis thinking?" and then say this:

Are you kidding me? Are you !@#$% kidding me? There is virtually no difference between getting the out at 1b or getting the out at 2b. You don’t go for a .013 win gain, when the chance for disaster is possible.

how else do you EXPECT people to react?

-- MWE

28. Ray (RDP)

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 09:26 PM (#3357057)

how else do you EXPECT people to react?

Ideally people would react rationally. True, I don't always - or often - expect it.

29. Crispix Attacks Posted: October 18, 2009 at 09:34 PM (#3357064)

In real life, responding to disproportionate hostility with reciprocated hostility is often the rational thing to do. Of course on the internet, it's never rational to write anything. What kind of economic advantage do I get from convincing a bunch of invisible strangers of my opinions, or talking to them at all? What a waste of time.

30. Tripon Posted: October 18, 2009 at 09:46 PM (#3357083)

Didn't Tango get a job with the Mariners because he has a body of work to show the M's of his ability to analyze baseball?

31. Lassus Posted: October 18, 2009 at 09:48 PM (#3357086)

Ideally people would react rationally.

Yeah, like this:

Are you kidding me? Are you !@#$% kidding me?

32. Ray (RDP)

Posted: October 18, 2009 at 09:53 PM (#3357096)

Are you kidding me? Are you !@#$% kidding me?

? It was not irrational to be surprised to see Izturis go to second.

33. Zac Schmitt Posted: October 18, 2009 at 09:57 PM (#3357102)

He wasn't -- unless one adopts an overly literal interpretation of his words -- saying that Izturis should have had the number .013 in his head or whatever. Please with this.

First, I regret coming off as hostile, as I didn't intend to. Second, I didn't say that Tango was saying, literally, that Izturis should have had the numbers in his head. I *speculated* that the juxtaposition of speculation as to what Izturis was thinking and the numbers themselves would lead to confusion.

Edit: As Mike says above, to say "You don’t go for a .013 win gain, when the chance for disaster is possible." implies that Tango thinks Izturis purposely chose to go for the .013 win gain. This seems poorly worded at best to me.

34. NaOH Posted: October 18, 2009 at 10:11 PM (#3357115)

I *speculated* that the juxtaposition of speculation as to what Izturis was thinking and the numbers themselves would lead to confusion.

Izturis' mistake is in the lead up to the batted ball. Players usually only have time to react. He seems to have failed to assess the situation prior to the ball being hit. His thought process, as Scioscia suggested, should have been to only go for a high-percentage double play or to take an easily achieved out. I don't know if Izturis thought this through before the play, but his actions suggest he didn't.

35. Matt Welch Posted: October 18, 2009 at 10:47 PM (#3357143)

does the downside of this aggressiveness show up in the stats?

Not really. They've been surprisingly accurate when gambling this year, and set a franchise record for fewest errors.

36. Designated Sitter (GGC) Posted: October 19, 2009 at 03:31 PM (#3357709)

There's no thread on Mgl's post about pitching to the score, and my bump will expose this thread to a weekday audience, so I'll mention this here: Darling may have suggested a pitcher take the same approach during a blowout but Brett Saberhage started pitching to contact in Game Seven of the 1985 World Series. Not all 80's pitchers thought the same as Darling does today.

37. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 19, 2009 at 04:09 PM (#3357762)

Izturis' mistake is in the lead up to the batted ball. Players usually only have time to react. He seems to have failed to assess the situation prior to the ball being hit. His thought process, as Scioscia suggested, should have been to only go for a high-percentage double play or to take an easily achieved out. I don't know if Izturis thought this through before the play, but his actions suggest he didn't.

I think that's true. Players may not be able to consider every possible outcome in advance, but ground ball with no real double play chance was something Izturis should have thought about. It appears that he didn't and/or badly misjudged the DP chances, as well as not executing on the throw. Some players are probably better at this sort of thing, e.g. "DiMaggio always threw to the right base". The analysis here also undermines those who insisted that every Major or Minor League SS would have made the same play as Jeter did on Punto. A fair number would have thrown late to 1st because they didn't think ahead or they were just desperately trying to help their team by trying for a play that wasn't really their, just as Izturis did.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, October 18, 2009

The Book Blog: Tango: What was Izturis thinking?

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics