But Pujols shouldn't be thinking of making contact. He should be thinking of "Brad Lidging" Neftali Feliz.

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.

I don't disagree, but I still think this sort of misses the point. Unless his assessment is "I can put the ball in play off this guy, but I am simply not going to be able to hit the ball hard", then the hit and run is the wrong call. I imagine it would be much harder to judge when that was the case. My concern as a manager would be asking a guy to "just put the ball in play" even it's a pitch he can drive. I want him to step to the plate with the objective of hitting the ball hard, not just making contact.

Or what Brian said.

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?

Again, quite deliberately obtuse, especially as I've explained myself a number of times regarding this in the thread. That you've ignored what I've written is your problem, not mine.

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?

Aren't pitches sometimes called from behind the plate and sometimes called from the dugout?

There were several more examples upthread. I don't think there is as definite a distinction between "managerial decisions" and "player decisions" as you portray it. Obviously some (pitching change) are 100% manager's choice. But there's a bit of a spectrum. I have no problem with an experienced player (with the skills to execute the play) being given the prerogative to execute the hit and run when he sees an opportunity provided he's demonstrated the ability to choose his spots to the manager's satisfaction. Who knows LaRussa and Pujols' history. I assume it wasn't a case of LaRussa saying..."hey, you're a good hitter. I'm going to assume you're awesome at the hit and run too". I'm assuming this is a process that's gone on over the years they've worked together. Perhaps LaRussa was unimpressed with this instance of Albert's decision-making and they'll discuss it. I don't think it's automatically a mistake to give a certain player that option.

I too had never heard of a batter calling for a hit and run, until last night. As soon as the strike 'em out, throw 'em out happened, though, Bobby Valentine suggested Pujols had called for it himself, then said something like, "Palm up is the signal for that." So not only does it happen, but apparently there is an industry standard for the signal.

Also, Valentine was laying into LaRussa in real time for his bullpen usage. THERE'S NO RIGHTY WARMING UP FOR NAPOLI he said a couple minutes before Napoli doubled.

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.

Have to disagree. The biggest problem with allowing Pujols to call a hit and run is he can't possibly know more than an astute manager in this situation. This isn't 1955. We know there are a hell of a lot more variables than we thought there were. No one's addressed the relief pitcher from another league's move because no one expects Pujols to have any idea of it. Never mind the dozen other factors, without knowing how well the pitcher can hold the runner, it's impossible to sensibly call the hit and run.

And what everyone else said.

edit: from mlb.com

Epstein's first deal with the Cubs will essentially be for himself. When the Cubs and Red Sox announced Friday night that Epstein had resigned as Boston's GM, compensation had not been determined.

He will pick up negotiations with Ben Cherington, Boston's assistant GM, who was to be promoted to the top job with the Red Sox later on Tuesday at Fenway Park. Commissioner Bud Selig has set Nov. 1 as a deadline for the two sides to settle the matter.

So, everything is peachy from the Cubs point of view, and therefore the Red Sox leverage in this deal is...?

There must be something in place or it wouldn't have gone like this. They must be pretty close to an agreement on compensation for Epstein... a list of players from which Cherington will pick, something like that.

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.

I don't disagree, but I still think this sort of misses the point. Unless his assessment is "I can put the ball in play off this guy, but I am simply not going to be able to hit the ball hard", then the hit and run is the wrong call. I imagine it would be much harder to judge when that was the case. My concern as a manager would be asking a guy to "just put the ball in play" even it's a pitch he can drive. I want him to step to the plate with the objective of hitting the ball hard, not just making contact.

This is a solid point. Granted Pujols singles more often than he gets an XBH (though in a lot of years it's damned close!), but if he doubles (let alone homers), a single from one of the next batters often drives him in, tying the game, whereas if Pooh is on first, the next hitter probably needs an XBH to score him, and even a double doesn't guarantee he'll score from first. That, of course, isn't an argument against Pujols being able to call for a hit and run, but it's a pretty good argument against not calling a hit and run in that situation, period.

"Palm up is the signal for that."

What the hell? If it's that obvious, then have we discussed the possibility that Ogando saw it essentially "called" his own pitchout by throwing it high and away? It can't be that easy.

None of that was directed at you, triple, just seems like a weird statement from Valentine. On a completed unrelated note, I once went to an Illinois-Northwestern football game with a guy who had just graduated from U of I and was one of the football team managers all four years. He knew all the hand signals and would call the plays out before Illinois ran them. It's really boring to watch football if you know what's coming all the time.

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"

I dont get this. Why would you suddenly stop doing everything that brung you to the big dance? Obviously they must have had success or at least expectation of success with the hit/run w/ Pujols (does anyone recall him hitting/running before?)

That doesnt seem reasonable. Especially since the rules of baseball (except the DH) do not change for the world series. I mean why you start to not do everything? Moreover, where would you stop with that sort of reasong? "No more between innings smoke breaks? Hey no more one handed catches in the OF!" "Hey no skipping afternoon workouts any more."

"Hey no more Pujols-hit and runs-with no outs and down by two or more in the 8th inning or later."

I mean seriously, how intricate would you have to go to start changing all these things you do routinely?

*****

ANother question I think that is germane (aside from Pujols historic Hit/Runs) is how do the odds of this play increase/decrease with the pitch count? Is 3-2 a bad time for the h/r? I have no idea..

Also, Valentine was laying into LaRussa in real time for his bullpen usage. THERE'S NO RIGHTY WARMING UP FOR NAPOLI he said a couple minutes before Napoli doubled.

That was a inexcusable oversight by LaRussa. LOOGY vs. Lefty-masher. WTF was he thinking?

That was a inexcusable oversight by LaRussa. LOOGY vs. Lefty-masher. WTF was he thinking?

And this is the astute manager Pujols can't possibly know more than, right, something other?

I don't disagree, but I still think this sort of misses the point. Unless his assessment is "I can put the ball in play off this guy, but I am simply not going to be able to hit the ball hard", then the hit and run is the wrong call.

Well wait a second; they are down by 2 runs here; OK a HR would tie it yes, but an Extra base hit does not. I would think the best percentage play is for him to get on any way possible. Can you offer any more insight? Not sure the numbers on this....

I think we had similar discussion re: intentional walk of someone last year. When one would have to assume that, (I think it was the big guy from Philadelphia) would have to have like a 20% of a HR and a ,500 batting average before you would want to walk him with the bases empty. In fact I guess similar reasoning with R Washington walked Pujols with the bases empty.

Unless you feel he is that likely to beat you with a HR, then you pitch to him, being up by one and no one on.

So similarly, given TX up by 2, w/ one on and no outs, I would think LaRussa would want to maximize his OBP in that situation.

Which brings me back to the 3-2, as I recall Pujols fouled off two pitches, at least one of which was a certain ball four. One would think if we had the ability to think it through totally, that the best strategy when: down by 2, no outs, one on, and a a 3-2 would be to simply protect the plate. I.e. the best chance of getting on base.

I guess this totally contradicts, the "Pujols should swing hard at that pt" theory. But, I dunno.

EDIT for no. 206. Yeah I see that pt. The last time I figured this, I think it is a little over 60% chance of scoring from 2B w/ no outs. Okay, but you still have to run the numbers getting on 1B w/ no outs its a little over 50% IIRC. Say he has 10% chance of HR/EB hit. He would only need >12% of getting single or walk for it to be better to try to get on.. I think....

A second guesser's delight, huh? Again this part of baseball is one of its greatnesses, it is actually possible to analyze pretty much every decision (other than to swing) in real time.

That doesnt seem reasonable. Especially since the rules of baseball (except the DH) do not change for the world series. I mean why you start to not do everything? Moreover, where would you stop with that sort of reasong? "No more between innings smoke breaks? Hey no more one handed catches in the OF!" "Hey no skipping afternoon workouts any more."

How about, "no eating and drinking in the clubhouse during games in the postseason"? The "rules" of baseball--what governs decision-making--do indeed change a fair bit in the postseason.

Also, Valentine was laying into LaRussa in real time for his bullpen usage. THERE'S NO RIGHTY WARMING UP FOR NAPOLI he said a couple minutes before Napoli doubled.

That was a inexcusable oversight by LaRussa. LOOGY vs. Lefty-masher. WTF was he thinking?

As I mentioned upthread, I'm fairly certain LaRussa is not the manager he used to be. It's the sort of oversight a 67 year old man makes. And in all seriousness I'm not bashing him for drinking, but if he has a drinking problem, that's not going to make his 67 year old brain MORE agile.

I dont get this. Why would you suddenly stop doing everything that brung you to the big dance? Obviously they must have had success or at least expectation of success with the hit/run w/ Pujols (does anyone recall him hitting/running before?)

Because the season is very long, and I may let my players take some leeway in the third inning of a game in May that I may not allow them to take in the seventh inning of the fifth game of the World Series. Because not every single decision I make during the year is calculated to have maximum benefit at that exact moment. Maybe I allow Albert to do in the third inning of a game in May because I want him to keep focused mentally even though there's five months left in the season. Because it's my ass on the line, and I'm willing to take the minimal heat I'll get for allowing my player to make the wrong decision in game #45, but I'm less willing to allow the wrong decision to be made in game #178. Because I think there are occasions to allow certain liberties that I may not allow on other occasions. This isn't Diamond Mind.

Cardinals were 50/50 (4 caught, 4 stolen bases) this year on steal attempts on a strike three.

Of the strike-em-out-throw-em-out DPs, none involved Pujols.

Of the four successful SB on a strikeout, one did involve Pujols, with Ryan Theriot gaining the steal.

I was surprised that they were only caught four times all year (now five) on a third strike; I guess each one made an impression.

And this is the astute manager Pujols can't possibly know more than, right, something other?

I'm saying it's a) not the player's decision, he's not in the best position to make that call, and b) you should never hit and run for Albert Pujols. If LaRussa makes the call, then he's the idiot, but it's his call to make.

I'm having surgery Thursday, but if the surgeon shows up drunk, the correct response is not for me to perform the surgery.

As I mentioned upthread, I'm fairly certain LaRussa is not the manager he used to be. It's the sort of oversight a 67 year old man makes. And I'm seriously not bashing him for drinking, but if he has a drinking problem, that's not going to make his 67 year old brain MORE agile.

Well, WTF is Dave Duncan doing? Hell, the bullpen coach should know to warm up a righty.

Aren't we confusing two different plays? The hit and run or caught stealing in the 7th was not a full count and this is the incident which was supposedly called by Pujols. The play in the ninth was 3-2 and they were down two runs. If Larussa had allowed AP to call a hit and run in the 7th, I doubt he would again.

I'm having surgery Thursday, but if the surgeon shows up drunk, the correct response is not for me to perform the surgery.

Surgery is far less of a percentages game than baseball.


I'm saying it's a) not the player's decision, he's not in the best position to make that call

And my argument is, and has remained, that I personally would trust Pujols to make this call.

And my argument is, and has remained, that I personally would trust Pujols to make this call.

More than the manager?

That you've ignored what I've written is your problem, not mine.

You should show more understanding for the mentally retarded.

Aren't we confusing two different plays? The hit and run or caught stealing in the 7th was not a full count and this is the incident which was supposedly called by Pujols. The play in the ninth was 3-2 and they were down two runs. If Larussa had allowed AP to call a hit and run in the 7th, I doubt he would again.

Guilty, your honor . [hangs head]

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 think in the 9th he WAS trying to Brad Lidge the ball when he should have been trying to get on base.

I also think he's looked bad (well, not bad, but not superhuman) this postseason. He had the 3 HR game, which was cool - he can still mash - but he moves like crap. Glad to hear he's got a minor injury actually.

What the hell? If it's that obvious, then have we discussed the possibility that Ogando saw it essentially "called" his own pitchout by throwing it high and away? It can't be that easy.

None of that was directed at you, triple, just seems like a weird statement from Valentine.

I certainly don't disagree with you Shredder, I'm just relaying what Bobby Valentine said in the moment. (Did anyone else hear him say this?) I've noticed that Valentine says a lot of weird things. I assume some of them are correct.

based on this season stats; Pujols has 11% of HR or 2B (no triples this year). He also has a .366 OBP. you have to factor in the walks and subtract the AB that resulted in EB hit he should be in the neighborhood of 40% to get on base (in addition the hit/run should open a hole in the def) if he's swinging defensively?? It seems the best way to play for 2 runs in the 9th is defensive approach to the AB. Assuming they're 50% to score the 2nd run if he gets on. Also have to discount the 11% by 1/5 for the times he doesnt score from 2B w/ no outs... Just a starting pt.

I too had never heard of a batter calling for a hit and run, until last night

I think this was fairly common in baseball's early days. John McGraw was the last manager I'm aware of who routinely allowed his players to signal offensive plays - he figured (correctly?) that they could pick up on things he might miss, so if they saw an opportunity, they should grab it.

the game wasn't being played by the Run Expectancytron TLR8100

That better be somebody's handle for the game 6 chatter.

I heard McCarver say the palm down thing...

#198 I have no problem (beyond the fact that I'm with Earl Weaver on the hit and run) with the 7th inning play. But I'm frankly overjoyed to see what was basically a zero percent play (the 9th inning hit and run) blow up.

I'd have been even happier if a few more of the IBBs blew up.