Anybody Else Wonder Why DT Didn't Pinch Run For Atkins?

[TyCobb]

No you don't. Just like you don't take the risk that the pitcher might get a comebacker. You have a second to register where the ball is going. You see the hit and then decide -- you aren't blindly running when you hear contact. At least, that's how I've seen it taught at every level through college. Haven't sat in on pro instruction, but I can't imagine it's any different on a "contact" play.

If you're running on contact you are taking a big secondary lead. If it is a LD hit to P, SS, or 3b, (or a hard GB to the 1b/3b/P) the running on 3rd has a higher chance of being thrown out. It is a risk taken for the reward of a GB hit to a spot where the extra two steps are needed to make the runner on 3b safe.

[El Gordo]

I re-watched it too. I disagree with your assessment.

When Longoria fields the ball Atkins is a step or two in full stride and the same distance from the bag as Longoria. Had he been holding to see where the ball was hit he would have had no trouble getting back to the bag. Even if Longoria fields it cleanly he would be foolish to try to get Atkins out at 3B. Most likely everyone is safe. Look at it again.

[Mackus]

I just looked at the play 2-3 times and if Atkins isn't running on contact he can get back to the bag. So why was he running on contact with no outs?

Because that's the correct play in that situation.

[Miller192]

Find me any baseball strategy where a runner on third breaks for home with no outs and a hard grounder at third.

You just don't do it. DT or JS, didn't tell him to run on contact. That's just not baseball strategy there. If you want to pinch run for him, fine. Maybe he scores on a shallow fly ball.

Atkins misread the play and headed home. It's his mistake alone and its also not the end of the world.

[backwardsk]

Because that's the correct play in that situation.

Why? With no outs if Roberts doesn't get him in, Jones still can with a fly ball. If there is already one out or a prime double play candidate, then I'd agree with you.

[Stotle]

If you're running on contact you are taking a big secondary lead. If it is a LD hit to P, SS, or 3b, (or a hard GB to the 1b/3b/P) the running on 3rd has a higher chance of being thrown out. It is a risk taken for the reward of a GB hit to a spot where the extra two steps are needed to make the runner on 3b safe.

You don't need a huge secondary lead. If you walk through the exercise on a field with a stopwatch, you see that balls to 2b/ss are fair bets to score with a runner with average speed, provided the ball isn't hit exceptionally hard. Balls hit to 1b/3b/p are a poor bet to score, even with an extra three/four feet on the lead (since you are freezing momentarily to clear a linedrive). The concept you are describing isn't a reality, I don't think, since there is no real gain and you are putting the runner in increased danger.

I understand why you are saying what you are saying, conceptually, but is this something you've heard a coach explain? Because the application of the the large secondary lead doesn't make much sense. To drive it home, why are you exposing your player to a pick-off from the catcher? The large secondary lead at 3rd is almost never a good idea.

[El Gordo]

Because that's the correct play in that situation.

Why? There are no outs. A line drive cought and he is doubled off, a comebacker to the pitcher and he is dead in the water at home. With no outs you have to hold to see where the ball is hit, IMO.

[Satyr3206]

I wonder if the Rays boards are this up in arms over Burrell running through a stop sign from his third base coach? Probably not. It worked out and they won.

[Old#5fan]

Because that's the correct play in that situation.

NO ITS NOT! It would be the correct play if there was one out but not with ZERO outs. If Atkins holds at third there is still another chance for a sac fly by Jones to get him in. As it was, he would have scored on the Jones fielder's choice.

This play was so damn stupid it had to be called by Trembley or else he would be lamblasting Atkins for a stupid base running blunder. Since that didn't happen it must have been Trembley's stupid decision. It just had to be.

[backwardsk]

I'd like to say, that it's nice to see a thread turn from a DT bashing tone to a very good baseball strategy discussion.

Usually it's the other way around.

[ScottieBaseball]

No you don't.

You run if its on the ground, freeze if its on a line, and tag if its in the air.

The run on contact play is as much to keep the rally going in that situation as it is to plate the run. If don't run on contact, you risk a double play and not advancing, leaving you with 3rd base and 2 outs. If you run, even if you're thrown out, you've still got 1st and 2nd with 1 out. The run expectancy is far higher with 1st and 2nd w/ 1 out than 3rd w/ 2 outs.

I guess he could have pinch run with Lugo, but Atkins isn't the slowest guy in the world. I don't think Lugo beats out that grounder.

Agreed. It wasn't "stupidty" from the manager as OldFan put it nor a baserunning blunder. It was a strategic decision that, had it been a ball hit a few feet to Longoria's left, would have looked brilliant.

[flashjordnk]

For anyone who cares, Fangraphs seems to think that Maddon was the silly manager last night not Trembley despite the win.

link

No mention of the pinch running for Atkins in the ninth. Something that would be so glaring they'd point out. They also lean towards splits and such a bit more so they might not care about this. But I think it's interesting they didn't slam Trembley they slammed Maddon. Also, loved this quote:

This is running long, and that’s without mentioning Evan Longoria’s 470 foot homer, Rafael Soriano doing his best to invoke mass hysteria about his quality, Luke Scott’s free-flowing hair, Kevin Millwood’s missing hair, and Mike Gonzalez one-upping Soriano’s incompetence. Forget the payrolls and media attention; this was the game of the night.

[snatch311]

Unless you believe that the outcome of the at-bat was pre-determined, than you know that if Lugo had pinch run for Atkins, it would've changed the entire sequence of events.

Even if the outcome was the same, you still put the best possible player in the position to succeed at the most critical of times. We have a bench for a reason.

[ScottieBaseball]

NO ITS NOT! It would be the correct play if there was one out but not with ZERO outs. If Atkins holds at third there is still another chance for a sac fly by Jones to get him in. As it was, he would have scored on the Jones fielder's choice.

This play was so damn stupid it had to be called by Trembley or else he would be lamblasting Atkins for a stupid base running blunder. Since that didn't happen it must have been Trembley's stupid decision. It just had to be.

It wasn't stupid. It didn't pan out, but it wasn't stupid. It was aggressive and I like it. You obviously don't but generally speaking it doesn't make it wrong!

And for the love of everything holy...how do you know Trembley didn't pull Atkins into his office after the game and dress him down?!?! The fact is, you don't.

Stop pulling stuff out of your rear end and pretending it's truth and fact because it's not. It's exactly what comes out of everyone else's rear end.

[ScottieBaseball]

For anyone who cares, Fangraphs seems to think that Maddon was the silly manager last night not Trembley despite the win.

link

No mention of the pinch running for Atkins in the ninth. Something that would be so glaring they'd point out. They also lean towards splits and such a bit more so they might not care about this. But I think it's interesting they didn't slam Trembley they slammed Maddon. Also, loved this quote:

Fangraphs?!?! What do they know?