Revolutionary on-field strategies

by positiveuphemism on Oct 2, 2008 3:38 PM PDT

And a small comment on Cain. He seems to be an object of much debate recently. Some people say trade him for a bat, others say keep him. Me? I say keep him for one really simple reason: he loves it here. He did not have a baseball loyalty growing up and the Giants are the first team he has actively rooted for. He has no intention of ever leaving, from what I have read. He seems to be a simple country southerner. We could keep him forever at affordable rates. Trading him might help him improve quicker as he would likely be very upset and focused on showing we made a mistake.

---

I'm curious what strategies you have come up with that you think would be of benefit on a big league diamond.

My first/main one is when to bring in relievers. Barring injury, they are almost always brought in at the start of an at-bat. On occasion a pitcher will be so bad that he gets the yank in the middle of an at-bat, but this is rare.

I would like to see relievers brought in in the middle of at-bats. In my mind, if you change pitchers during the at-bat, you put the batter in a really bad situation. Take this: it's a 1-2 count and you have a reliever ready to go who trhows from the other side. You could stick with current pitcher or bring in the other guy for a VERY high percentage of getting a K. If you are planning on switching anyway, who cares if you upset your pitcher...the goal is to get the guy out.

This would backfire when the new guy couldn't find the zone, but most often a reliever who knows they just have to throw that one nasty strike will be able to come out of pen and do it.

You see what I'm getting at?

My other idea is to steal home more often. Not in the early innings, but how often do you have a guy w/ speed at 3rd, in the bottom of the ninth, two outs, weak hitter up, down by a run? It's pretty common to see that or something similar. Usually the manager just tries to eke out a hit.

A good OBP is around .400, so that means that 60% of the time, at least, it is game over. I don't know what the stat is, but I imagine straight steals of home are in the same range of success. This could be done often, of course, or the opposition would expect it. Many closers don't hold runners on well, and can be somewhat wild. I'm sure you have seen steals of home succeed because the pitcher overthrew and didn't set the catcher up well.

In any case, I think stealing home in the right situation would pay off more often than doing the standard try to get the ball in play against this K machine closer who throws a million miles an hour, strikes out everyone, and picks his nose during on screen interviews.

I'm sure there are more ideas out there, please share.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I wouldn’t mind seeing Bochy try a top-down lineup based on OBP/OPS/Runs Created/whatever other offensive metric is most effective. Take ability to run out of the equation and just give the most ABs to the best hitter, the second most to the second best, etc etc and see how many extra runs you score.

"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."

by i did my job on Oct 2, 2008 3:52 PM PDT 0 recs

Yes

I always thought the Giants should have batted Bonds leadoff in 2007 just so that he would bat more often.

I was THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME (for 3 days in 1995).

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Oct 2, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

He did bat leadoff, though. It just always came an inning later than we’re used to seeing.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Oct 2, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

This is so true….

your 2008 SF Giants: this isn’t totally insane, just really stupid

by Lyle on Oct 3, 2008 8:14 AM PDT up 0 recs

I remember once Felipe suggested batting him second.

..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.

by Cookyman on Oct 3, 2008 3:05 AM PDT up 0 recs

stealing home, eh?

I imagine if teams tried to make this a strategy the rates would be extremely low. The only reasons steals of home work occasionally is because they are so rare that no one expects them. If that became a a common thing to watch out for, the success rate would be absurdly low

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 2, 2008 4:15 PM PDT 0 recs

This

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Oct 2, 2008 4:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think I hinted at this in my post. I agree, though. It would have to be a rarity.

by positiveuphemism on Oct 2, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

The squeeze play work rather well for Roger Craig his first years and a half or so. Then people were looking for it and it became not so good. So as a joker to delt off the bottom of the deck once in a while ( with the correct personal) I can go for that but not as a staple type move.

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

by daveinexile on Oct 3, 2008 8:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

I vote we use it against the Tampa Bay Rays in Game Seven of the 2013 World Series.

your 2008 SF Giants: this isn’t totally insane, just really stupid

by Lyle on Oct 3, 2008 8:22 AM PDT up 0 recs

hmm Why am I seem the Cardinals and Tigers when I think of this?

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

by daveinexile on Oct 3, 2008 8:25 AM PDT up 0 recs

The flaw here

is that when we make it too the world series, presumably it will be with an offense slightly less desperate that the current incarnation.

What would your success rate stealing home have to be to break even? Probably 40%, given you only do it with 2 outs and a runner on third.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Oct 3, 2008 10:39 AM PDT up 0 recs

One on field strategy that could be interesting

a) Using SP’s as relievers to pitch 3 innings at a time. Forget starting pitchers, just field a huge bullpen where you try to have starters go 3 innings at a time.

b) Defensive alignments. It would take a lot of research, but I could see an adjustment to alignments depending on certain at bats and certain hitters. Sort of like Bondsian shifts, but to a whole other degree. Maybe 5 infielders on some plays, etc.

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 2, 2008 4:22 PM PDT 0 recs

I think the 3 inning idea

Is tired. It is really no different than what is currently done. Are you going to pull your guy after 3 innings if he is mowing the other team down? No. So he just became a starter.

If he’s doing crappy – yes. That’s done even if he is called a “starter”.

As far as the positioning, that would be interesting. However, I think that the players who exhibit such strong tendencies to hit the ball in certain locations are already subject to this, IE Bonds.

And I don’t think the 5 IF’s, for example – is ever a good idea as there isn’t a player in the game who lacks the power to bloop a ball out of the infield.

However, I do see the value (and have seen it done) In bringing the OF’s in very shallow with less than 2 outs and a runner on 3rd in extra innings. A situation where a SF fly ends the game.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Oct 2, 2008 4:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

Obviously I’m not sold on it, but there is comprehensive data to suggest starting pitchers are most effective in their 1st 3 innings and first 45 pitches. You just have to stick with that limit, even if a guy is dominating. You could never do this on a team with proven SP’s like Lincecum, etc. but I think this is something I would have tried in Coors or something, pre-humidor. Still, it’s just an idea, obviously there are problems

As for positioning, well, I think the key is changing the whole strategy to suit positioning. I.E. If Brandon Webb is on the mound and you know he is 3 times as likely to get groundballs you could bring in a 5th OF against certain batters and pitch those batters a certain way. The 5th infielder could be in the OF (a la wishbone defense)

So much of the latter idea involves research I really can’t back any of it up, but I think in theory, there can be a more efficient way to position a defense based on pitcher, batter, park, and results. I mean are bloops really in a hitters control? To a certain degree, I’m sure, but if a hitter is TRYING to hit a ball in a weaker form than maybe we’ve already achieved a success. I doubt hitters can control their bloops to the extent of fitting it perfectly between our defensive infielders and our two outfielders

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 2, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

the other advantage in doing this

for a potential roving 5th infielder/of’er you could play a better hitter. Although, any impact there would probably be offset by a need of having your two OF’s be CF caliber in terms of range (like Winn and Rowand)

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 2, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

I would suspect

That the increased % of getting an out by brining in an 5th IF would be offset by the increased % of allowing a hit (likely an XBH) in the vacated spot in the OF.

My point about bloops is just that there isnt a player int he MLB who is incapable of at least blooping it into the outfield, so by bringing an OF’er in on even the Bocock’s of the world would expose a huge defensive hole.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Oct 2, 2008 4:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

very possibly

but I think the 5th infielder part is overstated in this argument, I’m not just using that as an example for one of many formations. The idea is more to have that 5th infielder/3rd OF act as more of a safety in football than anything. It’d have to be a versatile player (like Chone Figgins) but the possibilities are endless.

If you have Webb pitching against a guy like Burris (who hits nearly 2/3 ball on the ground) you could imploy the strategy. Perhaps instead, you find it’s useful for some batters to play your “Safety” in extremely shallow center so he can act as a guy to take away some bloops, as well as prevent a lot of up the middle singles. Perhaps you find that it is beneficial to shift your OF’s extremely deep to lessen the # of doubles and triples but raise the number of singles, or even vice versa.

Obviously so much of this is dependent on research, as well as the type of talent a team has, but I mean can we REALLY be completely sure that the standard defensive alignments designed from the start of baseball are and have ALWAYS been the most efficient?

Perhaps research finds that the majority of flyball outs to the OF have such a high amount of hangtime that having two great OF’s play RCF and LCF would be enough to remain fairly efficient while cutting off a lot of hits by using your “safety” in particular spots.

This is all theory and might mean nothing, but I think it’s something that should be explored one day. It’s essentially taking defensive alignment to the next level using as much information as possible.

Certain pitchers can obviously control the amount of groundballs they induce, so why not try to better exploit those skills?

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 2, 2008 5:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well, I think what you are suggesting

Is pretty much what is done. The OF’ers especially move around a LOT depending on the batter/matchup.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Oct 2, 2008 8:48 PM PDT up 0 recs

yes, but I'm calling for more extremes

sometimes bring the OF closer to the INF, have 4 infielders on one side, etc.

Options. Defensive position is used to a degree, but I don’t think it’s been fully capitalized

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 3, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up 0 recs

As far as the 3 innings thing

I can see using this in the 4/5 spots in the rotation on a team like the Giants next season – letting a guy like Correa pitch 3-4 innings and then going with Yabu or something similar.

But that is more of just a bullpen start than a revolutionary strategy, and fairly common. The fundamental problem with this is the # of innings placed on the bullpen.

Pitchers certainly are most effective the first and second times through the order. It’s the third where the mediocre pitchers really get rocked and the good pitchers retain effectiveness.

Correia is a great example of this.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Oct 2, 2008 4:49 PM PDT up 0 recs

yeah, the bullpen problem would be alleviated if you did this for the entire rotation, because pitcher’s would need less rest. I.E.

Tandem 1:
Lincecum 1st 40-50 pitches
Sanchez 2nd 40-50 pitches
normal pen final 30-50 pitches

Tandem 2:
Cain 1st 40-50
Zito 2nd 40-50
pen final 40-50

Tandem 3:
Correia 1st 40-50
Lowry 2nd 40-50
pen final 40-50

Two days rest should be enough for a pitcher since they are throwing half the pitches they would in a normal, wellm 1/3 for Lincecum ;) . I don’t think this would case too much bullpen fatigue since 80-100 pitches from the two starters prior could probably equate to 6-7 innings per game.

I think the advantages in doing this are

a) you will raise the effectiveness of all the starters, since they could seemingly focus more knowing they only have 40-50 pitches/will only face lineup once or twice
b) In the playoffs, with the extra days off you would only have to use 2 tandems for the most part, meaning Lincecum can affect 3 games in a 7 game series, Cain can affect the other 3 games. Conversely, this means Sanchez and Zito (or whichever second tandem you go with) get to affect more games as well

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 2, 2008 5:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

all that said

there’s tons of issues with it, and I think the player ego issue might be the largest.

I’m much less high on this idea than the idea of pursuing more efficient defensive positioning models

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 2, 2008 5:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

Player Ego..

Definitely an issue. Basically, your “second” starter that day would get the win. If your “first” starters get no wins, they will be mad. Of course you’ll have some “second” starters with 35 wins.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
How is my adopted son almost twice as old as I am? Nevermind...Go Omar! Warm the Bench!

by WalrusMan on Oct 2, 2008 8:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

I can think of several reasons to try something like this.

1. To make your pitchers more effective.
2. To give more at-bats to pinch hitters rather than to pitchers.
3. To maximize the innings pitched by your best pitchers.
4. To keep your pitchers healthier.

You’ll certainly achieve the first goal. All the research shows that pitchers universally get better when moved to the bullpen, so short stints = better pitchers.

You’ll obviously achieve the second as well, though you could run into a roster crunch, since you’re going to need an extra hitter or two in every game.

Will this plan take innings away from Misch and Correia and give them to Lincecum and Cain? Hard to say. To get 220 innings in while pitching every three days, they’d have to go 4+ innings per start.

Would they stay healthier? Nobody knows. I think so, but you’d need more research and experimentation before trying something so risky.

by Evan on Oct 3, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up 0 recs

But do you really want to give up 3 innings of Lincecum in exchange for 3 innings of Sanchez?

I don’t think that is necessarily the best strategy to win.

Or 3 innings of zito instead of 3 innings of Cain? If Cain is on that day (which you will know after the first 3 innings) I would rather take my chances with him.

If you had a rotation of essentially equally talented pitchers, I can see value to your approach. However, in the case where some guys (lincecum, cain) are substantially better than others (Zito, Correia) you end up exchanging good innings for bad innings.

I don’t think it would work very well.

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Oct 2, 2008 8:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

it doesn't much matter

as long as Lincecum gets his 220 innings in over the year. Who knows what happens to starters who now pitch 7 innings spread over 3 days instead of 5 days.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Oct 3, 2008 10:42 AM PDT up 0 recs

Well

If you have 162 games / 5 and you expect 7 innings out of your starters to get 226.8 innings each.

If instead you divide it by 3 but expect only 3 innings out of each pitcher, you get 162. You really need to have them go 4 to make it work.

Is 4 innings every 3 days advisable? Not sure…

Eugeniooooooo!!!!

by FairweatherFan on Oct 3, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

Didn’t the A’s try this when Larusa was still there? I seem to remember it being less than successful.

by jae on Oct 2, 2008 11:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

I doubt hitters can control their bloops to the extent of fitting it perfectly between our defensive infielders and our two outfielders

My dad would always claim he was batting 1.000 in little league until they put a fielder right in the bloop range in front of the LF and behind the SS.

by WalrusMan on Oct 2, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

well

he didn’t have to face MLB pitching =) .

I think if MLB hitters could have that sort of control, wouldn’t we see some hitting for a higher avg with bloops?

Do you Wazzel?

by NeifiChicken on Oct 3, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

I want a team composed entirely of center fielders.

/Sabean

#1 JUDY STEFFES FAN
My favorite pie is (name of pie flavor)
Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Oct 2, 2008 4:31 PM PDT 0 recs

Show a little flexibility

and go with our team strengths.

An outfield of center fielders.

An infield of second basemen.

by Moggeee on Oct 3, 2008 1:17 AM PDT up 0 recs

Why do I see 2 bubble gum like machines in Front office and Sabean wearing a Centrum’s helmet adding water to the little pelts to create more second base men and Centerfielders as needed? Like at the left 2:45 mark here.

Yes it’s the same episode were he attempts to use the Iludium Q -36 ~~explosive space modulator~~ Savvy Veteran Talent Evaluator

Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!

by daveinexile on Oct 3, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

I'd like to see a team try the triple steal

Successful? Probably not
Entertaining? Very

Giants! Giants! HELP US GOD!

by j14 on Oct 3, 2008 10:16 AM PDT 0 recs

Actually, with bases loaded and zero or 1 out...

… if it’s late and tight (all together now: that’s what he or she said), that might well work. Picture it. If the catcher has a brainlock and throws the ball to 2nd upon seeing the runner take off from 1st, then the runner at 3d could almost certainly score. Yes, the whole thing could backfire, and if there was just a little bit of Admiral Akbar in one of the infielders who could call out that it’s a trap, it would backfire. But that would certainly be fun to watch.

I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."

by Mayor of 311 on Oct 3, 2008 1:27 PM PDT up 0 recs