Cubs 3, Mariners 2

In Postgame by berselius138 Comments

OSS: Cubs blow a close game but walk it off in extras

Three up:

  1. Nick Madrigal had the biggest play of the game for the Cubs when, as the extra innings zombie runner, he stole third base with nobody out. Even more impressive was that he did it without the ball being delivered to the plate. Madrigal came home one batter later for the game-winning run.
  2. Drew Smyly bounced back from his sloppy season debut, striking out seven and allowing just one run in five innings of work. His silly knuckle curve was looking extra silly to the Mariners batters today.
  3. Heads up defense by who else but Dansby Swanson managed to sniff out a Mariners TOOTBLAN in the eighth inning. Cooper Hummel led off the inning with a double, but pulled a Theriot to help kill a potential Mariners rally

Three down:

  1. Michael Fulmer gave up a bomb of a HR Jarred Kelenic, which resulted in a blown save. The Cubs have been victim to a few bloop-fests so far this year, but this homer was a no doubter.
  2. Sending Barnhart up to bunt in the 10th with a RISP was not exactly an endorsement of the Cubs offensive abilities. Madrigal was already in scoring position, I’d just let Barnhart or whoever just swing away and trust Hoerner and Swanson to get the run in if he didn’t succeed.
  3. The Cubs team was built to win a lot of 3-2 ballgames, so expect more of this I guess.

Next up: Hayden Wesneski takes on minor Marvel sub-villain Chris Flexen at 6:40 PM CT.

Share this Post

Comments

  3. Rice Cube

    I sort of get the bunt in the endgame if you only need the one run and you get two chances to score the guy from third with any number of options if you give up that out, but if everything tanks then you’re out one catcher, your best defensive right fielder, probably Nick Madrigal’s, uh, defensive versatility, and now the bench is even shorter. So I think Rossy was going for it there and I get that part too, but it’s definitely not the way I would have gone for it (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    I furiously do not get it. Especially using a pinch hitter to do it. Without even looking at the numbers behind it, I always just ask, if the teams’ roles were reversed, would I want the other team to do this? And fortunately for our discussion’s sake, a very similar scenario played out in the top of that inning. When the other former Cub-catcher-turned-manager had his player bunting with runners on first and second, I thought Phew, they’re giving us a free out and I was further elated when it didn’t come with the cost of baserunners advancing.

    It’s just so weird to me to attempt something that, if it works the way you design it to work, the other team is glad you did it. And I can’t imagine Ross was thinking, “oh please don’t bunt” in the previous frame. It drives me absolutely bonkers. Ross didn’t outmanage Servais, the Cubs players merely out-executed the Mariners.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. andcounting

    andcounting,

    I would get it if the ghost runner started at first instead of second, but the inventors of the ghost runner rule certainly figured they could speed up the game if they put the ghost runner on second. “Managers won’t be dumb enough to bunt in THIS situation, would they?”

    I guess they’ve just grown tired of the fast-paced games and are all “Reclaiming my time!” by refusing to try to score in extra innings. So petty.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. Rice Cube

    andcounting,

    It’s why I thought that starting the runner on 2B would just be better served by having runners on the corners with one out to start the inning because one manager would bunt and the other would IBB to set up the double play to get out of it, but in practice it seems that happens far less than I thought it would so maybe managers aren’t completely daft.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Author
    berselius

    Rice Cube,

    I’d get it, but still wouldn’t like it if it was a 7-8-9 hitters are coming up situation, or if pitchers still had to bat. But since the Cubs had arguably their two best singles hitters guaranteed to come up it felt kinda pointless.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Rice Cube

    berselius,

    It’s coupled with the shorter bench after the various substitutions that it really doesn’t make sense to waste that opportunity, but getting the winning run to third base is a good idea in theory

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    I just don’t believe I’ve ever seen any data indicating that getting a runner from 2nd to 3rd is worth an out. Runner on 3rd with 1 out is better than runner on 2nd with 1 out, but I just did a win probability calculation that shows win probability goes down 4.1% points when the home team goes from runner on 2nd 0 outs to runner on 3rd, 1 out (based on the last 20 seasons).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. Rice Cube

    andcounting,

    I donated my copy of Tango’s “The Book” to the library a while back but I think they said essentially the same thing about run expectancy, but did have the caveat that the run expectancy tables don’t take into account context and that the endgame situations might be different, which is probably the only defensible part of the decisions made last night. In those situations, you go from run expectancy to win expectancy, which I guess you already did, so let’s just call it a bad decision all around (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. Rice Cube

    Oooh, first time I’ve seen Heuer news in a while, that’s a good sign

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Rice Cube

    Tonight’s Cubs lineup from the beat

    Hoerner 2B
    Swanson SS
    Happ LF
    Mancini 1B
    Bellinger CF
    Wisdom 3B
    Hosmer DH
    Gomes C
    Velázquez RF
    —————
    SP: Wesneski

    I wonder if Hosmer hurt something because he’s DH’d twice this series instead of standing at 1B

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    That’s why I looked at win probability instead of run expectancy. It becomes more likely that you will lose if you bunt the guy over successfully.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    Organizationally, I’d feel better if they just had a bunt-stupidly-and-your-fired policy. Like this type of shit should be determined in advance. Don’t bring in a pinch hitter to bunt the ghost runner over, ever. Just don’t. Signed, Jed.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. Author
    berselius

    Rice Cube:
    andcounting,

    andcounting,

    I think it’s some weird level of “cover your ass” like how coaches still won’t just go for it on fourth-and-short even if the lineman just has to fall over to gain that yard

    I think the Eagles changed the meta to “push your ass” last season (dying laughing).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. Author
    berselius

    Rice Cube:
    Oooh, first time I’ve seen Heuer news in a while, that’s a good sign

    Nice, it sounds like he’s much further along than I would have guessed.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. Perkins

    Rice Cube:
    andcounting,

    I donated my copy of Tango’s “The Book” to the library a while back but I think they said essentially the same thing about run expectancy, but did have the caveat that the run expectancy tables don’t take into account context and that the endgame situations might be different, which is probably the only defensible part of the decisions made last night. In those situations, you go from run expectancy to win expectancy, which I guess you already did, so let’s just call it a bad decision all around (dying laughing)

    IIRC (it’s been about a decade since I last read The Book), certain late game situations call for bunts because the win expectancy of the runner a base ahead with one more out goes up pretty dramatically, even if the run expectancy goes down a bit.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. Rice Cube

    Perkins,

    Yeah that sounds right, but I wonder if they updated the data since then for AC’s calculator, the Book only used data from like 1998 to 2004 I think, and there’s been way more and better data curating since then

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. andcounting

    Perkins,

    So yeah, WP as the home team with a runner on 1st, no outs is 72.3%. With a runner on 2nd, 1 out it’s 73.2%. So it makes sense to bunt the runner over from 1st.

    With a runner on 2nd, no outs, it’s 81.1%. Runner on 3rd, 1 out, it’s 77%. It’s a terrible idea to bunt. It’s not even a good idea to steal. The WP is 80% with a runner on 3rd and no outs.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  36. Author
    berselius

    Can’t decide if the radio broadcast was stupid for doing a recurring adult diapers ad read or genius for linking it to opposing pitchers’ control problems (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  38. Perkins

    andcounting:
    Perkins,

    So yeah, WP as the home team with a runner on 1st, no outs is 72.3%. With a runner on 2nd, 1 out it’s 73.2%. So it makes sense to bunt the runner over from 1st.

    With a runner on 2nd, no outs, it’s 81.1%. Runner on 3rd, 1 out, it’s 77%. It’s a terrible idea to bunt. It’s not even a good idea to steal. The WP is 80% with a runner on 3rd and no outs.

    Ah that makes sense; I stand corrected. I would go without dinner, but I already ate tonight. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  40. andcounting

    Perkins,

    Welllll, I need to look at it some more. I was looking only at 10th inning numbers from the past 20 seasons (I wanted a bit more weight on the ghost-runner situations, but I think what that did was overload it with runner on 2nd, no outs situations compared to a limited sample of runner on 3rd, 0 or 1 out scenarios.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  54. Rice Cube

    andcounting:
    Perkins,

    It’s pretty crazy that his wife left her game with an injury yesterday or the day before? Sympathy pains, maybe?

    The semi-official story is that Dansby took Mallory to the hospital super early for her surgery and then didn’t drink or eat enough for hours prior to the game and then cramped up during the inning break, but none of them seem too concerned about it, plus the off day tomorrow helps some if they want to just let him sit on the bench for a bit since he’s played every game so far.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  56. Rice Cube

    You can now get drunk a little later in terms of inning, but the same time anyway because pace of play! (probably coming soon to Wrigley)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  57. Rice Cube

    Good for Dansby for getting some rest, but he’ll have to start his iron man streak over again

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  58. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    This is something I doubt translates well at all from minor league ballparks, because I don’t think attendance and ballpark traffic is really the same at a minor league game. It’s not even the same ballpark (quite literally). If you’re grabbing a beer and a pretzel in Joliet, it might only cost you a half inning in line. But if you try to grab refreshments at Wrigley, you might very well miss two innings. I imagine you can only make up for so much of that with vendors. Extending beer sales is one thing but making it happen is another. I imagine any teams that don’t allow in-seat ordering with an app are probably going to lose a lot more in concessions than just 30 minutes worth per game.

    Wait. Do all stadiums let you order from your seat? I’m suddenly realizing I haven’t been to a game in almost a decade.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  59. Rice Cube

    andcounting,

    I know Oracle Park for sure has an in-seat order app and also they’re much more spacious and easy to navigate even when the stadium is nearly full. I am unsure how that would work logistically at a cramped park like Wrigley as much as I love it there.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  62. Author
    berselius

    andcounting:
    Rice Cube,

    He’s kinda negotiating on the field. Tough to let a guy walk when he’s on base half the time.

    If he’s on base half the time it seems like he’s having an easy time walking (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    1

    0
  71. Author
    berselius

    Rice Cube:
    Stroman might keep this game close but the offense has reverted to being sucky for now

    I guess he has to get rid of the zero on his uniform now.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  75. Rice Cube

    Perhaps my standards are too high but if you’re gonna sacrifice offense for catching prowess, said catcher should help the pitcher not have so many 3-ball counts and walks

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  76. andcounting

    Aside from the occasional lag here and there, the MLB gameday feed is essentially right on schedule with the radio broadcast. I actually had one occasion when gameday informed me of a called strike 3 a full second before the radio (the actual AM broadcast). For that second, I thought either it was an error or I was accidentally listening through the app instead of my car radio. I didn’t think that was possible, and I’ve never known Gameday to be any closer to the broadcast than a pitch or two behind.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  78. andcounting

    Wow. “Called strike not even in the borderline zone” alert. Doesn’t happen on pitches that high very often.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  93. BVS

    Late to the convo, but…

    berselius,

    andcounting: win probability goes down 4.1% points when the home team goes from runner on 2nd 0 outs to runner on 3rd, 1 out (based on the last 20 seasons).

    But isn’t 20 seasons too long a window? Until this year ( maybe), we’ve been in a TTO +shift period. Wouldn’t 5-10 yr be better? Because if your most likely outcomes are K, BB, HR, grounder into shift, bunting makes plenty of sense to me.

    Also,…

    andcounting: With a runner on 2nd, no outs, it’s 81.1%. Runner on 3rd, 1 out, it’s 77%. It’s a terrible idea to bunt. It’s not even a good idea to steal. The WP is 80% with a runner on 3rd and no outs.

    Hold on, with a runner on 3rd and no outs, WP is 1.1% less than with a runner on 2nd and no outs? That can’t be right. I suppose you could argue these values aren’t statistically different, but even that seems unlikely. Surely it’s easier to score a run (and therefore win a game) with man at 3rd no out than man at 2nd no out.

    (Possibly I misunderstood a follow up comment.)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  94. Rice Cube

    Breakdown of Happ’s new extension:

    I guess the $3MM is basically paid to him sooner (now or sometime later this year) but the AAV will all be in those three years so this year is already dealt with

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  95. Rice Cube

    BVS,

    My follow up question to all this is whether the calculator was gated on last AB or final inning (9th or extras) for the home team, that probably changes the calculus some.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  98. andcounting

    BVS,

    Yes, based on 10th-inning numbers from that time period. I did say (I think) in a follow-up comment that I expect the sample of runner-on-third, no-out/one-out situations to be a bit too small to be reliable. I chose the 10th-inning numbers because I figured that would be loaded with runner-on-2nd, no-out scenarios. I chose the years I did to increase sample size, to focus on the strike-out era, to include more data from the shiftless seasons (since we’re talking about this year’s best strategy and I didn’t want data from only the shift era), and for another reason I can’t remember but there should probably be three reasons.

    The most-likely outcomes you listed include only one third-base-friendly option, and that’s a groundball into the shift (although this year it’s probably even a more third-base-friendly option, a grounder into the nonshift, and I would add 50% or so of flyballs) the runner-on-third advantage for that applies only to one-out scenarios. With a league-average K rate of about 22% and a bunting success percentage of about 75% the batter striking out and the bunt failing are of very similar likelihood, on average. I would expect the scenarios where the non-bunter drives in the run or moves the runner over in some other way would be ample enough to match or outweigh the number of times a non-doubleplay grounder or sac fly scores a runner from third after a successful bunt (and presumable IBB).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  99. andcounting

    andcounting,

    One other thing I failed to look into was how the numbers change if the visiting team walks the next batter. The home win probability takes a 3% hit going from runner-on-third one out to runners on 1st & 3rd one out.

    The dip in win probability for that sample of runner on 3rd no out compared to runner on 2nd no out was definitely a fluke of that sample, by the way. You can play around with it here:

    https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/stats.html

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  100. Rice Cube

    It might just be that the Royals are bad, but the 2-OF shift does not seem to be working as well as they might have thought

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  101. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    Did KC test this out in the minors? I did happen to read some of what Tango wrote about the reality that things like home run rate and walk rate could most certainly be affected by defensive positioning because pitchers are humans and are definitely (and perhaps measurably) psychologically vulnerable to forced high-pressure situations like pitching with a patchwork outfield.

    So, if KC tested this in the minors and found there was an adjustment period during which pitchers would be expected to flail a bit before they got used to it, I could see them staying with it a bit longer.

    If they didn’t test this in the minors, they should be contracted. It’s unforgivable on every level.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  102. Rice Cube

    andcounting,

    I don’t follow the Royals system closely so I couldn’t tell you, but this might be similar to the Rockies’ piggyback experiment that didn’t go anywhere, probably a brainchild of some nerd that they figured couldn’t hurt since the team wasn’t going anywhere anyway

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  103. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    I’m 100% in favor of testing out new things, but the shift restrictions were tested in the minors, so strategies like this could have been tested there too. If KC is doing its experimentation on the major league level, that’s inexcusable and blatantly non competitive. Fans, players, and other owners should be angry about this. It’s not cute.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  104. Rice Cube

    andcounting,

    I think at the very least the Rockies did their piggyback experiment with their MiLB affiliates first before they tried (and failed) at MLB level, and I think more than just KC would have tested the 2-OF alignment in the minors but I am unsure how to Google search for evidence, at minimum lots of folks had been talking about this since we learned the shift restrictions were coming and I don’t think they were pulling it right out of the air, so my guess is that there’s at least some MiLB experimentation from multiple orgs, plus at some point I think Grandpa Rossy did talk about it some in spring training even if he was reluctant to actually do it in a game situation.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  105. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    I know they’ve only done this for about a game’s worth of ABs, so I’m probably overreacting a bit. But it definitely pisses me off.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  108. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    It’s definitely (for me) a “spirit of the rule” situation. Everyone knows the point of the rule is to get back closer to traditional defensive alignments. Trying out novelty defenses that will ultimately get legislated out of the game if they work is just so tired. If I wanted to see the rules of a contest get trampled on for every possible advantage other than a genuinely earned victory I’d watch the GOP run an election.

      Quote  Reply

    1

    0
  109. Rice Cube

    andcounting,

    I think you want to give the defense every opportunity to stop a run from scoring, so they’ll still have the five-man infield with the CF roving around while the other four are locked into their side of the dirt, but like in football you can’t just let the defensive back encroach for an advantage so I get it there. I think any team willing to go 2-OF knows the risks whether the CF is roving where the overshifted 2B used to be or elsewhere in the infield, and I doubt MLB will legislate that out especially if the early indications are that this alignment is trash anyway (dying laughing)

    Caveat being we need more data but if it’s that bad already I doubt any team uses it consistently.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  110. andcounting

    Rice Cube: I think you want to give the defense every opportunity to stop a run from scoring

    The rule change demonstrated they definitely don’t think this way.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  111. Rice Cube

    andcounting,

    Yeah I misspoke, I should clarify that they’ll allow free reign within certain zones and hopefully that doesn’t change. You have to give the offense a chance to sneak some hits through, but they can’t go as far as to do what they do in certain beer leagues where outfielders have to station themselves past 250 feet to allow hits to bloop in

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  112. Rice Cube

    Rice Cube,

    I do think it comes down to what types of hits you consider “deserved” and what hits you are ok with turning into outs, which I don’t think anyone really has a consensus on other than “he hit the piss out of the ball and therefore should be rewarded” although that too comes with a caveat, because if you hit it really hard but it goes straight up or gets pounded into the ground, then is that really worthy of a hit?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  116. andcounting

    Rice Cube,

    If I were running a youth baseball league, I’d restrict player positioning pretty heavily to avoid excessive defensive manipulation that would exploit the limitations of developing players. If I were running a professional baseball league, I’d enforce almost no restrictions to allow the presumably very talented players to adjust competitively to what their opponents were trying to do. Defenses are shifting? Hit it where they ain’t.

    MLB hitters overwhelmingly decided, no, we’re just going to keep trying to hit the ball hard with ample loft and backspin. MLB said, ok, we’re not going to force people to watch the defense constantly overload the part of the field where you insist on trying to hit it. And I’ve heard Theo add something to the effect of, if teams try to bend the rules to keep making the game boring, we’ll redefine the rules accordingly.

    Me? Ok, fine. That’s the new policy. Let hitters focus on hitting it to a very narrow range, but we’re not going to let defenses take ridiculous advantage of that fact. So let’s just all agree we’re not going to use defensive gimmicks unless we absolutely need to, okay? (Overall, it’s not my preference, but now that MLB has made its preference known, trying to see how far the current rules can be bent is just annoying because everyone gets the point.)

    So, if outfield realignment actually did work—if we discovered hitters had become so entrenched in their ways that you only really needed one outfielder and you could reduce BABiP by .150 if you had a roving short outfielder or by .200 if you used two roving short outfielders, my vote would be GODDAMMIT, NO, JUST STOP PLEASE. We already decided we’re not doing that.

    If the winning run is at third with no outs and catching a deep flyball is useless, fine. But it’s the third inning on a Tuesday and Rizzo’s up? No thank you.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  117. Rice Cube

    andcounting,

    I actually think some of the pull-happy guys could be mitigated by deadening the ball some and moving the fences back, to incentivize Nico-like guys who spray the ball, but I don’t know for sure. I was talking to Harry last spring about this and I think we were discussing moving the mound back (forgot exactly what we said, guess I’ll listen again (dying laughing)) but that’s also been suggested by others, because pitchers are just too damn good and that’s why nobody is going to bunt consistently for hits even if that’s the way to go, and defenses know that which is why they’re so willing to give up that whole side of the field. It’s not as straightforward as we think it is, anyway.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  120. Rice Cube

    On the one hand, the ingrown pube gets more money. On the other hand, said ingrown pube doesn’t get to play with the others anymore.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  121. Rice Cube

    Looking at how the ex-Cubs (even Rizzo and Schwarber to an extent) have struggled since leaving the team, you almost feel like Jed had some kind of psychic ability to predict when they were all going to just fall off a cliff. Unfortunate, really, because they were all so endearing to me as a Cubs fan of that bygone era as if it was centuries ago (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  123. Author
    berselius

    Rice Cube:
    I will think up something to write about that isn’t just white noise in the Cubs blogosphere but likely not before berselius does the next preview

    Oh, I guess I should get on that 😛

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  133. BVS

    Only checking in late each night because I’m on the PA for HS baseball tournament this week …

    Thanks for the clarifications on the Win/Run expectancy stuff, AC. I’d have thought SSS wasn’t that much of an issue with 20 yrbtime frame, but I guess so.

    In this year’s game, I bunt in extras if I have a batter hitting . 183 (my C or Zach McKinstrey) or if I have a speed guy at the plate with a tendency to hot grounders to the left side of the infield (madrigal, perhaps? I don’t know his spray chart). The tough call for me is a guy like Wisdom or Rob Deer who has a high K rate, especially if matched up with a pitcher who pitches well to his weaknesses. Do I hope Wisdom gets a mistake pitch, or play the odds that he won’t hit a HR and have him bunt.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment