Opening Night: Post Game Thread

[obucard]

They would have pitched around Pujols anyway.

Then they would've had to pitch to Rolen with 1 out and the bases loaded.

Didn't that result in a double play?

Nope.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gi ... page=plays

Bottom 6th: St. Louis
- A. Kennedy flied out to left
- S. Schumaker hit for C. Carpenter
- S. Schumaker singled to left
- D. Eckstein doubled to left, S. Schumaker scored
- P. Wilson singled to shallow center, D. Eckstein out at home, P. Wilson to second advancing on throw
- A. Pujols walked
- S. Rolen hit by pitch, P. Wilson to third, A. Pujols to second
- Y. Molina popped out to shortstop

I was referring to Rolen's AB in the 8th.

[thrill]

They would have pitched around Pujols anyway.

Then they would've had to pitch to Rolen with 1 out and the bases loaded.

Didn't that result in a double play?

Nope.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gi ... page=plays

Bottom 6th: St. Louis
- A. Kennedy flied out to left
- S. Schumaker hit for C. Carpenter
- S. Schumaker singled to left
- D. Eckstein doubled to left, S. Schumaker scored
- P. Wilson singled to shallow center, D. Eckstein out at home, P. Wilson to second advancing on throw
- A. Pujols walked
- S. Rolen hit by pitch, P. Wilson to third, A. Pujols to second
- Y. Molina popped out to shortstop

I was referring to Rolen's AB in the 8th.

Oh. We weren't talking about that, which is why I was confused.

[obucard]

They would have pitched around Pujols anyway.

Then they would've had to pitch to Rolen with 1 out and the bases loaded.

Didn't that result in a double play?

Nope.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gi ... page=plays

Bottom 6th: St. Louis
- A. Kennedy flied out to left
- S. Schumaker hit for C. Carpenter
- S. Schumaker singled to left
- D. Eckstein doubled to left, S. Schumaker scored
- P. Wilson singled to shallow center, D. Eckstein out at home, P. Wilson to second advancing on throw
- A. Pujols walked
- S. Rolen hit by pitch, P. Wilson to third, A. Pujols to second
- Y. Molina popped out to shortstop

I was referring to Rolen's AB in the 8th.

Oh. We weren't talking about that, which is why I was confused.

It was a comparison. Rolen came up in the 8th with the bases loaded and 1 out and hit into a double play. It was a lame attempt at a joke.

[cardfaninfla]

I didn't think it was that bad Oquendo sending Eck--I was surprised Beltran even made a throw to the plate and a cut off man couldn't have had a chance on that throw.

They would have pitched around Pujols anyway.

It was a terrible play, you can't get a guy thrown out at the plate in that situation. If they pitch around Pujols with runners on first and third you take your chances. Rolen smoked a pitch in that same situation in the 8th and it took a really good play to keep it from scoring two runs.

[Leroy]

After a day to think about things, we are going to struggle against the Mets if they get good starting pitching (which is as big of a question mark as our outfield, in my opinion).

That lineup is going to give whoever we trot out there fits, maybe not to the degree that the Phillies did a couple of years ago, but there are few easy outs there.

However, it'll take at least two crushing losses before I write the season off completely.

[docellis]

We were a part of history:
The Mets infield turned four double plays, equaling the highest Opening Day total in 75 years.

[Popeye_Card]

I didn't think it was that bad Oquendo sending Eck--I was surprised Beltran even made a throw to the plate and a cut off man couldn't have had a chance on that throw.

They would have pitched around Pujols anyway.

I didn't think it was a bad idea either. 90% of OF throws do not beat him. As it turned out, Beltran threw a laser right on the mark without a bounce, and Eckstein was dead at the plate. You tip your cap to the Mets (Beltran) for excellent execution on that play.

If there were 0 outs or 2 outs, the situation is different (the ol' "never make the 1st or 3rd out at home" rule). It was an aggressive decision, and the Cardinals needed a tally at the time. I was fine with sending him. I would have also been fine with holding him.

--P--

[skmsw]

I didn't think it was that bad Oquendo sending Eck--I was surprised Beltran even made a throw to the plate and a cut off man couldn't have had a chance on that throw.

They would have pitched around Pujols anyway.

I didn't think it was a bad idea either. 90% of OF throws do not beat him. As it turned out, Beltran threw a laser right on the mark without a bounce, and Eckstein was dead at the plate. You tip your cap to the Mets (Beltran) for excellent execution on that play.

If there were 0 outs or 2 outs, the situation is different (the ol' "never make the 1st or 3rd out at home" rule). It was an aggressive decision, and the Cardinals needed a tally at the time. I was fine with sending him. I would have also been fine with holding him.

--P--

I didn't like sending him at all.

Eck was running; average speed at best (a step below avg IMO). Beltran was throwing; elite OF arm. Wrong personnel on both sides of the diamond.

Hard-hit ball, to a CFer playing shallow. Wrong circumstances with the vector of the batted ball.

At the time, it was 5-1 in the 6th. Making sure we score that second run now was considerably less important than keeping the inning going to try and catch up. By not running, you have first and third and AP up with only one out. Gotta like the odds of that runner eventually coming in from third even without taking on any added risk on the bases; given the 4-run deficit, why take on anyadded risk? Wrong game situation to go for it.

From a statistical and probability standpoint, using run expectancies:

try, but fail -- 0.344 runs on average the rest of the inning.
don't try -- 1.243 runs
try, and succeed -- 1.725 runs

[don't try, and they then pitch around AP: 1.65 runs, nearly as good as trying and succeeding, but with zero risk!!]

so,

reward if successful: being .482 runs better off
risk of failing: being .899 runs worse off

break-even point: have to be successful 65% for the risk to be worth the reward. Personally, I do not think Eck scores from second against Beltran on a hard-hit grounder to shallow CF 65% of the time.

Overall, wrong risk/reward ratio from a probability standpoint.

there you have it -- a bad move from a scouting and tools standpoint, from a situational and game management standpoint, and even from a probability and statistical standpoint.

[haltz]

If there were 0 outs or 2 outs, the situation is different (the ol' "never make the 1st or 3rd out at home" rule). It was an aggressive decision, and the Cardinals needed a tally at the time. I was fine with sending him. I would have also been fine with holding him.

It's "never make the first or third out at third," I believe.

I disagreed in flashchat, but steve's right. The simple fact is that we were down by four. Even the fact that I agree with you that Beltran doesn't throw a perfect strike 90%, pales in terms if the game situation.

[Popeye_Card]

I didn't think it was that bad Oquendo sending Eck--I was surprised Beltran even made a throw to the plate and a cut off man couldn't have had a chance on that throw.

They would have pitched around Pujols anyway.

I didn't think it was a bad idea either. 90% of OF throws do not beat him. As it turned out, Beltran threw a laser right on the mark without a bounce, and Eckstein was dead at the plate. You tip your cap to the Mets (Beltran) for excellent execution on that play.

If there were 0 outs or 2 outs, the situation is different (the ol' "never make the 1st or 3rd out at home" rule). It was an aggressive decision, and the Cardinals needed a tally at the time. I was fine with sending him. I would have also been fine with holding him.

--P--

I didn't like sending him at all.

Eck was running; average speed at best (a step below avg IMO). Beltran was throwing; elite OF arm. Wrong personnel on both sides of the diamond.

Hard-hit ball, to a CFer playing shallow. Wrong circumstances with the vector of the batted ball.

At the time, it was 5-1 in the 6th. Making sure we score that second run now was considerably less important than keeping the inning going to try and catch up. By not running, you have first and third and AP up with only one out. Gotta like the odds of that runner eventually coming in from third even without taking on any added risk on the bases; given the 4-run deficit, why take on anyadded risk? Wrong game situation to go for it.

From a statistical and probability standpoint, using run expectancies:

try, but fail -- 0.344 runs on average the rest of the inning.
don't try -- 1.243 runs
try, and succeed -- 1.725 runs

[don't try, and they then pitch around AP: 1.65 runs, nearly as good as trying and succeeding, but with zero risk!!]

so,

reward if successful: being .482 runs better off
risk of failing: being .899 runs worse off

break-even point: have to be successful 65% for the risk to be worth the reward. Personally, I do not think Eck scores from second against Beltran on a hard-hit grounder to shallow CF 65% of the time.

Overall, wrong risk/reward ratio from a probability standpoint.

there you have it -- a bad move from a scouting and tools standpoint, from a situational and game management standpoint, and even from a probability and statistical standpoint.

Next time I'll be sure to tell Oquendo to bring his calculator out to 3B.

It took a perfect throw to nail him. If you're not willing to get a player thrown out once in a while by a perfect throw, then IMO you are not being aggresive enough. If that throw is offline one way or the other by a couple feet, or if it bounces in the dirt, Eckstein is likely safe. It's the first game of the season and you're down a few runs--test his arm.

--P--