The Cardinals’ Bold Baserunning Decision That Failed
On Saturday, the Cardinals battled back from deficits of 6-1 and 8-3 to find themselves trailing by just one run with two outs in the bottom of the ninth. Yadier Molina had just singled off Mets closer Edwin Diaz. Cardinals pitcher Jack Flaherty came in off the bench to pinch run. Kolten Wong hit a high blooper that found its way in between second baseman Jeff McNeil and a diving Michael Conforto. Flaherty, showing some of his inexperience on the basepaths, twice looked back at the play instead of focusing on third base coach Pop Warner as he was heading toward third base when the ball hit the ground. He then ran for home.
This is how the play moved forward from there.
We can see Flaherty stumble a bit at third, though that stumble doesn’t look like it made a huge difference as the throw beat Flaherty by about 10 feet. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the decision to send Flaherty ended the baseball game and handed the Mets a victory. As for the decision-making at the time of Warner’s choice to send Flaherty home, that deserves a closer examination.
The first step in looking at the decision to try and tie the game is establishing how much benefit the Cardinals would receive if Flaherty was safe and compare that to the loss if Flaherty was thrown out. We know that getting thrown out ends the game, so the Cardinals win expectancy in that scenario is of course zero. There are two other scenarios, with the first being if Flaherty stays. The Cardinals would then still be down by one run, but they would have runners on second and third base with two outs and Paul Goldschmidt stepping up to the plate. The second scenario is if Flaherty scores the tying run and Paul Goldschmidt steps up to the plate with a runner on second base.
We can plug those two scenarios into our WPA Inquirer tool and determine the Cardinals chances of winning the game. The scenario on the left is not sending Flaherty and the scenario on the right is Flaherty scoring.

If Flaherty stays at third base, the Cardinals win probability at that time was 20.1%. It’s possible that the win probability might have felt larger than a one-in-five shot with Goldschmidt stepping up to the plate, but keep in mind that Goldschmidt has made an out in 65% of his plate appearances this season and 60% in his career. Also keep in mind that the Mets’ pitcher, Edwin Diaz, is a good reliever, even if he had pitched three days in a row. Even if Goldschmidt delivers a single and a one-run lead, the Cardinals still have to navigate the bottom of the ninth inning, in which the Mets would still have a 20% chance of coming back and winning. The most Goldschmidt could do is a home run, which he’s done in just 4% of his plate appearances in his career, which would give the Cardinals a 92% chance and the Mets an 8% chance of coming back.
If Flaherty had safely made it home, we see the Cardinals would have increased their chances of winning to 46.6%. Goldschmidt still would have been up to the plate with the winning run at second, but now if he made an out, the Cardinals would still have had a decent chance of winning the game instead of the game being over. The calculus of the decision then weighs the 26.5-point increase in win probability if Flaherty is safe against the 20.1-point decrease if Flaherty is out. Because 20.1 is the risk of loss and 46.6 is the difference between the loss and the gain, Flaherty only needs a 43% chance of being safe to make the risk worth it. That’s a pretty low bar, but Flaherty looked to be out by a mile. Were his chances really that high?
When you consider the decision Warner made to send Flaherty, this is what the play looked like as it was unfolding.
Warner sees an outfielder sliding and missing the ball while the second baseman overruns the play. The ball is still on the ground as Warner has to make his decision. We know Flaherty isn’t the fastest player in the world, but his average sprint speed is 25.8 feet per second. For 90 feet, that would be about 3.5 seconds. We also have 90-feet splits showing Flaherty moving that distance in 4.03 seconds, but that includes half a second in the first five feet which is likely a little slower than Flaherty would be moving rounding third. Knowing it would take Flaherty around 3.5-4 seconds to make it home, and knowing the ball is on the ground, we next have to factor in the defense and arm of Jeff McNeil.
The Mets’ second baseman doesn’t have the best arm. He was moved off shortstop early in his career due to concerns about that arm, and when the Mets play McNeil in the outfield, he plays in left field, where shorter throws are required. To get a sense of what McNeil’s throws from the outfield are like, I watched a lot of them. Here’s a good one:
On that play, McNeil is charging and throws the ball on a bounce to home to get Maikel Franco easily. That .gif above is 3.7 seconds. Here’s another throw McNeil made from left field.
For the Cardinals’ purposes, here’s the result of a throw he made against St. Louis earlier in the season.
None of this is meant to disparage McNeil. He simply doesn’t have that strong of an arm. On a similar play in which he did well to get Franco, the play took longer than Flaherty’s likely run home. Now here’s what McNeil did against St. Louis.
McNeil wasted no effort in grabbing the ball off the ground and immediately threw a strike to home. While the 10 feet Flaherty was out by looks like a healthy distance, we are only talking about three-tenths of a second or so before Flaherty would’ve had been sliding into home. That’s a slight hesitation in getting to the ball, a wide throw, or a weaker throw due to Conforto being on the ground in front of him. If Flaherty hadn’t stumbled, the play would have been very close. If McNeil hadn’t made the exact play he did, which was a very good play for him given his past history, Flaherty would have been safe. We can argue about how much leeway we need to give, but when the break-even point on the play is at 43%, sending Flaherty was probably the right call.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Watching the GIF run a bunch of times, it looks like if McNeil would have yielded to Conforto, he’d have had a better chance of catching the ball and ending the inning right there…
Awesome analysis. At first blush it sure seemed a poor decision. I guess Pop Warner has a better baseball mind than most of us Monday morning quarterbacks. Go figure😎..
Statistically, it was correct. The real culprit is Flaherty. He was not running hard from the start and kept looking back (which slows you down). If he had, he may have scored.
Is it though? The default runner is Molina. Now Molina knows enough to look at 3b coach but raise your hand if you think Molina makes it first to home faster than Flaherty?
The amount of times that MLB players watch plays while they are running rather than trusting the basecoach and running as fast as possible is my most frustrating part of being a fan*. It’s taught from the very youngest age and is demonstrably more efficient way to play and yet you see it so regularly.
* a close second is managers holding up the “wait” sign to umpires before they’re behind the scenes guy can watch a slomo replay before challenging. If the manager or player doesn’t know live/”real time” that a call was clearly incorrect then it is too close to waste time challenging on.
Many years ago Baseball Prospectus did a piece on what is the break-even for sending a runner from 3rd and found it is about 75% so one would need to have at least a 75% chance of being safe to make it worth it. However, their analysis was a general one and not game/situation specific.
FWIW, they also found that 3rd base coaches are classically risk-averse and runners are safe something like 95% of the time when the number should be a bit lower than that. They hold runners quite a bit more often than they should – nobody second guesses a coach holding the runner but everybody second guesses him when the runner gets thrown out at the plate.
As for that specific play, that was a horrible gamble. His probability had to be incredibly low.
Did you read the article? McNeil had to make a perfect pickup and throw to beat Flaherty by .3 seconds. Anything short of that and he likely scores. Combine that with the improved win probability if that runner scores versus staying on third, and it definitely doesn’t seem like a horrible gamble at all.
Did I read the article? No, i just randomly post comments on articles I’ve never read.
What is the probability of a major league player, even one with a below average arm, making a reasonably accurate throw from 225-250 feet? 90%? More? It didn’t even need to be right on the money because it beat the runner by at least 10 feet (I would say more than that, but whatever, that’s what the article says).
Sorry, bad gamble. I’m all for coaches being more aggressive but that was not a good one, especially with a pitcher running.
Between the pickup and the throw, no, a lot less than 90%, and Flaherty was only out by 10 feet due to the times he slowed down to look at the play and when he stumbled.
You probably just saw the best throw McNeill will make from the OF all season
This reminds me of one of the great baseball what-ifs of recent times: “What if Alex Gordon was sent home in the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, Game 7 of the 2014 World Series?”
He would have been out by 30 feet. Actually, the more likely scenario for that one is he ends up a run-down because he would have been out by so much he would have held up. That play was even lower probability than this one – Crawford had the ball and was turning already when Gordon hit 3B. That was a much shorter throw from a fielder with a better arm.
Yet I would have sent him because with tons of pressure someone could make a huge error
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/alex-gordon-barely-had-a-chance/
Jeff wrote a great piece on that exciting play, well worth the read if you hadn’t seen it. Unlike here with Flaherty rounding third versus a stumbling McNeil, in that case you had Gordon not yet to third as Gold Glover Crawford received the outfield relay. Baring a complete miss throw, Crawford had Gordon dead to rights.
That said, it would have been a much more exciting way to end the 7 game series than a Perez pop up.
Thanks for the link, I hadn’t read it.
Yeah, it definitely seems like it wouldn’t have been even close, but the “Captain Hindsight” in me still wishes it were given a chance!
Clicking link to link brought me to a Nate Silver article https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/send-alex-gordon/
Nice write up. If he had a 25% chance he should send him. Also, crazy it was just 2014 where Moustakas was described as “light hitting”.
That was an incredible throw by McNeil: strong, accurate, with one nice easy hop and the ball settling directly into the catcher’s glove in front of home plate without him having to move. If the throw had been just a little to the right, the catcher would have had to reach across his body with his glove hand, then come all the way back again with a sweep tag past a sliding Flaherty.
Agreed. Excellent throw – for anyone – not just McNeil, given his past. His past throws notwithstanding – this was an excellent, fantastic , if not perfect, throw.
I’d also factor in to the WPA scenario matrix the chance that a wild outfield throw not only allows Flaherty to score, but also allows Molina to advance to 3rd. If this were to happen in say 1 out of 4 cases, it edges up the expected WPA of a successful result to about 27%.
This puts the needed success rates of the play at just 43%. In my mind the odds were a lot higher than that, so I say good call, send him!
Okay, nice analysis, but this should’ve been posted two days ago.
Where’s our article on how the Marlins overused the shift to allow Carpenter a bunt double, which led almost directly to him scoring a run?
It seems more likely that Goldschimidt would have been walked, because a pitcher(John Brebbia) was on deck. The game likely would have came down to the bases loaded with Matt Wieters at the plate. This point was made on the Mets radio broadcast.
I wonder how much of all this analysis was thought of by the 3B coach ahead of time, including the possibility of Goldschmidt being walked if Flaherty were stopped at third, etc. Of course, some of it he had to decide on the fly, but I often wonder how good these coaches are at thinking ahead. You’d hope that at the MLB level, they would have run quite a few scenarios thru their head before the play occurred (much like a fielder thinks about what he would do ahead of time under various circumstances with runners on base), but maybe some of these guys aren’t as thorough with their pre-play analysis as we’d like them to be?
I’m sorry–I could not get past the Cards’ jerseys/color scheme in the top gif. I try to be open-minded and recognize that my preference needn’t be others’ and vice versa, but NOPE. NOPEITY NOPE NOPE.
And thus, we have the true explanation for Flaherty’s Flail
Dumbest managerial move in baseball is using a top pitcher as a pinch runner. Aside from the high % injury risk (running accounts for many IL stints), as pointed out above, the pitcher is not experienced, which nullifies the speed edge.
Fascinating analysis of a wild play (that I recall watching live). The one thing I wonder is whether it quite makes sense to view the value of WPA as being linear in this fashion, or whether there’s some distortion around 0%/100%. Is the difference between a 1% chance of winning and a 0% chance really only as important as the difference between a 61% chance and a 62% chance? I wonder whether it would be possible somehow to analyze the decisions teams make in the aggregate and see if we could construct an implied utility function for WPA.
In this case, for instance, you could make a case for valuing the 20% of remaining WPA if they play it safe much more highly than the 26% they would gain by going for it and succeeding–although it appears that in practice the Cardinals didn’t see it that way. Maybe my instinct that the value of WPA isn’t really linear is irrational, maybe the right thing to say in a situation like this is that you need to take your best shot at actually winning, not just try to avoid losing. But I’d be very curious to see how teams think about this, whether different teams/managers have different approaches, etc.
That’s interesting. I suspect you’re right that teams think that way, caring more about keeping their 1% from becoming 0% than about 61% to 60%.
We sure see teams spending resources to close out their 98% four-run lead going into the ninth.
This is a great article although mostly a moot point since with 2 outs, a baserunner starting from first base should be running on contact. This is little league stuff, not mention his checking back over his shoulder instead of picking up his 3rd base coach. If he does those things, he easily has an extra step and a half, likely 2, making his chances of scoring on this play closer to the 95% referenced in another comment. All the more embarrassing given he was brought in the game as a pinch runner, i.e. the manager feels he has a better chance of scoring than original batter. His one job here is to score in the inning with his baserunning, and at that he failed miserably.