Why Was Allen Craig Running?
Hidden among all the intentional walks and sacrifice bunts during the tic-tac-toe game that was game five of the World Series, there were two caught stealings that may have turned the game. In both cases, Allen Craig was gunned down during an Albert Pujols plate appearance. Before the face palm napalm dropped, there was a question hidden in the initial stunned silence, heard all the way up into the booth:
Why was Allen Craig running?
In the top of the seventh, in a tie game, Craig was at first and Pujols was facing Alexi Ogando. On a one-and-one count, Craig took off for second base. This is a man who stole all five of his attempts in the regular season, but it’s also a man that never stole more than eight in a full minor league season. Plus, he was stealing in front of Pujols. There was a chance that, even if he stole the base, the Cardinals’ reward would have been the same intentional walk that Ogando issued once Craig was caught stealing. Open base and all.
But the idea seemed misguided from a win probability standpoint, too. In the top of the seventh, in tied road game, the Cardinals had a win expectancy of 50.3%. If he steals the base, they have a 53.2% win expectancy. The caught stealing dropped their win expectancy down to 42.9%.
The break-even point for that stolen base was 71.8%. What with Craig’s 19 combined stolen bases in over 2500 career professional plate appearances, it seems like folly to expect that high of a success ratio. The average baseball player managed a 72.2% success rate, but in 119 career games in the major leagues, Craig’s Bill James speed score is 3.6, and the average number in that category is 5.0. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense for a player with below-average wheels.
Pujols only struck out in 8.9% of his at-bats this year (9.5% career). Once the ball is in play (about 80% of the time for Pujols), batters hit into double plays about 11% of the time in your typical double-play situations. At most, there was a 20% chance that the Cardinals ended up in the two worst possible situations if they don’t attempt the steal. Managing to avoid that double play seems to be a strategy that focuses too much on a slight negative.
Which segues us nicely to the second Craig caught stealing. In the top of the ninth, with the team down by two, Craig at first, and Pujols at the plate and facing a full count, Tony La Russa opted to send the runner. This one may have made more sense.
Back to that 11% chance of hitting into a double play. This statistic assumes that there is a double play opportunity and that the ball is put into play. With the count full, this all comes down to one pitch. Pujols has a 86.5% contact rate, and so the chance of a double play was somewhere around 9.5%. If someone like Matt Holliday was up there (77.7% career contact rate), that percentage drops to 8.5%. Mike Napoli (71.1% career) would have had a 7.8% chance.
But Pujols is Pujols and he’s likely to make contact on a pitch that needs to be in the zone. On a pitch in the zone, he was 92.2% likely to make contact (and 10.1% likely to hit into a double play). So maybe you send the runner to avoid a 10% chance at the super-bad situation. The strike-em-out-throw-em-out double play was only about 2.5% likely given the players involved.
Still, those were two caught stealings that made a nation scratch their collective head. One may have been worse than the other, but viewers will remember them in tandem. Add in the fact that this was the World Series and you can add insult to injury: Not since Billy Martin in 1955 has a player been caught stealing twice in a World Series game.
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
if you’re down multiple runs in the 9th with a runner on first, no matter how many outs, the win expectancy added from the successful stolen base in no way justifies sending the runner. the cards were down two craig had to score no matter what.
I agree. Plus, the Rangers had Feliz, a strikeout pitcher on the mound. Stealing there only makes sense in a tie game or 1-run game. It’s well-known that hitters fare slightly worse when distracted by a runner running on the pitch. With Pujols up as the tying run, why reduce the likelihood that he’s going to get a hit? It’s bad strategy in both cases.
I’m not so sure about this. The way this series has been managed, if Craig successfully steals second, Pujols will be intentionally walked putting two runners on base. I realize that in the actual situation it’s not possible once the full count was reached (as it’s impossible for Craig to steal second without Pujols striking out), but let’s evaluate a straight steal like you said.
At the start of Pujols at bat, the Cardinals’ WE was 17.2%. Assuming a successful steal means an IBB to Pujols (essentially guaranteed), Craig stealing second equals runners on 1st/2nd with 0 outs. Let’s give Craig a 65% success rate, which I think is reasonable. I also can’t find the exact WE for a 2 run deficit, but I believe my numbers below are close and conservative:
Failure (1 out, no runners on) leaves the Cards with ~2% WE
Success (0 outs, 1st and 2nd) – WE is at least 26%.
So (.65 * .26) + (.35 * .02) = 17.6% WE, which is greater than the original 17.2% WE. There’s a chance Craig’s actual success rate is lower, but I believe the success WE should be higher. If it’s up around 30%, then Craig only needs a success rate of 55% to break even.
Heck, now that I’m looking at the data maybe the straight steal was the right play from the beginning! If my data is off please correct me, but I couldn’t find more accurate WE.
Original WE State: 16%
Successful SB WE: 17.3%
Failed SB WE: 4%
Yeah we can already see it wasn’t a good idea. Pujols potentially going to first changes things, but a straight steal was not a good idea.
It was a 3-2 count….. if he successfully steals the base the only way that happens is if Pujols had struck out.
You are confusing the 7th inning hit and run with the 9th inning situation (where there was no possibility of a IBB as it was a 3-2 pitch)
I think it was more about staying out of the double play and PRESERVING the base runner than advancing him. It was a 3-2 count.
That’s what the writer is saying. Their are four possible outcomes to that 3-2 pitch. There was only an 8% chance that Pujols would strike out. There was a 10% chance that he would hit into a double play. The odds say send the runner. I know there have been studies done showing that hitters hit worse while runners are going in front of them, but Pujols is the world’s best hitter – I have a hard time believing a runner moving will affect him.
I posted this previously, but i made myself chuckle, which means it merits a re-post:
TLR and Washington aren’t making poor decisions, but rather managing for the wrong teams. Consider: Wash walks Albert with the bases empty because, apparently, Pujols is just that dangerous, while TLR sends runners with Pujols on because, apparently, Pujols isn’t dangerous enough. Accordingly, if the managers switched teams, the Rangers would NOT walk Albert with the bases empty, and the Cards would NOT send runners with Albert up. Problem solved.
I didn’t like the second caught stealing at all, but damn that first one was awful. And it bothered me even more that McCarver and Buck were insisting that Pujols called for a hit and run. If that’s the case (and I’m not sure if it’s true or not), then Pujols HAS to swing at that pitch. I don’t care how awful of a pitch it is, the hitter cannot leave the runner out to dry like that. I have a hard time believing Pujols called for the hit and run and then just watched the pitch sail by. I think it was more likely a blow signal by Craig.
Can we just have a WPA for managers? it would be entirely subjective but if play is clearly reliant on what the manager told them to do it should be on him.
harold reynolds is stupid, but he made an interesting point. he said some managers give star players the ability to call their own hit and run. he said Ripken did it in Baltimore. he thinks that Albert called them
In both instances it looked like Craig thought it was a hit and run, whether it was is a different matter. In both situations Craig was looking back at Pujols, and in the 2nd one it looked like once Pujols struck out he really put the foot down. It really didn’t look like a straight steal to me. Why would you steal in either of those instances anyway? I know it’s TLR, but still, with a speed guy I could see him calling the steal, but with Craig?
there’s no such thing as a hit and run on a full count. If it’s a ball, you don’t swing, if it’s a strike, you do. Nothing changes for the hitter because the runner is going (unless you believe Timmy’s crap about Pujols being distracted)
I said the same thing about Pujols being distracted.
How many times during the year have the cards had a runner on 1st take off on a 3-2 count with no outs and Pujols at the plate?
My guess is none or one or two.
So, why do something diffferent, with a difficult pitcxher on the mound, and in the World Series.
When batters see a runner take off (non-stealing), their instinct is to swing and protect them.
I think a case could be made that it did offer enough of a distraction for the batter. earlier in the same at bat AP5 laid off of a 2-2 slider that was a much better pitch than the 3-2 FB he chased.
Are you calling it crap because it doesn’t jive with your personal experience as a batter or just because it doesn’t seem like it would make a difference?
We saw a batter with great place discipline chanse ball four when he allowed a much better pitch to pass on 2-2. Seems to me it could have been a distraction. My personal experience as a player is that things moving in the background do catch you eye and may divert your attention for a minute. It’s not Feliz is throwing batting practice.
That is a ridiculous and incorrect thing to say. Of course it changes things for the hitter. It forces the hitter (one of the absolute best in the game who is lauded for his eye for the strikezone) to swing at borderline pitches even MORE, because now if they take a called strike it results in two outs rather than one. You may think it’s as simple as “if it’s a ball take it, if it’s a strike swing at it” but it simply isn’t. It’s difficult to tell quickly sometimes, especially when the pitch is a 99 mph fastball, and with the added negative consequence of taking a called 3rd strike being the thrown out runner at second- yea, there’s no way you can reasonably expect a hitter to take anything that isn’t obviously way way out of the strike zone. By calling the hit and run you’re taking the best hitter in baseball (who pitchers routinely pitch around) and telling him that he isn’t responsible enough to decide which pitches to hit and which pitches to take.
You’re also telling him “We’re so scared that you’re going to hit a ground ball, that we’re going to have a non-base stealer go for 2nd.”
Like I said elsewhere, Feliz just plunked a batter on a 1-2 count, and was 3-2 on Pujols (who laid off an excellent slider just off the outside corner earlier in the AB).
Feliz is pitchig himself into trouble, and TLR’s decision handed Feliz an “Easy Button”.
http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Staples/s0105150_sc7?$sku$
I find it very difficult to accept that Pujols swings at the 3-2 outside FB if Craig isn’t running. Pujols is vulnerable at time to swinging at pitch down, but not generally outside.
On 3-2 with a runner on, We’re (StL) REALLY mostly concerned with staying out of a DP with our best hitter up? R-E-A-L-L-Y?
1. Pujols is one of the best in the game – many of you have said that. He has a great eye, great contact, etc. Looking at pitches (including even 99 MPH heat) and making split second decisions is what his job is. He normally does it very well.
2. Even if he felt compelled to swing at borderline pitches, the 3-2 pitch was not borderline. It was a fastball well off the plate and without much movement. Even if you expect Pujols to expand his zone a tad to prevent a strikeout/throwout DP, that pitch was absurdly outside and Pujols would have every right to punch the Umpire in the face if he called it a strike.
3. To a certain extent, you have to consider swinging at borderline pitches with 2 strikes whether or not the runner is going to avoid the strikeout. It’s not like a called 3rd strike is a good result if Craig stays put.
4. The pitch was awful. If it were a close pitch, who knows if Pujols would have made contact and what would have resulted. Of all things to place blame on TLR (and there are plenty), blaming him because one of the 5 greatest hitters of alltime “got distracted” by a moving runner and chased a horrible pitch is not one of them. Here, blame lies with Pujols.
5. Maybe I’m not taking Pujols’ clutchness or grittiness into account, but he does fail every once in a while on his own accord, right?
It’s been confirmed on MLB.com that Pujols admitted after the game that he put the first hit and run on, via a sign to 3b coach Oquendo. He also said there was a hit and run on for the second play, but that was a “team play” which I guess means it was LaRussa’s call.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111024&content_id=25782738&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
So we know why Craig was running, but whether or not the plays were good gambles, that’s another story. 😉
What kind of guy puts on the hit and run and then doesn’t swing? I don’t buy it. I’m guessing Craig missed a sign, and Pujols was covering for him.
If Albert made one or both of the hit and run calls, it still goes back to La Russa. I find it absurd that he would defer to Pujols in these situations. La Russa said nobody gets thrown under the bus for these plays. Translated, I think he means Pujols doesn’t get thrown under the bus.
Especially Pujols the soon-to-be free agent.
This!
The interview with Craig after the game was telling – he said the 3rd base coach called the hit and run, the reporter mentioned that Pujols said it was him and Craig kind of smiled. Also the way LaRussa was talking to Craig in the dugout right after the play struck me as a “did Pujols call it?” conversation (pure speculation on my end)
LaRussa saying it was merely a mixup and refusing to go into ANY detail is his typical protect the star players – like how he drills people when Pujols gets pitched inside but a few days later when some down in the order (can’t remember who) gets hit in the head there is no retaliation.
The 2nd call I think was clearly LaRussa just wanting to stay oout of a DP on a 3-2 pitch and he said as much during the postgame. (I doubt Pujols is calling hit and runs on 3-2 counts)
“But Pujols is Pujols and he’s likely to make contact on a pitch that needs to be in the zone. On a pitch in the zone, he was 92.2% likely to make contact (and 10.1% likely to hit into a double play). So maybe you send the runner to avoid a 10% chance at the super-bad situation. The strike-em-out-throw-em-out double play was only about 2.5% likely given the players involved.”
1. Is that 10.1% number assuming that there is a 100% chance of Feliz throwing a strike?
2. How did you get the 2.5% number? For his career, when a count goes full, Albert strikes out 14.5% of the time. That number could go up a bit depending on Feliz’ K-rate (I imagine it would go up, as Feliz strikeouts over 24% of batters in full count situations). And what is the likelihood of Craig being caught stealing in this sort of non-standard SB situation? I am not sure exactly, but I am confident it would not bring our K+CS% down to 2.5%.
let’s just say that Craig’s chances of being thrown out in that exact situation are 100%.
Your point stands that the 2.5% was an approximation not using Pujols’ full-count strikeout rate. But! You have to multiply the probabilities of two things happening if you need them both to happen.
So I used an average major league CS% (27.8%) and Pujols’ average strikeout rate (9.5%) — should have put 2.6% in that case. If you use the full-count strikeout rate, that ‘jumps’ to 4%. This calculation doesn’t actually depend on Feliz though. Given his wildness this year, I would say that the probability of striking out and getting caught stolen would be lower than whatever number this calculation produces.
This makes me wonder about true talent stolen base success rates though. I don’t want to give Allen a better-than-average CS% just because he went five-for-five this year. But I don’t know what to use to regress that CS%… in this case, the league average serves us okay, but this is interesting to me.
Re: SB likelihood…In these sorts of non-standard attempts, guys don’t tend to take maximum leads and also don’t tend to worry about getting a big jump. I would be curious to see the likelihood of runners getting thrown out after a K in these sorts of situations.
On full counts in the last 3 years, runners have 409 SB to 365 CS for a 52.8% success rate.
Using that success rate and Pujols’ K rate on full counts, you get a 7.66% chance of a double play.
Thanks for the info, NWS! Factoring in Craig’s slightly below average speed score (SSS disclaimer), we are just about at a statistical wash.
First one, missed sign.
The 9th inning CS was just as bad. NEVER run (even to stay out of DP) with the tying run at the plate in the form of 3 straight HR hitters (Pujols, Holliday, Berkman) and a guy throwintg 100 on the mound.
Man, it would sure chap my butt if I was Allen Craig today. According to MLB.com and foxsports.com the hit and run was put on in both of those situations. Craig’s intelligence and sanity is being questioned, and he had absolutely nothing to do with either of those decisions. What is Craig supposed to do? Refuse?
Yes.
Just like Josh Hamilton shouldn’t have broken for home on that fowl popup earlier in the season. My face met my palm when he threw his 3rd base coach under the bus for that.
At every level of baseball I played, we were taught to use our own judgement over the coach or manager, with the only exception being the suicide squeeze (and you sign back to confirm that you did get it, or the runner doesn’t break). Now, that doesn’t mean that we were supposed to wantonly shake off the coach, but we were expected to be aware of game situations and how to respond to them.
I somehow doubt it’s different in the Major Leagues.
Crap, I meant “foul” not “fowl.” Cardinals must have been on the mind.
You seriously think Craig should’ve shook off the hit and run there?
Because LaRussa has been noted for how well he handles independent thinking, initiative, and disagreement from from young, part-time players?
Obviously the blame goes to whoever called the play (Pujols/TLR).
I see your point, though if the disagreement is actually a smart play, wouldn’t a genius like TLR realize it eventually?
I kid. Anyway, I still think you play to win, not to please the dictator. Ideally you can do both. This was not one of those situations.
I assume LaRussa will blame the bullpen coach for these decisions as well, right?
The hit and run in the ninth makes far less sense to me. If you get Craig to second, he can score the go-ahead run on a single in the 7th inning and you invite Ron Washington to put Pujols on with the intentional walk (which, yes, it means Pujols isn’t batting, but given that Holliday and Berkman are coming up with one out, I’d feel pretty good.
The ninth inning makes literally no sense. Having Craig steal second base is of no value whatsoever. He could steal second, third, and home, and he does not matter to the outcome of the game — you’re still needing the second run that is going to have to come from Pujols, Holliday, Berkman, or Freese. You avoid the double play (an exceptionally modest gain, since you have a greater chance of having the runner caught stealing than you do of Pujols grounding into a double play), but what else do you get? The chance to steal signs? That’s the best I can come up with, and while I think LaRussa is an exceptionally poor manager (and, based on his statements last night, either senile or a habitual liar who will blame everyone but himself) and I have no doubt they’d steal signs, that can’t possibly be the motivation for throwing the game away.
Yes good point that Craig wasn’t even representing the tying run.
LaRussa sent Craig in the 9th because he felt a strike ’em out/throw ’em out DP was less likely than a groundout DP. Of course he wasn’t trying to steal a base.
Against a guy throwing 100, and with 3 HR hitters either at bat or coming up? Wrong call!
Agreed, but it’s inane to call it a hit-and-run. Pujols wasn’t going to swing at any clear ball four. Tony risked the throw ’em out DP so as to avoid the groundout DP.
Everyone is seeming to forget that Pujols is actually a good hitter.
Yes. In the ninth, the Cards were in the ideal situation — Albert Pujols at the plate as the tying run. In that situation, they should be looking for Pujols to try to hit a home run. Why they’d be worried about staying out of the double play, and setting up a first and third and all that stuff… it’s crazy over-managing.
Or just get on base.
Holliday, Berkman, Freese, Molina are the next 4 hitters.
Or AP5 could just hit a 2-run bomb, I could live with that.
My guess is that in the Cardinals dugout/bullpen there were A LOT of WTF’s going around.
I’m still upset that he let 100-pitch Edwin jackson start the 6th inning, and even more upset that he let him continue after a leadoff walk, and even more upset that he then brought in their worst reliever to face Texas’s best hitter in the game’s most important situation.
Seriously, someone else made the point that if Ron Washington could pick for TLR, RW would pretty much have StL do what they did.
The CS in the ninth wasn’t that bad. Sure Feliz causes people to K at an above average rate, but Pujols makes good contact and has excellent judgement of the strike zone. I don’t see a problem with sending the runner on a 3-2 pitch. Lower DP% for the Pujols at bat and also lower DP% for the next at bat.
It wasn’t that good either.
Seriously Pujols is AT the plate representing the tying run and StL is managing the game to prevent hitting into a DP?
As compared to other situations, such as swing and miss, Pujols taking a pitch he thinks is ball 4 and is called out on strikes, Pujols taking strike 3, etc StL is worried that AP5 will ground into a DP.
I’m saying this as I would any time, I could live with a Pujols GIDP more than I could live with what happened. Seriously, the team has to be questioning WTF is going on with the manager. 2 straight games where strange decisions have crushed the team.
Fine Pujols shouldn’t swing and miss. If he does, worse case scenario is NOW Holliday is the tying run at the plate. If he K’s then berkman is the tying run at the plate. If Feliz retires Pujols, Holliday, and Berkman with a runner on and no outs. Tip your cap, get ready for game 5.
IMO, some managers just feel compelled to “do something” just because they feel they need to or because they feel they really can “outsmart” the situation. It’s amazing that the “right” call in lots of situations is just to “do nothing” and let the players play. But no …
We haven’t really even talked about pop ups, line drives, soft liners, etc.
Lots of things can go wrong with “sending him”.
Get ready for Game 6, not game 5.
Agreed managers feel compelled to “do something”. One, it’s human nature. Two, his players will also want to see him “do something”. They will lose respect for him if he doesn’t do at least some of the things they’ve been taught since age 8 constitute ‘playing the game the right way’. Three, the media absolutely want to see the manager “do something”. If he doesn’t, he’ll get no credit when the team wins and all the blame when it loses. He will not be long for the managerial world.
All Terry Francona does is chew gum and people seem to think he’s a very good manager … well, at least they used to.
How does it lower DP% for the next at bat, adohaj? I don’t see that.
Sorry if someone already said this – no one did in the first 20+ posts…
Albert Pujols is much more likely to hit into double plays than the average batter. Evidence for this would include the fact that he hits into way more double plays than most batters. I suspect LaRussa was aware of the percentages, and felt that the matchup made it likely that a double play could result. That leaves us with these outcomes:
Walk: Very likely.
Ball in play: Very likely.
Strikeout + stolen base attempt: Unlikely.
Jon, you can replace the words “double plays” with “home runs” and use that sentence to justify him swinging away without the runner taking off on the pitch.
The problem with the “unlikely” event is that it is so destructive that it doesn’t warrant the risk for the positive play, although this situation is morebalanced than some others.
The odds are in your favor in Russian Roulette, but not many people desire to play, even with big money on the table.
So, according to TLR and Pujols, Pujols called for the hit and runs, and he has the ability to do that. It was his call, and he made it.
Wow, oh wow. I don’t have a problem with a player having the ability to call for something like that, but Albert should know better there.
Time to maybe update this blog post.