Should Alex Gordon have tried to steal home on Wednesday night?

47 Comments

source: AP

Nothing else is going on, and we’re all sort of over asking whether Alex Gordon should’ve kept running in the ninth inning of Game 7, so let’s throw this one out there. It’s a reader email from Mark M.:

I wonder if you’d write about whether Ned Yost should have called a straight steal of home in the 7th game, bottom of the ninth, after there was one strike on Salvador Perez. There are some factors that might improve the possibility of a successful steal:

Alex Gordon, on third, is a fast runner.

Madison Bumgarner is lefty, and would not see a potential steal as quickly as a righty would.

Salvador Perez bats right, and would shield the base-stealer from Buster Posey’s view, at least a little bit.

After one strike on Perez, it was likely that the Giants would continue to throw him high pitches (“up the ladder”), which must be caught and brought down to tag a sliding base-stealer.

A straight steal would be risky, but I wonder if there is enough info to assign a numerical probability, and compare it to Perez’s on-base percentage after he’s already got one strike.

I can’t assign probability because I’m a math moron, but the thought is interesting to me in the same way any hypothetical baseball thoughts are interesting, especially when the baseball is all over and all we have to talk about are player options. My gut: really damn low percentage move, and one that would be more likely to lead to someone getting fired than a bad send on the original hit may have, and we know that human beings are risk-averse animals for the most part.

I guess all I’d offer is that, if you’re gonna do it, maybe have Terrance Gore do it as a pinch runner. Or would that eliminate the element of surprise?

Man, I dunno. What do you all think?

Meanwhile, on the cold, cold Hot Stove . . .

Getty Images
14 Comments

It’s Hot Stove Season baby! You know what that means! Yep: time to watch some teams sign a few relievers to minor league deals and then wait everyone out until February while talking about the need to maintain financial flexibility! FEEL THE BURN.

In more specific news:

We’ve talked a lot about Betts this winter already, and that seems like madness. Bryant’s career with the Cubs began with business-side acrimony, it’s still simmering, and there is no sense that either side is amenable to a long-term deal before he hits free agency. The Indians have been signaling for some time that they have no interest in keeping Lindor long term.

It’s quite the thing when three teams who are supposed to be contending are, instead, looking to deal recent MVP award winners and candidates who are 27 and 26 years old, but these are the times in which we are living.

  • Joe Sheehan wrote an excellent column for Baseball America last week analyzing the attendance drop MLB experienced in 2019. Which is just the latest in a series of attendance drops. As Joe notes there is a very, very strong connection between teams (a) signaling to fans during the offseason that they are not interested in signing or retaining players or otherwise being competitive; and (b) teams suffering attendance losses.

As I wrote last offseason, there is an increasing disconnect between attendance and other proxies of broad fan interest and revenue. Which is to say that, as long as teams continue to get fat on long-term TV deals, side businesses like real estate development, and soaking a smaller and wealthier segment of the fan base with higher and higher prices, they really have no reason to care if several thousand common or casual fans become alienated by their teams’ lack of desire to compete.

Sullivan doesn’t offer ideas about how that can happen, but over the past couple of seasons we’ve seen a number of proposals, some broad, some specific, about how MLB can turn its free agency/trading period into frantic, 1-3 day scrambles-to-sign like we see in both the NBA and NFL. I’m sympathetic to that desire — it’s exciting! — but any attempt to do that in Major League Baseball, at least as things are currently set up, would be a disaster for the players.

In the NBA and NFL you have salary caps and floors and, in the NBA, you have max contracts. As a result, teams both have a set amount of money to spend and an incentive to spend that money. We can quibble with whether those incentives are the best ones or if they benefit the players as much as other systems might, but there’s at least something inherent in their systems which inspires teams to sign free agents.

In Major League Baseball, there is no such incentive. May teams want to keep payrolls as low as possible under the guise of rebuilding or tanking and there is no effective mechanism to keep them from doing so. Even nominal contenders — see the Cubs, Indians and Red sox in item 1 above — spend more time thinking about how to cut payroll rather than add talent. This is bolstered by the stuff in item 2 above in which attendance and even winning has less of an impact on the bottom line than it ever has.

So, why scramble to sign players by a set deadline? Under most of the scenarios I see floated — like the laughably horrible one MLB reportedly suggested to the MLBPA — teams would just wait out free agents until deadline day, give them crappy take-it-or-leave-it offers and then leave them all scrambling to sign one-year deals or to sit the season out.

For such a thing to happen — or for teams to want to keep their bright young stars or for the league to want to maintain fan interest and keep attendance from continuing to slide — there must be incentives put in place to make them want to sign and retain players. To make them want to win. To make them want to excite the fan base.

At present, such incentives are not there. And, as such, we are faced with yet another winter with a cold, cold stove.