Note:  Here is another reposting from the changeover.  Again, I'll add the basics of the exchange I had with sportthink.

Now that IJWMFTT is back in the saddle (part time at least), I usually keep the radar on for an interesting topic for discussion.  Last night, as I tried to stay awake long enough to see Mariano Rivera bat, Joe Morgan provided not one, but two face palm moments.  It were as if Joe had found out about Billy Mays, and wanted to give two for the price of one as a tribute.

The first face palm moment came when Joe spurned the basic tenet of baseball, don't get out.  "I know some people in baseball who will disagree with me, but I don't feel that every time you make an out trying to steal, that it's a bad play."  If I could channel Michigan State's Mike Valenti for a moment: Outs are not Cingular rollover minutes.  You don't get to take two of them in the third, and then say "Okay ump, we're going to use that extra out in the eighth."

In this instance, Joe confused the result with the ideal.  Ideally, getting another base takes the decision out of the manager's hands.  The bunt is no longer needed.  The line drive double play on a hit and run is taken out of the equation.  Managing is an easy job when the directive is swing away.  To that end, a stolen base is almost always a great idea. 

That said, an idea does not always produced the desired result.  Outs are outs.  In very few situations are outs not considered a bad play.  Some will point to the sacrifice fly as an example of that.  I point to the guy on third in that situation.  If he isn't there, then all you have is a run of the mill fly-out.  The sacrifice bunt is also cited as an example.  We've been down this road so many times with that play; nonetheless, I guess if you need A RUN and it winds up yielding that result, then the ends justified the means.  If it doesn't work, then we get what the idea was, but the result indicated that the idea was a bad one.  It's a results driven business. 

To the credit of Steve Phillips (yeah I had to read that sentence twice), he cited the Yankees 88% stolen base rate as an example of a team that could take on the risk of more attempts.  I have mixed feelings about the concept, especially since agreeing with Phillips seemingly contradicts my criticism of Joe Morgan's position.  I guess I'm holding back criticism of Phillips because he cited the number, and I'm filling in his blanks (many have ran the analyses and determined that any stolen base percentage below 75% is detrimental).  All that said, the 12% that were outs were still bad plays.  Outs are outs.

Context is a huge part of analysis.  Take the Yankees, and their 88% stolen base rate.  Am I more inclined to send runners at Yankee Stadium or Citi Field?  I'm sending those runners at Citi since my line-up is conducive to hitting home runs at Yankee Stadium.  This is the analysis that's missing from the analysis of the games.  As I stated last week, I wonder if Joe makes blanket statements without context, just to get guys like me in a flutter.

***

Okay I promised two for the price of one.  I was incredulous over Joe Morgan's incredulity at the Jeter/Rivera situation.  Joe wanted to know the logic behind throwing Derek Jeter a first pitch strike in the ninth inning.  After all, a weaker hitter was (presumably) coming to the plate in the name of Mariano Rivera. 

Here's the logic: Get ahead in the count.  Jeter, assuming a pitch around, isn't swinging at the first pitch.  Throw a strike and get ahead in the count.  Now, throw two pitches down and away to see if Jeter goes fishing.  If he takes both, then put Jeter on base.  I thought Jerry Manuel played this right. 

Pitching with the bases loaded is a different animal than having a base open.  If Rivera decides not to bail out Rodriguez, there's nowhere to put him.  And that's exactly what happened.  Of course, had Rivera struck out, we'd hear more harping over that first strike to Jeter.

[Columbo]Oh and there's just...one...more...thing.  Joe Girardi was well within his rights to pinch hit for Rivera.  What if the Mets put Jeter on base, and up comes a more experienced hitter with the bases loaded?  After all, the logic could have been employed, that two more runs essentially eliminates the need to have Rivera in the game in the ninth. 

And try this on for an aside:  has there ever been a situation where a closer was batting in a situation where he could bat himself OUT of a save situation?  Had Rivera, by divine intervention, sent one over the left field fence, that would have happened.

Update: Sportthink wanted some clarification on my first point.  And yes, it is akin to the ill-advised three pointer that goes in.  "Bad play, bad play, yeah, great play!"  Sport then provided an instance where a gamble isn't the worst thing.  Typically it's the two out attempt with the batter behind in the count, or stealing with the pitcher up soon.  Getting out in both instances is bad, but not a mortal sin.

Kudos to Sportthink who provided the analysis that Joe Morgan had the platform to provide, but decided not to provide it.  This was the essence of my article.  Morgan could have differentiated the idea behind the play from the result.  This is typical Morganalysis.