PxP: Aus aktuellem Anlass

Should be common sense, but I don’t recall seeing other teams ever playing practically on the warning track in an effort to reduce doubles. That’s a TON of open space just to get to a routine fly ball, too.

I have never been w fan of overly conservative defenses

Really thought-provoking, and I also like the insight into German culture. :)

— Bob Geren.
Great stuff, elcroata.

Does the immediate promotion to the front page mean that you are a sometimes front page writer? If so, I’ll rec the decision.

I particularly liked your analogy to casinos. The standard positioning is theoretically the ideal positioning for the average situation. So it definitely seems as though “no doubles defense” should be reserved for specific circumstances when the odds are most stacked in your favor.

Great use of charts as well, thanks.

The A’s are indeed trying to boost attendance by having the outfields sit in the bleachers toward the end of the game. Watch for the bullpen to be moved to the West Side Club and any misc. bench personnel to be posted in the value deck.

looking at how things change as the assumptions change regarding how would be singles, doubles, outs change. I suspect that overall, it’s not much – 1 or 2% up or down.

Someone mentioned on another thread that good defensive outfielders tend to play forward and bad defensive outfielders tend to play back. That’s because a good one will be better able to run back for a fly ball and therefore he can afford to play up more and cover more ground.

But for any outfielder, good or bad, would it not be true that he looks better to the average fan if he plays further back? When a high fly ball goes over his head, the bulk of the crowd gets excited. If he misses it and has to chase it to the wall he looks like he failed, while if he catches it the crowd cheers and he’s a hero. A ground ball through the gap, on the other hand, does not highlight his skill as obviously to the crowd. It already looks like a hit anyway, so if the outfielder scoops it up but not in time to beat the runner to first, the crowd thinks, “oh darn, they got a base hit”, and most fans won’t realize that the outfielder has failed due to bad positioning.

The point being that any outfielder who doesn’t have the discipline to put maximum game results over looking like a better player to the crowd is going to feel the temptation to position himself further back than optimal.

*I learned that term from PT in a different discussion on AN. This page defines “agency problem” as “A conflict arising when people (the agents) entrusted to look after the interests of others (the principals) use the authority or power for their own benefit instead.” The definition is a little strained here, but the idea is that the outfielder is an “agent” whose reputation interest conflicts with the interests of the team.

I play outfield. So I am going to think about this from a player’s viewpoint.

In my experience, I try for second on a hit when the ball is in the gap between outfielders and the fielder has to go to their left and right. This keeps them from being able catch and throw in one motion, increasing my chances of getting to second. If I know a certain player in the opposing outfield has a gun, I am not going to risk it. Also, if they are playing me deep, I am immediately thinking double, every time, on a line drive or what would normally be a single to the outfield, particularly if I know they don’t have the arm to make a strong, accurate throw.

Additionally, by playing me back, they are increasing the distances between the outfielders, giving me more space to drive the ball between them.

I really feel the so called “no doubles defense”, or positioning the outfielders deep, is not strategically beneficial, particularly on a team where no one possesses a strong arm.

Vielen Dank für diesen wunderbaren Essay … Ich habe keine Ahnung, warum ich auf der Titelseite dieser Sache bin und du nicht.

God, high school German was so long ago.

IMO, the “No-Doubles” defense should only refer to the corner infielders crowding the lines to prevent a ball going into the OF corners. It makes no sense to play the Outfielders so deep, due to the increase in the amount of area they have to cover. This seems to actually negates the speed of the fielders.

Get on it, Nico!

Seriously, great again elcroata. A case where the “eyeball test” seems to agree with the data. What’s more, you said something really basic:

By reducing the chance of a double, the fielding team increases the chance of a single.

For a team that was one of the first to realize that OBP was important, it boggles the mind that they don’t realize it on the other side of the coin.

I tweeted Tafoya this question to ask Stiglich in his most recent podcast, so perhaps it made the cut. We shall see.

It burns a little bit every time I click that rec button, but I do it anyway.

if Bob does it, and no one else does it, it’s probably not good

das war ausgezeichnet!

great job E!

I’m against the no-double defense most of the time. I think Geren was definitely too extreme with his outfield positioning last night, even if he was trying to prevent XBH.