Skubal's Double Play Decision Debated

I'm not a sabermetrician, but run expectancy is not the most relevant matter. As the fifth paragraph hinted at, win expectancy is what should be considered.

I think most people, even old school would take the double play in that situation.   The sabermetrics analyze averages but only to a certain degree.   Its based on historical data compiled by every kind of team including great offenses, weak offenses, great relievers, and weak relievers on both sides.    No team is exactly average.  Even that doesn't go far enough.   What are the percentages for Cave or the guy following him performing against the relievers the Tigers bring in?    To illustrate my point sabermetrics would say in a tie game with two outs and a guy on third in the bottom of the 9th a routine ground ball to shortstop would be a wonderful thing for the visiting team.

Interesting analysis. I actually think he made the right choice. While the RE shows he erred 1.11 to 1.00, that 1.11 means there are many scenarios where the inning turns into a big crooked number, even after preventing the first run. They would almost certainly score one of the remaining runners on base anyway, and additionally they have a decent chance of scoring 2 or more runs in the inning.

Taking the double play in a low-scoring game, and almost assuring that you limit the damage to one run by clearing the bases with two outs, is the right call, in my view. Basically you are saying, once men got on first and third, ok, you got a run, but we are limiting it to just one.

.

In this specific situation, I was glad to get the game tied over 1st and 2nd, 1 out, no runs in, and the 2nd half of the lineup due up against a pitcher throwing well.

Same here.

This was a 1-0 game in the 5th, runs were clearly hard to come by. Sacrificing 2 outs for a run -- in this particular game -- seemed like a good deal for Minnesota.

By his body language after the play was complete, I think Skubal regretted his decision as well.

 Here's my North Carolina formula for this question: 1 + 4 +3 = 2   > 1+4+3=1

One thing the article does not address is situation.  I get the average of runs scored in a particular situation over the years will try to mitigate the good lineups vs bad line ups.  I am sure bases loaded with a HOF hitter up has a much higher run average than with a pitcher hitting.  Baseball has, and always will, have to take each individual situation to worry about.  Point in game, who is coming up next, who are the runners on, how good is your team doing, ect.  

I agree either decision is debatable as the right one.  A good manager would have communicated to team the plan, and since it would seem middle infield played back the plan was to turn two.  The pitcher knew that and did the plan.  Sure, he could have changed it up if he saw Cave heading home, but possible he did not see it, or he was doing what his manager told him to do, and possibly what the players on the field were telling him to do.  

Personally, I am a fan of stopping runs from scoring.  You know by going for two you give a run, by going for out at plate you cut down run, keep the lead and go get the next hitters.  Sure, in different situation you let that run score and get the two outs, but to me this was not the time.  

Good read on pointing out the runs expected, but feel more info on situation could affect how Tigers should have played it.  Twins clearly have gone with the run prevention plan all season bringing IF in early in games.  They must have crunched numbers and found that playing back does not increase the likelihood that you will get an out and let run score more enough to risk letting the run score.  That comes down to how often a player playing back would make an out that a player playing in would not.  My guess they found it was very limited compared to alternative.