Why Didn't Alex Gordon try to Score?

I thought they should have sent him home...not in hindsight, during the play. When I saw the replay, I wasn't as sure, but still was more than 50% on sending him. Then idiot Perez pops out. Did you think he had a shot? And do you risk it...or do you like your chances with two outs and your #7 hitter at the plate? I think I send him, it woulda taken a perfect throw.

I think he would have been thrown out. The cut off man held the ball, perhaps to bait him.

I agree on sending a pinch hitter. You just need to make contact, but everyone was swinging for the fence.

I thought of it too, but the third base coach made the right play. He was between second and third when the throw was made to the infield. Any decent throw would have hung him up between third and home. You don't bring your season down to that.

Third base coaches are very conservative, I think. I remember when Joel Skinner held Kenny Lofton up at third when the Indians were in their ALCS elimination game (ugh).

Too bad it had to come down to Perez, but Bumgarner was crushing everybody.

I think he should have gone for it; everybody SF panicked when the SS bobbled the fielding. The adrenalin was through the roof and the CF throw/relay could easily have been off enough to let Gordon make the plate. The thing I couldn't figure was that Gordon kind of danced a bit, waiting for someone to make a decision approaching 2nd, and lost maybe 3-5 seconds just reaching third. They (KC) had to decide before the ball was even hit that he needed to run full out on anything for him to have made it home. Which is armchairing it, as they couldn't know the CF would have trouble fielding as well until it happened.

Would have loved to see KC win on an in-the-park HR/error. Ah, well.

I thought so at first, but this morning I read an analysis that even if Gordon had sprinted the whole way (he didn't, he only turned on the gas when the ball got past the center fielder), it would have taken him 15 seconds to score. At the 12 second point of the play, the cutoff man was holding the ball and winding up to throw. Even if the throw would have been off line, 2 seconds is a lot of time in a baseball play. Gordon would have been out by 20 feet.

Quote: Mosca

I thought so at first, but this morning I read an analysis that even if Gordon had sprinted the whole way (he didn't, he only turned on the gas when the ball got past the center fielder), it would have taken him 15 seconds to score. At the 12 second point of the play, the cutoff man was holding the ball and winding up to throw. Even if the throw would have been off line, 2 seconds is a lot of time in a baseball play. Gordon would have been out by 20 feet.

I agree, if Gordan went for it, the talk this morning would have been Gordan blew it, didn't give his team a chance to tie it up.

I've watched a lot of baseball over the years. Probably 90% Gordon is out if he goes. Just not worth the risk.

The counter argument is that with the way Bumgarner was pitching, it might have been their only chance. But Gordon just got a hit, and a solid one. In the end, the Giants just flat out won.

Good series, Royals. See everyone next year.

Quote: vendman1

I've watched a lot of baseball over the years. Probably 90% Gordon is out if he goes. Just not worth the risk.

Gordon was rounding third when shortstop caught the ball...he had not turned around yet. Going full speed he's 1/3 there when the throw is released. Yes, he may be out by 20 feet if the throw is perfect. Bout 180 foot throw. I'm not sure who said he was already winding up according to the analysis, but if memory serves, this is not accurate...he was prepared to throw home after Gordon had been held up. I heard some analysis on MLB radio. It was a split on whether they should have sent him. I no longer believe I was right that it was greater than 50% chance he scores. Gordon was out of breath and slowing down, which I didn't take into consideration. But I still think that it was greater than the, generally speaking, 1/4 chance he scores on another play before another out occurs...less when you consider the matchup. There is no way he is out 90% of the time.
Whoever said it would have been bad to end the game by sending Gordon like that? If Gordon is thrown out, it could be one of the most epic ends to a world series...EVER. Ending it on a foul pop-up...you thought that was better huh?

I'm trying to remember where I read the analysis. When I come up with it, I'll post the link.

Sonuvabish...the shortstop who cutoff of the throw from the outfield, had the ball in his hand as Gordon was held up at third by the third base coach. Now...Gordon slowed way down to stop at third....didn't slide so had to stop his momentum. Given that...no way he gets running again fast enough to make it home with the shortstop in shallow left center, already holding the ball. However if he had kept his head down and run hard the whole time, maybe he scores. Even then it's 50/50. Given that he had stopped. No chance. I still say 90% he's out.

As for the pop-out to end the game. That's after the fact. Irrelevant to the the debate. Of course in hindsight you would have sent Gordon. But hindsight is as they say 20/20. Listening to the broadcast live none of the commentators even mentioned the possibility of sending Gordon as I recall. That tells you all you need to know.

Quote: vendman1

Sonuvabish...the shortstop who cutoff of the throw from the outfield, had the ball in his hand as Gordon was held up at third by the third base coach. Now...Gordon slowed way down to stop at third....didn't slide so had to stop his momentum. Given that...no way he gets running again fast enough to make it home with the shortstop in shallow left center, already holding the ball. However if he had kept his head down and run hard the whole time, maybe he scores. Even then it's 50/50. Given that he had stopped. No chance. I still say 90% he's out.

As for the pop-out to end the game. That's after the fact. Irrelevant to the the debate. Of course in hindsight you would have sent Gordon. But hindsight is as they say 20/20. Listening to the broadcast live none of the commentators even mentioned the possibility of sending Gordon as I recall. That tells you all you need to know.

I'm not suggesting that Gordon start running after he already stopped...that's ludicrous. I'm blaming the coach for putting up the stop sign. If you are sure it's exactly 50/50, then you clearly send him. No one can legitimately dispute that. So your argument is collapsing on itself. You do realize, that typically, the decision is made and communicated before the runner approaches 3rd and slows down?

I was responding to what someone else said about not wanting to end the game by sending Gordon to make the final out at home...in game 7 of the world series in a 1-run ballgame. That statement made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yes, the pop-up is hindsight. My point, which I don't know how you possibly missed it, was that there was no better ending imaginable to a world series. And I facetiously mused..was that the epic foul pop-up you wanted? I mean Sandoval did fall on the ground and everyone did jump up and down after all.

As for the commentators, I hate Joe Buck. Like it matters what he says or doesn't say. I was initially surprised nothing was said. Then I wondered if I was possibly the only one who saw it. The absolute first thing I heard on the radio was the discussion of this...likely by coincidence. But I knew I didn't hallucinate the whole thing. I think it just wasn't their place to second guess that. And everyone knows why he was held up. And they can't sit there all nostalgic about the last hitter when the final out is coming to bat.

Edit: I don't think Gordon should have ran thru the stop-sign, btw.

I think holding him was the right idea. After all, you had McCovey coming up, and a base hit wins the series anyw...wait - we are talking about Game 7 of the 1962 World Series, right? Where Matty Alou was held up at third in the bottom of the ninth and two out with what could have been the tying run, only for McCovey to hit a line drive just within reach of Bobby Richardson? (If you ever see a Peanuts strip where the first three panels are Charlie Brown and Linus sitting on a curb, and then Charlie Brown laments, "Why couldn't McCovey have hit the ball just three feet higher?" - and a year or so later, "Or why couldn't McCovey have hit the ball TWO feet higher?" - this is what he is talking about. Keep in mind that the next World Series game at Candlestick Park was the earthquake game - 27 years later.)

And yes, this was a subject of debate for decades.

It's all law of averages. If the #7 hitter has an OBP of .350 against Bumgartner and Gordon had more than a 35% chance of scoring, then you would send him.

The way I see it, Gordon nor anyone else could have predicted that the double would have been bobbled and then bobbled again at the wall with a poor cut off throw. So Gordon nor anyone else was thinking of going home.

Quote: Sonuvabish

I'm not suggesting that Gordon start running after he already stopped...that's ludicrous. I'm blaming the coach for putting up the stop sign. If you are sure it's exactly 50/50, then you clearly send him. No one can legitimately dispute that. So your argument is collapsing on itself. You do realize, that typically, the decision is made and communicated before the runner approaches 3rd and slows down?

I was responding to what someone else said about not wanting to end the game by sending Gordon to make the final out at home...in game 7 of the world series in a 1-run ballgame. That statement made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yes, the pop-up is hindsight. My point, which I don't know how you possibly missed it, was that there was no better ending imaginable to a world series. And I facetiously mused..was that the epic foul pop-up you wanted? I mean Sandoval did fall on the ground and everyone did jump up and down after all.

As for the commentators, I hate Joe Buck. Like it matters what he says or doesn't say. I was initially surprised nothing was said. Then I wondered if I was possibly the only one who saw it. The absolute first thing I heard on the radio was the discussion of this...likely by coincidence. But I knew I didn't hallucinate the whole thing. I think it just wasn't their place to second guess that. And everyone knows why he was held up. And they can't sit there all nostalgic about the last hitter when the final out is coming to bat.

Edit: I don't think Gordon should have ran thru the stop-sign, btw.

Ok thats a reasonable argument. For what it's worth both Gordon and his third base coach both said he had "No Chance" to score in interviews. Link below.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/royals-explain-why-didnt-inside-134933336.html

The below was found online at a website called sportsgrid.com.
The relevant part to me was the fact that Bumgarner was so dominating. Since he was so dominating, they should have taken the chance of sending the runner......just my 2 cents.

"But sending Gordon around would have been a good call, if not the right one, for a few reasons:

1) As everyone knows, that play at the plate would have been awesome. Even if he’s thrown out, a Game 7 in the World Series coming down a collision at home plate is probably the most epic thing ever. The moment Perez bobbled that ball, you know everyone in the world was thinking the same thing: “GO FOR IT.”

But the Royals weren’t in the business of doing “awesome” things just for awesomeness sake — they wanted to win the game. So let’s be more practical.

2) That was only the sixth hit Bumgarner had given up in the last 14 innings. He completely blanked the Royals in Game 7 despite pitching on two days rest. He was nearly untouchable. The fact that Gordon got on base at all was a minor miracle, and it came with two outs in the ninth. The likelihood of the next guys up getting Gordon home was small.

3) Speaking of which, the next two batters were Salvador Perez and Mike Moustakas. Perez is a league-average hitter, and Moustakas batted .212 this season (and .217 in the World Series). If anyone was going to get another hit off of Bumgarner, it probably wouldn’t be these guys. Perez validated that assumption by popping out in foul territory to end the game.

4) The Giants in the field were clearly shook on that play. While Bumgarner was the picture of stoicism, his teammates in the field almost blew it with two consecutive miscues despite playing at “no-doubles” depth. The Giants were stellar on defense all series, but perhaps the pressure was getting to them in the bottom of the ninth in Kansas City. Bumgarner was dominating — let the other guys beat you instead. If Crawford’s throw is even slightly off line, that could have been the difference between a run and an out.

Yes, Gordon would most likely have been out. Yes, Perez could have hit a Series-winning home run and made Royals third base coach Mike Jirschele look like a genius. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have gone for it. Considering the circumstances — facing a legendary pitching performance, backed up by a defense that appeared to be wilting under pressure, and with no bat of substance on-deck or in the hole — sending Gordon seems like it would have been the right move.

Oh well. On the other hand, how pissed we would have been if Gordon had been waved around and been nailed by 20 feet? What a lame ending, we’d say. At least give Perez a chance to tie it, we’d write. So it goes. "