Running on 3-2 counts

[Pomp]

To me, this makes no sense unless there are 2 outs and there is a runner on first. That's it. To me, the risk of getting the runner thrown out is too high to justify this move. Runners seldom get a good jump on a 3-2 count and many times, you have slow baserunners who take off.

Why is this so generally accepted in baseball??

[nahzo]

It probably sounds stupid, but I think it depends on the guy at the plate, what the pitcher is going to throw to him, and the guy on deck.

There's too many nuances to try and explain every situation, but I suppose the rationale behind sending a runner on 3-2 is only if the pitcher is going to throw something the manager presumes the batter can hit, based on whatever facts the situation entails. I know that's obviously vague, but that's probably the only real justification for it.

I don't think it's a necessarily dumb move, I just think it's done with the wrong batting order setup many times.

[Irony Of It All]

I searched but couldn't find an actual study on this, but I did come across this graph, which could explain some of the rational behind a manager's decision to try for the extra base.

Runners
Outs None 1st 2nd 3rd 1st&2nd 1st&3rd 2nd&3rd Loaded
0 0.531 0.919 1.177 1.380 1.551 1.869 2.023 2.474
1 0.282 0.535 0.706 1.032 0.909 1.211 1.428 1.544
2 0.109 0.237 0.341 0.384 0.454 0.518 0.541 0.797
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2844

Except for in extreme circumstances, I'm going to hypothesize that the benefit of advancing an extra base, avoiding the DP, etc. is greatly outweighed by the chance of a K and CS. In other words, in every situation listed on the table, it seems that the reward is not nearly large enough to take the risk. However, without seeing an actual study of the success rates of the hit and run, this is all conjecture on my part. So I agree with you, for the most part, it seems to be a horrible move by the manger. :)

I don't think this is what you were looking for, but this was the best I could find.

[ForceFive]

It's situational. It depends on the baserunning ability of the runner, the contact ability/batting eye of the particular hitter, and the speed of the delivery to home of the pitcher.

I think a good rule of thumb to use is: If you have all 3 of these things in your favor, you do it. If you have 2 of the 3 in your favor, you consider it. If you have none of the 3 in your favor, forget it.

[reelbiggecko]

I feel like you have to take into account the arm of the catcher as well. I'd much rather send a guy with Jason Varitek behind the plate than with Pudge Rodriguez.

[ClayParker]

Originally posted by Irony Of It All
I searched but couldn't find an actual study on this, but I did come across this graph, which could explain some of the rational behind a manager's decision to try for the extra base.

Runners
Outs None 1st 2nd 3rd 1st&2nd 1st&3rd 2nd&3rd Loaded
0 0.531 0.919 1.177 1.380 1.551 1.869 2.023 2.474
1 0.282 0.535 0.706 1.032 0.909 1.211 1.428 1.544
2 0.109 0.237 0.341 0.384 0.454 0.518 0.541 0.797
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2844

Except for in extreme circumstances, I'm going to hypothesize that the benefit of advancing an extra base, avoiding the DP, etc. is greatly outweighed by the chance of a K and CS. In other words, in every situation listed on the table, it seems that the reward is not nearly large enough to take the risk. However, without seeing an actual study of the success rates of the hit and run, this is all conjecture on my part. So I agree with you, for the most part, it seems to be a horrible move by the manger. :)

I don't think this is what you were looking for, but this was the best I could find.

It's impossible to gauge the risk when the table makers don't provide standard deviations on their numbers.

Even if we had the standard deviations, there is no "right" answer because every person has, in principle, a different risk/return profile. Similar to the way two different people might buy different, but optimal combinations of stocks and bonds.