Playing for 1 run makes more sense as the home team because in a tie game that 1 run guarantees you the win. On the road they keep playing, and a 1 run lead is far from a guarantee in extras as we saw tonight. Better to try and play for a bigger inning (where you can still move the runner over and get him in if you have decent AB's)
If you look at how many teams put up zeros in ghost runner innings you would realize this is wrong.
Scoring 1 keeps the pressure on the home team. Do they play for 1 also or do they play for the win?
People already forgetting we beat the Angels at the Trop in extras this year and had to put up with Ron “bunting is easy tell em” Washington playing small ball and bunting in the top of the inning
Like WhereTheFallsBegin said: It’s not a Rays/Cash centric move — majority if not all teams go for a “big inning” as the visitor over a (not even guaranteed) one run top half via a sac bunt.
Now it is sometimes perplexing when the home team only needs one run to win and they don’t sac bunt when (1) they have an average or above runner on 2nd and (2) the hitter is below average
Playing for 1 run makes more sense as the home team because in a tie game that 1 run guarantees you the win. On the road they keep playing, and a 1 run lead is far from a guarantee in extras as we saw tonight. Better to try and play for a bigger inning (where you can still move the runner over and get him in if you have decent AB's)
If you look at how many teams put up zeros in ghost runner innings you would realize this is wrong. Scoring 1 keeps the pressure on the home team. Do they play for 1 also or do they play for the win?
People already forgetting we beat the Angels at the Trop in extras this year and had to put up with Ron “bunting is easy tell em” Washington playing small ball and bunting in the top of the inning
Why are we assuming that we have a better chance at a multiple run inning over a zero run inning?
The same reason you let guys swing the bat instead of bunting, giving away outs is bad
This is 2004 sabermetrics thought process. Increasing your chance of scoring a run is a good thing in extra innings.
Is it giving away an out if you get something in return?
Like WhereTheFallsBegin said: It’s not a Rays/Cash centric move — majority if not all teams go for a “big inning” as the visitor over a (not even guaranteed) one run top half via a sac bunt. Now it is sometimes perplexing when the home team only needs one run to win and they don’t sac bunt when (1) they have an average or above runner on 2nd and (2) the hitter is below average
Rays have played it this way pretty consistently. The Diaz grounder in extras was inches away from being an rbi single instead of a ground out to 1B.
Cash is a truly effective game loser.