The top of the ninth was a "You Be the Manager" feast.  For those who missed the game, here's the scene.  Papelbon on in a 6-6 game to face scheduled hitters Overbay, Hillenbrand and Zaun, with Adams and Hill to follow. Cat had started the game, and Johnson had entered in his place earlier.

Overbay singles.  Immediately, the Manager has 2 decisions- whether to pinch run for Overbay and whether to pinch-hit for Hillenbrand (who has been hot and had hit a 2 run homer in his previous at-bat).  Gibbons chose to do neither.  After Hillenbrand lined out, Zaun singled on the ground to left (phew).  Adams up.  Do you pinch-run for either Overbay, Zaun or both?  Gibbons chose to pinch-run for Overbay with McDonald, saving Hinske to pinch-hit for Hill.  Adams lined a double down the line, and the run scored easily.

My only comment about Gibbons' decisions is that if you had decided to pinch-run for Overbay with McDonald when he reached second with one out, wouldn't it make sense to do so with Overbay on 1st and nobody out, especially with Hillenbrand (who is prone to ground into DPs) up? 

Gibbons seems snakebitten with his club's baserunning this season; it seems like every time he sends the runners, the lead man gets gunned down, and every time he does not send the runners, the hitter serves up a DP grounder.

It's hard to know what to do about the problem of double plays, because the Jays have a bunch of hitters who hit the ball sharply and don't run well, which means they not only can't beat the relay throw but also can't break up the pivot with a hard slide (because they simply don't get there in time).   I don't remember the count of the botched double steal, but I remember thinking it wasn't the right call at the time.

What's the solution?

Pinch-hit Hinske for Shea yesterday, Mike G?  You were really considering that with Adams and Hill providing pinch-hitting possibilities shortly thereafter?  Three weeks ago, maybe.  But considering how they're hitting of late, that would be insane.  Shea's been clobbering righthanded pitchers not named Mussina.

Mike D,

Apparently on the Rios CS, he and Cat were supposed to be on a double steal rather than an H and R. With Wells batting, I guess Gibbons was trying to inject the element of surprise.  Knowing the players, I'd rather do that with Hill or Adams on the front end, even though Alex could probably outrun either in a foot-race quite easily.

When Speier and the SS Loogy were used in the 7th I thought Ryan might be used for a 2 inning save as the bullpen didn't have anyone reliable left and thinking Gibbons might try to go all out to try and get one win when it was in reach (even if it sacrificed today's game).  So I was surprised to see McGowan come into the game in a big spot.  While he gave up the RBI single to Lowell it was a rather weak ground ball that found a hole up the middle.  Then the other hit was a blooper and no one else made good contact.

Here's an interesting combination of stats....the Jays have the fewest number of strikeouts in the AL, but lead the AL in slugging and OPS.

"Riding the hot hand" is a controversial topic, as discussed in the The Book.  Still, in that situation, with Hinske not having had many at-bats and Hillenbrand pumped in front of a Boston crowd (and it being the early season when Shea normally shines), I would have let him hit against Papelbon, notwithstanding the DP risk.  The interesting part of the top of the ninth though was the pinch-running decisions. Having a short bench does cramp a manager's style in that kind of game.

I'm just amazed, and thankful, that the act keeps working

practiced in the art of deception

After Zaun's passed ball and error, Ryan knew that "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes...".  There were however no blood stains on his hands. "Mojo working" is a whole 'nother story.

I would be inclined to think (warning: subjectivity ahead!) that the question of whether or not streaks exist is a semantic one, in that there may be a variable that is temporarily in the hitter's favour.  Such as rusty vs. ready, as Mike D. notes, or perhaps a temporary change in diet or sleeping habits, maybe some new contact lenses... any cause for increased manifestation of skill that goes undiagnosed and so is in danger of fleeting, maybe another team's advance scout really screwed up a report.  Is that a 'hot streak'?  Maybe, maybe not... but the difference is semantic.

That said, much of these 'streaks' must just be random, right? Flipping a coin a few hundred times, you may very well flip fourteen tails out of twenty flips at some point. 

No Hillenbrands were derided in the composition of this comment.

In my opinion, streaks have too much to do with health and mechanics (which may be influenced by health) to be just random.  Managers have the benefit of trained opinions on the state of a player's health and/or mechanics, and fans don't -- even if they happen to be "analysts."

I posted before I saw Leigh's remark, which I think is right...except for the coin flip analogy, which I only disagree with because to be analogous one would have to assume that a player's on- and off-the-field conditions are the same when he's running hot and cold.

Some randomness is involved in streaking; Aaron Hill has repeatedly hit line drives straight at people, while Vernon Wells has beat out at least four dribblers for singles in the last 2-3 weeks.  But I think aches and pains -- both physical and mental -- or the absence thereof contribute more to streaks than does pure randomness.

Bah.  Again, I posted before seeing Leigh's remark!

That said, much of these 'streaks' must just be random, right? Flipping a coin a few hundred times, you may very well flip fourteen tails out of twenty flips at some point. 

Except that unlike a coin flip, luck doesn't play the most significant role in the outcome of an at-bat (a coin flip is just about 100% luck).  Baseball isn't like DMB... the outcomes of ABs aren't determined by random numbers.  It looks like the outcomes of ABs are determined by random numbers, or looks close enough to fool you into thinking so (and providing a useful tool for simulation) but they are actually determined mostly by skill, skill which varies sufficiently from pitch-to-pitch that it simulates a random process.

Luck does play a role as well... a player can sometimes be playing well but getting bad results if he's unlucky (for example, a hitter getting lots of true hops and hitting at-em balls).  But skill is the more significant factor and (I haven't proved this empricially but have confirmed it sufficiently to myself playing other sports) a hot streak will normally have more to do with a temporary rise in comparative ability rather than a run of fortune.

A run of matchups against bad pitchers or bad hitters, of course (or hitters/pitchers that you do well against) can also siumulate a hot streak.  That's the "comparative" part of comaprative ability.

I find it odd that people are so quick to ascribe hitting and pitching results to luck (per se) - we usually don't do the same to fielders.

a hot streak will normally have more to do with a temporary rise in comparative ability rather than a run of fortune.

That is precisely what I meant in the first paragraph of my earlier comment.  By later mentioning randomization, I did not intend to suggest that luck or randomness was the most significant - or even a significant - factor.

I didn't express it very well... maybe I'll go get another coffee.

I had originally written this:

the question of whether or not streaks exist is a semantic one, in that there may be a variable that is temporarily in the hitter's favour.  Such as rusty vs. ready, as Mike D. notes, or perhaps a temporary change in diet or sleeping habits, maybe some new contact lenses... any cause for increased manifestation of skill that goes undiagnosed and so is in danger of fleeting, maybe another team's advance scout really screwed up a report.  Is that a 'hot streak'?  Maybe, maybe not... but the difference is semantic.

I think that accords with your position, Craig, doesn't it?

It doesn't work that way at all for "cold" pitchers, because (I would guess) "cold" pitchers have disproportionate incidence of undiagnosed injuries. 

I don't agree.  Injuries are a small part of the equation, but on this at least I can speak from experience: pitching is really, really hard to do, and a small degree of variation in approach produces wildly divergent results.  A locked-in pitcher is much better than his normal self; a screwed-up pitcher is totally ineffective.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that the result is as you say, and much larger than the co-ordinate effect for hitters.  The physiological difficulties of pitching, which you're getting at with the injury explanation, is only one of the four pillars of pitching success and I think the physical difficulties play an even greater role than the physiological ones.

If you shortened a pitcher's right leg by a third of an inch and didn't tell him, he couldn't pitch at all and he'd go insane trying to figure out what happened.  A hitter might never notice until his back started to hurt when he ran.

There is also the fact that pitchers have a lower deviation of true talent value than hitters do, which would partially explain Mike's result, but that may be related to exactly this point... because their variability is higher, but the selection bias is just as strong (stronger these days, with it being so easy to replace pitchers in-game and in-season) pitchers wind up showing a lower deviation of ability.

Generally: I would note that the fact that a long-term established level of ability is more important than short-term effectiveness at predicting near-term outcomes is entirely to be expected, and is a result of there being good hitters and bad hitters.  That does not mean that hitters do not gain "matchup benefits" from facing particular pitchers (they do) or have relatively good and bad periods (they do that, too). 

The dialectic nature of baseball's at-bats, games, seasons and careers (pitchers and hitters are constantly looking for advantages and disadvantages of each other to exploit, and seeking to compensate for their own disadvantages exploited by others) will lead to exactly the results we see... that is, the very competition that underlies batters' and pitchers' performances will tend against streaky results.

There's no one on the bench fast enough to make a difference on the front end of a DP

Well, that's the perception anyways.  The difference in speed between McDonald and Molina or even between McDonald and Overbay as a baserunner would result in a reduction in double play frequency. Perhaps the reduction would be modest enough to not justify the cost in using scarce bench resources. I wonder.