This One is For Gnork
in [Boston Red Sox]
|
From: Ray OHara on 6 Jun 2010 23:48 "Gary" <golferace2(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:mspo06llk1fskivrfg08s2jbldl5nhdg42(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:24:54 -0400, "Dano" <janeanddano(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Gary" <golferace2(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:qu9o065tb4ua0dk3l96082jgsria94342m(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT), sweet lou >>> <lounanmartel(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> >The sac bunt worked and they scored but I was against it. McDonald has >>> >a better than average success rate against lefties. Go for the win on >>> >the road. >>> >>> >>> McDonald is still a backup and without the bunt, they don't tie the >>> game. >> >>With all due respect, you don't (can't of course) know that. I didn't >>like >>it at the time...and didn't after. I felt it was a waste since he's been >>hitting well in the clutch for the most part. I agree with going for the >>jugular in that case. >> > > We'lll never know. I don't particularly like sac bunts, but on > occaision, I think there's a place for it. With the top of the order > coming up, I thought it was the best chance to tie the game. > > The reason they lost the game is they weren't successful in > opportunities with two outs and their better hitters up. > > But it happens. from what I've read it doesn't pay off statistically. I don't mind sac-ing the runner to 3rd but to 2nd it seems like a waste.
From: Wayback1918 on 7 Jun 2010 07:39 On Jun 6, 11:48 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Gary" <golfera...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:mspo06llk1fskivrfg08s2jbldl5nhdg42(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:24:54 -0400, "Dano" <janeandd...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > >>"Gary" <golfera...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >>news:qu9o065tb4ua0dk3l96082jgsria94342m(a)4ax.com... > >>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT), sweet lou > >>> <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>> >The sac bunt worked and they scored but I was against it. McDonald has > >>> >a better than average success rate against lefties. Go for the win on > >>> >the road. > > >>> McDonald is still a backup and without the bunt, they don't tie the > >>> game. > > >>With all due respect, you don't (can't of course) know that. I didn't > >>like > >>it at the time...and didn't after. I felt it was a waste since he's been > >>hitting well in the clutch for the most part. I agree with going for the > >>jugular in that case. > > > We'lll never know. I don't particularly like sac bunts, but on > > occaision, I think there's a place for it. With the top of the order > > coming up, I thought it was the best chance to tie the game. > > > The reason they lost the game is they weren't successful in > > opportunities with two outs and their better hitters up. > > > But it happens. > > from what I've read it doesn't pay off statistically. > I don't mind sac-ing the runner to 3rd but to 2nd it seems like a waste.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This a run expectation chart for 2005. (It changes a little from year to to year but not much.) The "RUNNERS" column show which bases are occupied before a ball is put in play. (example 1-- is runner on first; 123 is bases loaded) The columns headed 0-1-2 indicate the number of outs (again before the ball is put in play) OUTS RUNNERS 0 1 2 --- 0.5165 0.2796 0.1075 1-- 0.8968 0.5487 0.2370 -2- 1.1385 0.6911 0.3502 12- 1.4693 0.9143 0.4433 --3 1.5120 0.9795 0.3718 1-3 1.8228 1.1830 0.4931 -23 2.0363 1.4144 0.6073 123 2.3109 1.5279 0.7485 With a runner on first and no outs you have an expectation to score 0.90 (rounded)in that inning. If you bunt him over you have an expectation to score 0.69 runs...(a man on second one out.) Keep in mind this is if the bunt works......about 72% are sucessful in the AL. The numbers are based on averages so with an inferior batter up and a man on first with no outs the expectation is less than .90 runs. If the next batter (following the bunter) is better than average the expectation would be higher than .69 runs (runner on second, one out. Statistically there isn't a generic situation where the numbers favor the bunt.
From: Dano on 7 Jun 2010 08:31 Wayback1918 wrote: > On Jun 6, 11:48 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Gary" <golfera...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:mspo06llk1fskivrfg08s2jbldl5nhdg42(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:24:54 -0400, "Dano" <janeandd...(a)yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >> >>>> "Gary" <golfera...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> news:qu9o065tb4ua0dk3l96082jgsria94342m(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT), sweet lou >>>>> <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> The sac bunt worked and they scored but I was against it. >>>>>> McDonald has a better than average success rate against lefties. >>>>>> Go for the win on the road. >> >>>>> McDonald is still a backup and without the bunt, they don't tie >>>>> the game. >> >>>> With all due respect, you don't (can't of course) know that. I >>>> didn't like >>>> it at the time...and didn't after. I felt it was a waste since >>>> he's been hitting well in the clutch for the most part. I agree >>>> with going for the jugular in that case. >> >>> We'lll never know. I don't particularly like sac bunts, but on >>> occaision, I think there's a place for it. With the top of the order >>> coming up, I thought it was the best chance to tie the game. >> >>> The reason they lost the game is they weren't successful in >>> opportunities with two outs and their better hitters up. >> >>> But it happens. >> >> from what I've read it doesn't pay off statistically. >> I don't mind sac-ing the runner to 3rd but to 2nd it seems like a >> waste.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > This a run expectation chart for 2005. (It changes a little from year > to to year but not much.) > > The "RUNNERS" column show which bases are occupied before a ball is > put in play. > (example 1-- is runner on first; 123 is bases loaded) The columns > headed 0-1-2 indicate the number of outs (again before the ball is put > in play) > > OUTS > RUNNERS 0 1 2 > --- 0.5165 0.2796 0.1075 > 1-- 0.8968 0.5487 0.2370 > -2- 1.1385 0.6911 0.3502 > 12- 1.4693 0.9143 0.4433 > --3 1.5120 0.9795 0.3718 > 1-3 1.8228 1.1830 0.4931 > -23 2.0363 1.4144 0.6073 > 123 2.3109 1.5279 0.7485 > > > With a runner on first and no outs you have an expectation to score > 0.90 (rounded)in that inning. > > If you bunt him over you have an expectation to score 0.69 runs...(a > man on second one out.) > > Keep in mind this is if the bunt works......about 72% are sucessful in > the AL. > > The numbers are based on averages so with an inferior batter up and a > man on first with no outs the expectation is less than .90 runs. > > If the next batter (following the bunter) is better than average the > expectation would be higher than .69 runs (runner on second, one out. > > Statistically there isn't a generic situation where the numbers favor > the bunt. So wait...this means for once my "gut" was statistically correct? What of moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd? I would think that's even less important as why give away the out when the runner is already in scoring position. Unless it's a really pathetic hitter...or at least one who has great difficulty with the pitcher he is facing...swing away dammit!
From: Wayback1918 on 7 Jun 2010 08:39 On Jun 7, 8:31 am, "Dano" <janeandd...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Wayback1918 wrote: > > On Jun 6, 11:48 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> "Gary" <golfera...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >>news:mspo06llk1fskivrfg08s2jbldl5nhdg42(a)4ax.com... > > >>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:24:54 -0400, "Dano" <janeandd...(a)yahoo.com> > >>> wrote: > > >>>> "Gary" <golfera...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >>>>news:qu9o065tb4ua0dk3l96082jgsria94342m(a)4ax.com... > >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT), sweet lou > >>>>> <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> The sac bunt worked and they scored but I was against it. > >>>>>> McDonald has a better than average success rate against lefties. > >>>>>> Go for the win on the road. > > >>>>> McDonald is still a backup and without the bunt, they don't tie > >>>>> the game. > > >>>> With all due respect, you don't (can't of course) know that. I > >>>> didn't like > >>>> it at the time...and didn't after. I felt it was a waste since > >>>> he's been hitting well in the clutch for the most part. I agree > >>>> with going for the jugular in that case. > > >>> We'lll never know. I don't particularly like sac bunts, but on > >>> occaision, I think there's a place for it. With the top of the order > >>> coming up, I thought it was the best chance to tie the game. > > >>> The reason they lost the game is they weren't successful in > >>> opportunities with two outs and their better hitters up. > > >>> But it happens. > > >> from what I've read it doesn't pay off statistically. > >> I don't mind sac-ing the runner to 3rd but to 2nd it seems like a > >> waste.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > This a run expectation chart for 2005. (It changes a little from year > > to to year but not much.) > > > The "RUNNERS" column show which bases are occupied before a ball is > > put in play. > > (example 1-- is runner on first; 123 is bases loaded) The columns > > headed 0-1-2 indicate the number of outs (again before the ball is put > > in play) > > > OUTS > > RUNNERS 0 1 2 > > --- 0.5165 0.2796 0.1075 > > 1-- 0.8968 0.5487 0.2370 > > -2- 1.1385 0.6911 0.3502 > > 12- 1.4693 0.9143 0.4433 > > --3 1.5120 0.9795 0.3718 > > 1-3 1.8228 1.1830 0.4931 > > -23 2.0363 1.4144 0.6073 > > 123 2.3109 1.5279 0.7485 > > > With a runner on first and no outs you have an expectation to score > > 0.90 (rounded)in that inning. > > > If you bunt him over you have an expectation to score 0.69 runs...(a > > man on second one out.) > > > Keep in mind this is if the bunt works......about 72% are sucessful in > > the AL. > > > The numbers are based on averages so with an inferior batter up and a > > man on first with no outs the expectation is less than .90 runs. > > > If the next batter (following the bunter) is better than average the > > expectation would be higher than .69 runs (runner on second, one out. > > > Statistically there isn't a generic situation where the numbers favor > > the bunt. > > So wait...this means for once my "gut" was statistically correct? > > What of moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd? I would think that's even less > important as why give away the out when the runner is already in scoring > position. Unless it's a really pathetic hitter...or at least one who has > great difficulty with the pitcher he is facing...swing away dammit!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Runner on 2B 0 outs....1.138 expected runs Runner on 3B 1 out.....0.979 expected runs In general outs are far to valuable to 'sacrifice' for a base.
From: The Gnorkmeister on 7 Jun 2010 16:08
On Jun 7, 5:39 am, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Jun 7, 8:31 am, "Dano" <janeandd...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Wayback1918 wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 11:48 pm, "Ray OHara" <raymond-oh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> "Gary" <golfera...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > > >>news:mspo06llk1fskivrfg08s2jbldl5nhdg42(a)4ax.com... > > > >>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:24:54 -0400, "Dano" <janeandd...(a)yahoo.com> > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> "Gary" <golfera...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >>>>news:qu9o065tb4ua0dk3l96082jgsria94342m(a)4ax.com... > > >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT), sweet lou > > >>>>> <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> The sac bunt worked and they scored but I was against it. > > >>>>>> McDonald has a better than average success rate against lefties. > > >>>>>> Go for the win on the road. > > > >>>>> McDonald is still a backup and without the bunt, they don't tie > > >>>>> the game. > > > >>>> With all due respect, you don't (can't of course) know that. I > > >>>> didn't like > > >>>> it at the time...and didn't after. I felt it was a waste since > > >>>> he's been hitting well in the clutch for the most part. I agree > > >>>> with going for the jugular in that case. > > > >>> We'lll never know. I don't particularly like sac bunts, but on > > >>> occaision, I think there's a place for it. With the top of the order > > >>> coming up, I thought it was the best chance to tie the game. > > > >>> The reason they lost the game is they weren't successful in > > >>> opportunities with two outs and their better hitters up. > > > >>> But it happens. > > > >> from what I've read it doesn't pay off statistically. > > >> I don't mind sac-ing the runner to 3rd but to 2nd it seems like a > > >> waste.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > This a run expectation chart for 2005. (It changes a little from year > > > to to year but not much.) > > > > The "RUNNERS" column show which bases are occupied before a ball is > > > put in play. > > > (example 1-- is runner on first; 123 is bases loaded) The columns > > > headed 0-1-2 indicate the number of outs (again before the ball is put > > > in play) > > > > OUTS > > > RUNNERS 0 1 2 > > > --- 0.5165 0.2796 0.1075 > > > 1-- 0.8968 0.5487 0.2370 > > > -2- 1.1385 0.6911 0.3502 > > > 12- 1.4693 0.9143 0.4433 > > > --3 1.5120 0.9795 0.3718 > > > 1-3 1.8228 1.1830 0.4931 > > > -23 2.0363 1.4144 0.6073 > > > 123 2.3109 1.5279 0.7485 > > > > With a runner on first and no outs you have an expectation to score > > > 0.90 (rounded)in that inning. > > > > If you bunt him over you have an expectation to score 0.69 runs...(a > > > man on second one out.) > > > > Keep in mind this is if the bunt works......about 72% are sucessful in > > > the AL. > > > > The numbers are based on averages so with an inferior batter up and a > > > man on first with no outs the expectation is less than .90 runs. > > > > If the next batter (following the bunter) is better than average the > > > expectation would be higher than .69 runs (runner on second, one out. > > > > Statistically there isn't a generic situation where the numbers favor > > > the bunt. > > > So wait...this means for once my "gut" was statistically correct? > > > What of moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd? I would think that's even less > > important as why give away the out when the runner is already in scoring > > position. Unless it's a really pathetic hitter...or at least one who has > > great difficulty with the pitcher he is facing...swing away dammit!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Runner on 2B 0 outs....1.138 expected runs > Runner on 3B 1 out.....0.979 expected runs > > In general outs are far to valuable to 'sacrifice' for a base. I say almost the exact same thing, "Outs are far too valuable to 'sacrifice' for a base." Someone should tell Francona. McDonald is just too good at bunting. I think he has "successfully" got the bunt down each time when asked. IIRC yesterday was the 1st time the advanced runner scored. McDonald is very good vs LHP, but the dimwit Francona keeps forgetting that and having him bunt against them. The dolt is even worse than that old baseball "book". It says "Play to tie at home and to win on the road". I say, never sac bunt other than with a pitcher or a non-suicide squeeze at home late in the game to bring home a tying or go ahead run from 3rd. Obviously, that depends on the hitter and the runner, and it is not something you would do on a regular basis. |