This One is For Gnork
in [Boston Red Sox]
|
From: mario in victoria on 8 Jun 2010 13:01 sweet lou wrote: > On Jun 7, 5:59 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> On Jun 7, 4:47 pm, sweet lou <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>> ......such as bottom 9 with man on 2nd no outs tie game and 9th hitter at bat. Now that's a >>> great situation to move him over) >> Just curious....before I look it up....how often do you think that >> situation occurs in season? > > I have no idea. If it only occurs once I would still bunt in that > situation as opposed to "never".Plus we were not talking about a > season.Gnork was in the "never" land which well means whenever. I've often wondered about that. The most common hit is a single, so it's safe to 'predict' any given hitter will hit a single. Sure, some will hit a home run or double, but let's play the percentages. Man on first, no out, one run down or tie game at home. To score the runner you need two clean singles and have three shots at it. Or four, if a batter gets a hit. What are the odds there? (not mathematically capable...) If you sacrifice, you have TWO chances to get ONE hit. I don't know...isn't that a 50% 'requirement' in both cases? Again, not mathematically adept enough to work it out. mario in victoria -- or wait for the three-run homer
From: The Gnorkmeister on 8 Jun 2010 13:05 On Jun 7, 2:26 pm, sweet lou <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 7, 4:57 pm, The Gnorkmeister <gn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 1:47 pm, sweet lou <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 7, 4:08 pm, The Gnorkmeister <gn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > As usual you go over the top "I say, never bunt other than with a > > > pitcher or a non-sucide squeeze ........" (1) Never say never (2) > > > certain situations and hitters may well dictate a sac( such as bottom > > > 9 with man on 2nd no outs tie game and 9th hitter at bat. Now that's a > > > great situation to move him over) (3) Bottom line is that the sac bunt > > > can be a good situational move at times even in the AL. Saying never > > > is just being stubborn and dumb. > > > Maybe that #9 hitter is a lousy bunter. If he is good enough to be in > > my lineup, he is good enough to swing away. The disadvantage of > > bunting will overcome any small perceived gain in the long run even in > > the spot you mention.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Again "maybe" You don't have to be a "good" bunter when you give > yourself away to lay one down, and if he isn't well that's why I > mentioned situational you do know what the means? " If he is good > enough to be in my lineup, he is good enough to swing away" What > lineup is that Your fantasy league?? Yesterday in the AL here are some > of 9 slot guys:Marson (Cle) 195, Beckham (WS) 203, Izturis (O's) 220, > Butero (Minn) 147, Pennington (A's) 207, Quinlan (LA) 158, Santiago > (Det) 240 and Saunders (Sea) 222. This adds up to over half the teams > in the AL now these guys may not be "good enough" to be on your team > but they are playing on 8 AL teams.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The current BAs of limited use players probably does not represent their real batting abilities. Quinlin has twice hit over .300 with decent plate appearances as a reserve for example. For your reference the book "Percentage Baseball" concluded the bunt was a bad move for any hitter capable (as opposed to at the moment) of hitting over . 190. Butero is the only one below that and he has played very little.
From: Wayback1918 on 8 Jun 2010 13:06 On Jun 8, 12:57 pm, mario in victoria <mario5...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Wayback1918 wrote: > > On Jun 7, 4:47 pm, sweet lou <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> ......such as bottom 9 with man on 2nd no outs tie game and 9th hitter at bat. Now that's a > >> great situation to move him over) > > > Just curious....before I look it up....how often do you think that > > situation occurs in season? > > Six? > > mario in victoria > -- > you could look it... > > :-) The best (quick) estimate I came up with was less than once a year per team....on average. The number of times a game was tied in the ninth.....times the percent of times the 8th batter lead off the ninth with a double. (He also could have singled or walked and stole a stole , wild pitch, went to second on an errant pick off attempt....so I upped it a bit.) It comes out to about 0.7 times per year, per team in the AL....but I admit I did a lot of estimating.
From: Dano on 8 Jun 2010 13:08 mario in victoria wrote: > sweet lou wrote: >> On Jun 7, 5:59 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>> On Jun 7, 4:47 pm, sweet lou <lounanmar...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>> ......such as bottom 9 with man on 2nd no outs tie game and 9th >>>> hitter at bat. Now that's a great situation to move him over) >>> Just curious....before I look it up....how often do you think that >>> situation occurs in season? >> >> I have no idea. If it only occurs once I would still bunt in that >> situation as opposed to "never".Plus we were not talking about a >> season.Gnork was in the "never" land which well means whenever. > > I've often wondered about that. > The most common hit is a single, so it's safe to 'predict' any given > hitter will hit a single. Sure, some will hit a home run or double, > but let's play the percentages. > > Man on first, no out, one run down or tie game at home. > > To score the runner you need two clean singles and have three shots at > it. Or four, if a batter gets a hit. What are the odds there? (not > mathematically capable...) > There are a number of ways to advance the runner without a hit or sacrifice. Hell...there are several ways to score that runner without a single or any kind of base hit. > If you sacrifice, you have TWO chances to get ONE hit. > > I don't know...isn't that a 50% 'requirement' in both cases? Again, > not mathematically adept enough to work it out. > > We're well into the sillier areas of statistical analysis...
From: The Gnorkmeister on 8 Jun 2010 13:16
On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Jun 7, 4:08 pm, The Gnorkmeister <gn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > No one needs to tell Francona. He bunts less than every manager in > the league except Cito Gaston. 100% sucess rate to his credit too. No, it is like being good at picking your nose in public or farting loudly on elevators. If you wish, credit the hitters for being good at it and perhaps the batting coach for helping with technique. Blame the manager for doing it. why should you credit someone for being 100% successful at something that dimishes the team's chances of scoring runs? Now I would like to see them try and bunt for a base hit more often. J D Drew used to be good at that once in a while. > > Tm Att Suc % > TBR 30 17 57% > TEX 30 22 73% > KCR 29 17 59% > OAK 25 20 80% > NYY 20 14 70% > SEA 20 11 55% > DET 19 16 84% > LAA 19 14 74% > LgAvg 19 14 72% > BAL 16 9 56% > CLE 16 16 100% > CHW 15 13 87% > BOS 13 13 100% > MIN 13 9 69% > TOR 3 3 100% > > Now John Maddon and Ron Washington, in spite of having two of the top > 5 offenses in the league, bunt quite often. They actually sacrifice > more than 6 NL teams. > > Maddon's team isn't even good at it.....57%. Only Seattle and > Baltimore are worse. (Are the Orioles good at anything?.....oh yeah > winning extra inning games against the Red Sox.) Maddon has given up > 13 outs in unsucessful sacrifice attempts.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Too often the so called "successful" bunt attempts lead to no runs. Then the bevy of bunting buffoons usually fully ignore the positive things that might have happened had the hitter swung away. Such as a single, a double, a triple or a home run. Also a WALK, a HBP and even reaching on an error. The latter can also happen on a bunt, but I think on squaring around bunts it happens less often than on swing away plays. Then there is the ground out or deep fly out that advances the runner anyway. The batter is charged with an AB, but the runner still advances. |