This One is For Gnork
in [Boston Red Sox]
|
From: sweet lou on 8 Jun 2010 13:17 On Jun 8, 1:05 pm, The Gnorkmeister <gn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Who is "Quinlin" he isn't on any active MLB roster.So for sure he could not drive in any runs.
From: Wayback1918 on 8 Jun 2010 13:18 On Jun 8, 1:08 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > We're well into the sillier areas of statistical analysis. No such animal..... I realize that the numbers are just averages and that even going against them you will be successful a lot of the time. I don't even have problem with a manager playing a hunch (occasionally). But I do think that a manager should be at least aware of the mathematical success rates of strategies before he makes his decisions.
From: mario in victoria on 8 Jun 2010 13:21 Dano wrote: > 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... > > As I said, my math skills don't lean that way. I was just curious about the real statistical read on it. I know there are other ways advancing a runner, but I chose, in this example, to key on doing it with hits or a sacrifice bunt. Nothing else, for this example. mario in victoria -- setting the parameters
From: Dano on 8 Jun 2010 14:54 Wayback1918 wrote: > On Jun 8, 1:08 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> We're well into the sillier areas of statistical analysis. > > No such animal..... > Obviously not for you...just my feeling about it. > I realize that the numbers are just averages and that even going > against them you will be successful a lot of the time. I don't even > have problem with a manager playing a hunch (occasionally). But I do > think that a manager should be at least aware of the mathematical > success rates of strategies before he makes his decisions. I honestly DO believe you can reach a point of diminishing returns with too much information. You can only process so much until you might do better with a computer program since the human brain can't analyze it all fast enough. When it reaches that point...where the manager must sit and gaze at his lap top instead of watching the play unfold in front of him...I'm out. Paralysis by analysis is the phrase that leaps to mind for me. This is a human game. With human mistakes and errors...the element of chance...even the weather can affect outcomes. I don't know that I want it to all be so easily quantified and summed up by some ultimate, all encompassing formula. I'm fine with increasing the odds of success where you can. I'm not totally for ignoring stats...that would be foolish. I just think you get carried away. I don't wish to have to hire managers from MIT or CalTech or someplace...or even to have some number guy in the dugout crunching the numbers for him as to who to put into the game.
From: NK on 9 Jun 2010 00:30
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 04:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Wayback1918 <wayback1918(a)verizon.net> wrote: >This a run expectation chart for 2005. (It changes a little from year >to to year but not much.) I've seen other years where the runs expectation with runners on 2 and 3 with one out were higher than the runs expectation with runners on 1 and 2 with zero outs. But in any case, the "runs expectation" doesn't tell the whole story, sometimes the frequency of scoring at least one run in a situation is what's important. Now, I'm not saying that managers are generally aware of how frequently at least one run will be scored in various situations, I don't really think they are. I'm just saying that those stats might not be relevant in late inning situations, expecially in the bottom of the 9th. -- NK |