Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...
posted at 7/5/2013 5:07 PM EDT
In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
According to the win expectancy chart you cited the chances of winning the game in the 8th inning in a tie game with runners on first and second, nobody out is .850. With runners on second and third with one out the chances are now just .455-even lower than the chance with runners of first and third and one out (.611)? Something is not quite right there. Maybe I am reading the chart wrong, but thats what it seems to say.
In the other reference cited there is the following statement:
"When trailing by one, tied, or leading by any number of runs (after the sixth inning) its beneficial to play for one run". That is exactly what the Sox IMO should have been doing in that specific situation: get ahead in the last of the 8th and trust the game to your closer.
As far as the expectancy chart goes, you are reading the percentages for the visiting team. Scroll down to find the percentages for the home team.
As far as the sentence you quoted from that reference, really? Of all the information and stats on that page supporting that a sac bunt is almost never beneficial, this is the quote that you come up with?
I can't help it if that sentence is actually in there. It is. I didn't write it or make it up. So I feel free to quote it. The fact of the matter is that in the specific situation the Sox were in (runners on first and second, nobody out) the chances of scoring a run INCREASE by a bunt attempt. That was shown to be true by analyzing a very large number of games over a wide array of circumstances. I agree that a sac bunt is statistically ALMOST never beneficial, but that situation is one of the two situations where a sac bunt attempt INCREASES the chances of scoring a run. With a very effective closer had we scored a run there we would most likely not have come to bat in the ninth.
This is what Joey and some others were talking about. You cited that statement completely without context to support your opinion. And, you're moving the goal posts.
The discussion was not about playing for one run, it was about sacrifice bunting for one run.
That is incorrect. The discussion was EXACTLY about playing for one run in the manner that would have been most likely to lead to that run which, in this case, was a bunt by Nava. Those are the facts; they are indisputable: with runners on first and second and nobody out a bunt attempt raises your team's likelihood of scoring a run.
As far as what "Joey" has to say about context or anything else for that matter, he comes into every discussion biased due to our history. So I frequently disregard his posts. Thats human nature. I try to stay away from arrogant know-it-alls.
Here is some more of what the authors said, to put your quoted sentence a little more in context:
"At the start of this chapter, we showed that sacrifices were demonstrably a bad idea even when a team was down by a single run, a conclusion that may seem to contradict this finding that a team should play for 1 run when down by 1. But remember that in most cases, sacrifices decrease the likelihood of scoring even a single run. Playing for 1 run is a good idea when down by 1, but sacrificing is not a good way to achieve that goal. Instead, other tactics to score a single run - stolen-base attempts with highly favorable odds and situational hitting, for example - are necessary; giving away outs is not."
Ummmm....we were NOT down by one run, we were tied. Where does it say in this paragraph that bunting does not increase the chance of scoring a single run with runners on first and second and nobody out? Am I missing it? I can show you a reference that makes that very conclusion if you like.