Stirring the hornet's nest ...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    "Shame on Teresa for selling out."

    But a much bigger shame on you for bringing her into the mix here. Your propensity for trying to link people in here to their real world identities is disturbing to say the least. It says something about you and whatever it says is not good. Let me ask you a question - why were you unable to convince Teresa of your side of the story. If you're implying she took his word for things around here over yours, what does that say about you?

    " All of the other trolls are gone"

    Hmm you're still here.... 

    I detect something frantic in your tone, like you are losing a forum battle that only you cared about in the first place. 

    Guess what? The forum is fine when you aren't posting in here. It's all fine. 

    Pumpsie, yeah, some of his posts have been over the top. 

    I'm going to explain this one more time using a baseball analogy. 

    Your definition of fan is basically you as an umpire inventing your own impossibly small strike zone. 

    In fact strikes can land outside that zone and that is perfectly a strike. 

    Same with fans. There is no law that fans are always positive Pike. Fans are emotional, and some of them tend towards the negative side. I judge fans based on the extent of their emotional commitment to the team, through good and bad. By that definition, I'm not sure you're a fan as you really don't express much emotion about the Red Sox. 

    You express plenty of emotion about this forum though. 

    At any rate, you are not my kind of fan but unlike you I am not in the business of judging how a fan should behave, so I say fine, you're a fan. 

    But you need to let go of being the forum's prime minister and surveillance planner. No one needs Enclopedia Brown in here piecing together clues. We're talking baseball here not trying to solve world peace. 

    p.s. say hi to Fenway Jimmy and Beacon Hill and Lady Lake all the others....

     

         

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    I got this funny feeling as the Thursday Sox game was closing that we might have had a trade about to be announced with the Padres. With Bailey having a good , no pressure outing and Middlebrooks coming off a very good, 2 HR, 4 hit game that we might have a Chase Headley and a relief pitcher swap for Bailey and WMB.

    I wasn't impressed with Headley--he looked slow and not in the games--kind of preoccupied--but with his numbers last year--20 + HR's and 115 RBI that he might come around the second half with the Sox and a penant race.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:


    No, there is no way to massage out the numbers to take into consideration the batter and the on deck hitter. These numbers are OVERALL numbers over a very large number of games in all situations covering good bunters and bad ones. The fact of the matter is that OVERALL bunting with runners on first and second with nobody out increases your chances of scoring one run. Last night, with Koji coming in, I was pretty sure one run would do it. All closers blow saves, but he has been pretty reliable for us this year. As for Nava being a good bunter or a bad one, ALL batters should be able to bunt when they are called on to do it. Its just good fundamental baseball. I do not know how good a bunter he is or if he practices it, so I am going to assume that since he is a professional he has had experience doing it. I was in favor of it last night; I am in favor of it today too because it would have increased our chances of scoring a run.




    A couple of points to consider here:

    1.  The run scoring environment must be taken into account.  For teams that have high OBP and SLG and for parks that lend themselves well to high OBP and SLG (Coors Field vs Petco Park, for instance), it is more likely that a batter can advance the runner while getting on base himself (thus saving the out) than it is for weaker teams/parks.

    2.  While the chances of scoring one run in certain situations increases with a sac bunt, the chances of winning the game actually decreases.  For instance, for the home team in the 8th inning of a tie game, the chance of winning the game when runners are on 1st and 2nd with 0 outs is 89.5% . If a successful sacrifice is made and there are runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, the chance of winning decreases to 80%.

    Note: Those numbers are from 2005 and for all teams, so they would vary depending on run environment.  However, the overall premise remains.

    In short, having the pitcher sacrifice in the NL is typically the best strategy.  Having a non-pitcher sacrifice makes sense only with a runner on 2nd and no outs, only with a small percentage of batters, and only if the team needs one run late (usually the 9th inning).

    It is almost never a good idea to bunt with a runner on first, or early in the game, or if your team is down, even if only by one run.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    No, there is no way to massage out the numbers to take into consideration the batter and the on deck hitter.

    I assume you meant to say 'you and I' couldn't massage the numbers, which is mostly true. 

    For $5,000, I could take apart the existing database, and create some strata about how the numbers change if Carew or Alou are bunting, as opposed to Papi or Ryan Howard are bunting.

    Or how often Salty will score someone from 3rd as opposed to a cleanup hitter.

    But mostly I assume Bill James already has this information.  I'd make a bet that he knows exactly what the difference is between the average NL pitcher bunting, and what the expectations are for your average non-bunting hitter.



    It's incredible what kinds of stats these guys have.  If you can think of a stat, chances are the geeks are 3 steps ahead of you.

    From the guys at Baseball Propectus, if you want to score exactly 1 run and there are runners on 1st and 2nd with 0 outs, you should sacrifice only if the batter has a slash line below .206/.235/.263 .

    Interestingly enough, if there is a runner only on 2nd with 0 outs (risk of GIDP eliminated) then the slash line increases to .277/.350/.451 . 

    Either way, Nava's line, especially against righties, is above that threshold.  The numbers say that he should be swinging away.

    Since sacrificing is most beneficial with a singles and doubles hitter on deck, those lines would decrease if a HR hitter is on deck and increase if a singles/doubles hitter is on deck.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:



    A couple of points to consider here:

     

    1.  The run scoring environment must be taken into account.  For teams that have high OBP and SLG and for parks that lend themselves well to high OBP and SLG (Coors Field vs Petco Park, for instance), it is more likely that a batter can advance the runner while getting on base himself (thus saving the out) than it is for weaker teams/parks.

    2.  While the chances of scoring one run in certain situations increases with a sac bunt, the chances of winning the game actually decreases.  For instance, for the home team in the 8th inning of a tie game, the chance of winning the game when runners are on 1st and 2nd with 0 outs is 89.5% . If a successful sacrifice is made and there are runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, the chance of winning decreases to 80%.

    Note: Those numbers are from 2005 and for all teams, so they would vary depending on run environment.  However, the overall premise remains.

    In short, having the pitcher sacrifice in the NL is typically the best strategy.  Having a non-pitcher sacrifice makes sense only with a runner on 2nd and no outs, only with a small percentage of batters, and only if the team needs one run late (usually the 9th inning).

    It is almost never a good idea to bunt with a runner on first, or early in the game, or if your team is down, even if only by one run.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    just kiddin

    as always

    very interesting stuff ms kimmi

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    just kiddin

    as always

    very interesting stuff ms kimmi




    LOL Zac

    It is very interesting, IMO, how so much of the traditional thinking in baseball is wrong.

    Like thinking that Wins for a pitcher means something.  ;-)

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    No, there is no way to massage out the numbers to take into consideration the batter and the on deck hitter. These numbers are OVERALL numbers over a very large number of games in all situations covering good bunters and bad ones. The fact of the matter is that OVERALL bunting with runners on first and second with nobody out increases your chances of scoring one run. Last night, with Koji coming in, I was pretty sure one run would do it. All closers blow saves, but he has been pretty reliable for us this year. As for Nava being a good bunter or a bad one, ALL batters should be able to bunt when they are called on to do it. Its just good fundamental baseball. I do not know how good a bunter he is or if he practices it, so I am going to assume that since he is a professional he has had experience doing it. I was in favor of it last night; I am in favor of it today too because it would have increased our chances of scoring a run.




    A couple of points to consider here:

     

    1.  The run scoring environment must be taken into account.  For teams that have high OBP and SLG and for parks that lend themselves well to high OBP and SLG (Coors Field vs Petco Park, for instance), it is more likely that a batter can advance the runner while getting on base himself (thus saving the out) than it is for weaker teams/parks.

    While this is true, there are no statistics to my knowledge that prove that your hypothesis is correct. It sounds intuitively right, but many things that sound intuitive end up being proven wrong once numbers are available to properly analyze the situation. Therefore, relying on known facts (bunting with runners on first and second, nobody out, actually does increase the chances of scoring a run). The "park factor" was not included in that study.

     

    2.  While the chances of scoring one run in certain situations increases with a sac bunt, the chances of winning the game actually decreases.  For instance, for the home team in the 8th inning of a tie game, the chance of winning the game when runners are on 1st and 2nd with 0 outs is 89.5% . If a successful sacrifice is made and there are runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, the chance of winning decreases to 80%.

    I have not seen this study. Where is it from?

     

    Note: Those numbers are from 2005 and for all teams, so they would vary depending on run environment.  However, the overall premise remains.

    In short, having the pitcher sacrifice in the NL is typically the best strategy.  Having a non-pitcher sacrifice makes sense only with a runner on 2nd and no outs, only with a small percentage of batters, and only if the team needs one run late (usually the 9th inning).

    It is almost never a good idea to bunt with a runner on first, or early in the game, or if your team is down, even if only by one run.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    Pumpsie, nearly everything I quoted above is from the book Baseball Between the Numbers from the guys at Baseball Prospectus.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=VsmnfVUKJskC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=when+is+one+run+worth+more+than+two+baseball+by+the+numbers&source=bl&ots=t64K-fAhV3&sig=-8udyPBCcrBU-TAI1K97W-T-1qQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4urWUaPVCOeQigLOr4DwDQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=when%20is%20one%20run%20worth%20more%20than%20two%20baseball%20by%20the%20numbers&f=false

     

    The win expectancy numbers from 2005 can be found here:

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/expected_win_matrix2005.premium.php

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Hi Kimmi, hope you had a great 4th..


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Either way, Nava's line, especially against righties, is above that threshold.  The numbers say that he should be swinging away.

    Since sacrificing is most beneficial with a singles and doubles hitter on deck, those lines would decrease if a HR hitter is on deck and increase if a singles/doubles hitter is on deck.



    Kimmi, I think there is another factor in play here too.  If Nava had sacrificed in that situation, I think that the logical move by the Padres would have been to walk Carp and load the bases for Salty.  So in effect it's not just the on deck hitter who matters, it's the hitter after that.  First base is going to be open so you have the option of the intentional walk.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to RedSoxKimmi'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.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    just kiddin

    as always

    very interesting stuff ms kimmi

     




    LOL Zac

     

    It is very interesting, IMO, how so much of the traditional thinking in baseball is wrong.

    Like thinking that Wins for a pitcher means something.  ;-)

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I'm glad that we can agree

     

     

     

     

     

     

    that fiction can be very interesting

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to jete02fan's comment:

    Hi Kimmi, hope you had a great 4th..

    Hi Jete, thanks.  I had a great 4th.

    The weather cooperated and we had a nice, sunny day.

    Any day that involves a cookout is a good day.  Smile

    I hope you had a great one too.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Kimmi, I think there is another factor in play here too.  If Nava had sacrificed in that situation, I think that the logical move by the Padres would have been to walk Carp and load the bases for Salty.  So in effect it's not just the on deck hitter who matters, it's the hitter after that.  First base is going to be open so you have the option of the intentional walk.

    You are absolutely right Bob.  You always have to consider an intentional walk to the batter on deck, which then changes all the percentages (decreases them because of the chance for the DP).

    There are a lot of other factors to consider as well, such as speed of the hitter/runners, the opponent's infield defense, the opposing pitcher, and how well/often the batter has sacrificed.  If I'm not mistaken, Nava does not have one this year and has 2 for his career.

    Often, I think the manager ultimately goes with his gut.  He knows the players better than anyone, and has a good idea of who will be most successful in which situation.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    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?

    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.

    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."

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    that fiction can be very interesting

    Especially brownie induced fiction.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaffyDan. Show DaffyDan's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to DaffyDan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Again, here are the numbers: with first and second, none out, a team’s run expectancy is about 1.5, and the team’s chances of scoring at least one run is 64%.  With second and third, one out, a team’s run expectancy shrinks to 1.4, but the team’s chances of scoring at least one run increases to 69%.


    Those numbers are good for an overview, but what they don't include is a way to massage the number for both the bunter and the on-deck hitter.

    1-The first consideration is that those are mostly NL numbers.  The average NL pitcher averages maybe 6-10 sacs per year.  Someone like Cain has 64 career sacrifices.  Nava I think has 2 in the pros and 4 in the minors, maybe an average of 1 per year.  I would suggest that the difference between Nava bunting and Cain bunting more than make up the difference between 69% and 64%.

    2-The pitcher is always followed by the lead-off hitter.  The lead-off hitter in the NL strikes out maybe 15.5% of the time, while is at a bout 40% this year.

    3-Nava, against righties, is a well-above average hitter.

    4-And lastly, some consideration has to be given to the .1 RE you give up.  Against Paps, I wouuldn't consider it as worth almost anything.  Against Uehara, the small chance of a 2nd run is worth a couple of percentage points.

    Last night, I was in favor of a bunt.  In retrospect, I think swinging away was better.  Though I doubt there is much of an advantage either way.

     

     

     



    No, there is no way to massage out the numbers to take into consideration the batter and the on deck hitter. These numbers are OVERALL numbers over a very large number of games in all situations covering good bunters and bad ones. The fact of the matter is that OVERALL bunting with runners on first and second with nobody out increases your chances of scoring one run. Last night, with Koji coming in, I was pretty sure one run would do it. All closers blow saves, but he has been pretty reliable for us this year. As for Nava being a good bunter or a bad one, ALL batters should be able to bunt when they are called on to do it. Its just good fundamental baseball. I do not know how good a bunter he is or if he practices it, so I am going to assume that since he is a professional he has had experience doing it. I was in favor of it last night; I am in favor of it today too because it would have increased our chances of scoring a run.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    That's only when the bunt works. It does not factor in how often it doesn't work, because those numbers don't exist.

    If you give the bunt a high .450 success probability the numbers are still significantly lower for a run scoring chance with men on 1st and 2nd with none out:

     

     

    In other words, we will get at least one run in only 594 cases out of 1,000. Before the bunt our chances were 619 out of 1,000, so we have shot ourselves down. Of course, if our hypothetical data in 1 to 5 above are too pessimistic, the correct result will be a little more favorable to bunting, but it would appear that any realistic estimates will lead to the conclusion that bunting is not prof itable on the average.

    http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0534094929_46534.pdf

    -Daf.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No Dan, that stat means if a bunt is ATTEMPED. Here is a passage from the link I posted above indicating that an ATTEMPTED bunt increases the chances of scoring a run. Sometimes a different but also positive result is achieved, and attempting a bunt is what produces a higher chance of scoring a run:  

     

    Up until this point, we’ve discussed successful sacrifice bunts, where the batter is out and the runners advance.  But not all bunts produce this result: according to “The Book”, bunts with men on base result in a sacrifice about half the time. The bunter achieves a different but positive result about 19% of the time (anything from a walk to a bunt single to a two-strike swinging hit). Another 31% of results are negative: the batter strikes out, or bunts into a force play, or hits into a double play (either bunting or eventually swinging away).  But the positives here outweigh the negatives: the average run expectancy following a sacrifice attempt (ignoring all other factors, including number of outs and runners on base) is about .13 higher than that following a successful sacrifice where the batter is out and the runners advance.

    [/QUOTE]


    There are no bunt attempt stats kept. Only successful sacrifice hits and fly balls. These guys get their numbers from extrapolating from sources like rotosheet and others, and they are usually only from recent seasons, not the magnitude of generations that I believe you claim in earlier posts.

    I don't know how they guesstimate things like bunt attempts that result in foul balls that generate 2 strike counts and then get taken off.

    IOW, these numbers are highly suspect. My source say that if you succeed .450 then the bunt with no out two on and needing only one run is still a bad play.

    Yours says it is a good play.

    Others I have read says it depends on where in the batting order you are to determine the proper play: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php

    And none of them represent the specific example that Nava has a .398 OBP vs righties and Carp has close to the same. Which increases the argument for swing away. (As others have pointed out). 

    Which when all is said: What is the best late game strategy at home when you need 1 run, there are no outs, and men on 1st and 2nd? Bunt or swing away?

    Answer: It depends.

    -Daf.

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    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. 




     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to DaffyDan's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DaffyDan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Again, here are the numbers: with first and second, none out, a team’s run expectancy is about 1.5, and the team’s chances of scoring at least one run is 64%.  With second and third, one out, a team’s run expectancy shrinks to 1.4, but the team’s chances of scoring at least one run increases to 69%.


    Those numbers are good for an overview, but what they don't include is a way to massage the number for both the bunter and the on-deck hitter.

    1-The first consideration is that those are mostly NL numbers.  The average NL pitcher averages maybe 6-10 sacs per year.  Someone like Cain has 64 career sacrifices.  Nava I think has 2 in the pros and 4 in the minors, maybe an average of 1 per year.  I would suggest that the difference between Nava bunting and Cain bunting more than make up the difference between 69% and 64%.

    2-The pitcher is always followed by the lead-off hitter.  The lead-off hitter in the NL strikes out maybe 15.5% of the time, while is at a bout 40% this year.

    3-Nava, against righties, is a well-above average hitter.

    4-And lastly, some consideration has to be given to the .1 RE you give up.  Against Paps, I wouuldn't consider it as worth almost anything.  Against Uehara, the small chance of a 2nd run is worth a couple of percentage points.

    Last night, I was in favor of a bunt.  In retrospect, I think swinging away was better.  Though I doubt there is much of an advantage either way.

     

     

     

     



    No, there is no way to massage out the numbers to take into consideration the batter and the on deck hitter. These numbers are OVERALL numbers over a very large number of games in all situations covering good bunters and bad ones. The fact of the matter is that OVERALL bunting with runners on first and second with nobody out increases your chances of scoring one run. Last night, with Koji coming in, I was pretty sure one run would do it. All closers blow saves, but he has been pretty reliable for us this year. As for Nava being a good bunter or a bad one, ALL batters should be able to bunt when they are called on to do it. Its just good fundamental baseball. I do not know how good a bunter he is or if he practices it, so I am going to assume that since he is a professional he has had experience doing it. I was in favor of it last night; I am in favor of it today too because it would have increased our chances of scoring a run.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    That's only when the bunt works. It does not factor in how often it doesn't work, because those numbers don't exist.

    If you give the bunt a high .450 success probability the numbers are still significantly lower for a run scoring chance with men on 1st and 2nd with none out:

     

     

     

    In other words, we will get at least one run in only 594 cases out of 1,000. Before the bunt our chances were 619 out of 1,000, so we have shot ourselves down. Of course, if our hypothetical data in 1 to 5 above are too pessimistic, the correct result will be a little more favorable to bunting, but it would appear that any realistic estimates will lead to the conclusion that bunting is not prof itable on the average.

    http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0534094929_46534.pdf

    -Daf.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No Dan, that stat means if a bunt is ATTEMPED. Here is a passage from the link I posted above indicating that an ATTEMPTED bunt increases the chances of scoring a run. Sometimes a different but also positive result is achieved, and attempting a bunt is what produces a higher chance of scoring a run:  

     

     

    Up until this point, we’ve discussed successful sacrifice bunts, where the batter is out and the runners advance.  But not all bunts produce this result: according to “The Book”, bunts with men on base result in a sacrifice about half the time. The bunter achieves a different but positive result about 19% of the time (anything from a walk to a bunt single to a two-strike swinging hit). Another 31% of results are negative: the batter strikes out, or bunts into a force play, or hits into a double play (either bunting or eventually swinging away).  But the positives here outweigh the negatives: the average run expectancy following a sacrifice attempt (ignoring all other factors, including number of outs and runners on base) is about .13 higher than that following a successful sacrifice where the batter is out and the runners advance.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    There are no bunt attempt stats kept. Only successful sacrifice hits and fly balls. These guys get their numbers from extrapolating from sources like rotosheet and others, and they are usually only from recent seasons, not the magnitude of generations that I believe you claim in earlier posts.

     

    I don't know how they guesstimate things like bunt attempts that result in foul balls that generate 2 strike counts and then get taken off.

    IOW, these numbers are highly suspect. My source say that if you succeed .450 then the bunt with no out two on and needing only one run is still a bad play.

    Yours says it is a good play.

    Others I have read says it depends on where in the batting order you are to determine the proper play: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php

    And none of them represent the specific example that Nava has a .398 OBP vs righties and Carp has close to the same. Which increases the argument for swing away. (As others have pointed out). 

    Which when all is said: What is the best late game strategy at home when you need 1 run, there are no outs, and men on 1st and 2nd? Bunt or swing away?

    Answer: It depends.

    -Daf.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree that the manager has to consider many factors besides the generalization that bunting with runners on first and second and nobody out increases the likelihood of scoring a run. That is a well documented matter of fact over a wide range of circumstances. Its really not disputable. That said, if you have a guy with .900 OPS coming up after the bunter he will most likely be walked and if the next guy is batting below the Mendoza line, you have just shot yourself in the foot even if the bunt is successful. There are other circumstances where bunting would have been a poor decision too. I guess what happened the other night with Nava ends up being a matter of opinion as to the proper tactic. I believe a bunt was the proper call; Salty is no slouch with the bat and a runner would have been on third with one out. In addition, Nava could have killed the rally by GIDP. Others have a different opinion as to what the proper tactic was. Neither opinion is correct and neither opinion is wrong. What is a fact is that in general bunting in that situation does increase the odds of scoring a single run.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    On the "buy low" front, would anyone take a chance on Jeff Francoeur benefiting from a change of scenery?

    I know he's been disappointing at the plate since scoring the big contract, but he used to have some pop in that bat, hits from the right and has quite an arm.

    Ells walks, you can slide Vic over and have a ready made RF.

    It'd be a gamble, but is there any price cheap enough to make it worth a shot?

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    No, there is no way to massage out the numbers to take into consideration the batter and the on deck hitter.

    I assume you meant to say 'you and I' couldn't massage the numbers, which is mostly true. 

    For $5,000, I could take apart the existing database, and create some strata about how the numbers change if Carew or Alou are bunting, as opposed to Papi or Ryan Howard are bunting.

    Or how often Salty will score someone from 3rd as opposed to a cleanup hitter.

    But mostly I assume Bill James already has this information.  I'd make a bet that he knows exactly what the difference is between the average NL pitcher bunting, and what the expectations are for your average non-bunting hitter.

     



    It's incredible what kinds of stats these guys have.  If you can think of a stat, chances are the geeks are 3 steps ahead of you.

     

    From the guys at Baseball Propectus, if you want to score exactly 1 run and there are runners on 1st and 2nd with 0 outs, you should sacrifice only if the batter has a slash line below .206/.235/.263 .

    Interestingly enough, if there is a runner only on 2nd with 0 outs (risk of GIDP eliminated) then the slash line increases to .277/.350/.451 . 

    Either way, Nava's line, especially against righties, is above that threshold.  The numbers say that he should be swinging away.

    Since sacrificing is most beneficial with a singles and doubles hitter on deck, those lines would decrease if a HR hitter is on deck and increase if a singles/doubles hitter is on deck.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yup.  The folks at FG and BP are light years ahead of us.

    And the folks at FG and BP are hoping to get noticed by the Bill James' of the world.

    It's common sense to take into account the bunter's ability, the on-deck hitter's ability, the chances of Capr getting walked and reliance, or lack of reliance on Salty's K-rate.

    If commoners like us can talk semi-intelligently about these matters, then people the caliber of Bill James have these numbers in a chart already.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    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.   

     

    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.

    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. 

    We were not discussing playing for one run by any means.  We we specifically discussing whether Nava should have sac bunted (and I know what the score of that game was).  You are quoting things without context, and you are looking only at stats that support your opinion and disregarding those that don't. 

    Yes, I know that a sac bunt in that situation increases the chance of scoring a single run, on average.  I also know that, on average, it also decreases the win expectancy of the game.  I also know that with a hitter of Nava's caliber, sac bunting decreases the chance of scoring at least one run. 

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Yup.  The folks at FG and BP are light years ahead of us.

    And the folks at FG and BP are hoping to get noticed by the Bill James' of the world.

    It's common sense to take into account the bunter's ability, the on-deck hitter's ability, the chances of Capr getting walked and reliance, or lack of reliance on Salty's K-rate.

    If commoners like us can talk semi-intelligently about these matters, then people the caliber of Bill James have these numbers in a chart already.

    One of my favorite things to do is to read the comments on the articles at Fangraphs.  The articles themselves are typically very good.  But then you get to the comments, where the folks are debating and adding more insight, often with a touch of humor, and it's just awesome. 

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Yup.  The folks at FG and BP are light years ahead of us.

    And the folks at FG and BP are hoping to get noticed by the Bill James' of the world.

    It's common sense to take into account the bunter's ability, the on-deck hitter's ability, the chances of Capr getting walked and reliance, or lack of reliance on Salty's K-rate.

    If commoners like us can talk semi-intelligently about these matters, then people the caliber of Bill James have these numbers in a chart already.

     

     

    One of my favorite things to do is to read the comments on the articles at Fangraphs.  The articles themselves are typically very good.  But then you get to the comments, where the folks are debating and adding more insight, often with a touch of humor, and it's just awesome. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I do the same thing.  The people that comment are more on my level.  Some of the FG articles are too deep for me.  And they love graphs, and I am programmed for concrete and discrete numbers.  A lot of the comments basically ask the same questions that I would ask, and are often answered in a dumbed-down format that some of the grey-haired prefer.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share