Re: Stirring the hornet's nest ...
posted at 7/6/2013 10:46 AM EDT
In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
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.
Pardon me, but I WAS discussing playing for one run as a means to win the game. You may have been discussing something else, but I wasn't. The means of scoring that run was a discussion of whether or not Nava should have bunted, and that is a matter of opinion. I maintain that it was the right thing to do; you feel it was not and I understand your reasoning and respect it. But I am not convinced of it by any means. We will have to agree to disagree, congenially, I hope.