August 2, 200619 yr Helms should NOT have been bunting in that situation. Girardi really lucked out. lolololololololol [ Instincts tell me that three is bigger than two. 3 chances to get 2 hits......1/3 chance to get one hit 2 chances to get 1 hit.......1/3 chance to get a hit Which one gives you a better chance to get the run in? It's really not even a close call IMO. I read a good sabremetrics study on this once and the numbers were clearly in my favor. I would like nothing better than to find it. glad to see i was right that stats are once again getting in the way of instinct. Especially when you factor in all the variables. Amazing that it continues consistently. It's not stats getting in the way of instinct, it's stats getting in the way of baseball knowledge.
August 2, 200619 yr Helms should NOT have been bunting in that situation. Girardi really lucked out. lolololololololol [ Instincts tell me that three is bigger than two. 3 chances to get 2 hits......1/3 chance to get one hit 2 chances to get 1 hit.......1/3 chance to get a hit Which one gives you a better chance to get the run in? It's really not even a close call IMO. I read a good sabremetrics study on this once and the numbers were clearly in my favor. I would like nothing better than to find it. glad to see i was right that stats are once again getting in the way of instinct. Especially when you factor in all the variables. Amazing that it continues consistently. What is that even supposed to mean? Jack used to trust his so called "instincts" and cost the Marlins games? My instincts never tell me to give up outs. my instincts tell me that you want to put your team in the best position to score a run in that situation. Against a pitcher like Billy Wagner that is without any doubt by bunting over the runner to second. The odds of getting two more base hits in that situation are far greater than having to get three.
August 2, 200619 yr I read a good sabremetrics study on this once and the numbers were clearly in my favor. I would like nothing better than to find it. There's no way. Maybe the average number of runs scored when you don't bunt is higher, but the one run certainly scores more often when you bunt the runner over. If we were arguing in person I'd bet you lunch that you read that wrong.
August 2, 200619 yr I didn't realize anybody on the planet would question Helms bunting there. I thought it'd be outrageous if he didn't put one down.
August 2, 200619 yr I agreed with the bunt. Stay out of the DP and give yourself 2 chances at a game tying single
August 2, 200619 yr my instincts tell me that you want to put your team in the best position to score a run in that situation. Against a pitcher like Billy Wagner that is without any doubt by bunting over the runner to second. The odds of getting two more base hits in that situation are far greater than having to get three. You're absolutely right. At that point, against a pitcher like Wagner, you are playing for the tie, even though you're the home team. Willingham's homer was just the frosting on the cake.
August 2, 200619 yr LMAO. That put a huge smile on my face. Cheer up, Penguin dude. The good guys won tonight.
August 2, 200619 yr I'm doing some quick searching to find my source (I haven't found it yet), but I've dug this up from a Washington Post article: Using data from the 2003 season, Click found that a team with a runner on first base and no outs subsequently averaged 0.919 of a run per inning. But with a runner on second and one out -- which is to say, following a hypothetical sacrifice bunt -- a team averaged 0.706 of a run per inning. That means a bunt in that situation actually "costs" a team 0.213 of a run each time it is deployed. Now, this is in the right direction but I remember reading something that indicates that the bunt reduces your chances of scoring a run AT ALL. But you know what? We scored that run. Two of them in fact. And we WON!
August 2, 200619 yr I'm doing some quick searching to find my source (I haven't found it yet), but I've dug this up from a Washington Post article: Using data from the 2003 season, Click found that a team with a runner on first base and no outs subsequently averaged 0.919 of a run per inning. But with a runner on second and one out -- which is to say, following a hypothetical sacrifice bunt -- a team averaged 0.706 of a run per inning. That means a bunt in that situation actually "costs" a team 0.213 of a run each time it is deployed. Now, this is in the right direction but I remember reading something that indicates that the bunt reduces your chances of scoring a run AT ALL. That's pretty much what I stated, and it really is to be expected.....for anyone who has had investment classes it is sort of analogous to risky investments. The expected return of risky investments is always higher, but the variance is also high. The instructor shows you that small stocks have a high average return, medium company stocks have a decent average return, and large company stocks have a smaller average return. Why would you ever pick a lower return? Answer....because in some cases the variance may not be worth it. Sometimes you forego the opportunity for a higher return to ensure a minimum return. In this case the one run is so important that you are willing to forego the higher expected return so that you have a better chance of getting the one run.
August 2, 200619 yr So how many time have stats won games? For all the ballyhoo, Billy Beane has never won anything and his whole system is based on stats like that.
August 2, 200619 yr So how many time have stats won games? For all the ballyhoo, Billy Beane has never won anything and his whole system is based on stats like that. Why do you guys assume the stats favor not bunting? I don't feel like looking them up, but I gaurantee if you bunt the runner to 2nd you are more likely to score that runner than if you don't. I'm not saying that you'll score more runs, on average, just that you'll score the 1 run more often. No question the run scores more often if you bunt the runner over.
August 2, 200619 yr As the self proclaimed biggest Willy Homer on this board, I saw that A MILE AWAY!!!! WHAT A SWING!!!! AMAZING!
August 2, 200619 yr I know, I'm just really beginning not to like Girardi. I guess a lot of managers would have done the same thing though... Well, I for one commend him. He was given this job. Stripped of his veteran talent. Told to "teach these rookies how to play." Had to start his 25 year old rookie second baseman. Left for dead by EVERYONE. And with 42 games into the season, he flipped the switch. COMPLETELY, turned us around. Has us playing good (dare I say great?) baseball. He has 4, count them, 4! Rookie guns in his rotation, and a slightly struggling Willis, not to mention 6 starting rookie feilders, and a catcher whos greatest asset coming into this season was his footspeed. And yet, amazingly, we are 6 games out of a play-off spot. ONLY SIX!! If someone were to tell me we'd be 6 games under .500 in August, I would have considered him dangerous to the public from alcoholism, and probably would have punched him the face. I'm not sure anyone else could have pulled this off like Girardi has.
August 2, 200619 yr I know, I'm just really beginning not to like Girardi. I guess a lot of managers would have done the same thing though... So this is all about a beef, I guess, especially considered you admit most managers would do the same thing. BTW, the highlight was like the 6th one on SportsCenter. Whazzup with that? :thumbdown
August 2, 200619 yr And yet, amazingly, we are 6 games out of a play-off spot. ONLY SIX!! Actually we're now 5 out :mischief
August 2, 200619 yr Helms should NOT have been bunting in that situation. Girardi really lucked out. What if Helms hit a dp? :whistle
August 2, 200619 yr How does not bunting automatically be considered more risky? Think of "risky" in the sense of the riskiness of scoring the 1 run. By taking on the additional riskiness, you are increasing the potential reward. On average, you will score more runs by NOT bunting the runner over.....that's the reason you usually don't see the runner bunted over early in the game (at least by managers other than Jack McKeon ) Why is it a good idea to bunt the runner over late in the game when it's not a good idea to do it early? Because of the importance of 1 run. When you decide to forego the possible riches of a big inning and bunt, you are increasing your chances of scoring at least one run. Late in the game, especially when down by 1, you will sacrifice the chance at a big inning to increase your chance at scoring only 1 run.
August 2, 200619 yr Helms should NOT have been bunting in that situation. Girardi really lucked out. who cares? Because I am beginning to doubt Girardi's managerial skills. Can we add this to the long list that people question about Girardi move?
August 2, 200619 yr Helms should NOT have been bunting in that situation. Girardi really lucked out. lolololololololol [ Instincts tell me that three is bigger than two. 3 chances to get 2 hits......1/3 chance to get one hit 2 chances to get 1 hit.......1/3 chance to get a hit Which one gives you a better chance to get the run in? It's really not even a close call IMO. I read a good sabremetrics study on this once and the numbers were clearly in my favor. I would like nothing better than to find it. glad to see i was right that stats are once again getting in the way of instinct. Especially when you factor in all the variables. Amazing that it continues consistently. It's not stats getting in the way of instinct, it's stats getting in the way of baseball knowledge. Then go watch the Yankees game and share your thought with yankees fans over there and let Girardi play smallball with this team that isn't very impressive in clutch situation.
August 2, 200619 yr I'm doing some quick searching to find my source (I haven't found it yet), but I've dug this up from a Washington Post article: Using data from the 2003 season, Click found that a team with a runner on first base and no outs subsequently averaged 0.919 of a run per inning. But with a runner on second and one out -- which is to say, following a hypothetical sacrifice bunt -- a team averaged 0.706 of a run per inning. That means a bunt in that situation actually "costs" a team 0.213 of a run each time it is deployed. Now, this is in the right direction but I remember reading something that indicates that the bunt reduces your chances of scoring a run AT ALL. Now can you search and see it is possible to find the percentages of sucessfully scoring a run in both of those situation: (The whole point of bunting, tieing the game) Or perhape finding a better state like the W-L aftermath from both situation during the 9th innings, offense team playing home.
August 2, 200619 yr Is it Me? or is Herges really picthing very well, im starting to trust him over Messenger and Kensing. as soon as messenger and kensing come in im saying to myself oh damn, here we go, latley herges has been ok Herges :thumbup Messenger and Kensing "Oh No" :thumbdown :thumbdown
August 2, 200619 yr BTW Willinghams hit got named "The Big Moment" on FSN...I think it was on Final Score.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.