re: UF Series Takeaways

Oh boy

quote:

---

But at the end of the game, when only one run is needed a bunt is the statistically better play that eventually leads to a tie/win.

---

IE....Florida's one run on Friday night.

I also think not having to use anyone in the bullpen on Friday night had a good bit to do with going for the win.

quote:

---

I think jordan gets way too much hate on this site.

---

I don't hate him. as a matter of fact i picked him to hit the first HR before the season started. He just seems to disappoint more often than not.

He doesnt fail at much of a higher rate than most of the starters.

His obp is actually higher than duplantis and slaughter at the moment. He is hitting .327 which is a good average.

quote:

---

In which situation are you more likely to score at least one run? Hint: It's with a runner at 3B and 1 out.

---

Ell, your statement does not agree with the stat Groupee posted, quoted below.

quote:

---

Scoring from second with none out has a run expectancy of 1.228. Scoring from third with one out has a run expectancy of .980.

---

I don't know if his stat is accurate, or like 78.6575% of statistics quoted on the internet, it's just made up.

My brief readings of Sabermetrics says the overriding principle to baseball is conserving the only rules-limiting resource to scoring, 27 outs in a regulation game.

So, giving up one of those 27 outs should only be done to increase chances of scoring, or, to decrease chances of giving up more outs, i.e., a double play.

Groupee, could you post a link or cite a source for the numbers you gave above? Much appreciated.

Put it this way... you are more likely to score zero runs with no outs and a runner on 2B than 1 out and a runner on 3B.

Run expectancy is an average. What I'm talking about is probability.

From the article I linked, which looks at 2 runners on base:

quote:

---

But what about bunting over runners on 1st and 2nd? The run expectancy for runners on 1st and 2nd and no outs is 1.47 runs, and the specific breakdown is as follows:

Runs Probability
0....... 36.99%
1....... 22.94%
2....... 16.27%
3....... 12.23%
4+..... 11.57%

For runners on 2nd and 3rd and one out, the run expectancy is 1.36 runs, and the specific breakdown is as follows:

Runs Probability
0....... 33.26%
1....... 27.34%
2....... 22.28%
3....... 9.11%
4+..... 8.01%

Now we're getting somewhere. You've still reduced your overall run expectancy. But you've decreased your chances of scoring 0 runs by 3.62%, so you've increased your likelihood of scoring at least one run. What's more, you've increased your chances of scoring exactly one run by almost 5%, and exactly two runs by 6%! Basically, the sacrifice you're making is increasing your probability of scoring 1-2 runs at the expense of scoring 3 or more. So in a close game in the later innings and runners on first and second, it (and it hurts to say this) might make sense to bunt them over.

---

quote:

---

Ell, your statement does not agree with the stat Groupee posted, quoted below.

---

You must have been awful at math. Ell is 100% correct

Our bullpen is stranding 67% of inherited runners in SEC play (6 of 9). While not great, it's still a small sample size and does represent an improvement over the season average (59%).

We also stranded the only inherited runner in the SELU game. So since the start of SEC play we've stranded 70%.

What do the stats say about hit and runs? Because we call for a ton of them and occasionally one works out.

Bunt = bad
Hit and Run = OMG this is the most bestest play in the world and the only way to kick start a slumping offense!

quote:

---

I'll get back to you in about 3 years...

---

Looking forward to it...

ETA: Going back to the first link you gave (the long article) I now know that Groupee was using "run expectancy" rather than ">0 runs" odds in the situations we're talking about. Run expectancy is not the same as >0 runs and scoring >0 runs is what I was wanting to learn about. Good stuff. Thanks again.