- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: UF Series Takeaways
Posted on 3/28/17 at 8:49 am to ell_13
Posted on 3/28/17 at 8:49 am to ell_13
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.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 8:55 am to LSURussian
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:
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.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 8:57 am
Posted on 3/28/17 at 9:01 am to LSURussian
LINK
Here is what you are looking for. Run expectancy and the probability of scoring >0
For this weekends exact situation:
0 outs; runner on 2B
Run expectancy: 1.13
>0 run probability: 0.633
1 out; runner on 3B
Run expectancy: 0.96
>0 run probability: 0.667
ETA: These stats are from MLB seasons 1984-1994. Others have done their own compilation with more recent data and the numbers have come out very similar. Most believe the "steroid era" began in 1994 as well, fwiw. Just thought I would point this out since they don't match perfectly with the data from my first link.
Here is what you are looking for. Run expectancy and the probability of scoring >0
For this weekends exact situation:
0 outs; runner on 2B
Run expectancy: 1.13
>0 run probability: 0.633
1 out; runner on 3B
Run expectancy: 0.96
>0 run probability: 0.667
ETA: These stats are from MLB seasons 1984-1994. Others have done their own compilation with more recent data and the numbers have come out very similar. Most believe the "steroid era" began in 1994 as well, fwiw. Just thought I would point this out since they don't match perfectly with the data from my first link.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 9:08 am
Posted on 3/28/17 at 9:01 am to LSURussian
quote:You must have been awful at math. Ell is 100% correct
Ell, your statement does not agree with the stat Groupee posted, quoted below.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 9:16 am to LSURussian
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!
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!
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)