- 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: For those complaining about Maineri and his lack of bunting
Posted on 4/23/15 at 11:59 pm to lsupride87
Posted on 4/23/15 at 11:59 pm to lsupride87
I actually think the lack of bunting may be more of Cannizaro's influence. We bunted alot more the last few years in similar situations.
2
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:01 am to josh336
Except with Rhymes...
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:04 am to josh336
Cannizaro not wanting to bunt would make sense. He is an MLB guy and they have figured out bunting is not the correct play
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:18 am to lsupride87
So I've been doing more reading... This seems to be a good rule for MLB and for reasons that only pertain to MLB. Things like "power hitters throughout the lineup". MLB averages over 1 Hr a game. College is half that. And many of the hitters aren't good bunters so they fail more often than they "should".
This seems to be more of a knock on bunting every time a certain situation arises rather than when most would deem it necessary: late inning(s), tied, not middle of the order, etc.
This seems to be more of a knock on bunting every time a certain situation arises rather than when most would deem it necessary: late inning(s), tied, not middle of the order, etc.
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:22 am to ell_13
quote:It is statistically wrong even in the bottom of the 9th inning. I know dude, it was hard to accept for me too
This seems to be more of a knock on bunting every time a certain situation arises rather than when most would deem it necessary: late inning(s), tied, not middle of the order, etc.
Sometimes we just have to understand what we grew up hearing was wrongPosted on 4/24/15 at 12:23 am to ell_13
One thing to remember as well is that these expected run tables are all run from the steroid, live ball era as well.
It would be interesting to see these tables adjusted for the ridiculousness that post BBCOR college baseball has become.
I agree that if you are looking longterm over a whole 160 game season, the averages say that you should not bunt and you will score more runs in the long haul.
But they don't take into account individual situations with individual players when the goal is to just score one run this inning right now.
It would be interesting to see these tables adjusted for the ridiculousness that post BBCOR college baseball has become.
I agree that if you are looking longterm over a whole 160 game season, the averages say that you should not bunt and you will score more runs in the long haul.
But they don't take into account individual situations with individual players when the goal is to just score one run this inning right now.
This post was edited on 4/24/15 at 12:25 am
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:26 am to lsupride87
In a tied game? No. Again, read catholic's link. Read what I said about yours. It's based on a run expectation table. If you need a single run, there's still no data to suggest one over the other and it doesn't take into account the batter's abilities and the ones who follow. It's only suggesting that you will get MORE runs from a no out, 2-on situation.
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:33 am to ell_13
quote:
So I've been doing more reading... This seems to be a good rule for MLB and for reasons that only pertain to MLB. Things like "power hitters throughout the lineup". MLB averages over 1 Hr a game. College is half that. And many of the hitters aren't good bunters so they fail more often than they "should".
College is still a more offensive game. On average, college hitters slash lines dwarf pro hitters so bunting should make even less sense (although to be fair a lot of that is beefed up on crummy non conference schedules). Now college fielders are worse than pro fielders, so there is probably a better chance of reaching on a bunt, so that would argue in favor of bunt. Still I think the higher run environment in college means bunting makes less sense there.
This post was edited on 4/24/15 at 12:35 am
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:34 am to lsupride87
Even in the bottom of the 9th with a tie game, sac bunting is purposely butting your team in a situation where you have less chance of winning
quote:
The win expectancy for a home team trailing by one in the bottom of the ninth is higher with a runner on first and nobody out than it is with a runner on second and one out
This post was edited on 4/24/15 at 12:35 am
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:42 am to Tiger79
I've also posted for Yall the advance saber metrics that show when to never bunt, when to always bunt, and when the decision is 50/50
quote:. So for Lsu the decision should be simple. Don't bunt
Thus, we can conclude that, in this simple case, no matter who is coming up next, any batter hitting below .075 should always sacrifice, while any batter hitting better than .243 should never sacrifice. If nothing else, this conclusion lends further credibility to the idea that pitchers should almost always sacrifice if given the op
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:43 am to lsupride87
These are numbers pulled from one season in the MLB(2003).
But they are the probability that a team will score at least one run in the current inning. This is only article I've found that actually tries to take the goal of scoring one run into account.
Runners
Outs None 1st 2nd 3rd 1st&2nd 1st&3rd 2nd&3rd Loaded
0 0.284 0.433 0.635 0.835 0.644 0.863 0.869 0.888
1 0.167 0.273 0.411 0.693 0.420 0.642 0.689 0.660
2 0.073 0.132 0.224 0.274 0.227 0.280 0.254 0.327
LINK
Compare 1st and 2nd no outs probability to 2nd and 3rd one out.
Again, it's one season of data and makes an assumption that you are 100% sure your guy will get the bunt down.
But again, I think there are specific situation holes in the never bunt argument.
But they are the probability that a team will score at least one run in the current inning. This is only article I've found that actually tries to take the goal of scoring one run into account.
Runners
Outs None 1st 2nd 3rd 1st&2nd 1st&3rd 2nd&3rd Loaded
0 0.284 0.433 0.635 0.835 0.644 0.863 0.869 0.888
1 0.167 0.273 0.411 0.693 0.420 0.642 0.689 0.660
2 0.073 0.132 0.224 0.274 0.227 0.280 0.254 0.327
LINK
Compare 1st and 2nd no outs probability to 2nd and 3rd one out.
Again, it's one season of data and makes an assumption that you are 100% sure your guy will get the bunt down.
But again, I think there are specific situation holes in the never bunt argument.
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:47 am to extremetigerfanatic
that .075/.243 conclusion doesnt contemplate when the goal is only to score one run. it is a long term conclusion. That same guy is the one I got the above stats from where he does contemplate the goal of scoring one run now.
It comes down to what are you looking at?
Is this a midweek game for the Braves in May? Hell yeah, go with the numbers on a situation that will occur a few hundred times again.
In the 8th or 9th of the NLCS with a trip to the WS on the line and you just need one run? Maybe you do lay one down.
It comes down to what are you looking at?
Is this a midweek game for the Braves in May? Hell yeah, go with the numbers on a situation that will occur a few hundred times again.
In the 8th or 9th of the NLCS with a trip to the WS on the line and you just need one run? Maybe you do lay one down.
This post was edited on 4/24/15 at 12:57 am
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:59 am to ell_13
quote:
1-5 innings. Middle of the order. No. You don't fricking bunt. 7th inning. Tie game. Your best bunter followed your best chance at a ball into the OF. You bunt. PM has made this mistake so many times it's hilarious.
You don't understand how statistics work.
Posted on 4/24/15 at 12:59 am to extremetigerfanatic
I'm fine with that. But the correct line of thinking is "don't bunt except for the rare exceptions that say to bunt". However, for most people in our baseball threads it is the opposite. Hell, one guy jn there said he watches MLB and Ortiz bunts 100% of the time in that situation. I almost lost my shite
This post was edited on 4/24/15 at 1:00 am
Posted on 4/24/15 at 1:06 am to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
It comes down to what are you looking at?
Is this a midweek game for the Braves in May? Hell yeah, go with the numbers on a situation that will occur a few hundred times again.
In the 8th or 9th of the NLCS with a trip to the WS on the line and you just need one run? Maybe you do lay one down.
Why the difference?
Posted on 4/24/15 at 7:09 am to Lou Pai
I do. And I understand significance and generalizations. What if the numbers are different for college? What if they are different for LSU specifically? Say I look at the success rate the last 10 years on bunting vs hitting away in that situation and it turns out bunting is more successful.
Posted on 4/24/15 at 7:22 am to ell_13
These people are slaves to statistics and have no common sense. You're more likely to score with no outs and a runner on first than you are with one out and a runner on second? Sure--if Cabrera or Trout are coming up to bat. Mark Laird? Probably a different outcome.
Posted on 4/24/15 at 7:25 am to lsupride87
Btw to the OP, that is a run expectancy table on average runs scored based on situations. Read moneyball, do more research, you are still more likely to score a single run in an inning with a runner at 2nd and one out. The percentages show that.
Posted on 4/24/15 at 7:30 am to josh336
That's been said a few times now. He's ignored it.
Posted on 4/24/15 at 8:03 am to josh336
quote:No you aren't. We have also posted data showing that not bunting is still the better play to score a SINGLE RUN. Yall just don't want to accept it
Btw to the OP, that is a run expectancy table on average runs scored based on situations. Read moneyball, do more research, you are still more likely to score a single run in an inning with a runner at 2nd and one out. The percentages show that.
quote:
Finally, we need to consider that sacrificing is a strategy often employed when getting one run is more important to winning than scoring many. To use the current set of equations to check that, we simply replace the run expectation values with the probability that the team will score at least one run. For 2003, the probabilities ar
quote:
Runners Outs None 1st 2nd 3rd 1st&2nd 1st&3rd 2nd&3rd Loaded 0 0.284 0.433 0.635 0.835 0.644 0.863 0.869 0.888 1 0.167 0.273 0.411 0.693 0.420 0.642 0.689 0.660 2 0.073 0.132 0.224 0.274 0.227 0.280 0.254 0.327
LINK. So will Yall admit you are wrong now? Or will you incorrectly still say "bunt went you need ONlY 1 RUN"
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News