Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:40 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:03 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3495
Location: Economy, PA
The turning point in Saturday night's 9-7 loss to Colorado was Jack Wilson's failed sacrifice bunt attempt in the top of the eighth.

At that point we had just scored a run, were up 7-4, and had men on first and second with nobody out. You had the sense that the Pirates were about to put this game out of reach.

To the Rockie's rescue comes John Russell, giving the Rockies an out and immediately changing the momentum of the game. From that point on I felt certain that the Pirates were going to lose.

Sure, you could blame Russell for letting Grabow face a right-handed power hitter who represented the tying run in the bottom of that same inning. But the stage was set by giving the Rockies an out when we had them on the ropes.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:33 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:28 am
Posts: 631
The only aspect of "small ball" that I hate is the sacrifice bunt. Statistically a runner on first base with 0 outs is more likely to score than a runner at second with 1 out. That implies that the out is a bigger deal than the base. Besides, when is it ever a good idea for us to be playing for 1 run like it's the be all end all. We give away outs when we do this and there aren't that many an inning to give away. Unless the pitcher is up there, let the hitters hit!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:43 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
I don't have my scoring expectancy chart handy, but I believe there is a greater chance of scoring with runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out than there is with runners on 1st and 2nd no outs.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Argentum wrote:
I don't have my scoring expectancy chart handy, but I believe there is a greater chance of scoring with runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out than there is with runners on 1st and 2nd no outs.

Yes, but if you look at your run-expectancy chart, you'll see that the number of runs you are likely to score is higher in the latter scenario than in the former. When you're up 7-4, I see no reason to be playing for one run.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4761
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
You are correct about the bunt last night. Oddly enough, things went completely sour from that moment on...

_________________
North Dakota State Bison (0-0) at Iowa State Cyclones (0-0)
Jack Trice Stadium
August 30, 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: I Disagree...
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:09 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
Ralphie wrote:
The turning point in Saturday night's 9-7 loss to Colorado was Jack Wilson's failed sacrifice bunt attempt in the top of the eighth.

At that point we had just scored a run, were up 7-4, and had men on first and second with nobody out. You had the sense that the Pirates were about to put this game out of reach.

To the Rockie's rescue comes John Russell, giving the Rockies an out and immediately changing the momentum of the game. From that point on I felt certain that the Pirates were going to lose.

Sure, you could blame Russell for letting Grabow face a right-handed power hitter who represented the tying run in the bottom of that same inning. But the stage was set by giving the Rockies an out when we had them on the ropes.



If you want to fault somebody, fault Jack Wilson. That was an IDEAL spot for a bunt. Jack didn't get it done. We would have had guys on second and third with one out, followed by a PH, then McCutchen. I would have called a bunt there. All the guys I was watching the game with agreed.

Yes, I do believe that was a very bad part of the game, but it was not a mistake on Russell's part.

_________________
"Live proud! Laugh Loud! Standout in a Crowd!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:01 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Willton wrote:
Argentum wrote:
I don't have my scoring expectancy chart handy, but I believe there is a greater chance of scoring with runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out than there is with runners on 1st and 2nd no outs.

Yes, but if you look at your run-expectancy chart, you'll see that the number of runs you are likely to score is higher in the latter scenario than in the former. When you're up 7-4, I see no reason to be playing for one run.


I'm not sticking up for JR, but if the bunt works a subsequent base hit scores two runs, not one. I'm just saying that a bunt in that situation is not necessarily indicative of playing for "1 run".


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I Disagree...
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Animal wrote:
Ralphie wrote:
The turning point in Saturday night's 9-7 loss to Colorado was Jack Wilson's failed sacrifice bunt attempt in the top of the eighth.

At that point we had just scored a run, were up 7-4, and had men on first and second with nobody out. You had the sense that the Pirates were about to put this game out of reach.

To the Rockie's rescue comes John Russell, giving the Rockies an out and immediately changing the momentum of the game. From that point on I felt certain that the Pirates were going to lose.

Sure, you could blame Russell for letting Grabow face a right-handed power hitter who represented the tying run in the bottom of that same inning. But the stage was set by giving the Rockies an out when we had them on the ropes.



If you want to fault somebody, fault Jack Wilson. That was an IDEAL spot for a bunt. Jack didn't get it done. We would have had guys on second and third with one out, followed by a PH, then McCutchen. I would have called a bunt there. All the guys I was watching the game with agreed.

Yes, I do believe that was a very bad part of the game, but it was not a mistake on Russell's part.

No, that was a mistake by Russell. The only time it is ideal to ask a position player to bunt is when the score is tied, not when you're up by 3 runs. As bad a hitter as Jack is, he is more likely to help the team by swinging away, even assuming he can execute a bunt correctly. Jack's bad bunt is not the reason why they lost, but him swinging away could have prevented the loss, even assuming the bullpen's later meltdown.

There is absolutely no excuse for giving away outs when you are up by 3 runs. None.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Argentum wrote:
Willton wrote:
Argentum wrote:
I don't have my scoring expectancy chart handy, but I believe there is a greater chance of scoring with runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out than there is with runners on 1st and 2nd no outs.

Yes, but if you look at your run-expectancy chart, you'll see that the number of runs you are likely to score is higher in the latter scenario than in the former. When you're up 7-4, I see no reason to be playing for one run.


I'm not sticking up for JR, but if the bunt works a subsequent base hit scores two runs, not one. I'm just saying that a bunt in that situation is not necessarily indicative of playing for "1 run".

No, it is. The sacrifice bunt is not a tool for increasing the chances of scoring 2 runs; it is the giving up of a valuable out in exchange for an increased chance of scoring one run. Look at your run-expectancy tables: the evidence shows that every out a team gives up, no matter the circumstances, decreases the number of runs a team is likely to score. If Russell wanted to try and score more than one run, then he would not have asked Jack to bunt. And if Russell thought that bunting would have increased the number of runs the team was likely to score, then he is an idiot.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:17 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
Willton wrote:
Animal wrote:
Ralphie wrote:
The turning point in Saturday night's 9-7 loss to Colorado was Jack Wilson's failed sacrifice bunt attempt in the top of the eighth.

At that point we had just scored a run, were up 7-4, and had men on first and second with nobody out. You had the sense that the Pirates were about to put this game out of reach.

To the Rockie's rescue comes John Russell, giving the Rockies an out and immediately changing the momentum of the game. From that point on I felt certain that the Pirates were going to lose.

Sure, you could blame Russell for letting Grabow face a right-handed power hitter who represented the tying run in the bottom of that same inning. But the stage was set by giving the Rockies an out when we had them on the ropes.



If you want to fault somebody, fault Jack Wilson. That was an IDEAL spot for a bunt. Jack didn't get it done. We would have had guys on second and third with one out, followed by a PH, then McCutchen. I would have called a bunt there. All the guys I was watching the game with agreed.

Yes, I do believe that was a very bad part of the game, but it was not a mistake on Russell's part.

No, that was a mistake by Russell. The only time it is ideal to ask a position player to bunt is when the score is tied, not when you're up by 3 runs. As bad a hitter as Jack is, he is more likely to help the team by swinging away, even assuming he can execute a bunt correctly. Jack's bad bunt is not the reason why they lost, but him swinging away could have prevented the loss, even assuming the bullpen's later meltdown.

There is absolutely no excuse for giving away outs when you are up by 3 runs. None.



He is as likely as anything to hit into a rally ending double play!

_________________
"Live proud! Laugh Loud! Standout in a Crowd!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Animal wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, that was a mistake by Russell. The only time it is ideal to ask a position player to bunt is when the score is tied, not when you're up by 3 runs. As bad a hitter as Jack is, he is more likely to help the team by swinging away, even assuming he can execute a bunt correctly. Jack's bad bunt is not the reason why they lost, but him swinging away could have prevented the loss, even assuming the bullpen's later meltdown.

There is absolutely no excuse for giving away outs when you are up by 3 runs. None.



He is as likely as anything to hit into a rally ending double play!

When you're up by 3 runs, you take that chance.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:23 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
Willton wrote:
Animal wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, that was a mistake by Russell. The only time it is ideal to ask a position player to bunt is when the score is tied, not when you're up by 3 runs. As bad a hitter as Jack is, he is more likely to help the team by swinging away, even assuming he can execute a bunt correctly. Jack's bad bunt is not the reason why they lost, but him swinging away could have prevented the loss, even assuming the bullpen's later meltdown.

There is absolutely no excuse for giving away outs when you are up by 3 runs. None.



He is as likely as anything to hit into a rally ending double play!

When you're up by 3 runs, you take that chance.


No, when you are up by three runs, you do your best to go up by at least one more. In that sitation, with a weak hitter like Jack, you bunt....and HOPE the player can do what he is supposed to do.

_________________
"Live proud! Laugh Loud! Standout in a Crowd!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4761
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
Animal wrote:
No, when you are up by three runs, you do your best to go up by at least one more. In that sitation, with a weak hitter like Jack, you bunt....and HOPE the player can do what he is supposed to do.



I completely disagree. You step on their throat. Bunting in that situation was playing tentative, defensive baseball. You are playing the "what if" game with worst-case scenario's. What if he hits into a DP...yeah that sucks but what if he gets a seeing-eye single? What if he walks? What if he clears the bases with a double, triple, or HR?

I agree that Wilson should have executed better, that was a terrible display of baseball fundamentals. I also know that runs are pretty easy to come by at Coors Field so the Pirates should have gone after more than just one.

_________________
North Dakota State Bison (0-0) at Iowa State Cyclones (0-0)
Jack Trice Stadium
August 30, 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:38 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
IA Pirate wrote:
Animal wrote:
No, when you are up by three runs, you do your best to go up by at least one more. In that sitation, with a weak hitter like Jack, you bunt....and HOPE the player can do what he is supposed to do.



I completely disagree. You step on their throat. Bunting in that situation was playing tentative, defensive baseball. You are playing the "what if" game with worst-case scenario's. What if he hits into a DP...yeah that sucks but what if he gets a seeing-eye single? What if he walks? What if he clears the bases with a double, triple, or HR?

I agree that Wilson should have executed better, that was a terrible display of baseball fundamentals. I also know that runs are pretty easy to come by at Coors Field so the Pirates should have gone after more than just one.


They did. The bunt gave them a chance at TWO more runs, if just one of the next two guys gets a hit...one run, if the guy hits a fly ball.

_________________
"Live proud! Laugh Loud! Standout in a Crowd!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
IA Pirate wrote:
Animal wrote:
No, when you are up by three runs, you do your best to go up by at least one more. In that sitation, with a weak hitter like Jack, you bunt....and HOPE the player can do what he is supposed to do.



I completely disagree. You step on their throat. Bunting in that situation was playing tentative, defensive baseball. You are playing the "what if" game with worst-case scenario's. What if he hits into a DP...yeah that sucks but what if he gets a seeing-eye single? What if he walks? What if he clears the bases with a double, triple, or HR?

I agree that Wilson should have executed better, that was a terrible display of baseball fundamentals. I also know that runs are pretty easy to come by at Coors Field so the Pirates should have gone after more than just one.

+1

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
Willton wrote:
IA Pirate wrote:
Animal wrote:
No, when you are up by three runs, you do your best to go up by at least one more. In that sitation, with a weak hitter like Jack, you bunt....and HOPE the player can do what he is supposed to do.



I completely disagree. You step on their throat. Bunting in that situation was playing tentative, defensive baseball. You are playing the "what if" game with worst-case scenario's. What if he hits into a DP...yeah that sucks but what if he gets a seeing-eye single? What if he walks? What if he clears the bases with a double, triple, or HR?

I agree that Wilson should have executed better, that was a terrible display of baseball fundamentals. I also know that runs are pretty easy to come by at Coors Field so the Pirates should have gone after more than just one.

+1



Apparently not... +0 because Jack did not execute!

_________________
"Live proud! Laugh Loud! Standout in a Crowd!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7190
Was it a call by Russell or did Jack do it on his own?

I didnt watch or listen to the game lastnight, battling an ear infection while trying to play guitar lastnight

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:55 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
nad69dan wrote:
Was it a call by Russell or did Jack do it on his own?

I didnt watch or listen to the game lastnight, battling an ear infection while trying to play guitar lastnight



I would think it was called.

Up by three with guys on first and second, no outs, and a PH on deck. Really, you want anything there EXCEPT a DP.

I really have no problem playing it either way! What I DO have a problem with is someone saying the bunt call was WRONG or that it cost us the game.

_________________
"Live proud! Laugh Loud! Standout in a Crowd!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4761
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
Animal wrote:
They did. The bunt gave them a chance at TWO more runs, if just one of the next two guys gets a hit...one run, if the guy hits a fly ball.


What it did was take away one of the outs the Pirates had to work with. Instead of having three outs to get a base hit you leave yourself only two. I understand that, if executed properly, you would have runners on 2nd and 3rd. You are counting on that one player, that one at bat, to drive in the run without getting a hit.

Playing for one run was a terrible idea. Even if everything worked to perfection...

-Executed bunt...runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out
-Fly ball to outfield...runner on 3rd with two outs...one run in
-Out...end of inning

That one run doesn't mean much considering the Pirates lost by two. And yes, you have to assume the final out because you are assuming that hitter cannot get a base hit in that situation because of the prior decision to bunt.

_________________
North Dakota State Bison (0-0) at Iowa State Cyclones (0-0)
Jack Trice Stadium
August 30, 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Animal wrote:
IA Pirate wrote:
Animal wrote:
No, when you are up by three runs, you do your best to go up by at least one more. In that sitation, with a weak hitter like Jack, you bunt....and HOPE the player can do what he is supposed to do.



I completely disagree. You step on their throat. Bunting in that situation was playing tentative, defensive baseball. You are playing the "what if" game with worst-case scenario's. What if he hits into a DP...yeah that sucks but what if he gets a seeing-eye single? What if he walks? What if he clears the bases with a double, triple, or HR?

I agree that Wilson should have executed better, that was a terrible display of baseball fundamentals. I also know that runs are pretty easy to come by at Coors Field so the Pirates should have gone after more than just one.


They did. The bunt gave them a chance at TWO more runs, if just one of the next two guys gets a hit...one run, if the guy hits a fly ball.

And fewer opportunities to get said TWO more runs. That out was a lost opportunity to extend the inning. Your chances of scoring 2 more runs are considerably shortened when you voluntarily give up an out.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits