Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:55 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:01 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
IA Pirate wrote:
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 Pirates outs 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.


Here is where I disagree.

Who says that was playing for one run?? A SF gives us one run. A hit gives us two. I would not have bunted if it had just been a guy on first...but it was not.

OKay, and what might have happened had Jack not bunted?

DP...another out. nothing.

Threee straight outs...nothing.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:05 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:
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 Pirates outs 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.


Here is where I disagree.

Who says that was playing for one run?? A SF gives us one run. A hit gives us two. I would not have bunted if it had just been a guy on first...but it was not.

OKay, and what might have happened had Jack not bunted?

DP...another out. nothing.

Threee straight outs...nothing.

Or, a hit, bringing around at least one run and still have 0 outs. Which, given the circumstances (Coors Field is an extreme hitter's park), is far more likely to occur than a DP.

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


Last edited by Willton on Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:43 pm
Posts: 4842
Location: Omaha, NE via Sioux City, Kansas City, and Chicago
Animal wrote:
OKay, and what might have happened had Jack not bunted?


Three straight gappers...duh!

_________________
#15 Kansas State Wildcats (1-0) at Iowa State Cyclones (0-1)
Jack Trice Stadium
September 6, 2014
11:00 AM CST
Fox Sports 1


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:07 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
Or, a hit, bringing around at least one run and still have 0 outs. Which, given the circumstances (Coors Field is an extreme hitter's park), is more likely to occur than a DP.[/quote]

That might be the most idiotic thing you have ever posted here...and we know thats a long list.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7248
Whats idiotic about that statement?

Jack swings and gets a hit and scores a run, so you're up 4 with no outs and runners are still on 1st and 2nd?

_________________
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 4:11 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:01 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: Slickville, PA
nad69dan wrote:
Whats idiotic about that statement?

Jack swings and gets a hit and scores a run, so you're up 4 with no outs and runners are still on 1st and 2nd?


It is idiotic to say that a hit is MORE LIKELY than a DP.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Animal wrote:
Quote:
Or, a hit, bringing around at least one run and still have 0 outs. Which, given the circumstances (Coors Field is an extreme hitter's park), is more likely to occur than a DP.


That might be the most idiotic thing you have ever posted here...and we know thats a long list.

Really? Look at the numbers:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... &t=b#bases

Jack Wilson has had 301 plate appearances in his career with men on 1st and 2nd. He has had 77 hits in those situations and has only grounded into 11 double plays in those situations. So, which renders a greater likelihood of occurrence: a hit (77/301=25.5%), or a GIDP (11/301=3.7%)?

So, before you start calling me an idiot, perhaps you should actually look at the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I Disagree...
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
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.


If you want to argue over semantics, fine you win.

Average Runs Scored
Code:
            0     1      2 
Empty    0.555  0.297  0.117 
1st      0.953  0.573  0.251 
2nd      1.189  0.725  0.344 
3rd      1.482  0.983  0.387 
1st_2nd  1.573  0.971  0.466 
1st_3rd  1.904  1.243  0.538 
2nd_3rd  2.052  1.467  0.634 
Loaded   2.417  1.65   0.815 


1.573 vs. 1.467


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: WRONG WILTON
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 10582
Willton wrote:
So, before you start calling me an idiot, perhaps you should actually look at the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

I could have stated that a hit is more likely than a DP grounder without Wilton looking it up. Even more to the point, Wilson - as bad a hitter as he has become - has an OBP of .300. The chances of a DP grounder are WAY, WAY less than 30%. We know this intuitively.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I Disagree...
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:48 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:41 pm
Posts: 843
Argentum wrote:

If you want to argue over semantics, fine you win.

Average Runs Scored
Code:
            0     1      2 
Empty    0.555  0.297  0.117 
1st      0.953  0.573  0.251 
2nd      1.189  0.725  0.344 
3rd      1.482  0.983  0.387 
1st_2nd  1.573  0.971  0.466 
1st_3rd  1.904  1.243  0.538 
2nd_3rd  2.052  1.467  0.634 
Loaded   2.417  1.65   0.815 


1.573 vs. 1.467


For the amount of data on which that chart is based, a tenth of a run is a significant number, not semantics.

The only time when it is ever correct to bunt is with an extremely poor hitter at the plate when scoring a single run will make a decisive difference in the outcome of the game (i.e., game tied or down by a run). Jack is a poor hitter, but to echo others, you never bunt when you are up by three runs. If you look at win expectancies, scoring a single run in that situation does almost nothing to your chances of winning. The only way to significantly increase your chances of winning in that situation is to score multiple runs. Sacrificing almost completely eliminates that possibility.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I Disagree...
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:34 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
jaybee24 wrote:
Argentum wrote:

If you want to argue over semantics, fine you win.

Average Runs Scored
Code:
            0     1      2 
Empty    0.555  0.297  0.117 
1st      0.953  0.573  0.251 
2nd      1.189  0.725  0.344 
3rd      1.482  0.983  0.387 
1st_2nd  1.573  0.971  0.466 
1st_3rd  1.904  1.243  0.538 
2nd_3rd  2.052  1.467  0.634 
Loaded   2.417  1.65   0.815 


1.573 vs. 1.467


For the amount of data on which that chart is based, a tenth of a run is a significant number, not semantics.

The only time when it is ever correct to bunt is with an extremely poor hitter at the plate when scoring a single run will make a decisive difference in the outcome of the game (i.e., game tied or down by a run). Jack is a poor hitter, but to echo others, you never bunt when you are up by three runs. If you look at win expectancies, scoring a single run in that situation does almost nothing to your chances of winning. The only way to significantly increase your chances of winning in that situation is to score multiple runs. Sacrificing almost completely eliminates that possibility.


[Groan]

Why do I get myself into these "debates"? I actually agree that bunting in that situation is a bad thing. I hate bunts for all the reasons stated. All I'm saying is that a bunt in that situation is not evidence that JR is playing for only one run. Do you honestly believe that he was sitting in the dugout thinking, "Top of the 8th, we just had back to back doubles and a walk, no outs, down by two, we need to score only one run in order to win, lets bunt"? I mean if he was thinking just that, he's beyond being a moron, he's an idiot wrapped in a moron. There's no doubt in my mind that he was hoping to score more than one run. He just executed incorrectly.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
By the way, Animal, I'll take your silence as an apology.

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:27 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:41 pm
Posts: 843
Arg, it seemed to me from your comments in the thread that you were arguing for the bunt...anyway, your point is taken, sorry for the confusion. I just can't keep my mouth shut when it comes to sacrifice bunting, I really dislike it.

Anyway, for anyone who cares, here is an excellent article about the math of sacrifice bunting from the hardball times...

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/artic ... surrender/


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:46 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
jaybee24 wrote:
Arg, it seemed to me from your comments in the thread that you were arguing for the bunt...anyway, your point is taken, sorry for the confusion. I just can't keep my mouth shut when it comes to sacrifice bunting, I really dislike it.

Anyway, for anyone who cares, here is an excellent article about the math of sacrifice bunting from the hardball times...

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/artic ... surrender/


No, I was called to task for not being very succinct. My bad. Should have known better on this board!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:16 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
WOW-- has everyone calmed down now and had their meds?

An infamous quote- "can't we all just get along?"

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5535
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Substitute2 wrote:
WOW-- has everyone calmed down now and had their meds?

An infamous quote- "can't we all just get along?"


Sub -
I'm sure that everyone is shocked that I haven't jumped into the fray and offered my $0.02. And . . . I'm going to. I was so ticked off at a number of things at the end of Saturday's game that I didn't feel like posting and took the day off yesterday to be with the family.

Bottom line for me . . . IMO, it was eminently logical and incredibly reasonable in that situation to have Wilson bunting. I could not disagree more with Willton that it defies logic to bunt in that situation with your opponent only having two more ABs and Grabow and Capps lined up to finish off the game. I could not disagree more with IA that bunting in that situation is "taking your foot off the opponent's throat." I could not disagree more with the applicablilty of a Run Expectancy Table for the situation in the 8th inning in Denver, Colorado. Longer post after hours tonight to explain my reasoning.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:33 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3575
Location: Economy, PA
Obviously there is much disagreement on the subject. Obviously we might still have lost even if Jack had swung away. Obviously we might still have won even after the failed bunt attempt.

But my point is not just that I dislike the bunt in general. It is that in that particular situation, it was absolutely the wrong call.

I'm sure No. 9 will offer a coherent defense of his opinion, but it will do nothing to change mine.

By the way, thanks to those who supplied the statistical evidence.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5535
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Ralphie wrote:
But my point is not just that I dislike the bunt in general.


Hey, I like 3 run HRs and big innings better than 1 run innings. No doubt about it.

I also like TDs instead of FGs but realize that sometimes in some situations that taking the conservative route to ensure a FG is better than playing for a TD. Doesn't mean that your kicker will make it . . always a chance that he will miss . . . but you get the point.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:59 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
To be perfectly honest No.9--- I was very surprised that you had not posted on a subject like this one. You're approach to the game would put you in a position to want the bunt here. But in addition, since Wilton was on the other side of the argument, I am sure that you are salivating to get in the middle of this discussoin.

Me think the power must have been off in your area for you not to have put your views out there. I anxiously await your explanation and I'm sure others with diametrically opposite views are also waiting.

So, have at it friend.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Bunt
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5535
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Substitute2 wrote:
To be perfectly honest No.9--- I was very surprised that you had not posted on a subject like this one. You're approach to the game would put you in a position to want the bunt here. But in addition, since Wilton was on the other side of the argument, I am sure that you are salivating to get in the middle of this discussoin.

Me think the power must have been off in your area for you not to have put your views out there. I anxiously await your explanation and I'm sure others with diametrically opposite views are also waiting.

So, have at it friend.


The power was out in my house after I freaking punched the electrical box after watching what I considered to be absolute horsesh_t, lackadaisical execution beginning in the top of the 7th.
Today is the first day that I logged on here and I still haven't read the PPG coverage about Sat and Sun's games.
My mind is spinning with thoughts about what may/may not be going on with this team. I have a suspicion that all is not well. Admittedly just a hunch . . . . .

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


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

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], val and 10 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