I do know probability and game theory. I'm simply saying that he took a chance, and the outcome was positive, there for it appears to be a good decision based on his information at hand. I would also like to think that baseball is much more dynamic than is poker. I think momentum has more to do with the outcome of a baseball game than a poker game. Markredmanman5 - I guess it depends on what you are looking at, short term or long term. My statement was directed at short term results in that they won the game that night, so it was a good choice. So based on this, yeah I guess walking CC to get RB to make an out would be a good short-term decision, not long term (nor do I think that is a decision anybody would ever make). Overall, I am taking the subjective approach just to play devils advocate, but I understand both sides of the argument. It is much more objective to say that the win odds decreased from X% to Y% so he shouldn't do it. I like to see managers/coaches gamble a little bit. If we only went by the statistics of things, there wouldn't ever be any intentional walks, sacrifice bunts, nobody would go for it on 4th down, etc. I like the dynamic nature of these high-stress situations which is probably the main reason I am arguing that I like this decision (that and they won), but as I said, your point is completely valid. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif