TJseven7

You are about to drop his era below 7 crew.... congrats!

Good grief pineapple

Cubs keep sucking. We gotta stop. Big start for woody to cement his spot. Positive thoughts towards Shaw and his family.

Ok so trying to piece this all together: 1: The stats we are looking at in regards to run expectancy and the likelihood of scoring does not factor in game score and inning. No variation assumed. I don't see how that can be assumed. We discuss leverage situations but don't think it effects scoring. Seems strange. 2: Baldkin thank you! Please understand the math I'm about to do will be crude. 49.6 fair bunts. As you stated that gives away a strike. Agreed and understood. But you can say by those numbers you'd expect 2 strikes to net you 74% chance of a fair bunt. I'll zero the potential of strike 3 for ease. Claims of 80% success sound asinine. Claims of 70% success sounds very optimistic. Pop bunts play in... bunts that get the lead runner mowed down exist. So i would suspect we are looking at numbers closer to 60% chance of moving the runner to 3rd... slightly lower chance of moving both runners to 2nd and 3rd. We don't know but that seems realistic to me. Fair? 60% seems awful... SEEMS awful. 3. Inconclusive at our level of knowledge. We have no idea if the pitcher has a greater effect on bunting success than the pitcher has on hitting success. We can assume... or not.. some might assume the elite pitcher has a greater downward effect on hitting than bunting. We simply dont know. I can safely say that giving up an out lowers run expectancy. On the chart supplied by logan that holds true in ever single field across all recorded time. That isn't debatable. The only alteration to that is in the example BJ posted of the successful bunt and subsequent walk to set up the force. That gives back expectancy (and then some .104 runs increase over 1st 2nd no outs) but cuts the successful bunt gain from a 6.6% to a 4.7% increase in odds to score. But in this case I don't care about run expectancy. 1.6 era... assuming all scores are solo (its not so numbers are better than this) he allows TB to tie the game 5 of 27 times. Win expectancy jumps from (roughly) 45% to above 81% (possibly as high as 85%) moving from zero runs to 1 run. That's significant enough that I dont care about runs beyond 1. Bunting or giving up an out is always bad... for run expectancy. Fact... proven. Bunting or giving up an out is always bad... in regards to likeihood to score... problem. I've seen it multiple times. 60% x 67.6% = 40.5% (notice I'm using my lower successful bunt number) That's easy to do. I also think moving one option a move down the road while leaving another option alone is disingenuous, not comparable and an oversight. Aren't we dealing with diminished returns? This is baseball afterall. 60% chance of a successful bunt. 60% of successful anything in baseball in regards to hitting is a gigantic number. With pina hitting you certainly have a chance he plates a run. You also leave a larger chance for a gidp on the table vs the bunt. (I dont know the % offset) That chance turns 61% chance to score into 25.7% in a flash. Is it likely... no(I assume, but an elite GO pitcher could certainly inflence it)... but its a viable percentage that has to be calculated in. Ks, shallow pop outs, force at 3rd are the same result as a failed bunt. Force at 1 same as successful bunt. Force at 2nd same as some bunt outcomes. A 6.6% increase in the odds of scoring is making it 11% more likely that you score. A 4.7% increase (post ibb) makes it 7.7% more likely that you score. While swinging away gives you a chance to plate a run in that ab.. it also increases the likelihood that you will depreciate your chances of scoring in that inning. You simply can't adjust for the black and white outcome of the bunt without adjusting the outcome of the ab. I believe the success rate of the AB will fail to match the success rate of the bunt. One has more upside and downside... one has more security. Once you move on to the broxton ab (or arcia ab post ibb) there are new and more plentiful options that plate a run which is reflected in the increase of likelihood to score despite the out with runners at 2nd and 3rd. So I'm questioning the breakdown of the pina broxton arcia swing away abs... vs the breakdown of the pina bunt broxton and/or arcia (and batter in the hole) swing away ab. Pina bunt is around 55% at 67.6%, 5%(?) at 63.4% (force at 2nd) 40% at 40.6% Pina swing has some 100% some 67.6%... 63.4%...40.6% and 25.7% Question 2... Does the swing away ab truly put the team in better scoring position or is it a push or near push with higher upside and drawbacks. Until you can properly calculate that you can't say things like giving up an out is always wrong. I do believe it is usually a bad idea to bunt. Run expectancy matters too much to give up outs in most cases. (Especially early) But I also believe this definitive talk of never is wrong. I also believe talk of only elite bunters followed by great hitters can push it into being a good choice is wrong. I believe remaining outs and the arms you can turn to can also flip that scenerio due to killing (kind of) the need for multiple runs. When mn bunted in the 7th with two bad bp arms in the holster a play for a 1 run lead didnt seem worth giving up the out. With knebel in the holster in a series where 7 runs were scored in 26 innings and 1 run in 26 innings by TB... 1 run looked far more imposing. I'm certain our remedial look cant come close to it being a certainty... despite swimming in mountains of data i doubt that even the pro analytic groups can prove a statistical advantage. Too many factors variables filters to specify. Too many ways to paint the painting. Would love to see how deep down the rabbit hole they go though. So the question is... bat by bat... where do the numbers land. 1st 2nd no out... pina bunt vs pina swing. Compare. You cant make an honest comparison without advancing both outcomes that ab.

Matchups... they like him vs lefties. Twins had a bunch of them.

Sooo... this discussion has not gone well up to this point. I'll leave it that at that. I realize math is concrete. I believe statistics often times are interpretive. The further you venture down the road of variables the more convoluted results become. I don't argue math... I do argue the merit of used and discarded variables. Yet, I value analytics. I think there will come a day that they rule league wide. I also believe they aren't iron clad enough in their current state. I try to be an educated fan and I'm well aware I do not know baseball. I've put my time in other sports. Some of you, especially the analytics crowd have put your time in baseball. You know more here. I'll admit it. That doesn't stop me from seeing issues with a way of thought... or stop me from questioning why. The only part of analytics I want to discuss is run generation. I belong to neither school of thought. I'm under the impression that the numbers used by analytics folks do not take into account the situation as it applies to the current game. IE: low scoring/high scoring tied, down 1 or up 10... all occurances lumped together. Statistics in a vacuum. Season(s) seen as 1 event where numbers hold true. 1...Is that true? If so, why do analytics people assume there are no quantifiable variations in regard to game situation? I've heard often that the bunt success rate is terrible. Heard many conflicting numbers. I hear constantly... well hes a bad bunter so bunting him is bad. 2... Are there any stats (preferably without pitchers included) that show bunt success rate diminishing over the years? We have to assume bad and good bunters (position players) were used to bunt in old school baseball. Is there any proof stating bunters are league wide getting worse? I also hear that the pitcher was nasty so getting a bunt down would be hard to do. While I understand and acknowledge that I wonder why no one brings up the fact that the nasty pitcher also makes it harder to hit. 3... Is there any proof that a power arm or nasty pitcher makes it harder to bunt beyond the point of equal correlation to the degree said pitcher makes it harder to hit? I'm asking you to make sense of why these perceived holes in logic aren't a reality. Thank you!

Baseball gods.... May the numbers forever be on your side... So funny...

How can you watching this hilarious tragedy unfold infront of us?

How can I tie this into bunting = good....how can I tie this into bunting = good. Ah I got it! Go! Nkpe. Tragedy of errors. We dont get outcome worst. They do... get that of all things. Painful to the soul.

Can't balk in from 2nd lol

Jeffress is the new scahill... high leverage outings that make you cringe and go why him why now... but he did his job this time.

Ump assuming ball

No i got the bunt success ratio... while you ignore the drawbacks of swinging away. You only talk about the side that boosts your pro analytics viewpoint. You don't mention the fact that there are drawbacks on both sides of the possible paths. One of which was the disaster you saw unfold yesterday.

I don't care about the bunt but that is not what my numbers say and that is the problem. You don't seem to understand how math works. But whatever, be mad at Counsell all you want. He is going to get blamed for every loss by someone anyway, it comes with his job. Its not a math problem... its a misuse of statistics. These statistics are shallow on filters and meritless once you extrapolate them. Why can't you see that or why do you ignore that. There are important factors being dismissed in those numbers. It's not in a vacuum to the degree this line of thought suggests. These metrics are in their infantcy. Long way to go before you can be dictated by them.

Just because you are wrong about the bunting thing doesn't mean people think he strikes out 100%. You dont say it but you sure do act like it... And your numbers say im right until you change them to fit your bias for your school of thought. I am not the one tied to either. I believe both are proper at times and neither has the riddles answer. That realistic... shame on me!

Holy cow a guy who Ks 37% of time didnt K.... I could have sworn 36.7% of the time was 100% of the time after the discussions i heard in the prior day.

And lets not mention the chances him swinging away doesnt move a runner or the chances he grounds into a gidp. Both of those take down our run scoring chances as well. Which is the exact reason the odds go up 6.6% You cant calculate down the odds of bunting and pretend there are no negative effects involved with him swinging away. The odds of a gidp with a swing away are higher. Kills run expectancy. The odds of not advancing the runners is more as well. Or at least going 1st and 3rd 1 out which is also worse. This 25 to 35% chance we drop 27% lower on run expectancy also exists at a higher rate for swing away in pop outs, ks, ground outs where the runners dont advance. You cant compare outcomes if you project one out and leave the other in its current form. You are more likely to move the runners, increase your likelihood of scoring by 6.6% and lower your chances of disaster with a bunt play... you are more likely to score many runs with the swing away. That's the trade off... Game was tied 1-1. You play to take the lead. Winning by 1 is no different than winning by 3 at the end of the day. If we were down 1... I hear the weight of bigger inning thinking. But 1 run dramatically increase our chances to win that game. Especially at 1-1.

He's at his floor because his control is keeping him there. I dont believe his advancement as a pitcher is dependent on being in the rotation. His advancement in value does depend on it. His innings could be upped in the pen... not as easily but it can... his control can as well. Unless you believe he can only gain control by being a starter I don't see how you can argue that. Right now he's at his floor in usage and competence. He can get closer to his ceiling in usage in the pen... and much closer to his ceiling in overall competence in the pen. The key thing in what you say is if he succeeds. We'll see that train coming down the tracks in the pen... where he's currently valuable... just as easy as we would in the rotation... where hes likely last years valezquez at this point... whuch isn't very valuable. So do you prefer value now... and if he develops a delay in stretching him to his pinnacle. Or making him rotation bound in the hopes he'll hit his pinnacle faster... despite the fact that his value to the team will likely dramatically drop as he finds his way? I like option 1.

Can someone please explain why people keep saying this? Arcia santana are young and maturing Shaw has shown he's capable of this is sections and put it all together so far but theres nothing saying he can't repeat this. Villar vogt bandy braun broxton brinson phillips are not. This is thames aguilars 1st year Sogard Pina.... ok you got me. Nelson changed his mechanics and its made him this. Why is that vanishing? Anderson has improved over time as well. Why is that vanishing? Davies career year... he did this last year too. Guerra peralta espino... no. Suter took over for anderson and kept Andersons numbers going. It's a bonus or a wash if anderson stays healthy... whatever way you want to take that. Corey... possible also possible he's blosdomed into this. The rest of the pen.... swarzak who we just got sure! and no one else is close to a career year. Garza...ok you got me again. So this spree of career years is due to Pina, a period of Sogards season, Garza and just overall negativity towards the team? This over performing career year talk is very confusing to me. Yeah projections didn't see some guys maturing as fast or fixing their mechanics... get over it. Projections miss.

So let me get this straight... you will explain away the 6% gain if the 70-80% chance falls in our favor by stating broxton isn't average and strikes out too much yadda yadda... but give no statistical relevance to the low scoring tie game... or the streak of crap our offense has been mired in. Neither of those things are average. You ignore the extra statistical pitfall of a slow runner hitting into the gidp. People intentially walk batters to set it up so it must have some relevance. Or the % difference that him swinging away gives of advancing the runners vs the bunt advancing them. You also ignore thames on 2nd and his ability to score from 2nd on a single. Statistics 101... statistics can easily lie. Its why teams have went from average to obp to ops to whatever things are now. Why war is dead... why whip and era are fip. The numbers analytics thump like a bible are still blind of many metrics that matter. Its not a lack of sample size over time its a lack of filters that are extremely necessary. With what you just said you can say... bunting is nearly never the better option. The only thing you KNOW statistically is that you gain 6.6% at 2nd 3rd 1 out vs 1st 2nd no outs. That's all you can accurately statistically quantify. You haven't run the math to extrapolate beyond that. The what ifs aren't reflected in those numbers. They simply are. How is a 70-80% chance at a 6.6% increase in your odds not viable? Even at 60% with the always popular... poor bunter... excuse. Your 60% chance at a 6.6% increase in likelihood you score 1 run is roughly a 4% increase. On 61% odds... 1 more time you score a run per 15-16 attempts. Can't play the stats game then say thats insignificant. That variations for example less than what the computer group gained on vegas and made serious bank in the process. There 53% jump to 55% was equated to crossing the atlantic. Stats people... you can not just decide which numbers do and do not matter. The wrong filters... a lack of filters makes the results you come to without merit. You know this... why ignore it! It makes me crazy!

No that's said for a specific point. Had a brilliant professor (philosophy) in college who used to ask these questions of his class all the time. WHY? Because we've gotten to a point where we no longer trust judgement of our conscience. We overthink everything to death. Well he might strike out or but the bunt could go wrong. If you are educated your non emotion snap decision is ultimately most accurate. You start to over analyze you can talk yourself into any concievable possibke outcome... but right is right... and in an unemotional mind tgat is educated... right is instant. Struggling offense short pen tie game low scoring... auto manufacture runs bunt. When he asked this students would freeze... all semester long.... is it a trick... is my snap judgement correct.... and they'd pacify themselves into saying nothing or making a case for both. There is a right... outcome be damned. You bunt. Im 35 I give zero damns about the good old days and am too young for nestolga.

1 of our 6 runs in 26 innings was caused by a wild pitch and you think bunting is a bad idea. When the offense is this bad you force runs across any way you can and swing away isnt working. I didnt say it was a bad idea. I said it wasnt necessarily the right decision. People are making this black and white, which it is not. The assumption is that Pina automatically gets the bunt down and moves the runners over. That is not a guarantee. Then you have a very poor contact hitter in Broxton. He k's 40% of the time. Youre giving up an out for potentially no advantage, and potentially giving up an out without moving runners. When people call for bunts they always assume best case scenario of runners moved over. With a man on 3rd even contact doesnt guarantee that you score thr runner. Popups, shallow fly ball, hard ground outs.... The end point is this; given the scenario its reasonable for some to argue that with a man already on 2nd, having 3 chances for a run scoring hit is better than 2 chances for some kind of run scoring contact. It wasnt a black and white "yes" for a bunt. Yes it is a black and white...yes bunt. But maybe its a bad bunt... maybe he hits a gidp... maybe he ks or pops up. What are the odds of him moving the runners successfully to 2nd and 3rd with a bunt vs a ball in play. Its likely better with a bunt than other outcomes. Take your odds.... but what if he fails? Then he fails. Doesn't mean the decision was dumb... the results sucked. He made the dumb decision and the results destroyed his team today. That's the problem. Do the right thing accept the results. But broxton ks 40%.... again is that under 100 cuz analytic people sure do use it to cover their bible of situation blind numbers as if its 100%. Did we score a run on a wp last night. Did broxton K? We dont need a big inning.... we needed 1. You bunt them over. If TB can make you fail at that... then kudoz to them... but moving the runners is the play. Then you hope for 60% of broxton outcomes that give you a chance at plating that run... if he doesn't you get chance 2 with arcia. Did arcia bat? No? So pina broxton maybe arcia over broxton arcia with runners on 2nd and 3rd... yeah option 2... every day option 2. But he could fail!!!!! Edit: I mean, really?

I'm so sick of the nay sayers of old school move the runners baseball. No one can bunt well enough for them. Broxton strikes out 100% of the time right? For numbers people they sure do ignore a lot of them then act like they are the final say and decades of baseball minds are just old and stupid. Manufacturing runs... teams have tried it for ages... they weren't all idiots... offenses in a funk need to do it... but blind stats man... and k hitters man. Just say it computer guys... you dont want to see a single bunt ever. Maybe some pitchers but only if they bunt well and hit miserably.

I wanted Hader to get the ball for the 9th today. And i expected a 1 run lead until CC decided to go with blind numbers and go for the big inning with a team that hasn't had a big inning in a month. You know... computers say we are due!

1 of our 6 runs in 26 innings was caused by a wild pitch and you think bunting is a bad idea. When the offense is this bad you force runs across any way you can and swing away isnt working.