rluzinski

But there is no good statistical evidence that says a runner in scoring position with one out is worse than a runner on first with no outs. I presented stats that counted how many runs all teams in the MLB scored in each base/out state over a 4 year period and you say that's not good statistical evidence. You suggested that possible systematic differences of offensive abilities for each state might be skewing the probabilities but you didn't elaborate further. While there is certainly potential for that as a result of different positions in the lineup seeing different states unequally, it would have to be a significant difference to justify completely dismissing the probabilites as worthless. I'm not saying I've exhaustively studied these probability charts, but it seems you disregard them simply because you don't like their conclusions. If that isn't the case than I would appreciate you explaining your position further. But there is no good statistical evidence that says a runner in scoring position with one out is worse than a runner on first with no outs. The point I've been attempting to explain is that even if you presume that they are about the same (they basically are) then there is no benefit in even doing it. Quite the opposite since even an excellant bunter will fail sometimes. If it were easier to score 1 run with a runner at second and 1 out, then teams would have scored atleast 1 run more often in that situation. They didn't. There is a time and place for bunting, especially when you need to just convert one run. Why, because that's what the majority of managers think, so it must be true? You reject the stats I've presented yet serve up an oppossing opinion that's backed up with absolutely nothing. You seem to have an agenda.

I understand it's different, as Thome is vastly superior to Overbay, but it goes to show that Overbay doesn't have to be traded Thome had a .977 OPS in 2004 and makes $13 mil/year. 100% no comparion.

A quick question about the percentages of a guy on first with no outs scoring 44% of the time. To clarify, the actual runner may not be the one to score (force out at 2B, double would score a run but not the actual runner). We are only concerned with different baserunning/out states and how many runs were scored in each. I am just assuming that since you said aggregate percentage that there were numerous outcomes to get the runner on first with no outs home. Yep. How many times did that guy on first with no outs turn into a guy on second with 1 out? How many times did that guy end up on third and become a guy on third with no outs? How many times did that guy end up on second with no outs? How many times did the guy on first run into a double play? While data of that nature would certainly be useful, it's not really needed for this kind of analysis. Managers use sacrifices to transform one state into another, with the assumption that the later state either generates more runs or generates 1 run more often than the previous state. Managers realize that whatever that benefit is, it must be larger than the negative of a botched sacrifice attempt (force out or double play). Since the data of the states is dependant on an average offensive player against an average pitcher and defense, we simply make generalizations based on those averages. We can conclude that if a batter is of average ability or greater, and the pitcher does not have a substancial advantage over that particular player (lefty vs. lefty for example) the manager is maximizing his chance to score a run by letting him swing. Now, who bats after him is also important, that's why I'm not being overly aggressive in my assessments to begin with. The fact that about 20% of sacrifice bunts fail makes it an easy decision for an average player. Sorry for the long post that basically says the same thing over again.

They may have simply been scenarios with the 5th hitter getting on to start an inning, etc. As you say, they are simply a mass aggregate of all cases with a particular out and player on base. I understand your concern is that certain situations might tell you something about the players that were involved (if the bases are loaded and no out, it's probably because better hitters where up, which infers worse hitters WILL be up) but I don't think that effect distorts the data to the point where generalizations can't be drawn from it. I don't think that effect would distort the data much at all, really. It depends on the hitters behind a certain player and the particular probabilities of a certain player obtaining a certain result. ...and I've mentioned that fact many times in this thread, that's not even up for debate. My contention is simply that it's dificult to statistically justify bunting with a non-pitcher when about 1 out of 5 sacrifice attempts fail anyway.

I guess you don't get my point. I understand your point perfectly, and it's a valid to question the numbers, but to say they tell you "nothing' is simply false. Statistics use averages to make generalizations all the time, which is all that I'm doing myself. I've been careful not to overstate the significance of the exact probabilities, since the difference between a couple percentage points is insignificant. After factoring in actual sacrifice bunt success rates, it's really not even close for many situations. Is the aggregate OPS of the batters that came up with a runner on first and no outs the same as the batters that came to bat with a runner on second and one out? If we are to assume that weaker hitters are generally called on to sacrifce runners over (creating the runner on second, 1 out scenario), then it could be postulated that the aggregate OPS of batters that came on with a runner on second and 1 out might be higher. How would that help the argument for sacricing though? Are you insinuating that the runner on first scenario usually has better batters feeding it, inflating the probabilities? I can't see how. I suspect that the actual difference in OPS in those situations isn't significantly different anyway.

So if the 8th batter gets on base with no outs the pitcher should swing away because there is a better chance of scoring a run? Let's find some of my quotes: So, pitchers and crappy hitters. Whenever a batter has a very poor chance at success (bad hitter or bad matchup for the hitter), bunting is surely defendable. Again, since this is an average it's possible for a sacrifice to be the right call, but those situations are rare. Because they ARE just averages, I realize very un-average situation exists that can tip the scales in favor of utilizing a sacrifice (Ben Sheets vs. anyone, for instance) Perhaps you should reread this thread before diving in to disagree.

No they don't. They tell what has happened in the long history of baseball. It doesn't break down anything based on relative strength of the batters. The numbers am am providing comes from the seasons of 1999 - 2002. If you don't find data from actual game situations relevent in this discussion, I guess there's nothing to discuss at all. I think it's very fair to make generalizations based on aggregates. Steadfast rules would be difficult to formulate from them, but to say they tell you "nothing" isn't fair at all.

Are you saying the sacrifice moves the runner over 2 bases, or did you mean runner on second and no outs vs. runner at third and 1 out. Using the "run frequency chart" link provided above: Percent of Time Atleast 1 Run Was Scored Runner on 2nd, 0 outs: 73% Runner on 3rd, 1 out: 76% Your chances go up 3% but unless you can be almost 94% sure the bunt will be successful it's not usually worth it. While some players can be very successful bunting for a hits (speedy guys like Pods), it's not usually a good way for the average guy to get on base with. With a runner on, it's a REALLy bad way to get a hit. Here is a breakdown of results of bunting with less than 2 outs and a runner on base for 2004: Double play: 1.2% Force out: 7.3% Force out + Error: 0.2% Fielder's Choice: 0.9% Fielder's Choice + Error: 0.2% Error: 0.5% Single: 8.0% Single + Error: 1.2% Strikeout: 6.7% The batter has, on average, almost as good of chance of striking out as he does getting a single. Now obviously many of those strikouts where from pitchers but many of the singles were probably from the Pods and Pierre's of the league. For speedy guys like that, bunting can be an effective tool. Exactly. Because they ARE just averages, I realize very un-average situation exists that can tip the scales in favor of utilizing a sacrifice (Ben Sheets vs. anyone, for instance). The reverse is then also true, however. Even if Brady can successfully bunt 95% of the time (he can't), it's almost never statistically justifiable to ask him to sacrifice.

So, pitchers and crappy hitters. Agreed. Whenever a batter has a very poor chance at success (bad hitter or bad matchup for the hitter), bunting is surely defendable. Most other times it's just giving outs away. The "book" tells you that it's easier to score 1 run with a runner at 2nd and 1 out than a runner at first and no outs. It's a trivial matter to actually LOOK at how often a team scored atleast one run in those situations. Using data from 99-02: Percent of Time Atleast 1 Run Was Scored Runner on 1st, 0 outs: 44% Runner on 2nd, 1 out: 41% So you have about a 80% chance (approx. success rate of sacrifices) to LOWER your chances of scoring 1 run by 3%. Again, since this is an average it's possible for a sacrifice to be the right call, but those situations are rare. It's just hard to find an advantage in using a tactic that results in giving an out away about 20% of the time. No, the pure numbers (spray charts) show you should overload one side of the infield for some hitters. References: Run Frequency Chart Chance of a Successful Bunt Article: The Truth About Productive Outs Article: Yet Another Productive Outs Article

Melvin and Mark aren't stupid enough to keep Overbay. They aren't going to have Prince go BACK to AAA for 2006 and they aren't going to have Prince and Overbay split duties at 1B in the bigs. As for being disappointed, come on. 82 wins, 81 wins... whatever. The brewers played well and the young kids look for real. That's all that matters to me.

Disappointing ending but a great season for the Brewers. Definitely headed in the right direction!

Cappy looks like a mediocre pitcher working on short rest. ERA is now over 4 http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/frown.gif

Career AB, Pirates lineup: 520 2712 227 1591 188 2 113 107 WOW. 6 rookies?

I just don't have confidence that Cappy is going to be a particular good call on 3 days rest is all. Hope I'm wrong.

I'm still trying to figure out why you bing back your 4.0 ERA starter on 3 days rest. Just to potentially pad his win/loss record?

Well, I hope Russell's monster night doesn't keep J.J. out of the Sunday lineup. It's a shame that most don't appreciate the value of not making outs. Branyan get's on base 3 times and apparently that means nothing?

I get it! Yost is leaving Ohka in so he ups his ERA... cheaper in arby! Now I'm getting it!

I know, Yost.. let's sacrifice bunt in more games! 27 outs is WAY too many! It's not even fair if you don't give SOME of those outs away! I hate old school managers.

Another useless intentional walk by Branyan. Don't let em disrespect ya, Miller! EDIT: First pitch force out... bleh.

Apparently mlb.com is the worst thing every created, especially if you want to watch the home team. For all the frustration it has caused people here, it sure doesn't sound worth it for anyone who lives in Wisconsin.

With the Cubs loss today the Crew has clinched sole posession of 3rd place in the NL Central. If you are going to get out of the cellar, might as well get WAY out of it http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

WE AREN'T LOSERS! WE AREN'T LOSERS!! And Turnbow get's a piece of the Brewer season save record!

That was a BIG K by Santana. Right on the inside half of the plate. Barelllly a strike.

This game is on tv?

I was excited to be 4.5 games back in the wildcard race in August as well. The only thing I disagreed with was our actual chances of winning it. 4.5 sounds great, but with 5 teams ahead of us it really didn't matter. That was the original point of this thread; quantify the actual probability of winning the wildcard, NOT to discourage people from enjoying the ride.