Frayed Knot Old-Timey Member Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 ]far more important that he put his team in a position to end that inning up 1–0, as opposed to taking a chance at a rally…Except that the problem is a bunt only barely accomplishes that.MLB avgs show that a team getting a runner to 2nd w/0 outs goes scoreless in that inning 36.8% of the time. Get him to 3rd with 1 out (successful bunt) and that number drops, but only to 33.8% Meanwhile, the drawback is that while you're (slightly) increasing the odds of scoring 1 run, at the same time you're also increasing the odds of scoring only 1 run - and doing so by a bigger margin. Having an inning of 2 or more runs there drops from 28.3% down to 18.3%Maybe a big - or even semi-big - inning there is what we needed to get past Arroyo and playing conservatively with a our speedy lead-off on 2nd blew the best shot we had at getting that.
Guest Hillbilly Guests Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 If you are ready to conclude that 'bunting is for losers' based on those averages (which will change a good bit when performance enhancing testing comes about) that's fine, but I think there are good times/reasons to lay one down. Situational factors, like the quality of the pitcher, the speed of the base runner, and the makeup of the lineup involved affect the likelihood of the outcome and are responsible, in large part, for producing the variance in the averages. Without knowing the variance about the means, I�m unable to conclude if 28.3% and 18.3% are any more different from each other than 36.8% and 33.8% are different from each other. Which drives home my point that there is much more to a data set than the averages � understanding what produces variation shouldn�t be ignored. But bunting in the first inning is just dumb.
Frayed Knot Old-Timey Member Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Sure the numbers will vary. Those particular figures were MLB avgs for '99-'02 and you could make the argument that with Reyes on 2nd and Beltran/Delgado/Wright coming up that the pcts would be higher across the board.The main point, as you mention, is that it's the 1st inning, not a late-game situation where the addition of 1 run can tilt the odds of winning the game dramatically in your favor. I'm not arguing for a 'never-bunt-ever' strategy.
Guest Hillbilly Guests Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Vic Sage wrote:BILF'nuff said.Right you didn't. Vic did. Sorry to imply that you'd go that far.
Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted June 23, 2006 Posted June 23, 2006 ]Randolph reiterated that he might increasingly replace Paul Lo Duca with Ramon Castro for defense, as he did in the ninth inning Wednesday night. It was assumed Lo Duca would be a defensive upgrade over Mike Piazza, but some numbers refute that theory. Piazza had committed only two passed balls this season through 42 games, while Lo Duca has five through 53 games. Piazza has committed two errors, Lo Duca five. However, Lo Duca owns a substantial advantage in throwing out baserunners, eliminating 13 of 60 (21.7 percent) to Piazza's five of 47 (10.6 percent). . . . TORVO. Piazza's a better catcher.
Elster88 Old-Timey Member Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Piazza: .282/.343/.491//.834 (April: .210/.286/.403//.689)50 games at catcher: 3 errors, .990 fielding %, 3 passed ballsLo Duca: .291/.338/.416//.729 (April: .306/.367/.417//.784)60 games at catcher: 5 errors, .989 fielding %, 5 passed balls
Frayed Knot Old-Timey Member Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Yeah but LoDuca has so much spirit which certainly makes up for any other shortcomings.And speaking of Piazza (which we sort of were) and the never-ending debate on his DEFENSE!!!!: From the recent SABR meetings and a study of "missed" pitches (passed balls & wild pitches) comes word that:Since 1957, the best catcher at "saving" missed pitches over his career has been Mike Piazza, with 151 pitches saved.- One missed pitch costs .27 runs, on average. A good catcher can save his staff four runs a year; a bad catcher can cost that many.- Over his career, Piazza has saved his team 41 runs over the average catcher, though that doesn't offset the 131 runs he has cost his team (vs. average) in stolen bases.If you're into delving into the details on the study they're available HereOh yeah, and Mike & wife are apparently expecting a kid
Guest Edgy DC Guests Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 That's, um, something.Take me a week to examine the data, but I'm intrigued.
Vic Sage Old-Timey Member Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 So in choosing not to re-sign Piazza and trading for LoDuca instead, we've given up 100 points of OPS (to date), not to mention some good prospects and substantially more money, and Paulie isn't even a defensive whiz?Jeez, whodda thunk?...besides me, i mean.
Guest Johnny Dickshot Guests Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 That presentation was awarded best in show at the just concluded SABR convention in Seattle (which I didn't attend).In St. Louis next summer, and Cleveland in 2008, and I plan on attending both of those.
Centerfield Old-Timey Member Posted July 6, 2006 Posted July 6, 2006 Vic Sage wrote:Jeez, whodda thunk?...besides me, i mean.Hey, I'm the one that started the thread. How about some credit.
Aiden Robbins Brooklyn Cyclones - A+ OF The 21-year-old 3rd round pick this year played 20 games for St. Lucie and hit .273/.371/.455 (.826) with 2 doubles and 4 homers. He has now played 2 games with Brooklyn and is 2-for-4 with a home run. Explore Aiden Robbins News >
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.