I saw the argument in the game thread....

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53121:date=Jul 29 2009, 01:05 PM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)-->QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ Jul 29 2009, 01:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53119:date=Jul 29 2009, 01:56 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Just for the sake of argument, let's say (and I'm just going to make these numbers up):

- batting Fox and having him swing away (or work the count off a wild Valverde) in that situation has a 65% chance of producing a run
- batting Fontenot and having him do the same has a 60% chance of producing a run
- batting Fontenot and having him execute a squeeze play has a 55% chance of producing a run

Why in the fuck would anyone pick anything other than option 1? Even if the percentages were 65%, 64%, and 63%, why would anyone pick anything other than option 1?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Butcher, are you that risk-averse that you would never consider bucking the odds? I mean, while I consider myself a stat wonk (and, for the record, I would have put Fox in there to hack away), I dig the occasional surprise move. In an age dominated by percentages, I find it assuring (and more than a little uplifting) that a manager try an occasional loopy gambit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On occasion, perhaps.

But when Fox hits a flyball practically every time he's at the plate, Fontenot bunts about twice a season, the bases were just walked loaded by the pitcher on the mound, and Fox had to come into the game anyway, there's no reason to try some wacky surprise move. No reason whatsoever. The percentages weren't close enough to bother with anything but the obvious straight-forward move in that situation.