07-29-2009, 03:19 PM
<!--quoteo(post=53187:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:17 PM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 02:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53181:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53175:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:08 PM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 29 2009, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53161:date=Jul 29 2009, 01:48 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is you are proceeding from evidence that doesn't exist. Fox hits a flyball practically every time he is at the plate? Take out walks, and Fox has 93 plate appearances. Of those plate appearances, how many times do you think he hit a fly ball? 50? 60? 70? Actually, the number is 36. Fox had 57 line drives/strikeouts/groundballs. Now, of those 36, the data doesn't tell us how many were deep enough to score a guy from 3rd, but lets be really generous, and say 75 percent. That makes 27, out of 93 plate appearances, fly balls that could score a run. That's less than 30 percent.
Now obviously, his chances of getting the runner in is higher than that, because some of those grounders, line drives, and fly balls went for hits. But your premise has gone from a near certainty that he could hit a flyball to demonstrable proof that 70 percent of the time he does NOT hit a ball capable of being a sacrifice fly. Rather, he does not hit a deep fly.
Now I say to you, if Fontenot even had a 1 in 3 chance of getting a ball down, doesn't your "obvious" choice, seem a bit less obvious? If you add in the fact that Fox had a decent chance of hitting into a DP, as he is slow, doesn't it get a little less obvious? Isn't the chance that Fox could hit into a DP at least as likely as Fontenot not being able to simply foul off the bunt attempt?
Let's say Fox had a 40 percent chance of driving in the run, but a 10 percent chance of hitting into a DP. Let's say Fontenot had a 30 percent chance of getting the bunt down, and 5 percent chance of missing the ball completely (I'm pretty sure I am skewing things in your favor here). Is trying to bunt so insane? And if those numbers are right, how in God's name can you say one is "obvious", the other is a wacky stunt?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was going to do a breakdown like this, but I felt it wouldn't make a difference. I applaud your effort.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No go back and read my response.
I'll be awaiting your apology.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hah, why would I apologize? We're arguing semantics, no matter what any of us say it's not going to make a difference.
If it helps, I applaud your effort too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It helps. Thank you.
The problem is you are proceeding from evidence that doesn't exist. Fox hits a flyball practically every time he is at the plate? Take out walks, and Fox has 93 plate appearances. Of those plate appearances, how many times do you think he hit a fly ball? 50? 60? 70? Actually, the number is 36. Fox had 57 line drives/strikeouts/groundballs. Now, of those 36, the data doesn't tell us how many were deep enough to score a guy from 3rd, but lets be really generous, and say 75 percent. That makes 27, out of 93 plate appearances, fly balls that could score a run. That's less than 30 percent.
Now obviously, his chances of getting the runner in is higher than that, because some of those grounders, line drives, and fly balls went for hits. But your premise has gone from a near certainty that he could hit a flyball to demonstrable proof that 70 percent of the time he does NOT hit a ball capable of being a sacrifice fly. Rather, he does not hit a deep fly.
Now I say to you, if Fontenot even had a 1 in 3 chance of getting a ball down, doesn't your "obvious" choice, seem a bit less obvious? If you add in the fact that Fox had a decent chance of hitting into a DP, as he is slow, doesn't it get a little less obvious? Isn't the chance that Fox could hit into a DP at least as likely as Fontenot not being able to simply foul off the bunt attempt?
Let's say Fox had a 40 percent chance of driving in the run, but a 10 percent chance of hitting into a DP. Let's say Fontenot had a 30 percent chance of getting the bunt down, and 5 percent chance of missing the ball completely (I'm pretty sure I am skewing things in your favor here). Is trying to bunt so insane? And if those numbers are right, how in God's name can you say one is "obvious", the other is a wacky stunt?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was going to do a breakdown like this, but I felt it wouldn't make a difference. I applaud your effort.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No go back and read my response.
I'll be awaiting your apology.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hah, why would I apologize? We're arguing semantics, no matter what any of us say it's not going to make a difference.
If it helps, I applaud your effort too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It helps. Thank you.