07-29-2009, 06:47 PM
<!--quoteo(post=53237:date=Jul 29 2009, 03:06 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53232:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:57 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53172:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:07 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jul 29 2009, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You're leaving out some factors, BT.
- The bases were loaded. A HBP, and a walk both score a run there. If you work the count instead of flail away trying to bunt, you've got a pretty good chance that Valverde drives the run home on his own.
- Because Valverde was wild, the liklihood of him *not* throwing a buntable pitch was higher (nevermind what happened -- it doesn't factor into Lou's decision), leaving Bradley out to dry.
- Fontenot is a LHB, making the play that much easier to read for Pudge.
- I don't think 40% is high enough for Fox. The fact that he is hitting .312 means there's already a 31% chance that he gets a base hit. 31% is the foundation. Add in the odds of him being able to hit a medium-to-deep flyball, and the possibility of drawing a walk, and the odds are much, much greater than 40%.
And even if the odds are as you present, why would you ever choose the 30% probability over the 40% probability? I still don't understand that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forget it. I could go point by point (your much much greater than 40 percent is fantasy, since you'd be counting hits like his Home Runs twice if you add flyballs to average), but you are such a stubborn broad sometimes it makes my hair hurt. What's left of it. I could spend hours crunching numbers, finally coming to the conclusion that Fox had a 40 percent chance of driving him in, and the bunt had a 39 percent chance, and you would simply say " Can someone please explain why you'd chose the 39 percent over the 40? I really don't get it. It makes no sense to me". Then you'd call the guy who chose the 39 percent option insane.
I truly hope someday they build your robotic manager who manages solely by the percentages. Then maybe you'll blame his players for fucking up rather than Coach Bender's thought process.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd bet my life savings, my house, and everything that I own and ever will own that if a human manager who manages by his "gut" and a robotic manager who manages solely by the percentages managed the same exact team over the same 162 game schedule, the robotic manager would lead the team to more wins.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you don't have a lot of faith in humans, eh? In your mind HAL should have killed the astronaut, IBM never cheated with Deep Blue and tail pipes feel a helluva lot better than vaginas.
- The bases were loaded. A HBP, and a walk both score a run there. If you work the count instead of flail away trying to bunt, you've got a pretty good chance that Valverde drives the run home on his own.
- Because Valverde was wild, the liklihood of him *not* throwing a buntable pitch was higher (nevermind what happened -- it doesn't factor into Lou's decision), leaving Bradley out to dry.
- Fontenot is a LHB, making the play that much easier to read for Pudge.
- I don't think 40% is high enough for Fox. The fact that he is hitting .312 means there's already a 31% chance that he gets a base hit. 31% is the foundation. Add in the odds of him being able to hit a medium-to-deep flyball, and the possibility of drawing a walk, and the odds are much, much greater than 40%.
And even if the odds are as you present, why would you ever choose the 30% probability over the 40% probability? I still don't understand that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forget it. I could go point by point (your much much greater than 40 percent is fantasy, since you'd be counting hits like his Home Runs twice if you add flyballs to average), but you are such a stubborn broad sometimes it makes my hair hurt. What's left of it. I could spend hours crunching numbers, finally coming to the conclusion that Fox had a 40 percent chance of driving him in, and the bunt had a 39 percent chance, and you would simply say " Can someone please explain why you'd chose the 39 percent over the 40? I really don't get it. It makes no sense to me". Then you'd call the guy who chose the 39 percent option insane.
I truly hope someday they build your robotic manager who manages solely by the percentages. Then maybe you'll blame his players for fucking up rather than Coach Bender's thought process.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd bet my life savings, my house, and everything that I own and ever will own that if a human manager who manages by his "gut" and a robotic manager who manages solely by the percentages managed the same exact team over the same 162 game schedule, the robotic manager would lead the team to more wins.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you don't have a lot of faith in humans, eh? In your mind HAL should have killed the astronaut, IBM never cheated with Deep Blue and tail pipes feel a helluva lot better than vaginas.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy