Posts: 11,807
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->As if bunting is some exotic skill that only a few people have acquired, and asking any of the lesser beings on the planet to try something as rare and as unique as placing a bunt is the height of lunacy.
Fontenot is not capable of bunting, and therefore shouldn't be asked to do it. That is the point that keeps getting made, and THAT is the point I am trying to refute when I say that relief pitchers (who by your own admission can't hit) are asked to bunt all the time, why shouldn't Fontenot be asked to.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That has never been my argument. I have never said Fontenot is incapable of bunting or that it is some exotic skill that only a few people have acquired. I may have said that he isn't a particularly good bunter (and you want a pretty good bunter at the plate to execute the squeeze so they don't, oh...I don't know, miss the ball). But I have never implied that bunting is some sort of mythical skill that only Zeus possesses.
My main point has been, and continues to be: there were better options available. Lou went a different direction. That wasn't smart. Fontenot's bunting skills (or lack thereof) are only a tertiary element of my main point. The fact that Fontenot is a better fly ball hitter than a bunter only supports my argument that Lou didn't make a wise decision.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Not just in that specific case (I understand there may have been better options), but in general.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you've either misunderstood me, or I haven't made myself clear. I've been saying this whole time that *in this specific case* it was a bad move. The bases were loaded. Valverde walked the bases loaded. Fontenot bats left-handed. There's more pressure to make contact and not pop the bunt up when Bradley is barreling down the 3B line.
You want to have Fontenot hit a sac bunt when the game isn't on the line? Fine. Go nuts (I'm not crazy about the sac bunt in general, as I don't like giving away outs, but that's another discussion.). I just don't understand Lou's thinking that led him to put Fontenot in <i>that particular situation.</i>
Posts: 2,100
Threads: 41
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Then I will ask again, if I was responding to Jstraws contention that Fontenot is not capable of bunting, why would you then say:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->- BT? Relief pitchers are called on to bunt and nobody bats an eye because, with very few exceptions, they can't hit worth a damn. How many pitchers could you count on to hit a medium-to-deep fly ball?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly, I was asking why Fontenot should not be expected to be able to bunt. I was not claiming that bunting was a better strategy than hoping for a flyball.
If you think Fontenot is capable of bunting, we don't have anything to argue about. If you think there were better options than bunting, we don't have anything to argue about, as I haven't said otherwise. If you still think bunting was not only unacceptable, but clearly wrong, insane, retarded, etc, then we do have something to argue about.
You understand the burden of proof is much more difficult for you on this than me, right? I'm not claiming bunting was the best idea, simply that it was an acceptable option. Not the best, but acceptable. Even Ruby's piece that completely derides the suicide squeeze as a tactic admits this. You on the other hand, have to not only prove it wasn't the best option, but an option that is beyond the realm of acceptable thought. That it was not just something you would not have chosen, but that anyone choosing it is not acting in a rational frame of mind. That anyone choosing that option is not just responsible for the actions of the player being asked to bunt, but due to the decision being SO bad as to be obvious to even the casual observer, the person asking for the bunt is responsible for any subsequent loss, regardless of the players performance.
Taking this further, since you seem to think that choosing ANY option which is not the optimal choice is "insane", then by extension, bunting in that situation is NO DIFFERENT than asking Bradley to steal home. Or pinch hitting Jeff Stevens for Fontenot, and asking him to swing away. Or asking the players to do jumping jacks on the bases in hopes of causing a balk. They are all insane, since they are not the "best" option.
I'm sure there is a computer program out there that can tell you the optimal move in virtually every situation. I am also sure that managers who pick an option other than what the computer would tell them to do, do it every day without you thinking they are nuts.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=53110:date=Jul 29 2009, 12:44 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 12:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Then I will ask again, if I was responding to Jstraws contention that Fontenot is not capable of bunting, why would you then say:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say he was incapable. I'm suggesting that he hasn't demonstrated a proficiency for it.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
Making the demonstrably inferior choice among several options is wrong regardless of the ability to execute that inferior choice. Make the superior choice.
Posts: 11,807
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
We agree that it wasn't the best option. So we can end that.
We agree that Fontenot isn't the best bunter on the team, but can probably lay down a bunt from time to time. So we can end that.
What we don't agree on is choosing anything other than the option that is most likely to end with a successful result.
You're right. I believe that if the best option in that situation is to PH Fox and have him swing away, then choosing <i>any other option</i> is insane. Why would you ever choose to go with an option that is less likely to produce the desired result? I can't comprehend that.
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?
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=53119:date=Jul 29 2009, 01:56 PM:name=Butcher)-->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.
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 11,807
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--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.
Posts: 11,807
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=53116:date=Jul 29 2009, 12:52 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Jul 29 2009, 12:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Making the demonstrably inferior choice among several options is wrong regardless of the ability to execute that inferior choice. Make the superior choice.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This pretty much sums up my feelings.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
of all the people in the world who ever got it, bt gets it the most. he's a getter.
Wang.
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=53139:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:26 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 29 2009, 02:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->of all the people in the world who ever got it, bt gets it the most. he's a getter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's precisely why he was voted "Most Likely to Get" in high school.
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->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?
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 11,807
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
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.
Posts: 301
Threads: 3
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=53161:date=Jul 29 2009, 01:48 PM:name=BT)-->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.
Posts: 11,807
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=53175:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:08 PM:name=Sandberg)-->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.
|
