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

[SandbergMVP1984]

<!--quoteo(post=53181:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Butcher)-->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.

[Butcher]

<!--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.

[veryzer]

i also applaud your effort, even though you're wrong.

[SandbergMVP1984]

For what it's worth, I find the statistical side of baseball fascinating even though I don't have the patience to calculate these things myself. I think it would be awesome to see a actual statistical analysis of the decision.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=53172:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:07 PM:name=Butcher)-->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.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53232:date=Jul 29 2009, 02:57 PM:name=BT)-->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.

[BT]

I've got to go play softball now, but I will leave you with this.

I proved that virtually the bedrock of your premise (Fox always hits fly balls, and we needed a fly ball), was wrong (30 percent does not equal always). I then created a scenario in which I skewed virtually every number YOUR way in order to prove that at best, there was very little difference between the 2 scenarios (I don't think giving Fontenot a 50 percent chance of simply putting the ball in play is too high a number, which would make the Fox choice the wrong one), and your response was "see, now that we've proven Fox was more likely to knock him in, Lou is insane for choosing another option".

That's maddening.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

There is gonna be some goddamned angry sex in the bedrooms of a couple certain avatars tonight.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53260:date=Jul 29 2009, 03:38 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 29 2009, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I've got to go play softball now, but I will leave you with this.

I proved that virtually the bedrock of your premise (Fox always hits fly balls, and we needed a fly ball), was wrong (30 percent does not equal always). I then created a scenario in which I skewed virtually every number YOUR way in order to prove that at best, there was very little difference between the 2 scenarios (I don't think giving Fontenot a 50 percent chance of simply putting the ball in play is too high a number, which would make the Fox choice the wrong one), and your response was "see, now that we've proven Fox was more likely to knock him in, Lou is insane for choosing another option".

That's maddening.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're allowed to decide what the "bedrock" of my premise is, then it's easy to decide the outcome of this discussion. And I don't think you even came close to "proving" that there is very little difference between the 2 scenarios. There's a vast chasm between the 2 scenarios.

Talk about maddening.

[Giff]

Here's the biggest problem I have with what you're saying, Butch. Sure, the highest percentage play is the "best" play. But it is absolutely impossible to break down a single play into such a simple, finite, single number. There is no way to say "Fox had a 35.7% chance to drive in the run, whereas Fontenot squeezing had a 31.4% chance." There is so much that goes into every pitch, every play, that can never be accounted for, that breaking things down like this simply doesn't work. So sure, you, and most people (probably me included), think having Fox swing away was the best option. But it is entirely conceivable that, through everything Lou knows about his players, the situation, and the game, he thought a squeeze was a statistically sound play. And because there is no proof whatsoever that's an incorrect thought, the squeeze argument has a defense.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=53314:date=Jul 29 2009, 04:32 PM:name=Giff)-->QUOTE (Giff @ Jul 29 2009, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's the biggest problem I have with what you're saying, Butch. Sure, the highest percentage play is the "best" play. But it is absolutely impossible to break down a single play into such a simple, finite, single number. There is no way to say "Fox had a 35.7% chance to drive in the run, whereas Fontenot squeezing had a 31.4% chance." There is so much that goes into every pitch, every play, that can never be accounted for, that breaking things down like this simply doesn't work. So sure, you, and most people (probably me included), think having Fox swing away was the best option. But it is entirely conceivable that, through everything Lou knows about his players, the situation, and the game, he thought a squeeze was a statistically sound play. And because there is no proof whatsoever that's an incorrect thought, the squeeze argument has a defense.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a list of things that makes the suicide squeeze IN THAT SITUATION a poor decision. This isn't even factoring Jake Fox into the equation:

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a pitcher who is usually around the plate. Someone like Bob Howry. It minimizes the chance that you'll miss the bunt. Valverde was wild as hell. There was no predicting where his pitches would go. So, if you commit to bunt (which you have to do in a squeeze play, since your runner from 3B has started running as soon as the windup starts) and the ball is unhittable, the runner is fucked.

- You want to execute a squeeze play against a guy who isn't considered a strikeout pitcher, so you have a better chance of making contact. Valverde averages 11K per 9IP over the course of his career. That's a high ratio. It's Pedro Martinez high.

- You want a good/experienced bunter at the plate. Fontenot averages about 2 sacrifice bunts a season.

- The bases were loaded, which means you can tag the runner out OR step on home plate. It's a lot easier when there's a force at home.

- The pitcher throws right-handed and the batter hits left-handed. This means that Bradley had to wait a little longer to start running. It also means Pudge had a clear view of the play as it developed.

It's such a risky play as-is, without factoring ANY of the stuff above into the equation. So Lou, who presumably looked at all of his options, looked at the situation, and looked at all of the factors listed above, STILL decided to put the squeeze on. And again -- this isn't even bringing Fox's availability into the equation. Even if Fontenot was your ONLY option, the squeeze was still the riskier move.

The closer you look at it, the harder it is to defend.

[veryzer]

it wasn't a retarded decision. it just wasn't.

[bz]

<!--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.

[PcB]

<!--quoteo(post=53373:date=Jul 29 2009, 05:47 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 29 2009, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=53237:date=Jul 29 2009, 03:06 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>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-->
tail pipes feel a helluva lot better than vaginas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well...it's really just for special occasions.

[bz]

PS- I'm glad you added "his gut" to your wager so that the bet exists in a black and white scenario...despite the fact that most people probably use a degree of calculated and educated decision making. It's like you think there's either binary or random impulses. You must hate bell curves.