 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Some baseball decesions leave me puzzled
Yesterday in the 10th Washington gets a runner on 2nd with nobody out. Instead of bunting him to third, the guy strikes out. Next out and out and they end up losing in 12. Today bottom of ninth with the braves. Down 5-4, the leadoff guy doubles. Instead of bunting the tieing run to third hinske flys out to center. They still might get this run in, but I just don't get it. Get that runner to third with less then 2 outs.
???? u never bunt a guy over to 3rd with no outs , ever
Um, why not?Originally Posted by ttwarrior1
well if they did they would be going into extras, instead of losing. And yes TT you do.
Trade outs for runs, not 2nd/3rd base.
Get better players that can get a hit with RISP.
not everyone can bunt, some guys ur better off letting them swing
Most managers are just ex players who don't really understand the game as well as an average baseball stats nerd would. It's pretty comical how they bat a career .220 batter with .670 career OPS in the #2 hole because he's "been hot" for 2 weeks and proceed to revert back to career average over the next week, dropping back to the 7th spot after costing the team 2-3 wins.
Happens on most teams except a few and guess what, the ones that dont do it are the teams constantly winning year in year out (Yankees, Red Sox before this season, etc)
sacrifice bunts are generally rally killers. Obviously, pitcher should be bunting but outside that, there are only a few occasions you should be trading an out for a base runner to move up one base. Having 3 outs with a runner on 2nd (EV = 1.116 runs) is a better long-term proposition than having a runner at 3rd with 1 out (EV = .976 runs)
I think stat geeks have proven that over the long term, sacrifice bunts are detrimental and counter-productive.
you only get 27 outs, don't give them a way
^^^^^^^^ The stats mentioned here doesnt apply to the situation at hand. Maybe if the game was still early pre 7th inning , you take a chance with 3 at bats. However in this situation, at home, bottom of the 9th , you most definitely bunt the man over to third. You still have the chance to win the game. That decision was greedy and cost them the game.
Big mistake by the Braves manager. Decisions like these are the reason why the Braves will not win the division or the wildcard this year.
Actually, now that I read this post in its entirety, I don't really have any problem with the decisions.
Colorado was on the road, there were 20 runs already scored in that game, they probably felt playing for one was a bad idea.
The Atlanta game is a little tricky. I would normally bunt there, trying to get the home team to extra innings. Hinske isn't a bunter, however, and is their best hitter off the bench. If you put a pitcher up to bunt, you might not get a chance to ever use Hinske. I think that decision is tougher.
red sox have done it with nava who has a .400+ OBP against rightys this season and is now the leadoff hitter, and its worked a treat
edit: .470 OBP vs rightys
Washington was on the road.. It was in extras with the potetional winning run on 2. There also had only been 1 run scored the last 5 innings. You already blew most of your pitching staff you have to get that run in. I feel you have to get that runner over. You can tell the guy to hit the right side, but easier said then done. Late in games like these i think you have to bunt. I hate bunting and would never sacrifice in early innings but you have to in these positions.
saw 3 games this year with a guy on 2nd, tried to bunt guy over, not only did the guy not make it, but he was thrown out at 1st
You take your chances on 1 guy out of 3 getting a basehit.
All but a handful of managers (cf. Joe Madden, Mike Scioscia, Bob Melvin, etc...) play by the "book" which is to say they basically make baseball managing decisions based on their gut and intuition rather than any sort of objective weighing of the options. In other words, a manager in 2012 wouldn't be that much different than one in 1912. Most managers are brain dead if you want the honest truth.
bunting down 3 -2 with no outs , guy on 2nd, and then bunting the next guy, he got out, got the
head coach here fired a month ago
This is true but because of the fact that having 3 outs with a man on 2nd and batting has a better chance of driving in multiple runs than the other scenario.
The numbers would be much closer, if not in favor of bunting, if the objective was solely to get a single run to tie the game, which is probably the optimal play trailing by 1 in the bottom of the 9th.
Sorry, I meant Washington.
This one really is a tough call. I think it would depend on who was up, who was on deck, and who Colorado had batting in the bottom half of the inning.
I don't really think there is an absolute right or wrong answer here.
Doesn't really matter what the objective is. There is no scenario according to run expectancy matrices where having a runner at the 3rd with 1 is more advantageous for scoring than having a runner at 2nd with 0 outs. Now, the exception is when you have a pitcher then you should bunt because the pitcher is such a weak hitter. So the batter does matter when it is a pitcher. But outside that, teams should avoid sacrifice bunts except with pitchers or extraordinarily weak hitters (e.g. Emmanual Burris)
lol what the fuk is this afro asian kid sayen. This dildo face be accusing managers who get paid hundreds of thousands as brain dead managers who don't understand baseball.
EV is EV kid. 1.1>.9
Objective does matter here
Example for this case:
Man on second with 0 outs produces net 1.116 runs in the inning. Of that, its 0 runs 25% of the time, 1 run 40% of the time, 2 runs 25% of the time, 3+ runs 10% of the time.
Bunting to get 1 out and man on 3rd nets 0.976 runs. Of that, its 0 runs 15% of the time, 1 run 74% of the time, 2 runs 10% of the time, 3+ runs 1% of the time.
In this scenario (which overcompensates for the given run EVs), you extend the game 85% of the time by bunting, even though you score less over the long run than the first case where you extend the game 75% of the time.
Obviously it depends on more variables than a running average. It depends the most on where in the lineup you are (as most have acknowledged to the most basic level, with the pitcher batting), in this case they were at the bottom of the lineup which should weigh it more in favor of bunting.
You can blame dumb asses like Billy Beane and the Steroid era...
Drives me nuts when they don't bunt people over in obvious situations
Sadly, most of these guys don't know how to bunt...
Depends on who is at the plate and on deck. A lot of guys can't bunt or bunt well. A single scores that run anyway, so why not let 3 guys have a chance to get 1 hit? Almost any contact should advance the runner so the manager has faith his guys can get wood on the ball. The fact they can't means the hitters failed the manager. You can't manage scared.
|
This post was nominated 1
time
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: ChalkyDog
|
Intersting discussion.
Last edited by pacocn; 06-30-12 at 12:41 AM.
was not an obvious bunt, especially with players that rarely bunt, a player any time can just chop at the ball and do better than bunt
Reminds me of when people were complaining in the late 90s when jim thome was bunting and people were like why are you bunting with your best hitter up and only bunted once in the last 5 years. He failed and they lost.
Reply With Quote
