 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 | ||
This, but also, isn't the extra runner there to "shorten" games?Originally Posted by Chi_archie
Instead we get longer games like last night because two 'brilliant sabermetric managers' can't get the guy in whereas a Tom Kelly or Dick Willians would have won the game in the 10th.
I think you have some recency and home team bias going since you watched that game last night with your fave team.
It's the only 12 inning game thus far this year. By and large the extra innings have been much shorter this year.
so far 17 of 25 game extra inning games this year have ended with just one extra frame, or 68%. as opposed to 43% in the previous 7 years
of the remaining 8 extra inning games
11th inning- 6
12th inning-1
13th inning- 1
historically 18% of extra inning games go 13 or more innings. I think that is what MLB is looking to do with this rule. an extra inning or two or 3 can be extra exciting, and it doesn't deplete a team's bullpen and players as much as those marathon affairs with position players pitching we've seen in recent years.
extra innings are seeing 1.69 runs scored per inning on average this year
as opposed to 1.07 typically, so we aren't seeing many boring stalemate innings.
This is the most correct answer.
Those with the skill do it in the games.
I’ve seen several sac bunts this season in extra innings.
Nobody knows how to manufacture runs in today’s game. It’s all swing for the fences.
It is a losing play because it lessens the total number of runs expected BUT it also increases the likelihood of scoring at least a single run.
So really it depends on game situation. If a team is batting in the bottom of the inning with the score tied, they should absolutely bunt the guy over to 3rd assuming the batter is capable of getting a bunt down- and that really seems to be the problem is that no one knows how to bunt properly anymore
Not only did Cleveland have the skill to execute the bunt, they probably accounted for the Chicago White Sox defense having little to no chance of defending it.
I'd like to add the point that if the Manager was at bat, he more than likely would be capable of bunting the runner over to 3rd base.
You see all the time teams have an exaggerated shift for a lefty dead pull hitter. If he could bunt, he could have a base hit 100% of the time or until they stop shifting. But he can't so he just grounds out to short right field
If they keep this rule or somehow adopt it in the future the percentage of bunts in extra innings, particularly the bottom, likely rises.
There will be more skill players to close out games, like a closing pitcher.
Here's another failure from last nights game.
Bot 12. Guy on 3rd 1 out.
Milwaukee actually pitches to Kepler, but they hit him on full count, so now 1st/ 3rd 1 out.
Now...wouldn't you just walk the next guy to set up the force at home? They brought in a 5 man infield but had no force at home, yet the corners + 5th man are coming home per the shift.
Of course, Polanco breaks his bat and dribbles to second, throw home is in time for a force, but they miss the tag.
Sabermetrics DON'T WORK
Teams from 70s 80s 90s would beat the shit out of teams today.
That's what they said for years and now it's in front offices everywhere.
Stats don't just drive decisions made on the field (they impact virtually every decision made in a game) but they are used to make efficient teams.
From the 2002 A's, the Red Sox breaking the "curse" to TB outperfomring their payroll expectations the use of stats and player valuations is everywhere.
You can't just say "sabermetrcis don't work" especially if you don't understand that it just really means an objective search for knowledge of the game.
Sabermetrics, before the term was coined from the Society of American Baseball Research Statistical Anlaysis Committee (SABR), were used in many examples from the 1800's to the 1920's, 40's and 60's.
The past eras simply had 'by the book' managers whose knowledge of the game was the metric.That's what they said for years and now it's in front offices everywhere.
Stats don't just drive decisions made on the field (they impact virtually every decision made in a game) but they are used to make efficient teams.
From the 2002 A's, the Red Sox breaking the "curse" to TB outperfomring their payroll expectations the use of stats and player valuations is everywhere.
You can't just say "sabermetrcis don't work" especially if you don't understand that it just really means an objective search for knowledge of the game.
Sabermetrics, before the term was coined from the Society of American Baseball Research Statistical Anlaysis Committee (SABR), were used in many examples from the 1800's to the 1920's, 40's and 60's.
I'll grant that sabermetric analysis can build a very efficient team. HOWEVER a knowledgable baseball manager is probably worth 3 or 4 wins a year now and he alone can wipe out the value of sabermetrics.
The teams that keep winning...the Yanks, the Cubs, the Sox, the Dodgers....they are the MOST INEFFICIENT teams in baseball.
Modern baseball analysis hasn't produced a champion or anything that justify the change in game style or gameplay.
What's the point of Oakland or TB winning 90 games uf less people attend because it's not baseball anymore, its fastpitch softball played by a bunch of guys with too many vowels and 'z's in their names.
No need to bunt to 3rd base. The catcher will throw at 3rd.
I don't think you understand just how pervasive the knowledge gained is used...
That's it. End of story.
Any other methods will lose long term.
Managers that are combining gut while already using the knowledge to be competitive gets you to the winners circle.
That doesn't take away from the need for them to be competitive to begin with, it's essential.
Also, asking a hispanic player to bunt offends their machismo
They would rather lose
WTF lol
Why does every poster think the goddamn catcher is grabbing the bunt?
It's a SACRIFICE bunt. Literally bunted to the 1b so he takes the out as the runner advances. IF he plays in then u bunt to 3rd. If 3b is in then YOU STEAL 3rd base.
JFC doesn't anyone here know the game.
Yeah, it's a sacrifce play.
Bunt, fly, whatever. The whole idea is the sac.
Someone's boomer tighty whiteys are showing
Sometimes I think the board is intentionally fukking w me.... then I realize there's no way they could coordinate such an attack as half the forum can't even spell baseball......
7% the visitors have bunted in extras this season.
20% Home Team has bunted in extras this year.
Any of you actually play sports? Bunting is not that hard.
Bunting Major league pitching is hard to do
It's a lot easier to see from a center field camera zoomed in that the pitch is an 86 MPH slider and not a 95 MPH fast ball
And it's not like you want to just square up to bunt like in little league. You would be negating the protection of your helmet and a fastball too your grill would end your day at the very least.
True I used to say the same thing about NBA centers guarding Shaq.... I was line c'mon guys, how hard is it to just jump up and block his dunks so they didn't go in.
Sheesh
Want to know the truth? Players don't know how to bunt anymore. If they do, not very well. They stopped playing that kind of baseball (you know the logical kind). I used to scream at Jimmy Leyland old Tigers manager. He refused to bunt guys over in tight close games. I would even call the sports shows on the radio, but many times they would hang up on me. Yeah, I do a good Jimbo Leyland impersonation. So, I would call and say penetrate bunting and winning that way. You think with Cabrera coming up I'm gonna have him bunt?
Jim leyland used to be the king of the sacrifice bunt with Jay Bell and the 90's Pirates
he adapted with the game and wasn't stubborn about it
....his adaption worked out well.
Swept in 2012 WS shut out twice.
Sometimes you NEED a run. Because guess what, EVERY pitcher would rather play w the lead.
Leyland was a sub .500 mgr before Detroit and barely .500 after despite 3 straight 90 win seasons.
Reply With Quote
