S. Castro's hitting and his walks

[DewsSox79]

to call out "bunting" or "stealing" in a general sense is one of the dumbest things to argue in baseball.

a baseball game(s) outcome is not determined by fucking fangraphs for everything.

there is a place for the bunt
there is a place for stealing

end of story.

 

[AmericanWerewolf]

Ehh, he still has a lot of potential. I'd like to see what he can do in the next couple of seasons.

 

[Captain Obvious]

to call out "bunting" or "stealing" in a general sense is one of the dumbest things to argue in baseball.

a baseball game(s) outcome is not determined by fucking fangraphs for everything.

there is a place for the bunt
there is a place for stealing

end of story.

And in those places you are more likely to kill an inning than you are to keep it going.

 

[nwfisch]

And in those places you are more likely to kill an inning than you are to keep it going.

OK?

That doesn't mean there isn't a time and a place for bunting and stealing.

 

[Lex L.]

Except that the information has been gathered from over a century before the steroid era started.

Exactly, the objective is to score runs. You score runs by not getting outs. You get out by bunting.

I agree that it changed the way people look at the game. However, that doesn't change that bunting is not the smart thing to do.

I've already addressed this. It's kind of stupid to repeat what I've already responded to. I don't know if you simply didn't read what I wrote or didn't understand it.

 

[Lex L.]

You do have to bunt every now and then to keep the defense honest, but there are certain situations where it's stupid to bunt because it basically kills your inning.

That's not true. Let's look at it this way. If you have a baserunner at 1st, you're more likely to get one hit than two hits, which is what it typically takes to score that run. When you begin studying data in this way during an era where that run is more likely to be scored on one hit because its the steroid era and there are more doubles and home runs, the data and analysis becomes skewed. When you start to see less doubles and home runs, it becomes time to re-examine these truisms.

Its especially stupid to bunt when you have a team of HR hitters which is what much of the steroid era was about. A) they typically cant bunt and B) the odds of getting a run home with one hit were greater. But you move away from an increased likelihood of scoring the run with one hit and you move towards an era of more balance (with more speed and better bunting), you have to let go of some of the flawed truisms that were embraced when made in the steroid era.

 

[DewsSox79]

And in those places you are more likely to kill an inning than you are to keep it going.

in certain situations you are totally wrong.

It is "obvious" that you only watch fangraphs and not actual baseball games. dope.

 

[Captain Obvious]

in certain situations you are totally wrong.

It is "obvious" that you only watch fangraphs and not actual baseball games. dope.

Right, because I get all this from fangraphs.

 

[Captain Obvious]

That's not true. Let's look at it this way. If you have a baserunner at 1st, you're more likely to get one hit than two hits, which is what it typically takes to score that run. When you begin studying data in this way during an era where that run is more likely to be scored on one hit because its the steroid era and there are more doubles and home runs, the data and analysis becomes skewed. When you start to see less doubles and home runs, it becomes time to re-examine these truisms.

Its especially stupid to bunt when you have a team of HR hitters which is what much of the steroid era was about. A) they typically cant bunt and B) the odds of getting a run home with one hit were greater. But you move away from an increased likelihood of scoring the run with one hit and you move towards an era of more balance (with more speed and better bunting), you have to let go of some of the flawed truisms that were embraced when made in the steroid era.

Except the part that you are not understanding is that it's not just data from the steroid era. It's data from the last century+ of baseball.

The biggest problem with your argument is that you're saying when you have that runner at first, you should bunt. That's absolutely not true. Only the worst hitting pitchers should bunt in that situation... half of the time.

 

[Lex L.]

Except the part that you are not understanding is that it's not just data from the steroid era. It's data from the last century+ of baseball.

The biggest problem with your argument is that you're saying when you have that runner at first, you should bunt. That's absolutely not true. Only the worst hitting pitchers should bunt in that situation... half of the time.

What you're not understanding is that this kind of analysis started during this time period, you dumbfuck. Of course there was data from prior years, numbnuts.

 

[Rice Cube]

What you're not understanding is that this kind of analysis started during this time period, you dumbfuck. Of course there was data from prior years, numbnuts.

The question is, what does the data throughout all of baseball say about run expectancy for each base/out situation? Because if you can show that giving away outs pre-steroid era increases your probability of scoring a run over the long haul, then that's great, but otherwise, giving away outs is not a good idea.

In late-game/extra-inning situations though, I have no problem with them bunting a guy over to get the go-ahead/winning run into scoring position. If you do it in the first inning though, it just seems really silly considering how run expectancy works.

 

[Captain Obvious]

What you're not understanding is that this kind of analysis started during this time period, you dumbfuck. Of course there was data from prior years, numbnuts.

So the data levels out. When the analysis started doesn't change how many runs a bunt is worth, numbnuts.

 

[Captain Obvious]

The question is, what does the data throughout all of baseball say about run expectancy for each base/out situation? Because if you can show that giving away outs pre-steroid era increases your probability of scoring a run over the long haul, then that's great, but otherwise, giving away outs is not a good idea.

In late-game/extra-inning situations though, I have no problem with them bunting a guy over to get the go-ahead/winning run into scoring position. If you do it in the first inning though, it just seems really silly considering how run expectancy works.

Even then it's generally not the smart thing to do. There are certain situations where it is accepted and I'd much rather a bunt happen in the 8th as opposed to the 1st, but it doesn't change that it is still not the move that will net you the most runs.

 

[Rice Cube]

Even then it's generally not the smart thing to do. There are certain situations where it is accepted and I'd much rather a bunt happen in the 8th as opposed to the 1st, but it doesn't change that it is still not the move that will net you the most runs.

Yeah, but in end-game situations it's more understandable. And the bunt is still good to beat defensive shifts (Carlos Pena, for example) or as a surprise move (squeeze plays). You have to keep the defense honest. So you can't completely eliminate the bunt from your strategy.

 

[nwfisch]

Even then it's generally not the smart thing to do. There are certain situations where it is accepted and I'd much rather a bunt happen in the 8th as opposed to the 1st, but it doesn't change that it is still not the move that will net you the most runs.

Who cares about netting the most runs in the 8th inning, win the game if you can. There are uncontrolled factors in baseball that numbers and equations don't account for.

This whole idea of bunting being dismissed all together is silly.

 

[Lex L.]

So the data levels out. When the analysis started doesn't change how many runs a bunt is worth, numbnuts.

It's clear that you fail to understand what has been said. You should just stop while you're behind.

 

[Lex L.]

Yeah, but in end-game situations it's more understandable. And the bunt is still good to beat defensive shifts (Carlos Pena, for example) or as a surprise move (squeeze plays). You have to keep the defense honest. So you can't completely eliminate the bunt from your strategy.

This guy doesnt even understand the difference between data and analysis of data.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Yeah, but in end-game situations it's more understandable. And the bunt is still good to beat defensive shifts (Carlos Pena, for example) or as a surprise move (squeeze plays). You have to keep the defense honest. So you can't completely eliminate the bunt from your strategy.

No doubt. I never said that there should be no bunting. I just said it's not the smart thing to do. There are of course situations where it can come in handy.

Who cares about netting the most runs in the 8th inning, win the game if you can. There are uncontrolled factors in baseball that numbers and equations don't account for.

This whole idea of bunting being dismissed all together is silly.

I care about netting the most runs, because runs turn into wins. And that's your goal. To win. Not bunting gives you a better chance at winning, although there are some exceptions.

Bunting shouldn't be dismissed. It's just very rare that bunting is actual the smart move.

 

[Rice Cube]

They have a point though especially in late-game situations. At that point your win expectancy could significantly change even with one or two runs. You don't need seven runs to win the game...just need to be up by one.

Of course, if they bunt when down 15, then they really are Special person

 

[Lex L.]

The question is, what does the data throughout all of baseball say about run expectancy for each base/out situation? Because if you can show that giving away outs pre-steroid era increases your probability of scoring a run over the long haul, then that's great, but otherwise, giving away outs is not a good idea.

In late-game/extra-inning situations though, I have no problem with them bunting a guy over to get the go-ahead/winning run into scoring position. If you do it in the first inning though, it just seems really silly considering how run expectancy works.

One problem with interpreting data is that you're best basestealers have often been the lead off hitters over the years. They're followed by 3 and 4 hitters which are often power hitters and they're not typically people who can bunt. Why does this matter? It matters because the people who are getting on base the most frequently are often followed by the best hitters on the team which, simultaneously are the worst bunters.

You have to understand things like this in order to see ways that there are flaws in interpreting data.