- Joined:
- Apr 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 19,670
- Liked Posts:
- 6,438
- Location:
- Chicago
Bunts with Pierre on base...wtf?
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
Look at Prope, wanting the chance to face his accusers and all that.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434]YouTube - HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED[/ame]
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
How correct/incorrect would it be for me synthesize this info into one idiom - that it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks? Way oversimplified?
Lefty
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,241
- Liked Posts:
- 780
You'd have to note that the dog is really, really stupid.
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 46,113
- Liked Posts:
- 35,342
My favorite teams
Oh c'mon Captain.....
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
My apologies. :tiphat:
- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 29,059
- Liked Posts:
- 7,249
with some of these lame smillies, tiphat would be a sick one to have.
Lefty
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,241
- Liked Posts:
- 780
Steal teh databasezzzz!!!!111!1!
- Joined:
- May 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Liked Posts:
- 1,974
:doorrofl:
Lefty
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 19, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,241
- Liked Posts:
- 780
Some notes on Ozzie's bunting:
Of the 302 sacrifice bunts Ozzie's White Sox have committed throughout his managerial tenure, 218 of those have come a man on first, flat-out the worst situation in which a team can signal for a sacrifice. It doesn't increase your chances of scoring many runs, nor does it increase your chances of scoring at least one run, which is more often than not the mantra behind signaling for a sacrifice.
Because of that then, it is fair to use a Run Expectancy table to assess how many runs have been gained/lost via bunting, because we want to know the total number of runs the team bunted its way out of. Assuming all these bunts occurred in the 2008 season (which actually saves runs considering bunting was extremely less valuable even in the tail-end of the steroid era) with a runner on first and nobody out (the "best" situation for a sacrifice), the difference between that situation and a runner on second with one out (the result of a successful sacrifice) is 0.21 Expected Runs. That means that throughout his managerial career, Ozzie's sacrificing with a runner on first nearly 73% of the time has cost this team roughly 46 runs. Adding that to the amount of runs Ozzie's teams have cost themselves over his time with the team (55 runs), that's 101 runs cost throughout his tenure, roughly ten whole wins or about 1.5 wins a season. Most of these wins, mind you, can be properly placed at the feet of Ozzie, considering he is the one signaling for steals with guys that shouldn't be stealing and bunts in the worst-possible situation. So then, we can figure, conservatively mind you, that Ozzie is good for costing his team a full win a season (this is just using a Run Expectancy framework, too, if we were to use a Win Expectancy framework, the results would probably be even more harsh).
Of the 302 sacrifice bunts Ozzie's White Sox have committed throughout his managerial tenure, 218 of those have come a man on first, flat-out the worst situation in which a team can signal for a sacrifice. It doesn't increase your chances of scoring many runs, nor does it increase your chances of scoring at least one run, which is more often than not the mantra behind signaling for a sacrifice.
Because of that then, it is fair to use a Run Expectancy table to assess how many runs have been gained/lost via bunting, because we want to know the total number of runs the team bunted its way out of. Assuming all these bunts occurred in the 2008 season (which actually saves runs considering bunting was extremely less valuable even in the tail-end of the steroid era) with a runner on first and nobody out (the "best" situation for a sacrifice), the difference between that situation and a runner on second with one out (the result of a successful sacrifice) is 0.21 Expected Runs. That means that throughout his managerial career, Ozzie's sacrificing with a runner on first nearly 73% of the time has cost this team roughly 46 runs. Adding that to the amount of runs Ozzie's teams have cost themselves over his time with the team (55 runs), that's 101 runs cost throughout his tenure, roughly ten whole wins or about 1.5 wins a season. Most of these wins, mind you, can be properly placed at the feet of Ozzie, considering he is the one signaling for steals with guys that shouldn't be stealing and bunts in the worst-possible situation. So then, we can figure, conservatively mind you, that Ozzie is good for costing his team a full win a season (this is just using a Run Expectancy framework, too, if we were to use a Win Expectancy framework, the results would probably be even more harsh).
- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 29,059
- Liked Posts:
- 7,249
i think we should make a thread of what was done wrong and what was done right as a whole, from jr all the way down to the ball boy.