Tigers vs. royals Game Thread Sept. 27

[nydo77]

This is a 50-year sample. Acknowledge on the 5% difference. I wavered on that. Still not a viable play in my opinion and the stats back me up.

Except the stats do not back you up. The stats are mixed. And the chance of the run scoring going up from 64% to 69% is significant; that is a 5% greater chance of winning the game. Again, that all hinges on the bunter getting that bunt down properly, and I didn't really like using Santiago for that, as he hasn't been a completely reliable bunter in that situation. You are still ignoring the fact that Fielder was on second, so there was almost no chance of the runner scoring on a single, which skews the percentages even more.

I can appreciate that some people do not like the sacrifice bunt. But don't overstate your case.

 

[nydo77]

The numbers do not support that myth. See previous post. And who is the best sac bunt man in baseball today?

Ok, let's look at the stats you put up. The run expectancy numbers being slightly against the sac bunt are irrelevant in this case, since one run wins the game, and scoring multiple runs is completely irrelevant (except to a player's personal stats). The chance of a run scoring is the only relevant figure there, and the stat indicates a 5% higher chance of it scoring after a successful sacrifice bunt. So the only other stat that would skew that is the chance with any given hitter that he drops the sacrifice bunt properly, so it all hinges on your confidence of getting the bunt down; once that is done you have a 5% better chance of getting a run. In this given case, if the Tigers had a reliable sac bunter, there would be absolutely no argument AGAINST sacrifice bunting, particularly given the probability of the runner on 2nd making it home on a single, which is the most probable way that a runner would come home in the first scenario. Unfortunately, the Tigers did't have a completely reliable sacrifice bunter, so this turned things in the wrong direction.

Understand that I am arguing that the sac bunt option COULD make sense in this situation; I felt pretty uneasy about it myself when Santiago came in, though, as he hasn't been reliable with anything good this season.

 

[tomdalton22]

This is a 50-year sample. Acknowledge on the 5% difference. I wavered on that. Still not a viable play in my opinion and the stats back me up.

And as for managers still doing this; they are just following tradition instead of the trends.

The stats don't back you up. The stats say that 70% of the time a run will score with 1 out and runners on 2nd & 3rd and 64% of the time when there are no outs with men on 1st and 2nd. Your stats support the sac bunt in this situation.

 

[jdbaker1]

The stats don't back you up. The stats say that 70% of the time a run will score with 1 out and runners on 2nd & 3rd and 64% of the time when there are no outs with men on 1st and 2nd. Your stats support the sac bunt in this situation.

So, if you are successful and get the bunt down you have just over a 5% better chance of winning. On the other hand, especially with Razor at bat, you have a far greater than 5% chance that the bunt won't be laid down successfully so in my opinion, after seeing those numbers, you are better off swinging away.

 

[tomdalton22]

So, if you are successful and get the bunt down you have just over a 5% better chance of winning. On the other hand, especially with Razor at bat, you have a far greater than 5% chance that the bunt won't be laid down successfully so in my opinion, after seeing those numbers, you are better off swinging away.

swinging away has just as many negative outcomes as the sac bunt. The bottom line is the sac bunt is the right play.

 

[@Stakesarehigh]

what was surprising to me is that the tigers actually lead the league in avg with RISP

Miggy and Prince carry the team on that I'm sure tho.

 

[byco42]

Except the stats do not back you up. The stats are mixed. And the chance of the run scoring going up from 64% to 69% is significant; that is a 5% greater chance of winning the game. Again, that all hinges on the bunter getting that bunt down properly, and I didn't really like using Santiago for that, as he hasn't been a completely reliable bunter in that situation. You are still ignoring the fact that Fielder was on second, so there was almost no chance of the runner scoring on a single, which skews the percentages even more.

I can appreciate that some people do not like the sacrifice bunt. But don't overstate your case.

I'm talking global numbers here. Santiago actually is 4 for 6 this season and 70 for 94 in his career, but I still don't like the play in general.

 

[byco42]

The stats don't back you up. The stats say that 70% of the time a run will score with 1 out and runners on 2nd & 3rd and 64% of the time when there are no outs with men on 1st and 2nd. Your stats support the sac bunt in this situation.

You are assuming that the bunt will be a success. If not, then the run probability drops to in the 40-percent range. And Santiago is a 74-percent SAC bunter in his career. To leverage the risk of failure, and having to face a 40-percent run probability situation, that's not worth the risk to me.

 

[tomdalton22]

You are assuming that the bunt will be a success. If not, then the run probability drops to in the 40-percent range. And Santiago is a 74-percent SAC bunter in his career. To leverage the risk of failure, and having to face a 40-percent run probability situation, that's not worth the risk to me.

and Dirks makes outs 71% of the time.

 

[byco42]

Ok, let's look at the stats you put up. The run expectancy numbers being slightly against the sac bunt are irrelevant in this case, since one run wins the game, and scoring multiple runs is completely irrelevant (except to a player's personal stats). The chance of a run scoring is the only relevant figure there, and the stat indicates a 5% higher chance of it scoring after a successful sacrifice bunt. So the only other stat that would skew that is the chance with any given hitter that he drops the sacrifice bunt properly, so it all hinges on your confidence of getting the bunt down; once that is done you have a 5% better chance of getting a run. In this given case, if the Tigers had a reliable sac bunter, there would be absolutely no argument AGAINST sacrifice bunting, particularly given the probability of the runner on 2nd making it home on a single, which is the most probable way that a runner would come home in the first scenario. Unfortunately, the Tigers did't have a completely reliable sacrifice bunter, so this turned things in the wrong direction.

Understand that I am arguing that the sac bunt option COULD make sense in this situation; I felt pretty uneasy about it myself when Santiago came in, though, as he hasn't been reliable with anything good this season.

Santiago gets it done 3 of 4 times and that's not enough for me when the one time you fail your RP rate drops 30 percent in comparison to a successful sac bunt.

 

[byco42]

and Dirks makes outs 71% of the time.

Seriously? A sac bunt results in an out virtually 100 percent of the time. What's your point?

 

[Thumb]

Good win, although bad news may be that the flu is going through the clubhouse.

Dickerson mentioned that's why Valverde was out today, and Porcello was sick yesterday.

We can't afford to have anyone else aside from Raburn, Boesch, Kelly, Young, and maybe Worth get sick. Those guys getting sick might make us better, but hate to risk Miguel, Prince, Doug, or Justin to the exposure.

 

[tigerfan2272]

Just release Porcello and Valverde. Problem solved.

 

[@Stakesarehigh]

Just release Porcello and Valverde. Problem solved.

um...no.

 

[jas5lf]

Good win, although bad news may be that the flu is going through the clubhouse.

Dickerson mentioned that's why Valverde was out today, and Porcello was sick yesterday.

We can't afford to have anyone else aside from Raburn, Boesch, Kelly, Young, and maybe Worth get sick. Those guys getting sick might make us better, but hate to risk Miguel, Prince, Doug, or Justin to the exposure.

So the suspicious package at the ballpark yesterday was a vial of influenza sent by the White Sux?

 

[tigermud]

Soxs had em loaded up with no outs in the 4th and they only ended up getting 1 run and that 1 run was due to a hit by pitch. LOL. It's amazing how shitty both the 1st and 2nd place teams offenses are in the AL Central.

 

[nydo77]

Seriously? A sac bunt results in an out virtually 100 percent of the time. What's your point?

Simple: Dirks hits away, 71% chance of an out, and probably a 60% chance that the runners aren't moved up. Santiago bunts, you have a larger chance of an out (probably95%), but a 70% chance of moving the runner up. That would go up with a more skilled sac bunt guy (yes, there are some). You are thinking with the big hit concept, which hasn't served us well in the clutch at all.

His point would be that most of the outs thar Dirks would make would result in the same situation as a failed sacrifice bunt, not a successful one. Now, should Dirks get a hit, it would probably be a single, which would load the bases, and actually create an easier out at the plate, though it also brings a run scoring walk into play. The bottom line statistically in this situation was to send up a good sacrifice bunter, if one is available. Whether Ramon filled that bill is a different question.

 

[biggunsbob]

LONGORIA!!!!!!! 3-2 Rays top of the ninth... And some stiff offered me $15 dollars on one of his autograph cards today..LOL

 

[Thumb]

Longoria goes deep, 3-2 Rays in the 9th

 

[Thumb]

Meyers gives up homeruns in back to back appearances.

He's Chicago's Benoit.