Soooo....

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Bunts and playing for one run instead of several is almost never a smart move statistically. It may make you feel better but if you play "small ball" you'll come out on the wrong end more often than if you just tried to hit the ball.

I know Earl Weaver always subscribed to the big inning theory that the winning team usually scores more runs in one inning than the loser scores in the entire game. Has that been borne out by any study?

I think small ball makes sense in short playoff series, though perhaps not over a 162 game season. I recall feeling that the Mets lost to the Dodgers in the 1988 playoffs because the Dodgers were better at scratching out runs.

[Alex]

Sorry to the non-baseball people.

Small ball can only help in a single game environment so whether it makes sense has nothing to do with how many total games there are to play.

Yes, there is statistical support that in almost any situation bunting is a bad idea. The same is also true of intentional walks and base stealing.

There are two statistical metrics you can use: Run Expectancy and Win Expectancy. Looking over all the many games in a season you can compile statistics for every combination of close game situations by inning, out count, and runners on base.

Then you can see how many additional runs went on to be scored in each inning from each starting situation. You can also calculate how often the team went on to win the game from each starting situation.

This allows you to evaluate the relative values of various actions for how much it increases the likelihood of you scoring X runs in an inning and the likelihood of increasing your odds of winning.

For example, a leadoff home run to start the game is five times as valuable (for increasing the odds of winning the game) as a one-run homer in the top of the ninth when behind by two. And yet, the latter is considered good clutch hitting and the former almost ignored.

So, for example, using the 2005 season numbers, if you have a man on 1st with zero outs you had a 41.7% chance of scoring at least one run. If you have a man on second with one out (the situation after a standard bunt sacrifice) the odds of scoring at least one run are 41.0%. Yes, there is the chance of a completely successful sacrifice and you end up with men on 1st and 2nd with no outs (61.6%) but statistics show an almost equal chance of unintentionally small balling into a double play (nobody on with 2 outs is a 7.1% chance of scoring).

But that's with averages and few players are truly average. Surely if Neifi Perez is up he is such a sucky batter that sacrificing makes sense?

You can then combine this with specific batter performance and develop a table that tells you when advancing the runner on a sacrifice is of more value than simply swinging. Per the book I'm reading right now (which is why I have this in my head, in the following situations here is the Batter Average your hitter must be doing worse than for a sacrifice to make statistical sense when you just need one run.

Again, 2005 numbers:

Man on 1st, 0 out - .177 batting average
Man on 1st, 1 out - .199
Man on 2nd, 0 out - .277
Men on 1st and 2nd, 0 out - .206

So, generally the only person on a team who should ever bunt is the pitcher, and then not even decent hitting pitchers (such as Dontrelle Willis).

On the other side, similar statistical analysis shows that you only ever decreases the expected run production of the San Francisco Giants by intentionally walking Bonds if for some reason the next batter is the pitcher (or someone who bats like one). Since that never happens, there is almost never a good reason to give him the IBB.


(All of these numbers, by the way, are from Baseball Between the Numbers from BaseballProspectus.com. I just happen to be reading it right now so that is why I have it here at my desk with me.)

[Prudence]

I love the Miss Universe pageant solely for it's "national costume" segment. Some are amazing. Some are bewildering. Some look like they were assembled backstage 5 minutes before runway time using only a hot glue gun and the detritus the caterers left behind.

[Alex]

I've not seen that. What is the United States national costume? I assume she doesn't walk out in blue jeans and a logoed t-shirt.

[AllyOops!]

Heehee..I'm picturing Miss Universe in all of her glossy lipped, poofy haired glory wearing tight, indigo Wrangler's and a THESE COLORS DON'T RUN American Flag tee shirt. Even better if she includes a pack of Marlboro Reds peeking out of one rolled short sleeve.

[Morrigoon]

Haha, classic!

I suppose a National Costume could be:
Cowboy
Hawaiian
Native American
Tourist - white tennis shoes, jeans*, t-shirt (*- shorts over pasty white legs may be substituted for jeans, but only when worn with a fanny pack)

That last one is how most of the world pictures us anyway

[Prudence]

There are photos on the website. Apparently our national costume is Elvis, the white jumpsuit years. Some of them really are quite atrocious.

[katiesue]

For some reason I keep thinking the national costume would be a hooters girl outfit.

[Morrigoon]

Link?

[Alex]

None of those mentioned are national costumes; they're regional costumes. And likely historic costumes.

Makes you wonder when you see someone from some obscure country in their native dress and we all think how neat it looks how retarded they probably feel wearing it.