Quote:
Originally Posted by
blacklistedbully
You are STILL not getting it. it is IRONIC that you keep telling me I'm the one not seeing the forest for the trees. Look in the mirror, pal. You are the one who seems to have a mental block, and appears to be gleaning something more from my comments than are there. Reciting them again & again for you is not going to do any good, apparently.
It's amazing that everyone here agrees with me -- no one agrees with you -- yet I'm the one that doesn't get it.
Quote:
As far as, "drag bunting" versus sac bunting to zone 6 (3b) is concerned, you are the one who does not know what he is talking about. A drag bunt is a type of bunt, not just a location. To be sure, drag-bunting is a style more widely used when the batter is trying to bunt for a single. But when I refer to, "Zone 6" bunts, I'm talking about all bunts that go toward 3b. Even Bill James, the KING of anti-bunt, has charts that indicate SAC BUNTS to Zone 6 carry a .291 average. He has bunting batting average for zone 6 when not in Sac mode at .720!
You don't "sac" bunt at zone 6. If you are placing it there purposefully -- you are bunting for a hit. The whole purpose of the sacrifice bunt is to get it down in FAIR territory somewhere that the lead runner can't be thrown out at 2B. Hence the term sacrifice. It is not to lay it perfectly down the line, where it can roll foul -- and thus becomes a failed attempt.
Quote:
He goes on to say, "What if we consider a successful sacrifice as no at-bat, just like we do when we compute a normal batting average? Here are the bunt batting averages by zone in this situation: Zone 6 = .743.
You can suggest I'm out of touch with reality, you can criticize my posts all you want, but you're dead wrong if you think I'm in left-field on this one, as if it's some sort of, "settled science" in your favor. Hell, I'm getting these numbers from the prophet himself, Bill James.
So, a sacrifice itself doesn't count as an AB -- but a zone 6 bunt does? The ball going in that zone = bunting for a hit. Or a total accident.
Quote:
Much of the other crap you keep harping on, incredibly, are areas we don't really even seem to differ on, but you're so damned argumentative you want to argue about that shit too!
I'm the one that's argumentative -- yet you are the one here pooping all over MY thread -- starting and continuing an argument on something you don't understand.
Quote:
Consider that this latest barrage from you came about because you took issue with me merely pointing out that the 58/49 numbers do include sac bunt attempts as well.
Because you are arguing a negligible point that is of no consequence to the overall data -- simply for the purpose of starting an argument. Which is exactly the same thing you are bitching about now. Hell, how did we bunt when it was cold outside vs a soft throwing right hander on breaking balls? That makes a difference and has an effect on the numbers too**
Quote:
Nothing in that statement indicated I was taking the position that we should sac bunt more often, yet that seems to be what you want to continue to tie around my neck like an Albatross. That is your failure, not mine.
Then why did you come start the argument in the first place -- if you actually wanted to agree? That doesn't pass the sniff test.
Quote:
Another great example of this is your , "Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread." They are not
my theoreticals, they are from Bill James, but I guess you feel like attributing them to me instead further validates your point by discounting mine as the theories of a guy who doesn't possess your level of understanding. Guess that means you consider Bill James uninformed on the matter as well, compared to you
Here's the link, BTW.
http://www.billjamesonline.com/bunting_for_a_hit/.
Notice the bolded words. "Bunting for a hit" /=/ "Sacrifice bunting". Again implying that you don't know the difference between sacrifice and drag bunting. And the numbers presented in that article as "sacrifice situations" is not even remotely the same thing as "sacrifice bunting". You can bunt for a hit(read: Drag, push) in a "sacrifice situation" all day long. We see Robson do it damn near every game. Bunting for a hit in a "sacrifice situation" is no different than"swinging away in a "sacrifice situation" in my opinion. I'm fine with that. Again -- if a bunt is placed in zone 6 -- it is either NOT a sacrifice bunt -- or is an accident. That's basically universally how the game is taught. Zone 6 = "bunting for a hit" = "drag bunting"...
Quote:
You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than falsely accuse me of suggesting, "one run is a goal 99% of the time".
Where did I allegedly accuse you of that? You are, in fact, hung up on "the percentage likelihood of scoring exactly one run" and all common sense from there be danged. Smoot went round and round with you about it until he got sick of trying to explain something you obviously wasn't going to get. You need to take a break and go learn the difference between a sacrifice and a drag bunt. Then, come back, and admit that you agree with me.
Quote:
Not only have i never said that, I have, in fact said it is a thing that is done too often, too early in a game and at too great an expense. I have merely pointed out there there are logical situations in a game that justify a coach/manager, "playing for exactly one run", and that sac bunting can be a legit tool to use in that situation.
There are not "situations" where that's logical. There is situation(singular). Which is a walk-off winning run on base. Otherwise, there is no situation where you are playing for exactly one run, but situations where you are playing for AT LEAST one run. 2>1 in every other circumstance in the game. But Smoot already went through all of that in detail and you didn't get it..
Quote:
Again, an area I don't think we differ wildly on, but you keep insisting we are miles apart on. You should also use that break to gain an understanding of the difference between, "technique" and "location" as it pertains to bunting. Even though drag-bunting is more often associated with, "bunting for a hit", it is not mutually exclusive from a sac bunt situation.
What is the very meaning of the word sacrifice? Thank you. If you are "bunting for a hit", you are not sacrifice bunting. They are mutually exclusive. I've never once complained about bunting for a hit. If you REALLY think "sacrifice bunts should go to zone 6" -- based on an article by Bill James titled "bunting for a hit" that never even remotely implies that in actuality -- you need to go play on sabr.com** so you can pretend that reading(and not comprehending in this case) SABR stats somehow gives you a clear understanding of the game...
