Project for Smitty...

[engie]

That is incorrect. You are assuming the % of times a run scores with a man at 1b and no outs is just from, "swinging away".

No I'm not.

Nothing in that table indicates that.

I didn't say that it did.

In fact, as it stands, the 52/49 number appears to include all instances of a run scoring from that situation, including those that score as a result of being sac bunted to 2b.

You are missing the forest for the trees. As you do constantly on this bunting discussion. How the guy got to second with one out is negligible. If he's got a 49% chance to score from second with one out -- and a 53% chance of scoring from first with no outs. We are statistically less likely to score one run -- and even more statistically less likely to score more than 1 run -- it doesn't make a damn bit of sense to bunt him over. Doesn't matter if "runner on first includes situations where he's bunted to second" -- because the act itself of bunting him to second creates the second circumstance being analyzed and therefore cancels itself in the analysis. Thus, the second situation is now in play -- with a runner on second and one out.

Of course that number is going to be much higher than one that shows only runs scored with a man at 2b with 1 out.

If this is so likely -- then define for me the purpose of giving up the first situation in order to create the second one? You make these statistical arguments -- then you say something that completely destroys your own point. Like you just did here.

Again, it includes all of the times a run scored after being sac bunted over to a, "man on 2b with 1 out" situation.

Which we've already seen, statistically, brings the percentage chance of scoring down. As well as the average number of runs scored declining sharply. So, in reality, you are making a case that the difference is even greater than has been shown statistically by Boyd. The "runner on first no outs" number is, thus, inherently deflated(NOT INFLATED) by including bunting into the second scenario.

That number is useless unless or until you parse out the number of runs scored that included the aforementioned sac bunt.

Boyd's numbers are very telling. But not NEARLY as telling as MSU's same data set analysis where we struggle far beyond the norm with RISP.

It's simple math.

Apparently not.

I gave you A - B = C.
You are giving me A - (B+A) = C - A