Quote Originally Posted by engie View Post
What's the "goal" of this argument you are pulling out of thin air? The sake of arguing?


I'm not the one failing to get it. With later quotes in this post, I literally don't think you know the difference between sacrifice and drag bunting -- it's going to be impossible for me and you to come to common ground in that case...


Which was a bad position and wide-ranging argument you made, based on a single situational snapshot playing for a walk-off win. That's the only time in a baseball game that you are ever playing for exactly one run. Smoot took that argument apart. But you not getting his point then virtually assures that you won't get mine now, so I don't really know why I'm trying...


Link? No one said to "NEVER" bunt. You've never heard that come out of my or anyone else here's mouth. You are creating phantom opposition. And you are still hung up on your "one run" ideal.. Only applicable as a home team in a tie game in the final/extra innings. Otherwise, in reality, exactly one run is NEVER the actual goal of the inning, thus not even the actual goal.


Which is why it should be employed rarely...


Still missing the forest for the trees.

52% scoring from 1st with no outs.
49% scoring from 2nd with 1 out.
If the odds went down after it happened, then the second situation is NOT HELPING THE FIRST SITUATION, BUT RATHER HINDERING IT.

How can you possibly argue that "that second data set significantly effects the first". The only way it effects the first is to artifically deflate a number that should be more like 53%. Hence not supporting your previous assertions about bunting...


Trees. Forest. Everyone knows the "numbers include everything". What's your point? What does that change with significance about the numbers? Or was it just to argue for the sake of arguing?


Not really. Not to sacrifice.


Where did anyone ever argue "all bunting is bad and that you should never sac bunt"? Why are you arguing against a position nobody is taking?


Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread. I didn't start it for that purpose.


Holy crap -- now we're talking drag bunting?
I have never once condemned bunting for a hit in any situation.


Drag bunting is different from sac bunting.

You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than using a number you found on "better odds to score exactly one run(as if that's a goal 99% of the time) and throwing together a bunting philosophy off of that number, which is a very minimal participant in overall bunting situations.
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.

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!

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.

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!

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. 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.

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/

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". 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. 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.