# Thread: Buntapalooza has to stop

1. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Homer Bailey
If you were guaranteed it would work, I could see the argument. If say easily more than 5 percent of the time the bunt doesn't work out, yet that's the max percent you can increase your odds.
It's not 5% of the time. The break even is closer to a bunt not working about 20% of the time.

3. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Ludwick taking on 3-0 and 3-1 meatballs also had a big impact on the odds, where is the outrage for that "mental" decision.

4. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Brutus
When an out is made 70% of the time, that means that seven out of 10 times, you will lose probability of scoring. It's not about gaining 5%, it's about playing the percentages of the most likely outcome. If you hit away, there is a 7 in 10 chance that you will have a negative outcome.
How do you get an out being made 70% of the time in all possible situations? Doesn't it vary depending on the scenario?

5. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by RedEye
As folks have pointed out numerous times though, the numbers only come out practically EVEN if the bunt is executed correctly. By trying to bunt you are taking the risk that it won't work... which is a pretty big risk to take just to step up your run expectancy from 65 to 70%.
For total runs yes, but not 1 run which was presumably the game with Chapman coming in.

A successful bunt increased the chances of winning. That is in arguable. The odds of missing the bunt were pretty low (ie. if he missed, he probably wouldn't have continued at 2 strikes and might have gotten a hit anyways).

In the end, over all of the potential scenarios, I think calling a bunt probably comes out about even. Considering the circumstances, I'm not sure it was the best call. Too many variables. I think either choice was likely going to lead to a run.

6. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by RedEye
How do you get an out being made 70% of the time in all possible situations? Doesn't it vary depending on the scenario?
Brandon Phillips makes an out 68.9% of the time. Are you offended that I rounded up the additional 1%?

7. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by kaldaniels
Ludwick taking on 3-0 and 3-1 meatballs also had a big impact on the odds, where is the outrage for that "mental" decision.
Bases were loaded and the pitcher was having control problems. Taking on 3-0 was the right play. Might have been ripping on 3-1 though. Ludwick isn't exactly in a groove though. I could see Bruce, Votto or Choo swinging there. I can't complain about others taking.

8. ## Likes:

Chip R (09-19-2013)

9. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
For total runs yes, but not 1 run which was presumably the game with Chapman coming in.

A successful bunt increased the chances of winning. That is in arguable. The odds of missing the bunt were pretty low (ie. if he missed, he probably wouldn't have continued at 2 strikes and might have gotten a hit anyways).

In the end, over all of the potential scenarios, I think calling a bunt probably comes out about even. Considering the circumstances, I'm not sure it was the best call. Too many variables. I think either choice was likely going to lead to a run.
Your own probability, which didn't even account for the possibility of a double play for simplicity sake, shows the overall probability of bunting and scoring a run was greater by at least 12% than the probability of not bunting and still scoring a run.

It doesn't come out even. That was the point.

10. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by mth123
But the idea is to score a run. Better odds are better odds.
If you were guaranteed better odds. You aren't. The reds odds did not increase as a result of the bunt. It's not a free 5 percent increase.

11. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Brutus
Your own probability, which didn't even account for the possibility of a double play for simplicity sake, shows the overall probability of bunting and scoring a run was greater by at least 12% than the probability of not bunting and still scoring a run.

It doesn't come out even. That was the point.
But in my scenario I also discussed that I didn't include odds of screwing up the bunt, or the fact we were facing a terrible pitcher with control issues. The 12% difference was just a very rough starting point, not a conclusion.

12. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
For total runs yes, but not 1 run which was presumably the game with Chapman coming in.
No, the expectancy for total runs goes down even more after a sac bunt. On Tango's chart for scoring just one run, the runners at 1B/2B with no outs get a 65% run expectancy and the runners at 2B/3B get a 70% run expectancy after a successful sacrifice. As we just saw, there are NUMEROUS ways in which bunts can fail to succeed.

13. ## Likes:

AtomicDumpling (09-19-2013)

14. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Brutus
Brandon Phillips makes an out 68.9% of the time. Are you offended that I rounded up the additional 1%?
Not offended, I just didn't see you mention Brandon Phillips. And you didn't even talk about Choo, who certainly doesn't make an out that much, but was still asked to -- wait for it -- bunt.

15. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by RedEye
No, the expectancy for total runs goes down even more after a sac bunt. On Tango's chart for scoring just one run, the runners at 1B/2B with no outs get a 65% run expectancy and the runners at 2B/3B get a 70% run expectancy after a successful sacrifice. As we just saw, there are NUMEROUS ways in which bunts can fail to succeed.
But total runs aren't the issue. 1 Run was probably the game. I want to win the game, not the stat sheet.

16. ## Likes:

Old school 1983 (09-19-2013)

17. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Brutus
That makes no sense.

If your mortgage depended on getting \$1,000 to avoid losing your home and someone offered you the following two choices:

* Picking the correct card out of four options to get \$5,000, or

* Picking the correct card when three of the four options are the winning pick but only get \$1,000

Which is the smart bet? You go with the one that has the highest degree of probability you'll get what you need. In that case, you go with the lower amount of money but that one that has a much higher chance of paying off.

When an out is made 70% of the time, that means that seven out of 10 times, you will lose probability of scoring. It's not about gaining 5%, it's about playing the percentages of the most likely outcome. If you hit away, there is a 7 in 10 chance that you will have a negative outcome.
Not even close to the proper analogy. I really don't even know how to begin to respond to it.

18. ## Likes:

dwyerbrg (09-19-2013)

19. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Brutus
That makes no sense.

If your mortgage depended on getting \$1,000 to avoid losing your home and someone offered you the following two choices:

* Picking the correct card out of four options to get \$5,000, or

* Picking the correct card when three of the four options are the winning pick but only get \$1,000

Which is the smart bet? You go with the one that has the highest degree of probability you'll get what you need. In that case, you go with the lower amount of money but that one that has a much higher chance of paying off.

When an out is made 70% of the time, that means that seven out of 10 times, you will lose probability of scoring. It's not about gaining 5%, it's about playing the percentages of the most likely outcome. If you hit away, there is a 7 in 10 chance that you will have a negative outcome.

20. ## Re: Buntapalooza has to stop

Originally Posted by Brutus
That makes no sense.

If your mortgage depended on getting \$1,000 to avoid losing your home and someone offered you the following two choices:

* Picking the correct card out of four options to get \$5,000, or

* Picking the correct card when three of the four options are the winning pick but only get \$1,000

Which is the smart bet? You go with the one that has the highest degree of probability you'll get what you need. In that case, you go with the lower amount of money but that one that has a much higher chance of paying off.

When an out is made 70% of the time, that means that seven out of 10 times, you will lose probability of scoring. It's not about gaining 5%, it's about playing the percentages of the most likely outcome. If you hit away, there is a 7 in 10 chance that you will have a negative outcome.
Not even close to the proper analogy. I really don't even know how to begin to respond to it.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

 Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball

Contact us: Boss | GIK | cumberlandreds | Gallen5862 | JaxRed | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | The Operator