How's Corey Patterson doing?

[JC]

geez, batlimore's down two in the 9th w/ guys at first and second and no outs...and they have patterson sacrifice bunt??

 

Earl Weaver just turned over.

[abuck1220]

geez, batlimore's down two in the 9th w/ guys at first and second and no outs...and they have patterson sacrifice bunt??

 

Earl Weaver just turned over.

 

in a stunning development, the move leads to zero runs.

[Diffusion]

geez, batlimore's down two in the 9th w/ guys at first and second and no outs...and they have patterson sacrifice bunt??

 

Earl Weaver just turned over.

 

in a stunning development, the move leads to zero runs.

 

1st/2nd 0 outs, for 1999-2002, on average you had a 0.421 chance of scoring two runs or more.

 

2nd/3rd 1 out, for 1990-2002, on average you had a 0.41 chance of scoring two runs or more.

 

The only way it becomes worth it is if Patterson somehow manages to get on while bunting. Perhaps it's just the perfect bunt, or the fielder fumbles it, or throws the ball away.

 

However, against that there's the risk that Patterson will pop the bunt up, or make a poor enough bunt that the Mariners can force the lead runner at third.

 

So, especially with a hot bat at the plate like Corey Patterson, plus a badly struggling reliever like Eddie Guardado, the move really was indefensible.

[snoodmonger]

geez, batlimore's down two in the 9th w/ guys at first and second and no outs...and they have patterson sacrifice bunt??

 

 

Souds like good baseball to me.

 

Sincerely,

 

Old People

[abuck1220]

the baltimore area must not get wgn. corey's batting leadoff today.

[Careless]

the baltimore area must not get wgn. corey's batting leadoff today.

That's just traditional baseball, put your .500 slg guys at the top of the order.

[TuffyRhodes]

the baltimore area must not get wgn. corey's batting leadoff today.

 

No, I am guessing that Corey just told Sam Perlozzo he wanted to bat lead-off. It worked with Dusty, he figured he would try it again....

[soccer10k]

He probably just thought that since Patterson was fast, he would be a great leadoff hitter. That was a great idea.

[Fred Hornkohl]

geez, batlimore's down two in the 9th w/ guys at first and second and no outs...and they have patterson sacrifice bunt??

 

Earl Weaver just turned over.

 

in a stunning development, the move leads to zero runs.

 

1st/2nd 0 outs, for 1999-2002, on average you had a 0.421 chance of scoring two runs or more.

 

2nd/3rd 1 out, for 1990-2002, on average you had a 0.41 chance of scoring two runs or more.

 

The only way it becomes worth it is if Patterson somehow manages to get on while bunting. Perhaps it's just the perfect bunt, or the fielder fumbles it, or throws the ball away.

 

However, against that there's the risk that Patterson will pop the bunt up, or make a poor enough bunt that the Mariners can force the lead runner at third.

 

So, especially with a hot bat at the plate like Corey Patterson, plus a badly struggling reliever like Eddie Guardado, the move really was indefensible.

 

You've got a difference in your expected values here of 0.01. That means you have to replicate this circumstance 100 times in order to lose (on average) 1 instance where you don't score the two runs. All you need here is 1 fast guy with the ability to reach base on a bunt 2 times more than the "average" guy in 100 tries, and you've overcome the difference in expected value that you started with. Patterson is, in my opinion, that guy, and you call the strategy indefensible. Just because you're using statistics doesn't mean you're using your head.

[Diffusion]

geez, batlimore's down two in the 9th w/ guys at first and second and no outs...and they have patterson sacrifice bunt??

 

Earl Weaver just turned over.

 

in a stunning development, the move leads to zero runs.

 

1st/2nd 0 outs, for 1999-2002, on average you had a 0.421 chance of scoring two runs or more.

 

2nd/3rd 1 out, for 1990-2002, on average you had a 0.41 chance of scoring two runs or more.

 

The only way it becomes worth it is if Patterson somehow manages to get on while bunting. Perhaps it's just the perfect bunt, or the fielder fumbles it, or throws the ball away.

 

However, against that there's the risk that Patterson will pop the bunt up, or make a poor enough bunt that the Mariners can force the lead runner at third.

 

So, especially with a hot bat at the plate like Corey Patterson, plus a badly struggling reliever like Eddie Guardado, the move really was indefensible.

 

You've got a difference in your expected values here of 0.01. That means you have to replicate this circumstance 100 times in order to lose (on average) 1 instance where you don't score the two runs.

 

Yes.

 

All you need here is 1 fast guy with the ability to reach base on a bunt 2 times more than the "average" guy in 100 tries, and you've overcome the difference in expected value that you started with. Patterson is, in my opinion, that guy

 

And what, thereby you'll score the two runs, on average, once more often in every 100 tries? You can't have it both ways.

 

Getting on base via the bunt play is a possibility, I even explicitly mentioned that. However, if you go up to the plate and you offer bunt right away, obviously trying to sacrifice yourself, your chances of beating out a hit are greatly diminished. When the defence is expecting to bunt, it's a lot easier to handle than the same attempt aided by the element of surprise. It would have to be either the perfect bunt, or the fielding team would need to somehow mess up. You know, like I already said. Otherwise, no matter how speedy the runner, major league defences gobble up the sacrifice bunt just about every time.

 

So, I think it's unlikely that Patterson is able to beat out sacrifice attempts at a rate that much above average. Especially not when the third baseman is Adrian Beltre, who's superlative defensively. And especially Corey Patterson as we all know isn't a particularly good bunter. I don't see any reason to think that Patterson is going to get on at such a rate so as to make the bunt the percentage play.

 

And, obviously, mitigating against the possibility that Corey does get on, is the possibility, like I also already said, that the bunt play might go wrong, Corey could strike out bunting, or pop it up or lay down a bad enough bunt that the Mariners force the lead runner at third.

 

You call the strategy indefensible. Just because you're using statistics doesn't mean you're using your head.

 

Yes, I call the strategy indefensible. You have a hot hitter at the plate and a closer on the mound that right now seemingly doesn't know how to get outs. So what, you try and give him an out?

 

If it works, which I'd guess is something like nine times out of ten, you've not improved your chances of scoring the runs in the inning. If it doesn't work, maybe one in twenty, you've greatly harmed them. And if you luck out, maybe one in twenty again, the lead runner probably doesn't score anyway.

 

Corey doesn't have much of a platoon split, so the fact that Guardado's a lefty isn't that relevant. But being a lefty himself, and one that loves to pull the ball at that, Corey could easily get the lead runner over, if not the trail one too, just by putting the ball in play and not having it find a hole. Being fast, he's extremely tough to turn two on. If it finds a hole it's a hit, quite possibly one for extra bases. He could strike out, but he's been better at that this year.

 

The move just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and that's even before you look at the statistics which back that up. Like I said, probably nine times out of ten you don't improve your chances of scoring the runs. Are the odds of Patterson doing something that helps less than one in ten?