Before anybody loses it over a 2-0 WIN.

[Spidey.sixpack]

That's fine with me. I will take a sac **** that puts a runner on second over the likelihood that we hit into a DP.

 

[Will James]

Hm...you did not really answer my question. So I am guessing that is a no.

Boyd already answered it.

 

[Will James]

That's fine with me. I will take a sac **** that puts a runner on second over the likelihood that we hit into a DP.

I guess the facts scare you.

Some psychiatrist in Petal can help you with your Arithmophobia I'm sure

 

[DawgBot]

So he has compiled the amount of successful sac ****s? I define success as advancing a runner to second or beyond. I am not arguing here, but your link did not provide those numbers.

 

[Will James]

So he has compiled the amount of successful sac ****s? I define success as advancing a runner to second or beyond. I am not arguing here, but your link did not provide those numbers.

Just because you move the runner doesn't mean it's a successful play.....

Here are your numbers http://www.ncaa.com/stats/baseball/d1/current/team/498

Boyd shows that by giving up an out to move one runner, you lessen your chances to score and score more/inning. Thats the only thing thaty matters

 

[patdog]

I define success as advancing a runner to home. It doesn't matter if he advances to 2nd or not. By definition, Boyd's stats show that even if the sac b*** is successful 100% of the time, you've STILL decreased your chances of scoring by 4%.

 

[Will James]

I define success as advancing a runner to home. It doesn't matter if he advances to 2nd or not. By definition, Boyd's stats show that even if the sac b*** is successful 100% of the time, you've STILL decreased your chances of scoring by 4%.

It's Bingo night at the home and Pat is taking all of Dawgbreezer's $$$$$$

Correct again.

 

[DawgBot]

I am not arguing whether it is good or bad, but yes that would be a successful sac ****. How would you describe a successful sac fly?