Toggle sidebar

Missouri asked, and he shall receive

W

Will James

Redshirt
Feb 11, 2013
1,342
0
0
1) Probability of scoring 0 runs when executing the sac **** for the first out (20) 77%
2) Probability of scoring 1 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out (6) 23%
3) Probability of scoring 2 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%
4) Probability of scoring 3 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%
5) Probability of scoring more than 4 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%

And then

1) Probability of scoring 0 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (30) 45%
2) Probability of scoring 1 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (15) 23%
3) Probability of scoring 2 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (12) 18%
4) Probability of scoring 3 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (7) 11%
5) Probability of scoring more than 4 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (2) 3%
 
R

ronpolk

All-Conference
May 6, 2009
9,128
4,725
113
What I took away from this: we have a 23% of scoring regardless of if we ****.
 
R

ronpolk

All-Conference
May 6, 2009
9,128
4,725
113
Your stats say we have a 23% chance of scoring 1 run if we execute a **** and a 23% chance if we don't.
 
Drebin

Drebin

Heisman
Aug 22, 2012
21,418
24,877
113
Hey moron...

What is the probability of scoring a run when you get a hit after a sacrifice **** for the first out?
What is the probability of hitting into a double play after a sacrifice **** for the first out?

Cut the ********. There are times to **** and times not to ****. There are outs and then there are productive outs. There is nothing wrong with playing small ball and moving runners with the pitching we have. Can we argue specific times here and there where we ****ed when we shouldn't, or vice versa? Sure. But that's the game. You put plays on based on situations and gut feeling. This is Cohen's livelihood so I doubt he gives a **** what any of us think on the topic.

You are becoming as bad as Coach posting about Stansbury. Let it go.
 
T

tenureplan

All-Conference
Dec 3, 2008
8,438
1,048
113
Here let me fix that

Drebin said:
Hey moron...

What is the probability of scoring a run when you get a hit after a sacrifice **** for the first out?
What is the probability of hitting into a double play after a sacrifice **** for the first out?

Cut the ********. There are times to **** and times not to ****. There are outs and then there are productive outs. There is nothing wrong with playing small ball and moving runners with the pitching we have. Can we argue specific times here and there where we ****ed when we shouldn't, or vice versa? Sure. But that's the game. You put plays on based on situations and gut feeling. This is Cohen's livelihood so I doubt he gives a **** what any of us think on the topic.

You are becoming as bad as have gotten worse than Coach posting about Stansbury. Let it go.
Click to expand...

nm
 
1msucub

1msucub

Senior
Oct 3, 2004
2,090
609
113
There's a 19.83% chance that you are trying too hard. Your smart. Were stupid. We got it.
 
HD6

HD6

Sophomore
Apr 8, 2003
10,019
108
63
It's a winning formula. I've seen it work in the past.
 
W

Will James

Redshirt
Feb 11, 2013
1,342
0
0
ronpolk said:
Your stats say we have a 23% chance of scoring 1 run if we execute a **** and a 23% chance if we don't.
Click to expand...

You have a 23% chance of opening a door with a bed behind it.

You have a 23% chance of opening a door with a bed plus either Kate Upton (2 runs) Hannah Davis (3 runs) or imissplatinumpluss' girl (4+ runs) in it.

This is not the same thing
 
horshack.sixpack

horshack.sixpack

All-American
Oct 30, 2012
11,301
8,173
113
I'm really practical and since I'm never personally going to get to play for the

Diamond Dawgs, can you throw together some statistics on when I should **** in church softball? Any help greatly appreciated!
 
T

tenureplan

All-Conference
Dec 3, 2008
8,438
1,048
113
Will James said:
You have a 23% chance of opening a door with a bed behind it.

You have a 23% chance of opening a door with a bed plus either Kate Upton (2 runs) Hannah Davis (3 runs) or imissplatinumpluss' girl (4+ runs) in it.

This is not the same thing
Click to expand...

shouldn't fatties be a minus?
 
T

tenureplan

All-Conference
Dec 3, 2008
8,438
1,048
113
Just messing with you. Well kind of. I thought about posting that in the Stansbury thread.
 
ckDOG

ckDOG

All-American
Dec 11, 2007
9,950
5,724
113
Good managers don't think this simply.

They base decisions on what their personnel is or is not capable of. You could come up with some general tendencies based on past performance of large populations, but that ignores everything about where fielders are positioned, who is on base, how good or poor the batter is at laying down a ****, and who the next batters are.

Basically, coming up with stats that are over-simplified like this is telling only part of a more complicated story.
 
W

Will James

Redshirt
Feb 11, 2013
1,342
0
0
ckDOG said:
They base decisions on what their personnel is or is not capable of. You could come up with some general tendencies based on past performance of large populations, but that ignores everything about where fielders are positioned, who is on base, how good or poor the batter is at laying down a ****, and who the next batters are.

Basically, coming up with stats that are over-simplified like this is telling only part of a more complicated story.
Click to expand...

Then why did it fail so miserably?
 
S

SanfordRJones

Junior
Nov 17, 2006
1,323
386
83
I'm with you on ****ing, but the problem with these stats or the stats showing how many runs are scored per inning when X happens (e.g. a team with no outs and a runner on 1st scores .941 runs, and it goes down with 1 out and a runner on 2nd) is that it doesn't account for ability of the individual batter or pitcher.

In other words, if you need 1 run late and the backup shortstop is facing Craig Kimbrel, sure it makes sense to ****. But that's about the only time it makes sense.
 
W

Will James

Redshirt
Feb 11, 2013
1,342
0
0
SanfordRJones said:
In other words, if you need 1 run late and the backup shortstop is facing Craig Kimbrel, sure it makes sense to ****. But that's about the only time it makes sense.
Click to expand...

But that's not what we do. Only 38% of those came in the 7th inning or beyond.
 
S

saltslugs

Redshirt
Oct 9, 2009
1,500
0
0
This was posted last year and a key point is missed again

Teams are far more likely to attempt a sacrifice against a good pitcher and in low scoring games. That's part of the reason why runs are score less often after ****s. Without accounting for this, there's no way to make any real interpretations.

Example: Game is 12-6 in the fifth inning. No ****ing. Expect more runs because pitching/defense is the sucks. This is a high-scoring opportunity, ****ing or not.

Example: Game is 1-1 in the seventh inning. Sacrifice ****s in many situations. Fewer runs because pitching/defense is effective, but this is a low scoring opportunity even when swinging away.
 
ckDOG

ckDOG

All-American
Dec 11, 2007
9,950
5,724
113
There could be a variety of reasons.

Will James said:
Then why did it fail so miserably?
Click to expand...

1) ****ing more often against strong pitchers where 1 run is of premium value.
2) ****ing less often against weak pitchers when we are getting solid contact.
3) ****ing less often during or just in front of the meat of the lineup.

Those tendencies could skew ****ing statistics.
 
F

futaba.79

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2007
2,296
0
0
this bnuting crap is nothing........

This youngster isn't seasoned yet. Lot of work to do, especially in his personal life. Until he comes to us with "suspicious panties," he's no coach and never will be.
 
horshack.sixpack

horshack.sixpack

All-American
Oct 30, 2012
11,301
8,173
113
 
S

saltslugs

Redshirt
Oct 9, 2009
1,500
0
0
Also, you're (I think) only allowing successful sacrifice ****s in the ****ing category. If a ****er walks and then 3 runs are eventually scored, this would be considered a non-**** situation even though it was not.

These stats are weak.
 
W

Will James

Redshirt
Feb 11, 2013
1,342
0
0
ckDOG said:
1) ****ing more often against strong pitchers where 1 run is of premium value.
2) ****ing less often against weak pitchers when we are getting solid contact.
3) ****ing less often during or just in front of the meat of the lineup.

Those tendencies could skew ****ing statistics.
Click to expand...

So show me where that happened. We ****ed evenly in that ssituation as nobody had more than 3 so your meat of the lineup guess doesn't hold up
 
W

Will James

Redshirt
Feb 11, 2013
1,342
0
0
saltslugs said:
Also, you're (I think) only allowing successful sacrifice ****s in the ****ing category. If a ****er walks and then 3 runs are eventually scored, this would be considered a non-**** situation even though it was not.

These stats are weak.
Click to expand...

Those times we popped the ****s up or fouled or missed them resulting in an 0-2
count aren't put in the **** category either.

Nice try , really.
 
C

chainedup_Dawg

Redshirt
Aug 23, 2012
214
0
0
There's gonna be game this year that we lose by 1 run that started out as a runner on first with no outs ****ed over to 2nd with a sac **** I can see it now
 
ckDOG

ckDOG

All-American
Dec 11, 2007
9,950
5,724
113
No, I'm challenging you with speculations. It's your job to dispute with facts.

You've made an argument using an overly simplified set of statistics. I'm making speculations as to why they could be skewed. It's your job to refine your stats to support your original statements - not mine.
 
T

topbulldawg

Freshman
Jan 27, 2008
524
83
28
Your stats say it is impossible to hit a home run after a sac **** (for the non-math people, that equals 2 runs)

Will James said:
1) Probability of scoring 0 runs when executing the sac **** for the first out (20) 77%
2) Probability of scoring 1 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out (6) 23%
3) Probability of scoring 2 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%
4) Probability of scoring 3 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%
5) Probability of scoring more than 4 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%

And then

1) Probability of scoring 0 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (30) 45%
2) Probability of scoring 1 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (15) 23%
3) Probability of scoring 2 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (12) 18%
4) Probability of scoring 3 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (7) 11%
5) Probability of scoring more than 4 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (2) 3%
Click to expand...
 
missouridawg

missouridawg

Junior
Oct 6, 2009
9,389
288
83
That was cute and all, but come back with some historical averages... not 1 season's worth of data from a team that couldn't hit very well.
 
C

CadaverDawg

Redshirt
Dec 5, 2011
6,409
0
0
missouridawg said:
That was cute and all, but come back with some historical averages... not 1 season's worth of data from a team that couldn't hit very well.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But He will say..."actually bad hitting teams support my stats". But if it was a good hitting team, they "support his stats" too. Basically if you pick out the right stat, you can make it fit your agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.