On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:21:16 -0500, Tuff Gong <no.spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Kevin McClave <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>news:pnfl04lvb1uf35cgs0grik7vgtoadp38la@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> You're assuming (or at least your comments suggest it, though I doubt
>> you are actually assuming this) that the bunt would be essentially a
>> sure thing and that the only advantage to swinging away is a HR. In
>> other words, there are any number of possibilities you didn't include
>> in your too basic ****trayal of the possible outcomes.
>>
>> That isn't to argue for or against the general point your making, but
>> your sup****t of it doesn't really paint a picture one way or the
>> other.
>
>Against the ****ft a proper bunt practically is a sure thing. And no, a
>home run isn't the only outcome of letting a guy swing away, but I
covered
>that when I mentioned there's not much difference between getting on base
>via the bunt or swinging away and getting anything other than a HR.
Except that there is.
>Satistically speaking if Griffey swings away he's about 16% to walk, 16%
to
>hit a single, and only 4% to hit a double. That means 1/3 of the time
>while hitting normally the result will be the exact same thing as if he
>bunts against the ****ft. I don't know where to get stats on Griffey's
>success rate as a bunter but somehow I bet there's higher than a 6.6%
>chance he'll be successful.
I don't know what his success rate is, but I don't consider him a good
bunter. That's a factor. What you may end up with more times than you'd
like is him having to hit out of a 2 strike count because he couldn't
keep the bunts fair.
********************************************************************
Kevin McClave
"Courage, the footstool of the Virtues, upon
which they stand." ~Robert Louis Stevenson
********************************************************************
|
