"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:8pjl04dpmnh9tekf8sh3dhe468s300n2gs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
He's 8 for 10 bunting against the ****ft and looks good doing it.
|
