HitsRus;1469629 wrote:The guys in the clubhouse know who's a slacker and who's not. If you bench Swisher on the basis of that one play, you'd risk a lot of hard feelings and lose alot of respect.

Exactly. That was a dumb comment any way you look at it.

HitsRus;1469629 wrote:The guys in the clubhouse know who's a slacker and who's not. If you bench Swisher on the basis of that one play, you'd risk a lot of hard feelings and lose alot of respect. Earlier in the year, Kipnis didn't run out a dropped third strike...do think he's a slacker?


Albers gets the first two, and is now working himself into a jam with walks to Miggie and Prince....:thumbdown:

I wouldn't bench Swisher for being a slacker. Who said anything about being a slacker.

I would bench him for not running out the play.

I think you would lose even more respect for not doing so as oppoed to just letting it go.

Take a seat Swish. You embarassed the whole franchise.

HitsRus;1469649 wrote:
I don't care how hot a bat Chiz is swinging, you have to move the speedy runner to third.....and then bring in an experienced bat to hit for Gomes who was clueless all nite at the plate.

The run expectancy is higher for a runner on 2nd with no outs than a runner on 3rd and 1 out, so I'm okay with letting Chiz swing from a statistical standpoint. But I don't think stats are the be-all end-all, and I would rather be batting with a guy on third and 1 out and put more pressure on the pitcher/defense than be batting with runner on 2nd and no outs.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1405164

Not a fan of not subbing for Gomes though.

Con_Alma;1469729 wrote:I wouldn't bench Swisher for being a slacker. Who said anything about being a slacker.

I would bench him for not running out the play.

I think you would lose even more respect for not doing so as oppoed to just letting it go.

Take a seat Swish. You embarassed the whole franchise.

lol, you're a funny guy :rolleyes:

lhslep134;1469749 wrote:The run expectancy is higher for a runner on 2nd with no outs than a runner on 3rd and 1 out, so I'm okay with letting Chiz swing from a statistical standpoint. But I don't think stats are the be-all end-all, and I would rather be batting with a guy on third and 1 out and put more pressure on the pitcher/defense than be batting with runner on 2nd and no outs.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1405164

Not a fan of not subbing for Gomes though.

you have to be careful in interpreting statistics, because the higher stsistical probability of scoring from 2nd with no outs includes the scenario of a runner being moved to third and scoring subsequently. A more apples to apples comparison would be to compare runner on 3rd and 1 out vs the scenario of three guys swinging from their heels trying to score a runner with a base hit. Also, while the stat may be true in general or on average, you have to take into consideration of whose batting and whose running. In this case, two of the hitters were the most inexperienced members of the team, and the runner was one of the the fastest on the diamond.

vball10set;1469717 wrote:Did anyone watch the post game presser? I'm just wondering why Tito didn't have Chiz bunting....and Laley, did you end up staying for the entire game?

We were sitting behind the plate, and when the rain came we moved to the Terrace Club (pays to have friends high up ). I had no clue we would have those tickets at will-call, but it paid off. Had some beers and a sit down dinner while getting to watch the game from a dry spot.

I was with my dad, uncle and step-grandpa. My uncle had a 7am meeting this morning, so we left at 10pm (right after Allen got Hunter/Cabrera).

HitsRus;1469845 wrote:you have to be careful in interpreting statistics, because the higher stsistical probability of scoring from 2nd with no outs includes the scenario of a runner being moved to third and scoring subsequently. A more apples to apples comparison would be to compare runner on 3rd and 1 out vs the scenario of three guys swinging from their heels trying to score a runner with a base hit. Also, while the stat may be true in general or on average, you have to take into consideration of whose batting and whose running. In this case, two of the hitters were the most inexperienced members of the team, and the runner was one of the the fastest on the diamond.

This is what I agree with.

I hate the bunt for a multitude of reasons. The biggest is because it takes away the chance of a big inning by giving up an out. Also, because as is stated the numbers done match up 100% to saying bunting is the right play.

BUT, when you only need 1 run to win, who gives a shit about the big inning. Just get the run in. In that case, you have to look at who is up, and coming up. Chisenhall is not the guy I want swinging away at that point. What honestly looks better for a chance to win? Stubbs on 2nd and Chiz/Gomes swinging away with 0 outs or Stubbs on 3rd with Santana up, infield in, 1 out? Give me Santana everyday of the week. If we fail with him up with a chance to win I am much more ok with it. Go down with your best...not your back-up catcher and AAAA 3rd baseman.

^^^agreed...It was also reported before his AB that Chiz was 0 for 5 against Smyly, yet another reason to bunt him.

Not that I really give a shit, but is anyone starting a new thread?

BRF;1469891 wrote:Not that I really give a ****, but is anyone starting a new thread?

You're up, BRF, I'm getting ready for football season


sorry, you're too late...
http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?41161-Tribe-vs.-Blue-Jays-(Series-Thread)

lol. I just started one. Try to get back on track before the ASG.

HitsRus;1469845 wrote:you have to be careful in interpreting statistics, because the higher stsistical probability of scoring from 2nd with no outs includes the scenario of a runner being moved to third and scoring subsequently.

Well obviously. But if you bunt, you're foreclosing the possibility of scoring from second with 0 outs, while executing a result that could have come without bunting (Stubbs could haved advanced to third on a fly ball, Chiz could have moved him to third on a weak grounder) etc.

The only disadvantage of not bunting there is the statistically unlikely scenario of 3 straight guys getting out without moving the runner, which is exactly what happened.

Laley, I agree with you about Santana. He should have been in the game. But you need to differentiate between Francona's decision not the bunt (not terrible) and his decision not to put Santana in (terrible).

HitsRus;1469845 wrote:you have to be careful in interpreting statistics, because the higher stsistical probability of scoring from 2nd with no outs includes the scenario of a runner being moved to third and scoring subsequently. A more apples to apples comparison would be to compare runner on 3rd and 1 out vs the scenario of three guys swinging from their heels trying to score a runner with a base hit. Also, while the stat may be true in general or on average, you have to take into consideration of whose batting and whose running. In this case, two of the hitters were the most inexperienced members of the team, and the runner was one of the the fastest on the diamond.

Gotta disagree with you here and agree w/ the Arizona lawyer who finally has one right. The right play is to swing away....not bunt. even with the speedy Stubbs at second, the probability of successfully sacrificing him to third with Chisenhall is no sure thing...at all.

And....even if successful, you have lowered the possibility of scoring, after a successful bunt. Those are not the odds I want.

Baseball purists like Rick Manning who say "get em on get em over get em in" have a hard time grasping the reality that sacrificing is a bad proposition. The same holds true when bunting a guy from first to second....bad bad bad idea.

As for Laley's scenario of bunting and then pinch hitting Santana in the ninth....there is no way they pitch to Santana in the ninth with a guy on second or third with one out.

^^^You make a good case, but you have to remember it's all about who's at bat, and in this case it was Chisenhall. Yes, he's had a couple of decent at bats recently, but he's been inconsistent as hell as a rule. This, plus the fact that he was 0 for 5 vs. Smyly. IMO you bunt him.

Losing 3 out of 4 is really, really bad...making the tribe 3 and 9 against Detroit this season. This one for Crimson Streak....If the Indians were 9-3 against Detroit instead of 3 and 9, the tribe would be in first place by 8.5 games.

The only silver lining is that the Indians have a cup cake schedule from September 2nd on in...and will be done with the Tigers. The question is can the tribe stay in relative contention. I hope so...but I doubt it.

vball10set;1469926 wrote:^^^You make a good case, but you have to remember it's all about who's at bat, and in this case it was Chisenhall. Yes, he's had a couple of decent at bats recently, but he's been inconsistent as hell as a rule. This, plus the fact that he was 0 for 5 vs. Smyly. IMO you bunt him.

Even if the bunt is successful...a huge if with Chiz bunting, you LOWER your chances of scoring. Ya just do. Again, over literally millions of such scenarios, the chances of scoring from second with no outs is greater than scoring from third with one out.

We are programmed to "pay" for things. Logic tells us that we should "spend" an out to gain a base. That way, we gained some "value" with Chiz's at bat. But again, it is not the winning play.

Tito rarely if ever sacrifices. The good managers don't do it anymore. Had Chisenhall ripped a base hit there, nobody would be complaining about not sacrifing.

Last night, we had 3 cracks of knocking Stubbs in, and we failed.

Even if the bunt is successful...a huge if with Chiz bunting, you LOWER your chances of scoring. Ya just do. Again, over literally millions of such scenarios, the chances of scoring from second with no outs is greater than scoring from third with one out.

I'm not buying that at all because it is not an apples to apples comparison as I said earlier, and you have to take the individual game situation and players involved into account. The only thing I give you is that Chiz is no sure thing bunting...but with the speedy Stubbs and no force out situation all he has to do is get it down.( and let's not forget that the Tigers are not composed of defensive wizards). The chances of Chiz getting a hit against a left hander is about 1 in 10! .....1 in 4.5...that he will strike out. So what are the odds that in any given at bat, Chizenhall is going to do something that will not at least, advance the runner. Probably 50% or higher....and if you lose that 50-50 proposition you have a runner still at 2B with 1 out. Which is exactly what happened.
I am not a big fan of sacrificing outs. but when you only need a run to win, that's a different story. You have to consider a lot more than the raw statistics. You might have more of an argument if the hitters were Kipnis and Swisher instead of Chiz and Gomes.

I hate that they call the Indians streaky. They beat bad teams and get smoked by good teams. They lack talent.

wes_mantooth;1469998 wrote:I hate that they call the Indians streaky. They beat bad teams and get smoked by good teams. They lack talent.

Good teams beat bead teams

Laley23;1470005 wrote:Good teams beat bead teams

Good teams beat bad teams.... And actually compete with other good teams

HitsRus;1469996 wrote:I'm not buying that at all because it is not an apples to apples comparison as I said earlier, and you have to take the individual game situation and players involved into account. The only thing I give you is that Chiz is no sure thing bunting...but with the speedy Stubbs and no force out situation all he has to do is get it down.( and let's not forget that the Tigers are not composed of defensive wizards). The chances of Chiz getting a hit against a left hander is about 1 in 10! .....1 in 4.5...that he will strike out. So what are the odds that in any given at bat, Chizenhall is going to do something that will not at least, advance the runner. Probably 50% or higher....and if you lose that 50-50 proposition you have a runner still at 2B with 1 out. Which is exactly what happened.
I am not a big fan of sacrificing outs. but when you only need a run to win, that's a different story. You have to consider a lot more than the raw statistics. You might have more of an argument if the hitters were Kipnis and Swisher instead of Chiz and Gomes.

So what are the odds of Chisenhall successfully bunting him over? Has the man ever bunted in his life? They don't even practice it anymore. I would guess only a fifty fifty chance he moves the runner over.

That's losing baseball thinking.

Just don't start calling each other dick heads...^ ha ha!

wes_mantooth;1470009 wrote:Good teams beat bad teams.... And actually compete with other good teams

I agree, but at the same time...

We split with Baltimore/Cinci, beat Oakland (4 game sweep)/Texas/Washington.

That's losing baseball thinking

Did we win last nite?

BRF;1470020 wrote:Just don't start calling each other dick heads...^ ha ha!

Not the first time we have disagreed. But I am definitely a much bigger dickhead than the dentist is.