Marlins Lose to Braves 4-3 in Extras

[Bobbob1313]

That nobody here is making?

[Erick]

I can't point out something, in general?

[Mainge]

It's kind of weird to point out something that didn't happen but whatevs.

[Bobbob1313]

Mainge, be careful. If you disagree with Erick, you might be a homosexual.

[Mainge]

I'm okay with that. They're fun people.

[Erick]

Hopefully you're not one of the ones who wears tight shirts; that would make you a douchebag.

[MiamiHomer]

[Ramp]

seriously, stop

ya'll make everyone look stupid, go fight over stupid stuff on the other board

[dim]

I just always liked the idea of a sac bunt. Having played baseball for quite a long time, I've just seen enough situations where it seems like teams tend to accomplish a run more often after a sacrifice than trying for a hit. Stats probably prove that wrong, but that's just been an objective opinion of mine (and the majority of managers). Old school mentality? Sure. But if it works, it's way easier to score a run after one.

[Ramp]

I just always liked the idea of a sac bunt. Having played baseball for quite a long time, I've just seen enough situations where it seems like teams tend to accomplish a run more often after a sacrifice than trying for a hit. Stats probably prove that wrong, but that's just been an objective opinion of mine (and the majority of managers). Old school mentality? Sure. But if it works, it's way easier to score a run after one.

correct

[dim]

correct

As I've heard before (although it's kinda funny you ignored the rest of the post where I clearly stated it's simply my opinion, but you highlight that one sentence). Still don't see it as an argument that can solved simply by looking at the numbers. There's more that goes into the argument of sac bunting than plain stats.

/inbeforesabermetricsargumentthatalwayshappens

[MiamiHomer]

I think it's simple, you don't give away outs.

[dim]

I think it's simple, you don't give away outs.

Some outs are more productive than others.

[Erick]

I just always liked the idea of a sac bunt. Having played baseball for quite a long time, I've just seen enough situations where it seems like teams tend to accomplish a run more often after a sacrifice than trying for a hit. Stats probably prove that wrong, but that's just been an objective opinion of mine (and the majority of managers). Old school mentality? Sure. But if it works, it's way easier to score a run after one.

The only way a sac bunt makes sense is if you're trying to manufacture a run by possibly scoring a run with an out. Runner on 2nd, no one out, crappy hitter up...sac bunt makes some sense because you can score a run in several ways.

I fail to see how a sac bunt helps with a man on first. It's kinda logical to me, really. In that case, you still need a base hit to score. All you're doing is giving away outs. And it's especially dumb to do it when the pitcher on the mound has a case of control issues, as was the case last night.

[Bobbob1313]

I'm not always against sac bunts; if you need one run, there are times when it can yield a higher probability of scoring that one run.

The first inning is NEVER time for sac bunts.