2017-07-22: Brewers (Suter) at Phillies (Hellickson) 6:05 PM CDT [Brewers win, 9-8]

[TJseven7]

The streak is snapped. Gonna need another bottle of Rolaids, though.

 

Yeah that's exactly right. Good sharp outing for corey... thank god the bleeding stopped for a night.

[young guns]

[sarcasm]So glad they made it an exciting 9-8 victory instead a boring 8-1 win.[/sarcasm] But im glad the losing streak is over. Lets start a nice long winning streak now.

[pacopete4]

Only crappy thing is Suter deserved a win.

[Ennder]

You don't bunt in that situation. You play for a big inning. Knebel won't hold a one run lead.

 

Hope you weren't in Vegas

 

Great job Corey

 

Yeah while JohnBriggs12's post is silly as usual I agree that the bunt is a bad idea. Giving away an out for a small chance to score a run on a BIP just isn't worth it. I don't really see how the run expectancy was increased by bunting in that situation.

[FVBrewerFan]

Honest question. What does Auggie think a breckabawl is? Seems literally any pitch other than a 4 seam FB? Change, slider, curve, vutter...Ive heard him call of them breckabawl.

[jjgott]

WINNER WINNER BRATS FOR DINNER

[Yaz]

Suter deserved to PITCH the 7th inning if not more! That Bullpen sucks and it was the main culprit for the losing streak.

 

I should be happy they won but I am not. I am totally ticked off. Why was the pitching coach not out there with Barnes in the 8th inning when the 2nd man reached? Good grief.

 

5 1/2 game lead gone in one week. And now the Brewers have 3 teams breathing down their necks. Unreal.

[adambr2]

You don't bunt in that situation. You play for a big inning. Knebel won't hold a one run lead.

 

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/brewers-vs-phillies/2017/07/22/491553#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=play-by-play,game=491553

 

There are years worth of data and many studies that pretty much prove that except for some very limited situations (not this one), sac bunting is dumb. Your odds of scoring a single run with a man on 3rd and 1 out is minisculy better, if better at all, than with a runner on 2nd and nobody out. Your odds of scoring multiple runs are diminished. All for a play that even has to be executed first before getting the opportunity, and execution rates have also gone down over the years.

 

This isn't an emotional reaction based on the game. Its fairly scientific. Outs are just too precious to give away freely.

[Ennder]

To be fair that 5.5 game lead was really built in one and a half weeks too. They were like 1 game up before they suddenly went 8-2 to finish out the first half.

[AKCheesehead]

I'm just thankful the Phillies put on a little league show for us after walking Braun, otherwise this game would have been like stepping on a rake.

[TJseven7]

You don't bunt in that situation. You play for a big inning. Knebel won't hold a one run lead.

 

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/brewers-vs-phillies/2017/07/22/491553#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=play-by-play,game=491553

 

There are years worth of data and many studies that pretty much prove that except for some very limited situations (not this one), sac bunting is dumb. Your odds of scoring a single run with a man on 3rd and 1 out is minisculy better, if better at all, than with a runner on 2nd and nobody out. Your odds of scoring multiple runs are diminished. All for a play that even has to be executed first before getting the opportunity, and execution rates have also gone down over the years.

 

This isn't an emotional reaction based on the game. Its fairly scientific. Outs are just too precious to give away freely.

 

Our runner on 2nd is slow. Our 3rd base coach is ed sedar. I think that shatters your analytics. Sorry.

[MoreTrife]

Odds knebel blows it? 2-1?

 

Odds >50% of comments in an IGT can actually be positive. 100000000-1?

 

Yes because blowing a 8-1 lead just makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[MoreTrife]

Only crappy thing is Suter deserved a win.

 

Good call. He should've stayed in. Results wouldn't have been worse.

[stoutdude04]

Late to the party...anyone still asking for Barnes to be closer...or do we realize relievers give up runs?

[TJseven7]

Only crappy thing is Suter deserved a win.

 

Good call. He should've stayed in. Results wouldn't have been worse.

 

Or we could have put in hughes or blazek after the rupp walk. Apparently hader and blazek are newer so they have to earn their way past drake scahill and torres. Story of the week.

[adambr2]

 

Our runner on 2nd is slow. Our 3rd base coach is ed sedar. I think that shatters your analytics. Sorry.

 

Yeah, your argument makes zero sense whatsoever. Sorry. You're trying to bunt over a runner that you openly admit is slow, who is therefore less likely to get to 3rd successfully on a sac, and less likely to score on a sac fly, and you think that's an argument in your favor? K.

[MrTPlush]

Odds knebel blows it? 2-1?

 

Odds >50% of comments in an IGT can actually be positive. 100000000-1?

 

Yes because blowing a 8-1 lead just makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

Try just about any IGT.

[MrTPlush]

You don't bunt in that situation. You play for a big inning. Knebel won't hold a one run lead.

 

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/brewers-vs-phillies/2017/07/22/491553#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=play-by-play,game=491553

 

There are years worth of data and many studies that pretty much prove that except for some very limited situations (not this one), sac bunting is dumb. Your odds of scoring a single run with a man on 3rd and 1 out is minisculy better, if better at all, than with a runner on 2nd and nobody out. Your odds of scoring multiple runs are diminished. All for a play that even has to be executed first before getting the opportunity, and execution rates have also gone down over the years.

 

This isn't an emotional reaction based on the game. Its fairly scientific. Outs are just too precious to give away freely.

 

It is...because my post had nothing to do with the bunt.

[adambr2]

I'm sure you understand that I posted that in reference to you saying that the sac bunt was a great idea.

[TJseven7]

Ok you dont need to be a snide numbers only ass. Bunting a guy over has little to do with speed. No decently placed bunt leaves enough time to throw to 3rd with any jump by a guy on 2nd. Perez bunted horribly. As far as scoring on the sac fly... better chance of him scoring on a sac fly than from 2nd on a single. No chance he doesn't score on a single at 3rd. Not to mention its shaw... or santana after a walk... good guy to have up.

 

But hey be a jerk because you have numbers that dont factor in situation. Never bunt and watch this team keep stranding dudes.

 

Numbers say so.

 

Edit... perez has been hot lately right... hes not a huge k risk right?

[adambr2]

Ok you dont need to be a snide numbers only ass. Bunting a guy over has little to do with speed. No decently placed bunt leaves enough time to throw to 3rd with any jump by a guy on 2nd. Perez bunted horribly. As far as scoring on the sac fly... better chance of him scoring on a sac fly than from 2nd on a single. No chance he doesn't score on a single at 3rd. Not to mention its shaw... or santana after a walk... good guy to have up.

 

But hey be a jerk because you have numbers that dont factor in situation. Never bunt and watch this team keep stranding dudes.

 

Numbers say so.

 

Edit... perez has been hot lately right... hes not a huge k risk right?

 

Perez bunted horribly probably in part because he's not a very accomplished career sac bunter and thus not even a great candidate for the play.

 

I can only bring up the data. I can't force you to accept it, you're entitled to believe what you like. Nothing you've brought up convinces me that the situation clearly leaned in that favor.

 

Heads up that name-calling, which you did twice in this post, is not allowed in this forum.

 

viewtopic.php?&t=4208

[TJseven7]

And talking down to people is allowed? You are sitting on a number based situation blind high horse and acting like those numbers make you right. Thats as foolish as a coach in the nfl going for 2 because they are up 5 in the 1st quarter. Numbers say you go for the 7 point lead.

 

I said what I said vecause its clear to anyone reading that's exactly how you were acting. You call it name calling, you acted that way... i pointed it out.

 

You want to be the guy who takes a low blow and then cries for a flag after getting shoved... be my guest.

[MrTPlush]

I'm sure you understand that I posted that in reference to you saying that the sac bunt was a great idea.

 

I don't because you had already replied to my bunting comment.

[adambr2]

And talking down to people is allowed? You are sitting on a number based situation blind high horse and acting like those numbers make you right. Thats as foolish as a coach in the nfl going for 2 because they are up 5 in the 1st quarter. Numbers say you go for the 7 point lead.

 

You're the only one talking down to anyone, at this point.

 

I brought up the studies based on years and years of historical data. I conceded that there are situations that would push that in the other direction, but as I said (and others have said), there's nothing about that situation and nothing that you have brought up that convince me that a sac bunt there increases our run probability that inning.

 

As I have already said, I'm only stating my opinion based on the data, you're entitled to your own, so please do not accuse me again of being on a "high horse."

[Jimbo]

Was at Oriole Park tonight with one eye on the scoreboard. Thinking to myself yippie, up 8-1, the bullpen can't blow this. Not knowing what was going, but could guess when as it went 8-8. Good to see them pull it out. Was on pins and needles.