If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Texas pitcher rages against player's wife when Oakland scores run. What a silly bunt   (blog.sfgate.com) divider line 23
    More: Asinine, Matt Garza, Eric Sogard, Kaycee Sogard, Oakland, squeeze play, C.J. Wilson, call name  
•       •       •

2484 clicks; posted to Sports » on 04 Aug 2013 at 3:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-04 11:11:11 AM  
Big deal, he should have told him to have her make him a sandwich.....
 
2013-08-04 11:29:11 AM  
Garza got his ass kicked by grown up men, so it figures he'd pick on a woman after the game.
 
2013-08-04 12:58:29 PM  
Garza's got a touch of the tard.
 
2013-08-04 03:59:14 PM  
Kaycee?  Really?  Not KC for Katherine Camille or for Kay Cecilia?  Not even Casey?
 
2013-08-04 04:17:24 PM  
Not surprised to hear this from someone who came out of Fresno. Most of the San Joaquin Valley has a backwoods mentality.
 
2013-08-04 04:25:53 PM  
cdn.wl.uproxx.com
 
2013-08-04 04:28:21 PM  
If he's so enraged at people constantly bunting when he's on the mound, maybe he should learn to field his position.  Garza's so bad that the recent scouting report on him is to bunt like mad.

To date, there have been 81 bunts when Garza's on the mound:
21x singles
28x sacrifices
25x regular outs
1x GIDP
6 reached on error

Now, normally, you blame the defense for reaching on error, but in a bunt situation you're intentionally putting pressure on the defense, and errors become common.

So what we're seeing is:
27x good outcomes (single or ROE)
28x iffy outcomes (SH)
26x bad outcomes (1+ outs)

Those are very good odds by baseball standards, especially if you're in a situation where the sacrifice isn't such a bad trade (1st and 2nd w/ 0 out, etc.).  I mean, I wouldn't ask Miguel Cabrera to lay one down, but a speedy singles hitter probably has a permanent green light.  Especially considering that those are Garza's career numbers, and he's now 30 years old and half a step slower.

Complaining about that would be like David Ortiz complaining about the infield shift.  Either learn to hit the opposite way, or accept that your opponents are (legally)doing what they must to win the game.

(P.S.  Why aren't people bunting like mad against the Tigers.  Cabrera and Fielder at the corners?  Avila behind the plate?  4 out of 5 starters that have never pitched in the NL and don't see bunts often?)
 
2013-08-04 05:02:31 PM  

chimp_ninja: (P.S. Why aren't people bunting like mad against the Tigers. Cabrera and Fielder at the corners? Avila behind the plate? 4 out of 5 starters that have never pitched in the NL and don't see bunts often?)


Because bunting is a semi-lost art.
 
2013-08-04 05:13:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Garza got his ass kicked by grown up men, so it figures he'd pick on a woman after the game.



He didn't look her up to send tweets to her. He was responding to some tweets she sent him. She deleted some of hers, so we don't know exactly what she said to start it.
 
2013-08-04 05:14:00 PM  

2wolves: chimp_ninja: (P.S. Why aren't people bunting like mad against the Tigers. Cabrera and Fielder at the corners? Avila behind the plate? 4 out of 5 starters that have never pitched in the NL and don't see bunts often?)

Because bunting is a semi-lost art.


Pretty much.  It's why I hate the sac bunt in almost every situation.  You're down 2, late in the game, and your first two guys reach.  Bunt them over!  Except, first of all, why give the opposing pitcher an out when he's failed to get the first two batters out.  Second, every time someone thinks about whether or not a sac bunt is the right move, they assume the hitter will get the bunt down.  It might be a worthwhile move if the odds of the sacrifice are 100%.  But they aren't.  You can pop the bunt up, hit it right at the pitcher and fail to advance the runner, or just fall behind 0-2.

But yeah.  Bunting on Fielder and Cabrera should be a no brainer.
 
2013-08-04 05:17:25 PM  
There was a game earlier in the season between the Reds and Cubs that had to start like 15 minutes after it was supposed to because Matt Garza was slow in getting to the mound for his pregame warmups. Apparently this is pretty common with him. What a douche.
 
2013-08-04 05:29:49 PM  

2wolves: Because bunting is a semi-lost art.


Quoi?

creativejewishmom.typepad.com
 
2013-08-04 05:54:52 PM  
I'm digging the softer, nicer kind of Oakland, where you tweet your anger.

Texas, you are alright in my book.
 
2013-08-04 06:00:33 PM  

Dafatone: 2wolves: chimp_ninja: (P.S. Why aren't people bunting like mad against the Tigers. Cabrera and Fielder at the corners? Avila behind the plate? 4 out of 5 starters that have never pitched in the NL and don't see bunts often?)

Because bunting is a semi-lost art.

Pretty much.  It's why I hate the sac bunt in almost every situation.  You're down 2, late in the game, and your first two guys reach.  Bunt them over!  Except, first of all, why give the opposing pitcher an out when he's failed to get the first two batters out.  Second, every time someone thinks about whether or not a sac bunt is the right move, they assume the hitter will get the bunt down.  It might be a worthwhile move if the odds of the sacrifice are 100%.  But they aren't.  You can pop the bunt up, hit it right at the pitcher and fail to advance the runner, or just fall behind 0-2.

But yeah.  Bunting on Fielder and Cabrera should be a no brainer.


Because double plays happen too. And now you've got one guy on third and two outs. Congrats.
 
2013-08-04 06:04:42 PM  

The Gentleman Caller: Dafatone: 2wolves: chimp_ninja: (P.S. Why aren't people bunting like mad against the Tigers. Cabrera and Fielder at the corners? Avila behind the plate? 4 out of 5 starters that have never pitched in the NL and don't see bunts often?)

Because bunting is a semi-lost art.

Pretty much.  It's why I hate the sac bunt in almost every situation.  You're down 2, late in the game, and your first two guys reach.  Bunt them over!  Except, first of all, why give the opposing pitcher an out when he's failed to get the first two batters out.  Second, every time someone thinks about whether or not a sac bunt is the right move, they assume the hitter will get the bunt down.  It might be a worthwhile move if the odds of the sacrifice are 100%.  But they aren't.  You can pop the bunt up, hit it right at the pitcher and fail to advance the runner, or just fall behind 0-2.

But yeah.  Bunting on Fielder and Cabrera should be a no brainer.

Because double plays happen too. And now you've got one guy on third and two outs. Congrats.


W/ Cabrera and Prince, the odds of a double play are greatly reduced. You're not landing on the moon, you're counting cards. Play the odds.
 
2013-08-04 06:19:31 PM  

Dafatone: Pretty much.  It's why I hate the sac bunt in almost every situation.  You're down 2, late in the game, and your first two guys reach.  Bunt them over!  Except, first of all, why give the opposing pitcher an out when he's failed to get the first two batters out.  Second, every time someone thinks about whether or not a sac bunt is the right move, they assume the hitter will get the bunt down.   It might be a worthwhile move if the odds of the sacrifice are 100%.  But they aren't.  You can pop the bunt up, hit it right at the pitcher and fail to advance the runner, or just fall behind 0-2.


A deliberate sacrifice is usually not the right move even if you assume 100% success.  Outside of special situations (late and close, ace pitcher having a career day, atrocious hitter at the plate, etc.), the value of advancing a runner one base is not worth intentionally surrendering an out.

Using 2012 numbers from BP, here's how many runs teams averaged after having:
Runner on first, no outs: 0.858
Runner on second, one out: 0.655

Runner on second, no outs: 1.073
Runner on third, one out: 0.898

Runners on first and second, no outs: 1.442
Runners on second and third, one out: 1.290


So even if the batter is a magical sacrifice machine that always does his job, he's hurting the offense by about 0.2 runs.

Heck, even a successful zero-out squeeze very slightly hurts your average production if they retire the batter at first:
Runner on third, no outs: 1.308
Bases empty, one out: 0.263 (+1 run already in, so 1.263)


The above is averaged across all batters and all pitchers.  So, if your pitcher with a .120 OBP is at the plate, the sacrifice probably makes sense, especially if the double play is in order.  If you only need one run and two runs is useless (tie game in extra innings, etc.) the sacrifice may be helpful.  But usually, massacring your chance of a big inning to move a runner up one base isn't worth it.

The math also obviously changes if the batter has a good chance of bunting for a hit.  But most fans don't realize that even a "successful" sacrifice is a negative outcome for the offense.

The reason it's so ingrained is that in the dead-ball era, multi-run innings were so unlikely that playing for one run was a good strategy.  After a few decades of that, players, fans, and managers "knew" when "the book" said it was a good tactic.  They should have ripped that book up when Babe Ruth arrived, but even the Yankees continued bunting away during the 1920s and 1930s.
 
2013-08-04 06:23:14 PM  

The Gentleman Caller: Because double plays happen too. And now you've got one guy on third and two outs. Congrats.


Very rarely.   In 2012, only 33 double plays were turned in the 3,108 plate appearances that ended in a bunt.

With Cabrera and Fielder on the corners?  The Tigers turned 0.
 
2013-08-04 07:01:12 PM  
Matt Garza, tough guy braniac, doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their".
 
2013-08-04 07:23:47 PM  

mediablitz: Matt Garza, tough guy braniac, doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their".


They ought to put something in players' contracts so that they pay a fine if they put out error-riddled tweets. I'm only partly kidding.
 
2013-08-04 07:36:06 PM  

chimp_ninja: Dafatone: Pretty much.  It's why I hate the sac bunt in almost every situation.  You're down 2, late in the game, and your first two guys reach.  Bunt them over!  Except, first of all, why give the opposing pitcher an out when he's failed to get the first two batters out.  Second, every time someone thinks about whether or not a sac bunt is the right move, they assume the hitter will get the bunt down.   It might be a worthwhile move if the odds of the sacrifice are 100%.  But they aren't.  You can pop the bunt up, hit it right at the pitcher and fail to advance the runner, or just fall behind 0-2.

A deliberate sacrifice is usually not the right move even if you assume 100% success.  Outside of special situations (late and close, ace pitcher having a career day, atrocious hitter at the plate, etc.), the value of advancing a runner one base is not worth intentionally surrendering an out.

Using 2012 numbers from BP, here's how many runs teams averaged after having:
Runner on first, no outs: 0.858
Runner on second, one out: 0.655

Runner on second, no outs: 1.073
Runner on third, one out: 0.898

Runners on first and second, no outs: 1.442
Runners on second and third, one out: 1.290

So even if the batter is a magical sacrifice machine that always does his job, he's hurting the offense by about 0.2 runs.

Heck, even a successful zero-out squeeze very slightly hurts your average production if they retire the batter at first:
Runner on third, no outs: 1.308
Bases empty, one out: 0.263 (+1 run already in, so 1.263)

The above is averaged across all batters and all pitchers.  So, if your pitcher with a .120 OBP is at the plate, the sacrifice probably makes sense, especially if the double play is in order.  If you only need one run and two runs is useless (tie game in extra innings, etc.) the sacrifice may be helpful.  But usually, massacring your chance of a big inning to move a runner up one base isn't worth it.

The math also obviously changes if the batter has a good c ...


Words do not suffice to convey the fail in this "analysis."  I'll leave it to others to explain.

Hint: "average runs" does not equal "chance to score a run."
 
2013-08-04 07:49:39 PM  
Hey Subby! It's spelled "Boont".
 
2013-08-04 09:30:09 PM  

fergusg: Words do not suffice to convey the fail in this "analysis."  I'll leave it to others to explain.

Hint: "average runs" does not equal "chance to score a run."


Oh, please, continue.  Be sure to discuss how I pointed out that "If you only need one run and two runs is useless (tie game in extra innings, etc.) the sacrifice may be helpful.  But usually, massacring your chance of a big inning to move a runner up one base isn't worth it." or "Outside of special situations (late and close, ace pitcher having a career day, atrocious hitter at the plate, etc.), the value of advancing a runner one base is not worth intentionally surrendering an out. "  Clearly, I have no understanding of the difference between an average and the underlying distribution.

I'm sure I never thought of your point.  Feel free to explain "the fail" in as many equivalently overused cliches as you like.
 
2013-08-04 10:54:19 PM  

someonelse: They ought to put something in players' contracts so that they pay a fine if they put out error-riddled tweets. I'm only partly kidding.


Basically, every free agent should realize that they are paid millions of dollars to entertain people, and that they can continue to rake in money after retirement by performing such tasks as "signing objects" and "posing for photos".  They've essentially already won the genetic and financial lottery.  They just have to avoid being a jerk.

Thus, it is in their financial interest to handle all public speaking and media events like Derek Jeter does.  Politely answer every question put to you by talking about wanting to help your teammates out.  Refer to management and ownership as "Mr." or "Ms.".  Dress nicely, which should be easy given that you have a virtually unlimited clothing budget, and plenty left over to pay a professional to pick things out for you.

Keep a PR consultant on retainer.  Have that person either ghost-write or edit every email, tweet, Facebook post, or other written communication to be as nice as possible.  If you have personal indiscretions (such as Derek Jeter vigorously banging each and every female relative from age 21-35 of all men who approach within 50 feet of him) keep them discreet and never write anything down that can be forwarded or re-posted to the public.

Do I think Jeter means half the crap he says in interviews?  Not a chance.  Is he the most marketable man in baseball, even after his physical talents have significantly eroded?  By a longshot.

In the meantime, Matt Garza is doing his best to piss off the fans.  Even Texans won't put up with trash-talking another player's wife.  Players actually gain or lose salary for this stuff, because owners know that fans don't turn out as much for a team full of assholes.  The owners know it would be worth paying Jeter $10M/year or so even if he completely sucked, because he probably makes the team more than that every year in tickets and merchandise.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report