i'm with you. he's not going to keep hitting like this. he can't. but i don't want to take anything away from the guy, either. he seems to be the perfect 2-hole hitter we haven't had in quite some time. his ability to just bunt and move the runner over is something i haven't seen from the 'stros in quite some time.
they suck. and they just lost chipper for a while, too. good luck. how are those Astros looking, buddy??? don't forget that half of the bet! no way in the world the braves finish with a better record than this astros team, unless the 'stros suffer some really significant long term injuries.
Reynolds or Thon? My idea of a great "fielding SS" was Ozzie Smith. If Everett turns out to be a better hitter, well, that's just "icing on the cake." I wanted a SS that's quick, cat-like, with a bull-dozer scoop for a glove! You know? Like that! http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/Smith_Ozzie.htm If Everett turned out more like A-Rod, I wouldn't be pissed either. (duh!) But that's more than I was expecting... Heh heh! A-Rod has the total game.
The problem is, he's bunting so well Jimy keeps making him bunt. To sacrifice one out for one base is a bad % play most of the time when a pitcher's not up. Especially if it's your 2-hitter with big sluggers following up to bat.
I hate that train of thought...instead of manafactreing runs like the NL golden days, everyone waits on the 3 run homer to score. It's that kind of thinking that leads to the feast or famine offense the Astros have been known for the last 10 seasons. Sure they might score 8 runs in a game with 3 homers, but they're just as likely to score 1 or two and stranf 10 men in scoring position. It's nice to see a mix of the classic NL small ball game and the modern approach of the big inning. I'll take Everett bunting Biggio into scoring position with no outs and giving us about a 50% of scoring at least one run over him swing away and hoping Bagwell hits a 3 run bomb any day.
Calm down its early The Braves always make their move around Memorial Day Weekend. Chipper will be back in a week so its all good. The Stros might win more games than the Braves but that other half was that the Braves will win the division and thats gonna save me
This "3 run bombs" approach also got us to the playoffs the past years. I can see how the small ball approach would be more effective in the playoffs, when pitchers are tougher and runs are harder to come by. But in the regular season, you should always go for what gets you the most runs. Because there's just too much scoring. 3-4 runs in a game might be enough in the old days(especially in the Astrodome). But it's not enough now. If we play smallball, then the opponents who hits those bombs will kill us.
In case you missed it, I said I liked the combo of small ball AND waiting for the long ball. If Biggio is on 1st or 2nd with no outs, I can't think of a single situation where the game is even remotely close where I wouldn't want to see Everett bunting him over. Adam doesn't hit lot of pop flys...he hits the ball on the ground or hits low liners....prime DP material. It's wise to sacrifice his out since it's both setting up a likely run, and it prevents the double play. Has there been a single time Everett has bunted this season that made you scratch your head? It's been a perfect situation for him to do so every time. It gets trickier if there's 1 out.
Not to mention Adam is one fast mofo. There has already been one instance I can think of this season where he was bunting to move the runner over, and was able to leg it out for a single. In fact, I attribute the increased offensive production partly to the influx of the small ball mentality to the top of the lineup. Certainly not the main reason, having a couple guys hitting .400 really helps, but I think it really encourages the meat of the lineup when they consistently come up with guys in scoring position, rather than having to worry as much about grounding into DPs.
There have been a couple of times when Biggio led off an inning with a double and then Everett was bunting early in the game (e.g. 04/12 against St. Louis). It always makes me scratch my head when the first batter in a game doubles and the next bunts. Essentially you are giving the pitcher an out (most of the time) before you even get a bearing of how effective he'll be. I don't know of any time that a hitter with an average of .250+ should ever sacrifice bunt with 1 out.
watched a braves game yet??? seriously, who are these guys?? this is not your father's oldsmobile. i don't see this team winning that division. the phils and fish will be too tough. but i'll say this...they might be in for a wild care battle...because if chicago ends up with a control pitcher who has no control and a staff ace that doesn't pitch for over 1/2 the season, then they're not going to the playoffs.
you've been reading your bill james, bobrek!!! in all seriousness, i find the whole sabremetrics stuff fascinating...the whole "moneyball" approach is so different that i can't help but love it.
I agree. I hated the "all or nothing" old Astro days. Especially when we were always trying to make the playoffs. Even our 1986 "slugger" Davis was like that. While teams like CIN, SL, ALT and LA were plinking in singles and doubles winning in the playoffs. Here we were whiffing at the illusive homer and stranding on-base player, after on-base player. That's why I love the "hitter" as opposed do the "slugger." I love a team with batters that can bunt, single, double or go opposite field with their hits. Selective hitting. Not "all or nothing" homers. We left too many on-base doing that in the past. This team has a nice combination of hitters, sluggers and bunters. Oh, and our pitching staff isn't that bad either! It was because of this balance that I decided to start this thread. Everett seems to give us that extra FIELDING that I have been waiting for in addition to all the positives I mentioned above. This is one of the most complete Astro teams I've seen in a long time. Some say that our BULLPEN is a our WEAKNESS. To bad we lost Billy the Kid.
Bunting is all well and good, but giving up an out in front of hitters like Bagwell, Kent, Hidalgo and Berkman doesn't make sense to me. Yeah, move a runner over so a guy like Ausmus can dink a single and maybe drive him in - or Biggio can come around again and rip a double -- but not infront of that row of hitters.
You have to love Kent then. It's been a real pleasure watching him come up with men in scoring position.
I never said small ball is always wrong. I just mentioned that I think Jimy uses small ball in situations where it's not beneficial for the team. Anyway, on to your scenario. This is a pretty complicated problem. I've seen some analysis done on this, and it's the consenses that bunting almost never works out percentage wise. Anyway, here's some minimal analysis just done by me. A) Bunting. One of the following possibilies can happen. 1. 1 out. Runner on second. 2. 1 out. Runner on first. 3. 2 outs. No runners: Double Play 4. 0 outs. Runners on 1st and 2nd: Bunt single or error I don't know too much about % of successful bunts, but probably 80-90% of the first result, 10-20% of the second result, with minimal chances of DP or both players safe. Now, the chances of scoring at least a single run is basically chance of 1 single before 2 outs. And the chances for extra runs diminish greatly, because you need at least 1 single and 1 extra base hit before 2 outs. B) Not bunting. 1. 0 out. Runners on 1st and 3rd 2. 0 out. Runners on 1st and 2nd 3. 0 out. Runners on 2nd and 3rd 4. 0 out. Runners on 2nd and 1 run 5. 0 out. 2 runs 6. 1 out. Runner on 2nd 7. 1 out. Runner on 1st 8. 2 outs. Double Play The chances of getting results 1-5 is Everett's OBP, which is 38.2% right now. He's not much of a power hitter, so the result is usually 1 or 2. Situation 6 is fairly unlikely, so it's probably 7 or 8 60% of the time. Since Everett's quite speedy, I wouldn't say he's a good candidate to be doubled up. The major thing here is just how much better is it to have two men on base with 0 outs vs. 1 man on 2nd with 1 out. That is, how much more likely are you going to score 1 run, 2 runs, 3 runs, etc. with each scenario? It's not as clear as you're making it seem. Now, it's pretty clear that bunting would be clearly superior in the 9th facing Gagne. And just as equally clear that not bunting would be preferable in the 1st inning against some scrub starter. In both situations, we can assume tie or one-run games. It also, of course, depends on how well the oppoents can hit. 1 run maybe enough against the Dodgers lineup, but not so against the Cards. So the question is where do you draw the line. And as I've said earlier, it is believed that the chance of getting even a single run is usually more likely when you don't bunt. An out is just too precious to be wasted on 1 base. Unless you hit like pitcher, that is... The problem I have with Jimy is that he has called several bunts when it's still early in the game, and we could use a big multi-run inning. Cases which clearly would not support small ball.
Oh yes! Kent is playing very well this year. Actually, my favorite is Berkman because of his doubles and triples. Plus, he just seem to hit better when the pressure is on. He has a slight cockiness but backs it up by proving it. Kent first year with us was kinda of disappointing. I thought he'd do better....compared to his San Fran year before. But yes. I love Kent's game this year. He's a very smart and skilled hitter. This is strange from a guy that "rather be fishing." He said that once in a interview.
Meh, Everett grounds out a lot which would cause a decent amount of double plays despite his speed. Also some of his hits would be turned into outs as the lead runner would get nailed on a play were a throw to first is impracticle. The "giving up of the out" is also negated some by Bagwell being a double play possibillity. That said, my firm belief in bunting at the two spot in places with a runner at first without outs early in a game depends on getting a decent percentage of bunts for hits and faith in the pitching staff.
