Quick counts question..??

[Steven78]

Re: Quick counts question..??

You're more likely to score with a runner on 1st no outs vs runner on 2nd one out.

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

I score more runs when bunting then when not that's all I know. I know if I get my guy to second with one out a base hit scores him, but if he is still on first with one out and I get a hit, he might not even get to third. If I was using a team in the AL I would think like you, but I don't. I use an NL team and have that whole in my lineup to deal with.

In the end I don't play historical facts, I play what is best in the situation.

Retrosheet has 75+ years of play-by-play logs that says what you "know" is wrong. Do you have any data to support your position?

[kehlis]

Re: Quick counts question..??

You're more likely to score with a runner on 1st no outs vs runner on 2nd one out.

You're more likely to score with a runner on second and one out than you are with a runner on first with one out.

No?

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

No they're not a myth. If the game is tied and you have a guy on second with no outs and can get him to third with one out, that gives you a chance to get him in many, many different ways. If it works it turns into a productive out.

Moving the runner over on a sac bunt, even with an average pitcher, lowers your expected runs. It's a small drop, but it puts you in a worse position overall.

On the other hand, that particular instance does improve you odds of scoring one run (assuming pitcher at the plate), so it's still a judgement call based on the game situation.

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

You're more likely to score with a runner on second and one out than you are with a runner on first with one out.

No?

Yes.

Historically known statistic.

With an average pitcher at the plate, no outs, runner on first, you have greater expected runs than with an average leadoff hitter at the plate, one out, and a runner on second.

[ckarlic]

Re: Quick counts question..??

I didn't think you could use quick counts for show live games. I'm playing a show live game and somehow quick counts is toggled. Not sure if this is a bug or not. I've been playing with qc in exhibition games and wanted to play a show live game and noticed it is set. Anyone else have this happen?

[cusefan74]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Retrosheet has 75+ years of play-by-play logs that says what you "know" is wrong. Do you have any data to support your position?

I am not saying I know for everybody. I said it's what works for me. I don't care what the data says about everybody else, I was talking about me.

Also you keep talking about expected runs. I am talking about actual runs. I will take one actual run as opposed to two expected runs.

[Mabster]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Thread officially completely derailed.

[spyrfyrren]

Re: Quick counts question..??

To put the thread back slightly towards pitch counts, I had another question if anybody would be kind enough to give their thoughts.

Does the algorithm factor in how a pitcher is performing in a set game? For example, a really good pitcher is having an off-day, you've got to him early with some walks and timely hits. In later at-bats does Quick Counts think 'he's a good pitcher, but having a rough day' and tend toward a more favorable count for the batter or does it still think 'oh hey it's a good pitcher' and give an 0-2 (or other pitcher count).

Any thoughts?

[CleveCluby]

Re: Quick counts question..??

I realize that this is wishful thinking, But a solution to the 0-0 count when needed, would be to simply put an option to turn on and off QC during a game.. So using QC and an opportunity comes up fro a squeeze bunt, Bunt, or hit and run.. You would be able to click off of QC and have a normal pitching sequence.. After the attempt, switch back to QC.. This would serve the need of everyone and pretty much fix the problem, Just a thought..

[Mabster]

Re: Quick counts question..??

I realize that this is wishful thinking, But a solution to the 0-0 count when needed, would be to simply put an option to turn on and off QC during a game.. So using QC and an opportunity comes up fro a squeeze bunt, Bunt, or hit and run.. You would be able to click off of QC and have a normal pitching sequence.. After the attempt, switch back to QC.. This would serve the need of everyone and pretty much fix the problem, Just a thought..

QC uses a completely different logic set then regular games.
It's not an easy matter to "simply" program the two logic sets to be interchangeable.

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

I am not saying I know for everybody. I said it's what works for me. I don't care what the data says about everybody else, I was talking about me.

Also you keep talking about expected runs. I am talking about actual runs. I will take one actual run as opposed to two expected runs.

Of course I'm talking about expected runs, it's the only thing we can talk about when making decisions on future events.

Bottom line, what you think works is the wrong decision 99% of the time. 75 years of recorded baseball says you, and even the MLB managers who agree with you, are wrong.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Productive outs are pretty much a myth. Giving away outs is almost never a good idea.

No myth, plenty of teams have won in the 9th inning scoring a runner from third on a Sac Fly and win in a one run game. THAT is one example of many productive outs. Moving a runner from station to station just isn't as sexy as sitting back and waiting for a three run homer. Forget about merging this thread with one of the other quick count threads, just rename it The Great Bunt Debate

[bkrich83]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Nice to see the saber guys show up in yet another thread and attempt to pass theories and analytics based opinions off as facts. That along with their condescension never get old.

Thanks for derailing another thread and giving us another helping of that "I know more than you", attitude that never ceases to annoy.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

No myth, plenty of teams have won in the 9th inning scoring a runner from third on a Sac Fly and win in a one run game. THAT is one example of many productive outs. Moving a runner from station to station just isn't as sexy as sitting back and waiting for a three run homer. Forget about merging this thread with one of the other quick count threads, just rename it The Great Bunt Debate

Yes, myth.

Plenty more teams have failed to come up with any runs when giving up free outs. On average, which matters far more than any anecdotal outliers, giving up outs in exchange for advancing runners is a fool's errand.