Maybe they should have Billy Butler bunt more with men on base because he grounds into so many double plays...

Homer: There’s not a single bear in sight—the ‘Bear Patrol’ is working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious logic dad.
Homer: Thank you honey.
Lisa: According to your logic, this rock is keeping tigers away.
Homer: Hmmm, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t.
Homer: How so?
Lisa: Its just a rock, but I don’t see any tigers anywhere.
Homer: Lisa, I’d like to buy your rock.

Good grief. It’s as if they’re running a 386 PC with Prodigy dialup service

LQDK70A.

...Yost: “Do you know what our record is when we score first?” (It’s 38-16.) “That’s why I don’t have a problem with it.”

Wow. This is pretty retarded.

This like the splits that say "The Yankees are 18-8 when ARod hits a home run." (So all we need to do is to have ARod hit a home run!")

Except it's worse than that.

I would imagine that the reason the "score first" splits tend to be favorable are:

1. You know you've scored, which is better than not scoring.
2. You know you've scored at least one run - and maybe multiple runs.
3. It was probably early in the game, which meant you had several more innings to add on runs.
4. Or maybe it was late in the game, which meant that you probably only had to keep the opponent off the boards for a few more innings.
5. Your opponent may not have scored.

The biggest flaw in Yost's thought process centers on item 2. When you've "scored first," that may well have been more than one run. But Yost's "bunt to score first" strategy likely caps a big inning, which means that he may have only gotten the one run. In general when you've "scored first" you haven't limited your chance for multiple runs, so you may have gotten multiple runs.

The goal is to score more than your opponent after 9 innings, not to "score first."

Beautiful re-enactment of rhetoric from BP circa 1998. While Ned is clearly spouting nonsense, the stats show that he's not employing the mouthfoam-inducing SH any more often than any AL manager.

The reason why the Royals are winning 43% of their games has very little to do with how many SH they employ. It has more to do with the fact that since 1996, they've had exactly one team whose RA/ERA ranked in the first half of the league. "Scoring most" also involves "allowing least."

Yeah, I was gonna say that the reason the Royals are bad is because they have bad players.

Yeah someone should ask the guy what his team's record is when they score the first TWO runs of the game. That should be something he can understand.

EDIT: maybe this never happens.

#5, the Royals pitching has been bad historically, but this year they are near the bottom of the leagur in runs scored too.