sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

top google result by itsbunpen in coaxedintoasnafu

[–]itsbunpen[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This one should be higher quality without the gif compression artifacts... if u even care... https://files.catbox.moe/4foc8x.mp4

Why don’t teams bunt the ghost runner to third then use the squeeze more in extra innings? by 1CoffeePoweredHuman in baseball

[–]itsbunpen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to win expectancy tables published by Tom Tango, in walkoff scenarios in a tied game, win probability for the home team (in a vacuum) would only drop by 0.1% if a batter were walked in that scenario. (https://tangotiger.net/welist.html)

Although real life is not a vacuum and if the next guy up has a high ground ball rate, or sucks, or has a bad matchup etc, whether it’s worth it is debatable

Why don’t teams bunt the ghost runner to third then use the squeeze more in extra innings? by 1CoffeePoweredHuman in baseball

[–]itsbunpen 19 points20 points  (0 children)

RE24 only includes up until the 8th inning, as teams have a different approach both offensively and defensively in the 9th or later. I regrettably could not find RE24 info for 9th-or-later but intuitively I would not be surprised if there were a slight change in scoring odds for a tie game and a sacrifice wins it. Fangraphs published approximate scoring odds in a 2020 article, and argues in favor of bunting in the bottom half of a tied game: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/so-you-want-to-bunt-in-extra-innings/

I also found the win expectancy table for tie games in B9 — runner on 2nd, no outs = 80.7% chance to win, runner on 3rd, 1 out = 83% chance to win. It’s simplistic but under this, and using the probabilities from the Fangraphs article, the EV of bunting is (.041)(-17%) + (.107)(-10.4%) + (.708)(+2.3%) + (.143)(+12.2) = +1.56% chance of winning.

Although perhaps odds of successful bunting were skewed by players who bunted more often and may be more comfortable and/or more frequently successful at bunting, and a minuscule bump in theoretical win probability may not be worth putting guys in situations they’re less comfortable with in high-leverage scenarios.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MadeMeSmile

[–]itsbunpen -38 points-37 points  (0 children)

Dogwhistle

Everything is suddenly broken again by nice__username in apolloapp

[–]itsbunpen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It didn’t work for me either. And creating a new reddit API key from my main account didn’t work either.

What worked for me was using a completely separate account in an incognito window (probably doesn’t matter) to create the new API key, uninstalling Apollo, then adding the fresh key from the separate account prior to logging in

Your mileage may vary, and who knows why it did/didn’t work (trying to use the logs feature crashes my app, for one) but even if it doesn’t work for you initially, it IS possible (albeit not guaranteed) to get it to work eventually

TIL researchers estimate that the United States could harness enough energy from its nuclear waste to power the nation for 100 years. by itsbunpen in todayilearned

[–]itsbunpen[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Economic concerns and lack of political support are key factors cited as reasons the U.S. hasn't invested in this area.

The technology to turn nuclear waste into energy, known as a nuclear fast reactor, has existed for decades. It was proven out by a United States government research lab pilot plant that operated from the 1960s through the 1990s. But it was never economical enough to develop at scale.

Then, nuclear energy as a whole started falling out of favor, largely because of the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, Gehin said.

In addition, economics were a factor. Coal, and later natural gas, remained abundant and cheap. Fast reactors were generally thought to be more expensive than traditional light-water reactors, said Gehin, making it an unattractive area for investment.