Bunt, bunt, bunt, bunt, bunt, bunt...........
- Thread starter FrogByBirth
- Start date
sous vide
Member
I should have mentioned that I have also seen some papers on this question purporting that regression is not the appropriate analysis, that Markov chains should be used. In a Markov chain, the various possible "transition states" are laid out and an analysis of them is carried out. (e.g., 0,1, 2, or 3 runners, 0 outs; 0, 1, 2, or 3 runners 1 out, etc. ..further refinements like 2 strikes vs. 1 or 0 could be defined as well) Anyway, when a Markov analysis is done, I seem to remember the sac bunt came out as a winning strategy even in many pro situations/teams esp. NL where there is no designated hitter. Haven't looked at these stats for a while, though.
It's also impt to see that since few pro teams use the strategy in general, there is little data on how well the strategy works, in general, and therefore sabermetrics gets inaccurate. At the college level this is not true, and as I said, I have no doubt Augie has commissioned a grad student or two to study this.
It's also impt to see that since few pro teams use the strategy in general, there is little data on how well the strategy works, in general, and therefore sabermetrics gets inaccurate. At the college level this is not true, and as I said, I have no doubt Augie has commissioned a grad student or two to study this.
SnoSki
Full Member
QUOTE(Longfrog @ Jun 21 2010, 08:31 AM) [snapback]584666[/snapback]
Ron Washington is hardly a representative MLB manager. He and Dusty Baker are the only two managers I can think of that would bunt in that situation, and both of them get hammered for it. If it was the textbook play, everyone would be doing it at the highest level, and they don't. What does that tell you?
I'd bet that MOST blb managers do that. Bunting is the wise play in a situation unless your batter is A Rod, Barry Bonds or Pujols, and maybe select others. Even then, if you know you're facing a top pitcher, or one who is primarily a ground ball pitcher, you go on and lay down the bunt to avoid the GIDP.
Ron Washington is hardly a representative MLB manager. He and Dusty Baker are the only two managers I can think of that would bunt in that situation, and both of them get hammered for it. If it was the textbook play, everyone would be doing it at the highest level, and they don't. What does that tell you?
I'd bet that MOST blb managers do that. Bunting is the wise play in a situation unless your batter is A Rod, Barry Bonds or Pujols, and maybe select others. Even then, if you know you're facing a top pitcher, or one who is primarily a ground ball pitcher, you go on and lay down the bunt to avoid the GIDP.
Duquesne Frog
Member
QUOTE(NewfoundlandFrog @ Jun 21 2010, 07:08 AM) [snapback]584615[/snapback]
That said, I think most sabermetricians who study pro ball in pro environments are down on small ball.
Bill James is certainly not a proponent of the bunt. Or the stolen base for that matter. According to him, the odds of scoring when you move up a base are more than offset by giving up the out.
I'm not a big fan of small ball either, particularly when you have a lineup that hits over .300 from 1 to 9. Outs are analogous to time in other sports ... when you lay down a bunt, you are basically giving up the equivalent of 1-2 minutes of possession in a football game for the equivalent of field position. Which can be good strategy. But to me, you don't want to be giving up those outs all the time.
That said, it's a little hard to argue with the results. And as you said, the statistics may be different for the college game ...
That said, I think most sabermetricians who study pro ball in pro environments are down on small ball.
Bill James is certainly not a proponent of the bunt. Or the stolen base for that matter. According to him, the odds of scoring when you move up a base are more than offset by giving up the out.
I'm not a big fan of small ball either, particularly when you have a lineup that hits over .300 from 1 to 9. Outs are analogous to time in other sports ... when you lay down a bunt, you are basically giving up the equivalent of 1-2 minutes of possession in a football game for the equivalent of field position. Which can be good strategy. But to me, you don't want to be giving up those outs all the time.
That said, it's a little hard to argue with the results. And as you said, the statistics may be different for the college game ...
PurpleBlood87
Active Member
QUOTE(Duquesne Frog @ Jun 21 2010, 09:32 AM) [snapback]584708[/snapback]
Bill James is certainly not a proponent of the bunt. Or the stolen base for that matter. According to him, the odds of scoring when you move up a base are more than offset by giving up the out.
I'm not a big fan of small ball either, particularly when you have a lineup that hits over .300 from 1 to 9. Outs are analogous to time in other sports ... when you lay down a bunt, you are basically giving up the equivalent of 1-2 minutes of possession in a football game for the equivalent of field position. Which can be good strategy. But to me, you don't want to be giving up those outs all the time.
That said, it's a little hard to argue with the results. And as you said, the statistics may be different for the college game ...
I love Bill James, but he's never won a college baseball game as a coach or a professional game as a manager. In college the bunt, as has been said over and over, puts more pressure on the defense. A defense that isn't made up of seasoned professionals.
Bill James is certainly not a proponent of the bunt. Or the stolen base for that matter. According to him, the odds of scoring when you move up a base are more than offset by giving up the out.
I'm not a big fan of small ball either, particularly when you have a lineup that hits over .300 from 1 to 9. Outs are analogous to time in other sports ... when you lay down a bunt, you are basically giving up the equivalent of 1-2 minutes of possession in a football game for the equivalent of field position. Which can be good strategy. But to me, you don't want to be giving up those outs all the time.
That said, it's a little hard to argue with the results. And as you said, the statistics may be different for the college game ...
I love Bill James, but he's never won a college baseball game as a coach or a professional game as a manager. In college the bunt, as has been said over and over, puts more pressure on the defense. A defense that isn't made up of seasoned professionals.
Longfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(PurpleBlood87 @ Jun 21 2010, 08:46 AM) [snapback]584715[/snapback]
I love Bill James, but he's never won a college baseball game as a coach or a professional game as a manager. In college the bunt, as has been said over and over, puts more pressure on the defense. A defense that isn't made up of seasoned professionals.
Bill James has never won a pro game either, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The inferior defense argument is the only reasonable one I can think of, but I have a hard time believing the gap is that wide. The median fielding percentage in the majors right now is .983%. Here are the numbers for the teams in the CWS:
[SIZE=10pt]Team[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Fielding Percentage[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]National Rank[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Florida[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].978[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]6th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Arizona State[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].976[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]11th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Oklahoma[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].976[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]12th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]South Carolina[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].975[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]17th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Florida State[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].971[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]53rd[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Texas Christian[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].971[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]54th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]UCLA[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].970[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]55th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Clemson[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].963[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]135th[/SIZE]
The difference is basically one error in a hundred chances. Hard to believe it makes that much difference.
As for other arguments like, it keeps you out of the double play, it forces the defense to reposition itself, etc., these are all equally applicable to the majors. The question again for the 100th time is what is so fundamentally different about college baseball that makes the bunt a good play? At least the inferior defense argument gets at this question (even if I don't find it very compelling); very few others have.
I love Bill James, but he's never won a college baseball game as a coach or a professional game as a manager. In college the bunt, as has been said over and over, puts more pressure on the defense. A defense that isn't made up of seasoned professionals.
Bill James has never won a pro game either, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The inferior defense argument is the only reasonable one I can think of, but I have a hard time believing the gap is that wide. The median fielding percentage in the majors right now is .983%. Here are the numbers for the teams in the CWS:
[SIZE=10pt]Team[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Fielding Percentage[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]National Rank[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Florida[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].978[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]6th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Arizona State[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].976[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]11th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Oklahoma[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].976[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]12th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]South Carolina[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].975[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]17th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Florida State[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].971[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]53rd[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Texas Christian[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].971[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]54th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]UCLA[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].970[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]55th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Clemson[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].963[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]135th[/SIZE]
The difference is basically one error in a hundred chances. Hard to believe it makes that much difference.
As for other arguments like, it keeps you out of the double play, it forces the defense to reposition itself, etc., these are all equally applicable to the majors. The question again for the 100th time is what is so fundamentally different about college baseball that makes the bunt a good play? At least the inferior defense argument gets at this question (even if I don't find it very compelling); very few others have.
Longfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(Longfrog @ Jun 21 2010, 09:48 AM) [snapback]584759[/snapback]
[SIZE=10pt]Team[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Fielding Percentage[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]National Rank[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Florida[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].978[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]6th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Arizona State[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].976[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]11th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Oklahoma[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].976[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]12th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]South Carolina[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].975[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]17th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Florida State[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].971[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]53rd[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Texas Christian[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].971[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]54th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]UCLA[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].970[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]55th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Clemson[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].963[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]135th[/SIZE]
Sorry, here are those stats again:
Team_________Fld%______NatlRank
Florida________.978______6th
Arizona_______.976______11th
Oklahoma_____.976______12th
South Car_____.975______17th
Florida St______.971______53rd
TCU__________.971______54th
UCLA_________.970______55th
Clemson_______.963______135th
[SIZE=10pt]Team[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Fielding Percentage[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]National Rank[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Florida[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].978[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]6th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Arizona State[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].976[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]11th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Oklahoma[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].976[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]12th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]South Carolina[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].975[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]17th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Florida State[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].971[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]53rd[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Texas Christian[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].971[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]54th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]UCLA[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].970[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]55th[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Clemson[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt].963[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]135th[/SIZE]
Sorry, here are those stats again:
Team_________Fld%______NatlRank
Florida________.978______6th
Arizona_______.976______11th
Oklahoma_____.976______12th
South Car_____.975______17th
Florida St______.971______53rd
TCU__________.971______54th
UCLA_________.970______55th
Clemson_______.963______135th
QUOTE(Longfrog @ Jun 21 2010, 10:54 AM) [snapback]584766[/snapback]
Sorry, here are those stats again:
Team_________Fld%______NatlRank
Florida________.978______6th
Arizona_______.976______11th
Oklahoma_____.976______12th
South Car_____.975______17th
Florida St______.971______53rd
TCU__________.971______54th
UCLA_________.970______55th
Clemson_______.963______135th
I think anytime there is a runner 2nd with no outs, the bunt should almost ALWAYS be used unless the score prevents it.
Here's why: bunting has I would imagine at least a 75-80 percent chance of getting the runner to third with one out. Most college hitters haven't perfected the art of going the other way with a pitch to move the runner over and a pop up or k is also a possibility. You have the odds of a base hit with even the BEST hitters at just 35-40 percent and the odds of a deep fly to the outfield or hit the other way to move the runners at about 20 percent. Combining those you have at best a 60 percent chance of moving the runner to third compared to a 75 percent chance with the bunt.
Now I agree I'm not a fan of bunting with a guy on first and no outs because at some point you'll need a base hit anyway. However a runner on third and one out can score with a sac fly, wild pitch, ground ball the other way, base hit, balk or error. .
Sorry, here are those stats again:
Team_________Fld%______NatlRank
Florida________.978______6th
Arizona_______.976______11th
Oklahoma_____.976______12th
South Car_____.975______17th
Florida St______.971______53rd
TCU__________.971______54th
UCLA_________.970______55th
Clemson_______.963______135th
I think anytime there is a runner 2nd with no outs, the bunt should almost ALWAYS be used unless the score prevents it.
Here's why: bunting has I would imagine at least a 75-80 percent chance of getting the runner to third with one out. Most college hitters haven't perfected the art of going the other way with a pitch to move the runner over and a pop up or k is also a possibility. You have the odds of a base hit with even the BEST hitters at just 35-40 percent and the odds of a deep fly to the outfield or hit the other way to move the runners at about 20 percent. Combining those you have at best a 60 percent chance of moving the runner to third compared to a 75 percent chance with the bunt.
Now I agree I'm not a fan of bunting with a guy on first and no outs because at some point you'll need a base hit anyway. However a runner on third and one out can score with a sac fly, wild pitch, ground ball the other way, base hit, balk or error. .
Longfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(robbroyy @ Jun 21 2010, 10:12 AM) [snapback]584782[/snapback]
I think anytime there is a runner 2nd with no outs, the bunt should almost ALWAYS be used unless the score prevents it.
Here's why: bunting has I would imagine at least a 75-80 percent chance of getting the runner to third with one out. Most college hitters haven't perfected the art of going the other way with a pitch to move the runner over and a pop up or k is also a possibility. You have the odds of a base hit with even the BEST hitters at just 35-40 percent and the odds of a deep fly to the outfield or hit the other way to move the runners at about 20 percent. Combining those you have at best a 60 percent chance of moving the runner to third compared to a 75 percent chance with the bunt.
Now I agree I'm not a fan of bunting with a guy on first and no outs because at some point you'll need a base hit anyway. However a runner on third and one out can score with a sac fly, wild pitch, ground ball the other way, base hit, balk or error. .
If the only object of that at-bat was to move the runner to 3rd, I would agree. In the ninth inning of a tie game, I want to see a bunt in that situation. But early in a game, your main objective is to not make an out. You put the percentage at 35-40%, but in college a good OBP is well over 40%. Situational hitting is probably not as strong in college, but I still don't think that's a reason to concede an out.
I think anytime there is a runner 2nd with no outs, the bunt should almost ALWAYS be used unless the score prevents it.
Here's why: bunting has I would imagine at least a 75-80 percent chance of getting the runner to third with one out. Most college hitters haven't perfected the art of going the other way with a pitch to move the runner over and a pop up or k is also a possibility. You have the odds of a base hit with even the BEST hitters at just 35-40 percent and the odds of a deep fly to the outfield or hit the other way to move the runners at about 20 percent. Combining those you have at best a 60 percent chance of moving the runner to third compared to a 75 percent chance with the bunt.
Now I agree I'm not a fan of bunting with a guy on first and no outs because at some point you'll need a base hit anyway. However a runner on third and one out can score with a sac fly, wild pitch, ground ball the other way, base hit, balk or error. .
If the only object of that at-bat was to move the runner to 3rd, I would agree. In the ninth inning of a tie game, I want to see a bunt in that situation. But early in a game, your main objective is to not make an out. You put the percentage at 35-40%, but in college a good OBP is well over 40%. Situational hitting is probably not as strong in college, but I still don't think that's a reason to concede an out.
Longfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(ftwfrog @ Jun 21 2010, 07:37 AM) [snapback]584673[/snapback]
Angels have been doing it for the past decade. Last I checked, they've been to the playoffs 8 times in the past decade. I would trade Ron Washington for Scoscia any day of the week. However.... we are talking COLLEGE BASEBALL, which is a totally different game, where the bunt is even more important and easier to execute.
We won 8-1, so maybe we should just let our guys keep playing and complain about our basketball program.
Guess I should have been more specific. By "small ball", I meant the type that's unique to college baseball, where Jason Coats is asked to bunt in the first inning. I have no problem with stolen bases or hit-and-runs. Even the statheads agree that Scioscia's teams get a net gain from their work on the basepaths. But he doesn't ask Torii Hunter to bunt in the first inning. That's what bothers me...
Angels have been doing it for the past decade. Last I checked, they've been to the playoffs 8 times in the past decade. I would trade Ron Washington for Scoscia any day of the week. However.... we are talking COLLEGE BASEBALL, which is a totally different game, where the bunt is even more important and easier to execute.
We won 8-1, so maybe we should just let our guys keep playing and complain about our basketball program.
Guess I should have been more specific. By "small ball", I meant the type that's unique to college baseball, where Jason Coats is asked to bunt in the first inning. I have no problem with stolen bases or hit-and-runs. Even the statheads agree that Scioscia's teams get a net gain from their work on the basepaths. But he doesn't ask Torii Hunter to bunt in the first inning. That's what bothers me...
sous vide
Member
QUOTE(Longfrog @ Jun 21 2010, 01:23 PM) [snapback]584815[/snapback]
If the only object of that at-bat was to move the runner to 3rd, I would agree. In the ninth inning of a tie game, I want to see a bunt in that situation. But early in a game, your main objective is to not make an out. You put the percentage at 35-40%, but in college a good OBP is well over 40%. Situational hitting is probably not as strong in college, but I still don't think that's a reason to concede an out.
Far be it from me to disbelieve stats! But you "concede an out" well over half the time just by sending someone up to bat. So the "conceded out" counter may not be as strong as you're trying to say.
I would like to see a database equal to Retrosheet for the college game.
If the only object of that at-bat was to move the runner to 3rd, I would agree. In the ninth inning of a tie game, I want to see a bunt in that situation. But early in a game, your main objective is to not make an out. You put the percentage at 35-40%, but in college a good OBP is well over 40%. Situational hitting is probably not as strong in college, but I still don't think that's a reason to concede an out.
Far be it from me to disbelieve stats! But you "concede an out" well over half the time just by sending someone up to bat. So the "conceded out" counter may not be as strong as you're trying to say.
I would like to see a database equal to Retrosheet for the college game.
Longfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(NewfoundlandFrog @ Jun 21 2010, 10:58 AM) [snapback]584819[/snapback]
Far be it from me to disbelieve stats! But you "concede an out" well over half the time just by sending someone up to bat. So the "conceded out" counter may not be as strong as you're trying to say.
I would like to see a database equal to Retrosheet for the college game.
By "concede" I mean that you've given them an out without even trying to reach base safely. You will fail most of the time if you swing away, but the benefits when you succeed are large enough that it's usually worth the risk.
Far be it from me to disbelieve stats! But you "concede an out" well over half the time just by sending someone up to bat. So the "conceded out" counter may not be as strong as you're trying to say.
I would like to see a database equal to Retrosheet for the college game.
By "concede" I mean that you've given them an out without even trying to reach base safely. You will fail most of the time if you swing away, but the benefits when you succeed are large enough that it's usually worth the risk.
QUOTE(Longfrog @ Jun 21 2010, 11:53 AM) [snapback]584815[/snapback]
If the only object of that at-bat was to move the runner to 3rd, I would agree. In the ninth inning of a tie game, I want to see a bunt in that situation. But early in a game, your main objective is to not make an out. You put the percentage at 35-40%, but in college a good OBP is well over 40%. Situational hitting is probably not as strong in college, but I still don't think that's a reason to concede an out.
two things in response to this.
1. The situation is also relative to your pitcher. If it looks like the other team is going to be hard to stop then you should play for the big inning more frequently. However if you have purke and he won't give up more than 3 runs, then every run you score is important no matter how yo do it.
2. Playing the game different in the 1st inning than you do in the 9th from an offensive standpoint is not a good idea getting runs playing small ball in the 1st inning are just as important as runs in the 9th. If you manufacture runs early than you don't need them late. Obviously this doesn't factor in pinch hitting/pinch running as those are last measure resorts..
If the only object of that at-bat was to move the runner to 3rd, I would agree. In the ninth inning of a tie game, I want to see a bunt in that situation. But early in a game, your main objective is to not make an out. You put the percentage at 35-40%, but in college a good OBP is well over 40%. Situational hitting is probably not as strong in college, but I still don't think that's a reason to concede an out.
two things in response to this.
1. The situation is also relative to your pitcher. If it looks like the other team is going to be hard to stop then you should play for the big inning more frequently. However if you have purke and he won't give up more than 3 runs, then every run you score is important no matter how yo do it.
2. Playing the game different in the 1st inning than you do in the 9th from an offensive standpoint is not a good idea getting runs playing small ball in the 1st inning are just as important as runs in the 9th. If you manufacture runs early than you don't need them late. Obviously this doesn't factor in pinch hitting/pinch running as those are last measure resorts..
Duquesne Frog
Member
QUOTE(robbroyy @ Jun 21 2010, 02:16 PM) [snapback]584890[/snapback]
2. Playing the game different in the 1st inning than you do in the 9th from an offensive standpoint is not a good idea getting runs playing small ball in the 1st inning are just as important as runs in the 9th. If you manufacture runs early than you don't need them late. Obviously this doesn't factor in pinch hitting/pinch running as those are last measure resorts..
Disagree. If that were true, then there would be no such thing as a two-minute offense in football ... by that logic your should be playing the last two minutes exactly the same way as you do the first. As time (outs, in baseball) elapse during a game, those outs become more valuable. That's why you use your best relief pitcher in the 9th and not in the 6th when you take your starter out.
2. Playing the game different in the 1st inning than you do in the 9th from an offensive standpoint is not a good idea getting runs playing small ball in the 1st inning are just as important as runs in the 9th. If you manufacture runs early than you don't need them late. Obviously this doesn't factor in pinch hitting/pinch running as those are last measure resorts..
Disagree. If that were true, then there would be no such thing as a two-minute offense in football ... by that logic your should be playing the last two minutes exactly the same way as you do the first. As time (outs, in baseball) elapse during a game, those outs become more valuable. That's why you use your best relief pitcher in the 9th and not in the 6th when you take your starter out.
Longfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(robbroyy @ Jun 21 2010, 12:16 PM) [snapback]584890[/snapback]
two things in response to this.
1. The situation is also relative to your pitcher. If it looks like the other team is going to be hard to stop then you should play for the big inning more frequently. However if you have purke and he won't give up more than 3 runs, then every run you score is important no matter how yo do it.
2. Playing the game different in the 1st inning than you do in the 9th from an offensive standpoint is not a good idea getting runs playing small ball in the 1st inning are just as important as runs in the 9th. If you manufacture runs early than you don't need them late. Obviously this doesn't factor in pinch hitting/pinch running as those are last measure resorts..
1. I agree, in theory. But TCU seems to bunt regardless of who's on the mound. After Purke left in the 7th, TCU bunted in both the 7th and the 8th innings.
2. Not all runs matter the same. If you give up four runs, the fifth run you score is worth a lot more than the sixth. Bunting a man to second or third is a conservative strategy. It increases the odds that you score 1 run but decreases the odds that you score more than that. This is a good strategy in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. If it's the first inning of a game you trail 1-0, it doesn't make as much sense.
two things in response to this.
1. The situation is also relative to your pitcher. If it looks like the other team is going to be hard to stop then you should play for the big inning more frequently. However if you have purke and he won't give up more than 3 runs, then every run you score is important no matter how yo do it.
2. Playing the game different in the 1st inning than you do in the 9th from an offensive standpoint is not a good idea getting runs playing small ball in the 1st inning are just as important as runs in the 9th. If you manufacture runs early than you don't need them late. Obviously this doesn't factor in pinch hitting/pinch running as those are last measure resorts..
1. I agree, in theory. But TCU seems to bunt regardless of who's on the mound. After Purke left in the 7th, TCU bunted in both the 7th and the 8th innings.
2. Not all runs matter the same. If you give up four runs, the fifth run you score is worth a lot more than the sixth. Bunting a man to second or third is a conservative strategy. It increases the odds that you score 1 run but decreases the odds that you score more than that. This is a good strategy in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. If it's the first inning of a game you trail 1-0, it doesn't make as much sense.
OmniscienceFrog
Full Member
QUOTE(PurpleBlood87 @ Jun 21 2010, 05:26 AM) [snapback]584611[/snapback]
Thank God coach Schlossnagle is in charge. Some of you people can't enjoy success and have to find something to complain about.
It's a discussion. Do you have a point to discuss, or just a whine to contribute?
Thank God coach Schlossnagle is in charge. Some of you people can't enjoy success and have to find something to complain about.
It's a discussion. Do you have a point to discuss, or just a whine to contribute?
Longfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(robbroyy @ Jun 21 2010, 10:12 AM) [snapback]584782[/snapback]
I think anytime there is a runner 2nd with no outs, the bunt should almost ALWAYS be used unless the score prevents it.
Here's why: bunting has I would imagine at least a 75-80 percent chance of getting the runner to third with one out. Most college hitters haven't perfected the art of going the other way with a pitch to move the runner over and a pop up or k is also a possibility. You have the odds of a base hit with even the BEST hitters at just 35-40 percent and the odds of a deep fly to the outfield or hit the other way to move the runners at about 20 percent. Combining those you have at best a 60 percent chance of moving the runner to third compared to a 75 percent chance with the bunt.
Now I agree I'm not a fan of bunting with a guy on first and no outs because at some point you'll need a base hit anyway. However a runner on third and one out can score with a sac fly, wild pitch, ground ball the other way, base hit, balk or error. .
Someone else posted this link earlier:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/...cal_analy_1.php
I don't know if this is the most up-to-date analysis, but it shows that your expected runs from an inning where you have a guy on second and no outs is 1.15. With a man on third and one out, it's .967. Unless it's the end of the game, it's a bad strategy.
I think anytime there is a runner 2nd with no outs, the bunt should almost ALWAYS be used unless the score prevents it.
Here's why: bunting has I would imagine at least a 75-80 percent chance of getting the runner to third with one out. Most college hitters haven't perfected the art of going the other way with a pitch to move the runner over and a pop up or k is also a possibility. You have the odds of a base hit with even the BEST hitters at just 35-40 percent and the odds of a deep fly to the outfield or hit the other way to move the runners at about 20 percent. Combining those you have at best a 60 percent chance of moving the runner to third compared to a 75 percent chance with the bunt.
Now I agree I'm not a fan of bunting with a guy on first and no outs because at some point you'll need a base hit anyway. However a runner on third and one out can score with a sac fly, wild pitch, ground ball the other way, base hit, balk or error. .
Someone else posted this link earlier:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/...cal_analy_1.php
I don't know if this is the most up-to-date analysis, but it shows that your expected runs from an inning where you have a guy on second and no outs is 1.15. With a man on third and one out, it's .967. Unless it's the end of the game, it's a bad strategy.
Longfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(Longfrog @ Jun 21 2010, 01:21 PM) [snapback]584997[/snapback]
Someone else posted this link earlier:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/...cal_analy_1.php
I don't know if this is the most up-to-date analysis, but it shows that your expected runs from an inning where you have a guy on second and no outs is 1.15. With a man on third and one out, it's .967. Unless it's the end of the game, it's a bad strategy.
I should have mentioned, this is for pro ball. You made the point that college hitters are not as good situationally, which seems reasonable. So maybe the difference is less, but I wouldn't think it would be that much less.
Someone else posted this link earlier:
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/...cal_analy_1.php
I don't know if this is the most up-to-date analysis, but it shows that your expected runs from an inning where you have a guy on second and no outs is 1.15. With a man on third and one out, it's .967. Unless it's the end of the game, it's a bad strategy.
I should have mentioned, this is for pro ball. You made the point that college hitters are not as good situationally, which seems reasonable. So maybe the difference is less, but I wouldn't think it would be that much less.
sous vide
Member
QUOTE(Longfrog @ Jun 21 2010, 03:52 PM) [snapback]585000[/snapback]
I should have mentioned, this is for pro ball. You made the point that college hitters are not as good situationally, which seems reasonable. So maybe the difference is less, but I wouldn't think it would be that much less.
Two things: That article actually shows (that darned Markov again!) that bunting isn't the "bad" thing that the ERT tables show. Basically, people using only the ERT tables note that the "conceded" out puts the team in a less good situation than if an unconceded out had not in fact occurred. This is the problem to my mind with using only ERTs as it neglects that most of the time the unconceded out does in fact occur. Or worse. Going Markov and modeling on a play-by-play basis may still show bunts are bad, but that is the only way to really go to my mind, mathematically.
Second, I would also make the point that always using one strategy or the other actually allows the defense to adapt and you shouldn't do that, statistically speaking. "Always" is probably a bad word. The "slap" can be deadly, sometimes when a bunt is expected, for example.
I should have mentioned, this is for pro ball. You made the point that college hitters are not as good situationally, which seems reasonable. So maybe the difference is less, but I wouldn't think it would be that much less.
Two things: That article actually shows (that darned Markov again!) that bunting isn't the "bad" thing that the ERT tables show. Basically, people using only the ERT tables note that the "conceded" out puts the team in a less good situation than if an unconceded out had not in fact occurred. This is the problem to my mind with using only ERTs as it neglects that most of the time the unconceded out does in fact occur. Or worse. Going Markov and modeling on a play-by-play basis may still show bunts are bad, but that is the only way to really go to my mind, mathematically.
Second, I would also make the point that always using one strategy or the other actually allows the defense to adapt and you shouldn't do that, statistically speaking. "Always" is probably a bad word. The "slap" can be deadly, sometimes when a bunt is expected, for example.
