Why all the hate for small ball?

[Fear The Chorizo]

The great thing about baseball is that there are many ways a team can be constructed that can win. However, teams run into problems when their philosophy doesn't fit their personnel.

 

IMO, the Brewers don't have the offensive personnel to be sac-bunting themselves out of innings. Their season-long struggles with RISP and 2-out hitting indicates that this Brewer team needs the big inning more often than not to win ballgames.

 

I think teams who rely on "small ball" to win need to have above average pitching, stellar defense, and a lineup full of high-average, high-obp guys who don't regularly hit home runs and put the ball in play. Since the Brewers' roster is poor defensively aside from a few positions, and is full of low-average, low-obp guys who hit lots of home runs and strike out alot, giving away outs to advance runners probably isn't a good idea for them.

[monty57]

A couple of things to look at. First, CC was pitching last night, meaning that the odds of needing 5+ runs to win the game have diminished substantially (i.e. each run you score has substantially more value). Second, for a "slugging team," we sure haven't been doing a lot of slugging lately. Just to cite a few examples, before his recent surge, Prince went around a month without a homer, Braun is in the biggest slump in his career, and Hart hasn't hit a home run in weeks. Our power outage, coupled with our innate inability to get on base at any sort of a decent clip, may help determine why trying to score a run any chance we can get could be seen as something other than dumb.

 

As an aside, beware using aggregate stats for situational analysis, as it has a good chance of being incorrect. Russ, as always you seem to have looked past this little pet peeve of mine and have researched beyond the "standard SABR chart that shows why x is always right." I don't have time right now to research the book you referenced, but I will try to do so in the near future.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Buried in the comments of this post on Richard Justice's blog is a long piece on bunting by Mitchell Lichtman (one of The Book guys).

Link

[bklynbrewcrew]

The sooner Dale "small ball" Sveum is gone the better. As much as I couldnt stand Yost at least he wasnt having the team bunt all game long.

[logan82]

A couple of things to look at. First, CC was pitching last night, meaning that the odds of needing 5+ runs to win the game have diminished substantially (i.e. each run you score has substantially more value).

The theory is that you should use small ball against a good pitcher not when you have a good pitcher pitching for you.

[monty57]

I'd say the theory should be to try to score more runs than your opponent. Having the current version of CC Sabathia on the mound means that about the only way you'll lose is either scoring 0-1 run or having your closer blow it. Therefore, waiting for a bunch of non-slugging "sluggers" to come back to life may be the only way to get CC a loss.

[areacodes]

In a previous game, Durham, who has also been hitting well was called on to bunt in the first inning.

Dale said in his post-game presser yesterday, and I'm just paraphrasing, that the bunt attempt by Durham was not his call and that he would have liked to see a veteran like that try and put the ball in play especially early in the game. So, that one specific example wasn't on Sveum.

 

 

I'm not a fan of small ball in most situations, but I've learned that a majority of fans believe it is the safest way to get a run.

[rluzinski]

"Yet this author feels it is appropriate to attribute the win to Dale Sveum's precious small ball philosophy, because the team scored 4 runs on just 2 hits."

 

Tom H. wrote basically the same article today. It's one of the 20 baseball article templates, I think. Again, it's just guys trying to promote a brand of baseball they prefer. If they have to fudge on the facts, so be it, I guess.

[TooLiveBrew]

Buried in the comments of this post on Richard Justice's blog is a long piece on bunting by Mitchell Lichtman (one of The Book guys).

Did you catch Justice's response a few posts down (edited into someone else's comment):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchel Lichtman is one of the authors of The Book, and I believe he was once a consultant for the Cardinals.

[i don't care if he was nominated to the Supreme Court. I just want to know if it was the right move for Cecil Cooper to bunt in that situation. That's the problem in dealing with the stat geeks. They've got so much stuff in their brains they can't get a coherent thought out.--Richard]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice, you are an ignorant tool that knows little about the sport you cover. That's the problem in dealing with sportswriting geeks. They've got so much stuff in their brains not based on anything whatsoever factual that they can't get a thought out that doesn't waste everyone's time in reading it.

Justice got absolutely eaten alive in the comments after that little bit of crap. Very reassuring to see. His edited-in comments get even less coherent.

Here's Lichtman's response:

Wow. If you are serious with that statement, you are a real (deleted)..... I'd rather be incoherent.

Thanks for the appreciation for the time I took to write a thoughtful primer on the value of the sac bunt attempt. Clearly you know little about it yourself, despite "checking with stat people" or whatever it is you said you did.

Justice responds:

Now you send in a post with a profanity. What's wrong with you? All I wanted to know is if Cecil Cooper should have bunted. The bottom line is you don't know if he should have or not. Just say, ''I don't know.'' Everyone knows there are eight thousand possibilities. It's the same way at Whataburger, but I've got enough sense to say ''No. 1 with cheese.'' It's ''yes'' or ''no'' on bunting. Did you expect Cecil Cooer to convene a geek convention and hold a six-hour roundtable. Good Lord.--Richard

Lichtman:

I don't care whether the bunt attempt in question was correct or not, and I am not going to take the time to try and figure out whether it was clearly correct, clearly not correct, or close enough that it didn't matter. Had you called or written me or one of my colleagues before you wrote this blog entry, and before you insulted me with childish invective and snark humor, I would have been more than happy to have answered your question.

Between the information I gave you and your readers in my post, and the 51 page sac bunt chapter in The Book, you could probably figure it out yourself. If you are bright enough - or not too lazy to do some of the leg work yourself.

That was actually one of the points in writing the book - to give people the requisite information to form cogent opinions about things like that - not to "tell them" whether a certain particular strategy choice was correct or not. What am I, "Ask Jeeves?"

After some more grade-school crap from Justice, and even Tangotiger weighing in, the best summation came from a reader named Bryan:

Mitchel, try not to take Justice too seriously. He generally treats people on this blog pretty bad, it's just his shtick.

He's also pretty clueless on the finer points of baseball and his opinion wont be swayed, dont bother with him.

[jeffy]

areacodes[/b]]I've learned that a majority of fans believe it is the safest way to get a run.

This is a recent discovery I have made as well. It is surprising to me how much clamoring there has been for more bunting.

 

Thanks for the information regarding that 1st inning bunt.

[pebadger]

The best small ball is the kind that happens sort of organically, rather than being trotted out as a by-the-numbers strategy. It usually infuritates opposing fans to no end, too.

[paul253]

Calling for bunts from many of your best hitters like Hardy and Hart every time a runner is on base with no one out is flat out stupid

 

I think this is the epitomy of the anti-small ball argument. Nobody is suggesting you do it every time. But there are definitely situations where scoring more one or two runs is more important that going for the big inning. Nobody seems to argue about bunting when you're down by one in the 9th inning.

 

And this situation, right now......tied at 1 in the 4th innings.....1st and 2nd nobody out.....why not bunt to advance the runners? The run expectancy goes down, very slighty (1.53 to 1.43), with runners on 2nd and 3rd and one out from 1st and 2nd with nobody out, but you get the lead. Also it depends on the part of the lineup you're in, obviously you wouldnt have the number 8 guy bunt unless you were going to pinch hit. But a double play kills the inning, and what Corey Hart did, which ended up with guys on 1st and 3rd with one out, lowers the expectancy from 1.42 to 1.15, a significant drop. In some games it important to get the lead, more so than trying to score 5 runs.

[jeffy]

"Yet this author feels it is appropriate to attribute the win to Dale Sveum's precious small ball philosophy, because the team scored 4 runs on just 2 hits."

 

Tom H. wrote basically the same article today. It's one of the 20 baseball article templates, I think. Again, it's just guys trying to promote a brand of baseball they prefer. If they have to fudge on the facts, so be it, I guess.

 

Brian A referred to how successful the team was bunting in that game. so I guess 1 of 3 bunts working is a great success.

[jeffy]

And this situation, right now......tied at 1 in the 4th innings.....1st and 2nd nobody out.....why not bunt to advance the runners? The run expectancy goes down, very slighty (1.53 to 1.43), with runners on 2nd and 3rd and one out from 1st and 2nd with nobody out...

 

Does this assume a 100% success rate for bunting? The last 2 games the Brewers have bunted into 2 double plays in 4 bunt attempts and one other bunt failed as well.

[AdvantageSchneider]

Maybe Dale is a genius and he knows the pirates offense is anemic and that the Brewers only need 2-3 a game to win. So he plays small ball against the pirates a ton, hoping that the cubs and future playoff opponents will see this and overreact to it, pitch out more bring the corner infielders in, and then Dale lets the big boys bomb away.

 

At least I hope that is what is going on. If we play small ball like we did against the pirates when we play the cubs we're not going to make the playoffs.

[1992casey]

The theory is that you should use small ball against a good pitcher not when you have a good pitcher pitching for you.

Taking things a step further, the time for smallball is when you have a good pitcher on both your side and the opponent's side.

 

As you say, a good pitcher on your side doesn't add up as a rationale when you're likely to be able to insure against that pitcher tossing a gopher ball with a runner or two on. On the other side of the coin, if your own pitching is likely to suck, smallball isn't likely to get you very far even if the other team's pitcher is good.

[jeffy]

It seems like the failures of small ball are mostly ignored. Perhaps this is why it gets more support than it deserves? Last night's 10th inning and the grand slam would likely not have occurred had Cory Hart not run into an out on the bases earlier in the game. Our TV announcers who have been gushing...essentially over one successful bunt, never saw fit to mention this failure just like they seem to not notice bunts that turn into double plays or fail by some other mode.

Are there any statistics on how often bunt attempts fail? If so do these even account for cases where someone bunts foul twice and then the bunt is taken off and the hitter starts his real at bat with 2 strikes.

If there are not good stats and we get stuck with "small-ball Sveum" next season, perhaps there should be an official thread to document small ball failures.

[paul253]

It IS assumed that bunting will be success, or it should be, because they are all professional hitters and should know how to bunt. You cant expect 1000% success because sometimes bad things happen and the fielders make incredible plays, but I think 75% is a fair expectation. If the players cant bunt, the blame should lay solely on the coaching staff for not emphasizing it enough in batting practice. As fun as it is to watch players hit upper deck shots in BP, it really does the batter no good. Beside, if someone argues a strikeout isnt really that bad, cant you turn it around and say a bunt in which the runner at 1st is forced out is no different than a strikeout because the result is the same? If he bunts into a double play, it could also happen when swinging away.

[rluzinski]

All the bunt success rates are in that "The Book" chapter, available through Amazon's online reader. The success rate of moving the runner over is certainly not 100% but as they explain, there is also a chance of a hit.

 

Saying what a professional hitter "should be able to do" seems beside the point to me. Some hitters are better at bunting than others, for any number of reasons. It's a fact and it needs to be considered when assessing the merits of bunting. Svuem isn't, as far as I can tell.

 

All to often, the failures of small ball is given a pass because the blame is placed on a player for not executing it correctly. To me, that's like blaming a batter for not getting a hit. It's Svuem's job to get the most out of his player's skill set as they stand RIGHT NOW. If Bill Hall hasn't even attempted a bunt for years and wasn't particularily good at it ever, why ask him to do it now? So we can all act surprised when he fails?

 

Hart has speed and has bunted for a hit on occasion. He seems like a good candidate to put some bunts down.

[jhart05]

I'm all for Hart bunting right now.

 

Course with the way he's going, he'll try to bunt that low outside pitch that for some reason he can't lay off, and miss the pitch anyway.

[TooLiveBrew]

If the players cant bunt, the blame should lay solely on the coaching staff for not emphasizing it enough in batting practice.

 

And for foolishly asking unprepared players to do so in the game.

 

 

I think 75% is a fair expectation

 

I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if the Brewers have bunted at a 75% success rate. And in watching other teams around the league, I think setting the bar of 'acceptable' at 75% is setting yourself up for frustration.

[markedman5]

That hit and run with Hart and Weeks with the lead run on 3rd base and 1 out made me want to puke.

 

I'm assumning it was a hit and run since Corey stopped half way to 2nd and got in a run down.

[joepepsi]

that low outside pitch that for some reason he can't lay off..

It's the Brewer way this way! For everyone except Fielder. I think it's some double secret technique Skaalen taught them in Spring Training. "The pitcher will try to fool you with a low outside pitch. He'll think you'll swing at it, but you're going to show him you're smart and not easily fooled. Which is what the defense will suspect all along, so you can double fool them by swinging at it and catching them off guard."

[jeffy]

Looks like 75% is about right, look near the bottom at this link: http://www.hardballtimes....e/not-so-sweet-surrender/
where he comes up with sacrifices were successful 76.2% of the time in 2005.

Note that he also comes up with a 32% success rate for bunting with two strikes. So having Hardy attempt that was a very poor strategy, despite the fact that it happened to be successful.

BTW, the only except from The Book:... that I have been able to find just had a chapter preview: http://www.insidethebook.com/c09.shtml

[paul253]

And for foolishly asking unprepared players to do so in the game.

 

The main reason I would think they are unprepared is because they dont practice it enough. I realize some of the power hitters havent bunted for years, but they should know how to do it.......I cant see many scenarios in which I'd ask Fielder or Braun to bunt, but Hart, Hall, Hardy, Weeks, certainly all of the pitchers should be able to do this.