Brewers 14-21 since June 1st

[topper09er]

Well a walk with RISP is useless and OBP says a walk to equal to a HR. Over the course of a season OPS correlates best with runs, but the goal of teams is to win games, not necesarily score the most runs. If you win a game by 8 runs you will have a great OPS probably, but if you lose a game 1-0 and had a chance to bunt a runner over in the first inning and get him in or your best hitter walks with a runner on 3rd and the next guy strikes out it is bad but doesnt look as bad in terms of OPS. Overall it is good to have high OPS players, but more games could be won if situational hitting was done better. In a tied game, with 0 outs and a man on second base, I think bunting him to third with 1 out is better than letting him swing away. If you let the player swing away you may have a better OPS on the season, but if you bunt the runner over you may win more games.

[TooLiveBrew]

A walk with RISP is certainly not useless. It just doesn't plate any runs unless the bases are loaded. I would have to guess that a BB with RISP raises run expectancy in nearly every situation.

 

 

EDIT: Using the Baseball Prospectus run expectancy tool (I used 2008 as the season so it's a 'full' data set), here are the results for the two outcomes you're comparing --

 

 

Runner on 3B, 1 out: 0.969 runs

 

Runner on 2B, 0 out: 1.150 runs

 

 

You're actually better off not bunting, as it lowers your run expectancy. But of course, this old debate always comes down to whether or not you want to play for one run (in which case you bunt), or the shot at multiple runs.

[topper09er]

Not if Jason Kendall is on deck or you set up a double play.

[TooLiveBrew]

Right, which is why I said it almost always increases your run expectancy... sheesh.

[topper09er]

Getting a hit with RISP always increases your run expectancy.

[topper09er]

TooLiveBrew[/b]]A walk with RISP is certainly not useless. It just doesn't plate any runs unless the bases are loaded. I would have to guess that a BB with RISP raises run expectancy in nearly every situation.

 

 

EDIT: Using the Baseball Prospectus run expectancy tool (I used 2008 as the season so it's a 'full' data set), here are the results for the two outcomes you're comparing --

 

 

Runner on 3B, 1 out: 0.969 runs

 

Runner on 2B, 0 out: 1.150 runs

 

 

You're actually better off not bunting, as it lowers your run expectancy. But of course, this old debate always comes down to whether or not you want to play for one run (in which case you bunt), or the shot at multiple runs.

OK, that is the average for the entire league for every situation. It cannot and should not be applied to every situation. Also, I think todays players and manager do overall horrible jobs of situational hitting. When there is a runner on 3rd 1out, the goal of your at bat is NOT to get a hit. It is to try to get the run in. Lower your hands (Like JJ Hardy does for every at bat) and hit a SF or if the SS is playing back just ground out to him... Which player on the Brewers current roster would you not bunt with with runner on 2nd 0 outs in a tied game in the bottom of the 9th? Would you let Hart, Hardy, Hall, Kendall just swing away and think that the result of their at bat would be at worst runner on 3rd base 1 out? There are situations where pitchers specifically try to avoid giving up HRs and times when they are just pitching. Usually they try to avoid HRs when a HR would give up the lead, and these are when all the moneyball fans just sit back and hope for HRs. I cant think of too many times this year when we were losing late and we actaully hit a HR to take the lead. Prince in Cleveland, Braun in May against the Cubs. I think more often than not when you lose a close game there are several situations you can look back on and say man we really should have manufacturered that run in the 2nd inning instead of trying to hit a dinger.

Those numbers are not broken down based on who is hitting and who is on deck. I would like to see the numbers when your 6 hitter hits a leadoff double. Then I bet you'd score more by bunting then letting 7-8-9 hack away.

 

This is why Joe Morgan hates moneyball, people qutoes these stats which are averages for the ENTIRE league and assume they apply to every situation...they dont.

[TooLiveBrew]

That's neither Moneyball the book, nor "moneyball" the market strategy. Joe Morgan doesn't understand what either of those terms means, because he is an idiot. He was very good at playing baseball, yet demonstrates time after time that he has no clue or understanding as to how it should be analyzed. His tiebreaker in All-Star voting? Team W-L record (per Morgan on an ESPN game broadcast).

 

Of course batting situations will be different. However, these stats that you loathe are over huge samples (or at least, can be if desired). I don't assume anything about the stats I quoted, and quite frankly would appreciate if you could have a discussion without the condescension -- I could have been a condescending jerk to you about the Moneyball thing, but there's really no use for it.

 

 

Which player on the Brewers current roster would you not bunt with with runner on 2nd 0 outs in a tied game in the bottom of the 9th? Would you let Hart, Hardy, Hall, Kendall just swing away and think that the result of their at bat would be at worst runner on 3rd base 1 out?

 

The only Brewers regular with whom I'd bunt in almost any situation is Kendall... maybe Counsell.

 

 

This is why Joe Morgan hates moneyball, people qutoes these stats which are averages for the ENTIRE league and assume they apply to every situation...they dont.

 

One last thought on this... equally egregious to the 'assumptions' you spit on here is the assumption that a sacrifice bunt = a successful sacrifice 100% of the time. This just isn't the case.

[Ennder]

I'm fine with Hart bunting as well since he is good at it and has the speed to leg out singles enough to probably make it worth it overall. Needs to be the proper situation for it though of course.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think more often than not when you lose a close game there are several situations you can look back on and say man we really should have manufacturered that run in the 2nd inning instead of trying to hit a dinger.

 

On this point... I really don't understand where this notion comes from that if you don't like giving away outs, you just sit around waiting for the longball. There are plenty of ways to score runs, or should I say "manufacture runs" without hitting a HR. Besides, how is hitting a HR not "manufacturing runs"?

 

I think the 'manufacturing runs' thing falls in with the 'calls a good game'/'does the little things well'/'does the things that don't show up in the boscore'. It's a compliment for an offense that isn't talented, just like saying a C 'calls a good game' is a nicer way of saying, 'the only thing he does well is crouch & catch'

 

I can assure you, as someone that apparently gets lumped into the incorrectly-named 'Moneyball' crowd, I most certainly do not want my team to constantly play for the HR. However, it's not a mutually exclusive thing to not give away outs while still taking good approaches up to the plate.

[topper09er]

By moneyball I mean the whole mentality of using these stats as the end all be all of what to do all the time. I dont loathe these stats I just dont like the conclusion that based on these stats you should not bunt ever.

 

To get a runner from 2nd to 3rd you dont need to bunt all the time. It would be pretty easy for any player in the major leagues to choke up and take a half swing and weakly ground out to the 2nd baseman. There is no reason a player should not be able to bunt a runner over to 3rd especially if there is not a force out at third. I think no one takes bunting seriously which is why so many major league hitters are terrible at it. I honestly think I can bunt better than Corey Hart. Half of the time I see guys up there bunting with their feet and hands in the wrong position and no knee bending at all. I just think if players did a better job of bunting and situation hitting teams would score more runs then if every player always tried to hit a double in the gap in every at bat.

 

So if you were Ken Macha, bottom of 9th tie game, Counsell on 2nd, JJ Hardy up, Braun, Fielder on deck, you would let Hardy just swing away rather than telling him to either bunt or ground out to the 2nd baseman?

 

Im not trying to be condecending Im just disagreeing with you.

[Ennder]

By moneyball I mean the whole mentality of using these stats as the end all be all of what to do all the time

 

You probably need to read moneyball, this really has nothing to do with moneyball.

 

So if you were Ken Macha, bottom of 9th tie game, Counsell on 2nd, JJ Hardy up, Braun, Fielder on deck, you would let Hardy just swing away rather than telling him to either bunt or ground out to the 2nd baseman?

 

Hardy bunting lowers our chances of scoring without a single doubt in my mind in this situation. He is a bad bunter, he is slow so will never leg one out for a hit and Braun strikes out a lot and is a good hitter so many times will drive in Counsell without giving up an out for free. This is the kind of move I would blast Macha for making. As a very generic rule of thumb if you have average or better hitters up to bat bunting is always the wrong move unless they excel at it to the point they can bunt for hits sometimes. The gray area comes with just how bad a hitter needs to be to make bunting worth it.

[trwi7]

So if you were Ken Macha, bottom of 9th tie game, Counsell on 2nd, JJ Hardy up, Braun, Fielder on deck, you would let Hardy just swing away rather than telling him to either bunt or ground out to the 2nd baseman?

Probably, since Braun and Fielder would likely be intentionally walked to load the bases for whoever is hitting 5th.

[topper09er]

I think more often than not when you lose a close game there are several situations you can look back on and say man we really should have manufacturered that run in the 2nd inning instead of trying to hit a dinger.

 

On this point... I really don't understand where this notion comes from that if you don't like giving away outs, you just sit around waiting for the longball. There are plenty of ways to score runs, or should I say "manufacture runs" without hitting a HR. Besides, how is hitting a HR not "manufacturing runs"?

July 3th, Brewers lose 2-1 in 10 innings to Cubs. Top of the 6th inning, game tied 1-1: Fielder walk, McGehee single. Now, if I was the manager this would be an automatic bunting situation. Instead: Cameron K, Hart K, Hardy weak groundout.

Top of the 7th inning, tied 1-1: Suppan single, Kendall reach on error. Now they randomly decide to bunt even though Braun and Fielder are coming up. Basically saying you have less confidance Braun and Fielder could drive a run in with a hit than Hart and Hardy. Counsell fails at getting the bunt down and strikes out and Braun hits the ball deep enough for a SF next AB. Now I know you can say this is proof that bunting doesnt always work, but I think it is because Counsell probably bunts like 3 balls in batting practice everyday and never in any "game like" situation where he is not just thrown BP fastballs because no one takes bunting seriously except for pitchers. You can also say Braun would have been pitched differently but he still did hit the ball deep to the OF and he could have done it again.

 

The brewers only run came in the 4th when they had the bases loaded with 0 outs, went infield fly, infield fly, walk, infield fly. IF Casey McGehee would have just tried to fly out instead of hitting a gapper or even just grounded into a DP they still would have scored 1 run.

 

In this game they had runners on 2 or better with 0 outs 3 times and scored 1 run by just sitting back and trying to hit a double in every at bat. I think if they would have "manufacturer" runs by getting their bunting down and grounding out or hitting SF they could have easily scored 3 runs and won the game.

[topper09er]

By moneyball I mean the whole mentality of using these stats as the end all be all of what to do all the time

 

You probably need to read moneyball, this really has nothing to do with moneyball.

 

So if you were Ken Macha, bottom of 9th tie game, Counsell on 2nd, JJ Hardy up, Braun, Fielder on deck, you would let Hardy just swing away rather than telling him to either bunt or ground out to the 2nd baseman?

 

Hardy bunting lowers our chances of scoring without a single doubt in my mind in this situation. He is a bad bunter, he is slow so will never leg one out for a hit and Braun strikes out a lot and is a good hitter so many times will drive in Counsell without giving up an out for free. This is the kind of move I would blast Macha for making. As a very generic rule of thumb if you have average or better hitters up to bat bunting is always the wrong move unless they excel at it to the point they can bunt for hits sometimes. The gray area comes with just how bad a hitter needs to be to make bunting worth it.

First, I have read Moneyball and it actaully is totally about this subject. Billy Beane trys to build his franchise around good OBP guys because OBP correlates better with runs scored than batting average. He looks at run expectancy and sees it is higher for runner on 2nd 0 outs than runner on 3rd 1 out so he makes sure to hire managers who wouldnt bunt in that situation. He sees run expectancy is better when you dont steal because you are risking a solo HR compared to a 2 run HR so he hires a manager who doesnt steal. He looks at the number of wins you would have from the worst possible team and the best possible team and figures out how much above a certain payroll each extra win is worth and uses that to decide whether guys are worth paying or not. He has also never been to the world series.

 

Second, Hardy does not necesarily need to bunt, he could just ground out to 2nd base. Also, there is no reason that he should not be able to bunt, he only cant bunt because no one treats it like something important that he should be able to do. Yes Braun strikes out a lot, which is fine overall because you will strikeout if you hit HRs, but in this situation he should not be trying to drive the ball, just hit a flyball. That should dramatically reduce his chances of a K.

[TooLiveBrew]

July 3th, Brewers lose 2-1 in 10 innings to Cubs. Top of the 6th inning, game tied 1-1: Fielder walk, McGehee single. Now, if I was the manager this would be an automatic bunting situation. Instead: Cameron K, Hart K, Hardy weak groundout.

 

I think we could probably exhaust this discussion going back & forth with specific scenarios, be they actual happenings or theoreticals. So I think I'll quote your own line...

 

Im not trying to be condecending Im just disagreeing with you.

 

http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Maybe I can hope that BF.net will be the first place where people say, "Give up outs in attempting to bunt runners over" as opposed to "manufacture runs". Any time a run is scored, no matter the method, a run has been generated. Hey, I can dream, right?!

[topper09er]

Youre right we can just disagree, but I think you are taking things a little to literally here, the words "moneyball" and "manufacture runs" have specific conotations with respect to modern baseball discussions. People generally associate moneyball with sabermetrics and things that go along with that even if the actaul book does not literally bring up these exact topics in these exact situations. Maybe it is a misnomer, but it is the way things are. When people hear manufacture runs they think of the strategy of bunting and moving runners and stealing bases or "small ball" as opposed to using every sinlge out you have to try to drive the ball in the gap and hit HRs. Yes, whenever you score a run you could literally apply the word "manufacture" in sense of before this inning you add X runs and now you have more. I just used these terms to summarize certain ideas rather than writing them out. If you want we could also call striking out with a runner on 2nd "failing to get a runner in a position where he could have scored without a hit" as opposed to whatever.

[TooLiveBrew]

Youre right we can just disagree, but I think you are taking things a little to literally here, the words "moneyball" and "manufacture runs" have specific conotations with respect to modern baseball discussions.

 

People incorrectly associate the term "moneyball" with sabr-stats. As for "manufacture runs", I can admit that's more of a pet peeve/personal annoyance. Just like the difference btw. stating, 'Player X is a .297 hitter' (ugh) & 'Player X has hit .297 so far this season' (hooray!)

[Baldkin]

So, you're saying you want to bunt in those situations, but when the grittiest battler of them all can't get a bunt down, it was the wrong move? Seems as though you're contradicting yourself.

 

If you want to complain about sabermetrics or specific stats, complain about what you mean, don't just say 'moneyball', please. It makes it very hard to understand your arguments.

 

Moneyball was not about how Billy Beane went after high OBP guys. It was about he went after guys who did things well that were undervalued in the market at that time, one of which at that time happened to be OBP.

 

It was about using advanced stats to debunk certian myths and get away from certian thinking which didn't help in a high run scoring environment, which the game had transformed into.

 

Playing for one run in the 4th inning is not a wise move when the average team scores almost 5 runs per game.

[Ennder]

First, I have read Moneyball and it actaully is totally about this subject

 

It is about exploiting market ineffeciencies and OBP happened to be the big one when the book was written.

 

July 3th, Brewers lose 2-1 in 10 innings to Cubs. Top of the 6th inning, game tied 1-1: Fielder walk, McGehee single. Now, if I was the manager this would be an automatic bunting situation. Instead: Cameron K, Hart K, Hardy weak groundout.

 

So you like bunt, K, weak groundout? Just seems like a weird example to use. You are way overrating how easy it is to bunt successfully as well, even with good bunters it is nowhere near 100% success. With a slow runner who doesn't get asked to bunt much since they are a good hitter the odds probably aren't even 70%. Bunts look good when they work pretty much, statistically they are rarely a good idea. In the Hardy example it is 100% without a doubt the wrong move the 30%+ of the time that Hardy gets on base without the bunt, it is also wrong the 25% or so of the time he fails to properly execute the bunt. Hitting the ball to the right side is effective as well of course but who is to say he isn't trying to do that.

 

Looking at the league as a whole there is only a 51% chance you score a runner from 3rd with less than 2 outs in the first place and only 43% of the time does a runner advance from 2nd to 3rd with no outs.

[rluzinski]

This is why I don't even bother anymore. Waste of time.

[lukevan]

Also, topper, it seems to me you're overrating how easy it is to "hit a grounder to the right side" or "just hit a flyball". You're forgetting that the pitcher also knows when the hitter would like to hit the ball to the right side to move a runner up and can pound the inside corner to a righty. Or when a player can hit a sac fly to win the game, you know the pitcher is going to throw low in the zone with some sink.

The best hitters are the ones that hit the ball where it is pitched. A classic example would be Bill Hall. Currently he seems to be trying to pull everything and it results in poor contact most of the time.

[joepepsi]

40 years ago Earl Weaver knew a runner at 1st with no outs had a better chance of scoring than a runner at 2nd with one out. I can't understand how a runner at 2nd with no outs is less likely to score than a runner at 3rd with one out.

 

As Earl said, "if you play for one run, that's all you'll get."

 

Every time a team goes into an offensive funk it's fans start to scream about playing more "small ball". Small ball wastes outs. Wasting outs is a recipe for losing.

[Marc Newfield of Dreams]

My issue isn't so much with the lack of bunting, it's the lack of good situational hitting. It doesn't always have to be a homer. The guy is pitching away, take it to right instead of pulling a weak grounder to short (I'm looking at you Mr. Hardy).

 

I'd kill for a Mark Loretta type on this team. Very rarely strikes out, not a lot of pop but you'll get a good at bat and often times at least a productive out.

[JohnBriggs12]

To quote Dennis Green: "they are who we thought they were" (at least some of us).

 

They are a seriously flawed team that played well for 6 weeks earlier in large part because the bullpen was lights out. The lineup has 2 stars and a collection of some of the streakiest hitters in the game. The rotation is a guy developing into an ace and a bunch of 4th starters. Melvin has serious work to do because he's got old guys with expiring contracts holding down 3 key positions (C, CF and Closer).

 

While it's great how well the fans have supported this team, even that is a double edged sword. How likely is it that fans who are being treated to such bad baseball are going to buy tickets in advance next year?

 

The next couple months are going to be very interesting however it plays out.

[joepepsi]

I'd kill for a Mark Loretta type on this team. Very rarely strikes out, not a lot of pop but you'll get a good at bat and often times at least a productive out.

Loretta may be my favorite Brewer of all time. McGehee may be the Mark Loretta type you seek.

 

I think the bottom line is there are too many similar hitters on this team: streaky mediocre/poor obp guys with with OK power. Too many outmakers in Hardy, Hart, Kendall, Hall, the pitcher.

 

I am hopeful there is philosophical shift after the break. McGehee and Gamel are playing everyday, Hall never starts a game, and Hardy, Hart, and Kendall are not immune to accountability.