Brewers' bunting

[MoreTrife]

I know this is a minor aspect of the game, but I am frustrated enough to get up off the couch during this Houston day game. Has anyone else noticed the Brewers are distinctly less capable of bunting this year, whether sacrifice or for a hit?? I watch a good amount of the games and my frustration with Carlos Gomez alone is killing me. That's one of the main things he is supposed to bring to the table, along with defense! Thrown in Alcides Escobar and possibly even Corey Hart with players who I haven't seen executing bunt for hits. Braun seems to be the only one haha! And our pitchers don't seem to be executing sacrifices very well either. Is this just me??

[zzzmanwitz]

My vote is for them to stop bunting always. But that is my vote for pretty much all major league teams. I hate bunting.

[sheethead]

Bunting can be useful if you can do it, but the Brewers they should just stop bunting. Of course this would require Macha to admit they just cannot bunt effectively enough to incorporate it into the game, so they will just stop doing it.

[logan82]

My vote is for them to stop bunting always. But that is my vote for pretty much all major league teams. I hate bunting.

Except in some close and late situations, I also would prefer to make the bunt go away.

[zzzmanwitz]

Yes, in situations where 1 run will win the game, bunting is acceptable.

[joepepsi]

Earl Weaver believed a runner on 1B with no outs was more likely to score than a runner on 2nd with one out. What's good enough for Earl is always good enough for me.

 

I can see having a pitcher do it. Or late in close games, especially for the home team. Otherwise, I don't like it. I especially hate bunting a guy at 2nd over to 3rd. I don't care if it's the pitcher bunting in that situation, I still hate it.

[Buckylovesbeer]

The effort made to bunt runners over, both by pitchers and by guys such as Gomez today, has been horrible. I dont know if they practice it anymore, but man, this team is not good at it. This team has been so bad that they should give it up.

 

For those of you {Z-man http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif } who hate bunting, well, this team is not a good offensive team and needs to find any way possible to score runs. If they have to lose a little pride and bunt not only for hits but for sacs, then they should.

[jerichoholicninja]

this team is not a good offensive team and needs to find any way possible to score runs.

Are we watching the same team?

[logan82]

2nd in the league in runs scored and no I really don't care what the distribution of runs was.

 

I don't think pitchers should ever bunt except maybe late in a game in a pitchers duel and even in that case I would probably opt for a pinch hitter.

[djoctagone]

in keeping with the original thread title, what kind of bunter is brent brewer?

 

that's what i thought this thread was about.

[topper09er]

joepepsi[/b]]Earl Weaver believed a runner on 1B with no outs was more likely to score than a runner on 2nd with one out. What's good enough for Earl is always good enough for me.

And he was wrong if you are talking about the chances that the runner himself will score, only of course based on the average outcome of thousands of in-game situations. For any one given scenario many things need to be considered before making a decision and there is not absolute right/wrong decision or formula that can account for the uniqueness of every in-game situation.

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

Base	Outs	Runs
		0	1	2	3	4	5+
Empty	0	0.707	0.154	0.074	0.035	0.016	0.013
Empty	1	0.827	0.101	0.042	0.017	0.007	0.005
Empty	2	0.923	0.051	0.017	0.005	0.002	0.001
1st	0	0.563	0.176	0.132	0.067	0.034	0.028
1st	1	0.717	0.123	0.091	0.04	0.017	0.013
1st	2	0.864	0.062	0.049	0.016	0.006	0.003
2nd	0	0.368	0.348	0.142	0.076	0.035	0.03
2nd	1	0.594	0.23	0.098	0.045	0.018	0.014
2nd	2	0.777	0.147	0.049	0.017	0.006	0.003

 

 

[rluzinski]

If you only need 1 run to win and have a very good chance at a successful sacrifice, they are a viable option. If it's the 6th inning and defense if playing for the bunt, it's painfully bad.

[logan82]

rluzinski wrote:

If it's the 6th inning and defense if playing for the bunt, it's painfully bad.

Bolded portion should be emphasized. If the defense is playing for the bunt, you should almost never bunt. The defenders are in a bad position to field any decently hit ball.

[Fatter than Joey]

What's good enough for Earl is always good enough for me.

 

2 problems with this --

 

1.) Weaver managed primarily in an AL DH era.

 

2.) Contrary to the hand-waving arguments made, Weaver did in fact bunt when he needed to, and in fact Mark Belanger was one of the better bunters in the game, often among the league leaders. Weaver certainly wasn't a "small ball" manager, however, there are plenty of years where he bunted over the league average. Weaver bunted depending on his personnel and game situation.

 

I agree that Weaver was a great manager, however it is not as if he never bunted.

[JohnBriggs12]

Guys with great speed sometimes evoke the comment from a coach that "I'd like to see one bunt attempt per game from you."

 

They really don't mean that literally, but Gomez in particular seems to think they did. The problem is that scouts see this, and it can be defended no matter how fast you are, especially if you limit yourself to bunting down the 3rd base line. He's laid down some beautiful bunts, only to be thrown out with relative ease. The best bunt for a base hit is the one that is pushed past the pitcher toward 2nd base. But very few guys are adept at that time after time. Juan Pierre comes to mind, but he's got the advantage of being lefthanded.

 

Gomez needs to shelve the bunt attempts until the 3rd basemen start moving back a little.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

Any stats on what Gomez' OBP is when attempting to bunt vs. other times? Is that an appropriate thing to look at?

[joepepsi]

Good Lord I didn't write Earl Weaver never bunted! I agree there were times he used the bunt.

 

Perhaps he was wrong based on today's metrics, that a runner on 2nd with 1 out was more likely to score than a runner on 1st with 0 outs. Earl hated wasting outs, but he loved playing for big innings. topper09er's chart shows a runner on 1st, 0 outs, is more likely to result in multiple runs than runner on 2nd, 1out. So maybe that was Earl's thinking.

[Thurston Fluff]

If the fielders creep in for speed guys who can bunt it opens up the field behind them. Sometimes the bunt isn't just to get a hit then and there but to open the field for the rest of his ab's. I think it can be especially effective for guys who don't normally have a high batting average.

 

Overall I think who is bunting and what his other hitting abilities are determines if it's the right move not the concept of bunting itself.

[benji]

I don't think pitchers should ever bunt except maybe late in a game in a pitchers duel and even in that case I would probably opt for a pinch hitter.

I completely agree that position players should never bunt except in close games, but curious why you think a poor hitting pitcher (Davis, Sheets etc) should not bunt. A strike out or double play would seem to be a very high probability with these hitters.

[TheRealMattKain]

joepepsi[/b]]Earl Weaver believed a runner on 1B with no outs was more likely to score than a runner on 2nd with one out. What's good enough for Earl is always good enough for me.

And he was wrong if you are talking about the chances that the runner himself will score, only of course based on the average outcome of thousands of in-game situations. For any one given scenario many things need to be considered before making a decision and there is not absolute right/wrong decision or formula that can account for the uniqueness of every in-game situation.

I think people are misreading the chart. You cannot simply compare the two bolded cells. They only show the percentage that a single run was scored. However, we can assume that in cases where 2, 3, 4, etc. runs were scored that "the runner himself" scored as well. And anyway, the important question is really "what are the odds that we'll score in a given scenario?". All we really care about is scoring runs (and scoring more runs is better so I'm not sure why you're ignoring these cases). I'm assuming that this is what Earl Weaver was really concerned about (regardless of how the earlier poster paraphrased his comments).

 

Based on your chart, we need to add ALL the cells where a run is scored (or we could just subtract from 100 percent the cell showing what percent 0 runs were scored).

 

Percent of time a run is scored with a runner on first and no outs = .176+.132+.067+.034+.028 = .437

Percent of time a run is scored with a runner on second and 1 out = .23+.098+.0045+.018+.014 = .405

In other words, with a runner on first and 0 outs at least one run is scored 43.7% of the time.

With a runner on second and 1 out at least one run is scored 40.5% of the time.

 

You can argue semantics, but it's pretty clear in my mind and it's pretty clear from the numbers that you presented that Earl Weaver was right.

 

Is summary:

When you bunt and move a runner over at the cost of an out, historical data shows that you are less likely to score 1 or more runs in the inning. Your chart very clearly proves this.

 

[logan82]

and a hit is much better than an out. Why put yourself in a position where you almost guarantee an out? Pitchers don't always ground out. Give yourself a chance especially if the infielders are playing in.

[TooLiveBrew]

and a hit is much better than an out. Why put yourself in a position where you almost guarantee an out? Pitchers don't always ground out. Give yourself a chance especially if the infielders are playing in.

It's interesting how often managers manage against the worst possible outcome (like walking the bases loaded as to 'not let [player x] beat you') instead of the most likely. I know the payoff is big, but when you walk a guy to 'set up the double play', you're betting on a scenario that, even for a slow runner, occurs at most roughly 30 times out of 600 PAs... playing that 5% chance!

[logan82]

My understanding is that we should be using something similar to this instead of basic base out states. After all, you play to win the game.

[topper09er]

Is summary:

When you bunt and move a runner over at the cost of an out, historical data shows that you are less likely to score 1 or more runs in the inning. Your chart very clearly proves this.

No, you are less likely to score 1 run, you are more likely to score more than one run. Also, the chart only shows average numbers, so it really should never be applied to any one in game scenario because there are too many factors in play that are different from an "average" scenario. Also, the main reason not bunting leads to more runs is that you have one extra chance to hit a HR, but as a manager you should take into account your chances of hitting HRs. It is stupid to always assume someone will hit a HR for you when you need it, especially if it is Ecobar or Counsell or someone who rarely hits HRs. I would be willing to bet those charts would look much different if you threw out all innings without HRs.

 

 

[topper09er]

TooLiveBrew]I know the payoff is big, but when you walk a guy to 'set up the double play', you're betting on a scenario that, even for a slow runner, occurs at most roughly 30 times out of 600 PAs... playing that 5% chance!

That is not fair because you can only ground into a DP when you come to the plate when a DP is in order with less than 2 outs, and you have far less than 600 PA is those scenarios so the DP is much, much higher if you only consider PAs with a DP in order. There are many balls hit during the season by a player that would have been DPs if there was a runner on first.