Bunting out of the shift?

[liveforoctober]

I need some baseball minds to help me out on this one. Beating the shift as a top flight hitter. I was watching the Dodgers game Sunday night and w/ AGonzo up the Padres went into their usual “3B playing just left of 2 nd , SS playing 2 nd , 2B in short right…” defensive shift that is deployed on the big power pull hitters like Prince, Gonzalez, Ortiz, etc. As is the case with most shifts … Gonzo was up to lead off the inning (defenses generally only shift without runners on base) and I was obnoxiously/loudly asking him to bunt his way on. I am having trouble understanding why guys won’t bunt the defense out of that shift. With no runners on base, you are not in an RBI situation and the defense is giving you the entire 3 rd base line. There is no reason an attempted bunt should end up anywhere near the pitcher as you should be bunting directly at the bag, the attempt should be foul or tight to the line. At that point, trot to first as the 3B goes to pick up your infield single. I understand you are taking the bat out of one of your power hitters hands … but again, it isn’t an RBI situation beyond hitting it out. If you show the other teams you will ALWAYS take the free base if they are going to give it to you (this is assuming a 6 out of 10 success rate at getting a bunt near 3 rd base) .. one of two things are going to happen 1) within a month or so defenses will stop shifting against you as a hitter, which gives you back your pull advantage or 2) You are going to bat .360 on the season by accepting all of the infield singles that are being given to you and potentially increase the number of RBI opportunities for your team, increase the number of stress pitches for the opp pitcher, etc. Talk to me.

[Patrick425]

I completely agree. If I'm not mistaken, I think there have been some guys that have done this (Ortiz? and/or Howard?), but I don't think guys take advantage of that situation nearly enough. When they use to do it on Fielder, I always thought...geez he could get a base hit every time if he just bunted it down the 3rd base line, but I'm pretty sure he never did.

[RobDeer 45]

Guys have tried that in the past here and there. Usually the guys that get a huge shift put on them are paid to hit for power. They also typically aren't good at bunting because they have never really been asked to. I think it could be a good move here and there, but I don't think it's something they should continually do. I believe Prince dropped a few down in his day.

[Baldkin]

I need some baseball minds to help me out on this one. Beating the shift as a top flight hitter. I was watching the Dodgers game Sunday night and w/ AGonzo up the Padres went into their usual “3B playing just left of 2 nd , SS playing 2 nd , 2B in short right…” defensive shift that is deployed on the big power pull hitters like Prince, Gonzalez, Ortiz, etc. As is the case with most shifts … Gonzo was up to lead off the inning (defenses generally only shift without runners on base) and I was obnoxiously/loudly asking him to bunt his way on. I am having trouble understanding why guys won’t bunt the defense out of that shift. With no runners on base, you are not in an RBI situation and the defense is giving you the entire 3 rd base line. There is no reason an attempted bunt should end up anywhere near the pitcher as you should be bunting directly at the bag, the attempt should be foul or tight to the line. At that point, trot to first as the 3B goes to pick up your infield single. I understand you are taking the bat out of one of your power hitters hands … but again, it isn’t an RBI situation beyond hitting it out. If you show the other teams you will ALWAYS take the free base if they are going to give it to you (this is assuming a 6 out of 10 success rate at getting a bunt near 3 rd base) .. one of two things are going to happen 1) within a month or so defenses will stop shifting against you as a hitter, which gives you back your pull advantage or 2) You are going to bat .360 on the season by accepting all of the infield singles that are being given to you and potentially increase the number of RBI opportunities for your team, increase the number of stress pitches for the opp pitcher, etc. Talk to me.

 

Your 6 of 10 success rate is way too high.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/

This tracks only bunts that were committed to. Over the six years, there’s a sample of more than 36,000.

 

The breakdown:

 

Overall: 49.7% fair bunts

Pitchers: 49.9%

Non-Pitchers: 49.6%

 

So, they aren't even bunting the ball fair half of the time. Let alone having it be a successful bunt.

[liveforoctober]

I need some baseball minds to help me out on this one. Beating the shift as a top flight hitter. I was watching the Dodgers game Sunday night and w/ AGonzo up the Padres went into their usual “3B playing just left of 2 nd , SS playing 2 nd , 2B in short right…” defensive shift that is deployed on the big power pull hitters like Prince, Gonzalez, Ortiz, etc. As is the case with most shifts … Gonzo was up to lead off the inning (defenses generally only shift without runners on base) and I was obnoxiously/loudly asking him to bunt his way on. I am having trouble understanding why guys won’t bunt the defense out of that shift. With no runners on base, you are not in an RBI situation and the defense is giving you the entire 3 rd base line. There is no reason an attempted bunt should end up anywhere near the pitcher as you should be bunting directly at the bag, the attempt should be foul or tight to the line. At that point, trot to first as the 3B goes to pick up your infield single. I understand you are taking the bat out of one of your power hitters hands … but again, it isn’t an RBI situation beyond hitting it out. If you show the other teams you will ALWAYS take the free base if they are going to give it to you (this is assuming a 6 out of 10 success rate at getting a bunt near 3 rd base) .. one of two things are going to happen 1) within a month or so defenses will stop shifting against you as a hitter, which gives you back your pull advantage or 2) You are going to bat .360 on the season by accepting all of the infield singles that are being given to you and potentially increase the number of RBI opportunities for your team, increase the number of stress pitches for the opp pitcher, etc. Talk to me.

 

Your 6 of 10 success rate is way too high.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/

This tracks only bunts that were committed to. Over the six years, there’s a sample of more than 36,000.

 

The breakdown:

 

Overall: 49.7% fair bunts

Pitchers: 49.9%

Non-Pitchers: 49.6%

 

So, they aren't even bunting the ball fair half of the time. Let alone having it be a successful bunt.

 

 

I actually think my number is low. Bunting the ball foul down the 3rd base line is a conversion of what I'm trying to suggest. If you bunt the ball foul in your first attempt, you are still telling the other team "if you shift on me, I WILL take my first strike and attempt to take the free base." If you bunt the first strike foul, then go ahead and swing away the rest of the at bat ... But if a team shifts on a guy, they do so knowing he is going to take the free base. If the other team will accept that and let him try at your 50/50 success rate.. And he is either on base or his at bat continues.

[RockCoCougars]

Seems like a very smart play to me, especially off a RH pitcher. All you have to do is get it about 30 feet down the line (or just in that general direction) and it's pretty much a guaranteed hit- unless you are seriously slow afoot. Obviously not the case, but a MLB level hitter should be able to do this in their sleep. Especially a for a lefty, as it is generally easier to push bunt to the opposite field.

[sveumrules]

The idea that every hitter in MLB should be a capable bunter is just unrealistic. Most of the guys that get regularly shifted probably haven't bunted in their whole life because they've been the best hitter on every team they've ever been on. Plus as that fangraphs articles illustrates even guys that bunt all the time only get it down about half the time, which really shows how much skill is required to execute a successful bunt off MLB caliber velocity/movement.

[Fear The Chorizo]

anybody that's tried bunting a 93mph fastball with movement on it knows it's no walk in the park. And as positive as it sounds for every hitter to take a single every time by bunting if there's a crazy shift, any time they opt to try a bunt basehit eliminates any chance of them drawing a walk (same outcome), or hitting a leadoff double, triple, or HR (better outcomes). For hitters with exceptional abilities that actually warrant dramatic shifts, it's basically never a good play for them to give an AB away by trying to bunt their way on.

[liveforoctober]

anybody that's tried bunting a 93mph fastball with movement on it knows it's no walk in the park. And as positive as it sounds for every hitter to take a single every time by bunting if there's a crazy shift, any time they opt to try a bunt basehit eliminates any chance of them drawing a walk (same outcome), or hitting a leadoff double, triple, or HR (better outcomes). For hitters with exceptional abilities that actually warrant dramatic shifts, it's basically never a good play for them to give an AB away by trying to bunt their way on.

 

I think I very much disagree with you.

 

Let's take Prince Fielder for example. Last year he stepped up to the plate 712 times. You mention him hitting a 2B, 3B, or HR ... in only 61 of his at bats last year (36 2Bs, 25 HR - 8.6% of plate appearances) did those 3 outcomes happen. In all other 651 place appearances, he made it no further than first base or he got out. So if we are being honest, the chances of him getting beyond first base are pretty slim to begin with.

 

Prince walked 75 times (10.5% of his total appearances) was HBP 9 times (1.2%) hit 4 sac flies (.06%) and singled in 113 at bats (15.9%). Prince got out the remaining 450 times (63.2%).

 

GIVEN THE SCENARIOS IN WHICH A TEAM WOULD DEPLOY A SHIFT ON A POWER HITTER, in which there is no RBI opportunity ... it is reasonable to assume Prince Fielder is going to get out roughly 2 out of 3 at bats. In that other 1 at bat in which he doesn't get out (using only last year's numbers because I am too lazy to do further research) he is going to end up on 1B roughly 85% of the time.

 

If we are trying to increase scoring opportunities for the ball club, I believe there are 2 ways to do so. 1) Increase the number of XBH 2) Decrease the number of outs made

 

I believe the second one is a much easier mode to attack and this would be an incredibly effective way to do it, both by taking bases when they are being offered to you, but also by forcing the defense to return their shift to defend that bunt, therefore opening up the field on your power side to reach base on "normal" swings.

 

If we can make up that Prince will face 70 "shifts" this upcoming season (10% of plate appearances).. based on last year's numbers he will walk in 7 of those at bats, single in 11, he might get hit by a pitch and HE WILL GET AN XBH in 6 at bats - reaching base safely roughly 24-26 times.

 

If we pull a 50% conversion rate on bunting a fair ball down the 3rd baseline throughout an at bat (getting 2 chances before swinging with two strikes) ... we would be reaching base safely 10 additional times in 70 appearances, and increase of 15%.

 

We've just eliminated 15% of the outs Prince made by accepting 16 singles in place of 4 2Bs, 2 HRs, annd 10ish outs IN NON RBI situations. This also doesn't account for the % of at bats where Prince can't get a bunt down in his first two attempts and swings away with two strikes. Anything positive he does at that point is gravy.

 

(I understand I am assuming that Prince can get a bunt to roll towards 3rd if he tried and I know someone just threw a stat out that said 50% of players fouled off the first attempt, but if you commit to the first two strikes using the approach IN THE SITUATIONS OF A SHIFTED DEFENSE, math tells me (based on the same evidence that user just provided to try and defeat the argument) that 75% of the time you will get the bunt down in that at bat and a 50% success rate of a single in this instance seems fair to me.)

 

I just did a lot of typing and thinking, please oblige me with your thoughts.

[Nottso]

One thing that needs to be considered is that the chances of a successful bunt down the 3b line has to rise dramatically against the shift as opposed to against a normal defensive alignment. Maybe even exponentially.

[rwa12]

I disagree with the premise that they would successfully bunt at a rate comparable to those who practice the skill, and I don't want my superstar wasting his time practicing it. Additionally, these guys are paid tens of millions to swing from the heels, that is their job. Other players bunt, so that these guys can swing. I don't care if they're on first base, they aren't disrupting my pitcher's timing, a pitcher can just about pitch from windup with Ortiz on 1B. They, for the most part, are slow base cloggers. If I'm an opposing manager, I'm thrilled if David Ortiz or Prince Fielder is bunting. It takes the bat out of the hands of the biggest threat of my opposition. The risk of injury would also rise. A guy who never bunts is more likely to take one off the hand.

 

To me, this is comparable to saying that Dwight Howard should shoot 3 pointers, because there is a 40% league average success rate, and people don't defend him beyond the arc.

[Baldkin]

If you want to look at just the solid numbers, look at RE24. Look at the difference in value from 0 on and 0 out, to 1 on and 0 out, and 0 on and 1 out to find the break even point for success.

 

I would do this, but I am swamped this week and don't have time for a proper response.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I believe the second one is a much easier mode to attack and this would be an incredibly effective way to do it, both by taking bases when they are being offered to you, but also by forcing the defense to return their shift to defend that bunt, therefore opening up the field on your power side to reach base on "normal" swings.

 

If Fielder opts to try and lay a bunt down the 3rd base line every single time he's up, teams are still going to keep the shift on. So the premise of a power hitter forcing a defense to get out of a shift by bunting for a base hit isn't based in reality. Plus, I think the 50% conversion rate of a successful bunt for a base hit in Fielder's case is far from accurate. He can bunt down the 3B line, but alot of pitchers field their position well, and catchers can run out and grab the ball. Fielder would likely get thrown out on alot of bunt attempts by these two positions even on bunts going in the direction of the left side of the IF.

 

On paper it sounds good, until you realize that you'd then be paying a guy $20 million bucks a year to try and lay down bunts and then barrel his 280-lbs down the 1B line to try and beat out a throw from the catcher or pitcher. And actually, Fielder will probably be facing shifts significantly more than 70 times. In 2013 almost half his plate appearances occurred with nobody on base, likely times when a shift was on. 12 of Fielder's 25 HR and 18 of his 36 doubles were hit with nobody on base, when there was likely a shift on. So unless you're advocating for great hitters to sacrifice 1/2 their opportunities to drive themselves in with a HR or get themselves on by just being a great hitter, it just isn't a good baseball play, IMO.

[jerichoholicninja]

It's going to depend on the player. A guy like Prince or Ortiz probably isn't fast enough to beat out even a good bunt. If you have someone who is fast or at least athletic like say Jay Bruce or Josh Hamilton you give it a shot. It also depends on the score. If you're tied or down by one you probably would rather give your guy a shot at a homerun. However, if he can't tie it or take the lead you just want him to not make an out. The best players in baseball are going to make an out over half of the time. With no 3rd basemen all you need to do is get it past the pitcher and you're safe.

[liveforoctober]

"I don't him wasting his time practicing bunting..."

 

What would this be... 3 minutes a day? How long does it take to throw an extra 10 pitches in Batting practice in a cage somewhere? On off days he can spend 10 minutes a day... hardly worth worrying about.

 

"To me, this is comparable to saying that Dwight Howard should shoot 3 pointers, because there is a 40% league average success rate, and people don't defend him beyond the arc."

 

I understand you are using the analogy for effect, but these two things are hardly related. Dwight Howard isn't capable of shooting 3s at an average NBA clip, the best hitters in baseball should be able to bunt at said clip.

 

It's going to depend on the player. A guy like Prince or Ortiz probably isn't fast enough to beat out even a good bunt. If you have someone who is fast or at least athletic like say Jay Bruce or Josh Hamilton you give it a shot. It also depends on the score. If you're tied or down by one you probably would rather give your guy a shot at a homerun. However, if he can't tie it or take the lead you just want him to not make an out. The best players in baseball are going to make an out over half of the time. With no 3rd basemen all you need to do is get it past the pitcher and you're safe.

 

This is my basic point, I'm not asking Adrian Gonzalez to turn into Ichiro Suzuki and slap at everything. Let him swing away in the majority of his at bats. But this is a strategic play that is hardly utilized by ANYBODY and I think it is a mistake. You are telling me Jay Bruce, who hit .246 and had an OBP of .291 against lefties last year, and the Reds wouldn't benefit from him being on base more often when lefties are throwing to him in these NO RBI situations? I dont buy it.

[CheezWizHed]

"To me, this is comparable to saying that Dwight Howard should shoot 3 pointers, because there is a 40% league average success rate, and people don't defend him beyond the arc."

 

I understand you are using the analogy for effect, but these two things are hardly related. Dwight Howard isn't capable of shooting 3s at an average NBA clip, the best hitters in baseball should be able to bunt at said clip.

 

Actually, I thought it was a pretty apt analogy. Why should someone be good at bunting if they were good at hitting? They are two very different things. I was always good at bunting, but hitting....

 

So if Prince is getting on base at a .360 clip, and is able to get 50% of bunts down the 3rd base line (big if): he would need to succeed on getting to first at a 72% rate to make it worth while. Which is unlikely.

 

Then note that his OBP goes down after he gets one strike for fouling off a bunt. Add to that the extra risk of injurying your best players while bunting, I don't see the benefit.

 

Take all that extra effort and teach the guy to hit the ball the other direction.

[Patrick425]

I'm continuously amazed at how forgiving some people are of ballplayers who get paid millions of dollars a year to do what they do. Just because bunting is not something that you normally do doesn't mean it's not something that maybe you should work on. If the majority of times that you come to bat there is a shift on you, then maybe you should take the time to work on your bunting skills instead of pleading "I'm not a bunter". If this is A) something that will help you get on base more often and B) perhaps discourage the shift (also increasing your chances of getting a hit) and therefore helping your team win games then act like a paid professional and learn the skill.

 

Either learn how to spray the ball a little better or learn how to bunt. I don't think that's asking too much of a person who is paid to play the game on a professional level.

[jerichoholicninja]

I'm continuously amazed at how forgiving some people are of ballplayers who get paid millions of dollars a year to do what they do. Just because bunting is not something that you normally do doesn't mean it's not something that maybe you should work on. If the majority of times that you come to bat there is a shift on you, then maybe you should take the time to work on your bunting skills instead of pleading "I'm not a bunter". If this is A) something that will help you get on base more often and B) perhaps discourage the shift (also increasing your chances of getting a hit) and therefore helping your team win games then act like a paid professional and learn the skill.

 

Either learn how to spray the ball a little better or learn how to bunt. I don't think that's asking too much of a person who is paid to play the game on a professional level.

 

Agree with all of this. The best hitters in baseball make an out 70% of the time when they swing and put it in play. If we consider walks and HBP they are making outs 60% of the time. With a minimal amount of extra work, any major league player should be able to bunt and reach first base more than 30-40% of the time against a shift.

[RightFieldCoder]

I don't care how much money they are being paid. They are there to win games any way they can. Here are my back of the envelop calculations.

 

Slugger A decides to bunt every time he sees a shift. He is successful X out of 100 times.

 

His OBP would be X/100.

His SLG would be X/100.

His OPS would be X/50 (2x/100).

 

To make X% the break even point, multiply OPS by 50.

OPS - Percentage bunts successful needed to break even

1.000 - 50%

.950 - 47.5%

.900 - 45%

.850 - 42.5%

.800 - 40%

.750 - 37.5%

.700 - 35%

 

Remember that these percentages are just to match the swing away production. 2013 Jay Bruce would need to be able to lay down a bunt against a lefty at a clip greater than 37% for it to be worth it. Since he doesn't do it often (and obviously doesn't see the ball against a left well), I don't think he could do it. Also remember that a left will already be following through in that direction. It's good to attempt every once in a while (like Prince and others do), but not every time.

[logan82]

You can't make blanket use of bunting. Pitchers, against shifts, or moving runners over. It is highly situational and once you get into doing the same thing in the same situation bunting loses whatever little effectiveness it has.

[Patrick425]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should bunt every time against the shift. To say that Fielder did it once in a while is being kind. He might have tried it once or twice. Perhaps if you try it 30 to 40 percent of the time and have some success (and yes, you can be successful if you take the time to work on your bunting skills), then perhaps teams will think twice before using the shift on you.

[rwa12]

I disagree. I don't think a successful bunt or two changes the shift. I wouldn't say I'm forgiving of professional athletes, but I don't expect them to be good at something that really isn't a part of their job. I don't want my sluggers stealing bases either, although they *should* be able to. I think this is a prime example of over thinking numbers. The reason teams don't do this is because it's bad baseball. It's bad strategy. You are taking the bat out of your best player's hands, and relying on lesser players to succeed. Not everything is numbers, unpopular opinion or not.

 

It should be used occasionally, as any gimmick should.

[dacbrewers]

Winning games should be first and foremost at the MLB level. If it's going to take bunting against the shift to get guys on, then it should be done. The shift is based on statistical data on each hitter. Until the hitter starts shifting the data in a different direction they will forever be using a shift on them.

[logan82]

The reason teams don't do this is because it's bad baseball. It's bad strategy.

Not necessarily. Teams do things that are bad strategy all the time.

[liveforoctober]

I disagree. I don't think a successful bunt or two changes the shift. I wouldn't say I'm forgiving of professional athletes, but I don't expect them to be good at something that really isn't a part of their job. I don't want my sluggers stealing bases either, although they *should* be able to. I think this is a prime example of over thinking numbers. The reason teams don't do this is because it's bad baseball. It's bad strategy. You are taking the bat out of your best player's hands, and relying on lesser players to succeed. Not everything is numbers, unpopular opinion or not.

 

It should be used occasionally, as any gimmick should.

 

But using this mindset "You are taking the bat out of your best player's hands, and relying on lesser players to succeed..." Why don't the top hitters in the game swing at pitches when they are being intentionally walked until its a pitcher's count and make the opposition pitch to them? Isn't that the same thing? They are giving you a base. If Kinsler steals second tomorrow with two outs and the opposition starts to intentionally walk Miggy, shouldn't he swing into a 2-2 count and make the pitcher throw to him? Don't you want your power hitters trying to hit home runs?

 

I understand an intentional walk has a 100% success rate for the offense and what this thread is suggesting does not, however what the opposition is doing is the same... but isn't the thought process you are using the same?