Bunting out of the shift?

[logan82]

The key is the 100% success rate of an intentional walk. Also pitches out of the zone are much more difficult to hit well. I am sure any player could make contact with practically any pitch. As a hitter the key is to make good contact.

[CheezWizHed]

Not everything is numbers

 

And the numbers don't support it either. At best, its a wash to bunt or swing away for OBP. So why bother?

 

If that big gap on the other side of the field is that tantilizing, then spend your time teaching your hitters to hit, not bunt in that direction.

[liveforoctober]

Not everything is numbers

 

And the numbers don't support it either. At best, its a wash to bunt or swing away for OBP. So why bother?

If that big gap on the other side of the field is that tantilizing, then spend your time teaching your hitters to hit, not bunt in that direction.

 

I don't there are any numbers out there, period ... supporting or otherwise. It hasn't been attempted. Right now it is just conjecture and forecasting.

[CheezWizHed]

Agreed that its forecasting, but if you have good numbers to use in the forecast and those numbers aren't adding up, why bother attempting it?

 

People adept at bunting can get the ball down the 3B (not foul, not to the pitcher) line 50% of the time. Good sluggers like Fielder have an OBP in the .360-.400 range. So to beat that OBP, those hitters would need to get singles 70-90% of the bunts they can get down the 3B line. And that still doesn't account for the hitter's getting extra bases (over just one) by swinging away.

 

Factor in risks of injuries while bunting (both in games and in practice). Factor in the extra time required to achieve a 50% rate down the 3B line (as opposed to practicing hitting the ball to defeat the shift).

 

If I'm a manager, I look at those numbers and that risk and say, "Why bother? Those numbers don't add up for me to risk my slugger bunting."

 

*clarified some wording on bunting numbers.

[liveforoctober]

Agreed that its forecasting, but if you have good numbers to use in the forecast and those numbers aren't adding up, why bother attempting it?

 

People adept at bunting can get the ball down the 3B (not foul, not to the pitcher) line 50% of the time. Good sluggers like Fielder have an OBP in the 360-400 range. Therefore those hitters would need to succeed 70-90% of the bunts the can get past the pitcher.

 

Factor in risks of injuries while bunting (both in games and in practice). Factor in the extra time required to achieve a 50% rate down the 3B line (as opposed to practicing hitting the ball to defeat the shift).

 

If I'm a manager, I look at those numbers and that risk and say, "Why bother? Those numbers don't add up for me to risk my slugger bunting."

 

I do believe that 50% stat is per pitch ... so if you were take two attempts at it, you would be succeeding 75% of the time, and to eclipse a .380 OBP you would need to be successful at a 50% clip rather than the 70-90% suggested.

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you are saying. My main point is it this strategy has never been attempted and therefore shouldn't be disgarded so easily. I understand the downside that is possible, but I also think there is a huge upside as well that is worth exploring.

[CheezWizHed]

Actually, its worse than that. I misread the original post about 50%. I thought it was 50% not-foul, not-to the pitcher.

 

But reading the fangraphs article, its 50% fair balls. That means the pitcher is throwing out a bunch of those (non-quantified) fair balls. Also, there is going to be some of the "not-fair balls" as outs (foul pop outs).

 

Here was a pretty good quote from the fangraphs articleand the conclusion, which is the point most of us are trying to make:

 

So why don’t we see more bunting against the shift? Certainly, there has to be some element of stubbornness. But it’s also just a hard thing to do, even with a lot of practice, which most shifted hitters don’t have. A foul bunt or a missed bunt is just a strike, a strike that also makes the defense aware of the bunt possibility. The pitcher, as well, becomes aware of the possibility, and might throw less buntable pitches. The math might still work out in the pro-bunt favor — I’m not close to smart enough to work all that out. But I’ve never seen bunt success rates before, and I wasn’t expecting 50%. That’s a pretty low success rate, for bunts that aren’t even necessarily successful.

 

And against even a hypothetical awesome bunter, you can just move the guy playing short to shallow third, and then you’re not going to see many grounders hit to where the shortstop would be. And the bunt would be all but taken away.

 

For years, it’s seemed so obvious to me. When Kyle Seager successfully bunted for a single against the shift last summer, it felt to me like a top-ten Mariners moment. If the defense wants to give the hitter an easy hit, the hitter should take the easy hit, without question. I could never understand how hitters could be so stubborn in the face of a potentially high batting average. Turns out there’s no such thing as an easy hit after all. Oh, bunt singles against the shift look easy when they’re successful, but so do Chris Davis home runs. Most of the time, Chris Davis doesn’t homer.

[sveumrules]

Thought I'd give this a bump with Jeff Sullivan's article examining Brayan Pena attempting to bunt out of the shift. If you don't feel like clicking I'll break it down for you; bunting succesfully off of major league caliber velocity and movement is really, really hard to do.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-watch-brayan-pena-try-to-beat-the-shift/

[jerichoholicninja]

...bunting succesfully off of major league caliber velocity and movement is really, really hard to do.

 

So is trying to get a hit by swinging, regardless of where the defense is.

 

A huge part of Pena's problem was that he trying to drag bunt. With the shift you don't need to be as quick, you just need to put it in play. I'd like to see what would have happened had he treated it more like a sac bunt and took his time.

[liveforoctober]

I actually decided a few times NOT to bump this thread even though I found evidence was falling my way. This is a long read, but a different perspective. For the lazy, the author came to the conclusion that bunting against the shift IS the right decision but guys don't do it because they will then ruin their ability to surprise and do it in a crucial moment.

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/why-doesn-t-big-papi-exploit-the-infield-shift-by-bunting-042214

[Dead Simmons]

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.

THIS!