2017-08-06: Brewers (Nelson) at Rays (Archer) 12:10 PM CDT [Brewers lose, 2-1]

[Baldkin]

If we give Pina a 75% chance to bunt it means we have lowered our odds of scoring 25% of the time by 27%. The other 75% of the time we raise our chances by 6%.

 

So the math is .75*.06-.25*.27=.045-.0675=-.0225. We have lowered our chances of scoring a single run by over 2%. But of course the people up do matter. With Broxton that 2nd and 3rd run expectancy goes down because he strikes out 40% of the time. With him specifically batting our run expectancy for a single run probably goes down like 4 or 5%. Bunting is very clearly wrong here. There isn't really an argument for the bunt. It would take an extremely good bunter or someone who is extremely fit with runners on 2nd and 3rd to make this a smart move and we had neither. This -2% is generous in this case.

 

That also doesn't include the fact that our chance to score multiple runs goes way down. So you are lowering your chances to score one run a minute amount, lowering the chance of scoring multiple runs a ton. There just is no case for a bunt here other than saying that's how they did in the old days, which really doesn't matter in today's game.

 

And lets not mention the chances him swinging away doesnt move a runner or the chances he grounds into a gidp. Both of those take down our run scoring chances as well.

 

Which is the exact reason the odds go up 6.6%

 

You cant calculate down the odds of bunting and pretend there are no negative effects involved with him swinging away.

 

The odds of a gidp with a swing away are higher. Kills run expectancy.

The odds of not advancing the runners is more as well. Or at least going 1st and 3rd 1 out which is also worse.

 

This 25 to 35% chance we drop 27% lower on run expectancy also exists at a higher rate for swing away in pop outs, ks, ground outs where the runners dont advance. You cant compare outcomes if you project one out and leave the other in its current form.

 

You are more likely to move the runners, increase your likelihood of scoring by 6.6% and lower your chances of disaster with a bunt play... you are more likely to score many runs with the swing away. That's the trade off... Game was tied 1-1. You play to take the lead. Winning by 1 is no different than winning by 3 at the end of the day.

 

If we were down 1... I hear the weight of bigger inning thinking. But 1 run dramatically increase our chances to win that game. Especially at 1-1.

 

Just gonna leave this here:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/re24/

 

If you truly think Pina's ability to bunt (he can't) trumps his ability to GIDP, Pop out, K, etc (he doesn't do any of those any more often than the MLB average) you cannot just randomly make assumptions to further your argument.

[tmwiese55]

Team is massively overachieving and have a legit manager of the year candidate here and people bashing him and calling for the guys head. It's a long season, there's going to be bad losses and things to nitpick but overall he is doing well. He has been handed trash to use in the BP, Joe Torre couldn't properly manage this bullpen the way you guys expect with only one reliable guy (now two with Swarzak). The offense is tight right now though, hopefully he can get them back to the fun carefree way they were playing before the ASB.

 

That's not say I didn't expect or want a bunt there, but to act like the guys a moron or a terrible manager because of it is just an overreaction. It can easily go either way. I'd have rather gone with someone fresh than Barnes too, but like I said his options are garbage. Swarzak I'm sure was unavailable and he wanted to save Knebel for the save situation if it came up.

[Ennder]

You are more likely to move the runners, increase your likelihood of scoring by 6.6% and lower your chances of disaster with a bunt play... you are more likely to score many runs with the swing away. That's the trade off... Game was tied 1-1. You play to take the lead. Winning by 1 is no different than winning by 3 at the end of the day.

 

I just showed you the math that says otherwise. You can't just assume the bunt always works, the times the bunt does not work cost you more value than the times it does work gains you. I am trying to include all outcomes of the bunt just like all outcomes of swinging away are accounted for in the original run expectancy. This has been studied to death. It is rarely helpful to have a positional player bunt in today's game. Bunting there with Pina is ALWAYS wrong, it lowers your chance to score. You can't argue with the math. If they changed sac bunts the way they changed IBB and you just got to point to third and they got their base than yeah, bunting improves our chances by 6%, that just isn't how it works. When you factor in failed bunts it is clearly a negative move.

 

When deciding to bunt there needs to be some reason that you think the situation is better than normal. Either you have a really bad hitter up, a really good contact guy up next, bunting to a poor fielder, a really good bunter is up etc. There are certainly cases it makes sense. This one the context was against a bunt in almost every way. TB has a good fielding team, Pina is a better hitter than Broxton, Broxton strikes out a ton. Pina probably isn't a good bunter though I don't know it for sure. All of the context is going against the bunt and the math always goes against it.

 

Do a simple search on why you shouldn't bunt and you can find article after article that spits the math out for you, you don't have to take my word for it. Counsell did the right thing and there really isn't any reasonable doubt about it.