To Bunt, or Not to Bunt

[rluzinski]

But there is no good statistical evidence that says a runner in scoring position with one out is worse than a runner on first with no outs.

 

I presented stats that counted how many runs all teams in the MLB scored in each base/out state over a 4 year period and you say that's not good statistical evidence. You suggested that possible systematic differences of offensive abilities for each state might be skewing the probabilities but you didn't elaborate further. While there is certainly potential for that as a result of different positions in the lineup seeing different states unequally, it would have to be a significant difference to justify completely dismissing the probabilites as worthless.

 

I'm not saying I've exhaustively studied these probability charts, but it seems you disregard them simply because you don't like their conclusions. If that isn't the case than I would appreciate you explaining your position further.

 

But there is no good statistical evidence that says a runner in scoring position with one out is worse than a runner on first with no outs.

 

The point I've been attempting to explain is that even if you presume that they are about the same (they basically are) then there is no benefit in even doing it. Quite the opposite since even an excellant bunter will fail sometimes. If it were easier to score 1 run with a runner at second and 1 out, then teams would have scored atleast 1 run more often in that situation. They didn't.

 

There is a time and place for bunting, especially when you need to just convert one run.

 

Why, because that's what the majority of managers think, so it must be true? You reject the stats I've presented yet serve up an oppossing opinion that's backed up with absolutely nothing. You seem to have an agenda.

[brettac1]

I think that just because a manager or player or scout or media member says it's true doesn't make it true. Bunting is a perfect example of this.

[GoodGod262]

I think this stat is a bit misleading since one is presuming average everything across the board and are looking at it in a way that says a guy on first with no outs scores 44% of the time everytime that situation occurs. I assume this is not taking into a effect that outs may have occured while the runner is being moved around the bases to score.

 

To make a general assumption that the guy on first with no outs is more advantageous is as flawed as the manager thinking that a guy on second with 1 out scores more often.

 

We need a better graph or statistical percentage to make a good judgement that includes all variables. Is bunting wrong in certain situations, yes but is it also right in certain situations. There is no absolutes.

 

Sorry I had to quick post it because I had a one year old boy looking to bang on my laptop's keyboard. Hope this is a little more clearly stated.

[HOF4canrake]

Obviously, this is a terrific topic for discussion because there is no clear-cut answer.

 

As some of you have eluded to, deciding to bunt or not is one of the most situational desicions in all of sports.

 

I have coached for 2 high school teams and a college team and I'd have to say it is one of the most agonizing decisions in most cases.

 

Making it more difficult in the pros is that few players care about bunting and therefore are poor at it.

 

There are definitely no-brainer situations, but for the most part, a manager has to go with his intuition and truly know the character of his team and the ability of the opponent to make the "right" choice.

[rluzinski]

...that says a guy on first with no outs scores 44% of the time 100% of the time he is there.

 

?

 

Not taking into a effect that outs may have occured while the runner moving around the bases to score.

 

What do you mean?

[Getpaddled]

...that says a guy on first with no outs scores 44% of the time 100% of the time he is there.

 

No, I think what he said is... If a team has a guy on first with no one out A run scores 44% that inning. might not be him.

 

\\correct rluzinski?//

[danzig6767]

Since the data of the states is dependant on an average offensive player against an average pitcher and defense, we simply make generalizations based on those averages. We can conclude that if a batter is of average ability or greater, and the pitcher does not have a substancial advantage over that particular player (lefty vs. lefty for example) the manager is maximizing his chance to score a run by letting him swing. Now, who bats after him is also important, that's why I'm not being overly aggressive in my assessments to begin with.

 

That's pretty much how i'd view bunting.It's the 7th inning and Russ Springer is pitching and Brewers are down a run with say Hardy in the two hole up,i'd let him swing away.It's the 9th and Lidge is pitching,i'd be much more inclinded to try and bunt.

 

Watching Ned this season,i dont remember to many situations offhand where i felt he was overaggressive in bunting or was crazy not to.Either way i don't see bunting or not bunting being that important of an issue in the grand scheme of a season unless a manager goes overboard in doing so.The odds of scoring by choosing either method are close enough that i don't stress over it much.

[rluzinski]

No, I think what he said is... If a team has a guy on first with no one out A run scores 44% that inning. might not be him.

 

Correct.

 

The odds of scoring by choosing either method are close enough that i don't stress over it much.

 

When playing for one run I would agree for the most part. The thing that can really hurt you is failing at the sacrifice, however.

[backup catchers]

The thing that can really hurt you is failing at the sacrifice, however.

 

Failing in any aspect of the game can hurt you.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/ohwell.gif

[nsimps]

Quote:

---

I'm not saying I've exhaustively studied these probability charts, but it seems you disregard them simply because you don't like their conclusions. If that isn't the case than I would appreciate you explaining your position further.

---

 

I dismiss them because I don't think they are applicable, not because I don't like the conclusions. As I stated before, I don't think applying mass aggregates to specific situations is appropriate. You dismissed that by saying that you can make generalizations about the data. There is nothing implied or stated in the data that allows those generalizations.

 

Quote:

---

You seem to have an agenda.

---

You found me out. I belong to the National Pro Sacrafice Bunting League. We search the internet looking for debates about the merits of sacrafice bunting.

[endaround]

If that is the case you can't make any decision ever. I mean you make think Albert Puljos is a good hitter, but you can't apply that on October 5th 2005 because all those stats are just aggreagtes from before!

[nsimps]

No, Albert Pujols is an individual that controls his own stats. Putting him as part of a larger group clouds his individual contribution.

[xisxisxis]

Putting him as part of a larger group clouds his individual contribution.

 

So it's the San Diego Padres vs. Albert Pujol today.

[DougJones43]

this discussion was more or less started in the other thread with the question of whether or not bunting is an essential fundamental, and if it is a big deal that butch wynegar hasn't gotten a lot of these guys to be able to bunt properly.

 

the debate about whether or not bunting is a good idea is an interesting one. like it or not however, ned yost is our manager, and good decision or not he likes to bunt a lot. this most likely isn't going to change as i doubt he will ever be swayed by these so-called "statistics" people speak of. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

with that in mind, i feel that bunting is going to be an essential skill to play on this team. while maybe we shouldn't have bunted in some/many of the situations that came along this season, when called upon to do it, lots of the guys failed miserably with pop-outs, double plays, k's, etc. this ended up destroying numerous scoring chances throughout the season. so as long as ned yost continues his bunting ways, we really do need guys that are going to be able to get the job done.

[backup catchers]

I don't think applying mass aggregates to specific situations is appropriate.

 

Mass aggregates are a good starting point to determining the right coarse for a specific situation. If a manager is going to just go with his gut feeling he may let his emotion rule his better judgement because it feels right at the moment. If he knows the general odds of success ahead of time he has some objective information to help him make that spur of the moment decision. It's like feeling lucky at a casino. If you know the odds ahead of time you are less likely to make a foolish move than if you had no general idea of how bad your chances are.

[GoodGod262]

With the lineups that Larussa has put out there, I would guess the Cardinals will be sewing Pujols on the front of their jerseys.

[strawbossisevil]

I think we need you guys to tell Ned how to do his job. Apparently he doesn't prepare enough or put in the time and effort you guys do to find how things should really be done come game time.

 

Honestly, I look at it this way. Hypothetically, if you have a guy on first base the OF will be playing deep to cut off alleys so it is very unlikely to score on just one hit (HR being probably the only practical way of scoring on one hit). Thus it takes two hits to get a guy to score. Assuming you have a team full of .280 hitters and assuming that the baserunner is fast enough to score from 2nd on a single. The runner on second with one out should score 56% of the time, where as a runner on 1st with no outs should score about 43.68% of the time. Granted HR can skew this a little, but normally you won't be using a HR hitter to bunt, so that should effect the percentages only slightly.

 

The reason it isn't this cut and dried is because a team of .280 hitters doesn't exist, nor is the runner on 2nd always fast enough to make it home on a single, thus the manager must make decisions of when to swing and when to bunt.

 

For purposes of having a real situation to discuss, lets look at a real life situation:

 

Corey Hart is on firstbase. Brady Clark (.306) is batting with a red hot J.J. Hardy (I'll give him a BA in this situation of .275 since his numbers in real life are extremely deflated due to his early season struggles) and Overbay (BAA .276). Should Clark bunt?

 

With Hart on second and one out, he would have a 55.1% chance of scoring, with hart on first and no outs he would have a 46.5% chance of scoring.

 

Edited my math to include Carlos Lee.

[rluzinski]

There is nothing implied or stated in the data that allows those generalizations

 

I would disagree, as well as many other people who seem to know alot more than me about statistical analysis. You haven't said what is the fundamental flaw in using the data as I am anyway. You just keep saying "mass aggregate" over and over. People use that type of data all the time. While there are potential pitfalls, you are simply dismissing it without knowing if there are any to begin with.

 

To continue with the Pujols example, he might have superior stats to most other batters but since those are just "mass aggregates" according to your philopsophy they tell you "nothing". The environment he amassed those statistics are wholy enough to him only; no other batter faced the same exact pitchers the same amount of times. No batter faced the same sequence of pitches. The ball parks that he played in were different. As a result, according to your philosphy, absolutely no generalizations about his abilities can justifiably be made.

 

Can't agree with that. Mass aggregates can tell you alot, provided you are mindful of their limitations. Adjustments can be made for different ballparks. Relative abilities of pitchers faced can even be accounted for. The results won't be perfect, but it can then be reasonable to make relative comparisons between different batter's abilities.

[bjkrautk]

Having skimmed the thread, I'll just say that the decision on whether or not to sacrifice bunt is largely predicated on the type of team you have, and the situation.

 

If you have a dominant pitching staff, such that you can expect to win by scratching across 3-4 runs in a game, you're bound to manage your team differently than one would the Boston Red Sox or Cincinnati Reds. Specifically, a pitching-dominant roster should look to maximize opportunities to score at least one run. Examples:

 

2nd / 0 outs

1st and 2nd / 0 outs

 

In at least these situations, the trade-off between scoring multiple runs and scoring the one run at least become debate-worthy.

 

Admittedly, I'm not advocating having the # 3 - 5 guys in the lineup (or #8 in the NL) putting down a bunt, but that's because you expect those players to be more likely than average to get a hit (or in the case of the # 8, more likely than the player hitting behind). them). I can see why, if you're a straight-sabermetric, bunting doesn't have much value for non-pitchers. On the other hand, not every team is (nor should be) tailored around pure sabermetrics.

[nsimps]

Quote:

---

You haven't said what is the fundamental flaw in using the data as I am anyway. You just keep saying "mass aggregate" over and over.

---

 

The potential pitfalls of using the run scoring matrix:

 

1) Difference in batter strength in different situations.

2) I assume that the number of situations is not the same. If you take the mean of a situation that occurs more frequently vs. an event that happens less frequently outliers of the less frequent event can cause Type 1 errors.

3) An example of a mass aggregate would be the income of the United States. The per capita income is $40,000. Should we assume that most people make around $40,000 or should we recognize the limitations in using per capita?

 

Quote:

---

he might have superior stats to most other batters but since those are just "mass aggregates" according to your philopsophy they tell you "nothing"

---

 

One thing remains constant in the Albert Pujols situation and that is Albert Pujols. What is the constant in the run scoring matrix? Is it simply the situation? Is that acceptable?