Power heavy team trying to play small ball.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Bear with me, this isn't just specific to tonight's game.......

 

I don't like when Yost tries to play "small ball" with this team. The team (IMO of course) isn't constituted in such a way that makes playing (or trying to play) small ball a feasible strategy. When Weeks came up in the 9th, I was listening to the radio saying "don't bunt, don't bunt, don't bunt".

 

My buddy says "You have to bunt here, to put the winning run on third base, don't you?"

 

Well, yeah, I see the reasoning, but all too often (and I completely understand that this is a perception issue, as I haven't looked up the statistics to bear me out), it seems like a leadoff double gets bunted over to third, and then stranded.

 

I don't believe this team has the type of players needed to succeed with a small ball strategy, even only occasionally. Hart, Braun, Fielder, Hall, Weeks, Jenkins, heck, just about everyone strikes out too much to really be able to rely on bringing home a runner on third with one out.

 

Now, I am not AT ALL suggesting that Melvin should acquire the types of players that would fit a small ball strategy. I'm not suggesting that our guys need to work on bunting more. By and large, aside from pitchers, I hate seeing a guy bunt and give up an out for the sake of one base being gained, as you're really putting the onus on the next guy to bring him in, because if he doesn't, the situation isn't all that different than a man on 2nd with 2 outs, because most singles with 2 outs bring a runner home from 2nd anyways. In my opinion the whole "getting the guy to 3rd with one out" strategy really boils down to allowing yourself one decent shot at bringing that runner home, and with the makeup of our club, I don't think it's a sound strategy.

 

Hey, Braun bailed us out tonight, but generally speaking, I just really don't think this team (or most teams anymore) are really suited to playing for one run.

[Ennder]

Small ball is silly in general, its a reaction to being a bad team trying to scrape together runs because your team isn't able to score them in general.

 

Situational hitting is a pretty important part of baseball and has nothing to do with small ball, generally people complain about that more than anything. That is the problem we have with driving in runners on 2nd and 3rd with 0 or 1 outs.

[rluzinski]

I'd like to see proof that the Brewers actually have a problem doing that. I think only a 100% success rate in those situations would placate baseball fans. In reality a runner at 2B with no out and a runner at third with 1 out score about 2/3rds of the time, on average.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I specifically stated that I understand that this is very likely an issue of perception and not reality. What I'm really getting at (no, I don't have a set of stats that will either prove or disprove my argument) is that with the makeup of the Brewers offense, it seems to me that giving up an out for the sake of moving one base is a situation of diminishing return.

 

It's only my opinion, and it's colored by what I've seen lately, I'll readily admit that. In my opinion, I never like seeing a hitter, even a bad one, have the bat taken out of his hands on a sacrifice attempt, when the only thing it appears to accomplish is give you one less out to play with to score a run. Given that many of the Brewers hitters are prone to striking out (aside from Estrada and Mench), I don't like the "man on 3rd with one out" any more than a man on 2nd with no out.

 

I understand that what run probabilities are per inning, I won't even try to dispute the statistics. I'm only saying that you have to look at it contextually, and with Hart coming up, I would just as soon see Weeks hit away in this situation.

 

I'd like to see proof that the Brewers actually have a problem doing that. I think only a 100% success rate in those situations would placate baseball fans.

 

Sometimes it's worthy to have a discussion, even when I say "in my opinion" and "I realize it's a perception issue" without having to be berated for not having statistical evidence of everything.

[brettac1]

I agree with RoCo, I definitely didn't want Weeks bunting in that situation. He probably had as good of a chance of drawing a walk as dropping a good sac bunt down against a pitcher like Lidge. And the chances that he GIDP's are slim, too. I don't like the idea of playing for one run when on the road, either, regardless of the makeup of the roster.

 

The cool thing about sitting around and waiting for the three run homer is that sometimes you hit them.

[M Skjellyfetti]

I know this isn't exactly what you wanted Russ, but the Brewers' 3 worst OPSs relative to the rest of the league's OPS for the same split occurs with runners on 2nd and 3rd (79--100 is average), runner on 3rd (92), and runners on 1st and 3rd (93). Feel free to take these with a grain of salt because they are all pretty small samples and ignore the number of outs, but I feel that there is at least a basis for feeling that the Brewers are struggling in that area. Now, whether or not one believes that the Brewers can somehow fix this problem, that's a whole different story.

 

Stats according to baseball-reference.com

[DHonks]

The bunt is a fine play in many scenarios. However, Weeks likely is not a GiDP candidate. He is a strikeout candidate though. It seems foolish to say that a power team only should play for the long ball, or that a scrappy team should only play for 1 run. The reality is that good teams are flexible and able to execute different approaches when the time comes

[adambr2]

The problem with the strategy used in that situation, is that it assumes 2 things --

 

#1 - We'll get a successful sacrifice, putting runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out.

#2 - With the extra out remaining, we'll manage to do something to get that runner in from third. (Fly ball, slow ground ball, basehit, etc).

 

Needless to say, on a typical night this season, we've been pretty unsuccessful accomplishing both tasks in successive AB's. As typical baseball strategy, I would say bunting is definitely the right move there. For the general makeup of this team, I'm not sure it's the way to go. It's good that we continue to try, but we've been abysmal at manufacturing runs for the most part.

[adambr2]

I'd like to see proof that the Brewers actually have a problem doing that. I think only a 100% success rate in those situations would placate baseball fans. In reality a runner at 2B with no out and a runner at third with 1 out score about 2/3rds of the time, on average.

 

Well, statistically, we are 13th in the NL in batting average with runners in scoring position, 14th in the NL in runners in scoring position and 2 outs. So I think the statistics definitely show that we struggle in that aspect. Surprisingly, we are 3rd in the NL in average with the bases loaded, and around the middle of the league (8th) in batting average in what is defined as "close and late" situations.

[Oldcity]

Yeah I was screaming in the IGT when Yost had Weeks bunt in the ninth. Didn't make sense at all, especially with Weeks at the plate.

[brewcrewreview]

I was screaming at the TV for Weeks to bunt. It didn't work out, but it's not like he's hitting very well at all this year in the majors and you got to figure that Corey Hart is very capable of getting one, if not both, runners in with runners on second and third with one out. If Hart couldn't do it, then I still feel good with Braun and two down with runners on second and third. If the bunt doesn't work, you still have to feel good with runners on first and second, with one out and Hart, Braun, and possibly Prince due up.

I'm being honest with how I reacted and wanted at the time. I guarantee if Weeks swung away and struck out, hit into a double play, or got an out without advancing the runners, there would be at least twice as many posting here calling for Ned's head for not having him bunt. Hindsight is 20/20.

Plus, aren't there tons of Brewers' fans (not me included) who constantly complain that we aren't playing small ball and that we rely on the home run too much?

[endaround]

I'd like to see proof that the Brewers actually have a problem doing that. I think only a 100% success rate in those situations would placate baseball fans. In reality a runner at 2B with no out and a runner at third with 1 out score about 2/3rds of the time, on average.

Well, statistically, we are 13th in the NL in batting average with runners in scoring position, 14th in the NL in runners in scoring position and 2 outs. So I think the statistics definitely show that we struggle in that aspect. Surprisingly, we are 3rd in the NL in average with the bases loaded, and around the middle of the league (8th) in batting average in what is defined as "close and late" situations.

Brewers overall batting line:

.264

.330

.448

W/RISP:

.256

.344

.431

W/RISP and 2 outs:

.226

.340

.375

Not really sure how much more people expect especially since all NL teams take a hit at the last one due to facing pitchers.

[kmcasper23]

Runner on 2nd with nobody out down 1 run, you have to bunt everytime. Especially when you have your big sticks coming up to bat. Instead of having to get a hit, all the batter needs to do is hit a fly ball and the game is tied.

[endaround]

Yes because then when you score only the one run you can have Spurling come in and pitch the 9th!

 

Playing for only one run on the road when down when you won't use your best pitcher until you get the lead won't do much.

[rluzinski]

Well, statistically, we are 13th in the NL in batting average with runners in scoring position

 

I think the average brewer fan will tell you that the Brewers' inefficient offense has cost the them numerous wins. The numbers just don't support that. As end pointed out, the Brewers' BA is only 8 points lower w/RISP than overall. That works out to around one less hit every 13 games this year. Not insignificant but the Brewers offense has scored pretty close to what you'd expect them to. According to Baseball Prospectus, they should have scored 13 more runs or about 2% less runs than expected. We are talking about maybe 1 win. If you just watch the games, it's going to feel like a heck of a lot more because you are going to remember all those darn LOB.

 

Runner on 2nd with nobody out down 1 run, you have to bunt everytime.

Let's look at the numbers:

Chance of scoring at least 1 run:

 

1st & 2nd, 0 out: 64%

2nd & 3rd, 1 out: 70%

 

1st & 2nd, 1 out: 42%

 

 

So if we really do what to play for the tie on the road (probably a bad idea to begin with) even if we assume 100% chance of success for the sacrifice, we only gain 6%. But with the defense positioned to combat the bunt (as they were last night), we know the chances of success are significantly lower than that. What's a reasonable guess....80-85%? And since a failed sac results in a huge drop in the probability to score at least one run, it's often not advisable to even try the bunt with a position player, especially when the defense is waiting for it.

[brewcrewreview]

I don't get how we're playing for a tie on the road when we're down by one and bunting to move TWO runners in scoring position with nobody out? Especially since the bunter (Weeks) hasn't hit a home run since April.

[Ennder]

I don't have a huge issue with Weeks bunting there, especially considering his speed means a greater chance of coming up with a bunt hit as well. Those run probability charts are nice but they also aren't very accurate, obviously having say Reyes up to bunt with a fast runner on 2nd is a different situation than Fielder bunting with Estrada on 2nd.

 

I do think bunting in general is a bad move with a position player, but that was one case where it made sense.

[Fatter than Joey]

Plus, aren't there tons of Brewers' fans (not me included) who constantly complain that we aren't playing small ball and that we rely on the home run too much?

 

I think a lot of times "small-ball" and OBP get interchanged and used incorrectly. I think in the context you are referring to -- people are griping more about OBP, than they are about small-ball. I think griping about OBP is reasonable and something that the Brewers have not done very well since the AS break.

 

I define "small-ball" as something that happens when runners are already on base (for example bunting, Sac flies, H&R etc.). OBP to me means "getting runners on base".

 

I think overall general arguments about the merits of bunting and the such are pretty silly, as I think it is entirely a situational thing. I will say I think good teams SHOULD be able to bunt if needed -- but more often than not, I am pretty happy letting hitters swing away -- I think though if a guy like Weeks was facing a guy like Bobby Jenks tomorrow -- I would be more likely to bunt, than if Weeks was facing Steve Randolph.

[Ennder]

I agree, people seem to think that 3 singles in a row to score a run is small ball, when to me thats just having a good OBP.

[lukevan]

I don't get how we're playing for a tie on the road when we're down by one and bunting to move TWO runners in scoring position with nobody out? Especially since the bunter (Weeks) hasn't hit a home run since April.

Well, basically you are bunting in order to get the man to 3rd with one out to ensure a long fly or other variety of sacrifice will at least tie the game for you. In that situation, you now have a runner on 3rd with 2 outs and a tie game on the road.

If you get a single with no one out and runners on 1st and 2nd, you still have a great shot to get that next runner in to take the lead with a sacrifice, either getting him over to 3rd if he didn't get past 2nd base, or scoring him if he did reach 3rd base on the hit. I'd take Weeks swinging considering he is not a great candidate to get doubled off.

There was another situation a few weeks back in which I wish we wouldn't have bunted. It resulted in Braun getting few pitches to hit with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out and he struck out trying to get the bat on the ball, and then Prince was intentionally walked, so we basically sacrificed our way out of letting Braun or Fielder get anything to hit in a key situation.

[igor67]

I think the scoring probabilities are instructive, but I'm always a little bit concerned when you try to use them for contrarian strategies. That is the fact that the numbers are derived from real game data means that the numbers are formed heavily by what people generally do. For example take the extreme case above with the 1st and 2nd 0 out vs. 2nd and 3rd 1 out scenario. If managers always attempted to bunt in the first case then the probability of scoring 1 run would already factor in that almost all of the time you successfully turn that into a 2nd and 3rd situation. So the bunt failure result is already built in. Now in the real world managers don't always bunt with 1st and 2nd, but a certain amount of the run probability is dependent on the managers bunting. I'm not entirely sure how big these effects are. But I do have a certain preference for a more pure computer estimation of these strategies to contrast with the real data. If I was a manager in particular I'd want the numbers to be calculated based on the batting order too.

[olliegjw]

Yeah I was screaming in the IGT when Yost had Weeks bunt in the ninth. Didn't make sense at all, especially with Weeks at the plate.

 

So you're saying it was a bad move to try and bunt the tieing and go-ahead runs into scoring position, with a guy hitting under .210, to get to your 3 best hitters. I can't imagine what this thread would look like if Weeks had GIDP, K'd, or hit an infield pop-up. There would be a lot of screaming as to why Yost didn't bunt. To me, it was a no-brainer that you bunt there. The execution just wasn't there.