That's true but you reduce your number of chances by 33%.

892947[/snapback]

reducing your chances by 33%

but what are the chances of consecutive players getting hits?

That's true but you reduce your number of chances by 33%.

892947[/snapback]

reducing your chances by 33%

but what are the chances of consecutive players getting hits?

892950[/snapback]

A lot can happen within that period. You may only need one.

 

And against the Marlins bullpen for one it seems like it isn't that hard to get consecutive hits. :plain

892957[/snapback]

 

yeah but we're talking the marlins against other teams, that woulda been easy if we were talking about other teams sacrificing against the marlins

I'm a big Jack supporter but I'll never understand taking the bat out of Castillo's hand to sac bunt over JP in the 1st inning. JP can steal for second for one and JP and Castillo are fast enough to prevent the double play.

 

I'd rather just take a chance and have Castillo (an excellent hitter) swing away.

892940[/snapback]

I hate that!!!!!

 

 

 

A sacrifice may be a productive out, but it is not the only kind, and has very little chance of no ending up in atleast one out.

 

 

The idea of taking risks later is hoping that they come out successfully. You have little to lose anyway.

I'd like to add it's not a 33% drop.

 

It's .33 of a run drop.

 

And no it's not hypocritical you don't seem to get what I'm trying to tell you.

Well it seems like the Marlins haven't had much trouble getting strings out hits lately. They've been getting like 10 per game or more. For some reason they just don't have much to show for it.

 

They've been stealing a lot more too.

 

I think it's the loss of power. Lowell and Gonzalez haven't been hitting balls out like last year and Delgado is injured. Cabrera is the only one that steps up.

892967[/snapback]

you could add lo duca to that lack of power list.

Boog gave the best explanation for the bunt/no bunt thing a couple weeks ago (and he generally knows his stuff so I'll go with it). The reason why you'd bunt late in the game and not early is because leaving the man on first with none out gives you the best chance of scoring more runs as he explained it, but when you need one run late in the game, you can be better off with the runner on second and one out, depending on the factors of the game (lineup, runner, pitcher, and so on). That would be why you'd bunt in a late game situation to try to score a single run, where you'd probably be better off playing the numbers early on to try to get a big inning.

 

Note that I'm not really a Moneyball person, I'm just giving the explanation he gave on this scenario, and I thought had some sense behind it.

Boog gave the best explanation for the bunt/no bunt thing a couple weeks ago (and he generally knows his stuff so I'll go with it). The reason why you'd bunt late in the game and not early is because leaving the man on first with none out gives you the best chance of scoring more runs as he explained it, but when you need one run late in the game, you can be better off with the runner on second and one out, depending on the factors of the game (lineup, runner, pitcher, and so on). That would be why you'd bunt in a late game situation to try to score a single run, where you'd probably be better off playing the numbers early on to try to get a big inning.

 

Note that I'm not really a Moneyball person, I'm just giving the explanation he gave on this scenario, and I thought had some sense behind it.

893016[/snapback]

But according to the odds posted earlier in this thread you would have a great chance of scoring a single run by not bunting.

 

I agree with Boog though and not Moneyball philosophy.

893054[/snapback]

 

See, I don't quite get how the odds are posted there...those are not percentages, they are given in number of runs. In which case what Boog says makes sense because the fact that you can get a higher scoring inning with the runner on first/none out would lead to more runs scored on the whole. But if you have the runner on second and one out, you might have a better chance of bringing in that one runner. I'm not sure.

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

892502[/snapback]

Okay, just to clarify: while I don't know the numbers offhand, it looks like those two numbers indicate the average number of runs scored for each situation, and NOT the likelihood of scoring. I think that's the part that has some of us confused.

 

In situations where you know you need only one run, you want to go with the scenario that increases your probability of scoring at least one run (as opposed to the scenario that increases your average number of runs scored). Again, while I don't know the numbers offhand, everything I've read suggests that a man on first with no outs is just as likely to score as a man on second with one out. That effectively means that there is no reason to bunt in that scenario, even late in a game when you need just one run, unless you know you've got a very sub-par hitter up there.

 

On the other hand, if you've got a runner on first and second with no outs, you do increase your likelihood of scoring by bunting them to second and third. This is despite the fact that your average number of runs scored goes down a bit.

This source ( http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html ) suggests that on average bunting over a runner on 1B with 0 out not only decreases your chances of scoring multiple runs, but also slightly decreases your chance of scoring any runs.

I just think a lot of it has to do with who's at the plate. (Brian Moehler or Miguel Cabrera)

893104[/snapback]

Of course. Some common sense is in order.

sac bunts are productive outs like sac flys...come on people...use your head...use our speed, put pressure on the defense...think think think

892590[/snapback]

 

Sac Flies score runs so that is a pointless analogy.

 

A runner on 1st with nobody out is more likely to score than a runner on 2nd with 1 out. So, even late, you swing away.

 

The whole "what would I rather him do?" question ignores the simple fact that even a poor ball player will advance him at least one base 30%, without recording an out, of the time and a good one more like 35%-45%. Since double plays are rare (a bad team will GDP in about 5% of the opportunities) a player, even without bunting, will advance a fair ammount of time.

 

If you want to play small ball well: Steal 2nd and then bunt the man to 3rd (man on second + nobody out, is a good time to bunt). That's right, you bunt men to 3rd with no outs.

 

Also, batters with an OPS of less than .450 (pitchers) should bunt men over because there is little likelyhood of a productive PA from them.

If you say that we can't produce with 1 out, which it IS what you are basically saying, than you don't believe in your team, let the professionals handle this, we are winning right? Stop whining, go to sleep.

where are these numbers comig from? LOL

Dedicated individuals who seek the truth behind the numbers

Dedicated individuals who seek the truth behind the numbers

893436[/snapback]

 

You might want to rephrase this to say "dedicated individuals who seek to confirm their point of view". The truth is not the truth because someone says it is.

 

The problem with stat absolutism is that it can never include enough factors to actually prove the theory. I'm not against stats per se, but what I find is A) stat analysis are often misapplied and B) not enough factors are included in the formula to make them relevant in a particular, specific case.

 

(not a shot at you Rferry, just an observation about statistical analysis generally)

Just trying to point out the effort some people put into exploring this stuff and that they should not be laughed out simply because someone does not understand it (NewZO).

(Chance of scoring at least one run) = 1 - (Chance of scoring no runs)

Some of you are pulling numbers out of thin air or are reading the chart wrong. According to the Sabremetrics chart (http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html) that somebody posted, the chance of scoring at least one run with nobody out and a runner on first is 44% (one minus 56.3%). The chance of scoring at least one run with a runner on second and one out (the result of a sacrifice bunt) is 41% (one minus 59.4%). So there is a slightly lower probability (3%), but not the huge number a lot of you were throwing out there.

 

Obviously, other variables come into play, mostly situational ones and the chance of a sacrifice not being successful (which will make a sacrifice less useful). Nonetheless, there is a good probability that a player who is not a good hitter but a decent bunter will increase his team's chances at scoring with a bunt rather than a neutral out (strikeout, popout with no sacrifice) or a negative out (double play, fielder's choice if he's slower than the man on first).

 

I don't mind seeing somebody like Matt Treanor or Chris Aguila bunting, but it boggles my mind to see somebody like Pudge bunting to try to get on the board (as McKeon had him do in the '03 playoffs).

 

If you do a weighted average of all possible run outcomes, the difference in expected runs will be greater with nobody out than with one out. In other words, your chances of scoring more than one run are greater if you avoid outs. If you need one run, a sacrifice is not always a bad option; if you're playing for multiple runs, it becomes a less attractive one. Same conclusion most of you get to, but just as you can't play purely on "feel," you also can't go strictly by the numbers.

Another reason you shouldn't base managing on statistics. According to those three years of data, there is a greater chance of nobody scoring with men on second and third and no outs and two outs than with men on first and third. You don't see people like Billy Beane screaming for the pitcher to let the runner walk to second base, although statistics *prove* (note the sarcasm) that the pitcher would be less likely to give up any runs if he did. Once again, the average runs per inning would be higher with the runners on second and third in all cases.

 

If you abide to Moneyball as your Baseball Bible, you'd also be a proponent of almost never stealing, using the hit and run, or other "overplayed" tactics. And Delgado would have never swung on that 3-0 pitch against Koo earlier this season... which reminds me of a (bad) joke:

 

Three people are interviewing for a job at a company and are asked to sum 1/3 and 2/3:

- The mathematician states "Clearly the answer is one."

- The applied mathematician punches the numbers into his calculator and comes up with "0.99999999999"

- The statistician responds "What do you want it to add up to?"

 

It's easy to trick people into thinking just about anything by throwing some statistics around. Then you get into things like confidence intervals which is something for another day... back to work.

I didn't base my opinion in this thread based on blind adherence to the stats. Stats are of some use, but the whole situation(inning, batter, score, location, pitcher, runner) needs to be taken into account. Most of these things can't be quantified into the stats. As a GENERAL rule I don't like sac bunts early in the game. Most managers in MLB use the sac bunt too much IMO, and McKeon is one of the worst offenders. I especially hate it when Pierre gets on base in the first, and then McKeon has Castillo bunt. How you can be willing to give an out to a pitcher that hasn't proven he can yet get an out is one of the dumbest moves in the game.

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

892502[/snapback]

 

Your analysis is incomplete. The comparison shouldn't be between chances of scoring with a man on first and no outs and after a successful bunt. Instead, the comparison should be between chances of scoring a run with a man on first, after successful bunt, and a man on first and one out. So what are the chances of having a man on first and one out in this situation? Well, the difference between 1.000 and the batter's average (this average depends on many things, such as the batter's history against that pitcher, how he's been playing recently, how he does in that stadium, etc.). Somewhere in there you have to factor in the likelihood that the batter will hit into a double play and thus create a no one on base and 2 outs situation. It's not as simple as you make it out.

I don't mind seeing somebody like Matt Treanor or Chris Aguila bunting, but it boggles my mind to see somebody like Pudge bunting to try to get on the board (as McKeon had him do in the '03 playoffs).893614[/snapback]

 

There you go, bunt with guys that are AAAA players.

 

Not with: player (bunts)

 

JP (6), Castillo (16), Lo Duca (3), Encarnacion (2), Gonzalez (3)

 

Bunting works with:

 

A man on 2nd with no outs.

Late, when you only need 1 run, with a poor hitter at bat.

Your pitcher.

If you abide to Moneyball as your Baseball Bible, you'd also be a proponent of almost never stealing, using the hit and run, or other "overplayed" tactics.

 

Not actually true, if you follow Sabermetrics:

 

Stealing is only useful if the runner succeeds 75% of the time. Which means you only steal with the best baserunners. They can steal every time they want unless they are facing a catcher whose chance of throwing you out exceeds 60%.

 

If you read "Bill James Baseball Abstract", it becomes pretty clear where his points come from.

I don't mind seeing somebody like Matt Treanor or Chris Aguila bunting, but it boggles my mind to see somebody like Pudge bunting to try to get on the board (as McKeon had him do in the '03 playoffs).893614[/snapback]

 

There you go, bunt with guys that are AAAA players.

 

Not with: player (bunts)

 

JP (6), Castillo (16), Lo Duca (3), Encarnacion (2), Gonzalez (3)

 

Bunting works with:

 

A man on 2nd with no outs.

Late, when you only need 1 run, with a poor hitter at bat.

Your pitcher.

895875[/snapback]

Your pitcher....this season I'd rather have Dontrelle swinging than most of our regulars. Only kidding, :whistle

If you abide to Moneyball as your Baseball Bible, you'd also be a proponent of almost never stealing, using the hit and run, or other "overplayed" tactics.?

 

Not actually true, if you follow Sabermetrics:

 

Stealing is only useful if the runner succeeds 75% of the time. Which means you only steal with the best baserunners. They can steal every time they want unless they are facing a catcher whose chance of throwing you out exceeds 60%.

 

If you read "Bill James Baseball Abstract", it becomes pretty clear where his points come from.

895879[/snapback]

 

So in other words the only guy who should ever be stealing is Juan Pierre, with a success rate of around 77%. In my book, stealing with one guy in your lineup is "almost" never stealing. Stealing increases your expected runs in an inning more in certain situations (no outs, man on first) than others (two outs, man on first).

 

Managers on the field are not computers and aren't going through these complex calculations in their head. Again it's all situational (all of which I'm sure Bill James covers in his many volumes) - playing by cut and dry rules will make you extremely predictable. There is a lot of value to Sabermetrics, but it never taught Jeremy Giambi to slide home. And Dave Roberts and his career .680 OPS don't exactly spell the prototypical Billy Beane player. And what do you know - besides stealing the ALCS from the Yankees, he's also a pretty good bunter. Minor examples, minor examples. Although Sabermetricians would explain Beane's lack of postseason to "bad luck."

Although Sabermetricians would explain Beane's lack of postseason to "bad luck."

895996[/snapback]

 

The Yankees may not officially be a "Moneyball" team, but they are built to the ideals and play in the manner that Sabermetrics supports. And the Yankees pounded the A's for years in the playoffs.

 

The Red Sox, defending WS champs and all that, are a Moneyball team. Roberts is a Moneyball reserve. A pinch-running, good defensive, late-inning replacement. He is the ideal 5th OF for a Sabermetric team.

 

All of that aside, the stats clearly show that one should not bunt with high OPS players.