Where and why bunting sometimes is a decent idea, mathematically

[blacklistedbully]

Like many of my fellow posters, I've been subjected to countless game threads being hijacked by a guy who seems to insist there is never, ever an instance where bunting makes sense. Here is where that logic goes wrong from a math POV.

Let me start by saying, it really only applies when you are truly playing for 1-run, and 1- run is all you need.

If you are truly in a position where you're willing to decrease your chances of scoring more than 1 run in a given inning, and you have a runner on 1B with no outs, then the odds of scoring a single run by bunting the runner over to 2nd are nearly 6% greater than they are by, "swinging away".

When we look only at the overall statistics for "runs scored" or "run expectancy" for a game, it seems a slam-dunk that bunting is a bad idea. But when we look closely at the math for situations where the need for 1 run is paramount, math supports bunting the man to 2B as a better option, assuming you have a man at the plate who doesn't particularly suck at bunting.

While it does decrease your chances of scoring more than 1 run, and also slightly increases your chance of scoring zero runs, the increase in chances you'll score exactly one run is a good 4% better than the increased chance of scoring none.

All that said, I side with those who think playing for 1 run in an inning is a bad strategy overall if it's early in the game, and/or a situation where you aren't yet desperate to score a single run to extend or win the game.

[I seen it dawg]

There is a time and a place for every play in different situations in the great game of baseball. That's what makes it great. Idiot can't help but to be idiot.

[Smitty]

Nobody said NEVER Mr. Strawman. What bunt tonight are you referencing was a good one? The 9th? Why would we play for one in the 9th? It wasn't a tie game. You seem to agree with me that most of our bunts are ridiculous so why the vitriol here? And what are the ACTUAL numbers and percentages you are using?

Oppose me for its own sake, again.

[Todd4State]

Blasphemy.**

Most current sabermetric people including Bill James admit that there are indeed times and situations to bunt. As I have said all along, it just comes down to who the hitter is and who the pitcher is and the situation at hand.

Also a lot of people don't realize that the research is basically talking about fractions of a run in some cases. So, basically negligible as an outcome.

[Smitty]

Blasphemy.**

Most current sabermetric people including Bill James admit that there are indeed times and situations to bunt. As I have said all along, it just comes down to who the hitter is and who the pitcher is and the situation at hand.

Also a lot of people don't realize that the research is basically talking about fractions of a run in some cases. So, basically negligible as an outcome.

1. Assuming a good bunt
2. Most of our bunts would STILL qualify as dumb

[blacklistedbully]

Nobody said NEVER Mr. Strawman. What bunt tonight are you referencing was a good one? The 9th? Why would we play for one in the 9th? It wasn't a tie game. You seem to agree with me that most of our bunts are ridiculous so why the vitriol here? And what are the ACTUAL numbers and percentages you are using?

Oppose me for its own sake, again.

I didn't watch the game today, but if the situation was that we were down by 1 run late with no outs, then it's not a bad idea to bunt a guy to 2B. Tie the game so you can extend the game.

As far as the "vitriol" is concerned, I think your word choice is silly. I'm more than capable of, "vitriol". You didn't get it here. I did give you some ribbing about, "hijacking game threads" because that's exactly what you did over and over and over last season. You would pretty much ruin the thread for everyone else in game-after-game. We all got your point, understood your POV, even those who disagreed, but you would simply not stop posting ad nauseam about the same freaking thing. It was beyond obnoxious and you did it most every damn game. I suspect it's why your original board name got banned, am I correct?

[Smitty]

I didn't watch the game today, but if the situation was that we were down by 1 run late with no outs, then it's not a bad idea to bunt a guy to 2B. Tie the game so you can extend the game.

No, you win the game! Your best bats are up! It's 2-4 in the lineup, you win the game with those guys!

[I seen it dawg]

No, you win the game! Your best bats are up! It's 2-4 in the lineup, you win the game with those guys!

ASSUMING that works...

[I seen it dawg]

Nobody said NEVER Mr. Strawman. What bunt tonight are you referencing was a good one? The 9th? Why would we play for one in the 9th? It wasn't a tie game. You seem to agree with me that most of our bunts are ridiculous so why the vitriol here? And what are the ACTUAL numbers and percentages you are using?

Oppose me for its own sake, again.

But you NEVER give credit to something that works. Closest you get is a backhanded compliment. And that's rare.

[Smitty]

But you NEVER give credit to something that works. Closest you get is a backhanded compliment. And that's rare.

It's not about "working" or "not working" its about maximizing your chance of success.

If we pinch hit Myles Gentry for Seth Heck and he got a single would it be a good managerial decision?

The 9th happened because of 2 wild pitches.. The ODDS of relying on that are very low. More LIKELY you get the 1st inning result.

[I seen it dawg]

It's not about "working" or "not working" its about maximizing your chance of success.

If we pinch hit Myles Gentry for Seth Heck and he got a single would it be a good managerial decision?

The 9th happened because of 2 wild pitches.. The ODDS of relying on that are very low. More LIKELY you get the 1st inning result.

So how do you determine what maximizing our success should be?

[smootness]

While it does decrease your chances of scoring more than 1 run, and also slightly increases your chance of scoring zero runs, the increase in chances you'll score exactly one run is a good 4% better than the increased chance of scoring none.

You just ruined your whole point. If you're down one late, or even when tied, you're not trying to score exactly one run, you're trying to score at least one run. Put another way, you're just trying to not score 0 runs.

You definitely want to score 1 run, but obviously scoring 2 runs is also great in this scenario (especially if you're down 1), so scoring exactly 1 run isn't the goal; it's making sure you score at least one run.

The reason your odds of scoring both 0 and 1 runs both go up is because your odds of scoring more than 1 come down by so much. So some of the scenarios by which you would have scores more than one run by not bunting are now reduced to only 1 run, thus increasing the odds of scoring just the one run while not actually increasing the odds of scoring any runs.

How are the odds of scoring at least one run measured? This is the same as not scoring zero runs. So if your odds of scoring 0 runs increase, that means your odds of scoring at least 1 run decrease. So in your own post, your stats show it is still a bad idea.



If I didn't explain myself well enough:
If the percentages are as follows for not bunting (I know these aren't the actual %s but it will explain my point):
0 runs - 30%
1 run - 30%
2 runs - 30%
3+ runs - 10%
then you have a 70% chance of scoring at least one run.

If the percentages are as follows for bunting:
0 runs - 40%
1 run - 40%
2 runs - 15%
3+ runs - 5%
then you have increased the odds of scoring exactly one run, but you'd also increased the odds of not scoring any. Since not scoring any is far worse than scoring more than 1 obviously, who cares what the percentage is of scoring exactly one run? You just decreased your odds of tying or winning the game from 70% to 60%.

[Todd4State]

So how do you determine what maximizing our success should be?

Apparently in his case you read a book and go with it.

[Smitty]

Baseball: The only sport where new information and knowledge is willfully tossed aside.

Great post and logic smootness

[Todd4State]

1. Assuming a good bunt
2. Most of our bunts would STILL qualify as dumb

If you still straight up hit all the time, you only have a roughly 25-30% chance of getting a hit. Still not good odds.

[smootness]

Baseball: The only sport where new information and knowledge is willfully tossed aside.

Great post and logic smootness

I've always said that your point on bunting is generally correct, though there are times where I'm ok with it. You're absolutely correct that we've been doing it far too much, though, especially early in games.

The statement, 'While it does decrease your chances of scoring more than 1 run, and also slightly increases your chance of scoring zero runs,' literally means - 'While it decreases your chances of winning, it also slightly increases your chance of losing.' No clue how that's supposed to be an effective argument.

[Smitty]

If you still straight up hit all the time, you only have a roughly 25-30% chance of getting a hit. Still not good odds.

"Getting a hit" - we're on batting average now? Good odds? Whats the batting average on sac bunt attempts? I'd guess not very good! Thats why you have to look at the numbers and they excoriate bunting most of the time.

You could also….. walk, HBP, hit for extra bases even, maybe a HOME RUN! All NOT CAUSING AN OUT.

You keep harping on Bill James when he is saying what I'm saying. Not NEVER, but rare. You love it all the time!!! 90% of bunts you love Bill would advise against. Your attempt to paint me as saying "NEVER BUNT EVER EVER EVER!!1!11" is the straw man here. What just because Bill James and I say some bunts make sense, you try to use that to defend ANY bunt. You are illogical and truly don't understand the TRUTHS in baseball on this topic.

[Todd4State]

"Getting a hit" - we're on batting average now? Good odds? Whats the batting average on sac bunt attempts? I'd guess not very good! Thats why you have to look at the numbers and they excoriate bunting most of the time.

You could also….. walk, HBP, hit for extra bases even, maybe a HOME RUN! All NOT CAUSING AN OUT.

You keep harping on Bill James when he is saying what I'm saying. Not NEVER, but rare. You love it all the time!!! 90% of bunts you love Bill would advise against. Your attempt to paint me as saying "NEVER BUNT EVER EVER EVER!!1!11" is the straw man here. What just because Bill James and I say some bunts make sense, you try to use that to defend ANY bunt. You are illogical and truly don't understand the TRUTHS in baseball on this topic.

Of course the average on a sac bunt is low. I think it's like .050 or less off the top of my head. But that's not surprising since they are trying to get an out.

If you don't want to use batting average- we can use OBP. The odds of something good happening are still well less than 50%. With many of those outcomes resulting in the same thing as a bunt single- only one base.

I've not seen you say that a bunt was good one time ever. I have criticized a few bunts.

And yet, you continue to try to talk out of both sides of your mouth when you are exposed using stats.

What I'm talking about is not trying to limit the possibilities to just a walk, a HOME RUN, a triple, a double, single, HBP- I'm EXPANDING the possibilities making it more difficult to defend while taking advantage of a players talents while putting the team in an even BETTER position to score. Rather than just let them loiter around one base at a time and waiting for the odds to kick in. If you have someone that has speed- take advantage of it. I'm not talking about causing an out at all.

What's really funny to me is you're out of date and you don't even know it.

[engie]

The math is alot more complicated than it's been made and can be made to say a million things. I could use it to effectively argue both sides statistically...

I don't have as much of a problem playing for 1 in the 9th as I did with the bunt in the first. That's the one I found totally ridiculous.

If you don't bunt him over in the 9th, the two passed balls don't extend the game for you. Now, it could be argued that Brown could have done something better. But he could have done something worse too. You'd have to get pretty deep into his splits to put a percentage on that -- and how far you go allows it to be made to say whatever you want it to say. I would have no doubt turned him loose once the count got to 2-0 personally, fresh off a triple.

The shown squeeze by Robson was PERFECTLY executed on the passed ball that actually got the run home. Put the bat right in the catcher's eyes with no intent of actually laying it down and contributed to him looking like a total idiot -- like he never saw that pitch...which is the intent of that form of fake bunt...

[dawgoneyall]

People against bunting are idiots.

Not much to add to this.

[dawgs]

everyone knows bunting can be a good move when playing for only 1 run - almost exclusively in the 9th inning or extra innings of a tied game or down 1 run with a man on base and 0 outs. i wouldn't bunt in the 9th and needing 1 run if there was 1 out though. our problem is we bunt a lot of times when we we shouldn't just be going for 1 run.

[Irondawg]

As always there is a time and place for everything and you have to sometime go with your gut. The problem is that Cohen is going against statistically odds at an alarming rate - much more than other teams i've watched and while it does work sometimes, i don't think we are beating the predicted odds overall.

And keep in mind that bunting in an effort to get a hit is different than sac bunting.

[PMDawg]

I dont have a problem with bunting, per se, but the fact is we suck at it and we over use it. The first inning bunt was extremely idiotic. Doing it when playing with a 3+ run lead (unless very late in the game) is idiotic. Doing it with hot hitters and middle of the order guys is stupid. We also record outs without moving runners on failed bunt attempts at an alarming rate. Our failure rate is much too high to justify doing it more than once or twice a game.

[PMDawg]

Discount double post.

Deleted

[Smitty]

We currently lead the conference in sac bunts with 20.

Texas A&M has 5
Florida has 5
South Carolina has 6
LSU has 9

We are being left behind strategically. The worst teams are bunting, the best teams aren't.

Sac bunts
---------
1. Mississippi State... 20
2. Tennessee........... 19
3. Auburn.............. 14
4. Georgia............. 12
5. Ole Miss............ 11
6. Vanderbilt.......... 10
7. Kentucky............ 9
LSU......……......... 9
9. Alabama............. 8
10.South Carolina...... 6
11.Missouri............ 5
Florida......………... 5
Texas A&M........... 5
14.Arkansas............ 3

[PMDawg]

The saddest part is we probably lead in failed attempts by double digits.

[Smitty]

The saddest part is we probably lead in failed attempts by double digits.

Likely.

It's unbelieveable we have over twice as many sac bunts as all but 4 league teams... And those 4 suck.

[blacklistedbully]

You just ruined your whole point. If you're down one late, or even when tied, you're not trying to score exactly one run, you're trying to score at least one run. Put another way, you're just trying to not score 0 runs.

You definitely want to score 1 run, but obviously scoring 2 runs is also great in this scenario (especially if you're down 1), so scoring exactly 1 run isn't the goal; it's making sure you score at least one run.

The reason your odds of scoring both 0 and 1 runs both go up is because your odds of scoring more than 1 come down by so much. So some of the scenarios by which you would have scores more than one run by not bunting are now reduced to only 1 run, thus increasing the odds of scoring just the one run while not actually increasing the odds of scoring any runs.

How are the odds of scoring at least one run measured? This is the same as not scoring zero runs. So if your odds of scoring 0 runs increase, that means your odds of scoring at least 1 run decrease. So in your own post, your stats show it is still a bad idea.



If I didn't explain myself well enough:
If the percentages are as follows for not bunting (I know these aren't the actual %s but it will explain my point):
0 runs - 30%
1 run - 30%
2 runs - 30%
3+ runs - 10%
then you have a 70% chance of scoring at least one run.

If the percentages are as follows for bunting:
0 runs - 40%
1 run - 40%
2 runs - 15%
3+ runs - 5%
then you have increased the odds of scoring exactly one run, but you'd also increased the odds of not scoring any. Since not scoring any is far worse than scoring more than 1 obviously, who cares what the percentage is of scoring exactly one run? You just decreased your odds of tying or winning the game from 70% to 60%.

You are wrong. If one looks at the stats from a mathematical equation, the odds of scoring one run in a situation where you have a man on first with no outs are at their highest when you bunt the man to second. The price you pay for that is a reduction in the chance to score more than one run. This is the problem inherent with those who use a "total runs scored" approach when analyzing the situation. The numbers get skewed because they are impacted by the innings where multiple runs are scored.

Nothing in my posts, "ruined my point". You just don't seem to have grasped the point. Broken down, the math suggests that, if you are playing for exactly 1 run in an inning that starts with a man on first and no outs, the very best chance statistically is to bunt that guy to 2nd. Again, even though it reduces your chance of scoring more than 1 run, it actually does increase the chance you will score precisely 1 run. That suggests bunting is a plausible strategy in situations where that 1 run is desperately needed at that point in the game.

Think of it as laying up on the golf course. Sure, you can go for it on your drive, increasing your chance of a lower score. But if you're in a spot where you really just need PAR, it sometimes makes sense to play it safely into the fairway, even if you are conceding a possible birdie. Nobody is suggesting you can win a tournament by playing safe the entire round, but there are times when it just makes sense. If you do it on every hole, you are rarely, if ever going to win, but that doesn't mean you don't do it situationally. Going for it greatly increases your chances of going sub-par on any given hole, but it comes at the cost of reducing the chance of getting PAR. Players who win usually go for it, but they also know when it makes sense to just take the PAR.

It's a situational thing that can't be looked at in the vacuum of overall stats and "run expectancy" over the course of an entire game. It can't really be looked only in the vacuum of, "overall run expectancy in an inning", as that view completely discounts the strategy of, "playing for 1 run". The, "1-run" issue is the big factor here.

Sure, if you want to maximize the runs you produce over the course of a game, automatically bunting every time you have a man on 1B with no outs is not a good way to go statistically, because if you swing away in that situation most of the game, you'll more often score more than 1 run. But if your objective is to do everything you can to try and get 1, then bunting makes sense.

And a big flaw in your statistics is that the percentages of scoring, "zero runs" only goes up about 2%, while the chances of scoring exactly one go up about 6%. Here are the actual percentages for man on 1B, no outs:

Swing away:
0 runs - 57.6%
1 run - 18.94
2 runs - 12.29
3 runs - 6.09
4+ runs - 5.08

Bunting:
0 runs - 59.39%
1 run - 24.63
2 runs - 9.28
3 runs - 4.05
4+ - 2.65

[smootness]

My point is that you're not playing for exactly one run. You're playing for at least one run, so looking only at the chances of scoring exactly 1 run doesn't help you in evaluating it. You have to take your combined chances of scoring 1 run, 2 runs, 3 runs, etc. In other words, your chances of scoring more than 0 runs.

Since you admitted that bunting the guy to 2nd actually increases your chances of scoring 0 runs, you are admitting that it is a dumb move.

Because again, if you decrease your chances of scoring more than one run while also increasing your chances of scoring 0 runs, all you've done is decrease your chances of winning while also increasing your chances of losing. Making it a very bad decision.

The '1 run' isn't the big factor here. It's the '0 runs' since that's what you're trying to avoid.

Your golf analogy would be similar if by laying up, you not only decreased your chances for a birdie but also increased your chances of a bogey. If you simply need a par, then you want whatever play gives you the best chance for doing better than a bogey, not only getting a par.

Like I said, you ruined your own point.

[blacklistedbully]

I've always said that your point on bunting is generally correct, though there are times where I'm ok with it. You're absolutely correct that we've been doing it far too much, though, especially early in games.

The statement, 'While it does decrease your chances of scoring more than 1 run, and also slightly increases your chance of scoring zero runs,' literally means - 'While it decreases your chances of winning, it also slightly increases your chance of losing.' No clue how that's supposed to be an effective argument.

You being, "clueless" on this one has nothing to do with the effectiveness of my argument, or the supporting statistics. You apparently just don't, "get it", and are over-simplifying.

You continue to look at it from too general a perspective. You are not grasping that there are times when a team REALLY REALLY REALLY needs to do their best to get 1 run, not, "at least 1 run", but 1 run to stay in the game. If you know anything at all about risk analysis, you should be able to get this. It is a fact, statistically that the very best odds, in general of scoring 1 run in a man on 1B no outs scenario is to bunt the guy to 2nd. It comes at a cost, that being that you reduce your chance of scoring more than 1.

Of course there are contributing factors that do matter, such as personnel involved, including their relative health, whether they are currently performing at a level that differs from their to-date stats, who is pitching for us, who is pitching for them, etc, etc. Those are thing a coach or manager may know that we don't, and we are relying on our coaches to know those things and base their decision at least in part on those factors.

All this said, I tend to agree with all those who say we bunt way too much and in situations that don't seem to make sense. The purpose of my posts in this thread was to simply point out that there are instances where bunting is an absolutely viable strategy, and to back it up with statistics.

[smootness]

Scoring 2 runs is not worse than scoring 1 run, though. That's where your issue comes in. It's not always better, but it's never worse.

The bottom line is that if your odds of scoring 0 runs increases, no other statistic matters as that's the only outcome you're trying to avoid.

[Smitty]

It's about the odds of scoring. Smootness is correct. Anything that raises the odds of not scoring at all is bad in this case.

Our bunt numbers compared to the league is shocking. Especially what teams are bunting and not

[blacklistedbully]

Scoring 2 runs is not worse than scoring 1 run, though. That's where your issue comes in. It's not always better, but it's never worse.

The bottom line is that if your odds of scoring 0 runs increases, no other statistic matters as that's the only outcome you're trying to avoid.

You really just don't get it. Your scenario that increases chances of scoring 2 runs also decrease the chances of scoring 1 run. Statistically, the reason the odds of scoring zero go up when bunting is because the odds of scoring 2 or more go way down. Not all of that goes to increasing the, "1-run" probability, a smaller portion of the redistribution goes to, "zero runs". You are getting hopelessly lost in the, "at least 1", or, "more than one" loop.

To grasp this, you only have to consider, "what is the greatest chance of scoring the one run I need this inning?" It's not about maximizing the total potential of, "expected runs". It't about maximizing the chances of getting 1 run. You are making a false argument that, "the better odds of scoring more than one" precludes the possibility that the odds of scoring just one are better in certain circumstances. That is an incorrect assumption, statistically.

[blacklistedbully]

Maximizing the, "potential runs" in a given situation does not, by default also offer the best odds of scoring 1 run. If you can't grasp the logic behind this statement, you will never understand the point.

[LiterallyPolice]

Blacklisted, I hate to break it to you, but smoot has you on this one. You can basically divide the percentages into two groups: Scoring 0 runs (unfavorable) and scoring 1+ runs (favorable).

Also, I saw the exact same percentages that you posted here:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2013/8/7/4590940/a-statistical-defense-sort-of-of-the-sac-bunt

And the percentages you listed for the "Bunting" scenario are actually the percentages for "Man on 2nd with one out". This assumes the bunt is 100% successful. In other words, you don't take the failed bunt into consideration.

So, if you are looking strictly at the %'s, and you want to score one run, the percentages you list suggest you definitely SHOULD NOT bunt. Moreover, the percentages you list do not consider a failed bunt, swaying the decision even further into the DO NOT BUNT category.

(***DISCLAIMER: This is strictly looking at the %'s. Not specific situations.***)

[blacklistedbully]

Blacklisted, I hate to break it to you, but smoot has you on this one. You can basically divide the percentages into two groups: Scoring 0 runs (unfavorable) and scoring 1+ runs (favorable).

Also, I saw the exact same percentages that you posted here:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2013/8/7/4590940/a-statistical-defense-sort-of-of-the-sac-bunt

And the percentages you listed for the "Bunting" scenario are actually the percentages for "Man on 2nd with one out". This assumes the bunt is 100% successful. In other words, you don't take the failed bunt into consideration.

So, if you are looking strictly at the %'s, and you want to score one run, the percentages you list suggest you definitely SHOULD NOT bunt. Moreover, the percentages you list do not consider a failed bunt, swaying the decision even further into the DO NOT BUNT category.

(***DISCLAIMER: This is strictly looking at the %'s. Not specific situations.***)

I noticed that too. I am admittedly assuming the author factored that into his calculations. If he did not, the entire article is beyond stupid and fatally flawed. I am giving the author, an admittedly anti-bunt guy, the benefit of the doubt on this, as he is clearly not coming from the perspective of a pro-bunt guy, rather he is admitting that a case can be made in limited circumstances.

[Todd4State]

We currently lead the conference in sac bunts with 20.

Texas A&M has 5
Florida has 5
South Carolina has 6
LSU has 9

We are being left behind strategically. The worst teams are bunting, the best teams aren't.

Sac bunts
---------
1. Mississippi State... 20
2. Tennessee........... 19
3. Auburn.............. 14
4. Georgia............. 12
5. Ole Miss............ 11
6. Vanderbilt.......... 10
7. Kentucky............ 9
LSU......……......... 9
9. Alabama............. 8
10.South Carolina...... 6
11.Missouri............ 5
Florida......………... 5
Texas A&M........... 5
14.Arkansas............ 3

We lead the SEC in OBP and RUNS SCORED. And yet, we are "the worst team".

[smootness]

You really just don't get it. Your scenario that increases chances of scoring 2 runs also decrease the chances of scoring 1 run. Statistically, the reason the odds of scoring zero go up when bunting is because the odds of scoring 2 or more go way down. Not all of that goes to increasing the, "1-run" probability, a smaller portion of the redistribution goes to, "zero runs". You are getting hopelessly lost in the, "at least 1", or, "more than one" loop.

To grasp this, you only have to consider, "what is the greatest chance of scoring the one run I need this inning?" It's not about maximizing the total potential of, "expected runs". It't about maximizing the chances of getting 1 run. You are making a false argument that, "the better odds of scoring more than one" precludes the possibility that the odds of scoring just one are better in certain circumstances. That is an incorrect assumption, statistically.

:facepalm:

You think I'm talking about run expectancy, which is a flawed statistic, and I'm not. The reason run expectancy is flawed is because it may give you the average number of runs you're expected to score, but it doesn't tell you the odds of scoring vs. not scoring.

But you brought up the fact that your odds of scoring 0 runs at all increase by bunting. That's bad. It's actually the only bad outcome. Scoring 1 run in a game you're losing by 1 is good, but scoring 2 is even better. Scoring 1 run in a tie game is good, and scoring 2 is just as good. But scoring 0 in either case is the only bad outcome. So you yourself said that bunting in that scenario is bad, you just didn't realize it.

I really don't know how else to explain it. I'm not trying to increase the total of expected runs. I'm just trying to make sure I don't score 0. Like I've said multiple times, you said that bunting both decreases the chances of winning while also increasing the chances of losing. That's the worst of both worlds. If the odds of scoring 2+ runs decrease while the odds of scoring 0 also decrease, you would have a point. But that's not the case.

[blacklistedbully]

"Over the past couple of decades baseball analysts have seemingly discredited the bunt in all but the most obvious situations. Much of their evidence is based on the use of an overall run expectation table that reveals a loss of run potential even with a successful sacrifice. These overall expected runs tables, however, fail to differentiate between the innumerable possible scenarios of the ability of the hitter at bat and those following in sequence. Subdividing the data by batting order position allows a look at more finely dissected sequences of player ability. Although most of this analysis still indicates a successful bunt does not increase the run potential, it certainly shows that it in certain base/out situations it is not as detrimental as commonly believed. In fact, disaggregating by batting order still averages over many different player ability sequences, suggesting that in a number of instances a bunt may actually increase the run potential.

The Retrosheet play-by-play data allows us to partially test this hypothesis that managers can outperform the run expectation tables by a selective employment of the bunt. While not conclusive, the data here is clearly suggestive: in some base/out situations teams do increase the run expectation with a sacrifice bunt beyond the overall run potential implied by the ERT. And furthermore, even in those cases in which the runs expected over the remainder of an inning after a sacrifice bunt are less than that derived from the ERT, the decrease is typically less than the derived value. In addition we can assume that a manager typically bunts in those situations in which the specific sequence of batters is inferior to the average reflected by the ERT.

It is in the case of playing for one run, however, that the overall aptitude of managerial decisions shows up most clearly. As table 6 reveals, when managers bunt they usually increase the likelihood of scoring at least one run in the inning. And this increase is materially greater than that suggested by simply looking at run probability tables. While the bunt should and will remain a controversial managerial decision, it is clear that managers use it more judiciously than a cursory analysis based on the run expectation and probability tables would suggest."

Dan Levitt is the co-author of Paths to Glory, winner of the 2004 Sporting News-SABR Baseball Research Award. He manages the capital markets for a national commercial real estate firm.

[smootness]

I don't know what all the statistics show. I was going based on the numbers you gave, which are the exact opposite of what you just quoted.

So if you are trying to now disprove your own numbers, ok, but I'm not sure what to do now...

[PMDawg]

You really just don't get it. Your scenario that increases chances of scoring 2 runs also decrease the chances of scoring 1 run. Statistically, the reason the odds of scoring zero go up when bunting is because the odds of scoring 2 or more go way down. Not all of that goes to increasing the, "1-run" probability, a smaller portion of the redistribution goes to, "zero runs". You are getting hopelessly lost in the, "at least 1", or, "more than one" loop.

To grasp this, you only have to consider, "what is the greatest chance of scoring the one run I need this inning?" It's not about maximizing the total potential of, "expected runs". It't about maximizing the chances of getting 1 run. You are making a false argument that, "the better odds of scoring more than one" precludes the possibility that the odds of scoring just one are better in certain circumstances. That is an incorrect assumption, statistically.

I dont think you could be more wrong if you wanted to. But carry on making a fool of yourself.

[Smitty]

We lead the SEC in OBP and RUNS SCORED. And yet, we are "the worst team".

No. Mostly the best teams are not bunting. And we've played bs teams.

[smootness]

I do think it's something Cohen has to look at. It seems as though for the most part, bunting correlates with a lack of talent. Teams with less hitting talent are trying to play for single runs more. If this is the case, we need to evaluate the kind of talent we have.

Any manager who refuses to look at the actual statistics showing average results of certain decisions is hurting himself for no reason.

It would be like a basketball coach telling the center who shoots 8% from 3 to continue going out there and launching them. 'I don't care what these advanced stats show, I'm going on feel.' We would crucify that coach, for good reason.

[blacklistedbully]

Here's a link to a pretty good article that discusses ERT, run expectancy, and actual data from real games. It's a long and detailed read, and parts of it can be cherry-picked to support either side. http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php

One of the things I find interesting is that, "actual events" have out-performed the ERT tables that were based on simulations. Mostly this is attributed to managers taking into account the parameters of the specific situation, such as who is on base, how many outs, how is at bat, are we playing for, "1 run" versus, "maximizing run potential", etc.

There are also sections that deal with the legitimacy of choosing a, "one run strategy" over a, "max run potential strategy", both as judged by ERT tables and actual occurrences in MLB over 2 decades. Of course, it's an inexact science, as there are simply some potential factors we just can't possibly know, but it does give us some interesting data.

[blacklistedbully]

I dont think you could be more wrong if you wanted to. But carry on making a fool of yourself.

Look, the only one coming across as a fool right now is you for being a complete asshole by bringing unprovoked personal insults into the thread. Clearly, this is still a subject of hot debate, and one that has intelligent people arguing on both sides.

But carry on making an ass of yourself.

[smootness]

That article shows that your probability of scoring a run decreases from .432 to .414 by bunting the guy over to second.

But I was never talking about a 'max run potential' strategy. You seem to have confused my saying 'at least one run' with 'more than one run'.

But either way, your last post confused me as to what you are even claiming the stats show, and we're going nowhere, so I'm just going to bow out now.

[Smitty]

http://www.boydsworld.com/data/ert.html

Bunting a guy from 1st to 2nd decreases your chances of scoring. And that assumes 100% bunt success. When factoring in bunt fails it clearly shows the sac in most situations is bad.

[blacklistedbully]

That article shows that your probability of scoring a run decreases from .432 to .414 by bunting the guy over to second.

But I was never talking about a 'max run potential' strategy. You seem to have confused my saying 'at least one run' with 'more than one run'.

But either way, your last post confused me as to what you are even claiming the stats show, and we're going nowhere, so I'm just going to bow out now.

You have to read the whole article. It appears you read to a part that supported your POV, then stopped. I found some that supported mine, then kept going, and learned a great deal more than I knew when I started this thread, some that made me question my original line-of-thought as well.

In the end, the data seems to suggest that bunting is sometimes a viable strategy if the manager or coach is doing it in the right spots for the right reasons. It does seem to suggest that part of that strategy can include whether a manager feels his team needs a higher probability at 1-run than he needs to score multiple runs. It's not an all-or-nothing thing.

Both sides on this thread make some valid points. Very general ones we can probably all agree on is that sac bunting can be WAY overdone and hurt a team's chances of winning a game, and that there can absolutely be scenarios where it makes sense to play for a single run by incorporating the sac bunt, even though doing so statistically reduces the average, "expected runs" based on the simpler ERT tables that some here want to use.

[Todd4State]

No. Mostly the best teams are not bunting. And we've played bs teams.

Everybody else has also played mostly BS teams.

[LiterallyPolice]

http://www.boydsworld.com/data/ert.html

Bunting a guy from 1st to 2nd decreases your chances of scoring. And that assumes 100% bunt success. When factoring in bunt fails it clearly shows the sac in most situations is bad.

I for the most part agree with you. But obviously these runs tables aggregate so much data that they "smooth out" any individual characteristics of a situation that may change things. For example, I would like to see what the run tables would look like if you had a .200 hitter coming to the plate that hits a lot of ground balls. I'd like to see if bunting in this situation would maximize your expected runs.

Is data like that out there anywhere?

[blacklistedbully]

http://www.boydsworld.com/data/ert.html

Bunting a guy from 1st to 2nd decreases your chances of scoring. And that assumes 100% bunt success. When factoring in bunt fails it clearly shows the sac in most situations is bad.

From the article:
"Table 4 provides a little more evidence of why managers bunt. The probability of scoring a run decreases only from .432 with a runner on first and no outs to .414 with a runner on second and one out. As these values represent an overall average of all games, one can imagine that it many cases it surely increases the probability. Once again we can generate these tables by batting order position as a surrogate for the multiple batter sequences that can produce a huge variation in expected outcome."

Do you get that what the author is saying is that, on overall average the chances of scoring one run decrease so little that a manager/coach must consider who his personnel are at the time to make the best call? In other words, depending on who is OB, who is Ab and who is coming after, the odds of scoring the one run can, in fact be a little better by bunting.

It simply does not make sense to base the decision to bunt or not bunt based on an overall ERT table. When you start to dig deeper into how the numbers change based on batting order and/or position it get's even murkier. Now consider again that the coach/manager may be privy to some info we are not, like how the specific players involved are doing today, or how they've been doing recently compared to year-to-date.

For example, maybe the coach/manager knows a certain player with a low average has actually been smoking the ball lately, just right at people, or that another has a great average, but has been getting a lot of lucky Texas-Leaguers, or benefiting from, "finding the hole" on steal attepts and/or hit-and-runs, etc. Maybe he knows his 3-hitter looked out-of-it in the cage pre-game.

There are any number of things we may not know that the coach/manager does, so we might should consider that when we evaluate whether or not he is making the right call. This is not to say that Coach Cohen isn't making mistakes. In fact, I tend to think that he does call for the sac bunt entirely too often, and in what appears to be, based on what I perceive the circumstances to be, the wrong time.

But I am not among those who think the sac bunt is almost always a bad idea. And I am not one who thinks these decisions should be based soley on ERT, particularly those very general ones I suspect most anti-bunt folks are referencing.

[Smitty]

Everybody else has also played mostly BS teams.

Has everyone lost to the SWAC?

You are the one trying to put words in my mouth. For the most part the best teams in our league are at the bottom of the sac list and the worst teams are at the top.

[blacklistedbully]

I for the most part agree with you. But obviously these runs tables aggregate so much data that they "smooth out" any individual characteristics of a situation that may change things. For example, I would like to see what the run tables would look like if you had a .200 hitter coming to the plate that hits a lot of ground balls. I'd like to see if bunting in this situation would maximize your expected runs.

Is data like that out there anywhere?

Closest thing I've seen so far are a couple of the tables on the link I reference earlier. It also goes into the, "bunt success rate" one would think necessary to justify the sac bunt attempt as a method to achieve at least 1 run as opposed to maximizing potential runs, something you brought up in your first post, I believe.

[Todd4State]

Has everyone lost to the SWAC?

You are the one trying to put words in my mouth. For the most part the best teams in our league are at the bottom of the sac list and the worst teams are at the top.

Has everyone else beat Arizona twice and is ranked 22nd in the country right now?

I didn't put words in your mouth at all. YOU said the WORST teams are sac bunting more and then put up the stat that shows that we lead the SEC in SAC bunts. I pointed out the FACT that we lead the SEC runs scored and OBP. And now you're trying to pretend like you didn't really say that the worst team are sac bunting and hope that everyone is too stupid to realize it. Either way you try to paint it, you're still wrong.

In fact, we are also currently 35th in the country in batting average, second in the country in OBP, and 22nd in the country in runs scored per game out of 300 teams. We're also 89th in the country in slugging percentage which is not stellar, but more than respectable considering we've been without Collins most of the season and Rea and now Humphreys have missed significant time.

The REAL issue right now is the bullpen.

[Smitty]

Todd gonna Todd

[Bucky Dog]

I believe I can end this discussion once and for all if:

1. Smitty agrees that there is at least 1-2 situations in a game where the bunt is absolutely the right call.
2. The Rest of us agree that Cohen over uses the bunt, and in situations where it is not the right call.
3. Everyone agree that there will always be a few "gray" areas where the decision to bunt or not to bunt can debated.

With that said, UCLA won the NC with this philosophy, but they had a team BA of like .250 and a team ERA of just above 2 if I remember correctly. They HAD to manufacture runs and the HAD the pitching to play that way. We have at least 3-4 guys in the lineup at any given time that can hit the ball out of the park. Players who can hit for average, and guys with speed. We do NOT have the superb pitching right now either.
So, IMO, let the players swing the bat and be aggressive at the plate. Steal bases and hit and run to put pressure on the other team but quit giving away so many outs during the game via bunt/bunt fail attempts.