Project for Smitty...

[engie]

Go through the situation inning by inning breakdown of runs scored when we bunt vs runs scored when we don't for us again over the last 2 season... Along with the difference in 2013. I'll see to it that the numbers get to our coaching staff, so they at least have that information at their disposal. That has been the best/most glaring way you've ever presented it....

[maroonmania]

There have actually been innings where we had base runners and didn't bunt? Wow, who knew?

[State82]

The sample size for the "didn't bunt" stat will be minuscule

[maroonmania]

The sample size for the "didn't bunt" stat will be minuscule

Yep, and would be cases primarily where we didn't get our first base runner in that inning until we already had 2 outs.

[BulldogBear]

There have actually been innings where we had base runners and didn't bunt? Wow, who knew?

Made me chuckle.

Really look forward to these metrics

[War Machine Dawg]

Made me chuckle.

Really look forward to these metrics

Hey Bear, GoT is returning soon. Methinks it's time for you to make a return to Bovine Scat and expand on some of your theories. Baseball clearly isn't going to keep us entertained and we aren't going to have a hoops coaching search to follow.

[BulldogBear]

Hey Bear, GoT is returning soon. Methinks it's time for you to make a return to Bovine Scat and expand on some of your theories. Baseball clearly isn't going to keep us entertained and we aren't going to have a hoops coaching search to follow.

Perhaps. I'm PO'd at GRRM right now. If he'd put out the next blinkin' book, which will likely confirm or debunk several of my theories, I wouldn't have so many tangents running around in my head. The light hurts my eyes***

[War Machine Dawg]

Perhaps. I'm PO'd at GRRM right now. If he'd put out the next blinkin' book, which will likely confirm or debunk several of my theories, I wouldn't have so many tangents running around in my head. The light hurts my eyes***

Can't disagree there. He needs to get his old, fat ass in gear and get out Winds of Winter. I've already resigned myself to the fact that the show is going to finish ahead of the books.

[engie]

Perhaps. I'm PO'd at GRRM right now. If he'd put out the next blinkin' book, which will likely confirm or debunk several of my theories, I wouldn't have so many tangents running around in my head. The light hurts my eyes***

I think his story is just infinitely expanding... He's built this whole world in such great detail(I've never found even remotely similar interest in a fantasy series even though I love fantasy stuff) that the complexity has grown to the point that there is just no satisfying manner in which to tie up the loose ends. It's such an organic story with so many players. Even when he quits writing about all of this at the "conclusion" -- I don't see any way that "The Game of Thrones" isn't still being played. Targaryen dragons surviving and supporting the IT is the only true shift in the power balance that could give a logical(and logically enduring) conclusion IMO...

[Tbonewannabe]

Can't disagree there. He needs to get his old, fat ass in gear and get out Winds of Winter. I've already resigned myself to the fact that the show is going to finish ahead of the books.

He supposedly has 2 people helping him now try to stay ahead of the show. Of course book 6 was supposed to come out last year I think.

[Dawg Corps]

Smitty, can you also run some sort of analysis on whether Game of Thrones and MSU baseball are even remotely interrelated? Please provide results in the form of a white paper. Thanks.

[Smitty]

Nothing will ever touch 2012.... Nothing.

In sec play we got the lead off on first and bunted 26 times... Scored just six times. Only one run each time.

[BulldogBear]

Smitty, can you also run some sort of analysis on whether Game of Thrones and MSU baseball are even remotely interrelated? Please provide results in the form of a white paper. Thanks.

A white paper is too clean of a media on which to present said analyis report. Surely it needs a blood stain or two and a doodle of a bat and two baseballs in one corner. For GOT to really own its portion of the analysis it would probably behoove the preparer to arrange the bat and balls in a particular way.

[Ralph]

Nothing will ever touch 2012.... Nothing.

In sec play we got the lead off on first and bunted 26 times... Scored just six times. Only one run each time.

Be curious for same info for 2013 and 2014. I've never seen this cohen stat, but that is embarrassingly awful.

[messageboardsuperhero]

Nothing will ever touch 2012.... Nothing.

In sec play we got the lead off on first and bunted 26 times... Scored just six times. Only one run each time.

Insane. That probably doesn't even count the number of times we got ourselves out by failing to get a bunt down.

So many wasted outs...

[War Machine Dawg]

Insane. That probably doesn't even count the number of times we got ourselves out by failing to get a bunt down.

So many wasted outs...

I'd bet Smitty has that somewhere. And yes, that number has to be shockingly high.

[shoeless joe]

What is GoT?

[Tbonewannabe]

Game of Thrones

[Dawg61]

Nothing will ever touch 2012.... Nothing.

In sec play we got the lead off on first and bunted 26 times... Scored just six times. Only one run each time.

Wow. There's no way Cohen can defend it anymore. Problem is Cohen is the most stubborn bastard ever so what can be done?

[Smitty]

I looked at the innings which our leadoff man got on first base in conference play for analysis. I looked at what the outcomes where when we immediately followed a leadoff one-bagger (Hit, HBP, BB, IBB, etc) man on 1st 0 out. I knew it was bad, but nothing like this.

With man on 1st, 0 out. WE BUNT
Occurrences: 26
Score a run: 6
# of runs : 6

We bunted in that position 26 times, only scoring 6 times, one run each inning. That is 23% which is off the charts bad yielding .2 runs/inning. Thats after having a man on 1st and no outs

With a man on 1st, 0 out. WE DONT BUNT
Occurrences: 66
Score a run: 36
# of runs: 77

We didnt bunt in that situation 66 times, scoring 36 times, with many occurrences of multiple runs. That is 55% of innings we score yielding 1.12 runs/inning, A FULL RUN higher than bunting in the same situation.

55% > 23% of innings we score
1.12 > 0.2 runs per inning

Say what you want about me and this issue. These statistics don't lie.

My post from Sixpack on May 11th, 2012.

[messageboardsuperhero]

I looked at the innings which our leadoff man got on first base in conference play for analysis. I looked at what the outcomes where when we immediately followed a leadoff one-bagger (Hit, HBP, BB, IBB, etc) man on 1st 0 out. I knew it was bad, but nothing like this.

With man on 1st, 0 out. WE BUNT
Occurrences: 26
Score a run: 6
# of runs : 6

We bunted in that position 26 times, only scoring 6 times, one run each inning. That is 23% which is off the charts bad yielding .2 runs/inning. Thats after having a man on 1st and no outs

With a man on 1st, 0 out. WE DONT BUNT
Occurrences: 66
Score a run: 36
# of runs: 77

We didnt bunt in that situation 66 times, scoring 36 times, with many occurrences of multiple runs. That is 55% of innings we score yielding 1.12 runs/inning, A FULL RUN higher than bunting in the same situation.

55% > 23% of innings we score
1.12 > 0.2 runs per inning

Say what you want about me and this issue. These statistics don't lie.


My post from Sixpack on May 11th, 2012.

My God, I had no idea it was THAT bad... Of course that's from 2012, but I bet the numbers would be pretty consistent this year if we had a larger sample size. Cohen needs to check his ego and let the players hit- it is undeniable at this point.

ETA: And again, that doesn't even count the times we fail to get the bunt down and end up having to swing away in pitcher's counts... Which undoubtably make the "bunt" numbers look better than they actually are and the "no bunt" numbers look worse than they actually are.

[Smitty]

This is where I said bunting HURTS bad hitting teams worse, not the other way around. The meme is bad hitting teams have to manufacture runs. That's true in a sense but sac bunting is NOT part of that. Bad hitting teams being forced to give away a free out just makes them so much worse.

[Bo Darville]

Smitty said he is from Tupelo. I assume he goes to elementary school, so maybe he could work on this at recess.

[Smitty]

Smitty said he is from Tupelo. I assume he goes to elementary school, so maybe he could work on this at recess.

Rent free in your head

[Bo Darville]

Rent free in your head

It's no secret that I don't like you.

[blacklistedbully]

Smitty said he is from Tupelo. I assume he goes to elementary school, so maybe he could work on this at recess.

The dude brings up good points. My only problem with WJ/Smitty is his unrelenting need to ruin game threads with constant bitching about the same thing over & over, as if we don't all already know his POV.

But this is a thread specifically about the question of bunting as a strategy, and more specifically asking for his input. I'm reading it because I'm interested in hearing his details and the discussion, because it's in the proper forum, IMO.

[blacklistedbully]

Quote Originally Posted by Old Will James 6-pack profile View Post
I looked at the innings which our leadoff man got on first base in conference play for analysis. I looked at what the outcomes where when we immediately followed a leadoff one-bagger (Hit, HBP, BB, IBB, etc) man on 1st 0 out. I knew it was bad, but nothing like this.

With man on 1st, 0 out. WE BUNT
Occurrences: 26
Score a run: 6
# of runs : 6

We bunted in that position 26 times, only scoring 6 times, one run each inning. That is 23% which is off the charts bad yielding .2 runs/inning. Thats after having a man on 1st and no outs

With a man on 1st, 0 out. WE DONT BUNT
Occurrences: 66
Score a run: 36
# of runs: 77

We didnt bunt in that situation 66 times, scoring 36 times, with many occurrences of multiple runs. That is 55% of innings we score yielding 1.12 runs/inning, A FULL RUN higher than bunting in the same situation.

55% > 23% of innings we score
1.12 > 0.2 runs per inning

Say what you want about me and this issue. These statistics don't lie.

What stands out to me is, how far above the average we score a run when swinging away. Assuming your stats are correct, we are scoring a run in those situations at a rate that is 3 times higher than the average in MLB over a 10-year period, according to the study we discussed last week. In that study, a run scored less than 19% of the time when swinging-away. We're greater then 55%?

[Smitty]

Remember those were the 2012 SEC numbers... Boyd says man on 1st no outs scored 49% of the time. Swinging away scored 55% for us. Bunting scored 23% for us.

Swinging away was supposed to yield 1.07 runs in the inning. We scored 1.12 swinging away. 0.2 bunting.



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

[messageboardsuperhero]

So you are 3% more likely to score with a man on 3rd and one out than you are to score with a man on 2nd and no outs?

Outs 0 1 2
Empty 32% 18% 07%
1st 49% 32% 15%
2nd 70% 47% 25%
1st and 2nd 71% 49% 27%
3rd 89% 73% 32%
1st and 3rd 89% 70% 34%
2nd and 3rd 89% 73% 32%
Loaded 90% 72% 39%

Boy, giving away that out after a leadoff double on the sac bunt (virtually kill any chance of scoring multiple runs) really looks like a smart move now.***

[Smitty]

So you are 3% more likely to score with a man on 3rd and one out than you are to score with a man on 2nd and no outs?

That assunes around a 95% bunt success rate getting him there as well. Something that obviously cannot be assumed.

[blacklistedbully]

OK, so I looked at your linked tables, and it appears Boyd does not differentiate between, "swinging away" and "bunting" in those ERT tables. So, when he shows, "at least 1 run scored" 52%/49% of the time with runner on 1st and no outs, it's also including runs scored when bunting the runner to 2b. Where is the link showing the breakdown you mention?

[engie]

OK, so I looked at your linked tables, and it appears Boyd does not differentiate between, "swinging away" and "bunting" in those ERT tables. So, when he shows, "at least 1 run scored" 52%/49% of the time with runner on 1st and no outs, it's also including runs scored when bunting to the runner to 2b.

In that situation, the comparison would be "runner at second one out" for the bunt after the leadoff base runner vs "runner at first no outs" for the leadoff single not followed by a bunt. So on, so forth. That's how you make the comparisons. These tables aren't perfectly accurate -- in that they don't account for failed sac bunts. But they also don't account for sac bunt errors/base hits either. For simplicity sake, it's easier to just consider all of that a wash, and probably pretty close to accurate...

Regardless -- there's a wide crater of a difference for us. I'd assume that it's MUCH wider than Boyd's numbers currently, given our almost uncharted failure at situational hitting with RISP and 1 out. It was certainly ALOT wider in 2012...

[engie]

I really need the numbers from this year and last year. I'll do them myself, but I'm not going to have time this week. We're quickly approaching critical mass with this, at least in my head. I wasn't nearly as bothered by it when I felt we had subpar hitters. That's no longer the case. We should have a top 25ish lineup right now talent-wise. And we need to eliminate the obvious/easy stuff to allow that to happen...

Rather than just sitting here and incessantly bitching about this, which obviously makes no sense to the majority of us(both in posting it repeatedly and what Cohen is actually doing), I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure he has all of this possible information at his disposal. Alot of times, I've found it alot easier to present people with the same statistics in a little different manner, and let them do with those statistics as they may. If someone went after Cohen with "you need to change all this stuff", it's obviously going to piss him off and probably just make him dig his heels in even more and wonder "who the F are these people to question me". I've got a few people in his circle that can hand him these stats in a "you need to check this out and see what you think" manner -- without comment or condemnation -- allow him to marinade over them -- and just see what happens. That's what I can actually do to try to help make us better, instead of just sitting here taking the fun out of baseball discussion complaining about it...

[War Machine Dawg]

I really need the numbers from this year and last year. I'll do them myself, but I'm not going to have time this week. We're quickly approaching critical mass with this, at least in my head. I wasn't nearly as bothered by it when I felt we had subpar hitters. That's no longer the case. We should have a top 25ish lineup right now talent-wise. And we need to eliminate the obvious/easy stuff to allow that to happen...

Rather than just sitting here and incessantly bitching about this, which obviously makes no sense to the majority of us(both in posting it repeatedly and what Cohen is actually doing), I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure he has all of this possible information at his disposal. Alot of times, I've found it alot easier to present people with the same statistics in a little different manner, and let them do with those statistics as they may. If someone went after Cohen with "you need to change all this stuff", it's obviously going to piss him off and probably just make him dig his heels in even more and wonder "who the F are these people to question me". I've got a few people in his circle that can hand him these stats in a "you need to check this out and see what you think" manner -- without comment or condemnation -- allow him to marinade over them -- and just see what happens. That's what I can actually do to try to help make us better, instead of just sitting here taking the fun out of baseball discussion complaining about it...

http://i.imgur.com/T40NzdX.gif

[Tbonewannabe]

I look forward to your analysis. We finally have highly recruited hitters but we aren't getting the production like I thought.

[blacklistedbully]

nm

[blacklistedbully]

In that situation, the comparison would be "runner at second one out" for the bunt after the leadoff base runner vs "runner at first no outs" for the leadoff single not followed by a bunt. So on, so forth. That's how you make the comparisons. These tables aren't perfectly accurate -- in that they don't account for failed sac bunts. But they also don't account for sac bunt errors/base hits either. For simplicity sake, it's easier to just consider all of that a wash, and probably pretty close to accurate...

Regardless -- there's a wide crater of a difference for us. I'd assume that it's MUCH wider than Boyd's numbers currently, given our almost uncharted failure at situational hitting with RISP and 1 out. It was certainly ALOT wider in 2012...

That is incorrect. You are assuming the % of times a run scores with a man at 1b and no outs is just from, "swinging away". Nothing in that table indicates that. In fact, as it stands, the 52/49 number appears to include all instances of a run scoring from that situation, including those that score as a result of being sac bunted to 2b.

Of course that number is going to be much higher than one that shows only runs scored with a man at 2b with 1 out. Again, it includes all of the times a run scored after being sac bunted over to a, "man on 2b with 1 out" situation. That number is useless unless or until you parse out the number of runs scored that included the aforementioned sac bunt.

It's simple math.

[engie]

That is incorrect. You are assuming the % of times a run scores with a man at 1b and no outs is just from, "swinging away".
No I'm not.


Nothing in that table indicates that.
I didn't say that it did.


In fact, as it stands, the 52/49 number appears to include all instances of a run scoring from that situation, including those that score as a result of being sac bunted to 2b.
You are missing the forest for the trees. As you do constantly on this bunting discussion. How the guy got to second with one out is negligible. If he's got a 49% chance to score from second with one out -- and a 53% chance of scoring from first with no outs. We are statistically less likely to score one run -- and even more statistically less likely to score more than 1 run -- it doesn't make a damn bit of sense to bunt him over. Doesn't matter if "runner on first includes situations where he's bunted to second" -- because the act itself of bunting him to second creates the second circumstance being analyzed and therefore cancels itself in the analysis. Thus, the second situation is now in play -- with a runner on second and one out.


Of course that number is going to be much higher than one that shows only runs scored with a man at 2b with 1 out.
If this is so likely -- then define for me the purpose of giving up the first situation in order to create the second one? You make these statistical arguments -- then you say something that completely destroys your own point. Like you just did here.


Again, it includes all of the times a run scored after being sac bunted over to a, "man on 2b with 1 out" situation.
Which we've already seen, statistically, brings the percentage chance of scoring down. As well as the average number of runs scored declining sharply. So, in reality, you are making a case that the difference is even greater than has been shown statistically by Boyd. The "runner on first no outs" number is, thus, inherently deflated(NOT INFLATED) by including bunting into the second scenario.


That number is useless unless or until you parse out the number of runs scored that included the aforementioned sac bunt.
Boyd's numbers are very telling. But not NEARLY as telling as MSU's same data set analysis where we struggle far beyond the norm with RISP.


It's simple math.
Apparently not.

I gave you A - B = C.
You are giving me A - (B+A) = C - A

[blacklistedbully]

No I'm not.


I didn't say that it did.


You are missing the forest for the trees. As you do constantly on this bunting discussion. How the guy got to second with one out is negligible. If he's got a 49% chance to score from second with one out -- and a 53% chance of scoring from first with no outs. We are statistically less likely to score one run -- and even more statistically less likely to score more than 1 run -- it doesn't make a damn bit of sense to bunt him over. Doesn't matter if "runner on first includes situations where he's bunted to second" -- because the act itself of bunting him to second creates the second circumstance being analyzed and therefore cancels itself in the analysis. Thus, the second situation is now in play -- with a runner on second and one out.


If this is so likely -- then define for me the purpose of giving up the first situation in order to create the second one? You make these statistical arguments -- then you say something that completely destroys your own point. Like you just did here.


Which we've already seen, statistically, brings the percentage chance of scoring down. As well as the average number of runs scored declining sharply. So, in reality, you are making a case that the difference is even greater than has been shown statistically by Boyd. The "runner on first no outs" number is, thus, inherently deflated(NOT INFLATED) by including bunting into the second scenario.


Boyd's numbers are very telling. But not NEARLY as telling as MSU's same data set analysis where we struggle far beyond the norm with RISP.


Apparently not.

I gave you A - B = C.
You are giving me A - (B+A) = C - A

Dude, you are still not getting it! I am not arguing that bunting is THE solution when you have a runner on first with no outs. I have NEVER taken that stance, and have, in fact stated we do it too early and too often. My previous argument on bunting, in another thread, was that there are stats that back up a suggestion that the odds of scoring exactly 1-run can go up when bunting in a man-on-1-b-with-no-outs. There are also real stats based on a 10-year analysis of MLB that show there are times when, if you're really playing for that 1 run, it can make sense to bunt the guy over, depending on who the players are at that given time. But this strategy also has the negative effect of reducing the chances of scoring more than 1 run.

As far as this argument, in this thread, I am responding to your assertion that I somehow got it wrong when I pointed out the linked, "Boyd's ERT tables" arrived at the 52/49 number by including runs scored when the runner was bunted over to 2nd, resulting in a man-on-2b-1-out situation. The fact that the odds of scoring a run go down from there has NOTHING to do with the fact that the 52/49 number INCLUDED all the runs that DID score from the subsequent man-on-2b-1-out situation.

This is not to argue against the numbers being better, in general by swinging away, rather that the 52/49 number DOES include EVERYTHING, including subsequent bunts.

In looking at the Boyd stats again, the overall % difference between scoring at least 1 run from 1st with no outs and scoring from 2nd with 1 out, is 3% (2% for '11-'12). With that narrow a gap, you are clearly in the area where the, "who's at bat, who's OB, who's pitching, etc" are factors that could suggest that bunting is a potentially better option. For instance, if you really, really need to do all you can to get 1 run in, have a guy AB that isn't a good hitter and/or is a good candidate to be doubled up, but IS a good bunter, it might make sense to bunt. But early in-the-game is not a time to be playing for 1-run, as it comes at too high a cost as it relates to potential total runs scored.

Consider this - as much as you want to look at the 2-3% increase of a run scored when comparing 1-on-1b-no-out versus 1-on-2b-1-out, have you looked at the difference between 1-on-2b-1-out versus 1-on-1b-1-out? % drops by 15. So, if you have a damn good bunter at the plate, he should be able to get you to the former. Only the better hitters are going to do better than that swinging away the vast majority of the time. But again, it comes at the cost of lower probability of scoring more than 1 run.

ETA - by, "good bunter" I mean a guy that can be relied upon to drop it down consistently. An especially good bunter who is capable of dropping one to 3b at the right speed has a damn decent chance of getting a hit. Even Bill James research shows a batting average in, "Zone 6", even on sac attempts averages out to a .291 batting average. Of course, a problem is we are bunting guys who aren't that skilled at it.

[engie]

What's the "goal" of this argument you are pulling out of thin air? The sake of arguing?


Dude, you are still not getting it!
I'm not the one failing to get it. With later quotes in this post, I literally don't think you know the difference between sacrifice and drag bunting -- it's going to be impossible for me and you to come to common ground in that case...


My previous argument on bunting, in another thread, was that there are stats that back up a suggestion that the odds of scoring exactly 1-run can go up when bunting in a man-on-1-b-with-no-outs.
Which was a bad position and wide-ranging argument you made, based on a single situational snapshot playing for a walk-off win. That's the only time in a baseball game that you are ever playing for exactly one run. Smoot took that argument apart. But you not getting his point then virtually assures that you won't get mine now, so I don't really know why I'm trying...


There are also real stats based on a 10-year analysis of MLB that show there are times when, if you're really playing for that 1 run, it can make sense to bunt the guy over, depending on who the players are at that given time.
Link? No one said to "NEVER" bunt. You've never heard that come out of my or anyone else here's mouth. You are creating phantom opposition. And you are still hung up on your "one run" ideal.. Only applicable as a home team in a tie game in the final/extra innings. Otherwise, in reality, exactly one run is NEVER the actual goal of the inning, thus not even the actual goal.


But this strategy also has the negative effect of reducing the chances of scoring more than 1 run.
Which is why it should be employed rarely...


As far as this argument, in this thread, I am responding to your assertion that I somehow got it wrong when I pointed out the linked, "Boyd's ERT tables" arrived at the 52/49 number by including runs scored when the runner was bunted over to 2nd, resulting in a man-on-2b-1-out situation. The fact that the odds of scoring a run go down from there has NOTHING to do with the fact that the 52/49 number INCLUDED all the runs that DID score from the subsequent man-on-2b-1-out situation.
Still missing the forest for the trees.

52% scoring from 1st with no outs.
49% scoring from 2nd with 1 out.
If the odds went down after it happened, then the second situation is NOT HELPING THE FIRST SITUATION, BUT RATHER HINDERING IT.

How can you possibly argue that "that second data set significantly effects the first". The only way it effects the first is to artifically deflate a number that should be more like 53%. Hence not supporting your previous assertions about bunting...


This is not to argue against the numbers being better, in general by swinging away, rather that the 52/49 number DOES include EVERYTHING, including subsequent bunts.
Trees. Forest. Everyone knows the "numbers include everything". What's your point? What does that change with significance about the numbers? Or was it just to argue for the sake of arguing?


In looking at the Boyd stats again, the overall % difference between scoring at least 1 run from 1st with no outs and scoring from 2nd with 1 out, is 3% (2% for '11-'12). With that narrow a gap, you are clearly in the area where the, "who's at bat, who's OB, who's pitching, etc" are factors that could suggest that bunting is a potentially better option.
Not really. Not to sacrifice.


For instance, if you really, really need to do all you can to get 1 run in, have a guy AB that isn't a good hitter and/or is a good candidate to be doubled up, but IS a good bunter, it might make sense to bunt.
Where did anyone ever argue "all bunting is bad and that you should never sac bunt"? Why are you arguing against a position nobody is taking?


Consider this - as much as you want to look at the 2-3% increase of a run scored when comparing 1-on-1b-no-out versus 1-on-2b-1-out, have you looked at the difference between 1-on-2b-1-out versus 1-on-1b-1-out? % drops by 15. So, if you have a damn good bunter at the plate, he should be able to get you to the former. Only the better hitters are going to do better than that swinging away the vast majority of the time. But again, it comes at the cost of lower probability of scoring more than 1 run.
Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread. I didn't start it for that purpose.


ETA - by, "good bunter" I mean a guy that can be relied upon to drop it down consistently. An especially good bunter who is capable of dropping one to 3b at the right speed has a damn decent chance of getting a hit.
Holy crap -- now we're talking drag bunting?
I have never once condemned bunting for a hit in any situation.


Even Bill James research shows a batting average in, "Zone 6", even on sac attempts averages out to a .291 batting average. Of course, a problem is we are bunting guys who aren't that skilled at it.
Drag bunting is different from sac bunting.

You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than using a number you found on "better odds to score exactly one run(as if that's a goal 99% of the time) and throwing together a bunting philosophy off of that number, which is a very minimal participant in overall bunting situations.

[Outside Dawg]

Im sure most of you already know this (and there may be a better place), but all of this years data, and last year's for that matter, can be found linked from the baseball stats page on our website. Its not in table format, but it wouldn't be that hard to go inning by inning for this year and put it together. http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=16800&ATCLID=944260

This whole conversation has made me wonder...Do we not have somebody doing advanced stats for our sports teams? Do the coaching staffs not have somebody running whatever advanced metrics they are curious about? I know Dan has talked about stats before, but surely we have somebody accessible to all of our coaches to work on whatever the coaches want to see. Heck, that would be a great "internship" at a minimum for some MSU math, stats, engineering, business major.

[engie]

Im sure most of you already know this (and there may be a better place), but all of this years data, and last year's for that matter, can be found linked from the baseball stats page on our website. Its not in table format, but it wouldn't be that hard to go inning by inning for this year and put it together. http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=16800&ATCLID=944260

This whole conversation has made me wonder...Do we not have somebody doing advanced stats for our sports teams? Do the coaching staffs not have somebody running whatever advanced metrics they are curious about? I know Dan has talked about stats before, but surely we have somebody accessible to all of our coaches to work on whatever the coaches want to see. Heck, that would be a great "internship" at a minimum for some MSU math, stats, engineering, business major.

Agreed with your premise. Cohen could certainly have those stats made constantly available if he so chose. There's just no way he's actually looking at those stats -- and continuing to do the same thing that isn't working and for the most part hasn't since he's been here. This year has been the most bunting success we've had -- and those were largely drag bunts...

[Smitty]

Sac bunts
---------
1. Mississippi State... 26
2. Tennessee........... 25
3. Auburn.............. 14
4. Georgia............. 13
Vanderbilt.......... 13
6. Ole Miss............ 12
7. Kentucky............ 11
Alabama............. 11
9. LSU................. 9
South Carolina...... 9
11.Florida............. 8
12.Missouri............ 7
Texas A&M........... 7
14.Arkansas............ 4

[blacklistedbully]

What's the "goal" of this argument you are pulling out of thin air? The sake of arguing?


I'm not the one failing to get it. With later quotes in this post, I literally don't think you know the difference between sacrifice and drag bunting -- it's going to be impossible for me and you to come to common ground in that case...


Which was a bad position and wide-ranging argument you made, based on a single situational snapshot playing for a walk-off win. That's the only time in a baseball game that you are ever playing for exactly one run. Smoot took that argument apart. But you not getting his point then virtually assures that you won't get mine now, so I don't really know why I'm trying...


Link? No one said to "NEVER" bunt. You've never heard that come out of my or anyone else here's mouth. You are creating phantom opposition. And you are still hung up on your "one run" ideal.. Only applicable as a home team in a tie game in the final/extra innings. Otherwise, in reality, exactly one run is NEVER the actual goal of the inning, thus not even the actual goal.


Which is why it should be employed rarely...


Still missing the forest for the trees.

52% scoring from 1st with no outs.
49% scoring from 2nd with 1 out.
If the odds went down after it happened, then the second situation is NOT HELPING THE FIRST SITUATION, BUT RATHER HINDERING IT.

How can you possibly argue that "that second data set significantly effects the first". The only way it effects the first is to artifically deflate a number that should be more like 53%. Hence not supporting your previous assertions about bunting...


Trees. Forest. Everyone knows the "numbers include everything". What's your point? What does that change with significance about the numbers? Or was it just to argue for the sake of arguing?


Not really. Not to sacrifice.


Where did anyone ever argue "all bunting is bad and that you should never sac bunt"? Why are you arguing against a position nobody is taking?


Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread. I didn't start it for that purpose.


Holy crap -- now we're talking drag bunting?
I have never once condemned bunting for a hit in any situation.


Drag bunting is different from sac bunting.

You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than using a number you found on "better odds to score exactly one run(as if that's a goal 99% of the time) and throwing together a bunting philosophy off of that number, which is a very minimal participant in overall bunting situations.

You are STILL not getting it. it is IRONIC that you keep telling me I'm the one not seeing the forest for the trees. Look in the mirror, pal. You are the one who seems to have a mental block, and appears to be gleaning something more from my comments than are there. Reciting them again & again for you is not going to do any good, apparently.

As far as, "drag bunting" versus sac bunting to zone 6 (3b) is concerned, you are the one who does not know what he is talking about. A drag bunt is a type of bunt, not just a location. To be sure, drag-bunting is a style more widely used when the batter is trying to bunt for a single. But when I refer to, "Zone 6" bunts, I'm talking about all bunts that go toward 3b. Even Bill James, the KING of anti-bunt, has charts that indicate SAC BUNTS to Zone 6 carry a .291 average. He has bunting batting average for zone 6 when not in Sac mode at .720!

He goes on to say, "What if we consider a successful sacrifice as no at-bat, just like we do when we compute a normal batting average? Here are the bunt batting averages by zone in this situation: Zone 6 = .743.

You can suggest I'm out of touch with reality, you can criticize my posts all you want, but you're dead wrong if you think I'm in left-field on this one, as if it's some sort of, "settled science" in your favor. Hell, I'm getting these numbers from the prophet himself, Bill James.

Much of the other crap you keep harping on, incredibly, are areas we don't really even seem to differ on, but you're so damned argumentative you want to argue about that shit too!

Consider that this latest barrage from you came about because you took issue with me merely pointing out that the 58/49 numbers do include sac bunt attempts as well. Nothing in that statement indicated I was taking the position that we should sac bunt more often, yet that seems to be what you want to continue to tie around my neck like an Albatross. That is your failure, not mine.

Another great example of this is your , "Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread." They are not my theoreticals, they are from Bill James, but I guess you feel like attributing them to me instead further validates your point by discounting mine as the theories of a guy who doesn't possess your level of understanding. Guess that means you consider Bill James uninformed on the matter as well, compared to you.

Here's the link, BTW. http://www.billjamesonline.com/bunting_for_a_hit/

You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than falsely accuse me of suggesting, "one run is a goal 99% of the time". Not only have i never said that, I have, in fact said it is a thing that is done too often, too early in a game and at too great an expense. I have merely pointed out there there are logical situations in a game that justify a coach/manager, "playing for exactly one run", and that sac bunting can be a legit tool to use in that situation. Again, an area I don't think we differ wildly on, but you keep insisting we are miles apart on. You should also use that break to gain an understanding of the difference between, "technique" and "location" as it pertains to bunting. Even though drag-bunting is more often associated with, "bunting for a hit", it is not mutually exclusive from a sac bunt situation.

[maroonmania]

Sac bunts
---------
1. Mississippi State... 26
2. Tennessee........... 25
3. Auburn.............. 14
4. Georgia............. 13
Vanderbilt.......... 13
6. Ole Miss............ 12
7. Kentucky............ 11
Alabama............. 11
9. LSU................. 9
South Carolina...... 9
11.Florida............. 8
12.Missouri............ 7
Texas A&M........... 7
14.Arkansas............ 4

Pretty amazing stat, so outside of TN we have nearly twice as many Sacrifice Bunts as the next closest SEC team. Also helps me understand why TN continues to struggle so much.

[tcdog70]

y'all did some nice Stats. But I've played and Watched baseball for fifty years. I don't need stats to tell me we bunt too ****ing much. If I would bunt somebody to second and give up an out it would really depend on who the hell I had coming to Bat. You only get 27 outs a game they are too precious to give up only to have somebody who can't drive the run home coming to bat. Has anyone ever seen a team that compares to us in giving up outs? has Cohen never heard of hitting behind the runner , hit and Run or how about a straight steal. I think He knows in His heart that this bunting shit sucks, but he is so hardheaded he wants to prove it works. Why does no one have the balls to ask him what the **** he is thinking. Maybe he can explain it to us.

[shoeless joe]

y'all did some nice Stats. But I've played and Watched baseball for fifty years. I don't need stats to tell me we bunt too ****ing much. If I would bunt somebody to second and give up an out it would really depend on who the hell I had coming to Bat. You only get 18 outs a game they are too precious to give up only to have somebody who can't drive the run home coming to bat. Has anyone ever seen a team that compares to us in giving up outs? has Cohen never heard of hitting behind the runner , hit and Run or how about a straight steal. I think He knows in His heart that this bunting shit sucks, but he is so hardheaded he wants to prove it works. Why does no one have the balls to ask him what the **** he is thinking. Maybe he can explain it to us.

After 50 years you still think there's only 18 outs in a game?

[engie]

You are STILL not getting it. it is IRONIC that you keep telling me I'm the one not seeing the forest for the trees. Look in the mirror, pal. You are the one who seems to have a mental block, and appears to be gleaning something more from my comments than are there. Reciting them again & again for you is not going to do any good, apparently.
It's amazing that everyone here agrees with me -- no one agrees with you -- yet I'm the one that doesn't get it.


As far as, "drag bunting" versus sac bunting to zone 6 (3b) is concerned, you are the one who does not know what he is talking about. A drag bunt is a type of bunt, not just a location. To be sure, drag-bunting is a style more widely used when the batter is trying to bunt for a single. But when I refer to, "Zone 6" bunts, I'm talking about all bunts that go toward 3b. Even Bill James, the KING of anti-bunt, has charts that indicate SAC BUNTS to Zone 6 carry a .291 average. He has bunting batting average for zone 6 when not in Sac mode at .720!
You don't "sac" bunt at zone 6. If you are placing it there purposefully -- you are bunting for a hit. The whole purpose of the sacrifice bunt is to get it down in FAIR territory somewhere that the lead runner can't be thrown out at 2B. Hence the term sacrifice. It is not to lay it perfectly down the line, where it can roll foul -- and thus becomes a failed attempt.


He goes on to say, "What if we consider a successful sacrifice as no at-bat, just like we do when we compute a normal batting average? Here are the bunt batting averages by zone in this situation: Zone 6 = .743.

You can suggest I'm out of touch with reality, you can criticize my posts all you want, but you're dead wrong if you think I'm in left-field on this one, as if it's some sort of, "settled science" in your favor. Hell, I'm getting these numbers from the prophet himself, Bill James.
So, a sacrifice itself doesn't count as an AB -- but a zone 6 bunt does? The ball going in that zone = bunting for a hit. Or a total accident.


Much of the other crap you keep harping on, incredibly, are areas we don't really even seem to differ on, but you're so damned argumentative you want to argue about that shit too!
I'm the one that's argumentative -- yet you are the one here pooping all over MY thread -- starting and continuing an argument on something you don't understand.


Consider that this latest barrage from you came about because you took issue with me merely pointing out that the 58/49 numbers do include sac bunt attempts as well.
Because you are arguing a negligible point that is of no consequence to the overall data -- simply for the purpose of starting an argument. Which is exactly the same thing you are bitching about now. Hell, how did we bunt when it was cold outside vs a soft throwing right hander on breaking balls? That makes a difference and has an effect on the numbers too**


Nothing in that statement indicated I was taking the position that we should sac bunt more often, yet that seems to be what you want to continue to tie around my neck like an Albatross. That is your failure, not mine.
Then why did you come start the argument in the first place -- if you actually wanted to agree? That doesn't pass the sniff test.


Another great example of this is your , "Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread." They are not my theoreticals, they are from Bill James, but I guess you feel like attributing them to me instead further validates your point by discounting mine as the theories of a guy who doesn't possess your level of understanding. Guess that means you consider Bill James uninformed on the matter as well, compared to you

Here's the link, BTW. http://www.billjamesonline.com/bunting_for_a_hit/ (http://www.billjamesonline.com/bunting_for_a_hit/).
Notice the bolded words. "Bunting for a hit" /=/ "Sacrifice bunting". Again implying that you don't know the difference between sacrifice and drag bunting. And the numbers presented in that article as "sacrifice situations" is not even remotely the same thing as "sacrifice bunting". You can bunt for a hit(read: Drag, push) in a "sacrifice situation" all day long. We see Robson do it damn near every game. Bunting for a hit in a "sacrifice situation" is no different than"swinging away in a "sacrifice situation" in my opinion. I'm fine with that. Again -- if a bunt is placed in zone 6 -- it is either NOT a sacrifice bunt -- or is an accident. That's basically universally how the game is taught. Zone 6 = "bunting for a hit" = "drag bunting"...


You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than falsely accuse me of suggesting, "one run is a goal 99% of the time".
Where did I allegedly accuse you of that? You are, in fact, hung up on "the percentage likelihood of scoring exactly one run" and all common sense from there be danged. Smoot went round and round with you about it until he got sick of trying to explain something you obviously wasn't going to get. You need to take a break and go learn the difference between a sacrifice and a drag bunt. Then, come back, and admit that you agree with me.


Not only have i never said that, I have, in fact said it is a thing that is done too often, too early in a game and at too great an expense. I have merely pointed out there there are logical situations in a game that justify a coach/manager, "playing for exactly one run", and that sac bunting can be a legit tool to use in that situation.
There are not "situations" where that's logical. There is situation(singular). Which is a walk-off winning run on base. Otherwise, there is no situation where you are playing for exactly one run, but situations where you are playing for AT LEAST one run. 2>1 in every other circumstance in the game. But Smoot already went through all of that in detail and you didn't get it..


Again, an area I don't think we differ wildly on, but you keep insisting we are miles apart on. You should also use that break to gain an understanding of the difference between, "technique" and "location" as it pertains to bunting. Even though drag-bunting is more often associated with, "bunting for a hit", it is not mutually exclusive from a sac bunt situation.
What is the very meaning of the word sacrifice? Thank you. If you are "bunting for a hit", you are not sacrifice bunting. They are mutually exclusive. I've never once complained about bunting for a hit. If you REALLY think "sacrifice bunts should go to zone 6" -- based on an article by Bill James titled "bunting for a hit" that never even remotely implies that in actuality -- you need to go play on sabr.com** so you can pretend that reading(and not comprehending in this case) SABR stats somehow gives you a clear understanding of the game...

[smootness]

Blacklisted is bringing up a good point when talking about the fact that sac bunts are also included in the 'runner on 1st, no outs' scenarios.

However, the percentage for a runner on 2nd and 1 out being lower than that for a runner on 1st and no outs means that the difference between bunting and not bunting is actually larger than it seems.

I'll use an example with 200 instances just to make the numbers work. For the sake of argument, let's say you bunted half the time with the runner on 1st and swung away the other half. And we'll even assume a 100% bunting success rate.

So in 100 instances you bunted the runner to 2nd, meaning 47 times in those 100 instances, the runner scored. In the other 100 you swung away. In order to get to the overall percentage of 49% in the 200 instances in which you had a runner on 1st and no outs, that means the run will score 98 times out of the 200.

98-47 is 51, which means the run would score 51% of the time you swung away, even higher than the 49% the numbers show now. So while your point is correct, it is yet again actually hurting your argument.

[blacklistedbully]

Blacklisted is bringing up a good point when talking about the fact that sac bunts are also included in the 'runner on 1st, no outs' scenarios.

However, the percentage for a runner on 2nd and 1 out being lower than that for a runner on 1st and no outs means that the difference between bunting and not bunting is actually larger than it seems.

I'll use an example with 200 instances just to make the numbers work. For the sake of argument, let's say you bunted half the time with the runner on 1st and swung away the other half. And we'll even assume a 100% bunting success rate.

So in 100 instances you bunted the runner to 2nd, meaning 47 times in those 100 instances, the runner scored. In the other 100 you swung away. In order to get to the overall percentage of 49% in the 200 instances in which you had a runner on 1st and no outs, that means the run will score 98 times out of the 200.

98-47 is 51, which means the run would score 51% of the time you swung away, even higher than the 49% the numbers show now. So while your point is correct, it is yet again actually hurting your argument.

You're really close, but miss on just one thing, that I'm "hurting my own argument". Whether you agree or not, my argument is that, the percentages, though a little lower, are close enough so that personnel involved and game situation can make sac-bunting a viable option. Even 51% versus 47% is only a 4% delta. At just 4%, how can we not reasonably look at the personnel? If we have a guy AB who is not swinging the bat well, but has been bunting well, can you not see how quickly that, "on average 4% advantage" might disappear? Remember, that, "4% advantage" is an average of all hitters. What if the guy at the plate is batting 20 points below the team average? What if he leads the league in hitting into DP's? What if the guy behind him has been a particularly good singles hitter, and the guy behind him not so much?

Engie is saying the only time you should ever play for 1 run with a sac bunt is if it's a, "walk-off winning run OB". If I had the above situation, down by 1 run in my half of the 9th, I'd give serious thought to playing for the tying run to extend the game. I'd give serious thought to sac bunting that guy over to 2nd, setting up my next batter to drive him in with a single. I'd do that because I know, based on who I have involved that my present batter has a better chance of getting me in scoring position with 1 out by bunting than he does by swinging away. I'd know that I'm also reducing my chances of hitting into a DP, or finding myself with 1 out and a guy still at 1B.

What's more, if faced with the same situation in the 8th, I still might do it. But I wouldn't do it earlier in the game, and I wouldn't do it if the guys I have involved were close to or above the aforementioned averages, and their recent play reflected that, or if my 2-hitter wasn't a capable bunter. I'm saying it's just not as cut-and-dried as Engie & some others would like to believe, IMO. I don't think it's a call you make in the vacuum of ERT tables, overall averages and/or generalizations based on league or even overall team stats. I think you have to look at the individual stats of the players involved and balance that with what you, as a coach, know about their recent play and/or other potentially impacting factors.

Please don't confuse my argument as one in favor of early & frequent use of sac bunting. In fact, I'm against it for the most part, just apparently not, "as against it" as some others. I think Cohen uses it it WAY too much, WAY too early and often with an apparent disregard for the players involved.

Engie is just completely blinded by his determination to argue. He just keeps doing silly shit like claiming I'm saying or insinuating stuff I'm not, and then arguing that made up point. Really weak-ass stuff, that. And then he mixes in crap like, pointing out the title of the Bill James article while completely ignoring the content within that disputes some of his viewpoint, as if the title of the link is more important than the actual content. Ridiculous. Funny thing is, I knew he was going to do that before I hit the post button. He's going to look for any reason to argue, no matter how weak, no matter how much he has to invent or pervert the dialogue.

He roundly ridicules and disputes the idea that a sac bunt attempt can be placed in Zone 6, and thus increase it's success and the chance of reaching base, yet apparently didn't bother to read James article that explains it. NEWSFLASH, Engie, just because it's a sac bunt situation, that doesn't mean the hitter isn't going to try to reach safely as well. It just means he's more willing to take the out to get the lead runner over. Just because he doesn't have to bunt it to zone 6 to successfully sac bunt, it doesn't mean he can't. Oh, and a zone 6 bunt is not solely defined as a bunt down the line, just as it is not solely defined as a drag-bunt. It is a bunt anywhere between the the line and the point at which the pitcher can't get to it and make the play.

[tcdog70]

After 50 years you still think there's only 18 outs in a game?

ha brainfart-after 50 years you have them--thanks for the correction.

[smootness]

Then we probably mostly agree. I do think there are times when it makes sense.

But given that on average it takes away your chance at a big inning while also reducing your chances of scoring even one run, I think those times are usually few and far between.

[blacklistedbully]

Then we probably mostly agree. I do think there are times when it makes sense.

But given that on average it takes away your chance at a big inning while also reducing your chances of scoring even one run, I think those times are usually few and far between.

This is really the only place I think we may differ a little. I'm saying it depends on the situation at hand, including the players, how they're performing in the various skills that might apply, including bunting, hitting, pitching, base-running, etc. While I'll concede overall averages suggest this is true in most cases, I submit there absolutely can be situations where the odds of scoring 1 run increase by sac bunting. This cannot be disproven by using team or league averages any more than we can say a .250 hitter has as much chance at getting a hit as a .350 hitter if the team BA is .300. But yes, it is at a cost of reduced chances of scoring more than 1 run and/or maximizing total runs scored in an entire game, thus making it a strategy that should not be employed until late in the game and under the aforementioned circumstances. I do still maintain these situations can and do arise more than just the, "walk-off run" Engie advocates.