Printable View
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....
There have actually been innings where we had base runners and didn't bunt? Wow, who knew?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by State82
Made me chuckle.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogBear
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***Quote:
Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogBear
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogBear
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg Corps
Be curious for same info for 2013 and 2014. I've never seen this cohen stat, but that is embarrassingly awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
Insane. That probably doesn't even count the number of times we got ourselves out by failing to get a bunt down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
So many wasted outs...
I'd bet Smitty has that somewhere. And yes, that number has to be shockingly high.Quote:
Originally Posted by messageboardsuperhero
What is GoT?
Game of Thrones
Wow. There's no way Cohen can defend it anymore. Problem is Cohen is the most stubborn bastard ever so what can be done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
My post from Sixpack on May 11th, 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Will James 6-pack profile
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
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.
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.
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 headQuote:
Originally Posted by Bo Darville
It's no secret that I don't like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo Darville
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.
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%?
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
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.***
That assunes around a 95% bunt success rate getting him there as well. Something that obviously cannot be assumed.Quote:
Originally Posted by messageboardsuperhero
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?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklistedbully
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...
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.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by engie
I look forward to your analysis. We finally have highly recruited hitters but we aren't getting the production like I thought.
nm
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
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.
No I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklistedbully
I didn't say that it did.Quote:
Nothing in that table indicates that.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Again, it includes all of the times a run scored after being sac bunted over to a, "man on 2b with 1 out" situation.
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.Quote:
That number is useless unless or until you parse out the number of runs scored that included the aforementioned sac bunt.
Apparently not.Quote:
It's simple math.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by blacklistedbully
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...Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Which is why it should be employed rarely...Quote:
But this strategy also has the negative effect of reducing the chances of scoring more than 1 run.
Still missing the forest for the trees.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
Not really. Not to sacrifice.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Holy crap -- now we're talking drag bunting?Quote:
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.
I have never once condemned bunting for a hit in any situation.
Drag bunting is different from sac bunting.Quote:
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.
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.