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.