Project for Smitty...

[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.