In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 222
Online now 820 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I respectfully disagree.
Signatures are stupid. You should block them.
I suspect the stat the LHN provided skews the reality, whether by including men on second by a double or simply by the smallness of the sample. However, earlier in the thread, JerseyBornHorn provided a link to an article showing how bunting decreases a team's chance for scoring when it has a man on first and 0 outs.
A team might want to occasionally bunt to keep a defense on its toes. It might want to bunt late in a game to get a single run, depending on the player at the plate and the quality of the defense. I don't think any of us dispute that. We simply note how bunting as a rule is a bad strategy.
I tried to refrain from name calling, but you invite it so well, so I will merely say that I never quite understood until now the saying, "Logic is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow.".
Carry on, oh ye of jerklessness.
Fine, but like Rozell99 posted, there's stats that say you should never punt in football. So back to my original post. One advantage (not a reason to do it every time) to bunting with a runner on first with no outs is you reduce the possibility of a double play.
BTW, for another (though dated) study of the results of bunting in various situations, try the following which distills the information into a more compressed and readily accessed form.
It essentially argues that if we assume sacrifice bunts result in the players advancing the the batter being called out at first, then bunting with 0 out and a man on second is a good strategy late in a a game in which you need a single run and that bunting with 0 out and men on first and second is a good strategy nearly always.
However, it notes that the sacrifice isn't always successful. The batter can miss the pitch, pop up, bunt too hard and the lead runner thrown out, or the defense could mishandle it and the batter could be safe.
I'll let you find better stats on the likelihood of a hit, all runners being safe on a fielder's choice or error versus the likelihood of an out wasted without moving the runner or resulting in the elimination the lead runner.
This post was edited by bierce 13 months ago
Again, I'm not arguing with your stats, I simply pointed out one advantage of bunting the runner into scoring position. Nothing irritates me more than when my team hits into a double play and essentially wastes the lead off runner and kills the inning. I did find a stat that says with a runner on first and no outs, MLB teams hit into a double play 10-12% of the time. Of course, that stat might be higher if they eliminated the times when they bunt the runner to second.
Inning ending double play with nobody out......wow. Sounds like a great reason to bunt!
Wow, man on 2nd with 1 out or nobody on, 2 outs. You pick.
I only get two options? Sounds like a fair assessment
Watching the Womens Softball Team play right now. here's what just happened in the 3rd.
Hoagland---Sac bunt, Ceo to 2nd. 1 out.
Washington--Single up the middle. Ceo scores Texas women go up 2-0. Washington on 1st. 1 out.
Damn you Connie Clark and your small ball tactics. damn you I say.
You keep saying this, but it's not true. I let it go once, but you seem to want to keep throwing it out there as fact, and that cannot go unchecked.
There are metrics and stats that suggest not punting in most 4th down situations is better for the WE (win expectancy), but none suggest punting the punt altogether. Some coaches rarely punt, and there are stories about them, but the metrics all call for punting in certain situations. So, please stop saying that. It's not correct and cannot be used to support a theory.
Freddie James says "whats a punt?"
I said it one time.
You need to look a little deeper at that metric. Its fairly intuitive that giving away outs will decrease the total numbers of runs scored. That's a little different from the metric that the LHN showed, which isn't intuitive and may be somewhat skewed by a relatively small sampling size , and probably is controlled for the quality of batter coming to the plate with a man on first.
This again is completely intuitive and based on casual observation and not any sabermetric study of the data; but I sense the value of small ball increases as the odds of scoring during a game decreases, i.e., against quality pitching and late in games. I have a gut feeling that much of the sabermetric data was skewed by the high run production of the steroid era in MLB and the "hot" aluminum bat era in college. If the expected runs per game for each team is around five per game; giving up outs makes little sense. When it drops to 2-3 as it does in the MLB play-offs; then small ball probably makes more sense. Again, I have no firm data to back that with; just intuitive thought.
Couldn't have said it better!
You're both wrong. Stats with the new bats say the same thing as the old bat and MLB
Wait, you prescribe to giving up outs against better pitching? Shortening the game for these pitchers.
Actually, what he said was way above my head. He lost me at "sabermtric study of the data".
I'm speaking of game when both teams have better pitching and the expected score per team is 2-3 rather than five. I'm going to do a little mental arithmetic. Runner on first. The OBP of the hitter against the pitcher he is facing is .400 plus. The chances of a successful sacrifice are .800. Then the chance of advancing the base runner by allowing the hitter to swing is 50% of a sacrifice. But when the slugging percentage is considered, with the chance of advancing the running two or three bases; then the relative advantage of the sacrifice drops even more. With a OPS of over .800, advantage swinging. Actually, I suspect that I'm exaggerating the percentage of successful sacrifices. Its probably 65-70, so a batters OPS of .700 is advantage hitter.
But if the hitter has an expected OBP of .200 and an OPS of .400against a pitcher; then the sacrifice has a three time advantage of advancing the runner into scoring position over allowing the batter to hit and an almost two time advantage in scoring the runner. The strategy is completely dependent on the OBP and OPS of the hitter against a given pitcher.
I've watched this over the years. During the pre-steroid days of the Koufax/Drysdale Dodgers and the Gibson Cardinals; teams who stole bases and successfully used the sacrifice were successful. That changed during the steroid days to a degree; but I think the rigid adherence to modern sabermetrics were the reason that Beane's Oakland teams were successful during the regular season when the quality of pitching wasn't very good. They lost in the post-season, when the quality of pitching increased , and their plodding base to base philosophy became a detriment.
Again, I have no data to back this up, but teleologically it makes sense. To answer Beast, we still aren't completely out of the steroid era, and certainly haven't been for long enough to fully examine the data. The NCAA only went to deadened aluminum bats in 2011 by my memory, so the data is still very incomplete. In my profession; bio-statics are the basis of our science. You have to see how well the data is controlled. I've already said that it makes much less sense to sacrifice with your #3-5 hitters than it does with the bottom of your order. Are your metrics controlled for batter OBP and OPS., and beyond that, expected OBP and OPS against a given pitcher. It needs to be to be statically valid.
This post was edited by gordosan 13 months ago
I had hoped that this would turn into a fun discussion, but apparently not.
You really have to have a team average around .290-.310 and multiple stolen base threats for small ball to be effective. Augie's 2000 team is a perfect example if this type of strategy working all the way to Omaha. That's really Augie's only team that made it to Omaha without a Top 10 pitching staff.
And then that team got destroyed in both their games in Omaha.
However the numbers just don't dictate it being a strategy to score crooked numbers very often, not too mention, letting a pitcher off the hook. So instead of throwing another 10-20 pitches for the course of the game, he throws a batting practice fastball and lets a hitter give himself up.
I would think logically, that Steroids and hot bats, make a significant edge in data.
"Don't know. Never had one"
-- D. Royal-Mack Brown how to coach a team after a losing season
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports