The stats behind "Never Bunt"

[Panerista]

8 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

At the game tonight. All you bunt haters can stfu lol...that Cordell squeeze was epic

Confirmation bias. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

9 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

At the game tonight. All you bunt haters can stfu lol...that Cordell squeeze was epic

It was a scenario in which getting ONE run was more valuable than getting multiple runs so the bunt was the right choice.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

24 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

It was a scenario in which getting ONE run was more valuable than getting multiple runs so the bunt was the right choice.

Yep. There’s a time and a place for a bunt. 1 out with a runner on third tie game in the 8th with speed on 3rd base and a decent bunter at the plate was the perfect scenario for it.

[poppysox]

36 minutes ago, JUSTgottaBELIEVE said:

Yep. There’s a time and a place for a bunt. 1 out with a runner on third tie game in the 8th with speed on 3rd base and a decent bunter at the plate was the perfect scenario for it.

Never say never.

[ScootsMcGoots]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

It was a scenario in which getting ONE run was more valuable than getting multiple runs so the bunt was the right choice.

Which I agree with. Don't get me wrong, there were many instances where I didnt care for the Sox showing bunt early in the game (esp. with Moncada), but Toronto did it just as much. It's not just the White Sox. 

There is a time and a place for it, and that was the time and place. Worked to perfection.

[ScootsMcGoots]

9 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

A decision working out doesn't mean it was the most favorable strategy 

Well, I would rather have the decision working out than whatever the most favorable strategy is, which may or may not work out.

And in that situation, with runners on 2nd and third and less than 2 outs (or was it bases loaded? Can't remember) in a close game in the 8th and considering who was up...not sure there is a more favorable strategy. Maybe trying for a sac fly? But then you run the risk of hitting into a double play, and even if the sac was successful, Cordell is out. He was safe with this bunt AND scored the run.

Each play has it's risks which are higher lr lower depending on the situation. I think bunting there was the most favorable option. That is my opinion.

Edited May 17, 2019 by ScooterMcGee

[BFirebird]

On 5/11/2019 at 7:44 AM, fathom said:

So you bunt the runners over, and now you’ve taken the bat out of the hands of your hottest hitter who will surely be walked to set up another double play situation

@fathom, you hit it on the head with this analysis.  I have been advocating that bunting to move runners along is the worst play in baseball for years and will always believe so...the article only makes my belief stronger.  All my anti-bunting aside, to me a squeeze play & bunting for a hit is completely different than bunting to just advance a runner.  Especially if you do a squeeze play with runners on first and third...that makes even more sense because if you fail you still will get a runner in scoring position to 2nd base.  All of those scenarios I can go along with, if the player is good at bunting.

[Wanne]

I think most of the "anti-bunters" aren't completely against bunting...but bunting in the 2nd and 3rd inning is fucking ridiculous. Suicide in the 8th inning of a tie game?....bring it all day every day.  But very early in a game?...with this staff? pfffft....  That's my 2¢ anyway.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, ScooterMcGee said:

Which I agree with. Don't get me wrong, there were many instances where I didnt care for the Sox showing bunt early in the game (esp. with Moncada), but Toronto did it just as much. It's not just the White Sox. 

There is a time and a place for it, and that was the time and place. Worked to perfection.

Moncada wasnt actually going to bunt. Showing first pitch bunt just allows you to see the ball a little better and longer as you are squared to the plate and watching it through the glove. 

[turnin' two]

Why are people treating a squeeze bunt and a sac bunt in the same way?  They are pretty clearly different things.  If executed, one results in an opportunity to score a run, the other results in a run.  Runs are the point of the game, and yes, you always want to maximize your chances to score them.  Sometimes, though, late in a tie game, 1 is all you need.  Also, properly executed, like last night, Squeeze bunts often do not result in an out.  

You can look at the data and draw conclusions.  But using the general data universally isn't necessarily the best thing.  There will always be exceptions.  Instances where the mass data does not apply, but the exact situation needs to be considered.  

Also, there is nothing more exciting than a squeeze bunt.  So that was fun.  

[Jose Abreu]

21 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

Why are people treating a squeeze bunt and a sac bunt in the same way?  They are pretty clearly different things.  If executed, one results in an opportunity to score a run, the other results in a run.  Runs are the point of the game, and yes, you always want to maximize your chances to score them.  Sometimes, though, late in a tie game, 1 is all you need.  Also, properly executed, like last night, Squeeze bunts often do not result in an out.  

 

If the bolded were the case, then every single MLB team would squeeze bunt nearly every time there's a runner on 3rd. Suicide squeezes are extremely risky. 

[turnin' two]

8 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

If the bolded were the case, then every single MLB team would squeeze bunt nearly every time there's a runner on 3rd. Suicide squeezes are extremely risky. 

Ok, sorry, maybe I worded that incorrectly.  Obviously it needs to be the exact right situation.  There needs to be the right guy on 3rd.  It needs to be the right guy with the bat in his hands.  It needs to be executed.  Nearly perfectly.  If it is a good bunt (and good bunters are in short supply in the MLB right now), and a good runner, it is incredibly difficult on the defense to get the runner out at home. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by turnin' two

[Jose Abreu]

2 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

Ok, sorry, maybe I worded that incorrectly.  Obviously it needs to be the exact right situation.  There needs to be the right guy on 3rd.  It needs to be the right guy with the bat in his hands.  It needs to be executed.  Nearly perfectly.  If it is a good bunt (and good bunters are in short supply in the MLB right now), and a good runner, it is incredibly difficult on the defense to get the runner out at home. 

That I agree with. There are just so many qualifiers and things that need to go right, which is why I'm still not a huge fan of them. They certainly are exciting when they work though. 

[gusguyman]

14 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

A decision working out doesn't mean it was the most favorable strategy 

So happy at least some people understand this.

 

The rest of ya'll, I got some lottery tickets to sell you.

 

[wrathofhahn]

It depends on the situation and the person at bat.

I am not a never bunter and sometimes the threat of the bunt is almost as powerful as the bunt itself but late in a one run game or less, with less then two outs, with a runner at 1st you have to be able to bunt.

I often though see managers after the game say well I bunted early because it seemed like it was going to be a close game that is what I have a problem with.

[poppysox]

4 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

It depends on the situation and the person at bat.

I am not a never bunter and sometimes the threat of the bunt is almost as powerful as the bunt itself but late in a one run game or less, with less then two outs, with a runner at 1st you have to be able to bunt.

I often though see managers after the game say well I bunted early because it seemed like it was going to be a close game that is what I have a problem with.

Don't tell a player to bunt that doesn't know how.  Drives me crazy.

[Dominikk85]

On 5/11/2019 at 9:45 AM, JuliusO1274 said:

https://www.danblewett.com/run-expectancy-bunting-bad/

Bunting never increases the odds of scoring, only lessens them. It can only be rationalize with a truly awful hitter at the plate like a pitcher. Have you noticed we almost never see other teams sac bunting when playing them. The rest of baseball is now aware of this and have stopped. Yet we have a manager who will bunt every time we get runners on in a late inning close game.

This is actually not quite true. A bunt can increase the chance to score a run what it does is decreasing the total run expectancy in that inning. This has been established already in the 80s by early sabermetrics guys like bill James with the bases outs matrix.

 

 bunting uaually is bad, exceptions are a super terrible hitter like an nl pitcher or situations were only one run counts (home game, tied game last inning i.e a walkoff situation.

Edited May 19, 2019 by [email protected]

[poppysox]

22 hours ago, [email protected] said:

This is actually not quite true. A bunt can increase the chance to score a run what it does is decreasing the total run expectancy in that inning. This has been established already in the 80s by early sabermetrics guys like bill James with the bases outs matrix.

 

 bunting uaually is bad, exceptions are a super terrible hitter like an nl pitcher or situations were only one run counts (home game, tied game last inning i.e a walkoff situation.

Earl Weaver managed for 17 seasons with a win/loss % of .583 (1480-1060).  His widely publicized managerial philosophy was pitching, defense and 3 run home runs win games.  Repeatedly said "you only get 27 outs...don't waste them."  I agree.

[gusguyman]

If James McCann had successfully laid down a sacrifice bunt tonight, Tilson never would have even had the chance to hit a salami.

[poppysox]

9 hours ago, gusguyman said:

If James McCann had successfully laid down a sacrifice bunt tonight, Tilson never would have even had the chance to hit a salami.

Nor McCann the double.  It was as if McCann was showing Ricky why he needs to stop fooling around with bunts every chance he gets.