The Bunt

by sas723 on Jun 22, 2005 12:03 AM EDT Comment 15 comments

The Bill James Interviews at BDD were quite interesting, in particular when James addressed the bunt. James said:

"...the general argument against the bunt seems unpersuasive to me. The essential argument against the bunt is that the number of expected runs scored after a bunt attempt goes down in almost all situations when a bunt is used, and the expectation of scoring one run goes up only in a few situations.

"But this argument is unpersuasive, to me, because it assumes that there are two possible outcomes of a bunt: a "successful" bunt, which trades a base for and out, and an "unsuccessful" bunt, which involves an out with no gain. In reality, there are about a dozen fairly common outcomes of a bunt attempt. The most common of those is a foul ball, but others include a base hit, a fielder's choice/all safe, a pop out, a pop out into a double play, an error on the third baseman, and a hit plus an error on the third baseman, or the second baseman if you're talking about a drag bunt.

"Some of those outcomes are reasonably common, and others are quite significant even if they are statistically uncommon. For example, if there is a 2% chance that the third baseman will field the bunt and throw it up the first base line, that has a huge impact on the calculations, even though it is only a 2% chance. It seems to me that the argument against the bunt is unpersuasive unless you account for the entire range of reasonably common outcomes."

"...we are in danger of replacing one dogma with another. And the analysis is not strong enough to justify that."

I have always been part of the silent sabermetrics minority, who like James, hasn't been entirely convinced by the argument that the bunt is completely ineffective. I believe that if a team practices the bunt, and is extremely efficient carrying it out it can possibly (emphasis on possible) be an effective tool.

For example, the Angels focus on small ball, and have a team that is speedy, yet lacks the ability to get on base. Wouldn't it make sense for a team like that to incorporate the bunt (though not abuse it), whereas for a team like the Yankees or A's, the bunt would make less sense? From casual observation, it seems like Ozzie Guillen is forcing the sacrifice bunting on a White Sox team that is not particularly good at it, nor geared to that style of play. Like James says, there many factors to consider with the bunt.

I think in particular, what he says about certain beliefs becoming dogma is very important. We should always be questioning things that are considered principles or outgrowths of sabermetrics - traditional baseball became so incredibly dysfunctional because certain beliefs became accepted without being properly questioned (after all the ideas of John Kruk somehow have respect within the Baseball Tonight set).

Therefore, would it be possible to develop a better way of evaluating the bunt taking into account what James says, along with the situation, the relative strength of a team's offense, the strength of the defense of an opposing team's corner men, and other variables? I'm curious to hear what you guys think. Thanks.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

sweeping generalizations are always wrong

Ignoring the paradoxical irony of the subject line, I think what happened with attitudes toward bunting is that once the argument that sac-bunts were overused and not that worthwhile started making headway, some people overcompensated in the other direction. I would add to what James said about various possibilities by saying that, in my subjective opinion, it seems like bunting may be a case where the possible outcomes vary on a case-by-case basis to a greater degree than usual--bunting skills vary widely, and the degree to which the fielders expect the bunt vary widely. How do you account for the element of surprise in a statistical way? There is a chance of surprising the defense, and I'm sure someone could analyze video footage and figure out the frequency with which fielders were not ready for a bunt and so fielded it ineffectively, but it seems to be a situation uniquely unsuited to playing the numbers--the manager and/or batter will probably have an intuition as to how surprising a bunt might be, and this intuition will likely be more useful than knowing the overall frequency of inefficiently fielded bunts.

That said, with the exception of when pitchers and perhaps frequent ground ball hitters who run very slowly (and are thus DP bait) are batting, sac bunting a runner from first to second seems not so useful, but IMHO bunting for hits/in a surprising way can be quite good.

Don't know if you're familiar with it, but in a Red Sox-Orioles game earlier this month, Renteria saw a chance to bunt the tying run over to second and get aboard himself as the winning run, with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th. He was lucky in that Ortiz homered to win it, and there was actually a lot of second-guessing on the sons of sam horn board and elsewhere over whether it was a good idea. I think so--he saw that the 3B (Mora) was back, playing no-doubles-guard-the-line, and so he got on base in a high probability way, such that an XBH by Ortiz probably wins, and a single ties, instead of an XBH by him tying and a homer winning.

by poludamas on Jun 22, 2005 1:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

hmmm...

I am not familiar with that situation, but I definitely understand what your saying. I'm all for trying things unconventional, and if a defense isn't playing you properly, you definitely should bunt for a hit. Maybe it could become an effective strategy to incorporate for poor-hitting teams. I'm not saying I'm for the bunt, I'm just not entirely convinced that it's bad if used efficiently, and I'm apparently not in bad company.

You're right it is hard to quanitfy, but maybe there could be a better way of doing it. Do bunts cause errors more often then other hitting occurences? Do some players field bunts less successfully than others? These are just some things to explore.

by sas723 on Jun 22, 2005 1:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

the bunt

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/feda/datasets/expectedruns.html

if we look at the above table, then there is one clear time to use the sac bunt - advance a tying/winning runner from 2nd to 3rd. In each case, the chance to plate the run increases. I don't see the point in any other case, except to avoid the double play.

In case its not obvious, this only applies when the runner on 2nd is the tying/winning run - because in that case, the Runs Expected is worthless -- you only want 1. So the most important number is the chance to score one run. (and I'm playing to tie in this case. if you're playing to win, well, then you have a decision to make, chance to plate A run vs. runs expected.

All that said, I'm a big fan of the properly executed bunt. It most certainly has value - surprise bunts for hits are fantastic and frustrating for a pitcher, because if the hitter knows what he's doing he can do it all day. The threat of a bunt can pull infielders out of position, allowing perhaps a very high percentage steal, or the opportunity to slap a hit into the hole. And the squeeze play is just damn gutsy - who doesn't like gutsy? 8)

by cephyn on Jun 22, 2005 3:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bunt Strategy

Having one uniform strategy for a bunt is probably not a great idea because of all the variables involved.

Batter's ability to bunt.
Batter's ability to get hits.
Batter's ability to get extra base hits.
Score of game.
Pitcher's style (groundball pitcher v. flyball pitcher)
Pitcher's ability to get outs.

The bunt works, to me, in special situations, if that set of variables works out correctly.

And if I put the winning run on second with no one out, it depends on the circumstances, again. If the pitcher is very, very prone to flyballs and the batter up isn't particularly good, I'd have him bunt the runner over. But otherwise, you can play the "productive outs" game and try to have the batter put the ball on the ground behind the runner, or just swing away.

Just from simple math, if you have 3 .335-OBP ability hitters batting back-to-back-to-back, there's a 70% chance or so that at least one of them's going to not make an out...

by Dan Scotto on Jun 22, 2005 9:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

obp isn't best in some situations

since a walk or HBP isnt going to help advance the runner.

by cephyn on Jun 22, 2005 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: OBP

Indeed... it's just one way of looking at it. With three .275 hitters, you have like a 62% chance of getting a hit, I think. Something along those lines.

by Dan Scotto on Jun 22, 2005 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually

It's more complex than that. since BA is only H/AB, with 3 .275 hitters you'd have (.275 x 3)=.825, or 82.5% chance to get 1 hit in 3 AB. But BB and HBP etc. aren't ABs...so you'd have to look at H/PA to find out the true chance to get a hit.

by cephyn on Jun 22, 2005 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no

thats totally wrong sorry. what was i thinking. i was thinking only for the 50% case.

chance to get a hit would be

(.275 x .725 x .725) x 3 +
(.275 x .275 x .725) x 3 +
(.275 x .275 x .275) = .618 (which is what you said in the first place but when i went and hastily posted i had to defend my honor!)

the point stands though, what you really want is H/PA not H/AB + nonH/PA that advance the runner. (sac fly?)

I think i lost me.

by cephyn on Jun 22, 2005 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Subject:

Bunting for hits is fine, in fact I just watched a game where Jason Giambi bunted for a hit because the shift was so extreme and nobody expected it. Ramon Hernandez won a playoff game for Oakland by bunting with two outs. I have no problem with bunting for hits.

In general though I don't like the sacrifice bunt. There are certain situations where it is good but often it's used in a way that hurts the offense more than it helps. It's a one run strategy and though as James mentions there are factors beyond just run expectation in a lot of cases you're giving up an out for a base, bringing the end of the inning closer. You have to weigh every situation differently but in most cases I think managers are better off just letting the hitters hit.

DRays Bay

by Jim Wisinski on Jun 23, 2005 11:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

RE: Bunt

I was at the Red Sox game against Pittsburgh on Father's Day, and with 2 on and no outs I believe, Varitek tried to move a second runner into scoring position via bunt. Luckily he missed, and two or three pitches later I believe he lined it for an RBI single. Why bunt with a Varitek type? The element of surprise? I'm one for only letting blackholes in the lineup bunt, or an Alex Sanchez type since people refuse to let him go without a team.

"I don't set the rosters, I just make fun of the guy who does" - Rob Neyer

by Marc Normandin on Jun 24, 2005 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what i dont understand

is how he could fail a bunt. I think the surprise factor is valuable though. But seriously, failing a bunt is like NBA players that shoot 50% from the free throw line. its pathetic.

I was a miserable hitter (well, still am!) but the one thing i could do as a kid was bunt. it was easy. in little league i bunted for hits, i bunted squeeze plays to win games, it was the only thing i could do at the plate. a little embarrassing, but it won games.

every player should know how to bunt. its not hard. just baffles me when they can't do it.

by cephyn on Jun 24, 2005 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs