Beyond the Box Score: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Fedor vs Rogers Results and Live Coverage

The Bunt

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

Display:

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.

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

I disagree.
There are some hitters (any good ones) who should never bunt.  Why should they bother to know how?

by Richard Wade on Jun 26, 2005 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

that's pretty funny.
worst reason ever. its an excellent pitch-reading hand/eye coordination drill, if nothing else.

by cephyn on Jun 26, 2005 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We use numbers and stuff.
Community Guidelines
Why be a member?
Start posting on Beyond the Box Score »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
PZR-based Win Values 2001-2006

Recent FanPosts

Small
The "30 parks on a budget" challenge
Sunflower_small
World Series Simulation, Game #6
Small
JT20 Dynasty League
E52205a2_small
New Look
Sth70021_small
Exploring Hit f/x, Albeit Badly
Redcap_small
Ricky Nolasco: 4 WAR or 1 WAR?
Redcap_small
Apparently I can't do park adjustments
Small
Which tells us more: The last 7 at bats or 7 at bats against this pitcher?
Sleepy_jeff_small
How Efficient and Effective Were the Rockies in 2009?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

The Mistake Lottery
On the Field, the Yankees Are The Team of the Decade. Off It? The Red Sox.
Tigers' all-time WAR leaders
Primer on Runs Created
How to improve basketball
LB Keith Bulluck uses a sabermetric analogy to explain the Titans' quarterback situation.
Alcides Escobar "abandoned his daughter before she was born"
UZR, Scouting, and the Fans
Not-So-Lousy Lineup Optimizer, Playoff Edition: New York Yankees

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

BtB on Twitter

Main Feed: @BtBScore

Tommy B: @tommy_bennett
Sky: @BtB_Sky
Dan: @dturkenk
Harry: @harrypav
Jinaz: @jinazreds
Jack: @jh_moore
Erik: @Erik_Manning
Tommy R: @trancel
Justin: @justinbopp

Subscribe to BtB via Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Most Commented

Limes_125_small
Time To Move On
Aviles_small
Minnesota: Fielding TargetView Before & After JJ Hardy
Nando_small
A Complete and Lenghty List of Baseball-Related Things Miguel Olivo is Good At
770insig_small
Negative Team WAR - 2009 Edition
E52205a2_small
New Look

Managers

Nando_small R.J. Anderson

Limes_125_small Sky Kalkman

E52205a2_small Tommy Bennett

Editors

Face_small Harry Pavlidis

Rawlings_baseball_bigger_small Dan Turkenkopf

770insig_small Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal)

Aviles_small Justin Bopp

Authors

Banny_small erik

Raysring1_small Tommy Rancel

Jinaz-reds-avatar_small JinAZ

Jmlogo_small Jack Moore

1753738656_110919ebe9_o_small vivaelpujols

1_small Graham

Baseball_small Mike Rogers

Redcap_small SFiercex4

Small Patrick Clark

Walter_album_small Walter Fulbright