Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

Swing away. Bunting is for pussies.

Seriously though, I'm not a big fan of sac bunts, but it looks like the EV here is incredibly close. If the guy is a good bunter, do it. If the guy can't bunt for [censored], and plenty of MLB players can't, then don't bunt.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

bunting is different in college than in the MLB perhaps because of the skill-difference of the fielders.

There is zero mention of how the defense is positioned and which way they plan on rotating/covering (which can change from pitch-to-pitch), if there is a particularly vulnerable spot on the D or not, how solid or perhaps jumpy the catcher might be, if they react to pressure well or appear potentially nervous, even righty-lefty of the batter/pitcher and the subsequent batters can make a big difference here.

If the 3B just made a bobble on a play to let one of the runners or might still be thinking about having struck-out with the bases-loaded in the 8th then that would increase the chances I would try to push a bunt in his direction.

If the catcher's arm sucks or if the pitcher is a lousy fielder and I think might be prone to spinning and sailing it into RF then I'm more likely to bunt.

The actual bunting skill of the batter and the kind of pitcher he's facing is all pretty basic stuff that needs to be considered too.
If it's my very best bunter up there then that kind of makes a difference.

I really believe that all this 71% vs. 69% saber-crap is really just a basic tool that should be used just out of curiousity and perhaps as a very rough foundation.
It should not be the last say as to whether one strategy is supposedly going to always be better than the other.


What if a pitcher gets more outs throwing curve-balls than he does throwing fast-balls? Does that mean that he should just throw curve-balls 100% of the time? Of course not. But it begins to feel like that is the kind of logic being used for a lot of this "is a sacrifice better than swinging-away" type of saber-arguments.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
Braun is not significantly better than Hall. Hotter and luckier doesn't mean better.

[/ QUOTE ]

go on...

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
Braun is not significantly better than Hall. Hotter and luckier doesn't mean better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Hall is running bad and Braun is running hot. Yes, they have similar K and BB numbers and batted ball numbers (i.e. similar LD, GB and FB numbers).

But the quality of Braun's batted balls, particularly his flyballs, are different. Braun's flyballs have been hit better than Hall's and tend to go further. Braun's Home runs average @ ten feet further than Hall's, and he has hit more of them.

Hittracker Hall
Hittracker Braun

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

I think the key word is "significantly." I don't argue that Braun and Fielder are better hitters than Hall, but not "significantly." Not "waaaaaaaaaaay" better.

Hall did poorly in the beginning of the season, but he started doing well about 3 weeks before he went on the DL. For someone who hit <.240 in April, he's made a nice turnaround to get to >.270 (power numbers are down, though). He has also been much more clutch (no numbers to back this up, just observation) than either Braun or Fielder. In fact, as tremendous as Braun has been, he has been utterly miserable in key situations from about the 7th inning on in the last few weeks. Fielder hasn't been much of a factor for a month, although he is keeping his average right in the .280 range.

Braun has been awesome. I love him. But I don't think we can say he is "significantly" better than Hall based on such a small sample size. He hasn't even been in the bigs for the entire season. Lest we forget, Hall hit close to .300 two seasons ago and then hit 35 HR's last year.

Again, not saying Braun and Fielder aren't better hitters than Hall - they are great so far and are two of my favorite players already - but they aren't leaps and bounds better.

And Hall is definitely better than Hardy.

But I digress. Back to the bunting discussion.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

Augie is neither drunk nor an idiot, and he's won a bazillion games.

ESPECIALLY if it's tied in the bottom of the ninth, you only need one run, why wouldn't you bunt? Get the guy to third with two outs to bring him in, and you don't even necessarily need a hit.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

Corollation != Causation

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
ESPECIALLY if it's tied in the bottom of the ninth, you only need one run, why wouldn't you bunt? Get the guy to third with two outs to bring him in, and you don't even necessarily need a hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't you bunt? Because maybe you have a better chance taking 3 shots at a getting a hit than 2 shots at a sac fly. That is what the entire thread is about, calculating these factors.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

drew,

honestly, have you read any of this thread?

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the key word is "significantly." I don't argue that Braun and Fielder are better hitters than Hall, but not "significantly." Not "waaaaaaaaaaay" better.

Hall did poorly in the beginning of the season, but he started doing well about 3 weeks before he went on the DL. For someone who hit <.240 in April, he's made a nice turnaround to get to >.270 (power numbers are down, though). He has also been much more clutch (no numbers to back this up, just observation) than either Braun or Fielder. In fact, as tremendous as Braun has been, he has been utterly miserable in key situations from about the 7th inning on in the last few weeks. Fielder hasn't been much of a factor for a month, although he is keeping his average right in the .280 range.

Braun has been awesome. I love him. But I don't think we can say he is "significantly" better than Hall based on such a small sample size. He hasn't even been in the bigs for the entire season. Lest we forget, Hall hit close to .300 two seasons ago and then hit 35 HR's last year.

Again, not saying Braun and Fielder aren't better hitters than Hall - they are great so far and are two of my favorite players already - but they aren't leaps and bounds better.

And Hall is definitely better than Hardy.

But I digress. Back to the bunting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured if I brought it back up someone would make my argument for me. Thanks.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
drew,

honestly, have you read any of this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sorta skimmed most of it, but I don't understand all the roto/stat geek stuff that well, so I used my "appeal to authority" argument.

I may be wrong, but Augie is a very smart baseball man.

I'll get out of the sandbox now.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the key word is "significantly." I don't argue that Braun and Fielder are better hitters than Hall, but not "significantly." Not "waaaaaaaaaaay" better.

Hall did poorly in the beginning of the season, but he started doing well about 3 weeks before he went on the DL. For someone who hit <.240 in April, he's made a nice turnaround to get to >.270 (power numbers are down, though). He has also been much more clutch (no numbers to back this up, just observation) than either Braun or Fielder. In fact, as tremendous as Braun has been, he has been utterly miserable in key situations from about the 7th inning on in the last few weeks. Fielder hasn't been much of a factor for a month, although he is keeping his average right in the .280 range.

Braun has been awesome. I love him. But I don't think we can say he is "significantly" better than Hall based on such a small sample size. He hasn't even been in the bigs for the entire season. Lest we forget, Hall hit close to .300 two seasons ago and then hit 35 HR's last year.

Again, not saying Braun and Fielder aren't better hitters than Hall - they are great so far and are two of my favorite players already - but they aren't leaps and bounds better.

And Hall is definitely better than Hardy.

But I digress. Back to the bunting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think significant means in the context of differentiating between hitters?

IMO Hall and Braun should both produce similar OBPs (i.e. similar LD numbers and similar BB numbers and neither are slow, although Braun's greater power should lead to a slightly higher BABIP assuming the same batted ball split), yet Braun hits for more power.

Do you disagree Braun hits with more power than Hall? Is this difference not significant? What would be a significant difference (quantified in terms of slugging difference between each's respective "true talent" level).

(BTW, although not relevant to this debate, Braun is 4 years younger and doing this in his first ML season. He should get better)

I'm not sure how to respond to the "he hit .300 a couple of years ago" argument other than to point out BA in isolation isn't very instructive on the issue at hand and Braun is hitting 347 while Hall's best BA is .291.

Regarding Hall's power output last year, both his HR/FB and FB% were way above his historical totals, and both are way down this year. Yes, Hall hit 35 home runs last year, and yes, Ryan Braun is one pace to have a more productive season that Hall did last year. Braun may be running hot this year, but so did hall last year (when he also Ked 30% of the time and had a LD% below 20).



I don't really care to debate your assertion that Fielder is not a significantly better hitter than Hall. I think that is a facially nuts argument, but to each his own.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

Bunting: 60% of the time, it works every time.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
well if you would bunt ruth there you must be very drunk

but the problem with all of these formulas are they are not an exact science and never will be and the 2-3 % diffeerence they show one way or the other can be margin of error
I dont care what a bunch of guys with similar jeter have done over the last 100 years in that spot-
He might be slower or faster than them, a better or worse bunter etc.
The infielders might react well in this spot or you could have ty wigginton fielding the ball
The pitcher might have trouble throwing strikes after intenionall walk someone or he might have maddux like control.
The guy who will bat with the bases loaded might not handle the bat well or be capable of adjusting to the situation.
My gut would say to bunt but its going to be close to break even- but there is no way this book can be accurate with so man factors that can never be accounted for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so AFTER having done all the analysis and figuring out exactly how close it is in a generic scenario, a good manager can then use his expertise and additional knowledge to tweak it a little bit and make up that 2 or 3% margin of error.

Or he can just guess and make [censored] up and do 'what he has always done' and give up way more than any 2 or 3% edge except perhaps in this one lucky scenario in which he's stumbled upon the optimal strategy by dumb luck.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
a good manager can then use his expertise and additional knowledge to tweak it a little bit and make up that 2 or 3% margin of error.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I and others make is that that 2% gap in the data may already reflect that additional knowledge is being correctly applied-- by both bunting people more likely to fail at hitting, and hitting people either more likely to fail when bunting or dominantly more likely to end the game with their at bat.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the key word is "significantly." I don't argue that Braun and Fielder are better hitters than Hall, but not "significantly." Not "waaaaaaaaaaay" better.

Hall did poorly in the beginning of the season, but he started doing well about 3 weeks before he went on the DL. For someone who hit <.240 in April, he's made a nice turnaround to get to >.270 (power numbers are down, though). He has also been much more clutch (no numbers to back this up, just observation) than either Braun or Fielder. In fact, as tremendous as Braun has been, he has been utterly miserable in key situations from about the 7th inning on in the last few weeks. Fielder hasn't been much of a factor for a month, although he is keeping his average right in the .280 range.

Braun has been awesome. I love him. But I don't think we can say he is "significantly" better than Hall based on such a small sample size. He hasn't even been in the bigs for the entire season. Lest we forget, Hall hit close to .300 two seasons ago and then hit 35 HR's last year.

Again, not saying Braun and Fielder aren't better hitters than Hall - they are great so far and are two of my favorite players already - but they aren't leaps and bounds better.

And Hall is definitely better than Hardy.

But I digress. Back to the bunting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think significant means in the context of differentiating between hitters?

IMO Hall and Braun should both produce similar OBPs (i.e. similar LD numbers and similar BB numbers and neither are slow, although Braun's greater power should lead to a slightly higher BABIP assuming the same batted ball split), yet Braun hits for more power.

Do you disagree Braun hits with more power than Hall? Is this difference not significant? What would be a significant difference (quantified in terms of slugging difference between each's respective "true talent" level).

(BTW, although not relevant to this debate, Braun is 4 years younger and doing this in his first ML season. He should get better)

I'm not sure how to respond to the "he hit .300 a couple of years ago" argument other than to point out BA in isolation isn't very instructive on the issue at hand and Braun is hitting 347 while Hall's best BA is .291.

Regarding Hall's power output last year, both his HR/FB and FB% were way above his historical totals, and both are way down this year. Yes, Hall hit 35 home runs last year, and yes, Ryan Braun is one pace to have a more productive season that Hall did last year. Braun may be running hot this year, but so did hall last year (when he also Ked 30% of the time and had a LD% below 20).



I don't really care to debate your assertion that Fielder is not a significantly better hitter than Hall. I think that is a facially nuts argument, but to each his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a straight up comparison. Hall plays CF. Braun plays 3B. So Hall can be behind as a hitter and still have comparable value.

I really don't think any intelligent person would say that Braun is "significantly" better than Hall.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

Anyway, back to the bunting question.

As with all things in life, the correct answer is "it depends." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

I would like to thank the Angles for not reading this thread and not preforming as expected wrt to all of the win expectancy charts above. GO M'S!

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
A lot more butns fail then result in infield hits/errors

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there stats on this? It instinctually seems true, especially when you consider the negative effect of missing/fouling a couple attempts and having to hit with two strikes.

But Bill James wrote an essay on bunting a long time ago titled something like "Rolling in the Grass" (which, of course I can't find now). His conclusion was that it is correct to bunt a lot more often than he originally thought. The main reason was that a lot of good results can happen from a bunt attempt, aside from a basic successful sacrifice: hits, errors, a fielder unsuccessfully trying to get the lead runner, etc. And the good results outweighed the bad results of an unsuccessful attempt, maybe not in terms of frequency but in terms of degree.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the key word is "significantly." I don't argue that Braun and Fielder are better hitters than Hall, but not "significantly." Not "waaaaaaaaaaay" better.

Hall did poorly in the beginning of the season, but he started doing well about 3 weeks before he went on the DL. For someone who hit <.240 in April, he's made a nice turnaround to get to >.270 (power numbers are down, though). He has also been much more clutch (no numbers to back this up, just observation) than either Braun or Fielder. In fact, as tremendous as Braun has been, he has been utterly miserable in key situations from about the 7th inning on in the last few weeks. Fielder hasn't been much of a factor for a month, although he is keeping his average right in the .280 range.

Braun has been awesome. I love him. But I don't think we can say he is "significantly" better than Hall based on such a small sample size. He hasn't even been in the bigs for the entire season. Lest we forget, Hall hit close to .300 two seasons ago and then hit 35 HR's last year.

Again, not saying Braun and Fielder aren't better hitters than Hall - they are great so far and are two of my favorite players already - but they aren't leaps and bounds better.

And Hall is definitely better than Hardy.

But I digress. Back to the bunting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think significant means in the context of differentiating between hitters?

IMO Hall and Braun should both produce similar OBPs (i.e. similar LD numbers and similar BB numbers and neither are slow, although Braun's greater power should lead to a slightly higher BABIP assuming the same batted ball split), yet Braun hits for more power.

Do you disagree Braun hits with more power than Hall? Is this difference not significant? What would be a significant difference (quantified in terms of slugging difference between each's respective "true talent" level).

(BTW, although not relevant to this debate, Braun is 4 years younger and doing this in his first ML season. He should get better)

I'm not sure how to respond to the "he hit .300 a couple of years ago" argument other than to point out BA in isolation isn't very instructive on the issue at hand and Braun is hitting 347 while Hall's best BA is .291.

Regarding Hall's power output last year, both his HR/FB and FB% were way above his historical totals, and both are way down this year. Yes, Hall hit 35 home runs last year, and yes, Ryan Braun is one pace to have a more productive season that Hall did last year. Braun may be running hot this year, but so did hall last year (when he also Ked 30% of the time and had a LD% below 20).



I don't really care to debate your assertion that Fielder is not a significantly better hitter than Hall. I think that is a facially nuts argument, but to each his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a straight up comparison. Hall plays CF. Braun plays 3B. So Hall can be behind as a hitter and still have comparable value.

I really don't think any intelligent person would say that Braun is "significantly" better than Hall.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow. Some of the brightest binds in baseball analysis, from Tango to Clay Davenport, would disagree. Hitters are hitters. Many believe the proper way to do adjustment is on the fielding side of things. To quote Tom Tango and his agreement with Clay Davenport on this matter:

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Clay’s premise that the adjustment shouldn’t come from the hitting stats. After all, that assumes that the avg 3B = avg 2B = avg 1B, etc. This makes no sense to blindly accept that. After all the avg QB does not equal the avg offensive tackle. Nor is it even true that the avg SS = avg 2B in high school. Therefore, what would make it so at the MLB level? (And, in 2006, the avg 3B was better than the avg 2B.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That said, the issue at hand is who is a better hitter, not which player provides more value compared to the average or replacement level of offense at their position. The original issue is whether a particular hitter should be bunting or swinging away in a particular situation, and what position a player plays is irrelevant to that consideration, while what the hitter can do with a bat in his hand *is* relevant to that situation.

I'm glad you don't think I am intelligent. Since apparently I'm dumb, you should easily be able to the points I've raised.

If you wish to respond with some sort of garbage PrOPS based argument that their K, BB and batted ball numbers are similar, and thus the only difference in their batting lines is due to BABIP luck, perhaps you should stop worrying about how smart or dumb you think other people may be and instead reflect on your own ignorance.

Here is a link to a discussion on "The Book Blog" that addresses the many shortcommings of a PrOPS based anaylsis. A sample:

[ QUOTE ]
First, the premise of PrOPS is that departures from the mean hit rate on each batted ball type are luck. So if you control for BIP type, you have a ‘true’ measure of how well a player hit. However, we know this isn’t correct—hitters vary greatly in terms of their BABIP and SLGBIP on a given type of BIP

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
PrOPS poor predictive performance is not surprising. It essentially tries to regress factors in the following way:
LD% 0%
GB/FB 0%
Ks 0%
HRs 0%
BBs 0%
BA-LD 100%
SLG-LD 100%
BA-FB 100%
SLG-FB 100%
BA-GB 100%
SLG-GB 100%

Now, one thing we know is that every number here is wrong—none of these performances are pure luck or pure skill, so the correct regression will be somewhere between 0 and 100 for each element. Then you have the possibility of additional errors introduced by using multiple regression to guage the value of BBs, HRs, Ks, which can be determined empirically.

Batted-ball data may eventually help improve projections on the margin. I don’t think we know that yet. But PrOPS clearly doesn’t take us there.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more reasoned, meaningful, and statistically variated method for looking at batted ball data and BABIP If Line drives could speak

Here is a link to a repository of batted ball data from 02-05. Does it really surprise anyone that a Chone Figgins line drive is worth less runs than a line Drive by Vladimir Guererro? Or That Vladdy's fly balls are worth a whole lot more than fly balls for Chone Figgins. PrOPS says that's luck. PrOPS's conclusion is nuts to anybody who watched these two guys hit, Vladdy's line drives and flyballs > Chone Figgins line drives and flyballs.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot more butns fail then result in infield hits/errors

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there stats on this? It instinctually seems true, especially when you consider the negative effect of missing/fouling a couple attempts and having to hit with two strikes.

But Bill James wrote an essay on bunting a long time ago titled something like "Rolling in the Grass" (which, of course I can't find now). His conclusion was that it is correct to bunt a lot more often than he originally thought. The main reason was that a lot of good results can happen from a bunt attempt, aside from a basic successful sacrifice: hits, errors, a fielder unsuccessfully trying to get the lead runner, etc. And the good results outweighed the bad results of an unsuccessful attempt, maybe not in terms of frequency but in terms of degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Book has some pretty in-depth information on the percentages of various possible bunting outcomes that have occured in different situations.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
That said, the issue at hand is who is a better hitter, not which player provides more value compared to the average or replacement level of offense at their position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus christ, do you know how to DELETE SUPERFLUOUS QUOTES?

"I'm glad you don't think I am intelligent. Since apparently I'm dumb..."

I just had to point out how dumb this sentence was. Obviously if one is not intelligent they are dumb. Obviously. Absolutes are obvious. Obviously.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, the issue at hand is who is a better hitter, not which player provides more value compared to the average or replacement level of offense at their position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus christ, do you know how to DELETE SUPERFLUOUS QUOTES?

"I'm glad you don't think I am intelligent. Since apparently I'm dumb..."

I just had to point out how dumb this sentence was. Obviously if one is not intelligent they are dumb. Obviously. Absolutes are obvious. Obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, do you care to address any of the substantive arguments I have presented?

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

Most of it was irrelevant and I'm assuming it wasn't directed at me.

Also, you should note how I worded what I said. I was talking about "better" in terms of overall value. No one in the world who's worth his salt would say that, measured by VORP or WARP or EqA or whatever you want to use, that Braun, say in 08, is significantly better than Hall. Indeed, their PECOTA-projected EqAs for this year prove my point. I wasn't talking about Braun v Hall in the umbrella of this thread.

Even a non-intelligent person can understand the above, right?

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
The main reason was that a lot of good results can happen from a bunt attempt, aside from a basic successful sacrifice: hits, errors, a fielder unsuccessfully trying to get the lead runner, etc. And the good results outweighed the bad results of an unsuccessful attempt, maybe not in terms of frequency but in terms of degree.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not to mention that the THREAT of bunting or just one show of a bunt (took the pitch or fouled it off) forced the defense to respect the possibility that you might do it again which can also increase your chances if you then decide to swing-away (mostly due to the drawn-in 3B but also possibly by hitting behind one of the middle-infielders if he's rotating one way or another).

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of it was irrelevant and I'm assuming it wasn't directed at me.

Also, you should note how I worded what I said. I was talking about "better" in terms of overall value. No one in the world who's worth his salt would say that, measured by VORP or WARP or EqA or whatever you want to use, that Braun, say in 08, is significantly better than Hall. Indeed, their PECOTA-projected EqAs for this year prove my point. I wasn't talking about Braun v Hall in the umbrella of this thread.

Even a non-intelligent person can understand the above, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No intelligent person would say that an apple is the same thing as a carrot, but it has about as much bearing on the conversation as what you said.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

I really shouldn't have to draw you a map to illustrate how simple a connection is, should I?

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

Please explain why positional value has anything to do with the OP.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

I wasn't responding to OP.

Dur dur dur.

Re: Settle this Baseball Argument
 

It depends is the correct answer. Lets assume the bunt is successful. 2nd and 3rd, 1 out. The number 3 batter is now walked intentionally to load the bases and set up a force at any base with the DP in order. The number 4 hitter is LH and is a good hitter (obviously if he is hitting clean up) but has trouble with tough lefties. The team on defense has a shut down lefty in the pen that could be brought in. The number 5 hitter was brought in as a defensive replacement and is a below average hitter. The bench has been depleted so no viable pinch hitting exists. Knowing in advance that the bunt will be successful do you still sacrifice an out in this situation? This is why baseball is such a great game IMHO. There are so many variables and you really need to look down the line to see how each decision may impact a future move.