Some thoughts on bunts

[Bjorn]

From Baseball between the numbers and other Sabremetics research I've come to understand that sacrifice bunts generaly lack or have negative value to the team making them. In general i don't have a problem with this, intuitivly an out seems to be quite a bit more valuable than a base.

However all the articles I've seen on it seems pretty simplistic. Either you bunt and it is a sacrifice or you swing away, basicly they're just comparing run-EV of the two states.

So if we take the example of a runner att 1st and no outs and compare it to a runner at 2nd with one out that has less EV.

However i can see at least four main possible outcomes i a team decides to bunt in this situation all occuring with different probabilities.

i) Bunt single (Runers at 1st & 2nd, 0 outs)
ii) Sacrifice bunt (Runner at 2nd, 1 out)
iii) Unsuccesful sacrifice (Runner at 1st, 1 out)
iv) Double play (Bases empty, 2 outs)

Now the differnt probabilities of each of these occuring should probably have something to do with how effective it is to bunt?

Assuming P(iv) is very small and P(ii) is very large (which seems quite reasonable). I have a hunch that the EV of bunting is quite sensitive to small changes of P(i) and P(iii).

From some of the games I've seen on sunday night baseball (only games i can see here in sweden unfortunatly) this also seems to be how some teams bunt in situations like this. For instance many bunts are going foul because they try to put them just right for a single. So maybe it would be better to think of it as a semisacrifice rather than a sacrifice? I.e. they try for the single but if that fails they'll settle for the sacrifice?

Sorry if this is just ramblings...

/Bjorn

[Kneel B4 Zod]

wow, I guess you took that book advice to heart.

[Evan]

I don't have any answers for you, but that's a hell of a lot of thought about baseball for someone that can only want one game per week.

[nsdjoe]

a fifth option of (throwing error, men on 2nd and 3rd, no outs) should be added.

[mosquito]

While all that is true, there is a difference between bunting with your cleanup hitter in the top of the second down by 4 runs, and bunting in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

There are situations where only one run is needed, reducing the odds of a crooked number have zero factor. What action is most likely to score one run?

What are the capabilities of the batter and baserunner? The reason the other studies are so simplistic is, individual situations are greatly varying.

The best a model can do is assume average values for the batter, the man on deck, and the baserunner.

Still, the thoughts you expressed are good. I would like to know more but am way to lazy to do it myself!

[Jack of Arcades]

The Book

[nirfdog]

[quote
i) Bunt single (Runers at 1st & 2nd, 0 outs)
ii) Sacrifice bunt (Runner at 2nd, 1 out)
iii) Unsuccesful sacrifice (Runner at 1st, 1 out)
iv) Double play (Bases empty, 2 outs)

Now the differnt probabilities of each of these occuring should probably have something to do with how effective it is to bunt?

Assuming P(iv) is very small and P(ii) is very large (which seems quite reasonable). I have a hunch that the EV of bunting is quite sensitive to small changes of P(i) and P(iii).

/Bjorn

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the only situation that can make a difference in the outcome being an average of P(ii), P(i) would have to be greater than P(iii)+P(iv). This is certainly not the case. In fact, if any of the other situations had any significant probability of happening (say >5%, which is probably a stretch in itself) it would be situation 3, unsuccessful bunt, runner on first one out, which would obviously be worse than a successful sacrifice.