Settle this Baseball Argument

[Dudd]

In The Book, they've broken down bunt attempts with a man on first and 0 outs by early and late game situation, and the resulting win expectancy that a team would have should you bunt/hit away, basically the percent that a team will score in the inning following the bunt attempt. If the defense were playing as they were early in the game, you will win after attempting a bunt 71.6% percent of the time. If they were playing as they were in the 7th or 8th, you'll win 70.1% percent of the time. If it's the 9th, you'll win 69.6% of the time. If you swing away in the 9th, you'll win 71.5% of the time. So, clearly swinging away is better in most situations in the 9th, nothing else known about the skill of the hitter, the pitcher, the defense, etc. But, bunts occur in the 9th over 50% of the time in this situation, while early, they occur only 7% of the time. It makes sense that the defense would be playing in during the 9th and back before the 7th. Looking at the numbers, it's roughly equal to bunt early and swing late. However, if all you do is swing, then they'll stop playing you to bunt and it will be more like an early game situation where it is correct to bunt and incorrect to swing away, assuming you're playing for scoring a single run and not maximizing the total amount of runs scored. Therefore, sometimes you must bunt and sometimes you must swing away in order to keep the defense from playing optimally. Note that this is for only a man on first and not two men on, but I'd assume similar considerations apply.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's the 9th, you'll win 69.6% of the time. If you swing away in the 9th, you'll win 71.5% of the time. So, clearly swinging away is better in most situations in the 9th, nothing else known about the skill of the hitter, the pitcher, the defense, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flaw in the reasoning (as you've presented it) is that it was assumed that the people who bunted and failed 30.4% of the time would have failed at the same rate if they were hitting away as those who swung away and failed 28.5%-- they may have been selected to bunt because their skill set and the match up indicated a higher failure rate at swinging away. (This isn't a new thought for this thread, btw. It just indicates that that stat and argument doesn't clearly establish anything.)

[MicroBob]

"So, clearly swinging away is better in most situations in the 9th, nothing else known about the skill of the hitter, the pitcher, the defense, etc."


I don't think it shows that it's clearly better.
It might just mean that the times they did swing-away they were correctly evaluating their greater advantage for doing so thus they won more.
This still doesn't mean that swinging-away is the default 'better' play every time this situation comes up with everything else being equal (which it never is).
It could just mean that the times when a manager DOES choose to swing-away he is more likely to have spotted something that made it more correct to do so.

IMO, you can't just look at all the times they bunted compared with all the times they swung-away and then say that in general, "swinging is better."

[Dids]

I think to some extent the answer is just going to be "both options are pretty damn viable".

If I'm the M's, I am bunting, because TURBO! is a [censored] dp factory.

I also think so some extent you want to consider the nature of your 3/4 hitters. You'd rather have a guy who is going to get the ball in play with his outs a little more than a good TTO guy. This (2nd and 3rd 1 out after a bunt works) where a strikeout is really lame.

[Jack of Arcades]

Sometimes it makes sense to bunt good hitters.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]

It could just mean that the times when a manager DOES choose to swing-away he is more likely to have spotted something that made it more correct to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Bob, if sabr data support two opposite conclusions, the one that suggests that managers are stupid is the correct one.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'll start by saying I hate the sacrifice bunt in general.

That being said, there are a lot of factors here not mentioned.

-How is the pitcher pitching? Did he walk either or both baserunners? Is he a ground ball or fly ball pitcher?
-How good a bat handler is the #2 guy? Can he take a strike, sell hitting away and bunt for a base hit, or will the defense charge regardless?

Control, sinkerball pitcher vs good bat handler, I still favor hit and run over sacrifice.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
Augie Garrido, who has won more games than any other college coach ever, said that with 1st and 2nd and no outs, he would bunt Babe Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to Earl Weaver, who probably would never even consider sacrificing in this (or any other) situation.

[Vyse]

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

[mo42nyy]

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.