Settle this Baseball Argument

[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.

[MuresanForMVP]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

go on...

[J.R.]

[ 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

[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.

[vhawk01]

[ 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.

[PokerFink]

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.

[MicroBob]

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.

[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.