PDA

View Full Version : Manuel and The Bunt


MikeKreevich
06-20-2003, 07:51 AM
Everyone knows that Jerry Manuel loves the no out, man on first, bunt. It's part of his National League little ball strategy. Only problem is that it rarely works. A study was once conducted that showed that a man on first, no outs, followed by a bunt, scored less than 50% of the time. I confess that I can't quote the author of the study but I didn't make this up.
With the ineptitude of the White Sox players to bunt, it might be a good idea to do more hitting behind the runner and save the bunt for more appropriate times like a tie game, late in the game, man on second, no outs.
You know, as well as I, that Jerry Manuel won't change his strategy, only his daily lineup.

hsnterprize
06-20-2003, 08:00 AM
Ed Farmer said the Sox were the "worst bunting team he's ever seen". I'm not kidding...he actually said that. IMHO...the Sox need to be more concerned about moving a runner and bringing in runs with less than 2 outs rather than trying to make a "big inning" with home runs and extra base hits all the time.

Ed said the Sox players take a couple of bunts in batting practice before they take their swings, but the pitches are coming in slower than during a game. He was really ticked off at the bad bunting the Sox were doing. And you can really tell he was upset about the bad fundamentals.

fquaye149
06-20-2003, 08:30 AM
if we could effectively move the runner over to second every time, which realistically we should be able to do, then it would always be in favor of it.


but let's think about this:

of course it will be around 50%...

runner on 2nd a single will score him right?

let's say the hitters are hitting around a league avg of .250

the odds that one of the two will get a single is 50%...take away double plays and that makes it a little less than 50%

now let's look at with just a runner on 1st and 0 outs

we realistically need a double at least to score from 1st.

the odds of one of 3 hitters hitting a double is about...

...let's say 1/2 the hits the batters have are doubles or better ...which is very high.... that means 12.5% of the time each hitter will hit a double...or their batting average looking only at doubles is .125

.125 times 3 is .375 which are the odds that one of three hitters will be a double and score him...or 37.5%


ahhhh you say! what about a single to move him to 2nd or 3rd

well a single will happen 12.5% of the time for each hitter(that's assuming 12.5% of the hitters are extra base hits, remember from earlier?) well if that single happens, then the odds of scoring from 2nd are 50%, remember from the sac bunt excercise? actually add 25% because there might be no outs...this is best case scenario. since this 75% chance of scoring from 2nd with 0 outs will happen 12.5% of the time we have to take 75% of 12.5% and get...let me guesstimate here...about 9%...so 37.5% of the time the hitter on first will be doubled or better in with 0 outs...9% of the time they will be moved over to second and scored...add those up, we get 46.5%

46.5% is very close to 50%! you say...i bet when you add in the possibility of balks, sb's, pb's, wp's and other stuff it surpasses 50%...(i don't feel like going into all that)

so why bunt him over? well......... with a runner on first, and when you're the 2003 chi-sox...there is a not just real....but almost certain possibility of the old 6-4-3...



so i guess strategy would dictate...bunt him over and take the 1/2 and 1/2 chance


of course having said all that, manuel is still a moron. why? because

a.) 1/2 and 1/2 is assuming your team is not anti-clutch with risp like the sox are


and

b.) the sox couldn't bunt their way out of a wet paper bag, with scissors in their hand.



bad bad bad bad baseball.

we will still make the playoffs though!...mark my words

TornLabrum
06-20-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Guzman's Goat
Everyone knows that Jerry Manuel loves the no out, man on first, bunt. It's part of his National League little ball strategy. Only problem is that it rarely works. A study was once conducted that showed that a man on first, no outs, followed by a bunt, scored less than 50% of the time. I confess that I can't quote the author of the study but I didn't make this up.
With the ineptitude of the White Sox players to bunt, it might be a good idea to do more hitting behind the runner and save the bunt for more appropriate times like a tie game, late in the game, man on second, no outs.
You know, as well as I, that Jerry Manuel won't change his strategy, only his daily lineup.

I've seen the figures, too, and I think Bill James even talks about it in the first edition of his Historical Baseball Abstract. I even saw the figures on the web somewhere within the last month but didn't bookmark the site, so now I don't remember it. The web site contained information for runners on each base with 0-2 outs.

I will confirm what the studies show, though. A runner on first with no outs has a greater chance of scoring than a runner on second with one out. So the sacrifice bunt actually decreases your chances of scoring.

Randar68
06-20-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
So the sacrifice bunt actually decreases your chances of scoring.

How is that?

In order to compare the 2 equally, you need to compare:

runner on first, 0 outs:

% scoring from first when no bunt occurs
% scoring from first when bunt occurs

Some bunts will go for hits, failed FC's or errors. The only way to evenly compare them is to do so from first base.

Comparing "runner on 2nd, 1 out vs. runner on 1st, 0 out" is apples to oranges in a statistical sense. They are completely independant.

mrwag
06-20-2003, 11:55 AM
Go over all the stats and numbers you want, the simple fact is that the Sox cannot advance a runner, something a Major League player should be able to do. That's why we are in the position we are in, and that's why we'll never achieve.

Remember the slogan from the early 90's Sox teams "Doing the Little Things"? This club doesn't know what that means. They wait back for the big homerun, and when you are struggling you need to be manufacturing runs. When your team has no speed, no little ball capability, you are going to slump for a long time until those bats awaken. Plain and simple.

TheRockinMT
06-20-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Guzman's Goat
Everyone knows that Jerry Manuel loves the no out, man on first, bunt. It's part of his National League little ball strategy. Only problem is that it rarely works. A study was once conducted that showed that a man on first, no outs, followed by a bunt, scored less than 50% of the time. I confess that I can't quote the author of the study but I didn't make this up.
With the ineptitude of the White Sox players to bunt, it might be a good idea to do more hitting behind the runner and save the bunt for more appropriate times like a tie game, late in the game, man on second, no outs.
You know, as well as I, that Jerry Manuel won't change his strategy, only his daily lineup.

I watched the game on WGN yesterday and of course listened to Hawk and DJ. Basically they said the same thing as Farmer. Hawk said that bunting has been a lost art in baseball. I have to wonder how in the heck bunting became such a low priority in teaching the game at the minor league level. It just goes to show you that baseball has become homer crazy. Every team wants to win with the guy who can hit the 5 run homer. That's who gets the money and the publicity. Hitting coaches work on the swing and all that psychic stuff, but when is the last time you ever heard a batting coach complemented because his charges could BUNT? The game still comes down to playing the way the game used to be played and that's aggresivey and fundamentally sound. Bunting, running, good defense, strong pitching mechanics first and then the 5 run homer last.

MarkEdward
06-20-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Randar68

Comparing "runner on 2nd, 1 out vs. runner on 1st, 0 out" is apples to oranges in a statistical sense. They are completely independant.

For what it's worth, here's a study on the effects of the sacrifice bunt (I think it was posted here before):
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050221.html

TornLabrum
06-20-2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
How is that?

In order to compare the 2 equally, you need to compare:

runner on first, 0 outs:

% scoring from first when no bunt occurs
% scoring from first when bunt occurs

Some bunts will go for hits, failed FC's or errors. The only way to evenly compare them is to do so from first base.

Comparing "runner on 2nd, 1 out vs. runner on 1st, 0 out" is apples to oranges in a statistical sense. They are completely independant.

They are not apples and oranges. How you got to second base has nothing to do with it. What has an effect is the odds of scoring runs in various baserunning situations with different numbers of outs.

As it turns out, with a man on second and one out, you have about 78% of the probablitiy of scoring that you do when you have a man on first an no outs. You REDUCE your chance of scoring when you increase your number of outs. It's that simple.

voodoochile
06-20-2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
They are not apples and oranges. How you got to second base has nothing to do with it. What has an effect is the odds of scoring runs in various baserunning situations with different numbers of outs.

As it turns out, with a man on second and one out, you have about 78% of the probablitiy of scoring that you do when you have a man on first an no outs. You REDUCE your chance of scoring when you increase your number of outs. It's that simple.

That's because there are so many ways to get a man to second base with no one out.

basehit or walk (league average 34%)
stolen base (20% - that's a guess based on whether a basestealer is on first and whether he is safe or not)
Error (2% - based on most teams averaging about .5 errors per game)

That puts the odds on getting a man to second with no one out by any means available at a potential 55% in any given situation. Probably too high, but even if you remove the base stealing percentage it would still be 35% - and probably 1/3 of those chances get them man at least to 3B with no one out (extra base hits).

Of course that is strictly league average and ignores the individual at the plate at any given moment.

kevingrt
06-20-2003, 02:19 PM
It makes no sense to the common baseball fan to bunt with a man on 1st and no out... that's why Jerry does it b/c he is not the common or sensable coach.

TRL
06-20-2003, 11:56 PM
It really doesn't matter what the percentages are with this team becasue no one can get a key hit with a runner on second anyway. I'd rather see us hit and run a little more in that situation.

fquaye149
06-21-2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by kevingrt
It makes no sense to the common baseball fan to bunt with a man on 1st and no out... that's why Jerry does it b/c he is not the common or sensable coach.


sorry, but with a team that doesn't bunt like ass, i will bunt him over to second every time in a one run game. you just don't score runs from 1st...

Paulwny
06-21-2003, 09:27 AM
Do these stats take into account the difference between the 2 leagues, DH ?

In the early inning of an al game , if the 8th placed hitter leads off by getting on first a manager can play for the big inning. In the nl the pitcher, usually an obvious out, is batting. Why risk the greater chance of a dp or strike out with the pitcher batting. It makes more sense to advance the runner in this situation.

The odds of scoring an 8th placed hitter, who led off by getting to 1st, should be higher in the al then in the nl.

The dh allows managers to go for the big inning in the al.

PaleHoseGeorge
06-21-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Do these stats take into account the difference between the 2 leagues, DH ?

In the early inning of an al game , if the 8th placed hitter leads off by getting on first a manager can play for the big inning. In the nl the pitcher, usually an obvious out, is batting. Why risk the greater chance of a dp or strike out with the pitcher batting. It makes more sense to advance the runner in this situation.

The odds of scoring an 8th placed hitter, who led off by getting to 1st, should be higher in the al then in the nl.

The dh allows managers to go for the big inning in the al.

There are more bunts in the N.L. regardless of the situation. Pitchers are the closest thing there is to automatic outs, so N.L. managers have to execute lots of bunts to compensate. However, the question isn't whether to play for "the big inning" swinging away, or sacrificing a baserunner into scoring position.

The real question is whether you score more often with a runner on first base and nobody out, or more often with a runner on second base and one out. As Torn noted, bunting makes no sense because statistics prove you're cutting your chances of scoring the runner.

The out is more valuable than advancing the runner to second base. Giving up the out to get a runner "into scoring position" just isn't worth it-- statistically speaking.

The biggest problem I have with baseball today is the lack of base stealing. Guys like Vince Coleman were valuable because they could turn four pitched balls (outside the strike zone) into a base runner at second base without costing their team a single out. Now THAT'S what I call manufacturing runs.

Jerry Manuel hasn't a clue.

:jerry
"Maybe next spring I'll run a base-stealing boot camp. Yeah, that's the ticket!"