Quick counts question..??

[cusefan74]

Re: Quick counts question..??

It's counter-productive because that out you gave up cost you more in expected runs than you gained by moving the runner up.

Even with a pitcher at bat, it's still very often a better play to let him hit away than to drop a sac bunt.

It's way more complicated than that and highly dependent on situations and matchups, but the bottom line is that bunting almost always is the wrong decision.

But you have no way of knowing you are going to score a run with that guy. If I'm hitting with a pitcher I got a better chance of hitting into a double play then scoring a run with him. So that does away with either man scoring a run, and it might even be the end of an inning, so now you are not scoring at all.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: Quick counts question..??

If I'm hitting with a pitcher I got a better chance of hitting into a double play then scoring a run with him.

I agree, also the most likely thing to happen with a pitcher swinging away is to strike out. At least putting the ball in play beats a K. There's something to be said for productive outs.
#SmallBall

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

But you have no way of knowing you are going to score a run with that guy. If I'm hitting with a pitcher I got a better chance of hitting into a double play then scoring a run with him. So that does away with either man scoring a run, and it might even be the end of an inning, so now you are not scoring at all.

But we do have ways of knowing the probability of scoring runs. Sac bunts almost universally lowers that probability. If you're hitting with a pitcher, more often than not, you have a better chance of scoring runs if you let him swing away than if you waste an out.

Also of note, depending on game situation, is the probability of scoring at least 1 run (which is different from expected runs). In certain cases where it would be unwise to bunt earlier in a game because it lowers you overall expected runs, it may not be the worst idea later in a 1 run game because the probability of scoring at least 1 run may go up.

[cusefan74]

Re: Quick counts question..??

But we do have ways of knowing the probability of scoring runs. Sac bunts almost universally lowers that probability. If you're hitting with a pitcher, more often than not, you have a better chance of scoring runs if you let him swing away than if you waste an out.

Also of note, depending on game situation, is the probability of scoring at least 1 run (which is different from expected runs). In certain cases where it would be unwise to bunt earlier in a game because it lowers you overall expected runs, it may not be the worst idea later in a 1 run game because the probability of scoring at least 1 run may go up.

It doesn't make sense to me. If I get a guy on and I have a pitcher coming up hitting for a .100 avg, there is a pretty low chance he doesn't get out anyways. I would rather use that out to try and produce a run. That means moving him over for my other guys to get him in. I understand there is a chance he could do it, but there is a lot better chance of him not.

You can't really know if not bunting would produce more runs or not. Like @Ghost Of The Year said, there something to be said for productive outs.

[kehlis]

Re: Quick counts question..??

But we do have ways of knowing the probability of scoring runs. Sac bunts almost universally lowers that probability. If you're hitting with a pitcher, more often than not, you have a better chance of scoring runs if you let him swing away than if you waste an out.

Also of note, depending on game situation, is the probability of scoring at least 1 run (which is different from expected runs). In certain cases where it would be unwise to bunt earlier in a game because it lowers you overall expected runs, it may not be the worst idea later in a 1 run game because the probability of scoring at least 1 run may go up.

I read Bill James' book as well.

You are omitting the easiest stat and proof of all.

Forgetting the pitcher for a second, let say it's anyone batting in a situation where you need a run.

There are three outcomes:

1. Bunt the runner over into scoring position with one out making the percentages to score significantly higher than if there were just a runner on first. Agree? Success rate with sac bunts is around 80%.

2. Let batter swing away. Batter fly's out or strikes out. Nothing lost nothing gained.

3. Batter grounds into a double play. Worse off than we were before.

4. Batter gets a base hit, advantage offense.



Based on the percentages of BA where you can probabably agree that if best we are talking about an average of .250 hitters, the odds of any scenario that favors the team actually swinging away is actually pretty slim.


I agree with most of James' theories, but that is one that literally makes no sense, there is no data you could provide that would show otherwise. I would challenge you to do so but being that there is no hypothetical data to make a solid point it is impossible.


At the end of the day, you are left with (what you are doing) trying to take a theory and call it fact despite the fact that you have no data to prove it.

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

I read Bill James' book as well.

You are omitting the easiest stat and proof of all.

Forgetting the pitcher for a second, let say it's anyone batting in a situation where you need a run.

There are three outcomes:

1. Bunt the runner over into scoring position with one out making the percentages to score significantly higher than if there were just a runner on first. Agree? Success rate with sac bunts is around 80%.

2. Let batter swing away. Batter fly's out or strikes out. Nothing lost nothing gained.

3. Batter grounds into a double play. Worse off than we were before.

4. Batter gets a base hit, advantage offense.



Based on the percentages of BA where you can probabably agree that if best we are talking about an average of .250 hitters, the odds of any scenario that favors the team actually swinging away is actually pretty slim.


I agree with most of James' theories, but that is one that literally makes no sense, there is no data you could provide that would show otherwise. I would challenge you to do so but being that there is no hypothetical data to make a solid point it is impossible.


At the end of the day, you are left with (what you are doing) trying to take a theory and call it fact despite the fact that you have no data to prove it.

No data? What on Earth are you taking about? Retrosheet has MASSIVE amounts of historical data from which we can extrapolate the expected runs for given situations of outs, runners on, and league/batting order (to account for the uselessness of the senior circuit 9th batters).

You're talking about trading the ER of, say, runner on 1st with no outs for runner on second and one out. This is almost universally a bad idea, especially with non-pitcher batting and even still with many pitchers batting. The possible outcomes of letting the batter swing away are already baked into the ER of the situation.

Conversely, with runners on 1st AND 2nd, no outs, your expected runs do go up by having an average pitcher sac bunt. This is one of the few cases when it ever actually makes sense to intentionally give up outs in baseball.

At the end of the day, you're confusing the terms hypothesis and theory, and ignoring the fact we do have large volumes of data to support the theory (although it's not even really theory, so much as it's observed statistical data).

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

It doesn't make sense to me. If I get a guy on and I have a pitcher coming up hitting for a .100 avg, there is a pretty low chance he doesn't get out anyways. I would rather use that out to try and produce a run. That means moving him over for my other guys to get him in. I understand there is a chance he could do it, but there is a lot better chance of him not.

You can't really know if not bunting would produce more runs or not. Like @Ghost Of The Year said, there something to be said for productive outs.

You can't ever know anything ahead of time. That's why the field of probability and statistics exists. We very much can say what's more probable to result in runs scored, and how many runs scored.

Bottom line: giving away free outs is almost universally bad baseball.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Bottom line: giving away free outs is almost universally bad baseball.

So long as you qualify it, I can live with that. In any event quick counts pretty much take that choice away from you, as stated earlier.

[cusefan74]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Bottom line for me, I would much rather have a man on second and one out, then a man on first with no outs and let the pitcher swing away.

[jcmreds]

Re: Quick counts question..??

It's counter-productive because that out you gave up cost you more in expected runs than you gained by moving the runner up.

Even with a pitcher at bat, it's still very often a better play to let him hit away than to drop a sac bunt.

It's way more complicated than that and highly dependent on situations and matchups, but the bottom line is that bunting almost always is the wrong decision.

You want your .090 hitting pitcher to strike out or hit into a double play instead of moving runners over? Just stick to the AL where a big hog who can't bend over to tie his shoe can DH.

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

You want your .090 hitting pitcher to strike out or hit into a double play instead of moving runners over? Just stick to the AL where a big hog who can't bend over to tie his shoe can DH.

No, I want my average pitcher (~.140/.175/.315/.490) doing what's been statistically observed to be the best thing for the team, which more often than not means not wasting an out on a sac bunt.

If the statistics are too much for you to handle, perhaps it is you who should stick to the AL.

[RedSoxFox7]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Bottom line for me, I would much rather have a man on second and one out, then a man on first with no outs and let the pitcher swing away.

Bottom line, as a matter of historical fact, that decision most often hurts your chances of scoring runs.

[Steven78]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Productive outs are pretty much a myth. Giving away outs is almost never a good idea.

[cusefan74]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Bottom line, as a matter of historical fact, that decision most often hurts your chances of scoring runs.

I score more runs when bunting then when not that's all I know. I know if I get my guy to second with one out a base hit scores him, but if he is still on first with one out and I get a hit, he might not even get to third. If I was using a team in the AL I would think like you, but I don't. I use an NL team and have that whole in my lineup to deal with.

In the end I don't play historical facts, I play what is best in the situation.

[cusefan74]

Re: Quick counts question..??

Productive outs are pretty much a myth. Giving away outs is almost never a good idea.

No they're not a myth. If the game is tied and you have a guy on second with no outs and can get him to third with one out, that gives you a chance to get him in many, many different ways. If it works it turns into a productive out.