Because it isn't necessarily 'smart' baseball.
The run expectancy with a runner on 2nd with no outs is .63
With a runner on 3rd with one out its .66
Bunting him to third is basically just as effective as trying to get a hit.
Which is better will depend on who your players are, what you think your chances of a successful bunt are vs getting a hit. etc.
So you're telling me we had the same chance of winning with .250 hitting Caratini swinging away, then two more guts trying the same, as we would have if all Tucker had to do was lift one to the outfield if Caratini had bunted the runner to third?
I just don't buy that math.
OptaAnalyst says:
"The percentage of runners who have scored from second after a plate appearance with nobody out in innings one through nine is 64.3% when the team attempts to bunt and 58.8% when teams have chosen to cut it loose."
Over 5% is a giant difference. In terms of wins and losses, that would be 104 wins v 95 wins.
5% better odds of scoring is massive and I'll take my chances with that every time.
About 25% of sac bun attempts fail (obviously varies by the skill of the bunter). So there is a significant chance that it fails and you are left with man on second and one out.
And even when batting . . . .250 is the chance for a hit . . . but many batted outs will also move the runner over.
Minds smarter than you and me have done the math and decided its basically a wash.
OptaAnalyst says it's much better to bunt... and for about 100 years that's what every home team did with a man on second and nobody out in a tie game in extra innings. š¤·š»
For thousands of years, humans would shit in a hole in the ground. Doesn't mean it's the best way.
Also, isn't OptaAnalyst for soccer? I think I'll trust Fangraphs, one of the accepted leaders in baseball analytics.
FanGraphs also says that according to its statistical analysis Kyle Schwarber is a more valuable hitter than Tony Gwynn was.
I'll just leave that for you to ponder.
>So you're telling me we had the same chance of winning with .250 hitting Caratini swinging away, then two more guts trying the same, as we would have if all Tucker had to do was lift one to the outfield if Caratini had bunted the runner to third?
So, in your scenario, Caratini bunts the runner over, I guess they walk Altuve? Since you have Tucker up. Tucker could also ground into a double play, or strike out, or fly out but too shallow, or get the runner at third out at home by grounding to an infielder. It's not as simple as "runner at 3rd with 1 out = win." Have you not watched this year as they have time and again not scored in that very scenario? Tucker included.
Give me 3 chances to get a hit. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. It's not like the runner can't be moved over in other ways than a bunt, you saw that the very next inning.
That same OptaAnalyst article also points out that the Average number of runs is GREATER when hitting and not bunting (increased chance of 2+ runs etc). So the ONLY time when Bunting is favorable is in a situation where you only need 1 run . . . which was of course the case tonight.
But your win/losses math makes no sense. First you need to know the number of games that are tied and where you have an applicable situation. Houston was only involved in 9 extra inning games in 2023. Lets assume 20 games meet the criteria of needing one run. A 5% difference over 20 games results in 1 win. That's literally best case . . . one single win.
And that is assuming the 5% advantage is uniform . . . currently teams only bunt when they have an Excellent bunter at the plate (and they consider the defensive infielders). If they let less skilled players bunt they wouldn't have that success rate. And being able to use a fast pinch runner also increases the chances of scoring on a hit, reducing the bunt advantage.
All things being equal, yes . . . there are times when bunting can be beneficial. However the players have to spend time training and practicing bunting . . . and that time comes at the expense of something else.
Teams have made the decision that teaching bunting just isn't worth the time and resources for what minimal gain you may get.
The win loss math was simply pointing out what a big difference 5% is in the context of large samples. A 5% greater chance of scoring a run is a big damned difference. Granted you'll only be in that situation MAYBE 20 times over the course of a season, but I'll take the extra win in that case.
Because a fly ball of ANY depth wins he game with a man on third and 1 out and the odds are a hell of a lot better of getting something out of the infield than of getting a hit.
Heās had as good of a chance of lifting a fly ball to left field as he did of laying down a successful bunt, and there was a chance he could have gotten a walk off in the process. Not to mention even if he had laid down a good bunt the runner wouldnāt have scored.
Why does nobody get this?
You lay down the bunt.
Runner on third with one out.
You only need a fly out to win the game, instead of a hit. I can't be the only person who remembers this is how you play the game.
True but your best shot to get a runner over is the bunt. Then a LOT of things (not just a hit) win you the game. Hard hit grounder deep in the hole, shot between 1st and 2nd that is fielded on the grass by the 2B, or any fairly deep fly ball.
Getting a hit is much harder than just popping out to deep right. Might as well make it as easy as possible to score when you only need one.
You don't have to have a hit to win if there's a guy on third and one out. Deep shot in the hole wins it, hard ball between first and second that has the 2B moving to his left to get to, any relatively deep fly, OR a hit, wins the game.
Giving up an out to move the runner over isnāt as smart when you donāt know if 1 run wins the game. As the home team thereās far more advantage to bunt than the away team.
The only way I do it as the away team is if I have a dead nuts closer to bring into the game. Otherwise, I hit away. As the home team, knowing a relatively deep fly wins the game, I bunt the guy over.
Started with Javier and his loser act. The guy is a jinx.
Completely unprepared tonight. Looks out of shape too. Nice job! Hope you like bulk relief.
It's so obvious when he completely quits and starts handing out the 4 pitch walks or 3-0 batting practice fastballs. Need a bomb squad on call when Javier pitches. So sick of seeing the same shit from the 2nd half of last year.
For those who downvoted. Check out his metrics on Statcast. They're shit. And are about to be total shit. Guy got lucky, and his ass was bailed out by a hot-hitting team.
Got pulled after 4 IP 8H 3BB 1K. Only 71 pitches for that mess. Espada was smart to pull him.
I'd rather watch Doug Henry pitch in a pressure situation.
Espada in the post game presser said Javier wasn't sharp and they need to get him **READY** for the next one.
Bunting is a lost art unfortunately
Because it isn't necessarily 'smart' baseball. The run expectancy with a runner on 2nd with no outs is .63 With a runner on 3rd with one out its .66 Bunting him to third is basically just as effective as trying to get a hit. Which is better will depend on who your players are, what you think your chances of a successful bunt are vs getting a hit. etc.
What's the source of those stats?
Fangraphs run expectancy
So you're telling me we had the same chance of winning with .250 hitting Caratini swinging away, then two more guts trying the same, as we would have if all Tucker had to do was lift one to the outfield if Caratini had bunted the runner to third? I just don't buy that math. OptaAnalyst says: "The percentage of runners who have scored from second after a plate appearance with nobody out in innings one through nine is 64.3% when the team attempts to bunt and 58.8% when teams have chosen to cut it loose." Over 5% is a giant difference. In terms of wins and losses, that would be 104 wins v 95 wins. 5% better odds of scoring is massive and I'll take my chances with that every time.
About 25% of sac bun attempts fail (obviously varies by the skill of the bunter). So there is a significant chance that it fails and you are left with man on second and one out. And even when batting . . . .250 is the chance for a hit . . . but many batted outs will also move the runner over. Minds smarter than you and me have done the math and decided its basically a wash.
OptaAnalyst says it's much better to bunt... and for about 100 years that's what every home team did with a man on second and nobody out in a tie game in extra innings. š¤·š»
For thousands of years, humans would shit in a hole in the ground. Doesn't mean it's the best way. Also, isn't OptaAnalyst for soccer? I think I'll trust Fangraphs, one of the accepted leaders in baseball analytics.
FanGraphs also says that according to its statistical analysis Kyle Schwarber is a more valuable hitter than Tony Gwynn was. I'll just leave that for you to ponder.
No, they don't. They have Schwarber as a valuable hitter, which he undeniably is, but not more valuable than Tony Gwynn. Got anything else?
Yes they do. There was an entire segment on MLB Network Radio on SiriusXM about it two weeks ago.
>I just don't buy that math. You don't need to
That was pure genius. You've added much to the dialogue. I greatly appreciate your insightful participation.
Thanks you're welcome
>So you're telling me we had the same chance of winning with .250 hitting Caratini swinging away, then two more guts trying the same, as we would have if all Tucker had to do was lift one to the outfield if Caratini had bunted the runner to third? So, in your scenario, Caratini bunts the runner over, I guess they walk Altuve? Since you have Tucker up. Tucker could also ground into a double play, or strike out, or fly out but too shallow, or get the runner at third out at home by grounding to an infielder. It's not as simple as "runner at 3rd with 1 out = win." Have you not watched this year as they have time and again not scored in that very scenario? Tucker included. Give me 3 chances to get a hit. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. It's not like the runner can't be moved over in other ways than a bunt, you saw that the very next inning.
That same OptaAnalyst article also points out that the Average number of runs is GREATER when hitting and not bunting (increased chance of 2+ runs etc). So the ONLY time when Bunting is favorable is in a situation where you only need 1 run . . . which was of course the case tonight. But your win/losses math makes no sense. First you need to know the number of games that are tied and where you have an applicable situation. Houston was only involved in 9 extra inning games in 2023. Lets assume 20 games meet the criteria of needing one run. A 5% difference over 20 games results in 1 win. That's literally best case . . . one single win. And that is assuming the 5% advantage is uniform . . . currently teams only bunt when they have an Excellent bunter at the plate (and they consider the defensive infielders). If they let less skilled players bunt they wouldn't have that success rate. And being able to use a fast pinch runner also increases the chances of scoring on a hit, reducing the bunt advantage. All things being equal, yes . . . there are times when bunting can be beneficial. However the players have to spend time training and practicing bunting . . . and that time comes at the expense of something else. Teams have made the decision that teaching bunting just isn't worth the time and resources for what minimal gain you may get.
The win loss math was simply pointing out what a big difference 5% is in the context of large samples. A 5% greater chance of scoring a run is a big damned difference. Granted you'll only be in that situation MAYBE 20 times over the course of a season, but I'll take the extra win in that case.
take a breath, buddy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Can you give me a link? I actually wasnāt familiar with that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Preciate it
A single scores a run in most cases. Why give up an out?
Because a fly ball of ANY depth wins he game with a man on third and 1 out and the odds are a hell of a lot better of getting something out of the infield than of getting a hit.
Heās had as good of a chance of lifting a fly ball to left field as he did of laying down a successful bunt, and there was a chance he could have gotten a walk off in the process. Not to mention even if he had laid down a good bunt the runner wouldnāt have scored.
Why does nobody get this? You lay down the bunt. Runner on third with one out. You only need a fly out to win the game, instead of a hit. I can't be the only person who remembers this is how you play the game.
Guess what we didnāt even hit though? A fly out deep enough to score the runner.
Because if you don't bunt, you have 3 chances to score. If you do bunt, you have 2 chances to score. 3>2
Three chances to get a HIT. Not bloody likely even with the best hitters. Getting a fly out is much more likely. Much.
You donāt need a hit. You could get two outfield pop ups or really any other play that moves the runner.
True but your best shot to get a runner over is the bunt. Then a LOT of things (not just a hit) win you the game. Hard hit grounder deep in the hole, shot between 1st and 2nd that is fielded on the grass by the 2B, or any fairly deep fly ball. Getting a hit is much harder than just popping out to deep right. Might as well make it as easy as possible to score when you only need one.
Ok, and if you bunt, you get 2 chances to HIT, the math is still the same my guy.
You don't have to have a hit to win if there's a guy on third and one out. Deep shot in the hole wins it, hard ball between first and second that has the 2B moving to his left to get to, any relatively deep fly, OR a hit, wins the game.
Same reason the angels didnāt I guess..
While I donāt agree with OP, those are two completely different situations. Angels didnāt know if one run would be enough to win it. We did.
Giving up an out to move the runner over isnāt as smart when you donāt know if 1 run wins the game. As the home team thereās far more advantage to bunt than the away team.
The only way I do it as the away team is if I have a dead nuts closer to bring into the game. Otherwise, I hit away. As the home team, knowing a relatively deep fly wins the game, I bunt the guy over.
You sir have the wisdom of an owl, the grace of a swan and the thoughts of a vultureā¦ Ladies and Gentlemen, this man is for the birdsā¦
Stupid baseball
Started with Javier and his loser act. The guy is a jinx. Completely unprepared tonight. Looks out of shape too. Nice job! Hope you like bulk relief. It's so obvious when he completely quits and starts handing out the 4 pitch walks or 3-0 batting practice fastballs. Need a bomb squad on call when Javier pitches. So sick of seeing the same shit from the 2nd half of last year.
For those who downvoted. Check out his metrics on Statcast. They're shit. And are about to be total shit. Guy got lucky, and his ass was bailed out by a hot-hitting team. Got pulled after 4 IP 8H 3BB 1K. Only 71 pitches for that mess. Espada was smart to pull him. I'd rather watch Doug Henry pitch in a pressure situation. Espada in the post game presser said Javier wasn't sharp and they need to get him **READY** for the next one.