No Sacrificice Bunt Filter

[PApulverizers]

Is there a reason there is no sacrifice bunt filter or bunt for a hit while conducting drafts?

I like having a number two hitter who is a good sacrifice bunter.

I love using the filters to help me find batters who fit into my system. However, it is a pain in the butt to go through each individual player to determine his bunting ability.

[The Wolf]

"The sacrifice bunt ... is a bad play." - Pete Palmer and John Thorn, "The Hidden Game of Baseball." This can be proved to be generally true.

See Chapter 9 of Tango's "The Book" for details about the very few times when it actually isn't a bad play.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

"The sacrifice bunt ... is a bad play." - Pete Palmer and John Thorn, "The Hidden Game of Baseball." This can be proved to be generally true.

See Chapter 9 of Tango's "The Book" for details about the very few times when it actually isn't a bad play.

Yes, a book written by two idiots who never played the game. I think I would go with the proven strategies of those who've actually played and managed in the game over the past 100+ years.

Plus, as someone who has played baseball sims since 1984, I can tell you that sacrifice bunts and bunts for hit have been extremely effective in every sim I've ever used. In fact, they can often be used to get teams to overachieve offensively.

As for the OP, Markus has noted this, and I think we might see this finally fixed in a forthcoming update for OOTP13. He mentioned that in this forum recently.

[olivertheorem]

Yes, because it doesn't matter if the data shows that sacrifice bunts tend to lead to fewer runs scored overall. Baseball people (managers, etc.) are never wrong.

Not that there's anything wrong with the OP wanting to play that way. It's your game, play it your way.

[PApulverizers]

Sacrifice bunts are useful in certain situations. Yes, I am aware that it 1 out with a runner on second produces less runs than 0 outs and a runner on first. I think the statistics are a little misleading. I say let the hitter swing away most of the time, but listed below are some situations I like to use the sacrifce bunt.

-Facing a tough pitcher when I know runs are going to be scarce specifically early on...if the leadoff man gets aboard to start the game, I may try and steal second base depending on the catchers arm and then bunt him to third base or I would just bunt him to second.

-6th inning or later and its tied or I am down a run and the leadoff man gets aboard. I will bunt him over to second or third. I will only bunt with zero outs.

I can see why people do not like sacrificing as the amount of runs could be limited. As a base hit instead of a sacrifice could lead to a big inning. Sacrificing is excellent in my opinion at producing that single run which could mean the difference between winning and losing. To minmize some of the risk, general managers should acquire personnel with good sacrifice bunting ability.

Thanks,Charlie Hough. I must have missed that thread. I am fairly new to OOTP.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Yes, a book written by two idiots who never played the game. I think I would go with the proven strategies of those who've actually played and managed in the game over the past 100+ years.

Please tell me that you're joking. Please tell me that you don't actually believe in baseball mythology instead of sabermetrics. Please tell that you're not one of those people who believe what they are told and not what they can see with their own eyes and calculate with their own brain.

[damientheomen3]

God The Wolf, you're really getting annoying. This person didn't post this thread to discuss the effectiveness of the sacrifice bunt, they posted it to ask about a filter for it in the game. If you have nothing to contribute to the actual topic on hand, just refrain from posting.

Anyway, count me in for someone who wants a sacrifice bunt filter. I rarely play games out, but when I do, I try to bring the runner home with a squeeze bunt often.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

God The Wolf, you're really getting annoying. This person didn't post this thread to discuss the effectiveness of the sacrifice bunt, they posted it to ask about a filter for it in the game. If you have nothing to contribute to the actual topic on hand, just refrain from posting.

Who made you a moderator? Discussions in threads go all over the place routinely.

I just can't understand why anyone here would still believe in baseball mythology. Earl Weaver even knew about the sacrifice bunt being bad well before Bill James came along and turned baseball on its head by scientific inquiry and analysis.

[The Wolf]

Sacrifice bunts, analyzed by Baseball Prospectus, in three parts.

Baseball Prospectus | Taking One for the Team


Baseball Prospectus | Taking One for the Team


Baseball Prospectus | Taking One for the Team

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Who made you a moderator? Discussions in threads go all over the place routinely.

I just can't understand why anyone here would still believe in baseball mythology. Earl Weaver even knew about the sacrifice bunt being bad well before Bill James came along and turned baseball on its head by scientific inquiry and analysis.

But if you're going to bash the OP's ideology without helping them at all then all you're doing is trolling.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

But if you're going to bash the OP's ideology without helping them at all then all you're doing is trolling.

Who "bashed" anyone? Not me. I'm the one who got bashed.

I'm presenting useful information about the sacrifice bunt that everyone who manages a baseball team, real or computerized, should know and can usefully benefit from. If you as a manager avoid the sacrifice bunt under all but a very few specific conditions then your team will win more games. Demonstrable fact.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

But if you're going to bash the OP's ideology without helping them at all then all you're doing is trolling.

Ok ok. Everyone seriously needs to take a chill pill. First off pretty much everyone in this thread, myself now included. Is trolling.

I don't believe, damien, that starting a fight on someone else's post really lets you accuse anyone of trolling. The Wolf is inclined to his opinion whether it is an opinion you agree with or not. He not once insulted the OP or bashed his ideology. He simply is stating his opinion.

Now on the other side, The Wolf, this probably isn't the best place to have this conversation. I know your intentions aren't to make anyone angry but still this topic is about adding a filter to to make it easier to find folks who are good as sacrifice bunts and not whether or not it is a sound strategy.

This is a baseball simulation, not life and death. There is no reason to fight like children over something that quite frankly doesn't matter at all. Everyone should just go their ways and cool off.

When I become the voice of reason an argument has gone too far.

[PApulverizers]

Wolf,

I respect your opinions about sacrifice bunts and can see where you get your thinking.

In my own opinion, I think sometimes it is better to bunt. I know that science has shown that swinging away leads to a higher runs scored average. I do not think that necessarily equates to a higher winning percentage. You have to think about the excess amount of runs you are scoring which really do not matter as long as you get the "w". There is really no contesting that you will not score more runs by hitting the ball rather than sacrificing. I just think it is better sometimes just take the one run which could either tie or give you the go ahead run. When you sacrifice, you are greatly reducing the chance of a big rally where you may score 3-4 runs. If the manager is anything like me, I would not bunt if I need 3-4 runs to tie or go ahead. I only bunt in games where every run counts.

Believe me, I do not use sacrifice bunts all the time. I use them where I feel it is appropriate.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by PApulverizers

Wolf,

I respect your opinions about sacrifice bunts and can see where you get your thinking.

In my own opinion, I think sometimes it is better to bunt. I know that science has shown that swinging away leads to a higher runs scored average. I do not think that necessarily equates to a higher winning percentage. You have to think about the excess amount of runs you are scoring which really do not matter as long as you get the "w". There is really no contesting that you will not score more runs by hitting the ball rather than sacrificing. I just think it is better sometimes just take the one run which could either tie or give you the go ahead run. When you sacrifice, you are greatly reducing the chance of a big rally where you may score 3-4 runs. If the manager is anything like me, I would not bunt if I need 3-4 runs to tie or go ahead. I only bunt in games where every run counts.

Believe me, I do not use sacrifice bunts all the time. I use them where I feel it is appropriate.

PA, I urge you to read "The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball," by Tango, Lichtman and Dolphin (some of who post here now and then). It's in paperback and on Kindle. It offers data and analysis on this and many other baseball strategies that, if they are used as the data indicates they should be used, will help you score more runs and win more games.

[The Wolf]

Matt, given that I know that sacrifice bunt is almost always a bad baseball strategy, I thought it would be useful for the OP to know that he was asking for a filter that the use of which would not help him at all managerially, and that could, in fact, hurt him - you know, and ye shall know the truth and it shall set ye free and all that. I bear the OP no ill will and wish him well.

[megamanmatt]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Matt, given that I know that sacrifice bunt is almost always a bad baseball strategy, I thought it would be useful for the OP to know that he was asking for a filter that the use of which would not help him at all managerially, and that could, in fact, hurt him - you know, and ye shall know the truth and it shall set ye free and all that. I bear the OP no ill will and wish him well.

I know you don't buddy. You and damien are both some of the most knowledge able and helpful members of the community so I just wanted to jump in and try and cool you guy off before you just started going at each other.

You both offer great insight and advice where and when you can so I wanted to get you both back to doing that rather than fighting. There are a lot of newbies around who can use that especially with the new release and PA is one of those.

A lot of newer people judge the community by how we older members act and if the new guys start thinking all we do is fight it might cause someone to decide not to purchase the game. That's kind of why I stopped being so argumentative myself.

[PApulverizers]

Thanks for your opinion, Wolf.

By the way, do not just assume I have not read the book.

I think the odds of scoring a single run outweigh the total run expectancy.

Also, there are so many variables which are not taken into account such as:

Ability to Bunt
Speed of the Runners on Base
Pitcher Your Facing
Upcoming Line Up
Fielding/Throwing Ability of Fielder

i am sure i can think of some more.

[CrushingYourHead]

Originally Posted by PApulverizers

Thanks for your opinion, Wolf.

I think the odds of scoring a single run outweigh the total run expectancy.

Also, there are so many variables which are not taken into account such as:

Ability to Bunt
Speed of the Runners on Base
Pitcher Your Facing
Upcoming Line Up
Fielding/Throwing Ability of Fielder

Absolutely. I believe in Sabermetrics on the whole, but every situation is different. I use an AL team with the DH turned off league-wide. I'll routinely bunt with my pitcher early in the game when the opportunity arises and I don't want to pinch hit for him yet. Also, I find the AI will put some pretty strange infield combo's together late in the game after a round of pinch hitting. Bunting at a RF playing 3B works pretty decent!

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by olivertheorem

Yes, because it doesn't matter if the data shows that sacrifice bunts tend to lead to fewer runs scored overall. Baseball people (managers, etc.) are never wrong.

LOL! The data do not control for all possible factors, such as the individual skills of the basreunners, the relative bunting ability of the batters, the fielding ability of the players involved in each play, the hitting capabilities of the subsequent batters, the amount of practice spent on these plays, the relative differences in focus on these plays across eras, etc. So it's absolutely fallacious to make the claims that they do on the basis of such shoddy analysis and experimentation.

Until they control for all factors, they have proven absolutely nothing. They can claim some vague correlation that they believe they've found in macro-level statistics, but this is weak and their work doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I'm hardly impressed by crunching numbers after the fact with severe limits and a lack of proper experimental controls.

Also, these cute statistical exercises don't deal with fundamental issues such as the incompleteness of mathematics and the epistemic and metaphysical problems with the very notion of probability. They also don't deal with the skeptical problem of the baseless assumption that past results are somehow indicative of future occurrences. But the non-starter is with their methodology, which is sorely lacking experimentally.

So, sorry, I'm unmoved by the so-called 'data'. Let these people actually meet a proper standard of epistemic proof and reliability, and then I'll buy it.

[Lando]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

LOL! The data do not control for all possible factors, such as the individual skills of the basreunners, the relative bunting ability of the batters, the fielding ability of the players involved in each play, the hitting capabilities of the subsequent batters, the amount of practice spent on these plays, the relative differences in focus on these plays across eras, etc. So it's absolutely fallacious to make the claims that they do on the basis of such shoddy analysis and experimentation.

Until they control for all factors, they have proven absolutely nothing. They can claim some vague correlation that they believe they've found in macro-level statistics, but this is weak and their work doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I'm hardly impressed by crunching numbers after the fact with severe limits and a lack of proper experimental controls.

Also, these cute statistical exercises don't deal with fundamental issues such as the incompleteness of mathematics and the epistemic and metaphysical problems with the very notion of probability. They also don't deal with the skeptical problem of the baseless assumption that past results are somehow indicative of future occurrences. But the non-starter is with their methodology, which is sorely lacking experimentally.

So, sorry, I'm unmoved by the so-called 'data'. Let these people actually meet a proper standard of epistemic proof and reliability, and then I'll buy it.

Your opinion certainly makes sense. This is the kind of argument that 'traditionalists' would be better off using, rather than "I know what my eyes and my gut tell me". But let me ask you this - where is the epistemic proof that bunting helps you score more runs?