Justification For 2-Strike Bunting?

[Baby Ruth]

I've seen this a lot in OOTP, but have never seen a reason explaining it. Why do pitchers, without fail from what I've seen, continue to attempt to bunt with 2 strikes? I've never seen it result in other than a strikeout over multiple iterations of the game. Is this something that can be fixed for OOTP 23? Is there even going to be an OOTP 23?

[oldfatbaldguy]

I usually let my pitchers keep trying with two strikes. My thinking is they're probably going to strike out if they don't bunt, too.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by oldfatbaldguy

I usually let my pitchers keep trying with two strikes. My thinking is they're probably going to strike out if they don't bunt, too.

That happens quite often IRL.

[jeffw3000]

I also, will usually let my pitchers bunt with 2 strikes. Even worse than a strikeout is they might hit into a double play if they hit the ball, and a man is on first. Would much rather them strikeout trying to bunt with 2 strikes than hit into the double play. You really see a lot of managers in MLB letting their pitchers bunt with 2 strikes. In OOTP, my experience is sometimes they do strikeout, but sometimes they get the bunt down on the third strike.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by oldfatbaldguy

I usually let my pitchers keep trying with two strikes. My thinking is they're probably going to strike out if they don't bunt, too.

In addition I think that an argument could be made that if you have already decided to give up an out much better to have a pitcher strike out than potentially hit into a double play. And they could still get the bunt down successfully on the third try. The chances of them putting the ball into play in a way that isn't counterproductive with two strikes are far worse.

(Obviously this is talking about a generalized pitcher and in some OOTP universes there might be good hitting pitchers- the Shohei Ohtani's of that world, real or fictional- who this would not be as true of.)

EDIT: What jeffw3000 said.(Sorry- I was typing my response as jeffw3000 was posting theirs apparently.

[Baby Ruth]

I think the game should take into account the pitcher and era, as well, though, instead of just using a wide brush to paint everything. My perception is that in the early 20th century pitchers were more competent hitters than in later eras.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Baby Ruth

I think the game should take into account the pitcher and era, as well, though, instead of just using a wide brush to paint everything. My perception is that in the early 20th century pitchers were more competent hitters than in later eras.

Sure; however that’s an issue with pitchers’ batting ratings, not the strategy of bunting with 2 strikes, which is commonplace for pitchers now and has been so for a long, long time (at least the 70s, probably earlier than that).

[Pelican]

With a pitcher hitting away with two strikes, another possible outcome is a ground ball force out at second base, putting the pitcher on first on a fielder’s choice. Not as bad as a DP, but you have an additional out, and most likely an incompetent runner on base. It would have been better for the pitcher to strike out trying to bunt.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Baby Ruth

I think the game should take into account the pitcher and era, as well, though, instead of just using a wide brush to paint everything. My perception is that in the early 20th century pitchers were more competent hitters than in later eras.

This intrigued me so I did a stathead search on pitcher batting ave in 1912 v 1971 just before the DH

1912 P BA = 0.173 vs league BA = 0.269 so P BA = 64% of league BA. 1912 P SH = 251 or 15.7 per team.

1971 P BA = 0.138 vs league BA = 0.249 so P BA = 55% of league BA. 1971 P SH = 585 or 24.4 per team.

Not sure what all that means but the interesting data to me was that in 1912 teams averaged 173 SH/Team vs 75 SH/Team in 1971. That means P SH in 1912 were only 9% of all SH vs P SH in 1971 were 33% of all SH. So in 1912 SH were overwhelmingly made by non-pitchers, but SH only occurred 1.12 times a game.

FWIW

[Syd Thrift]

One thing I'd love to see OOTP do a better job of is pitcher hitting through the decades. I'd imagine they'd have to add something to the engine to set the assignment of contact, power, etc. to be higher for pitchers (the reality, let's face it, is the opposite: pitchers even in 1912 were never acquired for their ability to hit and so, as is the case now, they did so at the leaguewide level of a talented but not particularly gifted athlete, and in turn "Joe Athlete" was better relative to the rest of the league than he is today) and surely there'd be something else in a file for people to work on (or even a new file) but that's one thing - a relatively minor thing but still a thing - that bugs me when I run deadball era saves. There were a couple position players - one in particular, Bill Bergen - who struggled to hit at the level of the average pitcher and nowadays nobody, not even Kevin Newman, is that bad or could ever hope to keep a starting job for the better part of the decade hitting like that.

[oldfatbaldguy]

The 1968 Tigers had Don Wert (.556 OPS) and Ray Oyler (.399 OPS) on the left side of the infield and Earl Wilson (.741 that year, .634 career) in their starting rotation.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by oldfatbaldguy

The 1968 Tigers had Don Wert (.556 OPS) and Ray Oyler (.399 OPS) on the left side of the infield and Earl Wilson (.741 that year, .634 career) in their starting rotation.

The 1968 Tigers replaced Oyler in their lineup with a guy who had never played shortstop before in mid season. I’m not sure this is making the point you think it’s making…

[oldfatbaldguy]

Not mid-season. Maybe the very end of the season. Baseball Reference says Oyler started 70 games at short, Tom Matchick 48, Dick Tracewski 36 and Mickey Stanley, who played it in the Series, started 8.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by oldfatbaldguy

Not mid-season. Maybe the very end of the season. Baseball Reference says Oyler started 70 games at short, Tom Matchick 48, Dick Tracewski 36 and Mickey Stanley, who played it in the Series, started 8.

Still not making the point you think you’re making…

[Mancandy]

Originally Posted by oldfatbaldguy

Not mid-season. Maybe the very end of the season. Baseball Reference says Oyler started 70 games at short, Tom Matchick 48, Dick Tracewski 36 and Mickey Stanley, who played it in the Series, started 8.

So…he started 70 out of 162 games? Sure sounds like it could be mid-season to me. Let’s dive a little deeper. He started the first 20 games and 44 of the first 50, then 15 of the next 27, then 11 sporadic games the rest of the season(including zero starts in September) while routinely coming off the bench. Sure, the player that had never played shortstop before didn’t take over until the end of the season, but Oyler was out long before that.

[BirdWatcher]

Although to be fair, let's note that Tracewski's OPS+ was 43 and Matchick's was 60. Far better than Oyler's 20 OPS+ but not nearly as good as Wilson's 118 that season.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by BirdWatcher

Although to be fair, let's note that Tracewski's OPS+ was 43 and Matchick's was 60. Far better than Oyler's 20 OPS+ but not nearly as good as Wilson's 118 that season.

Pitchers as a whole OPSed .340 in 1968, so a. Earl Wilson (who had an OPS+ of 118) was either the best or one of the best hitting pitchers in the AL that season, and b. even in the season people like to try to throw out as the best counter-example to the notion that no position player can hit like a pitcher and still keep his job, Ray Oyler, who, as noted, lost his job because he couldn’t hit, still hit almost 60 points higher than the average pitcher did by OPS.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Pitchers as a whole OPSed .340 in 1968, so a. Earl Wilson (who had an OPS+ of 118) was either the best or one of the best hitting pitchers in the AL that season, and b. even in the season people like to try to throw out as the best counter-example to the notion that no position player can hit like a pitcher and still keep his job, Ray Oyler, who, as noted, lost his job because he couldn’t hit, still hit almost 60 points higher than the average pitcher did by OPS.

Absolutely- and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying something more than I was actually saying here.
I was just suggesting that there was a bit more to the story about these particular players than was being told here- as while Oyler did indeed lose his job mid-season due to his inability to hit, he regained it later in the season as the guys who replaced him didn't hit much better than Oyler did and his defense was considered valuable enough for him to regain the job- until Stanley replaced him in the WS.
My intention was just to indicate that oldfatbaldguy was maybe being mistreated just a bit on the facts of the specific case.
Any larger implication to what I was saying that you or others might be reading into my statement is purely unintentional on my part.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by BirdWatcher

Absolutely- and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying something more than I was actually saying here.
I was just suggesting that there was a bit more to the story about these particular players than was being told here- as while Oyler did indeed lose his job mid-season due to his inability to hit, he regained it later in the season as the guys who replaced him didn't hit much better than Oyler did and his defense was considered valuable enough for him to regain the job- until Stanley replaced him in the WS.
My intention was just to indicate that oldfatbaldguy was maybe being mistreated just a bit on the facts of the specific case.
Any larger implication to what I was saying that you or others might be reading into my statement is purely unintentional on my part.

Right, although as mancandy noted, Oyler didn’t actually get the job back once he finally lost it for good in August. Stanley started the World Series and then Oyler was drafted by the expansion Pilots, who also played him for around half a season (and where he became a local fan favorite, to the point that after his baseball career ended he moved back to Seattle and lived there the rest of his life…. but I digress). To me it’s actually more damning that Oyler’s replacements hit so bad but the Tigers still weren’t willing to give him that job back, to the extent that they decided they’d rather take their chances with Mickey Stanley (and even there, they only went with him until July of the following season when they traded for Tom Tresh) than go with the guy who hit almost as badly as a pitcher but knew how to play it.

And I’m just saying, that’s a world of difference from Bill Bergen, who played in the majors for 11 seasons, in many of them being his team’s primary catcher, and who literally did not hit as well as the average pitcher did over the course of his career. Even then, Bergen was a bit of a unicorn, and he wasn’t truly terrible until the second half of it, but I have to admit that it drives me a little crazy when people bring up these supposed counter examples of guys who washed out of the league within 2 or 3 seasons (the other one I see a bit is Rey Ordonez, who still OPSed around 200 points higher than pitchers did in his worst season, and who at that put up the kind of horrible OPS that potentially keeps you in jobs, that is the “empty batting average” style - he hit .246 for his career but never walked and, during an era known for power, was good for around 2 dingers a year).

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Right, although as mancandy noted, Oyler didn’t actually get the job back once he finally lost it for good in August. Stanley started the World Series and then Oyler was drafted by the expansion Pilots, who also played him for around half a season (and where he became a local fan favorite, to the point that after his baseball career ended he moved back to Seattle and lived there the rest of his life…. but I digress). To me it’s actually more damning that Oyler’s replacements hit so bad but the Tigers still weren’t willing to give him that job back, to the extent that they decided they’d rather take their chances with Mickey Stanley (and even there, they only went with him until July of the following season when they traded for Tom Tresh) than go with the guy who hit almost as badly as a pitcher but knew how to play it.

And I’m just saying, that’s a world of difference from Bill Bergen, who played in the majors for 11 seasons, in many of them being his team’s primary catcher, and who literally did not hit as well as the average pitcher did over the course of his career. Even then, Bergen was a bit of a unicorn, and he wasn’t truly terrible until the second half of it, but I have to admit that it drives me a little crazy when people bring up these supposed counter examples of guys who washed out of the league within 2 or 3 seasons (the other one I see a bit is Rey Ordonez, who still OPSed around 200 points higher than pitchers did in his worst season, and who at that put up the kind of horrible OPS that potentially keeps you in jobs, that is the “empty batting average” style - he hit .246 for his career but never walked and, during an era known for power, was good for around 2 dingers a year).

And once again just to clarify, I'm pretty sure you and I are essentially on the same page regarding the over-arching issue being addressed in this thread.

But here's the thing- and I say this as respectfully and kindly as I can and certainly don't mean to single you or anyone else out on this count (truth be told, you are one of the people here I probably most consistently agree with)- in my experience this community/ these forums can veer into some intellectual bullying/big brains on display behavior. There are many smart people here, I have no doubt. Although there are some people here who I consistently disagree with (and whose world views I suspect are radically different than my own) I find it hard to believe that anyone who isn't pretty darn smart/knowledgeable would spend much time trying to play a game like OOTP. So intelligence that is at least above average is what I consider the baseline for this community.
But my nature is that on occasions where it feels to me like someone might be getting a bit beat up intellectually here (and hey, I don't mean to suggest that this is how that person feels- just my perception), I will likely at times rush in to provide some support and a bit of counter-action.