Playing Small Ball - Page 2

alkeiper · 05-17-2017, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

What are the odds of grounding into a double play? If it's greater than the expected obp, then bunt.

The odds of a player grounding into a double play in a DP situation (runner on 1st with less than 2 outs) last season was about .125. Play by play data isn't available for the dead ball era, but looking at 1968 the GIDP rate is actually lower.

You can find cases over a single season where a player's DP percentage creeps over his OBP in that specific situation. But over a whole career the OBP is always higher. Mario Mendoza had a better chance of getting on base than grounding into a double play. So did Jim Rice. Even Robin Roberts who holds the record for pitchers GIDP got on base more often. Jerry Koosman grounded into double plays more often, he was one of the worst hitting pitchers ever. So your break even point is somewhere around a .175 OBP. And if that guy isn't a pitcher, he shouldn't be on your roster.

One other consideration. If you bunt a runner to second, assume you are taking the bat out of your next batter's hands as well. If you bunt with the #3 hitter in a key situation, the opposition will walk your #4. So by the OP's strategy, if your #2 hitter fails a bunt and your #3 bunts, you've effectively taken opportunities away from three batters to put the game in #5's hands.

SR000 · 03-13-2018, 05:43 PM

Quote:

If I had time, I'd like to do a test in OOTP where all players and pitchers are identical, with identical managers except half of them with bunting at 0 and the other half with bunting maxxed out. It would be interesting to run a few seasons like that and see what happens.

Problem with that is the identical aspect. A better team doesn't need to bunt. A crappy team has to scrap, force issues and hope luck is on its side. If you play by the numbers, you will finish by the numbers.

NoOne · 03-13-2018, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Game

Would you rather have a man on 2nd with one out or a man an 1st with 1 out and a guy that could GIDP at the dish?

i guess that would hold up if a gidp was a very likely event, which it is not... it's a small portion of the total pie.

1910 could have different break-even poitns due to stats/player ratings etc... so, today's thresholds may not be the same...

but, they won't shift too much, unless everone is a singles-machine in your lineup. even in that case, high avg/obp moves people along well too. it's not 100 to zero effectiveness of singing away.

if the player is crappy enough, bunting is an option.. hopefully oyu don't have crappy players batting 1-4.

NoOne · 03-13-2018, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

What are the odds of grounding into a double play? If it's greater than the expected obp, then bunt.

not just that... don't forget a bunt can only have 1 good outcome... without an error they are only moving 1 base.

a lot more possible good results can occur from a hit. and a walk is similar to a bunt inthis context. so you have to add up all the benefits of a babip, a 2b, a 3 and a hr relative to batter and pitcher facing off against each other.

so much more often and dominoes into additional benefits.. this is easy to see which is the "better" way... you'd have to have extremely poor hitters/good bunters in order to want to bunt... or it's so late in the game that "1" RS is very likely to be enough.

e.g. in the 9th inning you shouldn't swing away in teh bottom of the inning .. and most likely in the top of the inning too... beyond that you'd have to look up %-likely to score in teh various situatins and compare likelihood that 1 run would hold up from the Xth inning etc. a bit more complicated.

first 2 times thorugh, almost certainly not a good idea to bunt in any situations with a any MLB player in all but extreme circumstances.

NoOne · 03-13-2018, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

my 2 cents is that most here haven't seen competent bunting. what is in the game now and has been for decades isn't bunting. it's desperation -

1. place bat horizontally across plate
2. hope for best

there are such things as infield hits (accidentally). so why can't they occur intentionally? for the same reason that everyone believes a HR is somehow exciting rather than a game killer.

imagine having a guy that could line it 6 ft off the ground at 100mph down the line - or - place it lovingly to die just inside that same line. result: just another variable for the defense to cover, meaning more opps for errors and offense.

but, for the same reason that HRs are considered manly and made by heros, bunting isn't. bunting is only nuanced. "boooh - ring"! it also no longer exists, hasnt for generations.

but, no one can do these things consistently or even as consistently as a hr..

if they could, babip would be a lot higher than ~.300.

bunting isn't a sure thing even when you are good at it. just googled it.. best bunter of all time had a 57% success rate... the "best" is only 57%

also accoring to

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-in-todays-mlb

the change oc a successfull bunt is declining, and it's not jsut about a "lost art"... even the good ones are not as good as past "good ones".

again, op is in 1910... so that doesn't apply to him. but a lot of what this article talks about is relevant to him too.

some people don't like to be wrong even when math proves it to be wrong. it's part of the human condition.

it's the exact same as going to vegas and purposely making decisions that lead to the best odds of winning, rather choosing somethign that is less likely to win... ? this type of old-crumedgeon behaviour is in our politics too. i just don't get it. when we are wrong, it is wrong. opinions are not relevant.

zappa1 · 03-14-2018, 05:12 AM

I always remember this quote from somebody, I don't remember:

You play for 1 run, that's probably all you're gonna get. IF you even get it.

Not to sure, but I'm guessing it might be an Earl Weaver quote. He loved the 3 run homers.

Hrycaj · 03-14-2018, 05:39 AM

I wasn't really going to comment on this thread cause it was originally over a year old. However, it has grown some legs, so for my 2 pennies:

We are trying to compare eras here which is really hard to do. First, we don't have any video evidence from the time which would obviously be a big help. We also can't 100% trust statistics from that era either because some things weren't tracked and some things were tracked differently than today. (i.e stolen bases) So we are left with written accounts which is fabulous reading but still leave us with an incomplete picture.

In today's game bunting is a lost art and according to the sabermatricians. There is strong evidence as to why that is the case. I happen to agree with them. In TODAY'S MLB it is not a viable option most times. People have done a fine job on this thread arguing that.

In 1910 though it was a different game. The technology in bats, balls and gloves was such that it employed different tactics in the game. I'm pretty sure that managers in the deadball era had an appreciation for how sacred an "out" was. Of course they also didn't have the luxury of the guy at the plate hitting a 3 run homer in the bottom of the sixth like managers enjoy today. Of course it was possible but the chances were less in the deadball era. Why? Cause the ball was dead and the color of night at that point in the game. Home teams routinely hit first in that era to get the best swings on a new ball. Consequently, pitchers in that first inning would spit, stomp and soak the ball to eliminate that advantage. This is in essence why I believe bunting was used as a tactic.

As for the actual bunt I'm pretty confident based on the things I have read that many times the bunt was not a sacrifice situation for non-pitchers. Early era teams were built around speed. These guys were bunting to get on and steal. They didn't want to make an out any more than a player today does. This is also not to say that all managers of the time believed in this style of baseball. Stolen base and bunting numbers from the era suggest that it was a manager preference. More prevalent yes, but not universal. I guess you could call baseball a copycat league even then!!

As for OOTP I don't know how well the engine models play from that era aside from the lack of power. I love playing that era in my saves but I admit that I use today's tactics in that era. I don't select bunt for hit as much as I probably should to test it out. I don't steal nearly as often either. Anyway, good topic, just wanted to comment.

03-14-2018, 05:12 AM	#26
zappa1 All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,876	I always remember this quote from somebody, I don't remember: You play for 1 run, that's probably all you're gonna get. IF you even get it. Not to sure, but I'm guessing it might be an Earl Weaver quote. He loved the 3 run homers. Last edited by zappa1; 03-14-2018 at 05:17 AM.

03-14-2018, 05:39 AM	#27
Hrycaj All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 1,364	I wasn't really going to comment on this thread cause it was originally over a year old. However, it has grown some legs, so for my 2 pennies: We are trying to compare eras here which is really hard to do. First, we don't have any video evidence from the time which would obviously be a big help. We also can't 100% trust statistics from that era either because some things weren't tracked and some things were tracked differently than today. (i.e stolen bases) So we are left with written accounts which is fabulous reading but still leave us with an incomplete picture. In today's game bunting is a lost art and according to the sabermatricians. There is strong evidence as to why that is the case. I happen to agree with them. In TODAY'S MLB it is not a viable option most times. People have done a fine job on this thread arguing that. In 1910 though it was a different game. The technology in bats, balls and gloves was such that it employed different tactics in the game. I'm pretty sure that managers in the deadball era had an appreciation for how sacred an "out" was. Of course they also didn't have the luxury of the guy at the plate hitting a 3 run homer in the bottom of the sixth like managers enjoy today. Of course it was possible but the chances were less in the deadball era. Why? Cause the ball was dead and the color of night at that point in the game. Home teams routinely hit first in that era to get the best swings on a new ball. Consequently, pitchers in that first inning would spit, stomp and soak the ball to eliminate that advantage. This is in essence why I believe bunting was used as a tactic. As for the actual bunt I'm pretty confident based on the things I have read that many times the bunt was not a sacrifice situation for non-pitchers. Early era teams were built around speed. These guys were bunting to get on and steal. They didn't want to make an out any more than a player today does. This is also not to say that all managers of the time believed in this style of baseball. Stolen base and bunting numbers from the era suggest that it was a manager preference. More prevalent yes, but not universal. I guess you could call baseball a copycat league even then!! As for OOTP I don't know how well the engine models play from that era aside from the lack of power. I love playing that era in my saves but I admit that I use today's tactics in that era. I don't select bunt for hit as much as I probably should to test it out. I don't steal nearly as often either. Anyway, good topic, just wanted to comment. __________________ Click on my signature to read about the great game of baseball in Normington. Last edited by Hrycaj; 03-14-2018 at 07:22 AM.