Comments on: Defending the Jeter Bunt

By: tradewind

tradewind — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:03:52 +0000

Not likely. The frequency of scoring exactly one more run increases with a successful bunt, so as long as a failed bunt is rare enough an event, the overall frequency would increase when the batter chooses bunting instead of swinging away. Therefore the latter choice must lower the overall frequency.

By: Preston

Preston — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:14:22 +0000

As I understand MGL’s use of the statistic, if a batter is bunting for a hit, he generally reaches on 40-50% of bunts that he successfully puts in play; my conjecture is a similar figure would apply here given that, on the one hand, the infield would be less optimally positioned for a bunt than they would be against a hitter who frequently attempts bunt hits, while on the other hand, Jeter would be primarily looking to successfully execute a sacrifice bunt and therefore would be less concerned about ideal placement for getting a hit.

The million dollar question, of course, is how often Jeter will get the bunt in play in that situation. Given a .231 BA and .331 slugging with an 0-2 count (it strikes me that OBP is actually irrelevant here, as you can walk while bunting just as well as while swinging away), it seems to me like he’d probably need to put the ball in play at somewhere around a 50% rate for it to be worth it – my suspicion is that he’s perfectly capable of doing that, but there I have absolutely no statistics, so it’s a total guess.

By: Bob R.

Bob R. — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:13:17 +0000

I think so, although not as ill-advised. First, Rivera only had to pitch one inning to preserve the lead and second he was to face the bottom of the order. I still don’t like it, but the fact that 2 errors led to 2 extra runs does not mean it was the right thing to do.

In fact, it kind of emphasizes the foolishness of it. How often do major leaguers muff plays the way the Angels did? Had usual results occurred, the Yankees would have scored no runs that inning after getting the lead runner on. In fact, even after the first error, had things gone normally, the Yankees still would not have scored any runs.

Naturally such speculation is idle. We have no idea what would have happened had one factor been changed. But the point is that playing for one run in that situation was probably ill-advised regardless of the actual outcome.

By: Erik

Erik — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:55:44 +0000

I actually understand completely.
I am just speculating – and I may be completely wrong – that if teams never bunted with runners on 1st and 2nd and 0 out, the chance of scoring a run that inning would be higher than 62% and maybe even higher than 69%.
I say this because because you now have only 2 outs to get a run home rather than 3 since the possibility of the next batter getting a run home is essentially 0.
It should be possible to test this on historical data by checking how often a run scores in an inning following a 1,2 0 out situation given that the next batter does not bunt and compare it to time when he does.
Has this already been examined?

By: Scooter

Scooter — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:48:03 +0000

Were the bunts in Game 6 with Scott Kazmir on the mound also ill-advised?

By: Wally

Wally — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:33:45 +0000

I’m not sure the Captan did goof. Maybe he was saying it was the wrong play to make sure the Phillie defense stays back on 2 strike counts in possible bunting situations again?

One thing I wonder about Preston/MGL’s comments about a good bunter getting a hit or ROE in 40-50% of his attempts takes into account (usually) 2 attempts per PA. What I’m thinking is that a good bunter probably only reaches on 40-50% of his bunt attempts that go into the field of play and not foul or missed completely. I just really doubt that stat is taking these other factors into account. Which then means if this same good bunter where to try and bunt with a 2 strike count we’d see his fail rate go up as fouls or misses are no longer just a change in the count and you essentially get a do-over, but outs. I could be wrong, maybe that data MGL was siting was for any particular pitch, but again, I doubt it.

By: tradewind

tradewind — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:04:18 +0000

I think you misunderstand the meaning of expected runs. 62% is the percentage that the offensive team scores one more run in the remaining inning, so even if the batter lays down a bunt, the percentage to score one more run thereafter is certainly not 0%. In fact, as Dave pointed out in the article, if the bunt is successful, with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, the percentage to score one more run jumps up to 69%.

By: dorsal

dorsal — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:37:13 +0000

Great thread folks.

Preston deserves an award for this comment

Preston stated:
“The dumbest thing about the whole situation was actually Jeter coming out and saying that it was a dumb play – he should have said that he thought it was a good play that he didn’t execute, so that regardless of what he thought, the Phillies (and other teams) would have to take that into consideration when positioning their defense should the situation arise again (as I’m sure MGL would argue).”

Jeter always says the right things in the media….not this time. The Captain goofed. Shocking.

Should the same situation present itself again this series, is he now obligated to repeat bunting with two strikes?

By: Bob R.

Bob R. — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:15:24 +0000

Even accepting the valid point that Park is a good reliever with the platoon advantage, I still maintain that the options are both reasonable, that sacrificing or hitting away both make enough sense that we basically come down to preferences or judgments, not right and wrong decisions.

This is not meant to disparage the use of statistical analysis in the least. But that analysis leaves room for interpretation and for placing stress on different factors-Park’s advantages, Jeter’s advantages, Rivera’s excellence, Rivera’s workload, chances for the unexpected to happen (bloop hits for example), the opportunity to blow the game open, the opportunity to give Rivera a slightly larger cushion and many more factors a manager may weigh.

The fact of the double play is not relevant. Not only was it unlikely given Utley’s history (among other things), but whether it should have been one or not does not obviate the point that it could have been called the other way, an example of the unexpected if you will. And in any case, the Phillies did have Utley at bat as the go-ahead run which is probably an even better situation for them than having Howard up.

By: Preston

Preston — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:52:07 +0000

From MGL’s article on bunting (that Dave links to):

“Obviously if I told you that batter A was so good at bunting and so fast, even in a sacrifice situation, and that inexplicably, the defense was not expecting a sac bunt, that he got a hit or an ROE 40-50% of the time (about the same percentage a good bunter bunts for a hit), you would realize that a sac bunt was an excellent play.”

Not sure what his source is, of course, but I see no reason to doubt it.