Bunting is for Morons

[andyfox]

1) Juan Pierre walks on 4 consecutrive pitches. The opposoing pitcher takes forever to deliver the ball and has a poor move to first base. The opposing catcher is a substitute who has barely played this year. So what does he do? Why of course, he gives up an out and doesn't score.

2) Joe Torre gets his first two men on base. So what does he do? He bunts, giving up an out, allowing Aaron Boone and John Flaherty to try to hit. He doesn't score.

3) I asked the other day if Aaron Boone is really as bad a player as he looks. I think he is.

Great, great game though. This has been one of the most exciting post-seasons ever.

[Clarkmeister]

"Bunting is for Morons"

So is the DH. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[andyfox]

How so?

[adios]

Andy I agree with you totally. I don't like "small ball" either. You and Earl Weaver are kindred spirits /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Clarkmeister]

Ah Andy, I don't feel like arguing the DH with you. Suffice it to say I think its a bastardization of the game.

I think that there are some things (bunting and the DH being two) that you as an AL fan and me as an NL fan will simply have to agree to disagree about.

[andyfox]

Fair enough. I can prove that sacrificing, when successful, results in fewer runs being scored as a result of giving up the out. That is, for example, a team will score fewer runs with men on first and second and nobody out, than with men on second and third and one out.

As far as the DH being a bastardization of the game, I think this is a good argument. One could add that the DH was brought to the AL when run scoring was at record low levels and that the need for it in today's environment has disappeared.

Certainly the two leagues should either both have it or not have it. Changing the rules between games two and three and then changing them back again between games five and six is more than a little silly.

[andyfox]

. . . who, when traded away by the Yankees, claimed that he didn't get along with Torre and his coaches because "all they care about is winning."

Helluva clutch hit by Sierra tonight though.

[Homer]

I can prove that sacrificing, when successful, results in fewer runs being scored as a result of giving up the out. That is, for example, a team will score fewer runs with men on first and second and nobody out, than with men on second and third and one out.

But this doesn't mean that sacrifice bunting isn't the correct move when a team needs only one run. In other words, isn't it possible that bunting, while decreasing the average number of runs that will be scored in an inning, may increase the probability of scoring at least one run?

-- Homer

[Zeno]

At one point in the game, score 3-1, Yanks have a man on third, 2 out and Rocket Roger at the plate. I think I have this right.

Suicide Squeeze? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Why not? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I would. But I'm crazy.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

In the bottom of the ninth, with the score tied, no outs, and a runner on first, the run potential is .698; with only one run needed to win, a successful sacrifice here would indeed increase the run potential to .715.

[andyfox]

It was second and third.

Have you seen Rocket run? It isn't a pretty sight. He managed to loop one over the shortstop's head one at bat, I'd rather take a chance of him doing this than trying to beat out a bunt.

BTW, no walks in the game through 8 innings. Pretty impressive pitching by Pavano and, after the 1st inning, Clemens.

[adios]

I see a fairly complex logic problem (at least for me) developing here. What goes into the mix if you will for making the extra 2% chance of scoring worthwhile? It would seem that you'd have to consider how often the sacrifice was successful, how often the batter would get on base without sacrificing, how often the batter would drive the run in without sacrificing, how often the batter would move the runner along anyway even if he made an out, how often he'd hit into a double play, how often you could steal a base instead, and everything else I didn't think of.

[andyfox]

There's a section on this in The Hidden Game of Baseball by John Thorn and Peter Palmer. But I think this great baseball book is out of print. It's chapter 8, "The Book . . .and the Computer."

[Ragnar]

Baseball without bunting is like poker without the check raise. When I read Moneyball , the story about Billy Beane, my reaction was 1) he is probably right, 2) if the theories that say that bunting and stealing bases, and hitting and running are negative EV plays are correct I have no more interest in baseball.

Waiting for walks and playing station-to-station baseball is dead flat boring to me. It seems that many other fans enjoy it. Of course playing tight poker can be too /images/graemlins/smile.gif but I play it rather than watch it.

Ragnar

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Earl Weaver agrees with you. So do I. In baseball, you have a finite number of outs. Giving up one of your last 3-6 outs is idiotic. The only time I even begin to agree with a sacrifice bunt is when the first batter of the game doubles. Since scoring the first run is significant, I can understand moving that runner to 3rd where there will be a clean chance to score without getting another hit.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Suffice it to say I think its a bastardization of the game.

I disagree. I think the DH is a logical response to the evolution of the game. Pitchers are defensive specialists. period. No pitcher makes the roster of a major league team based upon hitting ability.

In my opinion, the DH is the single most insightful rule change in the history of American sports.

[Ray Zee]

baseball is alot more boring. in the old days when pitchers stayed the course and all the players stayed in the game most of the way. they had to bunt as some players couldnt hit and it was more probable to get a run in from a bunt. now that they can pull players it doesnt pay to bunt or steal bases.

[andyfox]

I strongly disagree with this. Scoring the first run of the game is extremely unimportant. With an average of 10 runs a game being scored, the first run means less than it ever has. Especially since, in the case of the Marlins, your first batter is extraordinarily fast, and stole 65 bases, far more than anyone else in baseball, you're much better off trying to steal or move him over by hitting the ball without giving up an out. Soriano also is fast; he led the league in stolen bases last year and was in the top 5 this year. And most teams have an excellent runner leading off; even a slow station-to-station team like the Red Sox have the speedy Johnny Damon leading off. To have an excellent batsman like your #2 hitter give himself up in the first inning is foolish.

[andyfox]

There's still plenty of places for bunting in baseball. When the pitcher is hitting with men on base and less than two outs. In the bottom of the 9th in certain situations. And bunting for a base hit, as Pierre is expert at.

Stealing becomes profitable when you are successful over 2/3 of the time. Most good baserunners do this. But keep in mind the last team to win the World Series while leading the majors in stealing did so in 1965.

I hate the hit and run. Usually it's done on a 2-1 or 3-1 count, which makes the hitter swing at a pitch he might not ordinarily swing at. I'd rather have him wait for one he likes.

Again, not that either the steal or hit and run should be abandoned; just that in today's run-scoring environment, they're not that significant in +EV baseball.

[andyfox]

There is an argument to be made that the DH saved the American League (along with other changes that increased offense.) In 1968, the league had exactly one .300 hitter. And he hit .301. The Yankees hit .214 as a team and finished over .500. (Read that sentence again if you're not amazed.)

Fans like 8-7 games. Maybe you and I and Clark love a 3-3 pitcher's duel like last night's wonderful game, but we're in the minority. THe DH adds about a run/game.

[HDPM]

I think it is a mistake for organizations to dumb down their product in an effort to reach fans or consumers. Doing it reduces the allure of the product in the long run. If you have something that takes some work to appreciate, you will always have a core group of supportes. When you dilute your product, the next cheap thrill will reduce your fan base. The whimsical fan of baseball will move on to football, nintendo, wwf, a satellite dish, whatever. Now I think the effect is subtle and perhaps not too significant. But that is why it is a mistake for religions to loosen up. Loosening up will keep the weaker members a little longer, but will eventually reduce the popularity and viability of the religion.

[andyfox]

I don't know if increasing offense qualifies as dumbing down. There's nothing inherently dumber about an 8-7 game than a 4-3 game.

Baseball was the only major sport at one time. Now it competes with pro football, basketball and hockey. Baseball is a more esoteric, cerebral game, with, in most people's minds, less action. And historically, the trend is for the pitchers to dominate. I happened in the early 1900s, so, among other things, they juiced up the balls in the 1920s. It happened again in the 1960s, so, among other things, they lowered the mound and the AL added the DH.

Sticking with a core of supporters, the so-called traditionalists, is a recipe for extinction. I don't think it's the loosening up that had made religion less popular; if it was more relevant, in people's minds, to their daily life, it would be more popular.

I love classical music, I'd much rather listen to Mozart than Lucadris. But Ludacris's most recent album sold 430,000 units the first week it was out. I don't think a new recording of Mozart's most beautiful arias would sell anywhere near that much, unless Ludacris sang them.

[HDPM]

So if Mozart came back, should he try to write some new symphonies or should he write some crap for Ludacris? The recipe for baseball extinction is well underway.

BTW, I think the DH should be abolished and the mound raised. My wife commented last night that she didn't mind quick innings. What she hated were long drawn out innings with nothing goin on. Needless to say she is not a baseball fan. But she, like me, would prefer a 2:10 2-0 game than a 4:57 14-12 affair. So I don't know that increased offense is a panacea. And I bet there are would be casual fans who are turned off by long games and pitchers constantly nibbling, etc.... The problem is how can you say what will interest somebody who isn't all that interested to begin with.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

To have an excellent batsman like your #2 hitter give himself up in the first inning is foolish.

No argument. I was just saying that it is less foolish to give up 1/27 of your remaining outs than 1/3.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Plus, the DH allowed me to see Henry Aaron play in person /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I don't have the time to go into it right now, but I believe on a fundamental level, the DH is the right way to play the game in that it cures two systemic flaws that grew out of the evolution of how the game was played after the first few decades of this century.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

the so-called traditionalists

OK. here's argument #1. The "traditionalists" say that the original rules of baseball say the pitcher hits. Sounds good on the surface, but let's analyze it. However, when these rules were codified, the pitcher was easily the *least* importan player on the defensive end. He was basically a 5th infielder whose job was to "pitch" (as opposed to "throw") the ball to the batter in order to enable the batter to hit the ball. Originally, pitchers asked the batter where and at what speed they wanted the ball pitched. The job of the pitcher than was not to try to get the batter out, but to intiate the play in the field by giving the batter a pitch to hit. In the 1890s, as pitchers got trickier and trickier, there was an attempt by baseball owners to ban the curve ball because it was "an attempt to fool the batter."

This "traditionalists" got over-ruled because it was judged that the game had evolved into a more interesting contest if the pitchers were allowed to deceive the hitters.

Decades of pitching improvement made hitting an unimportant skill for pitchers. The DH rule recognizes that evolution and adjusts the game to reflect modern reality.

[andyfox]

Mozart wrote a lot of crap for the likes of Ludacris.

[andyfox]

I'm a fan of the DH. Detrators say that it detracts from strategy, but it does exactly the opposite: it adds strategic decision making to the game.

Your argument against traditionalism is a good one. Just how traditional do we want to be? Do we go back to 1968? to 1920? to 1871?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Lou Piniella once said that managing was much harder in the AL than in the NL. The hardest decision a manager faces is when to remove the starting pitcher. Piniella noted that in the NL, that decision is automatic 2/3 of the time. It's the 6th inning or later, the starter is coming to bat and since he's a hopeless incompetent with the bat, he's out of the game. Plus, who says strategy has to occur only at the end of the lineup? That's dictated by an antiquated rule that requires you to have a dead spot in your batting order.

And don't even bring up the double-switch. That's a completely fabricated strategem dictated by the presence of the pitcher in the lineup (and I might say, an opportunity for idiot managers like Jimy Williams to screw up /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

[andyfox]

I agree. Plus when the pitcher is in, he's sacrificing 99% of the time when there's a runner on base and less than two out. In the AL, you can sacrifice, bunt for a base hit, play hit and run, run and hit, or just swing away.

These days there are no more complete games anyway. The pitcher is hit for in the late innings in the NL anyway.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, the DH allowed me to see Henry Aaron play in person /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I sat next to Hank on a plane trip from Houston to Atlanta. That was cool.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Right after Jim Bouton published "Ball Four", he and Aaron were on a talk show together. Aaron was clearly not pleased with Bouton or the book and said something like "Baseball can do without people like you." Bouton replied "If it weren't for people like me, people like you wouldn't have half as many home runs as you have."