Bunt Willie!

[Pinktermite]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

[Bruno7481]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

 

There isn't a need for deception on a sac bunt. The whole ballpark can know its coming, if you get the bunt down it doesn't make any difference.

[goonys evil twin]

what is the overall sacrifice success rate in regular season? or that vs. the playofffs? I wonder if there are such stats.

 

I really don't know. But if you can find it, you'd have to break out obvious late game bunting situations, from 2nd inning versions, when teams are more than happy to just get the out.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

 

There isn't a need for deception on a sac bunt. The whole ballpark can know its coming, if you get the bunt down it doesn't make any difference.

 

If you know it's coming, then the success rate goes down.

[BigbadB]

I think this is just old time baseballers using a isolated incident to show that statistical analyst stuff doesnt work.

 

That argument is as ignorant as when "old time baseballers" flat out deny the statistical side of the game. You have to look at both.

 

I just happen to think putting runners at 2nd and 3rd with one out would have been the better move. It may tighten Wainwright up a bit more, having never pitched in a situation as big as last night.

 

He was throwing very well though.

 

I suppose it would have been possible that a sac bunt had a higher chance of working successfully given the wet grass.

 

But, Goony just threw another wrench in there with walking Reyes to get to LoDuca.

[Guest]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

 

There isn't a need for deception on a sac bunt. The whole ballpark can know its coming, if you get the bunt down it doesn't make any difference.

 

it certainly makes it a lot tougher to get the bunt down though - especially with a force at three bases.

[Bruno7481]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

 

There isn't a need for deception on a sac bunt. The whole ballpark can know its coming, if you get the bunt down it doesn't make any difference.

 

If you know it's coming, then the success rate goes down.

 

Based on what?

 

If a player gets the bunt down anywhere towards the third base line there isn't a thing they can do about it.

[BigbadB]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

 

There isn't a need for deception on a sac bunt. The whole ballpark can know its coming, if you get the bunt down it doesn't make any difference.

 

Wet field, wet dirt. Runner advancing to 3rd can be slowed down by mud in his cleats, fielder can slip. Wainright's filthy breaking ball could have forced a pop up of the bunt attempt, could have put 2 strikes on the hitter, which would likely take the bunt sign away, etc...

[goonys evil twin]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

 

There isn't a need for deception on a sac bunt. The whole ballpark can know its coming, if you get the bunt down it doesn't make any difference.

 

Yes it does. Unless it's absolutely perfect, even a good bunt can be turned into a DP, if not an out at third.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

 

There isn't a need for deception on a sac bunt. The whole ballpark can know its coming, if you get the bunt down it doesn't make any difference.

 

If you know it's coming, then the success rate goes down.

 

Based on what?

 

If a player gets the bunt down anywhere towards the third base line there isn't a thing they can do about it.

 

Because Rolen and Pujols will be closer and more likely to make a play on it. Of course if he does it right there's nothing they can do about it, same way if Floyd hit that curveball over the wall there isn't anything they can do about it. If the defense knows you're bunting, it cuts into the margin for error the bunter has.

[goonys evil twin]

That's what I'm saying, sending up the pitcher to bunt telegraphs that that's the intention...therefore it increases the chances of bad things happening. Swinging away was his only choice...it just didn't work out.

 

There isn't a need for deception on a sac bunt. The whole ballpark can know its coming, if you get the bunt down it doesn't make any difference.

 

If you know it's coming, then the success rate goes down.

 

Based on what?

 

If a player gets the bunt down anywhere towards the third base line there isn't a thing they can do about it.

 

you've never seen an out at 3rd on a bunt?

[cubfan1955]

I was following the game from work with Yahoo and it was showing Heilman batting and striking out with 2 on and no outs in the 9th and I thought Willie had lost his mind and must have been letting Heilman bat to bunt! LOL...I didn't hear until later that they used Floyd to PH.

[Pinktermite]

You don't think the success rate of a bunt goes down if they know it's coming? I would say that it does.

[NewUserName]

I think this is just old time baseballers using a isolated incident to show that statistical analyst stuff doesnt work.

 

That argument is as ignorant as when "old time baseballers" flat out deny the statistical side of the game. You have to look at both.

 

I just happen to think putting runners at 2nd and 3rd with one out would have been the better move. It may tighten Wainwright up a bit more, having never pitched in a situation as big as last night.

 

He was throwing very well though.

 

 

 

I wasnt saying that bunting in its self was the wrong play. I was just commenting on the reaction that I have heard today on the Radio. I said that the chances of scoring were probably close enough both ways that the decision just looks bad because it didnt work. Than I said if he did bunt and than the next 2 guys KO would he be criticized today for that not working. This is where I pointed out the oldtimers using this as an isolated example of there philosophy working or the statiztical stuff not working. Truth is if he did bunt and it didnt work you wouldnt be hearing a thing about it today on the radio or ESPN.

 

Just for the sack of helping the discusion does anyone have the probabilities of scoring 2 runs with runners on 1 and 2 and noone out and runners on 2 and 3 with 1 out. I am guessing that the first one is better but not by some huge margin.

[Wilson A2000]

if you're down by one, then maybe you bunt...but not down by two. you'd need a basehit either way.

 

A basehit only scores one unless it is a double if you don't bunt. Which is easier: a double, 2 singles, or a bunt and a hit. I say a bunt and a hit.

[goonys evil twin]

if you're down by one, then maybe you bunt...but not down by two. you'd need a basehit either way.

 

A basehit only scores one unless it is a double if you don't bunt. Which is easier: a double, 2 singles, or a bunt and a hit. I say a bunt and a hit.

 

Correction.

 

A double, 2 singles, walk with one single with 3 outs to spare.

Or, a bunt, and a single with 2 outs to spare.