Is Bob Brenly going to be our next manager?

[jersey cubs fan]

 

There are plenty of players where if they "don't know how to bunt" it doesn't matter at all.

 

Oh I agree, I'm just saying there's plenty of examples of players that would benefit their game by learning how to lay down a damn bunt when asked to.

 

Could benefit, there's no guarantee anybody definitely would improve their game, and the improvements that could happen would be so incredibly small so as to barely put a dent in what the entirety of their abilities says they are as a player.

 

 

The Cubs suck right now and if everybody on the roster put an extra 1000 hours of work into bunting, they would still suck.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

There are plenty of players where if they "don't know how to bunt" it doesn't matter at all.

 

Oh I agree, I'm just saying there's plenty of examples of players that would benefit their game by learning how to lay down a damn bunt when asked to.

 

Like who?

[sneakypower]

i unequivocally failed in my quest to get people to stop talking about [expletive] bunting

 

:(

[Sammy Sofa]

There's always someone out there who inexplicably gets all sweaty and flushed when they see a successful drag bunt.

[Elwood]

There's always someone out there who inexplicably gets all sweaty and flushed when they see a successful drag bunt.

 

I think it's because the average joe who played highschool sports thinks that he would lay down a successful bunt 80% of the time and lead the team in grit. It can't be that hard, right?

 

Similarly, I find it difficult to understand how anyone in the NBA ever misses a free throw.

[glavine93]

i could read ten bunting threads and be okay with it and i think everyone should know how to do it, but at the same time, whenever i see a nonpitcher attempt a sac bunt i kind of feel this subconscious disdain. terrible and wrong, i know. but if they run really fast and pretend like they wanted it to be a hit, that goes away. along the same lines, bunt hits are among my favorite things to see in person at a game.

[Banedon]

i could read ten bunting threads and be okay with it and i think everyone should know how to do it, but at the same time, whenever i see a nonpitcher attempt a sac bunt i kind of feel this subconscious disdain. terrible and wrong, i know. but if they run really fast and pretend like they wanted it to be a hit, that goes away. along the same lines, bunt hits are among my favorite things to see in person at a game.

 

Good god why? I can't think of a more boring "success" at the plate. The only "exciting" bunt I can think of in baseball is a squeeze, and even that is because of the play at the plate, not because of the bunt.

 

Bunting sucks.

[bukie]

This is my view on bunting:

 

Outs are the most precious thing in baseball, the limiting factor in a game that isn't timed in any way. You have, in 99.9% of cases, 27 outs to work with to win the game. In almost no situation does it make sense to voluntarily trade an out for a base advancement. Trading an out for a run straight up is more sensible (i.e. a sac fly or squeeze play), but even then if you ask for that in advance you're still basically instructing the hitter to try to give away a set part of your scoring opportunity in a game.

 

That is why purposely making an out to advance a base is nearly universally statistically inefficient. There are basically two cases in which trading outs for base advances is viable:

 

1) When the batter has a less than 10% chance of success at the plate (i.e. a pitcher)

2) When one run will win the game, and one out won't lose it, and the batter doesn't have a significant chance of driving the runner home from first himself. So, for example, tie game, bottom 9, runner on first, Koyie Hill batting.

[dew1679666265]

This is my view on bunting:

 

Outs are the most precious thing in baseball, the limiting factor in a game that isn't timed in any way. You have, in 99.9% of cases, 27 outs to work with to win the game. In almost no situation does it make sense to voluntarily trade an out for a base advancement. Trading an out for a run straight up is more sensible (i.e. a sac fly or squeeze play), but even then if you ask for that in advance you're still basically instructing the hitter to try to give away a set part of your scoring opportunity in a game.

 

That is why purposely making an out to advance a base is nearly universally statistically inefficient. There are basically two cases in which trading outs for base advances is viable:

 

1) When the batter has a less than 10% chance of success at the plate (i.e. a pitcher)

2) When one run will win the game, and one out won't lose it, and the batter doesn't have a significant chance of driving the runner home from first himself. So, for example, tie game, bottom 9, runner on first, Koyie Hill batting.

 

The preciousness of outs is an important part of baseball, I think. As long as you have outs, you have a chance to win the game so giving them away on any sort of a semi-regular basis is a bad idea, statistically and logically.

[bcl412]

To state something that applies more directly to the original topic. I probably say this in every managerial thread but baseball manager is the most over rated position in sports thus I don't really care who has the job that much.

[CubColtPacer]

This is my view on bunting:

 

Outs are the most precious thing in baseball, the limiting factor in a game that isn't timed in any way. You have, in 99.9% of cases, 27 outs to work with to win the game. In almost no situation does it make sense to voluntarily trade an out for a base advancement. Trading an out for a run straight up is more sensible (i.e. a sac fly or squeeze play), but even then if you ask for that in advance you're still basically instructing the hitter to try to give away a set part of your scoring opportunity in a game.

 

That is why purposely making an out to advance a base is nearly universally statistically inefficient. There are basically two cases in which trading outs for base advances is viable:

 

1) When the batter has a less than 10% chance of success at the plate (i.e. a pitcher)

2) When one run will win the game, and one out won't lose it, and the batter doesn't have a significant chance of driving the runner home from first himself. So, for example, tie game, bottom 9, runner on first, Koyie Hill batting.

 

I would say the statistics have shown that bunting can be used in more situations than that. 1st and 2nd with nobody out for example can be very helpful to bunt, especially if it's a weaker hitter or if you need 1/2 runs. There are others that also apply. And quasi sac bunts are also useful (like Kosuke used to do with a runner on 2nd where he would do a surprise bunt and hope to beat it out but have a sacrifice as the worst outcome). It's very rare though when you want to bunt with one of your 2-3 best hitters (although the more of a straight power/low batting average the guy is, like Pena or maybe Soto, the more times he would have a situation where it could be beneficial for him to bunt in certain late inning situations.)

[BigSlick]

To state something that applies more directly to the original topic. I probably say this in every managerial thread but baseball manager is the most over rated position in sports thus I don't really care who has the job that much.

Yeah its really pretty much unimportant. Brenly is a little too bunt-happy for me to really care for him too much, but at least you can tell that he has a pretty solid grasp of things and doesn't tolerate sloppy, lazy play.

 

On the other hand he got out of Arizona pretty quickly after they won the World Series and I never heard exactly what transpired there. You'd think winning a WS would buy more than a few grace period years.

[BigSlick]

To state something that applies more directly to the original topic. I probably say this in every managerial thread but baseball manager is the most over rated position in sports thus I don't really care who has the job that much.

Yeah its really pretty much unimportant. Brenly is a little too bunt-happy for me to really care for him too much, but at least you can tell that he has a pretty solid grasp of things and doesn't tolerate sloppy, lazy play.

 

On the other hand he got out of Arizona pretty quickly after they won the World Series and I never heard exactly what transpired there. You'd think winning a WS would buy more than a few grace period years.

[Guest]

Sacrifice flies and sacrifice bunts were a combined stat until 1954, so if you think most of those "sacrifice hits" for guys like Ruth and Gehrig were bunts then I've got a LOT of things I want to sell to you.

 

This is not true. There is a difference between a 'sacrifice fly', a 'sacrifice bunt' and a 'sacrifice hit'. Two are outs and one is a hit.

 

In 1926, the sacrifice fly rule was changed and in 1931, the individual sacrifice fly stat was wiped out until 1954. So a 'sacrifice hit' was a hit when 'The Babe and 'The Iron Horse' played.

 

Wrong. At that time (1926) a sacrifice hit combined every time a batter moved runners over and got out. It was not counted as a hit, it wasn't even counted as an AB. In 1931 they eliminated the sac fly from the sac hit catagory, so all they counted was bunts or a situation such as a runner moving from 2B to 3B on a groundout to the 2B. Which explains why Gehrig ranged from 12 to 20+ sacs prior to 1932 and 1-2 each year from 1932 on.

 

I think the more likely reason is that after six years of .341/.442/.638/1.080 production with 186 home runs, that his manager finally wised up and realized that it wasn't the best of ideas to have Gehrig bunt. Ditto for Ruth except change that to 13 years of .350/.482/.724/1.206 production and 556 home runs.

 

But seriously, Ruth going from 21 SH in 1930 to 0 in 1931 and Gehrig from 18 to 2 over the same two years should be a dead giveaway that the rule was changed.

[Old Style]

I think ANY left handed hitter that faces an overshift by the defense (Pena, Ortiz, Dunn, etc.) should be able to drop a bunt down the 3rd base line with a reasonable amount of success.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, but even then it should only be done once in a blue moon (if at all) because they're so much more useful swinging away and you're counting on them to drive people in, not just move people up a base. It's not like most teams are stacked enough where you want your #4 hitter bunting.

[CubColtPacer]

Yeah, but even then it should only be done once in a blue moon (if at all) because they're so much more useful swinging away and you're counting on them to drive people in, not just move people up a base. It's not like most teams are stacked enough where you want your #4 hitter bunting.

 

I don't know. I'd happily take a baserunner from my #4 hitter in many situations (which is also why I'm happy almost all the time when the #4 hitter walks). Sure, you have to pick your spots, but the bunt against the shift is so valuable precisely because of that. Pena can choose to do it when you're leading off an inning, but not when there are baserunners or when you come up with 2 outs/nobody on. Pena can choose to do it when there's a left-hander on the mound. He can choose to do it when he's slumping. It's already useful, but using it when he's less likely to get a hit/the team needs a baserunner makes it a big weapon. I personally think he should do it a little more than he does.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, but even then it should only be done once in a blue moon (if at all) because they're so much more useful swinging away and you're counting on them to drive people in, not just move people up a base. It's not like most teams are stacked enough where you want your #4 hitter bunting.

 

I don't know. I'd happily take a baserunner from my #4 hitter in many situations (which is also why I'm happy almost all the time when the #4 hitter walks). Sure, you have to pick your spots, but the bunt against the shift is so valuable precisely because of that. Pena can choose to do it when you're leading off an inning, but not when there are baserunners or when you come up with 2 outs/nobody on. Pena can choose to do it when there's a left-hander on the mound. He can choose to do it when he's slumping. It's already useful, but using it when he's less likely to get a hit/the team needs a baserunner makes it a big weapon. I personally think he should do it a little more than he does.

 

No. I agree that if a guy is slumping it can help mix things up, but the last thing I want Pena doing when he's hitting is bunting, especially on a team this bad. Ultimately, however, he's much more valuable and team is probably more likely to score if he's trying to hit than if he's just getting on 1B for Byrd or Soto or Soriano.

[CubColtPacer]

Yeah, but even then it should only be done once in a blue moon (if at all) because they're so much more useful swinging away and you're counting on them to drive people in, not just move people up a base. It's not like most teams are stacked enough where you want your #4 hitter bunting.

 

I don't know. I'd happily take a baserunner from my #4 hitter in many situations (which is also why I'm happy almost all the time when the #4 hitter walks). Sure, you have to pick your spots, but the bunt against the shift is so valuable precisely because of that. Pena can choose to do it when you're leading off an inning, but not when there are baserunners or when you come up with 2 outs/nobody on. Pena can choose to do it when there's a left-hander on the mound. He can choose to do it when he's slumping. It's already useful, but using it when he's less likely to get a hit/the team needs a baserunner makes it a big weapon. I personally think he should do it a little more than he does.

 

No. I agree that if a guy is slumping it can help mix things up, but the last thing I want Pena doing when he's hitting is bunting, especially on a team this bad. Ultimately, however, he's much more valuable and team is probably more likely to score if he's trying to hit than if he's just getting on 1B for Byrd or Soto or Soriano.

 

Well, that would be an interesting question on the value of OBP/SLG. Does Pena having a .750 OBP and .000 SLG (technically, his SLG would also be .750, but we know if he's bunting it's more like walking than a single). worth more than his current .339 OBP and .461 SLG? Most research would say it is. And if bunting every time nobody was on base made teams eventually get out of their shift his numbers would go up even more.

 

(I'm assuming Pena can get a successful bunt down 3 out of 4 times, but from what I've seen from him this year and how much room he has on the left side of the field that seems pretty accurate).

[Sammy Sofa]

I think it would just encourage the shift to continue. I'm sure any team would gladly give a bunt single to Carlos Pena almost every time he was at the plate instead of having him swing away. If it's luring a dangerous hitter to only bunt his way on, why stop?

[CubColtPacer]

I think it would just encourage the shift to continue. I'm sure any team would gladly give a bunt single to Carlos Pena almost every time he was at the plate instead of having him swing away. If it's luring a dangerous hitter to only bunt his way on, why stop?

 

Then I would say good luck to them! They aren't valuing OBP correctly if they do that. They would think you'd be crazy if you suggested intentionally walking Pena every time he came to the plate, but they'll let him get on because of a bunt 75-80 percent of the time?

[Sammy Sofa]

I think it would just encourage the shift to continue. I'm sure any team would gladly give a bunt single to Carlos Pena almost every time he was at the plate instead of having him swing away. If it's luring a dangerous hitter to only bunt his way on, why stop?

 

Then I would say good luck to them! They aren't valuing OBP correctly if they do that. They would think you'd be crazy if you suggested intentionally walking Pena every time he came to the plate, but they'll let him get on because of a bunt 75-80 percent of the time?

 

Sure, they'd probably be OK either way, since the Cubs aren't very good and Pena is one of their few offensive threats.

[Guest]

I think it would just encourage the shift to continue. I'm sure any team would gladly give a bunt single to Carlos Pena almost every time he was at the plate instead of having him swing away. If it's luring a dangerous hitter to only bunt his way on, why stop?

 

Think of it this way. Defensively, would you want to achieve the scenario where the #4 hitter walks 75% of the time? The only way giving away bunt singles all the time is effective for the defense is if the guy is a Bondsian hitter.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think it would just encourage the shift to continue. I'm sure any team would gladly give a bunt single to Carlos Pena almost every time he was at the plate instead of having him swing away. If it's luring a dangerous hitter to only bunt his way on, why stop?

 

Think of it this way. Defensively, would you want to achieve the scenario where the #4 hitter walks 75% of the time? The only way giving away bunt singles all the time is effective for the defense is if the guy is a Bondsian hitter.

 

Again, I'm not talking about Pena in a vacuum; I'm talking about Pena on the Cubs. And we're talking about a hypothetical scenario that has zero chance of happening. There isn't a breaking point where teams are going to say "gee, maybe the shift isn't such a good idea, let's shift back" because of how many times Carlos Pena bunts his way on base.

[woodchip2153]

using the linear weights from wOBA a home run is about 2.5 times more valuable than a bunt single.

 

so Pena should probably bunt more, and teams would be stupid to not adjust if he did.