PDA

View Full Version : Should Dusty have asked Edwin to bunt?



RFS62
04-02-2008, 11:56 PM
A simple poll. Should Dusty have asked Edwin to bunt tonight?

WMR
04-02-2008, 11:56 PM
HELL NO.

Anyone who says yes, PLEASE explain your reasoning.

reds44
04-02-2008, 11:57 PM
No.

Matt700wlw
04-02-2008, 11:57 PM
No.

Maybe he knows that now.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-02-2008, 11:57 PM
Nope.

WMR
04-02-2008, 11:59 PM
No.

Maybe he knows that now.

If he wasn't smart enough to know it before, I'm inclined to doubt that he knows it now.

KronoRed
04-03-2008, 12:00 AM
No, giving away outs down by 2 is a bad plan.

WVRedsFan
04-03-2008, 12:00 AM
Two ways to look at this.

I say no, because I know Encarnacion is capable of doing what he did. I also know that he has a good bat. BUT...

Dusty has no idea who he's dealing with yet (though some would say he exhibits this behavior no matter where he is) and watching Edwin this spring and in the first 1.8 games of the year, you might want to not take a chance with him. He's been a walking mistake thus far.

Yeah, it was still a boneheaded decision,but I think I can understand it in this situation.

RedlegJake
04-03-2008, 12:03 AM
No. If the manager really wanted a sac in that sitch he should have pinch hit for a guy with bunting skills. Problem with that is you take the bat out of the hands of one of the legit HR hitters in your lineup, give away the first out so 'Boom Boom' Bako can win the game for you? Or failing that the deadly PH Mustachio Man? Actually it's a darn good thing EE can't bunt to save his life or the homerun would never have happend and the Reds would likely have lost the game. Wonder if Dusty scorches him for failing to get the job done?

RFS62
04-03-2008, 12:04 AM
I voted "no". But a wacky thought came to me. What if Dusty is in a way "calling out" the entire team by calling for that bunt? What if he's announcing that we're going to bunt any time I think we should, and you all had better improve your technique if you don't want to be humiliated.

I know that's a reach, but is it possible that there's any truth to it?

Matt700wlw
04-03-2008, 12:06 AM
If he wasn't smart enough to know it before, I'm inclined to doubt that he knows it now.

Well, we can hope

WMR
04-03-2008, 12:10 AM
Well, we can hope

Believe me, I am!! :pray:

pedro
04-03-2008, 12:11 AM
I don't like the choices so I didn't vote.

I'd have voted no, I don't think they should have bunted down by two runs, even though it would have put the tying run at 2nd.

OTOH, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to pursue that strategy.

It's easy to say it would have been stupid now, but what if Encarnacion had hit into a DP? men on second and third with one out would have looked pretty good then. Especially as the home team.

Finally, I think all major league players should be able to bunt.

KoryMac5
04-03-2008, 12:33 AM
I don't like the choices so I didn't vote.

I'd have voted no, I don't think they should have bunted down by two runs, even though it would have put the tying run at 2nd.

OTOH, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to pursue that strategy.

It's easy to say it would have been stupid now, but what if Encarnacion had hit into a DP? men on second and third with one out would have looked pretty good then. Especially as the home team.

Finally, I think all major league players should be able to bunt.

I did vote no for many of the reasons that Pedro stated. If EE is looking at one out I let him swing the bat, but with no outs and Edwin struggling I need those runners on 2nd and 3rd to keep the momentum going. I think it is a matter of judgement that could go either way, however it is always easier to say swing away when you have the end result you had tonight. If EE had hit into a double play I am not sure this thread exists.

Regardless like many on here I am glad it worked out for the best, and yes all MLB players should know how to bunt.

OnBaseMachine
04-03-2008, 12:34 AM
Quote from Dusty:

"I told [bench coach] Chris [Speier], 'I hope he doesn't get the bunt down so he gets a three-run homer," Baker said.

RedsManRick
04-03-2008, 12:38 AM
I don't care if Edwin "can" bunt. You need two runs there and you only have 3 outs. A double play still leaves the tying run at the plate. You don't give outs away with one of your most productive players at the plate.

knuckler
04-03-2008, 12:55 AM
I voted no, but I didn't care for the poll choices beyond "yes" and "no".

"Yes", every major league player SHOULD be able to bunt.

But "No", EdE should not have been called on to bunt in that situation.

The manager has to think more than one step ahead. IF the sacrifice is successful, the Dbacks surely would have walked the next batter (Votto IIRC) to set up the double play. You still need two runs just to tie, and with one out someone has to get a hit or a walk. Votto would have the bat taken out of his hands by the intentional walk, and there was nobody coming up in the lineup or left on the bench with a better chance of getting the RBI than EdE. So let him swing! Besides, the first two batters got hits, so Lyon clearly didn't have overwhelming stuff going for him.

fearofpopvol1
04-03-2008, 01:02 AM
I can see logic on both sides, but as I said in the game thread, it's senseless to have EdE bunt because he is THE best played on the Reds with RISP. A lifetime .317 BA with RISP. It's better than anyone else on the team. Yes, he could hit into a DP, yes he could get an out that isn't productive. However, that's just not what he does.

I do think he should learn how to bunt though and be able to play small ball if necessary, but this is your run producer.

Razor Shines
04-03-2008, 01:05 AM
Obviously no. He hit a home run. I'll take a home run over a bunt every time.

Stormy
04-03-2008, 01:05 AM
I voted "no". But a wacky thought came to me. What if Dusty is in a way "calling out" the entire team by calling for that bunt? What if he's announcing that we're going to bunt any time I think we should, and you all had better improve your technique if you don't want to be humiliated.

I know that's a reach, but is it possible that there's any truth to it?

Not even a chance, in my opinion. Calling for the bunt in that situation is simply Dusty Baker Baseball 101, and there's reams of precedent to consult. The worst part is not even the fact that he asked one of our best RISP hitters, who has a well documented history of not being able to bunt, to bunt anyway, in a game where we were in a 2 run deficit. The worst part is that Dusty will learn nothing from seeing the diametric opposite of his strategy win the game for us, and will be calling for the same bunt again next go round.

I don't even care, because Dusty is going to be Dusty... I'm just thrilled for Edwin, and for the team.

dougdirt
04-03-2008, 01:09 AM
Didn't vote because the options aren't ones I agree with.

No, Edwin shouldn't have been asked to bunt, not because he can't (which he can't), but because he is the Reds best hitter with runners on base.

What scares me is that our manager doesn't seem to know that.

RedsManRick
04-03-2008, 01:12 AM
What scares me is that our manager doesn't seem to know that.

At least Dusty is new... I wonder what Cowboy's excuse is. I agree and sadly feel vindicated. Dusty is just not good at in game management. Had EE made an out, I'm sure Dusty would have told us about how in his day, every guy on the team was expected to know how to bunt and how a successful bunt would've meant the difference there.

dougdirt
04-03-2008, 01:16 AM
At least Dusty is new... I wonder what Cowboy's excuse is. I agree and sadly feel vindicated. Dusty is just not good at in game management. Had EE made an out, I'm sure Dusty would have told us about how in his day, every guy on the team was expected to know how to bunt and how a successful bunt would've meant the difference there.

To be honest, Cowboy has more of an excuse. He isn't geting paid 3 million dollars a year to make decisions about players. Baker is and he doesn't seem to have a clue that Edwin is the best hitter on the team when runners are on the bags.

RedsManRick
04-03-2008, 01:24 AM
To be honest, Cowboy has more of an excuse. He isn't geting paid 3 million dollars a year to make decisions about players. Baker is and he doesn't seem to have a clue that Edwin is the best hitter on the team when runners are on the bags.

I don't think that's a fair conclusion Doug. What Dusty's quotes thus far have shown me is that he's pretty conscious of all the facts, he just uses them to come to the wrong conclusions sometimes. No more excuse, perhaps less so. He probably was aware of EE's #s w/ RISP and still thought it was a small ball situation, so he asked him to bunt.

He's stuck in the era in which he played. It's evident in his quotes and in his actions.

AtomicDumpling
04-03-2008, 01:25 AM
Bunting is for losers.

Only pitchers should bunt. Hitters should hit.

The goal is to produce runs, you don't do that by intentionally making outs. Purposely making an out just gives you one less chance of producing a run. It makes the pitcher's job easier. You need to make the pitcher earn all three outs. In addition there are many things that can go wrong on a bunt play - pop out, strikeout, bunt into force play, etc.

The manager should show confidence in his hitters and trust them to get the run home.

I think some managers like to run bunt plays, hit-and-runs and other trick plays just so everyone can see what a great manager they are. If the play works the manager is a genius, if it doesn't work then the players screwed up.

Screwball
04-03-2008, 01:42 AM
Quote from Dusty:

"I told [bench coach] Chris [Speier], 'I hope he doesn't get the bunt down so he gets a three-run homer," Baker said.

Am I the only one to find the above hilarious?

"Yeah, anybody can hit a walk-off three run homer. But I wanted to see if he could do it with 2 strikes."

Ahhh, Dusty. Screwball still loves ya.

dougdirt
04-03-2008, 01:48 AM
I don't think that's a fair conclusion Doug. What Dusty's quotes thus far have shown me is that he's pretty conscious of all the facts, he just uses them to come to the wrong conclusions sometimes. No more excuse, perhaps less so. He probably was aware of EE's #s w/ RISP and still thought it was a small ball situation, so he asked him to bunt.

He's stuck in the era in which he played. It's evident in his quotes and in his actions.

He noted in the spring that he hadn't really looked into his players that much.... I don't think that much has changed if he knew he had the job in October.

Cedric
04-03-2008, 01:54 AM
You don't bunt your best pure hitter. You defanetely don't bunt when that hitter is hitting in front of a rookie, Hatteberg, and probably Valentin.

mbgrayson
04-03-2008, 02:00 AM
No for all the reasons listed above, and one more:

Wonky sabermetric fact: Run expectancy with runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs=1.573. Run expectancy with runners on 2nd and 3rd, one out=1.467. This is from "The Book" by Tom Tango, page 17. In essence, you will, on average, score more runs with two on 1st and 2nd and no out.....

Of course this doesn't account for the particular players involved, it is generic likliehood of scoring runs based on historical analysis.

When you throw in EE's lack of skill in bunting, and his good RISP, it becomes even more clear.

Dusty still scares me.....

redsmetz
04-03-2008, 07:35 AM
I don't like the choices so I didn't vote.

I'd have voted no, I don't think they should have bunted down by two runs, even though it would have put the tying run at 2nd.

OTOH, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to pursue that strategy.

It's easy to say it would have been stupid now, but what if Encarnacion had hit into a DP? men on second and third with one out would have looked pretty good then. Especially as the home team.

Finally, I think all major league players should be able to bunt.

I didn't like the choices either. I would have preferred a third "it depends on the situation", but I vote "yes" this morning after reading Baker's comment about not wanting EE up there pressing, which in fact, a young player wanting to redeem himself is apt to do. Given Baker's stated reason for calling for the bunt, I'm okay with it - as I said, it depends on the circumstances.

Cyclone792
04-03-2008, 08:15 AM
Finally, I think all major league players should be able to bunt.


Regardless like many on here I am glad it worked out for the best, and yes all MLB players should know how to bunt.


"Yes", every major league player SHOULD be able to bunt.


I do think he should learn how to bunt though and be able to play small ball if necessary, but this is your run producer.

To me, the fact that Encarnacion is apparently lousy at bunting is more of an organizational problem than it is an Encarnacion problem.

Encarnacion has 637 minor league games in his career, 541 of those games coming as a Reds farm player. In those 637 games, he has exactly six sacrifice hits, and only two of those sacrifice hits came as a Reds farm player. His last sacrifice hit was in 2004 for Chattanooga; previously he also had one sacrifice in 2003 in high-A, one sacrifice in 2001 in low-A (Rangers organization), and three sacrifices in 2000 in the GCL (Rangers organization).

If the expectation is that all MLB hitters should know how to bunt, then the burden is on the organization developing those hitters to effectively teach them how to bunt and develop each hitter as an adept bunter while in the minor leagues. The fact that Encarnacion has exactly two sacrifice hits in over 850 games as a Red (majors and minors) tells me that the Reds did a lousy job teaching him how to bunt ... or possibly did nothing to teach him how to bunt.

They could have given Encarnacion some instruction to bunt during BP sessions, but frankly attempting to bunt in BP sessions and attempting to bunt off actual live pitching in a game situation are two totally different circumstances.

It's difficult to fault a player for not possessing a certain skill when that player's organization did an awful job at teaching/instructing that skill to that player.

dabvu2498
04-03-2008, 08:19 AM
The manager has to think more than one step ahead. IF the sacrifice is successful, the Dbacks surely would have walked the next batter (Votto IIRC) to set up the double play.

Teams typically don't intentionally walk the winning run.

Back to the topic... I say "no" but not for the reason listed. I'd rather have the game decided by my 6-7 hitters than PHers coming in cold off the bench.

My buddy, who is Mr. Old School Baseball Guy was suggesting the same thing Cyclone did in the game thread -- double steal. Of course, based on the pickoff play in the first pitch of EE's at bat, the D-Backs had that one sniffed out as well.

jojo
04-03-2008, 03:41 PM
I voted no but not because EE can't. It's because he shouldn't.

The only exception, the most deadly play in baseball....the suicide squeeze play.

EE needs to learn.

princeton
04-03-2008, 03:55 PM
I'm glad that he told him to bunt.

klw
04-03-2008, 03:56 PM
I voted no based primarily on who the Reds coming up in the lineup after him. If he was in the 2 spot and had the meat of the order coming up, it could be considered but not at that area of the lineup. Plus next batter gets walked and then suddenly the Casey/Phillips is in play and bang game over.

Sea Ray
04-03-2008, 04:05 PM
No way you bunt there. Why take the bat out of EE's hands with the 7 and 8 batters due up next? Makes no sense whatsoever. Dusty lucked out here

RedsManRick
04-03-2008, 04:08 PM
No for all the reasons listed above, and one more:

Wonky sabermetric fact: Run expectancy with runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs=1.573. Run expectancy with runners on 2nd and 3rd, one out=1.467. This is from "The Book" by Tom Tango, page 17. In essence, you will, on average, score more runs with two on 1st and 2nd and no out.....

Of course this doesn't account for the particular players involved, it is generic likliehood of scoring runs based on historical analysis.

When you throw in EE's lack of skill in bunting, and his good RISP, it becomes even more clear.

Dusty still scares me.....

While it doesn't control from the batter at the plate, I found this interesting.

http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search

This is a site that basically does a non-theoretical win probability assessment by situation. Per this little app:

B9, 1st & 2nd, 0 outs, Home team down 2:
http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search/?start_year=1977&end_year=2006&team=H&inning=9&outs=0&expectancy=3&scorediff=-2
games: 360
home won: 101
expectancy: [B]0.281

After a successful bunt:
B9, 2nd & 3rd, 1 out, Home team down 2:
games: 203
home won: 62
expectancy: 0.305

So, ignoring for a moment the specific players involved, the outcome of successfully sac bunting in that situation inceases your historical odds of winning by 2.4%.

Of course, when you factor in the chance of ending up bunting in to a double play or getting the lead runner at 3rd (the true judgment should be based on the possible outcomes rather than the desired one), it probably drops the win probability back below the 28.1% state.

On yet another hand, the alternative against which we should be comparing the bunt option is not the null state, but rather it's opposite, the non-bunt option. Taking the weighted range of possible outcomes if he were to swing away probably gives us a post-AB win expectancy value lower than the pre-AB too.

It's important to remember in this scenario that run-expectancy isn't what is important. We have to maximize the chances of scoring at least 2 runs that inning. A 1 run inning is just as useless as a 0 run inning at that point. The math changes a little bit. Your average number of runs might go down while your odds of scoring 2 or more goes up.

bucksfan2
04-03-2008, 04:08 PM
No way you bunt there. Why take the bat out of EE's hands with the 7 and 8 batters due up next? Makes no sense whatsoever. Dusty lucked out here

It may have been the 7th and 8th batters but the 7th batter was also Votto. Bako would have been pinch hit for by Valentine to boot.

I was mixed with the call to bunt. I don't think you do it there but if he grounded into a double play instead of hitting a HR then we are in a complete reverse situation. I think its a good call to bunt if you had Hopper, Freel, Patterson, etc. but with Edwin you let him swing away.

Highlifeman21
04-03-2008, 04:19 PM
I don't get why you'd ask any player to perform a task of which they possess poor talent. I don't care what the task is, asking a guy who sucks at said task to perform said task is setting up the player for failure.

I hope The Dusty isn't in the business of setting up our guys for failure.


That'd be like asking Valentin to tag up from 3rd on a short hit ball to the OF. Hopper or Freel or Patterson, maybe. But Valentin, never.

Sea Ray
04-03-2008, 04:21 PM
I hate giving away outs. Maybe I'm in the minority but the only way I bunt is if it gets a tying run to third base with less than 2 out. There's too many bad things that can happen with a bunt including the feared DP that so many here are mentioning if he were to swing away.

George Anderson
04-03-2008, 04:22 PM
Did Marty ask Dusty about bunting EE in the pre game interview?

GAC
04-03-2008, 04:25 PM
I voted no. Looking at Harang's feeble attempt at bunting in the opener, and then EE last night, if Dusty wants all of his players to be able to bunt then he has some work cut out for him.

You also have to look at who was coming to bat after EE. You had Votto, then the weakest part of the batting order coming up.

Sea Ray
04-03-2008, 04:25 PM
It may have been the 7th and 8th batters but the 7th batter was also Votto. Bako would have been pinch hit for by Valentin to boot.


Yeah, you make a great point. Who wants Votto up there in that situation? A pressing rookie who is not swinging the bat well. If the bunt is unsuccessful then Votto is a wonderful DP candidate

Sea Ray
04-03-2008, 04:29 PM
While it doesn't control from the batter at the plate, I found this interesting.

http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search

This is a site that basically does a non-theoretical win probability assessment by situation. Per this little app:

B9, 1st & 2nd, 0 outs, Home team down 2:
http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search/?start_year=1977&end_year=2006&team=H&inning=9&outs=0&expectancy=3&scorediff=-2
games: 360
home won: 101
expectancy: [B]0.281

After a successful bunt:
B9, 2nd & 3rd, 1 out, Home team down 2:
games: 203
home won: 62
expectancy: 0.305

So, ignoring for a moment the specific players involved, the outcome of successfully sac bunting in that situation inceases your historical odds of winning by 2.4%.

Of course, when you factor in the chance of ending up bunting in to a double play or getting the lead runner at 3rd (the true judgment should be based on the possible outcomes rather than the desired one), it probably drops the win probability back below the 28.1% state.

On yet another hand, the alternative against which we should be comparing the bunt option is not the null state, but rather it's opposite, the non-bunt option. Taking the weighted range of possible outcomes if he were to swing away probably gives us a post-AB win expectancy value lower than the pre-AB too.

It's important to remember in this scenario that run-expectancy isn't what is important. We have to maximize the chances of scoring at least 2 runs that inning. A 1 run inning is just as useless as a 0 run inning at that point. The math changes a little bit. Your average number of runs might go down while your odds of scoring 2 or more goes up.

That was an awfully long post to prove that there's no statistical way of knowing if Dusty made the right call or not.

princeton
04-03-2008, 04:31 PM
I don't get why you'd ask any player to perform a task of which they possess poor talent. I don't care what the task is, asking a guy who sucks at said task to perform said task is setting up the player for failure

I think that failure and embarassment is good for a player with great potential. I'm happy to lose a game but win a great hitter. It's a challenge-- "I never want to be asked to bunt again"

and he might not.

RedsManRick
04-03-2008, 04:31 PM
That was an awfully long post to prove that there's no statistical way of knowing if Dusty made the right call or not.

I've never claimed brevity among my strengths...

Highlifeman21
04-03-2008, 04:41 PM
I think that failure and embarassment is good for a player with great potential. I'm happy to lose a game but win a great hitter. It's a challenge-- "I never want to be asked to bunt again"

and he might not.

So do you think The Dusty will ever ask EE to bunt again?

gonelong
04-03-2008, 05:06 PM
I voted "no". But a wacky thought came to me. What if Dusty is in a way "calling out" the entire team by calling for that bunt? What if he's announcing that we're going to bunt any time I think we should, and you all had better improve your technique if you don't want to be humiliated.

I know that's a reach, but is it possible that there's any truth to it?

I am sure this will suprise you, but I was thinking the exact same thing last night. The question is, will Dusty continue to do this, likely to the short-term detriment of the team?

If Dusty was purely asking Encarnacion to bunt as a solitary in-game decision it was about as poor a decision as one can make IMO.

GL

RFS62
04-03-2008, 09:08 PM
I voted "no". But a wacky thought came to me. What if Dusty is in a way "calling out" the entire team by calling for that bunt? What if he's announcing that we're going to bunt any time I think we should, and you all had better improve your technique if you don't want to be humiliated.

I know that's a reach, but is it possible that there's any truth to it?


Not even a chance, in my opinion. Calling for the bunt in that situation is simply Dusty Baker Baseball 101, and there's reams of precedent to consult. The worst part is not even the fact that he asked one of our best RISP hitters, who has a well documented history of not being able to bunt, to bunt anyway, in a game where we were in a 2 run deficit. The worst part is that Dusty will learn nothing from seeing the diametric opposite of his strategy win the game for us, and will be calling for the same bunt again next go round.

I don't even care, because Dusty is going to be Dusty... I'm just thrilled for Edwin, and for the team.


I think that failure and embarassment is good for a player with great potential. I'm happy to lose a game but win a great hitter. It's a challenge-- "I never want to be asked to bunt again"

and he might not.


I am sure this will suprise you, but I was thinking the exact same thing last night. The question is, will Dusty continue to do this, likely to the short-term detriment of the team?

If Dusty was purely asking Encarnacion to bunt as a solitary in-game decision it was about as poor a decision as one can make IMO.

GL


After hearing Dusty in the pre-game interview, I'm more convinced than ever that he actually is announcing that we will bunt any time he thinks it's appropriate, no matter who is at the plate.

Marty asked him about it, referencing how few times he'd bunted before in his pro career. Dusty said (paraphrasing) "He practices bunting every day. So do all the players. I expect any of them to be able to bunt. We all bunted when I played for the Dodgers".

It left no doubt in my mind that he expects these guys to be able to put it on the ground when he calls for it.

Whether this is a good idea or not, well, it's up for discussion.

This isn't about the philosophical discussion over the bunt as a tool. This is about each player being able to produce one when called upon. It's a basic baseball skill that they really do practice every day in batting practice. I'd imagine a few of them might be taking it a little more seriously after this.

coachw513
04-03-2008, 09:54 PM
I'm sure it's been mentioned somewhere, but I nearly fell off my couch laughing as I listened today to Brantley just HAMMERING EE with the "he's not a clutch player" crap seconds before EE crushes the game-winner...on the other hand I was quite impressed with Thom both in light of his contention from the beginning of the AB that he would not have EE bunt (with his perception that it wasn't in his skillset...you think??) and then was attacking Brantley right back with the stats of EE's production with RISP...

I enjoy Brantley so much more than Welsh, but he's WAY TOO willing to rant in hyperbole (good or bad) with little supporting him other than his raw emotions...JMHO...

Raisor
04-03-2008, 10:00 PM
This isn't about the philosophical discussion over the bunt as a tool. This is about each player being able to produce one when called upon. It's a basic baseball skill that they really do practice every day in batting practice. I'd imagine a few of them might be taking it a little more seriously after this.

If it's not a philosophical discussion, it should be.

I can't stand sacrifice bunts, except where the pitcher or Juan Castro is involved.

Highlifeman21
04-03-2008, 10:03 PM
I can't stand sacrifices, except where Juan Castro is involved.

That's what you really meant.

Go ahead and admit it. ;)

*BaseClogger*
04-03-2008, 10:06 PM
Hey guys, who cares!?

Johnny Cueto! :jump:

RedsManRick
04-03-2008, 10:16 PM
Hey guys, who cares!?

Johnny Cueto! :jump:

At Wisconsin football games, the 'N' and 'P' sections regularly shout obscenities at each other. When the section between them, 'O', gets tired of it, they all form an O with their hands and scream O at the top of their lungs until N & P shut up.

It would seemed that Johnny CuetO has section O'd us all tonight.

Raisor
04-03-2008, 10:20 PM
That's what you really meant.

Go ahead and admit it. ;)

Juan sacrifices even when there aren't runners on.

He's that good.

Highlifeman21
04-03-2008, 10:58 PM
Juan sacrifices even when there aren't runners on.

He's that good.

That almost sounds Coombsian.

Raisor
04-03-2008, 11:10 PM
That almost sounds Coombsian.

I made him laugh yesterday. It was the highlight to my life.



Back to the bunt. I guess we should all be excited that Dusty DIDN'T have Dunn try to bunt over the runner when he was up.

:thumbup:

WMR
04-03-2008, 11:17 PM
nm

Cedric
04-03-2008, 11:46 PM
After hearing Dusty in the pre-game interview, I'm more convinced than ever that he actually is announcing that we will bunt any time he thinks it's appropriate, no matter who is at the plate.

Marty asked him about it, referencing how few times he'd bunted before in his pro career. Dusty said (paraphrasing) "He practices bunting every day. So do all the players. I expect any of them to be able to bunt. We all bunted when I played for the Dodgers".

It left no doubt in my mind that he expects these guys to be able to put it on the ground when he calls for it.

Whether this is a good idea or not, well, it's up for discussion.

This isn't about the philosophical discussion over the bunt as a tool. This is about each player being able to produce one when called upon. It's a basic baseball skill that they really do practice every day in batting practice. I'd imagine a few of them might be taking it a little more seriously after this.

I've never seen a manager live in the past like Dusty Baker does. I honestly can't remember a time he's talked baseball without speaking of the Dodger way or what he did back with the Dodgers. Baseball has progressed in many ways but is still being held back by people around the game that are a little stubborn. That's nothing shocking of course.

Raisor
04-03-2008, 11:51 PM
I've never seen a manager live in the past like Dusty Baker does. I honestly can't remember a time he's talked baseball without speaking of the Dodger way or what he did back with the Dodgers. Baseball has progressed in many ways but is still being held back by people around the game that are a little stubborn. That's nothing shocking of course.

Sometimes I'm surprised he doesn't talk about walking to school, barefoot uphill, both ways.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

http://www.talkingcomedy.com/summer2001/books-su01/JD02-BK-su01.gif

KronoRed
04-03-2008, 11:54 PM
Hey a picture of RFS

SteelSD
04-03-2008, 11:58 PM
Stupid decision and I'm actually glad that good MLB hitters have no idea how to lay down a bunt. Bunting is absolutely not something that every hitter needs to be proficient at and it shouldn't take even one second away from a good hitter's batting practice.

Demand that your pitchers and your low-OBP hitters be able to use it as a way to advance Runners. Demand that low-SLG players be able to use it as a way to potentially get on base.

But leave the good hitters alone and let them do their job.

bucksfan2
04-04-2008, 08:35 AM
Stupid decision and I'm actually glad that good MLB hitters have no idea how to lay down a bunt. Bunting is absolutely not something that every hitter needs to be proficient at and it shouldn't take even one second away from a good hitter's batting practice.

Demand that your pitchers and your low-OBP hitters be able to use it as a way to advance Runners. Demand that low-SLG players be able to use it as a way to potentially get on base.

But leave the good hitters alone and let them do their job.

Yea the DBacks are stupid for having their players bunt. All that stupidity led them to the NL Championship series. I don't, nor will I ever, understand why people think that bunting, especially in a situation like the other night, is stupid.

As often as the Bill James want to disregard small ball and bunting it still is very useful in today's game. It was great that Edwin hit a HR but I think it is also as likely that he could have hit into a double play.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-04-2008, 08:39 AM
Yea the DBacks are stupid for having their players bunt. All that stupidity led them to the NL Championship series. I don't, nor will I ever, understand why people think that bunting, especially in a situation like the other night, is stupid.

As often as the Bill James want to disregard small ball and bunting it still is very useful in today's game. It was great that Edwin hit a HR but I think it is also as likely that he could have hit into a double play.


If the D-Backs get outscored again on the season, I can assure you they won't make the playoffs.

They were lucky to even make the playoffs last year.

The one game the D-backs win in this series was due to three solo HR's.

WMR
04-04-2008, 08:53 AM
Yea the DBacks are stupid for having their players bunt. All that stupidity led them to the NL Championship series. I don't, nor will I ever, understand why people think that bunting, especially in a situation like the other night, is stupid.

As often as the Bill James want to disregard small ball and bunting it still is very useful in today's game. It was great that Edwin hit a HR but I think it is also as likely that he could have hit into a double play.

:help:

blumj
04-04-2008, 09:33 AM
Yea the DBacks are stupid for having their players bunt. All that stupidity led them to the NL Championship series. I don't, nor will I ever, understand why people think that bunting, especially in a situation like the other night, is stupid.

As often as the Bill James want to disregard small ball and bunting it still is very useful in today's game. It was great that Edwin hit a HR but I think it is also as likely that he could have hit into a double play.

I have no problem with a bunt in that general situation, but I'm not exactly big on asking players to bunt who aren't any good at it. It's one thing to believe every player should be able to bunt, but it's just denial once you know some of them are not able. You are asking a player to do something that you already know he isn't good at doing, and you're only ever asking him to do it at the most critical moments in a game. If you're really committed to teaching every player to bunt, find a way to teach them how before you ask them to do it in those critical moments.

oneupper
04-04-2008, 10:07 AM
I don't know why it is that ballplayers are expected to be able to "learn" every skill if coached and practiced. There's simply some stuff that some players aren't that good at and are not going to get much better at.
Dunn's not going to practice himself into a GG outfielder. Brandon Phillips isn't going to "learn" to pitch. EE might get better at bunting, but he's never going to be a Norris Hopper.

I'm sure EE has taken tons of bunting practice since he was in high school, all the way up through the minors and I'll bet he was practicing plenty for Narron last year. He's probably as good as he can be at it right now (which who knows how good is that). I doubt it's from lack of trying.

He might be called upon to bunt maybe 5 times in a season (at most).
Compare that with 500+ PA and several hundred chances in the field.

Sorry, I don't buy this "every major league player has to know how to bunt" thing. Sure, it's a nice skill to have, but if you don't have it...you don't. Bunting won't make you a ML player...and not doing it shouldn't hold you back, either.

SteelSD
04-04-2008, 10:47 AM
Yea the DBacks are stupid for having their players bunt. All that stupidity led them to the NL Championship series. I don't, nor will I ever, understand why people think that bunting, especially in a situation like the other night, is stupid.

The 2007 Arizona Diamondbacks finished 2nd to last in the NL in Sacrifice Bunts. Non-Pitchers Sac Bunted exactly 26 times all last season. Only the Managers of Florida, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and Atlanta asked their position players to Sac Bunt less than that. Of those 26 Sac Bunts, 10 came from two players (Drew, Hudson).

That 2007 Arizona squad doesn't at all back your contention. And I'll assume that you'll be surprised to know that the 2007 Cincinnati Reds finished tied for third in the NL in positional player Sac Bunts.


As often as the Bill James want to disregard small ball and bunting it still is very useful in today's game. It was great that Edwin hit a HR but I think it is also as likely that he could have hit into a double play.

Encarnacion bunting in that situation doesn't somehow take the Reds out of a Double Play situation as the opponent can put you right back into a DP situation any time they want to.

Could Encarnacion have hit into a DP even though he hasn't demonstrated a real propensity to do so? Sure. But the choice isn't "HR or DP". Over the past three years, Encarnacion has walked to the plate 427 times when he could have hit into a DP. 160 times he's produced a non-Out event (113 Hits, 33 BB, 14 HBP). Only 22 times has he grounded into a DP.

That's 160 to the good and 22 to the bad. And the 160 to the good includes 45 Extra Base Hits that would have likely plated both runners. Over his career, Encarnacion has produced events likely to tie or win the game in that situation over twice as often as he's hit into a DP.

As with all hitters, it's more likely that Encarnacion makes an Out versus anything else in any particular PA. However, the number of times he's done something good when faced with a DP situation absolutely dwarfs the number of DP's he's hit into.

I don't have to invoke Bill James to know that asking Encarnacion to bunt in that situation was pure stupid.

RedsManRick
04-04-2008, 10:54 AM
Over his career, Encarnacion has produced events likely to tie or win the game in that situation over twice as often as he's hit into a DP.

The end.

dabvu2498
04-04-2008, 11:13 AM
Encarnacion bunting in that situation doesn't somehow take the Reds out of a Double Play situation as the opponent can put you right back into a DP situation any time they want to.


In this particular situation, if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd, a walk to set up the double play would also put the winning run on base.

Generally speaking, intentional walks don't happen in this situation. So avoiding the DP is a fairly valid consideration.

However, with all considerations (that I can think of) in place, particularly with regard to personel, I say no bunt here.

westofyou
04-04-2008, 11:14 AM
In this particular situation, if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd, a walk to set up the double play would also put the winning run on base.

Playing for the tie at home is not that odd of a plan in the game, and playing to get the winning run on is the ultimate goal, unfortunately it's not always going to be a HR.

dabvu2498
04-04-2008, 11:35 AM
Playing for the tie at home is not that odd of a plan in the game, and playing to get the winning run on is the ultimate goal, unfortunately it's not always going to be a HR.

Agreed. I was thinking from the other dougout's perspective.

Walks that allow the winning run to reach base are generally frowned upon, even if they do set up a double play.

blumj
04-04-2008, 11:50 AM
Playing for the tie at home is not that odd of a plan in the game, and playing to get the winning run on is the ultimate goal, unfortunately it's not always going to be a HR.
If that's your plan, then make enough of a commitment to your own plan to send a good bunter to the plate to execute it.

RFS62
04-04-2008, 11:56 AM
I guess there are two elements to this question.

First, a lot of discussion has focused on the use of a bunt in this situation regardless of who's hitting. A lot of posters are arguing against the concept of giving an out away here.

Second, if you are going to bunt, do you ask Edwin to lay one down, knowing how infrequently he's done it in the past?

I don't think Dusty was kidding on the interview the other day. I think he meant it. He expects them all to be able to bunt. He brushed aside the number of bunts he's put down in games..... his answer was that they practiced it every day. He was defending their preparation for bunting, not apologizing for the decision.

Reds1
04-04-2008, 11:58 AM
Well, not saying in this situation EE should have bunted because he's clueless, but I believe that all postion players should be able to bunt - at least better then that effort. A quality hitter like this, which on the who's a better hitter BP or EE thread (many say EE - not me) - should be able to bunt. Now, if that thread comes along again I can add that EE can't bunt for anything, but he should practice. He looked worse then anyone I've ever seen. Wouldn't it be cool at some point where he can do a squeeze bunt to win a game when no one will ever suspect that.

westofyou
04-04-2008, 11:58 AM
If that's your plan, then make enough of a commitment to your own plan to send a good bunter to the plate to execute it.

Yep.. that's an issue... but send the PH who can bunt up there and the pitcher gets 2 strikes and you're in a new barrel of pickles.

The better solution would be for the man who doesn't hit 70EBH a year to learn to bunt.

blumj
04-04-2008, 12:24 PM
Yep.. that's an issue... but send the PH who can bunt up there and the pitcher gets 2 strikes and you're in a new barrel of pickles.

The better solution would be for the man who doesn't hit 70EBH a year to learn to bunt.
Sure, if you could snap your fingers and magically make it happen in the moments before the AB. It's no solution at all if you can't.

SteelSD
04-04-2008, 12:30 PM
In this particular situation, if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd, a walk to set up the double play would also put the winning run on base.

Generally speaking, intentional walks don't happen in this situation. So avoiding the DP is a fairly valid consideration.

Putting the winning Run on 1st base when up by 2 Runs in that scenario is far less damaging to the defense than we think. Doing so, results in a WP gain of only 0.016 and the situation is still extremely dire for the offense.

If staying out of a DP scenario needs to be a primary consideration for the offense with none out, then enabling such a scenario certainly should be a primary consideration for the defense as well. And the offense can never stay out of such a scenario should the defense choose to make it happen.

I'd suggest that walking the next hitter after a successful SH in that situation should be utilized more if the DP actually is a primary consideration. But that's the thing. Personally, I feel that "staying out of the DP scenario" is most often just code for "we thought that trading that Out for those extra bases was a good idea at the time".

Team Clark
04-04-2008, 12:38 PM
I voted "no". But a wacky thought came to me. What if Dusty is in a way "calling out" the entire team by calling for that bunt? What if he's announcing that we're going to bunt any time I think we should, and you all had better improve your technique if you don't want to be humiliated.

I know that's a reach, but is it possible that there's any truth to it?

Excellent point. Granted Edwin came thorugh with a HR. He was just as likely, IMO, to make an out instead of hitting the HR. (DUH) Fortunately, he came through.

Since when do we not expect players to only be able to execute SOME of the fundamentals? ESPECIALLY just days after ST!!

Even Griffey can bunt well.

Raisor
04-04-2008, 12:48 PM
I don't care if EddieE was the best bunter in the history of baseball, I wouldn't want him bunting in that situation, period.

puca
04-04-2008, 12:55 PM
This is going to be a long year.

blumj
04-04-2008, 01:06 PM
Since when do we not expect players to only be able to execute SOME of the fundamentals?
Since what we may expect doesn't alter reality?

princeton
04-04-2008, 01:32 PM
I'm sure EE has taken tons of bunting practice since he was in high school, all the way up through the minors and I'll bet he was practicing plenty for Narron last year. He's probably as good as he can be at it right now (which who knows how good is that). I doubt it's from lack of trying.

more a lack of motivation than a lack of opportunity.

my experience is that all players prefer to swing than to bunt, and it takes some motivation (such as looking really bad in a big bunt situation?) to want to learn. Otherwise, you're just going through the motions

interestingly, many players that learn to bunt well do so in their mid-to-late 20's-- Corey Patterson couldn't bunt well just a couple of years ago, for instance.

if you keep stressing the fundamentals to young players, they just might grow up one day and come unDunn for you

RANDY IN INDY
04-04-2008, 02:26 PM
more a lack of motivation than a lack of opportunity.

my experience is that all players prefer to swing than to bunt, and it takes some motivation (such as looking really bad in a big bunt situation?) to want to learn. Otherwise, you're just going through the motions

interestingly, many players that learn to bunt well do so in their mid-to-late 20's-- Corey Patterson couldn't bunt well just a couple of years ago, for instance.

if you keep stressing the fundamentals to young players, they just might grow up one day and come unDunn for you

That has been my experience with players. Good post.:beerme:

Patrick Bateman
04-04-2008, 02:42 PM
Yea the DBacks are stupid for having their players bunt. All that stupidity led them to the NL Championship series. I don't, nor will I ever, understand why people think that bunting, especially in a situation like the other night, is stupid.

As often as the Bill James want to disregard small ball and bunting it still is very useful in today's game. It was great that Edwin hit a HR but I think it is also as likely that he could have hit into a double play.

Laying down a successful bunt decreased the Reds chances of winning that game. That's just based on probabilities.

Does it really need to go further than that? Especially considering the odds of EE even getting a successful bunt down were poor?

If it works, you shoot yourself in the foot. If it fails, your just wasting valuable chances. It's a lose-lose proposition in that situation.

bucksfan2
04-04-2008, 03:06 PM
Laying down a successful bunt decreased the Reds chances of winning that game. That's just based on probabilities.

Does it really need to go further than that? Especially considering the odds of EE even getting a successful bunt down were poor?

If it works, you shoot yourself in the foot. If it fails, your just wasting valuable chances. It's a lose-lose proposition in that situation.

I find that very interesting. I don't see how laying down a successful bunt would decrease the reds chances of winning. In a computerized model you may be correct but on that given day we may never know had Edwin been successful would the reds have won.

WMR
04-04-2008, 03:09 PM
I find that very interesting. I don't see how laying down a successful bunt would decrease the reds chances of winning. In a computerized model you may be correct but on that given day we may never know had Edwin been successful would the reds have won.

That's why you should use all of the data available to you to make the most intelligent, informed decision possible.

dabvu2498
04-04-2008, 03:12 PM
That's why you should use all of the data available to you to make the most intelligent, informed decision possible.

However, actually, the data shows the bunt does increase win expectancy here. Though not by alot:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1589656&postcount=37

WMR
04-04-2008, 03:14 PM
Is that taking into consideration WHO you've got coming up after EE or is it assuming all batters at an equal value?

dabvu2498
04-04-2008, 03:17 PM
Is that taking into consideration WHO you've got coming up after EE or is it assuming all batters at an equal value?

Strictly based on the historical data from 1977 to 2006.

Like I've said before, in that situation, given all the variables I can think of, I wouldn't have asked EE to bunt. Of course, I'm sure none of us are really thinking of ALL the variables.

I was alluding to Austin Kearns' assertion above that a successful bunt decreases win expectancy. Given the historical data, it doesn't.

Patrick Bateman
04-04-2008, 03:22 PM
I find that very interesting. I don't see how laying down a successful bunt would decrease the reds chances of winning. In a computerized model you may be correct but on that given day we may never know had Edwin been successful would the reds have won.

Oh we could have very well won either way, but it goes to show that EE's offensive value in a single at-bat (when having a normal, non bunting at-bat) is worth more than simply moving along runners.

He gets on base more than a third of the time, so there was a decent chance he was going to move along the runners anyways, simply by virtue of not making an out. Plus the power value of being able to move the runners multiple bases. With a bunt there is just so little upside.

By swinging away, yes you do risk the chance of striking out or making a different unproductive out, but there are so many better alternatives too... and the sum of the good and the bad yields a more positive result than simply advancing runners 1 base for an out.

Anyways, after seeing EE's bunt attempt, I think he had a better chance of moving the runners up a base with some sort of hit/walk than he did of actually laying down a sucessful bunt.

Patrick Bateman
04-04-2008, 03:24 PM
However, actually, the data shows the bunt does increase win expectancy here. Though not by alot:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1589656&postcount=37

Oh really? I thought I saw someone else post a similar chart with a batter of EE's calibre at the plate... can't seem to find it though. And I thought that one showed the odds of winning decreased.

Always Red
04-04-2008, 03:27 PM
Is that taking into consideration WHO you've got coming up after EE or is it assuming all batters at an equal value?

I think you also need to take into consideration the fact that, from the end of February up until that very AB, Eddie had been swinging the bat like John Kruk against Randy Johnson in an all-star game.

As for me, in that situation against that pitcher, I'd rather have the lefties, Votto or Valentin up there, with 2 runners in scoring position. And now, at least one of the metrics shows this gives you an edge.

Good for Eddie; I love 3 run walk-off homers as much as the next guy, and this will give him the confidence he needs to take the next step in his game. He also needs to learn how to bunt.

Raisor
04-04-2008, 03:34 PM
I find that very interesting. I don't see how laying down a successful bunt would decrease the reds chances of winning. In a computerized model you may be correct but on that given day we may never know had Edwin been successful would the reds have won.

because after he sacrifces, you have one less out to work with AND you have lesser batters coming up next.

princeton
04-04-2008, 03:38 PM
However, actually, the data shows the bunt does increase win expectancy here. Though not by alot:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1589656&postcount=37


wow, I think that I just won an eggroll!

I think that most of these decisions don't change win expectancy by a lot, and you encounter them so seldom that they don't affect win totals much. So to argue strenuously that this is a terrible decision,either way, is rather silly.

Certainly the argument would be that you should play the book each time, and by sheer number of events you'll find that win totals increase. But there's merit in keeping the other team guessing, too.

where I find more value is in the effect on your team, by stressing that they try to improve their talents at the level of the learnable things. Right now, the Reds seem to be buying into it. Keep it going, and see how far that takes you.

RedsManRick
04-04-2008, 03:44 PM
EE is going to have an at bat and the win expectency is going to change. The current win expectancy, prior to his AB, is irrelevant in deciding what he should do. The right question is, are we likely to be better off after a bunt attempt or after him swinging away?

Asking if bunting makes the WE go up or down isn't the right question. That doesn't tell us if bunting is a good idea because even if it does go down, it still might be better than the weight mean WE of swinging away. We need to compare Bunt-WE to Non-Bunt-WE. I have yet to see anybody put an accurate figure on the latter, which is going to be hard to do, becuase you have know the likelihood of all other possible events so you can weight their WEs accordingly.

dabvu2498
04-04-2008, 03:51 PM
Asking if bunting makes the WE go up or down isn't the right question. That doesn't tell us if bunting is a good idea because even if it does go down, it still might be better than the weight mean WE of swinging away. We need to compare Bunt-WE to Non-Bunt-WE. I have yet to see anybody put an accurate figure on the latter, which is going to be hard to do, becuase you have know the likelihood of all other possible events so you can weight their WEs accordingly.

Relying solely on a win expectancy calculator to do anything would be fatal in the first place.

Like I said before, I don't think any of us could come up with a 100% comprehensive list of all the variables that would be applicable in a situation like this.

RedsManRick
04-04-2008, 04:11 PM
Relying solely on a win expectancy calculator to do anything would be fatal in the first place.

Like I said before, I don't think any of us could come up with a 100% comprehensive list of all the variables that would be applicable in a situation like this.

Well duh. I would hope not to have to caveat every use of a number with the statement that reality is just a bit more complicated...

Even then, the underlying point of my post remains. If you want to judge whether or not the bunt was a good idea, the question you are asking is "does bunting give us a better chance to win than not-bunting". Any numbers used to analyze the decision should be based on that framework.

oneupper
04-04-2008, 04:12 PM
Asking if bunting makes the WE go up or down isn't the right question. That doesn't tell us if bunting is a good idea because even if it does go down, it still might be better than the weight mean WE of swinging away. We need to compare Bunt-WE to Non-Bunt-WE. I have yet to see anybody put an accurate figure on the latter, which is going to be hard to do, becuase you have know the likelihood of all other possible events so you can weight their WEs accordingly.

I don't see this being that much of a problem. You can ESTIMATE the likelihood of the most possible outcomes, given the known variables (who's at the plate, defense, pitcher, etc).

As in Bunt: Out at first, runners advance: XX%
Lead runner out: XX%
Out...no advance (as in K): XX%
Error..everyone safe: XX%



And the same for non-bunt...

compare WE and their dispersion.

You should be able to get a meaningful answer.
(or maybe I'm missing something).

princeton
04-04-2008, 04:15 PM
EE is going to have an at bat and the win expectency is going to change. The current win expectancy, prior to his AB, is irrelevant in deciding what he should do. The right question is, are we likely to be better off after a bunt attempt or after him swinging away?

Asking if bunting makes the WE go up or down isn't the right question. That doesn't tell us if bunting is a good idea because even if it does go down, it still might be better than the weight mean WE of swinging away. We need to compare Bunt-WE to Non-Bunt-WE. I have yet to see anybody put an accurate figure on the latter, which is going to be hard to do, becuase you have know the likelihood of all other possible events so you can weight their WEs accordingly.


I think that you're talking in circles. If Dusty plays the percentages, he's wrong, and if he goes by what he's been observing lately, he's wrong. Here he's done both, and he's WAY OFF

we've GOT to get you into the clubhouse to straighten it all out.

klw
04-04-2008, 04:24 PM
A simple poll. Should Dusty have asked Edwin to bunt tonight?

Going back to the original question. He should not have asked him to bunt and he should not have wanted him to bunt. But if he wanted him to bunt he also should not have asked him to but, he should have told him to bunt. If he really wanted him to bunt he should have left the sign on and had him bunt with 2 strikes. the season is long, the team is young, make him learn or make it a lesson. Glad he didn't go that route I guess.

bucksfan2
04-04-2008, 04:32 PM
I think that you're talking in circles. If Dusty plays the percentages, he's wrong, and if he goes by what he's been observing lately, he's wrong. Here he's done both, and he's WAY OFF

we've GOT to get you into the clubhouse to straighten it all out.

Now that would be interesting. RMR would go on about getting Edwin on base and Dusty would tell RMR that he doesn't want to clog the bases.

Sea Ray
04-04-2008, 05:38 PM
Relying solely on a win expectancy calculator to do anything would be fatal in the first place.

Like I said before, I don't think any of us could come up with a 100% comprehensive list of all the variables that would be applicable in a situation like this.


I agree so I tend to simplify it.

In general I loath giving away outs. They're too precious. Add to that the fact that as a Reds fan I've seen that sacrifices are far from a sure thing.

Basically I'm only going to ask my player to bunt in that situation if the guy is a pitcher, a Juan Castro or maybe lefty vs lefty. If I have an RBI man like EE up there I'm doing the defense a favor by asking him to give himself up.

RedsManRick
04-04-2008, 06:08 PM
I think that you're talking in circles. If Dusty plays the percentages, he's wrong, and if he goes by what he's been observing lately, he's wrong. Here he's done both, and he's WAY OFF

we've GOT to get you into the clubhouse to straighten it all out.

See, now you're getting it princeton. If Dusty does it, it's wrong. It's a pretty straightforward equation...

Ravenlord
04-04-2008, 07:26 PM
don't know if it's been brought up or not yet, but that side view thet showed of EdE after the 2nd strike, i kinda got the impression Encarnacion was trying to get to that two strike count to get the bunt taken off. that, or he hasn't attempted a bunt since he was 16...

cincinnati chili
04-05-2008, 03:52 AM
You're all wrong.

:)

Bunting is done way too often, but when you have no outs and runners on 1st/2nd, it's usually a good move. All of the run expectation tables I've seen bear this out.

First of all, you don't necessarily give away an out when you bunt. Sometimes you get a base hit, and some times you reach on an error. In fact, it's quite a bit more likely than the chance of Edwin hitting a homer.

What Edwin did was very improbable (41 times in 1276 plate appearances) - almost a 1 in 30 chance. By contrast, there is something like a 40 or 50% chance that one of the guys hitting behind him would tie the game on a single. And then you're playing at home from the ninth inning on, meaning you have a better than 66% chance of winning.

Correct move, Dusty. I'm sure I'll have many quarrels with your strategy this year. But not this.

Highlifeman21
04-05-2008, 08:52 AM
don't know if it's been brought up or not yet, but that side view thet showed of EdE after the 2nd strike, i kinda got the impression Encarnacion was trying to get to that two strike count to get the bunt taken off. that, or he hasn't attempted a bunt since he was 16...

It's very possible that EE hasn't attempted a bunt since age 16.

No manager in their right mind would take the bat out of a good hitter's hands.

But then again, I'm not sure of what mind The Dusty is quite yet.

cincinnati chili
04-05-2008, 11:20 AM
It's very possible that EE hasn't attempted a bunt since age 16.

Then that's a problem that Dusty et. al. should be held accountable for.

Edwin is not a 40 homer guy, he's a 15 homer guy (1/30 chance of hitting a homer). He's also not a guy a superstar who has earned the right to be a prima donna.

Such players should be prepared to bunt by the time spring training is over. If Billy Martin can make Reggie Jackson bunt, Dusty should expect Edwin to be prepared to do so.

And for the record Edwin did sacrifice 6 times in the minors, the last time being 2004:
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/E/edwin-encarnacion.shtml

RFS62
04-05-2008, 11:22 AM
Remember, they do lay down a couple of bunts in every batting practice. Obviously, not game speed or movement. And obviously, some of them are just phoning it in. But I think Dusty expects them all to know how to bunt. He said it himself.

Highlifeman21
04-05-2008, 11:26 AM
Then that's a problem that Dusty et. al. should be held accountable for.

Edwin is not a 40 homer guy, he's a 15 homer guy (1/30 chance of hitting a homer). He's also not a guy a superstar who has earned the right to be a prima donna.

Such players should be prepared to bunt by the time spring training is over. If Billy Martin can make Reggie Jackson bunt, Dusty should expect Edwin to be prepared to do so.

And for the record Edwin did sacrifice 6 times in the minors, the last time being 2004:
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/E/edwin-encarnacion.shtml

EE is more than a 15 HR guy. He's not a superstar, and most likely will never be a prima donna kinda guy.

That being said, you don't take the bat out of one of your better hitter's hands by asking him to bunt. It only sets up your hitter for a chance for failure, rather than success, given his lack of talent in regards to bunting.

puca
04-05-2008, 11:33 AM
My problems with the move are twofold:
1.) Edwin is not a good bunter
2.) It is left to the bottom of the order to drive in the run

I don't think run expectation tables take those factors into account. If the D'backs manager brings in a LOOGY to face Votto, the Reds are suddenly in a very poor positon to score those runs.

cincinnati chili
04-05-2008, 11:41 AM
EE is more than a 15 HR guy. He's not a superstar, and most likely will never be a prima donna kinda guy.

That being said, you don't take the bat out of one of your better hitter's hands by asking him to bunt. It only sets up your hitter for a chance for failure, rather than success, given his lack of talent in regards to bunting.

He's never hit more than 16 home runs in a season. He's a 15-homer guy.

And even if he was your best hitter (Pete Rose, Ichiro, etc), there are numerous run expectation tables out there that demonstrate that the bunt is the better move in this situation, even for a guy like Edwin who hits into very few double plays.

I bet that next time Dusty calls on him to bunt, he'll be more prepared. It's not that friggin' hard. And if Edwin looks unprepared again, he could find his butt on the bench or minors like last year. There is after all a guy on the bench, who can play a little third base and who has been bumped out of the starting lineup (Freel).

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see Edwin than Freel, but Edwin's not yet such a resounding major league success that he can dictate to the manager how he's used.

cincinnati chili
04-05-2008, 11:43 AM
My problems with the move are twofold:
1.) Edwin is not a good bunter
2.) It is left to the bottom of the order to drive in the run

I don't think run expectation tables take those factors into account. If the D'backs manager brings in a LOOGY to face Votto, the Reds are suddenly in a very poor positon to score those runs.

I think they would, if you found one sophisticated enough to do so. Two lousy .250 hitters back to back would have about a 33% chance to the game with a single.

puca
04-05-2008, 11:57 AM
I think they would, if you found one sophisticated enough to do so. Two lousy .250 hitters back to back would have about a 33% chance to the game with a single.

That is assuming that the bunt accomplishes its goal. That also doesn't take into account that the .250 hitters are facing presumibly the best of the other team's bullpen.

I didn't and wouldn't pile on Dusty for this move because I doubt either way the win expectency changed much. I was far more disturbed with last night's move, and it was last night's move that started me thinking that Dusty maybe too mechanical (by-the-book if you may) for my tastes.

That was really not something I expected.

Highlifeman21
04-05-2008, 11:59 AM
He's never hit more than 16 home runs in a season. He's a 15-homer guy.

And even if he was your best hitter (Pete Rose, Ichiro, etc), there are numerous run expectation tables out there that demonstrate that the bunt is the better move in this situation, even for a guy like Edwin who hits into very few double plays.

I bet that next time Dusty calls on him to bunt, he'll be more prepared. It's not that friggin' hard. And if Edwin looks unprepared again, he could find his butt on the bench or minors like last year. There is after all a guy on the bench, who can play a little third base and who has been bumped out of the starting lineup (Freel).

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see Edwin than Freel, but Edwin's not yet such a resounding major league success that he can dictate to the manager how he's used.


I'm not saying EE is or should be dictating to The Dusty in-game strategy. I don't think any player should ever have that right.

However, I think a manager needs to know the limitations and respective roles of his roster. EE isn't a good bunter, never will be, and never needs to be. Bunting isn't a role or task we should ever expect out of EE due to the fact that he's a 25 HR guy, who will SLG over .475. EE isn't Ryan Freel, or Norris Hopper, or Corey Patterson, or Juan Castro, or Paul Bako, or Alex Gonzalez, or Paul Janish, or Chris Dickerson. I don't know why we should expect or demand him to have the same offensive skillset of those players, when he's clearly better then that list.

The situation might call for a bunt, but you need the right personnel in the situation to execute. EE wasn't the right personnel in that situation to bunt.

Always Red
04-05-2008, 12:22 PM
EE isn't a good bunter, never will be, and never needs to be. Bunting isn't a role or task we should ever expect out of EE due to the fact that he's a 25 HR guy, who will SLG over .475. EE isn't Ryan Freel, or Norris Hopper, or Corey Patterson, or Juan Castro, or Paul Bako, or Alex Gonzalez, or Paul Janish, or Chris Dickerson. I don't know why we should expect or demand him to have the same offensive skillset of those players, when he's clearly better then that list.

The situation might call for a bunt, but you need the right personnel in the situation to execute. EE wasn't the right personnel in that situation to bunt.

It's not rocket science, it's a simple sacrifice bunt. Pitchers do it all the time, with skill and success. Learning to sacrifice bunt properly is about discipline and hard work.

EE is not a 25 HR guy, yet. He needs to learn how to bunt. The more skills a professional hitter has, the better hitter he is. I'd rather not EE be a one trick pony, swinging for the fences all the time. I'd love to see him develop that 25 HR power that he doesn't yet have, go the other way, be able to hit and run on occasion, and lay down a stinkin bunt when the situation calls for it, or even learn how to bunt for a base hit, if the defense is set up for it.

Against the RH closer, I'd rather see Votto or Valentin anyway, especially with the way Eddie had been swinging up until that very at bat.

RFS62
04-05-2008, 12:23 PM
It's not rocket science, it's a simple sacrifice bunt. Pitchers do it all the time, with skill and success.

EE is not a 25 HR guy, yet. He needs to learn how to bunt. The more skills a professional hitter has, the better hitter he is. I'd rather not EE be a one trick pony, swinging for the fences all the time. I'd love to see him develop that 25 HR power that he doesn't yet have, go the other way, be able to hit and run on occasion, and lay down a stinkin bunt when the situation calls for it, or even learn how to bunt for a base hit, if the defense is set up for it.

Against the RH closer, I'd rather see Votto or Valentin anyway, especially with the way Eddie had been swinging up until that very at bat.


Exactly.

:beerme:

Sea Ray
04-05-2008, 12:32 PM
Bunting is done way too often, but when you have no outs and runners on 1st/2nd, it's usually a good move. All of the run expectation tables I've seen bear this out.

First of all, you don't necessarily give away an out when you bunt.

After 100 or so posts to this thread I'm convinced that you can't judge this move by run expectation tables. The next manager that brings up run expectation tables in discussing his moves will be found to look quite silly for good reason.

True, you don't necessarily give away an out when you bunt but sometimes you don't successfully move the runners along either. The fact is the goal of the bunt is to give away an out.

I like to manage by watching a game, not studying numbers. So to everyone watching that game, what do you think the chances were of EE laying down a successful bunt? I'll be the first to chime in: Basically nil and I'm not going by any stat in saying that.

pedro
04-05-2008, 12:35 PM
EE isn't a good bunter, never will be, and never needs to be. Bunting isn't a role or task we should ever expect out of EE due to the fact that he's a 25 HR guy, who will SLG over .475.

I'd wait until he actually does either of the above at least once before proclaiming such.

blumj
04-05-2008, 12:55 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see Edwin than Freel, but Edwin's not yet such a resounding major league success that he can dictate to the manager how he's used.
I don't think anyone's suggested that any player has the right to dictate how he's used, I think that some of us have suggested that a player's abilities should dictate how he's used. If that means he gets PH for whenever you really need a bunt, then that's what it should mean. If it means putting him on a crash course to learn how to bunt, then that's what it should mean. What it shouldn't mean is expecting a player to execute something in a critical situation that he's never demonstrated an ability to execute in ordinary situations. That's not something I'd recommend if you want to win the game.

Highlifeman21
04-05-2008, 01:00 PM
I'd wait until he actually does either of the above at least once before proclaiming such.

He hasn't hit more than 16 HR in any season, but in 2006 he SLG'd .473, so I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination that he has the ability to SLG over .475.

It's not like I projected 30 and over .500 SLG. That'd be something entirely different.

cincinnati chili
04-05-2008, 01:09 PM
While I'm not surprised I'm in the minority on this decision (because as I stated before, managers bunt too infrequently with 2 on and no out), I'm surprised that Dusty is getting less support in this poll than he did for double switching Dunn out so early in the game.

pedro
04-05-2008, 01:10 PM
He hasn't hit more than 16 HR in any season, but in 2006 he SLG'd .473, so I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination that he has the ability to SLG over .475.

It's not like I projected 30 and over .500 SLG. That'd be something entirely different.

Sure, he has the ability, but you did say OVER though as though it was foregone conclusion.

Highlifeman21
04-05-2008, 01:13 PM
Sure, he has the ability, but you did say OVER though as though it was foregone conclusion.

If The Dusty's going to continue to ask EE to bunt, then it very well could be far from a foregone conclusion.

blumj
04-05-2008, 01:18 PM
While I'm not surprised I'm in the minority on this decision (because as I stated before, managers bunt too infrequently with 2 on and no out), I'm surprised that Dusty is getting less support in this poll than he did for double switching Dunn out so early in the game.
I think it's a little easier to be less critical when all of the options are somewhat unappealing in their own way.

cincinnati chili
04-05-2008, 03:01 PM
Sure, he has the ability, but you did say OVER though as though it was foregone conclusion.

In fact, the way this poll was set up was completely silly, and used a transparent rhetorical device that trial lawyers often use.

The question was should Dusty have asked Edwin to bunt. One of the answers was "No, never ask a player to bunt when he can't."

This is sort of like the trial lawyer who asks, "when was it that you stopped beating your wife?" without first establishing that the person on the stand beats his wife.

pedro
04-05-2008, 03:15 PM
In fact, the way this poll was set up was completely silly, and used a transparent rhetorical device that trial lawyers often use.

The question was should Dusty have asked Edwin to bunt. One of the answers was "No, never ask a player to bunt when he can't."

This is sort of like the trial lawyer who asks, "when was it that you stopped beating your wife?" without first establishing that the person on the stand beats his wife.

Have you always been this fabulously handsome?

jojo
04-05-2008, 03:17 PM
In fact, the way this poll was set up was completely silly, and used a transparent rhetorical device that trial lawyers often use.

The question was should Dusty have asked Edwin to bunt. One of the answers was "No, never ask a player to bunt when he can't."

This is sort of like the trial lawyer who asks, "when was it that you stopped beating your wife?" without first establishing that the person on the stand beats his wife.

The defense is willing to stipulate EE can't bunt in lieu if the prosecution calling their long list of witnesses....

Jpup
04-05-2008, 06:55 PM
obviously the was no reason for him to bunt. He was about to hit a homer.