PDA

View Full Version : Bunting drills?



durl
07-01-2008, 09:21 AM
And I thought EE looked lost while trying to bunt...

Last night (6/30) Votto looked as though he had never even practiced bunting. They put the stat up that he had never had a Sac Bunt in his career and it was pretty easy to see why.

I would think that it would be common to practice bunting but is it really? I don't recall ever seeing it being done during warm-ups, but that's not really the place for it.

texasdave
07-01-2008, 09:45 AM
I watch maybe a half a dozen Astros' games at Minute Maid each year and almost always try to make it for batting practice. The most common method is that when the regulars get up to bat they are supposed to make a couple bunt attempts before swinging away. This is only on their first go-round at BP. I would say 90% of them don't even get into position to bunt and make less-than-minimal effort. Some make no effort at all and just take a couple of pepper-like swings, tapping the ball back towards the mound. I have seen a handful or so actually attempt to bunt the ball properly. Some even take a couple steps toward first after they put the ball down. I assume these are the players who may try to bunt for a hit during the game or are quite likely to be asked to sacrifice on a consistent basis. It was stated during chat last night that a player can not learn how to bunt successfully against a pitcher like Marte during batting practice. I tend to agree only to a point. I think if it was taken seriously during batting practice it would help a player during a game situation. If it is indeed true then what is the point of batting practice at all? By extension then one can't learn to hit except during game situations. I am of the opinion that batting practice can aid in the repetition and reinforcement of mechanics. Staying back or keeping your head down or swinging through the ball etc. I think the same goes for bunting. If you practice proper mechanics like actually getting into proper bunting position, keeping the bat above the ball etc it can only help a player. Otherwise batting practice is simply for the fans.

TheBigLebowski
07-01-2008, 10:07 AM
EE tried to bunt in a clutch situation earlier this season with similar results.

Both of those guys are very talented players and there is no excuse for them not being able to lay down a sacrifice.

That being said, Dusty needs to know his personnel better. If Votto is that bad of a bunter, Dusty should have known and he never should have called for that sacrifice.

Ahhhorsepoo
07-01-2008, 11:24 AM
thats the problem.. i think ever single major league team has them bunt when they first get in the cage.. but its always a minimal effort..

bgwilly31
07-01-2008, 11:57 AM
I watch maybe a half a dozen Astros' games at Minute Maid each year and almost always try to make it for batting practice. The most common method is that when the regulars get up to bat they are supposed to make a couple bunt attempts before swinging away. This is only on their first go-round at BP. I would say 90% of them don't even get into position to bunt and make less-than-minimal effort. Some make no effort at all and just take a couple of pepper-like swings, tapping the ball back towards the mound. I have seen a handful or so actually attempt to bunt the ball properly. Some even take a couple steps toward first after they put the ball down. I assume these are the players who may try to bunt for a hit during the game or are quite likely to be asked to sacrifice on a consistent basis. It was stated during chat last night that a player can not learn how to bunt successfully against a pitcher like Marte during batting practice. I tend to agree only to a point. I think if it was taken seriously during batting practice it would help a player during a game situation. If it is indeed true then what is the point of batting practice at all? By extension then one can't learn to hit except during game situations. I am of the opinion that batting practice can aid in the repetition and reinforcement of mechanics. Staying back or keeping your head down or swinging through the ball etc. I think the same goes for bunting. If you practice proper mechanics like actually getting into proper bunting position, keeping the bat above the ball etc it can only help a player. Otherwise batting practice is simply for the fans.


Your absolutely right. The other guys in chat that night were terribly moronic.

Dusty should have this entire team Bunt 50 balls everyday at practice before they even aloud to swing away. And it should be COACHED bunting drills. Not half ass get away with it. Once again i blame this incompetence on management.


EE tried to bunt in a clutch situation earlier this season with similar results.

Both of those guys are very talented players and there is no excuse for them not being able to lay down a sacrifice.

That being said, Dusty needs to know his personnel better. If Votto is that bad of a bunter, Dusty should have known and he never should have called for that sacrifice.

cmon man. Its a 100% everytime sac situation. Double steal hit and run. :lol: 8th inning. Way too big of risk. Better idea is get your head out of your butt and put a flipping bunt down. Thats just pathetic.


Votto last night did nothing right for a proper sac bunt.

1.) He was squaring WAY too late. Square up earlier.
2.) He never squared up.
3.) His hand positioning on the bat wasnt even close.
4.) Bat was unlevel.
5.) Didnt bend his knees.
6.) dropped the head of the bat and slapped at it.

He looked like an off the bench freshman in highschool.



REDS MANAGEMENT!

Please actually do your jobs and "coach" this team.
The entire team should no longer be able to take BP until they have put 50 bunted balls in play.
They should also be bunting from a machine throwing at least 90mph.

Have your team do this every practice while you "coach" them(there's that word again) and we might actually be able to play proper small ball.

TheBigLebowski
07-01-2008, 12:42 PM
cmon man. Its a 100% everytime sac situation.


No. It's not.

757690
07-01-2008, 01:22 PM
No. It's not.

There is no such thing as a 100% bunting situation, but late in the game, no outs, down by 1 run, runners on first and second, lefty against lefty, is about as close to one as you get.

757690
07-01-2008, 01:25 PM
I watch maybe a half a dozen Astros' games at Minute Maid each year and almost always try to make it for batting practice. The most common method is that when the regulars get up to bat they are supposed to make a couple bunt attempts before swinging away. This is only on their first go-round at BP. I would say 90% of them don't even get into position to bunt and make less-than-minimal effort. Some make no effort at all and just take a couple of pepper-like swings, tapping the ball back towards the mound. I have seen a handful or so actually attempt to bunt the ball properly. Some even take a couple steps toward first after they put the ball down. I assume these are the players who may try to bunt for a hit during the game or are quite likely to be asked to sacrifice on a consistent basis. It was stated during chat last night that a player can not learn how to bunt successfully against a pitcher like Marte during batting practice. I tend to agree only to a point. I think if it was taken seriously during batting practice it would help a player during a game situation. If it is indeed true then what is the point of batting practice at all? By extension then one can't learn to hit except during game situations. I am of the opinion that batting practice can aid in the repetition and reinforcement of mechanics. Staying back or keeping your head down or swinging through the ball etc. I think the same goes for bunting. If you practice proper mechanics like actually getting into proper bunting position, keeping the bat above the ball etc it can only help a player. Otherwise batting practice is simply for the fans.

When I played, in batting practice, we got two chances to get the bunt down in fair territory. If we didn't, we had to leave the cage and let the next guy hit. Pretty easy way to make sure everyone can bunt.

bgwilly31
07-01-2008, 02:05 PM
No. It's not.


exaggerated a bit... sorry. 98.9%

bgwilly31
07-01-2008, 02:26 PM
This whole bunting debacle thing reminds me of the movie MAJOR LEAGUE II.

When the catcher(baker) is a great catcher but has a problem with throwing the ball back to the pitcher.

**** even that movie got it right. They fixed it in spring training. They didnt wait until the all-star break or never.

levydl
07-01-2008, 02:50 PM
There is no such thing as a 100% bunting situation, but late in the game, no outs, down by 1 run, runners on first and second, lefty against lefty, is about as close to one as you get.

With one of your best hitters up (I believe he's got the team's best average for those who qualify), who hits lefties well (despite being a lefty himself)? Absolutely no way you sacrifice Votto and potentially a big inning to move the runners to 2nd and 3rd. Virtually any base hit scores Patterson from second anyway. That's not playing the odds at all, and even worse it's playing for the tie and not the win.

(Virtually) never trade an out for a base. If Patterson was up instead of on 2nd, I'm all for it. Not Votto.

Noosh
07-01-2008, 03:17 PM
Votto wasn't looking so great against the lefty starter last night. If he was 3 for 3 at that point he's earned the right to swing away, but he looked lost against Maholm, and I'm sure Marte is tougher on lefties. Plus he didn't pop out on the bunt or anything, he just got 2 strikes and still had plenty opportunity to pull an EE and still get a hit, but his swing he took for stike 3 just reinforced the argument that he should have been bunting in the first place.


PS - Hi RedsZone!

757690
07-01-2008, 03:57 PM
With one of your best hitters up (I believe he's got the team's best average for those who qualify), who hits lefties well (despite being a lefty himself)? Absolutely no way you sacrifice Votto and potentially a big inning to move the runners to 2nd and 3rd. Virtually any base hit scores Patterson from second anyway. That's not playing the odds at all, and even worse it's playing for the tie and not the win.

(Virtually) never trade an out for a base. If Patterson was up instead of on 2nd, I'm all for it. Not Votto.


That statement in bold is simply not backed up by the stats.

Here is the chart most people use to determine when to bunt.

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

Basically the odds of scoring one run without bunting in that situation are .219. The odds after a successful bunt are .285. If you think the batter can get the bunt down, the odds say to bunt.

The odds of scoring two runs in that situation without bunting are .165. The odds after a successful bunt are .218. Again, if you think the batter can get the bunt down, the odds say to bunt.

Those numbers are in the abstract, and don't consider the batter, the pitcher or any other factors.

Votto is about league average against lefties so those stats should be about right.

You can argue that Votto is such a bad bunter that he shouldn't bunt, but this is a case where the stats say that giving up an out for two bases is worth it.
And if you look at the chart you will see that there are many situations where giving up an out for a base is statistically better than swinging away.

bgwilly31
07-01-2008, 04:22 PM
With one of your best hitters up (I believe he's got the team's best average for those who qualify), who hits lefties well (despite being a lefty himself)? Absolutely no way you sacrifice Votto and potentially a big inning to move the runners to 2nd and 3rd. Virtually any base hit scores Patterson from second anyway. That's not playing the odds at all, and even worse it's playing for the tie and not the win.

(Virtually) never trade an out for a base. If Patterson was up instead of on 2nd, I'm all for it. Not Votto.


Votto wasn't looking so great against the lefty starter last night. If he was 3 for 3 at that point he's earned the right to swing away, but he looked lost against Maholm, and I'm sure Marte is tougher on lefties. Plus he didn't pop out on the bunt or anything, he just got 2 strikes and still had plenty opportunity to pull an EE and still get a hit, but his swing he took for stike 3 just reinforced the argument that he should have been bunting in the first place.


PS - Hi RedsZone!


That statement in bold is simply not backed up by the stats.

Here is the chart most people use to determine when to bunt.

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

Basically the odds of scoring one run without bunting in that situation are .219. The odds after a successful bunt are .285. If you think the batter can get the bunt down, the odds say to bunt.

The odds of scoring two runs in that situation without bunting are .165. The odds after a successful bunt are .218. Again, if you think the batter can get the bunt down, the odds say to bunt.

Those numbers are in the abstract, and don't consider the batter, the pitcher or any other factors.

Votto is about league average against lefties so those stats should be about right.

You can argue that Votto is such a bad bunter that he shouldn't bunt, but this is a case where the stats say that giving up an out for two bases is worth it.
And if you look at the chart you will see that there are many situations where giving up an out for a base is statistically better than swinging away.

He wont understand logic or facts or small ball in general. Im sure your entire post is just a blur to him. :D

levydl
07-01-2008, 04:53 PM
Here's (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=309712)Baseball Prospectus' run expectations chart. You're more likely to score more runs with no outs and runners on 1st and 2nd than with one out and runners on 2nd and 3rd. You also significantly decrease your chances of scoring multiple runs by trading the out for the base.

(I also don't think your chart is accurate. It says you have a better chance to score 1 run with runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out than you do with runners on 2nd and 3rd with 0 out. That just can't be correct, and it's actually the number you quoted.)

I also qualified the statement you bolded. Virtually never. There are very limited times where it would be the right move. Down 1 in bot 8 with one of your best hitters up, 0 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd is not the time. You'll be leaving runs on the bases and at the plate with that strategy.

And yes, I was also factoring in who was batting, which was why I brought up Patterson. Votto can't bunt, which will skew your numbers even more, since there isn't a 100% success rate (even Bret Butler wouldn't have 100% success rate, which should be factored into the analysis). It just makes a dumb play even dumber.

levydl
07-01-2008, 04:57 PM
He wont understand logic or facts or small ball in general. Im sure your entire post is just a blur to him. :D

Right. Tell me, using your ancedotal approach to the game, how has it worked out when Dusty has called on Votto, EE, and Dunn to bunt in those situations? Any of them get the bunt down and advance the runners? Or did they end up swinging away and winning the game? On my approach, the Reds are 2 for 2 (or 2 for 3 since Votto struck out after failing to bunt the first 2 pitches). What are you and Dusty? 0-3?

Repeat this mantra and you'll be smarter for it: "I won't trade outs for bases." Smarter people than you and me have studied this and come to this conclusion.

bgwilly31
07-01-2008, 05:02 PM
Repeat this mantra and you'll be smarter for it: "I won't trade outs for bases." Smarter people than you and me have studied this and come to this conclusion.

exactly. ^^ Which is why every major league team in the league still sacrifices outs for bases.

Weird. :rolleyes:

Also your reading his chart wrong.

Root Down
07-01-2008, 05:26 PM
Chris Welsh, after Votto's bunt attempt, said they take two hours of BP a day and its ridiculous that these guys don't know how to bunt. Votto's last sac bunt was with the Sarasota Reds in high A ball.

levydl
07-01-2008, 05:31 PM
exactly. ^^ Which is why every major league team in the league still sacrifices outs for bases.

Weird. :rolleyes:

Also your reading his chart wrong it doesnt say what you quoted its just the opposite.

Here's the part of the chart I was talking about:
BASE OUTS RUNS 0 1 2 3 4 5+
2nd_3rd 0 0.144 0.249 0.307 0.147 0.079 0.074
2nd_3rd 1 0.305 0.285 0.218 0.101 0.053 0.038
2nd_3rd 2 0.724 0.054 0.141 0.049 0.021 0.011

Am I reading that incorrectly, or does it say the rate of 1 run scoring is .285 with 1 out but on .249 with 0 outs? Does that make any sense, in logic or fact or wherever you divine your strategy? It's also the only time in that entire chart that in a given set of baserunners (in this case, with runners at 2nd and 3rd), the rate of runs scored is higher with more outs than with fewer (in this case, with 1 out rather than 0).

Of course every team trades outs for bases. I already said that there are a limited set of circumstances where that is the prudent play. But overall, the vast majority of the time it is statistically stupid. Last night, it was statistically stupid, for various reasons, both generally (you have a greater chance of scoring 1 much less more than 1 run by swinging away than by giving up the out to move the runner over, even assuming a perfect bunt) and specifically (Votto has bunted once in his pro career and obviously is not good at it). But hey, if everyone's doing it, it must be right, objective statistical analysis be damned! :rolleyes:

Blue
07-01-2008, 05:31 PM
It was the right game situation to bunt, but with the wrong player. That makes it a bad move. The right move would have been to either have Votto bat as he normally would or not use Patterson to pinch run for Dunn. But seriously, learn to bunt.

texasdave
07-01-2008, 05:33 PM
(I also don't think your chart is accurate. It says you have a better chance to score 1 run with runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out than you do with runners on 2nd and 3rd with 0 out. That just can't be correct, and it's actually the number you quoted.)

The chart is correct. You are more likely to score just one run with runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out than with runners on 2nd and 3rd with 0 outs. This is because with runners on 2nd and 3rd with 0 outs you are probably going to score more than just one run. You are reading the chart correctly, just not correctly interpreting what the chart represents.

bgwilly31
07-01-2008, 05:46 PM
But hey, if everyone's doing it, it must be right, objective statistical analysis be damned! :rolleyes:

You just continually contradict yourself.

First you said people much smarter than you and I came up with how stupid it is to sacrifice outs for bases.

So i proved you wrong than by saying everyone does it.

Now you say "everyone doing it makes it right?".

exactly (once again):rolleyes:

Im going to go out on a limb and say the entire MLB knows what they're doing.

I would also believe that the MLB. I was wanting to make more money and make the game more entertaining if in fact the sacrifice bunt was stupid. I gauruntee you they would immediately stop doing it. And i would also assume they would have known of these (much smarter guys than you and I) and listened to them a long time ago if these (smarter guys) actually existed outside of your head.

levydl
07-01-2008, 06:53 PM
You just continually contradict yourself.

First you said people much smarter than you and I came up with how stupid it is to sacrifice outs for bases.

So i proved you wrong than by saying everyone does it.

Now you say "everyone doing it makes it right?".

exactly (once again):rolleyes:

Im going to go out on a limb and say the entire MLB knows what they're doing.

I would also believe that the MLB. I was wanting to make more money and make the game more entertaining if in fact the sacrifice bunt was stupid. I gauruntee you they would immediately stop doing it. And i would also assume they would have known of these (much smarter guys than you and I) and listened to them a long time ago if these (smarter guys) actually existed outside of your head.

Bill James' 10 Commandments of Sabermetrics:
1. Thou Shalt Not Bunt.

I said people who have methodically and objectively studied the matter have determined bunting there is the wrong play. You countered by saying every MLB team does it. Under what form of logic did you prove me wrong? :rolleyes:

Of course every team trades an out for a base at one time or another. But those that know what they are doing, those that have looked at the numbers, only do it under certain very limited circumstances. Watch an A's game for instance. They virtually never bunt. They know what they're doing because they bothered to find out.

Why, you ask, would teams continue to bunt despite the fact that stat geeks that have poured over the numbers assert it is statistically imprudent? Well, the sac bunt has been around long before sabermatrics. It's well ingrained in the game. It often works out (though at a lesser rate than the alternative, in virtually every situation), so people think it's the safe play. The only way to figure out that it is actually statistically the wrong play is to do a lot of data mining. That only happened in the last 30 years or so, and the process has only been accepted, albeit grudgingly and only to a certain extent, quite recently. So managers still think the conventional wisdom, handed down from the Ty Cobb era, is correct - no outs, runner on 2nd, down 1 = sac bunt. There's no basis in probability, but anecdotally, it's worked out over the years (who knows at what rate), so they think it's the correct move.

People who have power in baseball management are actually seeing the numbers and forgoing the sac bunt. It's only going to be more widespread as statistical analysis becomes more accepted and used.

I've yet to contradict myself. It's the wrong play virtually every time, and certainly in that situation, and certainly with Votto up.

757690
07-01-2008, 07:18 PM
Bill James' 10 Commandments of Sabermetrics:
1. Thou Shalt Not Bunt.

I said people who have methodically and objectively studied the matter have determined bunting there is the wrong play. You countered by saying every MLB team does it. Under what form of logic did you prove me wrong? :rolleyes:

Of course every team trades an out for a base at one time or another. But those that know what they are doing, those that have looked at the numbers, only do it under certain very limited circumstances. Watch an A's game for instance. They virtually never bunt. They know what they're doing because they bothered to find out.

Why, you ask, would teams continue to bunt despite the fact that stat geeks that have poured over the numbers assert it is statistically imprudent? Well, the sac bunt has been around long before sabermatrics. It's well ingrained in the game. It often works out (though at a lesser rate than the alternative, in virtually every situation), so people think it's the safe play. The only way to figure out that it is actually statistically the wrong play is to do a lot of data mining. That only happened in the last 30 years or so, and the process has only been accepted, albeit grudgingly and only to a certain extent, quite recently. So managers still think the conventional wisdom, handed down from the Ty Cobb era, is correct - no outs, runner on 2nd, down 1 = sac bunt. There's no basis in probability, but anecdotally, it's worked out over the years (who knows at what rate), so they think it's the correct move.

People who have power in baseball management are actually seeing the numbers and forgoing the sac bunt. It's only going to be more widespread as statistical analysis becomes more accepted and used.

I've yet to contradict myself. It's the wrong play virtually every time, and certainly in that situation, and certainly with Votto up.

I love Bill James, but even he is wrong sometimes. He said that in the early 80's. Much has been studied since then and most saber guys now admit that there are situations where bunting is good. The chart I linked to was from Tangotiger, a James disciple and considered to be one of the foremost authorities on Sabermetrics. This is the guy who came up with the xFIP ERA formula.
This chart was based on looking at the all the boxscores from 1999 to 2002, and figuring what percentage of the time runs were scored in each situation. This is based on hard evidence, and is from a Sabermetric point of view.
Basically, but quoting Bill's James first commandment, you are adhering to an "old school" version of Sabermetrics, not the current one.