Bunting in the First

[HUHUH]

Against Carpenter and the Cards this week:
Cabrera leads off the game with a double. Phillips bunts him to third.

I've seen this same scenario on at least one other occasion this year and I DO NOT like it.

PROS:
1) Runner at third base with one out
CONS:
1) One out. You gave one up. There were none.
2) Runner was already in scoring position with NO outs
3) Phillips is one of your best hitters, and you take the bat out of his hand. Moreover, he doesn't get the chance to see and offer at Carpenter's pitches, so effectively he's seeing Carpenter for the first time his next time up.
4) GIDP is not in the equation. If Cabrera is at first, it makes more sense to me to bunt.
5) Phillips can try to hit to the right side and accomplish the same thing.
6) You are seriously reducing the chance of scoring more than one run in the inning.

Am I missing something? Dusty is all suspect.

[defender]

Baker figured it would be a low scoring game, and thought he could count on Votto to get the run in. It is always good to get an early lead, but I think Phillips is a good enough hitter, that I wouldn't have done it. I would rather Carpenter have to get three tough outs.

[davereds24]

Another reason not to do it is the first inning can often be the hardest for a good pitcher, and giving him a free out is not smart. I remember BP doing this about a month ago against I think a rookie, that was even worse.

[GIDP]

No reason to ever bunt when a guy leads an inning off with a double. Only way I think its a good move if its the 9th and you are at home. Other than that its dumb imo.

Not to mention there are plenty of ways of getting that guy to 3rd with out the bunt and still getting out. Any fly ball probably gets him to 3rd, a grounder anywhere but right at the pitcher or 3rd baseman get him there.

You gotta take your chance of Phillips, Votto, or Rolen getting a hit or extending the inning some how.

[GIDP]

Baker figured it would be a low scoring game, and thought he could count on Votto to get the run in. It is always good to get an early lead, but I think Phillips is a good enough hitter, that I wouldn't have done it. I would rather Carpenter have to get three tough outs.

Funny how doing that ended up ending the inning early because it took a sure hit and turned it into a line out. With out Phillips sac bunt Votto likely gets the job done.

[Vottomatic]

It always looks bad when it doesn't work.

[scott91575]

It always looks bad when it doesn't work.

Statistics show sacrificing a guy to third with no outs slightly increases the chance of 1 run, but dramatically decreases the chance for more than 1 run. It's statistically a terrible move early in the ballgame. Add in the psychological aspect that Dusty is pretty much telling his team "we can't hit this guy, so we have to scratch for every run" and it's not a good move. It is really old school baseball, and an approach that has been shown to be poor one by every metric in baseball.

[GIDP]

It always looks bad when it doesn't work.

The chances that a guy scores from 3rd with 1 out is lower than a guy scoring from 2nd with no outs, and the chances a guy scores from 2nd with 1 out is barely lower than if hes on 3rd with 1 out.

[Vottomatic]

Yeah, they were just tearing the cover off the ball against Carpenter the other night. Terrible thing trying to manufacture some runs.

[bgwilly31]

My brother and dad and I were talking about the same exact thing. dusty is mind boggling.

[scott91575]

Yeah, they were just tearing the cover off the ball against Carpenter the other night. Terrible thing trying to manufacture some runs.

It was the freaking first inning. The first guy did just rip the cover off the ball. Then Dusty gives his team a defeatist attitude. Why not just forfeit when going up against Carpenter?

If you are going to go with hindsight, then they needed more than that one run to win. So that makes the bunt even worse.

[lidspinner]

2 very good opinions on this and 2 very good ways of looking at it.....I too did not like it at the time and I wish Dusty would have went with the meat of our lineup....BUT, if that inning works out and he scores, then we are talking a different ball game.....again, I dont think it was a horrible call by Dusty, but since it did not work out then Dusty takes the heat. I think we are all used to that.

[kfm]

This is part of the job of a number two hitter. He moved a runner to third with less than two outs which no one is arguing so far was not his job. So the argument actually is that you don't like the way he moved the runner to third. What if he hit the ball to the left side of the infield and the runner did not advance, would people be happy with that at-bat? FInally this new argument that keeps surfacing that many of Dusty's moves send a message to his first place team that has 10 wins in their last at-bat that he doesn't believe in them and they are now psychologically wounded. Really, does anyone really believe that these players are sitting around thinking that Dusty doesn't believe in them, I want to hear the basis for this and which players you believe are such menal midgets?

[GIDP]

This is part of the job of a number two hitter. He moved a runner to third with less than two outs which no one is arguing so far was not his job. So the argument actually is that you don't like the way he moved the runner to third. What if he hit the ball to the left side of the infield and the runner did not advance, would people be happy with that at-bat? FInally this new argument that keeps surfacing that many of Dusty's moves send a message to his first place team that has 10 wins in their last at-bat that he doesn't believe in them and they are now psychologically wounded. Really, does anyone really believe that these players are sitting around thinking that Dusty doesn't believe in them, I want to hear the basis for this and which players you believe are such menal midgets?

Id be fine with him not moving the runnin to 3rd. You still have Votto and Rolen to get hits. Basically the same thing if Votto doesnt hit a deep fly.

[Griffey012]

You go into the game knowing you will be lucky to score more than 3 runs of Carpenter. You get what should be a sure opportunity right out of the gate. What are the odds of getting a runner in from 3rd base with 1 out with one of the best hitting Lefties in the game? Someone who doesn't have many bad AB's. Probably at least 75-80%. Not to mention you have a rookie making his 2nd major league start, getting that 1 run gives him some comfort pitching and lets him relax a bit on the hill.

I am not an advocate of doing this every game or often at all, but I believe the situation of the game completely called for it. The odds of you getting more than a run of Carpenter in any inning, regardless of the situation, are not very high.

[scott91575]

Some interesting reading.

From the ERT table bunting is a bad idea. Yet comparing actually bunting vs. not bunting the numbers get a lot closer, and not a bad idea. Of course there are still lots of variables, yet it shows it's a closer toss up than I thought.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php

It's strange how the two tables don't match up well at all. One doesn't take into account the bunt itself (the ERT) and says it's stupid. The other takes into account the actual bunt itself, and says it's not a bad move. For pure sacrifices scoring does go down, but for all bunts it actually goes up for the #2 hitter. There are probably some attempts to sacrifice that ended up as hits. Of course there are probably attempts to get a bunt hit and was not an attempt at sacrifice. Which means the numbers are really, really close. Essentially a toss up, and probably the reason for debate.

[Griffey012]

The exact reason why you do not reduce the percentages your team will score more runs.

Some people here really need to read some statistics based baseball. Here is just one on the internet of many....

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php

It's a fairly long read, but I will break down a few things....

1) By giving up an out and moving the runner to third you have voluntarily lowered your expected runs in the inning from 1.054 to .907 (and that assumes you are 100% successful with the bunt, which is not true).

2) Based on batting order, bunting with the #2 hitter you have actually reduced the chances of scoring 1 run in the inning from .659 to .653 (again, this assumes you are actually successful with the bunt, making it even worse)

If you take the general statistic for all batters (including pitchers) the likelihood of scoring one run if you bunt a guy to the third does improve (.609 to .648). Yet as point #2 shows, bunting with the #2 hitter is just ****ing stupid. You lower your average runs scored, and you actually lower the chance of scoring 1 run. Certainly this is a vast generality, but I would make a case they are fairly typical lineup. You don't give up outs before your 3, 4 and 5 hitters come to the plate. The statistics over the 15 years of baseball used in this study shows that fact.

Back to a point I made in my post, I want to know the odds of getting that run in from 3rd with a guy like Votto up. The statistics are generally based off the batting order. Look at Seattle, Oakland, and some other teams who have mediocre at best #3 hitters. We have a stud, who is left handed. He gets the run in by not lining out to the infield, striking out, grounding out to 3rd base, or popping out. I have to believe Joey hits a base hit, ground ball to anywhere but third, or gets the ball deep, or gets walked to give Rolen a shot more than 75% of the time.

BTW, your point is fairly inconsistent, the difference you mention is #2 is 6 thousandths, (which means roughly if you play the scenario 200 times without bunting you get 1 more run). And i bet that is hardly a statistically significant difference. So I wouldn't call that (earmuffs) bleeping stupid. Its more of a half a dozen, 6 of the other scenario.

Not to mention these statistics are also based off league average pitchers. Sure Phillips, Votto, and Rolen collectively probably hit .300. Against Carpenter we are probably talking .220 ish. These statistics do not take into consideration the hitter, or the pitcher.

My life involves working with numbers and statistics, but one thing I have realized is there are always more questions to be asked about the outcome of the data. The data here explains a broad scenario, but you have to look at the conditional probability based on the situation, not just the broad probability, i.e. what is the probability Votto succeeds against Carpenter at getting the run in. But we don't have the probability of the exact situation Votto vs. Carpenter, so a baseball manager has to make a decision, it's the beauty of the game.

[scott91575]

Back to a point I made in my post, I want to know the odds of getting that run in from 3rd with a guy like Votto up. The statistics are generally based off the batting order. Look at Seattle, Oakland, and some other teams who have mediocre at best #3 hitters. We have a stud, who is left handed. He gets the run in by not lining out to the infield, striking out, grounding out to 3rd base, or popping out. I have to believe Joey hits a base hit, ground ball to anywhere but third, or gets the ball deep, or gets walked to give Rolen a shot more than 75% of the time.

BTW, your point is fairly inconsistent, the difference you mention is #2 is 6 thousandths, (which means roughly if you play the scenario 200 times without bunting you get 1 more run). And i bet that is hardly a statistically significant difference. So I wouldn't call that (earmuffs) bleeping stupid. Its more of a half a dozen, 6 of the other scenario.

Not to mention these statistics are also based off league average pitchers. Sure Phillips, Votto, and Rolen collectively probably hit .300. Against Carpenter we are probably talking .220 ish. These statistics do not take into consideration the hitter, or the pitcher.

My life involves working with numbers and statistics, but one thing I have realized is there are always more questions to be asked about the outcome of the data. The data here explains a broad scenario, but you have to look at the conditional probability based on the situation, not just the broad probability, i.e. what is the probability Votto succeeds against Carpenter at getting the run in. But we don't have the probability of the exact situation Votto vs. Carpenter, so a baseball manager has to make a decision, it's the beauty of the game.

I completely changed my post. I read it more, and while ERT shows it's a bad move, the other charts show it's a toss up. I had to read the whole article in depth again, and I was wrong. I actually grabbed that one as a general study, and it turned out to be more in depth. More interesting than I thought.

In the end it shows you reduce the likelihood of a 2 run of more inning, you do increase the likelihood of scoring a run, and in the long run the total runs are essentially the same.

[Krawhitham]

Against Carpenter and the Cards this week:
Cabrera leads off the game with a double. Phillips bunts him to third.

I've seen this same scenario on at least one other occasion this year and I DO NOT like it.

PROS:
1) Runner at third base with one out
CONS:
1) One out. You gave one up. There were none.
2) Runner was already in scoring position with NO outs
3) Phillips is one of your best hitters, and you take the bat out of his hand. Moreover, he doesn't get the chance to see and offer at Carpenter's pitches, so effectively he's seeing Carpenter for the first time his next time up.
4) GIDP is not in the equation. If Cabrera is at first, it makes more sense to me to bunt.
5) Phillips can try to hit to the right side and accomplish the same thing.
6) You are seriously reducing the chance of scoring more than one run in the inning.

Am I missing something? Dusty is all suspect.


You're wrong

Look a

SAC fly
wild pitch
pass ball
infield hit
ground ball
Balk
suicide squeeze
Stealing home
error on the infield
runner interference
Wild pickoff by pitcher
Wild pickoff by catcher
Dropped third strike by cathcer; he throws to first while runner on third scores.

all scores a run from 3rd but would not from 2nd and we do not get many runs off Carpenter

His WHIP VS the Reds is .667 this season and .750 for 2007-2009

He is 7-0 with a 1.29 ERA since 2007 VS the Reds so it is not like the Reds are going to score more that a run in an inning too often

[scott91575]

BTW, your point is fairly inconsistent, the difference you mention is #2 is 6 thousandths, (which means roughly if you play the scenario 200 times without bunting you get 1 more run). And i bet that is hardly a statistically significant difference. So I wouldn't call that (earmuffs) bleeping stupid. Its more of a half a dozen, 6 of the other scenario.

Just to this point, it's not 1 less run in 200. It's one less time you score vs. not scoring, which would say in essence bunting eliminates it's sole purpose....increasing the chance of getting across 1 run. Those charts say the actual run expectancy decreases by almost .15. That would be giving up a run every 6 to 7 times you do it.

As I later stated, those charts I used are in less depth than the other ones that actually compare bunting vs. not bunting. Of course those are not perfect either, but bring the numbers closer to a toss up. They state it gives up .086 runs for a sac bunt, and an actual gain of .005 runs for all bunts (that is the stat for the #2 hitter). Since some sac bunts turn into hits that .086 shrinks even more, but impossible to quantify.

[Vottomatic]

You're wrong

Look a

SAC fly
wild pitch
pass ball
infield hit
ground ball
Balk
suicide squeeze
Stealing home
error on the infield
runner interference
Wild pickoff by pitcher
Wild pickoff by catcher
Dropped third strike by cathcer; he throws to first while runner on third scores.

all scores a run from 3rd but would not from 2nd and we do not get many runs off Carpenter

His WHIP VS the Reds is .667 this season and .750 for 2007-2009

He is 7-0 with a 1.29 ERA since 2007 VS the Reds so it is not like the Reds are going to score more that a run in an inning too often

:beerme:

Now that's what I'm talking about.

[HUHUH]

You go into the game knowing you will be lucky to score more than 3 runs of Carpenter. You get what should be a sure opportunity right out of the gate. What are the odds of getting a runner in from 3rd base with 1 out with one of the best hitting Lefties in the game? Someone who doesn't have many bad AB's. Probably at least 75-80%. Not to mention you have a rookie making his 2nd major league start, getting that 1 run gives him some comfort pitching and lets him relax a bit on the hill.

I am not an advocate of doing this every game or often at all, but I believe the situation of the game completely called for it. The odds of you getting more than a run of Carpenter in any inning, regardless of the situation, are not very high.

Especially when you give him outs by bunting unnecessarily.

[big boy]

I rarely support giving away outs when a non-pitcher is batting. Dusty does this time and again.

[Griffey012]

I completely changed my post. I read it more, and while ERT shows it's a bad move, the other charts show it's a toss up. I had to read the whole article in depth again, and I was wrong. I actually grabbed that one as a general study, and it turned out to be more in depth. More interesting than I thought.

In the end it shows you reduce the likelihood of a 2 run of more inning, you do increase the likelihood of scoring a run, and in the long run the total runs are essentially the same.

Fair enough, more power to you for changing it, glad to know I can have a civil baseball discussion with you on this board, even if we don't agree, instead of trying to battle who's right/who's wrong.

Your last line in this basically proves there are two sides in this discussion, and each side has their fair argument. With the long run, run total being basically the same. Interesting to know.

[GIDP]

If we didnt have the middle of our lineup up and bunting with an .800+ OPS AB, especially one batting .323/.376/.523 over his last 145 PA, I wouldn't care as much.

[Reds]

I like the bunt in nearly every situation you can argue it for. Especially when the other team has sub-par defense on the field. I have no problem bunting anytime you're trying to get the lead, even in the first inning. I'm also a big tool of the philosophy that you try and get that runner to 3rd base with one out so you can sac fly him in, and bunting is the most likely way to ensure this after a lead-off double.

[RedsFanInBama]

I prefer to trust your No. 2 hitter to have enough bat control to be able to hit the ball to the right side. Then you have a chance to score rather than just advancing the runner. But, considering how much Carpenter has owned us and we had Votto - coming off four hits the day before - up to bat, I can't complain too much about the move.

Blus BP hasn't always shown great bat control or ability to hit in situations. He's been better this year, though.

[ian_madden]

I like the bunting. I want that runner on 3rd base for my 3 and 4 hitter. I know that a guy with OCab's speed will score on a single to the outfield but what if BP K's? What if Votto grounds to the right side advancing the runner to 3rd, and Rolen hits a fly ball to the outfield? That runner scores if BP bunts. I like small ball. Good call Dusty. Way to go BP putting the team 1st.

[GIDP]

I like the bunting. I want that runner on 3rd base for my 3 and 4 hitter. I know that a guy with OCab's speed will score on a single to the outfield but what if BP K's? What if Votto grounds to the right side advancing the runner to 3rd, and Rolen hits a fly ball to the outfield? That runner scores if BP bunts. I like small ball. Good call Dusty. Way to go BP putting the team 1st.

Those 3 guys have a OBP of .350+. Votto is near .400, all 3 are .270+ hitters

Let them hit.

[redhat]

The only stat applicable to this particular situation is "bunting a runner to third is more likely to result in a single run, but less likely to result in more than one run."

All that stuff about being more likely to score from second with no outs, or giving up an out with a good hitter at the plate goes out the window when you're facing a pitcher who has completely shut down your offense over the last three years.

I don't generally like bunting in the first inning, but when you figure your chances to score are going to be few and far between, you have to maximize them however you can. Sure, Phillips could have tried to hit to the right side, or just tried to hit. But that's less certain to move the runner.

For my money, Baker made the right move. Especially with Votto (who hits Carpenter well) coming to the plate. As I was watching the game, I thought the Reds chances to score were pretty good. The only thing that prevented it from working was Brendan Ryan charging in before the pitch. Also a very unusual move in the first inning, when you usually give up a run to get an out. If he'd stayed back his only play would have been to first base.

The fact that it resulted in a double play was just bad luck.

[Griffey012]

The only stat applicable to this particular situation is "bunting a runner to third is more likely to result in a single run, but less likely to result in more than one run."

All that stuff about being more likely to score from second with no outs, or giving up an out with a good hitter at the plate goes out the window when you're facing a pitcher who has completely shut down your offense over the last three years.

I don't generally like bunting in the first inning, but when you figure your chances to score are going to be few and far between, you have to maximize them however you can. Sure, Phillips could have tried to hit to the right side, or just tried to hit. But that's less certain to move the runner.

For my money, Baker made the right move. Especially with Votto (who hits Carpenter well) coming to the plate. As I was watching the game, I thought the Reds chances to score were pretty good. The only thing that prevented it from working was Brendan Ryan charging in before the pitch. Also a very unusual move in the first inning, when you usually give up a run to get an out. If he'd stayed back his only play would have been to first base.

The fact that it resulted in a double play was just bad luck.

I know you will probably catch a lot of flack from your post because you are a Cards fan, but you hit the nail on the head with the entire post. Especially in the line that I have bolded, Carpenter has dominated us to the extent Oswalt has. Votto lining into the double play was just unfortunate and was basically foreshadowing for the rest of the game (Rolen getting hit by Bruce's liner and broken bat RBI's).

[Griffey012]

Now today's bunting in the first I did not like at all. Stammen has been horrible in the first inning this season. These are two totally different scenarios that call for different actions. We should be expecting to score 4 or 5 plus off Stammen, and bunting in the first is not going to do much for that.

Oh and Votto ripped a single, would have scored OCab anyway.

[demas863]

Right on, HUHUH. Dusty (previously called a winner by the Castellini) continually demonstrates his loser's mentality. He's essentially telling the team they can't get to Carpenter. He does things like this all the time. He states his objective is to win two out of three in any series. Why not a sweep? Pete Rose was asked by a reporter how many hits he was going to get at a game and he answered "Everytime I up." Now that's the statement of a real winner. I wouldn't be surprized if on an upcoming western swing Baker's target would be to not get swept in any series given the team's lack of success out there. I don't think he should be rehired no matter where the team finishes. Perhaps, the front office is thinking the same way. Enter Joe Morgan.

[Griffey012]

Right on, HUHUH. Dusty (previously called a winner by the Castellini) continually demonstrates his loser's mentality. He's essentially telling the team they can't get to Carpenter. He does things like this all the time. He states his objective is to win two out of three in any series. Why not a sweep? Pete Rose was asked by a reporter how many hits he was going to get at a game and he answered "Everytime I up." Now that's the statement of a real winner. I wouldn't be surprized if on an upcoming western swing Baker's target would be to not get swept in any series given the team's lack of success out there. I don't think he should be rehired no matter where the team finishes. Perhaps, the front office is thinking the same way. Enter Joe Morgan.

Joe Morgan would be the 2nd coming of Dusty Baker. If you listen to him on broadcasts he has a very old school mentality. We would still have a fast guy hitting lead-off, a guy who can handle the bat 2nd, etc.