Buntapalooza has to stop

[kaldaniels]

increasing your chances by 5% is a slam dunk when you've

1) got the fastest runner ever on second
2) got a pitcher who can't throw a strike to save his life
3) got a better chance to score more runs if you don't bunt

???

Hardly.

Also, I don't see your point about strikeouts and "non-productive" outs. Of course the percentages don't increase with those, but a bunt GUARANTEES that there will be one out unless the Astros decide to play Keystone Cops again.

Ludwick's AB renders the can't throw strikes point moot.

[RedEye]

Fine. So why start a Dusty bashing thread on it?

You weren't bashing him per se, but you've been around long enough. The seeds were sown.

This is a thread about bashing a strategy. Maybe Choo or BP decided to bunt on their own. I don't care. I just don't want any more bunting.

[RedEye]

Ludwick's AB renders the can't throw strikes point moot.

Well, except that it took place AFTER all of the other stuff, when the dude was walking everyone. Hindsight is 20/20.

[Homer Bailey]

The odds of a hit = 25%

The odds of an out = 75%

You're only gaining 5% points but you have a 75% chance of losing significant percentage points if you don't bunt.

So yeah, I'd rather play the 3/4 odds of gaining 5 percentage points than the 3/4 of losing 25+ points

What? You obviously can't assume the bunt is going to be successful (it wasn't). Thus you don't "eliminate" the 75 percent chance. That very much still exists. All to gain 5 percentage points? You don't automatically jump from 64 to 69 percent. It's absolutely not a guarantee, and it's not worth the risk.

[RedEye]

Does (whatever you are talking about ) factor in the odds of a DP, if so, how?

Scratch the earlier stuff I posted there. I was going on memory. I posted another one with the correct percentages. Sorry about that.

[mth123]

What are the odds of a double play with Phillips swinging away?

I think I'd trade an out for even a small increase in the likelihood of scoring a run in the 9th of a tie game with Chapman available to pitch the bottom of the inning.

[Patrick Bateman]

The Reds had a 64.3% chance of scoring with 1st & 2nd and none out.

A successful sacrifice in that situation would have increased their chances to 69.8%. A strikeout or non-productive out would decrease their chances to 42.9%. A double play would decrease it to 27%

A base hit in that situation would score a run. Problem is, you are only going to get a base hit with Phillips about one quarter of the time.

This shouldn't even be a discussion. The percentages are pretty much a slam dunk.

If I follow correctly:

Phillips gets a hit, say 27% of the time = 27% run
Phillips strikes out or whatever, say 70% (x42.9% run) of the time = 30%

Total of 57% chance of scoring vs. 69%. This is forgetting about double plays and productive outs for easy math.

Presumably Phillips already up 1-0 (and previous 8 balls) also increases the first scenario, and also option of running Hamilton. Also doesn't factor chances of an unsuccessful bunt. Could make overall total odds pretty close.

In the end, the bunt was a safe play, was likely to increase our chances of scoring. I think both options are defensible considering all of the items at play, and all considered odds of scoring might have been similar either way.

The bunt was the right play by the book and Phillips is a pretty good bunter, and put the bat in the hands of a better player. I think it was a perfectly defensible move and agree it is pretty well supported by the numbers, but I don't think to the extent you are suggesting.

[Homer Bailey]

What are the odds of a double play with Phillips swinging away?

I think I'd trade an out for even a small increase in the likelihood of scoring a run in the 9th of a tie game with Chapman available to pitch the bottom of the inning.

If you were guaranteed it would work, I could see the argument. If say easily more than 5 percent of the time the bunt doesn't work out, yet that's the max percent you can increase your odds.

[RedEye]

In the end, the bunt was a safe play, was likely to increase our chances of scoring. I think both options are defensible considering all of the items at play, and all considered odds of scoring might have been similar either way.

The bunt was the right play by the book and Phillips is a pretty good bunter, and put the bat in the hands of a better player. I think it was a perfectly defensible move and agree it is pretty well supported by the numbers.

As folks have pointed out numerous times though, the numbers only come out practically EVEN if the bunt is executed correctly. By trying to bunt you are taking the risk that it won't work... which is a pretty big risk to take just to step up your run expectancy from 65 to 70%.

[kaldaniels]

Odds of an error or basehit on the bunt?

I just think it all ends up a wash.

[mth123]

If you were guaranteed it would work, I could see the argument. If say easily more than 5 percent of the time the bunt doesn't work out, yet that's the max percent you can increase your odds.

But the idea is to score a run. Better odds are better odds.

[SteelSD]

The odds of a hit = 25%

The odds of an out = 75%

You're only gaining 5% points but you have a 75% chance of losing significant percentage points if you don't bunt.

So yeah, I'd rather play the 3/4 odds of gaining 5 percentage points than the 3/4 of losing 25+ points

If a bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd is successful, this cannot keep you out of a Double Play when the most likely following move is an IBB to your best hitter.

When that IBB occurs, your Run probability drops from .698 to .679; versus an initial 1st and 2nd w/No Outs probability of .643. That means the probability gain is down to .036, which is completely washed away considering that you just took the bat out of your best hitter's hands; turning it over to a good, but less proficient hitter.

In short, the buntapalooza not only suppressed the likelihood of scoring multiple Runs that Inning, it also likely reduced their chances of scoring a single Run.

[RedEye]

Odds of an error or basehit on the bunt?

I just think it all ends up a wash.

If it is a wash, why take the risk? Nothing more positive can happen if you do it, so why try?

[Brutus]

What? You obviously can't assume the bunt is going to be successful (it wasn't). Thus you don't "eliminate" the 75 percent chance. That very much still exists. All to gain 5 percentage points? You don't automatically jump from 64 to 69 percent. It's absolutely not a guarantee, and it's not worth the risk.

That makes no sense.

If your mortgage depended on getting $1,000 to avoid losing your home and someone offered you the following two choices:

* Picking the correct card out of four options to get $5,000, or

* Picking the correct card when three of the four options are the winning pick but only get $1,000

Which is the smart bet? You go with the one that has the highest degree of probability you'll get what you need. In that case, you go with the lower amount of money but that one that has a much higher chance of paying off.

When an out is made 70% of the time, that means that seven out of 10 times, you will lose probability of scoring. It's not about gaining 5%, it's about playing the percentages of the most likely outcome. If you hit away, there is a 7 in 10 chance that you will have a negative outcome.

[kaldaniels]

If it is a wash, why take the risk? Nothing more positive can happen if you do it, so why try?

If it is a wash, it's a wash. I don't care.