SABR 201 - Should we non-sac bunt more? (July 10, 2003)
Assuming that we are only talking about a bunt single, with bases empty, here is the run value for the single, and the out, with 0, 1, 2 outs:
+.37, -.23
+.24, -.16
+.11, -.08
The break-even point for laying one down is 38, 40, 42%, respectively.
So, if you are a lg average batter, and you think you can lay it down at a better than 40% clip safely, then you should go for it in that case.
How well does a batter bunt in such cases? From 1999-2002, with 2674 AB, the batter was safe 47% of the time.
However, this does not include those times he tried to bunt during the PA, then switched at the end (maybe because of 2 strikes). If you give him another 1000 "wasted" PA, where his "equivalent singles average" was .250 (i.e., maybe a .230 OBA guy, with a .300 SLG or something), that would bring his effective singles-batting average to around .400.
If the break-even is at least .400, then we'd expect the overall average to be much higher, maybe .450.
Should we non-sac bunt more? We need to know about those wasted PAs.
--posted by TangoTiger at 03:37 PM EDT
Posted 9:53 p.m.,
July 10, 2003
(#2) -
Robert S
Ideally, I'd like to see the Bonds and Palmeiro-type hitters bunt to 3rd just to keep the defense honest. It's probably too much of an ego and "unwritten" rule issue for those two to do it though.
Posted 2:47 a.m.,
July 11, 2003
(#3) -
BP
I would think they might even be able to get a bunt double under the right conditions, playing a bunt on turf say where they might be able to punch it into left field. You'd think if the defense was giving away something like that they would have to adjust.
Posted 1:15 p.m.,
July 11, 2003
(#4) -
tangotiger
For a great hitter, the break-even point is much higher.
If we look at the bases empty, 1 out situation, here are the run values for all events:
1b .27, 2b .40, 3b .65, hr 1.00, bb .27, out -.18 (for 1999-2002).
Let's assume you have a .333/.440/.675 hitter, what's his run value / pA? In this case, it works out to +.08 runs / PA.
That makes the breakeven point for this hitter to non-sac bunt at .500 (assuming he doesn't miss his bunt, and is now down in the count).
How often would Bonds, Pujols et al have to bunt to keep the fielders "honest". I think the fielders are giving that up, that risk that he might bunt, by playing them the way they do. It would probably cost them too much to do otherwise.
But for your Vizquels, the bunt is a good weapon.
Posted 4:22 p.m.,
July 11, 2003
(#5) -
David Smyth
If you use that .440/.675 example, those are his stats with the defense ignoring the bunt and positioning themselves to better prevent other outcomes. So, does that BE pt include both the effects of the bunts themselves, plus the benefit (presumed) to his non-bunt events from the defense having to play more "honestly"?
Posted 1:56 p.m.,
July 12, 2003
(#6) -
Derek Zaba(e-mail)
I share David's and Robert's intuition that Bondsian hitters should bunt more, especially facing the defensive shift. If we assume that the defense takes the third baseman out of play for a Bonds type hitter, then most of the putouts in your 2674 ABs in which a third basemen recorded an assist would become base hits. Tango, do you have the breakdown for the 2674 ABs by the nature of the putout? I'm curious what the safe hit/bunt attempts ratio would have been over the 2674 ABs if we assume that 50%,75%, or 100% of third baseman assisted putouts would have been hits had the third baseman been MIA...
I can think of a some reasons why we should use less than a 100% conversion rate from third baseman assisted putouts to base hits (below), but my gut tells me that the conversion rate should be at least 50%. Am I missing any important situations? Do others disagree with my assessment?
1) Pitcher and third basemen converge on a bunt on the same time Both could have recorded the putout, but the third basemen fields the ball because he is in a better position. Certainly happens, but I would guess that this is clearly in the minority.
2)Pitcher and catcher try to compensate for lack of third baseman. Seems unlikely. I have a hard time believing that the pitcher and catcher are worried about a bunt when facing Bonds, rather than a 450 ft. shot into the bay that is replayed on Sportscenter 25 times over the next week. And even if the pitcher and catcher are as prepared as possible, their preparation wouldn't make a difference for most bunts that the third baseman should have fielded.
3)Third basement fields a ball for an out that would have rolled foul- seems unlikely.
Posted 3:55 p.m.,
July 16, 2003
(#7) -
Derek Zaba(e-mail)
Damn...Am I the only curious one? Or perhaps I posted just as interest waned? :)
Posted 1:57 p.m.,
July 17, 2003
(#8) -
Vinay Kumar
A few weeks ago, Klesko and Palmeiro both had bunt singles on the same day. Klesko probably could have legged his into a double if there hadn't been a man on 1B (the defense wouldn't have had a play on Klesko at 2B, but they would've gotten the lead runner at 3B). I haven't been looking for it, but I haven't really noticed defenses playing Klesko any differently since then.
So, does that BE pt include both the effects of the bunts themselves, plus the benefit (presumed) to his non-bunt events from the defense having to play more "honestly"?
No, it doesn't include that. So if a defense is better off putting an extreme shift on Bonds or Klesko or whoever, and the occasional bunt forces them to move back to a conventional alignment, then the bunt is even more valuable.