Article: Who's Up First?

[Brock Beauchamp]

We were 7th in baseball in runs scored last year.  Mauer drove in only 55 of those. I think its fair to wonder if batting Mauer third helps the team.  I also think it's fair to say that his skill set would make him an unusual lead off hitter or 2nd place hitter.  We all have theories about why Joe declined last year.  We all have an opinion on whether he'll bounce back.  I'd prefer to see Joe bat 2nd behind Santanta.  I'm not going to throw a fit if he bats 3rd if its because Moliter thinks he will bounce back.  However, if he has another year like last, I think we would be wasting Joe's talents by not moving him up in the order.  

I've always thought Mauer - outside of 2009 - was an ideal second hitter. Good gap power, huge OBP.

[Willihammer]

The problem with this analysis is that some seem to take the 48% number as if a foul bunt is an out.

 

Who cares is the bunt goes foul? For a hitter like Ortiz, a foul bunt might be better than successfully bunting. The goal is to break the shift, which any bunt will do. The benefit of a foul bunt is that he can go back to a full swing with a defense that has probably abandoned the shift.

We're talking about two different things I think. I'm talking about the outcome of the plate entire appearance, not individual bunt attempts. I'm also assuming the goal is to get a hit and not simply to flash a bunt. If you read the fangraphs post linked to by Jimmer above, it shows examples of hitters attempting the bunt and not breaking the shift. Even a case where the hitter had succeeded in getting down a bunt (for a hit) earlier in the game.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We're talking about two different things I think. I'm talking about the outcome of the plate entire appearance, not individual bunt attempts. I'm also assuming the goal is to get a hit and not simply to flash a bunt. If you read the fangraphs post linked to by Jimmer above, it shows examples of hitters attempting the bunt and not breaking the shift. Even a case where the hitter had succeeded in getting down a bunt (for a hit) earlier in the game.

I see. My point about Ortiz (just an example) laying down the occasional bunt probably isn't the best example in isolation... But if Ortiz regularly beat the shift with a bunt, it would force defenses to maybe not break the shift but play a lesser shift against him on a regular basis. It's the type of thing that might not have an impact on the first, second, or maybe even third bunt but if he consistently does it, defenses will be forced to break the shift or shift less.

 

After all, the most important thing in baseball is not making the out. If Ortiz can not make an out against a shift 40% of the time by bunting (all he has to do is get it by the pitcher, very easy to do because you actually want to bunt hard instead of soft), then that's a huge value even if you don't count defenses being forced to break the shift against him.

 

I just don't understand why players don't do this against the shift. Anyway, carry on with your other argument. I'm just kinda ranting (again).

[hybridbear]

I like the idea of Mauer second because he can move runners over either with a single, a walk or a ground out. His propensity to take a lot of pitches allows for steals & hit & run attempts. However, he has to improve over last year. If Mauer starts out hitting as poorly as he did last year then I think he has to go down to 7 or 8 in the lineup.

 

I also like the idea of Mauer batting leadoff because of how many pitches he takes which would give the rest of the lineup a chance to immediately observe how the opposing pitcher is throwing. However, his lack of speed could be a liability on the bases because he couldn't go first to third on singles as often as Dozier or Santana or Hicks.

[Willihammer]

I see. My point about Ortiz (just an example) laying down the occasional bunt probably isn't the best example in isolation... But if Ortiz regularly beat the shift with a bunt, it would force defenses to maybe not break the shift but play a lesser shift against him on a regular basis. It's the type of thing that might not have an impact on the first, second, or maybe even third bunt but if he consistently does it, defenses will be forced to break the shift or shift less.

 

After all, the most important thing in baseball is not making the out. If Ortiz can not make an out against a shift 40% of the time by bunting (all he has to do is get it by the pitcher, very easy to do because you actually want to bunt hard instead of soft), then that's a huge value even if you don't count defenses being forced to break the shift against him.

 

I just don't understand why players don't do this against the shift. Anyway, carry on with your other argument. I'm just kinda ranting (again).

But to actually break the shift the hitter has to succeed at a high rate. Really high for an elite hitter like Ortiz. Otherwise he's just giving away strikes and outs which just compounds the effectiveness of the shift in my mind.

 

I was only trying to quantify that breakeven point in terms of OPS. If a hitter is OPS-ing .500 in order to break the shift, has he really succeeded? Seems to me a defense would just keep letting him bunt away at that point.

[Brock Beauchamp]

But to actually break the shift the hitter has to succeed at a high rate. Really high for an elite hitter like Ortiz. Otherwise he's just giving away strikes and outs which just compounds the effectiveness of the shift in my mind.

 

I was only trying to quantify that breakeven point in terms of OPS. If a hitter is OPS-ing .500 in order to break the shift, has he really succeeded? Seems to me a defense would just keep letting him bunt away at that point.

It'd be an interesting study if a player actually tried to break the shift on a regular basis. While the player would OPS lower by bunting, their OBP would be much higher while their SLG would drop. OBP being slightly more valuable than SLG would have to be factored into the equation, along with any potential OPS increase the hitter might see by breaking the shift during regular ABs.

 

It's an interesting thought study. Again, I'd like to see someone give it a legitimate shot and see what data it produces but that's pretty much impossible until a few players actually try the idea.

[jokin]

It'd be an interesting study if a player actually tried to break the shift on a regular basis. While the player would OPS lower by bunting, their OBP would be much higher while their SLG would drop. OBP being slightly more valuable than SLG would have to be factored into the equation, along with any potential OPS increase the hitter might see by breaking the shift during regular ABs.

 

It's an interesting thought study. Again, I'd like to see someone give it a legitimate shot and see what data it produces but that's pretty much impossible until a few players actually try the idea.

 

I remember reading that Rod Carew had a bunt-for-a-hit success rate of .722 with the bases empty.

 

Carlos Gomez's career average bunting (all situations) is .452, which obviously, yields a .904 OPS, compared to his career .733 OPS.

 

It seems having a competent bunt tool as a looming weapon to beat the shift would significantly help someone's overall average.  

[Shane Wahl]

I love that 10 pages in we are talking about the merits of bunting for base hits and beating the shift.

[jimmer]

I remember reading that Rod Carew had a bunt-for-a-hit success rate of .722 with the bases empty.

 

Carlos Gomez's career average bunting (all situations) is .452, which obviously, yields a .904 OPS, compared to his career .733 OPS.

 

It seems having a competent bunt tool as a looming weapon to beat the shift would significantly help someone's overall average.  

That's just bunts put in play not all bunt attempts.  

Edited February 26, 2015 by jimmer

[Willihammer]

The strike zone is being called more accurate.  Mauer is not getting the favorable calls anymore, so unless he adjusts his approach, he going to continue to strike out.  It's been 2 years of not adjusting, I think calling it stubborness at this point is probably accurate.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2279903-what-can-mlb-do-to-solve-its-expanding-strike-zone-problem

This has been my understanding as well. I never heard about MLB expanding the zone on purpose. What umpires have done since they got access to pitchf/x data for self-evaluations, is call the rulebook zone more accurately and consistently.

[KGB]

 

We were 7th in baseball in runs scored last year.  Mauer drove in only 55 of those. I think its fair to wonder if batting Mauer third helps the team.  I also think it's fair to say that his skill set would make him an unusual lead off hitter or 2nd place hitter.  We all have theories about why Joe declined last year.  We all have an opinion on whether he'll bounce back.  I'd prefer to see Joe bat 2nd behind Santanta.  I'm not going to throw a fit if he bats 3rd if its because Moliter thinks he will bounce back.  However, if he has another year like last, I think we would be wasting Joe's talents by not moving him up in the order.  

 

 

I agree figuring out Mauer is difficult.  He doesn’t drive in a lot of runs, but the other problem is he doesn’t score a lot of runs so making him a leadoff hitter seems a stretch.  As discussed before, if you believe his value is ‘creating runs’ by not making out and moving other players into scoring position, you probably should leave him in the 3 spot as long as Santana and Dozier continue to score runs at a high rate

. 

Also, I still have not stopped believing a player as talented as Mauer can’t drive in more runs.  He is not going to get faster, so he is not going to create runs with speed.  He does need to adjust his approach and hopefully he added strength this offseason, which should reduce his strike out which will put his average back over .300 and increase his RBI production.

[Dantes929]

Isn't the success rate of 49% of bunt attempts put into play a bit misleading.   Lets round up and make it 50%.  That's just per bunt attempt.   If you commit to attempting the bunt three times in an at bat wouldn't the success rate of putting the ball in play for that at bat be closer to 87% (50% the first attempt, 25% for the 2nd and 12.5% for the third attempt).      Even if you eliminate the idea of bunting on the 3rd strike your success rate of putting the ball in play is 75% with the remaining 25% leaving you still with a chance of hitting with a 2 strike count.   Now it is less about whether you can put the ball in play but how successful are you when you do put the ball in play.     I know I am missing a lot of nuances here.   One of the positive nuances is that pitchers appear to hate batters trying to bunt for hits.   It gives them something to think about in mid pitch that throws them off their rhythm as well as get them moving off the mound which many don't like and are not particularly good at.   Fielders also seem to mess up a great deal more on bunts than on regular balls put into play so a successful bunt should not be defined as just for a sacrifice or for a hit but also for what doesn't show up positively in the box score which is a bunt for which the fielder makes an error.  

[jimmer]

Isn't the success rate of 49% of bunt attempts put into play a bit misleading.   Lets round up and make it 50%.  That's just per bunt attempt.   If you commit to attempting the bunt three times in an at bat wouldn't the success rate of putting the ball in play for that at bat be closer to 87% (50% the first attempt, 25% for the 2nd and 12.5% for the third attempt).      Even if you eliminate the idea of bunting on the 3rd strike your success rate of putting the ball in play is 75% with the remaining 25% leaving you still with a chance of hitting with a 2 strike count.   Now it is less about whether you can put the ball in play but how successful are you when you do put the ball in play.     I know I am missing a lot of nuances here.   One of the positive nuances is that pitchers appear to hate batters trying to bunt for hits.   It gives them something to think about in mid pitch that throws them off their rhythm as well as get them moving off the mound which many don't like and are not particularly good at.   Fielders also seem to mess up a great deal more on bunts than on regular balls put into play so a successful bunt should not be defined as just for a sacrifice or for a hit but also for what doesn't show up positively in the box score which is a bunt for which the fielder makes an error.  

and by success rate in this instance they mean the bunt was put in play fair not that was a hit or that it did it's intended purpose.

[jimmer]

So, the head of umpires works for MLB, and they give the umpires the pitch f/x info that, by studying it, has caused the umpires to increase in strike zone that they call. The umpires do that cause they are graded on strike zone accuracy which can be determined by pitchf/x given to them by MLB.

 

And knowing that, we can't conclude that MLB has directed the expanded strike zone (even if that means, hey guys, call the strike zone by the rule which you haven't been doing)?

 

And now we have MLB saying that Ks are out of control and they are looking at shrinking the zone that has gotten bigger over the last five years, a zone that has coincided with the pitchf/x era.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jimmer

[Rosterman]

Some tough decisions on the lineup.

 

I vote for Santana to lead-off. You don't need lead-off homeruns in baseball. Better if the knock the batter in ahead of them.

 

But the rest, well, I just say leave Mauer in the number 3 spot.

 

Talk emerged about Hunter batting second. Not a bad choice if he keeps his average up. But is there much difference between him batting second or Dozier, or even Suzucki.

 

But who bats cleanup. Not Vargas yet. Or Arcia. Plouffe could be the poster boy, but that depends on Hunter and Dozier, neither of whom should probably bat clean-up, but how far down the order do you bury them.

 

Ultimately, we can pencil in Hicks or Escobar in the 9th spot..

 

Be interesting to see the final results.

 

Hey, maybe we SHOULD batter Mauer like 7th or 8th!

[Willihammer]

That's just bunts put in play not all bunt attempts.

Right. By comparison, on swings, Gomez fouls 41.0% of the time (Brooks baseball) and whiffs 26.9% of the time. He has an OBP% of .210 on swing attempts and Slg% of .341 (.550 OPS).

 

Assuming Gomez is an average bunter, then his whiff+Foul% is 49.6%. With a .452 BIP BA% on bunt attempts then his Bunt attempt OBP is .228 and Slg is .228 (assuming all bunt hits are singles), for an OPS of .456. So even with a guy who swings and misses a lot, and who gets on base a lot when he does get the bunt down, Gomez is still better off swinging. By 100 points of OPS.

 

Edit: correction, gomez's OBP% on Swing attempts is .130 and Slg% on swings is .211, for a OPS of .341. Shoot, the bunt attempt wins, by a landslide?

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5pIzP28qdp-SnlBQTVCaXgyVUU/view?usp=sharing

Edited February 26, 2015 by Willihammer

[Shane Wahl]

I still cannot understand any justification for batting Mauer third, at least not in this lineup. Potentially I could see a Buxton-Polanco top of the order, but that is not close right now.

[jimmer]

Right. By comparison, on swings, Gomez fouls 41.6% of the time (Brooks baseball) and whiffs 26.5% of the time. He has an OBP% of .210 on swing attempts and Slg% of .341 (.550 OPS).

 

Assuming Gomez is an average bunter, then his whiff+Foul% is 49.6%. With a .452 BIP BA% on bunt attempts then his Bunt attempt OBP is .228 and Slg is .228 (assuming all bunt hits are singles), for an OPS of .456. So even with a guy who swings and misses a lot, and who gets on base a lot when he does get the bunt down, Gomez is still better off swinging. By 100 points of OPS.

yup

[jimmer]

I still cannot understand any justification for batting Mauer third, at least not in this lineup. Potentially I could see a Buxton-Polanco top of the order, but that is not close right now.

How about his career wRC+ over 130 and career line with RISP of .330/.456/.479.

 

I'm not advocating he stay #3, but those specific numbers might suggest it's not ridiculous to put him there.

[Willihammer]

yup

Eh... I goofed on my math initially.

 

Someone should check my math. See link.

[tobi0040]

How about his career wRC+ over 130 and career line with RISP of .330/.456/.479.

 

I'm not advocating he stay #3, but those specific numbers might suggest it's not ridiculous to put him there.

 

Well I heard that 92% of the time Joe has a runner on first he hits into a double play*

 

*Implies I am kidding

Edited February 26, 2015 by tobi0040

[jimmer]

Well I heard that 92% of the time Joe has a runner on first he hits into a double play*

 

*Implies I am kidding

and the other 8 % he strikes out :-)

[jokin]

That's just bunts put in play not all bunt attempts.  

 

I realize that, but the times both of these players struck out on bunt attempts is likely very minimal, thus doesn't change the numbers much and doesn't affect the overall point\-  decent-to-good bunting skills should add great value over another similar player unable to lay them down effectively, With the huge upswing in Ks in the game, and drop in power, creating baserunners is the priority. The threat to get on via the bunt at a high rate should serve to neutralize the shift effect to some degree, and pump up the top priority, OBP.  Obviously, a manager wouldn't want a Cabrera to ever bunt much, if ever, but it seems like a solid gold strategy for table setter types and those with non-elite power, pull tendencies and a low BB percentage.

[Shane Wahl]

How about his career wRC+ over 130 and career line with RISP of .330/.456/.479.

 

I'm not advocating he stay #3, but those specific numbers might suggest it's not ridiculous to put him there.

 

Bat him fourth then. I think the 4th guy comes up, on average, with more runners on base than anyone else.

[Dantes929]

Right. By comparison, on swings, Gomez fouls 41.0% of the time (Brooks baseball) and whiffs 26.9% of the time. He has an OBP% of .210 on swing attempts and Slg% of .341 (.550 OPS).

 

Assuming Gomez is an average bunter, then his whiff+Foul% is 49.6%. With a .452 BIP BA% on bunt attempts then his Bunt attempt OBP is .228 and Slg is .228 (assuming all bunt hits are singles), for an OPS of .456. So even with a guy who swings and misses a lot, and who gets on base a lot when he does get the bunt down, Gomez is still better off swinging. By 100 points of OPS.

 

Edit: correction, gomez's OBP% on Swing attempts is .130 and Slg% on swings is .211, for a OPS of .341. Shoot, the bunt attempt wins, by a landslide?

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5pIzP28qdp-SnlBQTVCaXgyVUU/view?usp=sharing

Thank you for that.  It didn't feel right and I was trying to come up with a way to refute it.  I always felt guys like Casilla and Gomez (circa Twins) should bunt more because it just seemed like they were successful enough to warrant it.   I also always felt Puckett and Carew added quite a few points to their average (as well as OBP and possibly OPS)  by doing so.    I hope Buxton uses it in his arsenal as well.

[Dantes929]

Bat him fourth then. I think the 4th guy comes up, on average, with more runners on base than anyone else.

There was a time when Mauer would get intentionally walked in order to face Morneau which makes me think it would not have been ridiculous to switch them.    I am not sure if the wRC stat says Mauer should be batting 4th because it doesn't say he drives in the most runners that are on base.    Much of the value is that he gets on base himself..    Table setting seems to have a slight advantage over table clearing in his wRC IMO..   

[Jham]

What a beautifully nuanced game our national pass-time is that we can have such meaningful discussions as to the merit of moving Mauer up or down 1 spot in the batting order, or the advantages and disadvantages of bunting against the shift.  With empirical data to back it up, no less.  

Regarding the latter, I consider bunting an extremely situational play.   In essence, each the scenarios that play out during the course of the game will almost certainly change the cost/benefit ratio of the bunt.  Two players referenced in this thread, David Ortiz and Carlos Gomez could not be different in terms of foot speed.  It would be folly to rely on a metric that did not take this into account.  Also, the point of the game, may alter your approach as may a hundred other factors.  

If Ortiz is up in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game with 2 outs, and he can drop down a bunt and get a free runner, do you take it?  Might depend who's pitching, who's fielding, who is on the bench to pinch run, who is on deck, who might pinch hit, whether you have an advantage in extra innings, who they have left in the pen, who is due up for your opponent, the relative success of Ortiz and the next hitter against the current pitcher and the one warming in the pen, and a thousand more things that might have an effect on the outcome...  Now do the same thing for Gomez.  Now for Mauer.  Baseball is awesome.  Opening day can't come soon enough.

[jimmer]

Bat him fourth then. I think the 4th guy comes up, on average, with more runners on base than anyone else.

if you want the guy with the best OBP on the team not being in the top 3 of the lineup, then yeah.  For me, when you add the overall OBP to that high wRC+ and #s with RISP, it still looks more like #2 or #3.  To me, anyway.  I like him #2 now, but I can see valid reasons why #3 still make sense as well.  He fits both spots very well, IMO.

Edited February 26, 2015 by jimmer

[Willihammer]

Thank you for that.  It didn't feel right and I was trying to come up with a way to refute it.  I always felt guys like Casilla and Gomez (circa Twins) should bunt more because it just seemed like they were successful enough to warrant it.   I also always felt Puckett and Carew added quite a few points to their average (as well as OBP and possibly OPS)  by doing so.    I hope Buxton uses it in his arsenal as well.

If anything I think maybe that exercise shows that a hitters propensity to miss or foul when swinging is an important consideration in weighing whether or not to bunt (regularly, not just in special late game situations) against a shift.

 

For someone like V-Mart who has tremendous contact ability and excellent results on balls in play, the equation probably won't favor bunting nearly as much (if at all).