Article: LAA 5, MIN 4: More Missed Opportunities

[Don Walcott]

Is it possible that Buxton isn't just ready to hit leadoff, but that he's our best option hitting leadoff?

 

I think so. I hope so. Please let it be so.

[bighat]

 

 

We agree that there aren't a lot of good choices for the lead off role. This all gets back to the preseason discussion that the Twins had upgraded the roster but had not found enough higher OBP guys to go with the increase in power guys. I think where we disagree is in the choice.

 

I think Polanco is a better choice to lead off. I would lead him off when Garver isn't playing with Gonzalez hitting 2 now that he's knocked the rust off. I would bat Garver and Polanco 1 and 2 when Garver is playing and the order doesn't matter much to me with a slight preference for leading off Polanco because of his speed compared to Garver. I just don't see Kepler as hitting in the top 5 or maybe even the top 6 once Sano is back. I think he's better suited for the 6-8 holes in combination with Schoop and Castro; the more inconsistent boom or bust guys. I also think that's better for Kepler; he has a lot of development left to do (we hope) and putting him in a lower pressure situation should help that. Move him up when he's ready. 

 

I have to agree. The problem is, if you have Polanco batting leadoff, who do you bat second? Buxton? Then where do Cron and Sano fit in? Do we bat Schoop 9th? Should Gaver (when playing) be in the heart of the order? I personally like Garver down at about 7, with Kepler in the 8 hole, Buxton at 9.

 

At some point though, the Twins should move Buxton up and see what he can do in the 1 or 2 hole. He should be ready for that later this year I hope.

[bighat]

 

 

Is it possible that Buxton isn't just ready to hit leadoff, but that he's our best option hitting leadoff?

 

I think so. I hope so. Please let it be so.

 

Funny, I was typing the exact same thing as you posted this. At some point I think the Twins have to just give him a shot.

[Don Walcott]

 

Funny, I was typing the exact same thing as you posted this. At some point I think the Twins have to just give him a shot.

Assuming he keeps hitting like he is now, he would score a lot of runs. Any hit or walk is like giving him a double (and he has been getting his fair share of actual doubles). Plus Polanco hitting behind him will likely ensure that he gets more good pitches to hit. And having Buxton on second will give Polanco and Cruz more RBI opportunities. Seems like it would be the best of all possible worlds . . . assuming Buxton keeps hitting like he has so far this year.

 

What's the down side? Seems like the up side is hard to resist at this point.

[Mr. Brooks]

I liked her non-confrontational version of the question better. Granted, there might have been a time in the near past when “what the hell are you doing out there” would have been an honest question for the manager and front office, but not now

Only in Minnesota would, "Why did you send Berrios back out for the 6th?", be considered confrontational.

[jkcarew]

 

But when the shift doesn't work it most definitely stands out a lot more than when it does.

It would make sense to me that we will see shifts beaten more often going forward as the shift pendulum swings too far. Where the 'marginal' power guys become willing to look to beat the shift. Just eyeball/gut, I thought it was absurd that the Tigers were shifting Polanco. And, sure enough, he burned them multiple times.

 

Maybe I'm just hoping. The pull/launch thing is great, but I like the idea of diverse styles and approaches surviving the data-driven evolution.

[Mike Sixel]

There are times to bunt late in games, maybe. But here is some math (note, this is not a game thread, so you were not promised no math, sir or madam).

 

https://www.danblewett.com/run-expectancy-bunting-bad/

 

[jkcarew]

 

I’m not scoffing at the idea of productive outs, but I’m not bothered that Kep didn’t advance the runner there. Yes, it would have been nice, sure. Twins fans have endured 25 years of “move ‘em over, get ‘em in” ... “play for a run, lose by a run” style of baseball. I like this version better!

But we just lost by a run.

My thing is...why does having the ability to pull and launch and hit home runs have to preclude the ability to move a runner when the scenario calls for that? You'd like to see that type of versatility...at least among guys that aren't going to be anywhere near league-leaders in power numbers.

 

(by the way...not necessarily a Kepler thing, really. Kepler was trying to move the runner...he's always trying to pull the ball which was the play there. Just got beat by the pitch.)

 

[Riverbrian]

 

There are times to bunt late in games, maybe. But here is some math (note, this is not a game thread, so you were not promised no math, sir or madam).

 

https://www.danblewett.com/run-expectancy-bunting-bad/

 

This would be an overly simplistic view of things... however, this is how I look at it. 

 

When you bunt... you are playing for one run and one run only. Sure you'll take 5 runs in the inning if it happens but whenever, you lay down a bunt, you have lessened your chance to put 5 runs on the board that inning by creating the out and those outs are precious. So, whenever you bunt, you are saying forget 5 runs this inning... I need 1 run right now. You are laying down the bunt to get a single run across the plate. 

 

When you don't bunt, you are playing for as many runs as you can possibly get in a given inning and teams should always be trying to score as many runs as possible in any given inning. 

 

Unless, time is running out. That is the only time that playing for a single run and a single run only makes sense. If you are down a run or tied and that Single run keeps you alive or wins it. 

 

That's why I'm not bunting until the 8th or 9th inning and the game is tied or 1 run apart.

 

If Astudillo would have hit a single instead of a double last night, leading off the 8th... I'm not sure that I would have bunted in that situation... but since it was a double... getting the pinch runner to third where a sacrifice fly or a seeing eye single through the drawn in infield ties the game. This isn't a moment to think about getting 5 runs in the 8th... this is a moment to think about tying the game up. 

 

This is one of the few situations were the bunt is almost required. 

 

It was an execution failure. 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

 

But we just lost by a run.

My thing is...why does having the ability to pull and launch and hit home runs have to preclude the ability to move a runner when the scenario calls for that? You'd like to see that type of versatility...at least among guys that aren't going to be anywhere near league-leaders in power numbers.

 

(by the way...not necessarily a Kepler thing, really. Kepler was trying to move the runner...he's always trying to pull the ball which was the play there. Just got beat by the pitch.)

 

Yep,

 

You are not going to use your driver to chip on to the green from 30 feet out. Teams and players need to have multiple clubs in the bag. 

[jkcarew]

 

Do you guys really like Kepler as a lead off hitter?

Don't love him there...but given alternatives, I'm good with it.

 

When looking at it, we'd probably be better off considering Kepler's numbers against righties only. He's not batting lead-off against lefties. And his OBP against righties...while not outstanding...is decent, and better than Buxton's.

 

Against lefties, I'm good with Garver leading off at this time.

 

My feeling is that lead-off batters have more pressure and see different pitching approaches (certainly relative to no. 9 hitters). Even if Buxton continues to make progress, I want him with a solid season behind him before we ask him to take that on...as long as the alternatives are 'decent'...which I feel the Kepler/Garver platoon is (so far).

[Riverbrian]

 

Regarding not bunting--with all of the strikeouts and pop flies in today's game, it is far from a guarantee that the next guy will bring in that run. Kepler hits a lot of pop flies and a lot of grounders into the shift, one of the two would have advanced the runner, the other not so much. 

 

Kepler is consistently inconsistent. He's already had three or four "snags" where he's 1-10, 2-15. He'll come out of it with multiple hits and extra base hits. I'd like to see a true leadoff hitter, but given what is available, I think Kepler is as good a choice as anyone.

 

Considering that the runner needed to be moved over first and foremost... I think it's possible that Adrianza was the better choice in that situation. Either bunting or hitting the ball behind the runner. 

 

But, like Chief said and Jkcarew said... Sometimes players fail. 

 

Right now... Psychologically... I'm just hoping that the Twins are not trying to out homer each other.

 

I've seen baseball teams get on home run rolls like the Twins have been on and get drunk with the power. The home runs come so easy that they start losing sight of the little things (like mere singles, driving in runs/keeping the chain moving) while in pursuit of the almighty dinger. 

 

I wouldn't proclaim it but I am suggesting the possibility that our struggles with runners in scoring position the past few games could be drunk with the power related. 

 

Just keep hitting the ball guys... they will still leave the park on occasion. 

 

 

 

 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

 

Kepler absolutely has to advance the runner there. You can swing for the fences all you want, but if you get a gift situation like that in the 8th inning you get that runner over by hook or by crook!

Or bunt.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This would be an overly simplistic view of things... however, this is how I look at it. 

 

When you bunt... you are playing for one run and one run only. Sure you'll take 5 runs in the inning if it happens but whenever, you lay down a bunt, you have lessened your chance to put 5 runs on the board that inning by creating the out and those outs are precious. So, whenever you bunt, you are saying forget 5 runs this inning... I need 1 run right now. You are laying down the bunt to get a single run across the plate. 

 

When you don't bunt, you are playing for as many runs as you can possibly get in a given inning and teams should always be trying to score as many runs as possible in any given inning. 

 

Unless, time is running out. That is the only time that playing for a single run and a single run only makes sense. If you are down a run or tied and that Single run keeps you alive or wins it. 

 

That's why I'm not bunting until the 8th or 9th inning and the game is tied or 1 run apart.

 

If Astudillo would have hit a single instead of a double last night, leading off the 8th... I'm not sure that I would have bunted in that situation... but since it was a double... getting the pinch runner to third where a sacrifice fly or a seeing eye single through the drawn in infield ties the game. This isn't a moment to think about getting 5 runs in the 8th... this is a moment to think about tying the game up. 

 

This is one of the few situations were the bunt is almost required. 

 

It was an execution failure. 

 

did you read the math article?

 

Bunting there decreases your odds of scoring by 5%, give or take. Seems odd, but it does.

[USAFChief]

 

There are times to bunt late in games, maybe. But here is some math (note, this is not a game thread, so you were not promised no math, sir or madam).

 

https://www.danblewett.com/run-expectancy-bunting-bad/

There is a place for math, but in this case, the math is fuzzier then it first appears.

 

First, the math assumes that all base/out situations are created equally. That 2nd base, no out, with a hard throwing reliever against the bottom of the order is the same as 2nd base, no out, middle of the order against somebody's tiring 5th starter. That LH/RH don't matter for pitcher or hitter. None of this is ever true. This is a case where averages obscure the truth, rather than reveal it. There's an old saying...a statistician will look at a guy with one foot in boiling water and one frozen in ice and conclude, on average, the guy must be pretty comfortable.

 

Second, having seen these studies before, I believe the math shows that in certain situations, sac bunting  actually increases the chances of scoring exactly one run, while lowering the chances of scoring multiple runs. And I agree with RB...there are situations when scoring one run is so important that I'd be more than willing to lower my chances of two or more to increase my chances of one.

 

And third, I don't even care if Kepler bunts there. A sac bunt attempt isn't guaranteed to advance the runner either. But if the team isn't going to bunt in that situation, then the hitter absolutely, positively, has to sell out to hit the ball to the right side, to maximize his chances of advancing that runner to third. In this case, Kepler swung wildly at the first pitch, a pitch that was very "pullable," and then got beat on a pitch away, which he had little chance of pulling, and popped up weakly to the left side. 

 

That's a failure to understand the situation, IMO, not just a failure to get the job done. It's the 8th inning. Your first priority has to be "get this sucker tied up." 

[Mike Sixel]

 

There is a place for math, but in this case, the math is fuzzier then it first appears.

 

First, the math assumes that all base/out situations are created equally. That 2nd base, no out, with a hard throwing reliever against the bottom of the order is the same as 2nd base, no out, middle of the order against somebody's tiring 5th starter. That LH/RH don't matter for pitcher or hitter. None of this is ever true. This is a case where averages obscure the truth, rather than reveal it. There's an old saying...a statistician will look at a guy with one foot in boiling water and one frozen in ice and conclude, on average, the guy must be pretty comfortable.

 

Second, having seen these studies before, I believe the math shows that in certain situations, sac bunting  actually increases the chances of scoring exactly one run, while lowering the chances of scoring multiple runs. And I agree with RB...there are situations when scoring one run is so important that I'd be more than willing to lower my chances of two or more to increase my chances of one.

 

And third, I don't even care if Kepler bunts there. A sac bunt attempt isn't guaranteed to advance the runner either. But if the team isn't going to bunt in that situation, then the hitter absolutely, positively, has to sell out to hit the ball to the right side, to maximize his chances of advancing that runner to third. In this case, Kepler swung wildly at the first pitch, a pitch that was very "pullable," and then got beat on a pitch away, which he had little chance of pulling, and popped up weakly to the left side. 

 

That's a failure to understand the situation, IMO, not just a failure to get the job done. It's the 8th inning. Your first priority has to be "get this sucker tied up." 

 

It's a stupid old saying, as people that understand math would never use average that way, but I get your point. We probably won't agree here.....

[70charger]

 

 

Just keep hitting the ball guys... they will still leave the park on occasion. 

 

This is where commas are important.

[USAFChief]

 

It's a stupid old saying, as people that understand math would never use average that way, but I get your point. We probably won't agree here.....

I would argue the person who posted that rather limited and incomplete article about "run expectancy" used math exactly that way.

 

Maybe I understand math better than people that understand math.

[ashbury]

Second, having seen these studies before, I believe the math shows that in certain situations, sac bunting  actually increases the chances of scoring exactly one run, while lowering the chances of scoring multiple runs.

Yes. This is key. (The other points you raised are also valid.)

 

In the early part of the game, you don't really have much idea how many runs you need. So don't do things that reduce the average number of runs.

 

Late in the game when it's close, you have a better idea of the value of one solitary run. Then you do things that increase the chance of scoring anything at all.

 

Unless I missed something, the tables in the linked article were for average numbers of runs. "We’ll touch on run expectancy and bunting today, and cover probability another day." Someone needs to go find that other article.

[USAFChief]

 

Yes. This is key. (The other points you raised are also valid.)

 

In the early part of the game, you don't really have much idea how many runs you need. So don't do things that reduce the average number of runs.

 

Late in the game when it's close, you have a better idea of the value of one solitary run. Then you do things that increase the chance of scoring anything at all.

 

Unless I missed something, the tables in the linked article were for average numbers of runs. "We’ll touch on run expectancy and bunting today, and cover probability another day." Someone needs to go find that other article.

https://www.athleticsnation.com/2013/8/7/4590940/a-statistical-defense-sort-of-of-the-sac-bunt

 

try this. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover bunting a runner from 2nd to 3rd with 0 out.

 

 

[yarnivek1972]

The Twins have a lot of guys that lack plate discipline, even moreso with Cruz on the shelf.

 

The result is going to be a lot of bad at bats. The times when good at bats are IMPERATIVE are the RISP ABs. This is a problem that is not going to go away with this group of hitters. This is simply who they are.

[Riverbrian]

 

This is where commas are important.

 

I meant that. 

 

I'm sick and tired of ball guys. 

[Riverbrian]

 

did you read the math article?

 

Bunting there decreases your odds of scoring by 5%, give or take. Seems odd, but it does.

 

I did

 

Run expectancy: how many runs we can expect to score, on average, given a specific base/out state.

 

That explains everything right there. "how many"? 

 

The chart illustrates that you will score less runs on average when you bunt and this is because when you sacrifice an out... you also sacrifice one-third of your ability to score multiple runs and therefore make it harder to hang a 6 on the scoreboard. As a result you score less runs and reduce expectancy in the process. 

 

The chart the article needs: What happens to the percentages of scoring one run and one run only. That's the chart that will tell you if Kepler or Adrianza should have bunted last night in the 8th. 

We didn't need 6 runs... we needed 1. 

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think enough was said in this thread that our bullpen did a pretty good job giving us a chance.

 

We're quick to rip them when they blow a game, but with how bad Berrios was we only had a shot because the bullpen held down a big chunk of the game.

[USAFChief]

I don't think enough was said in this thread that our bullpen did a pretty good job giving us a chance.

 

We're quick to rip them when they blow a game, but with how bad Berrios was we only had a shot because the bullpen held down a big chunk of the game.

if by bullpen you mean Taylor Rogers, then yeah. Agreed.