Article: MIN 6, TB 4: Cruz Bails Out Another Bunting Blunder

[Bavarian]

Barely won the home series that could have gone the other way and just split a 4-game series on the road.  Not many easy games that I saw.  But rest on your laurels (6-3) record vs the worst team in the division. 

[VATwinsFan]

Fun fact: the Twins record against teams that are above .500 is 20-14.  A healthy team may not steamroll its way through the playoffs (see all the BP discussions), but you'd have to say it would be competitive.

[Bavarian]

Yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to deploy that strategy there.  What, you have to wait an inning or two?  Why?  It's the 7th!  And based on what, some unwritten rule? 

 

That's my biggest beef with the author of this topic in that he believes there's no other option than to swing.  That's BS.  I can actually live with either option but to claim there's only ONE option is farfetched and fandom speak.  Armchair QB.  Revisionist sunglasses.  Poor, short-sighted insight.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Bavarian

[bighat]

 

Looked like May was not happy with the HR he gave up. I think he could become an elite reliever when his command becomes more regular.

 

Honeymoon's over, dude. We've been hearing this for the past 5 years.

 

Trevor May will be turning 30 years old before the season ends. He's got a career 4.79 ERA in over 250 innings pitched.

 

What you see is what he is. There's no more time to develop. He is a average-to-fringe bullpen guy who, when he's "feeling it", can strike out anyone in baseball. He is also going to give up runs, period.

 

We all like the guy but it's time to stop pretending he's going to change.

[terrydactyls]

Yesterday was Wednesday, June 26 and it was the 79th game of the year.  The Twins are now 49%  of the way through the season.  Out of 59 years, the current team ranks 21st on the all-time list of Twins' home runs in one season and are on a pace to hit 306 home runs this season.

[bighat]

 

Base hit doesn't score Castro.   We know that because the next batter got a base hit and it didn't score Castro.    If Schoop gets the bunt down then a base hit likely scores Castro and Cave and lesser stuff scores Castro from third.    If sac is successful you only need one guy to come through to score two runs (in this case Arraez) instead of two guys (Arraez and Cruz) ,     7th inning is late enough in the game for me to start thinking about 1 or two runs.    We didn't score in the 8th or 9th.    If Cruz didn't come through there and we lost the game I would have   considered the failed bunt attempt to have cost us the game rather than the decision to bunt with the one major caviat you mentioned about knowing your personnel.   If Schoop is a  lousy bunter that changes things.  Again, I'm not advocating sacrifice bunt in that situation but I don't think it is a horrendously stupid play.    I have seen too many strike outs, pop outs and ground outs with no outs and runners on  1st and 2nd followed by fly balls that would have scored the run if the runners  had been moved over.    Before the 7th inning?    No.   I really wanted one run there and was hoping for two.    Three was just a bonus.    Didn't you feel just a little annoyed when Arraez came through that Schoop hadn't advanced the runners?    You certainly didn't know Cruz would come through.

 

Pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.

[USAFChief]

 

The Twins sure struggled against them.  They did reach consecutive World Series recently and won one.  But don't let that get in the way of a weak joke.

Oh come on, man. 

 

That was quality.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Barely won the home series that could have gone the other way and just split a 4-game series on the road.  Not many easy games that I saw.  But rest on your laurels (6-3) record vs the worst team in the division. 

I'm not "resting my laurels" on anything. The Twins had a rough series against the Royals and came away with the split.

 

It happens over a 162 game season. The Astros are probably the best team in the league and they just got swept by the Cincinnati-freakin-Reds last week.

 

It happens. Overall, the Twins are doing just fine against the Royals and that's what really matters.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to deploy that strategy there.  What, you have to wait an inning or two?  Why?  It's the 7th!  And based on what, some unwritten rule? 

No, based on math.

 

That's why it was a bad decision. Baldelli plays the numbers the vast majority of the time, as he should. Because playing the numbers wins the most games over the course of a 162 game season.

 

For some reason, he didn't play the numbers here and the strategy failed.

[MMMordabito]

 

Barely won the home series that could have gone the other way and just split a 4-game series on the road.  Not many easy games that I saw.  But rest on your laurels (6-3) record vs the worst team in the division. 

 

The World Champs are 7-3 vs. the worst team in baseball, and some of those games could have gone either way as well.  Yes, the Royals are pesky and probably do some fundamental things a bit better than the Twins, but their formula paired with their current talent level isn't a recipe for success and the record shows.

[Bavarian]

Agreed.  Very tough series'.  And to simply state our overall record hardly tells the whole story which is that one element of their game is very effective and can certainly help this team down the stretch.  You didn't address anything else from my post other than the hanging fruit for a wise comment.  I'm sure you can do better.

[Bavarian]

Hey pal, don't take the leap of absurdity here.  No one and I mean no one is comparing or envies the Royals.  Stop following the flashy shiny objects and focus on the finer point of detail here - the effectiveness of bunting.  Argue that, not the Royals record.  Come on, now.

[terrydactyls]

No, based on math.

 

That's why it was a bad decision. Baldelli plays the numbers the vast majority of the time, as he should. Because playing the numbers wins the most games over the course of a 162 game season.

 

For some reason, he didn't play the numbers here and the strategy failed.

 

Please present the "math" that supports your argument.

[MMMordabito]

 

Yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to deploy that strategy there.  What, you have to wait an inning or two?  Why?  It's the 7th!  And based on what, some unwritten rule? 

 

That's my biggest beef with the author of this topic in that he believes there's no other option than to swing.  That's BS.  I can actually live with either option but to claim there's only ONE option is farfetched and fandom speak.  Armchair QB.  Revisionist sunglasses.  Poor, short-sighted insight.

 

I agree that the strategy was reasonable, but not with the player that was tasked with executing it.  Tom's critique of Baldelli not using the strengths of his players correctly is justified.  Other's have added some information in the comments that seem to back the critique as well.  

 

Schoop looked completely lost and out of place trying to execute the bunt. 

 

The good thing is that Arraez and Cruz picked him (and Polanco) up, the bullpen held, and the number in the W column is one higher than it was at 7:09 PM CST on 6/26.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Hey pal, don't take the leap of absurdity here.  No one and I mean no one is comparing or envies the Royals.  Stop following the flashy shiny objects and focus on the finer point of detail here - the effectiveness of bunting.  Argue that, not the Royals record.  Come on, now.

Most/all MLB players should be competent bunters. On that, I agree.

 

Where I disagree wildly is that it was a smart strategy last night because the numbers said it wasn't and I hope Baldelli goes back to his policy of playing the numbers.

 

Bunting is useful on the rare occasion the numbers say it's a good idea to use (and that situation is more likely to pop up in the postseason where dropping a game unnecessarily can be devastating). Therefore, MLB players (outside of the best hitters in the lineup) should be at least marginally competent at laying down a bunt.

 

But, again, being competent at bunting isn't the point most of us are arguing. We're saying it was a bad idea last night because it was a bad idea last night.

[Bavarian]

Allright, it was good.  I actually liked it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Please present the "math" that supports your argument.

Here, let me google that for you.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=fangraphs.com+bunting&oq=fangraphs.com+bunting&aqs=chrome..69i64j69i60l2j69i57.8190j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Bavarian]

We'll agree to disagree.  I thought it was a great occasion.  I'm not sure what you're waiting for, actually.  Some numbers?  Some magical moment?  What numbers, then? 

 

And the hitting coach and other coaches should actually be practicing this if they're going to implement.  That's no excuse whatsoever.

[Shaitan]

In a sport where an out in 7/10 of AB gets you into the hall of fame you'd think fans could take failure to execute in a game the team won a little easier than we do.

[Bavarian]

Those are theories based on analytics.  If you're telling me that play CAN'T work, that's one thing.  I watch the Royals execute bunting to perfection and it is effective. 

 

I understand this is more or less a thing of the past.  And while that may be true, what is also true is that teams are no longer  preparing for it defensively.  What an opportunity to utilize.  And I would like to see advanced stats in the playoffs when facing top 3 starters and top relievers on rest.  Give me data I can use.  Because I'm telling you, when you have free-swingers in clutch moments against elite pitching, their failure rate goes way up.  I'd like to see specific stats in situational moments to better understand what goes on behind that statement.  Those stats are covering a 162-game season which doesn't tell me much about playoff manufacturing of runs.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We'll agree to disagree. I thought it was a great occasion. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, actually. Some numbers? Some magical moment? What numbers, then?

Not some magical moment, just the moment it makes sense to bunt when you want to win a baseball game.

 

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

 

“Sac Bunt, 1st & 2nd to 2nd & 3rd

 

This one is probably the biggest mistake of the three in youth baseball, because it reduces the team’s chances of having a BIG inning, and big innings often single-handedly win games. The reduction in run expectancy (RE) is only 0.06 runs, and so it basically wastes an out without improving the odds of scoring.”

[Bavarian]

They were down one run.  It's late.   You take the lead and you are six outs away from a W. 

 

Why must every inning be a BIG inning?  You can also hit into a DP there too, you know.  You can fly out keeping the force intact.  You can strike out keeping the force intact. 

 

You're not changing my mind here. 

[MMMordabito]

 

Yesterday was Wednesday, June 26 and it was the 79th game of the year.  The Twins are now 49%  of the way through the season.  Out of 59 years, the current team ranks 21st on the all-time list of Twins' home runs in one season and are on a pace to hit 306 home runs this season.

 

Need a barrage at Chicago this weekend to keep a healthy number over 300 at the half-way mark

[terrydactyls]

Here, let me google that for you.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=fangraphs.com+bunting&oq=fangraphs.com+bunting&aqs=chrome..69i64j69i60l2j69i57.8190j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That was an interesting five-year old opinion piece about bunting against the shift with a lot of cherry-picked names thrown out as examples of people who can't bunt. I remain doubtful about your premise based on this "study."

[Brock Beauchamp]

They were down one run. It's late. You take the lead and you are six outs away from a W.

 

Why must every inning be a BIG inning? You can also hit into a DP there too, you know. You can fly out keeping the force intact. You can strike out keeping the force intact.

 

You're not changing my mind here.

Read the article. The run expectancy actually drops and that’s if you SUCCESSFULLY execute the bunt.

 

Which Schoop did not.

 

I don’t care if I change your mind or not, the numbers are clear. Bunting in that situation is a bad idea. Feel free to go with your gut, I’ll go with the numbers every time.

[Riverbrian]

I understand why they bunted. I wouldn’t have bunted in that situation because we had a couple more innings to take a crack at it.

 

I believe the bunt call was questionable but regardless if it should have been called for or not.

 

You have to at least execute. If a bunt is called for... a bunt must be executed. To me that’s the biggest issue.

 

Yet I slept fine.

[Tom Froemming]

One last thing and then I'll hang up and listen

 

This is more about outs than anything. They're precious. The only way a baseball game advances is by making outs. I really hate the idea of willfully giving them away, especially the first one.

 

OK, on the bunting decision. If you want to get into the math on the specific scenarios, you can review Tom Tango's Run Expectancy Matrix, which is based on real-life data pulled from Retrosheet.

 

From the 2010-15 tables:

 

Chance a run will score at some point

First and second, no outs: 61%

Second and third, one out: 67.6%

 

Average number of total runs scored

First and second, no outs: 1.437

Second and third, one out: 1.367

 

So while you have slightly increased your odds of scoring a run, you've also hurt your odds of scoring multiple runs. But we're also taking a very broad look at this.

 

For me, the range of things that can potentially go wrong is not worth the increase of 6.6% that you'll score a run (also, that increase was only 5.4% from 1993-2009, 4.6% from 1969-92 and 4.1% from 1950-68). We're assuming the bunt gets executed properly, which you obviously cannot do. There's also the potential that Schoop could have gotten a hit or drew a walk. Heck, the opposing team could have committed an error (like the play prior to the bunt attempt) or the pitcher could uncork a wild pitch, who knows?

 

So accepting all the things that could go wrong and ignoring all the things that could go right just for a 6.6% better chance of scoring a run seems like a poor choice to me.

 

Now specifically in terms of the 2019 Twins, I think when you have a lineup with this kind of firepower and a bullpen with as many questions this one has, playing to tie the game in the seventh inning seems like a fool's errand. Obviously the pen took care of business in the final two innings last night, but that's not really something I'd like to bank on.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Now specifically in terms of the 2019 Twins, I think when you have a lineup with this kind of firepower and a bullpen with as many questions this one has, playing to tie the game in the seventh inning seems like a fool's errand.

On top of the numbers being against the move, this is what really made me go WTF.

 

Best offense in baseball. Possibly the worst bullpen amongst contenders. What could possibly go wrong with playing for one run in the seventh inning?

[In My La Z boy]

"A man's gotta know his limitations"

- Dirty Harry

Schoop can't bunt. That makes it a bad decision to have asked him to. Everything else is debatable. 

[rdehring]

Count me among those who loved the bunt call.  Forget all the numbers and studies, the most important part of that decision was the score, we were down 1 run, the point of the game, 7th inning, who was bunting and who the two hitters were behind him.

 

Getting two runners into scoring position for Arraez and Polanco makes a ton of sense to me.  Probably knowing that Schoop can't bunt, however, makes the decision questionable.  But if he bunts or strikes out, at least he didn't hit into a double play and the next two hitters have a good chance to tie or take the lead.

 

The bigger question for me is who do the Twins start at second base game one of the playoffs.  Personally, I hope like heck it is Arraez!