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

[SpicyGarvSauce]

 

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.

 

Did we, or has it been confirmed that Rocco called for this bunt?

[Mike Sixel]

Man, people hate math. If you are running a business, you make decisions based on process and numbers. The numbers are pretty clear, it is better to not bunt there. That's without realizing Schoop has good power.... And isn't a bunter!

 

This aversion to process doesn't surprise me though.

[nicksaviking]

Thankfully none of the injuries appear to be of great significance. Honestly, I kind of like this adversity at this point of the year. Guys are being forced to step up both out of position defensively and out of position as far as lineup construction goes. And so far they're winning despite the team looking like Baldelli is choosing who plays what position and where they bat by drawing names out of a hat. 

 

If the Twins cruised through the season with no adversity, I'd be more worried about them come the playoffs. 

[USAFChief]

 

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.

Who was it that brought up the Royals, again? 

[beckmt]

Good win,  problem is the Schoop is to have about 75% of the outcomes being bad, the only ones that work are a hit, a walk or a fly ball deep enough to advance Castro to third (which would have to be to the wall in center or right).  Maybe it worked out for the best  because some of the results would have been a DP.

[lunemann]

 

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.

 

I'd be willing to bet against elite pitching failure rate goes way up regardless of your free-swinging tendencies.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Did we, or has it been confirmed that Rocco called for this bunt?

I have not seen definitive information one way or the other but people are indicating that he did so I'm going from that limited information.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

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.

 

The one issue here when using run expectancy to say bunting is a bad idea is that you're not weighting the likelihood of outcomes for not bunting.  Let's use Jonathan Schoop as an example.  Assuming that a single only advances the runners one base, below are the percentage for each scenario.

 

123, 0 runs in, 0 outs; 20.2%

2, 2 runs in, 0 outs; 5.6%

3, 2 runs in, 0 outs; 0.0%

-, 3 runs in, 0 outs; 4.9%

12, 0 runs in, 1 out; 53.5%

3, 0 runs in, 2 outs; 5.9%

23, 0 runs in, 1 out; 10.0%

 

Some of these are simplified, as the multiple ways different states could come about are too legion to calculate, but I feel confident that for every situation I don't give him credit for (no errors, no chance for a triple, for example), there are probably more situations I do give him credit for (DP's always ending with a runner on third, non K/DP outs never erasing a lead runner, a 25% non K/DP productive out rate).  This results in the below weighted run expectancies and probabilities.

 

123, 0 runs in, 0 outs; .464 and .174

2, 2 runs in, 0 outs; .174 and .056

3, 2 runs in, 0 outs; 0 and 0

-, 3 runs in, 0 outs; .169 and .049

12, 0 runs in, 1 out; .473 and .217

3, 0 runs in, 2 outs; .021 and .015

23, 0 runs in, 1 out; .137 and .067

 

Sum those up, and the expected run outcome after Schoop's PA last night is 1.437, with a 57.8% chance of a run scoring.  Given that the baseline for the runners on 1st and 2nd, not outs situation is 1.437 runs with a 61% chance of a run scoring, Schoop batting neither increases nor decreases the expected runs, although it does lower the chance of scoring a run.  That being said, if you decrease his non K/DP productive out rate to 10%, the numbers dip to 1.408 and 56.2%

 

Now with bunting--let's assume 10% of the time he gets a hit, 50% of the time he successfully moves the runners to 2nd and 3rd, 35% of the time he fails to get the bunt down, and 5% of the time he actually bunts into a DP.  With those numbers, the expected runs come to 1.24, with a 57.9% chance of a run scoring.

 

In essence, since Schoop is unlikely to actually improve the expected runs for the inning, bunting, while lowering the chances of a big inning, increases the chances of a tie game.  In the 7th inning, against a team whose bullpen is 2nd in ERA, 1st in FIP, 3rd in xFIP, and 1st in HR/9, increasing the odds of taking advantage of a good opportunity is not a bad play.

[Bavarian]

So.

[longstrangetrip]

The discussion about Baldelli's decision to bunt is more evidence that baseball is far and away the most interesting sport.  I was at the game, and I can attest that no issue was more debated in my section than the bunt/no bunt decision.  I think most of us can agree there are compelling reasons on both sides of this argument.  As for me, I am generally a "no bunt" guy (and the math is on the side of the "no bunters").  But in this case, I was 100% on board with Rocco's choice to bunt, and find fault only with Schoop's poor execution.  Here is my logic:

 

1) Schoop has had a fine season, but has not been particularly productive recently....231 average with just 1 rbi in his last 7 games.

 

2) Being a solid contact guy with below average speed, Schoop is a likely DP candidate...in fact, his GIDP rate leads all Twins regulars.  While Arraez's single still would have plated one run for the inning,  a DP at that moment would have been a terrible outcome.

 

3) The next two hitters are currently our two best BA guys.  The chance of scoring at least two runs and taking the lead was quite high if Schoop could have laid down a successful bunt.

 

4) A few have said here that Schoop is a very poor bunter, but I was not aware of that...does anyone have his career bunting stats?  If he is something like 2 for 100 lifetime, then I would concur that Rocco blundered here.  But I suspect that Rocco has a better idea of Schoop's chances of laying down a good bunt than any of us here. Shame on Schoop though if he hasn't mastered a basic baseball skill that all middle infielders should have.  

 

Oddly, I felt somewhat relieved after Schoop whiffed on the third strike, because it meant no GIDP...felt even better after Arraez singled, and fortunately Cruz picked up Polanco after his popup.  All in all, a terrfic win last night, and a great baseball discussion!

[Bavarian]

I was talking about bunting as an option to move runners into scoring position.  Are you saying that the bunt rate decreases based on facing elite pitching and that it should not be attempted?  Is that your point?

 

Some of you guys are getting sidetracked here.  I am merely making a claim that bunting can be GOOD.  Not BAD all the time but GOOD.  You don't have to believe me.  Just stick to the notion that is supported by "numbers" you can believe in that bunting has no place in baseball.  Just don't try convincing me.

[TheMatt]

Bunt, no bunt. Rogers got 4 outs on 8 pitches.

[longstrangetrip]

 

I have not seen definitive information one way or the other but people are indicating that he did so I'm going from that limited information.

 

Certainly seems that this was Rocco's call.  Jonathan squared around early on the first pitch, which is more often than not indication of a manager call.  More importantly, he bunted on the second pitch.  If Rocco didn't want him bunting, it seems somehow that would have been made clear to Schoop before the second pitch.  But of course that's just conjecture. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Now with bunting--let's assume 10% of the time he gets a hit, 50% of the time he successfully moves the runners to 2nd and 3rd, 35% of the time he fails to get the bunt down, and 5% of the time he actually bunts into a DP.  With those numbers, the expected runs come to 1.24, with a 57.9% chance of a run scoring.

 

In essence, since Schoop is unlikely to actually improve the expected runs for the inning, bunting, while lowering the chances of a big inning, increases the chances of a tie game.  In the 7th inning, against a team whose bullpen is 2nd in ERA, 1st in FIP, 3rd in xFIP, and 1st in HR/9, increasing the odds of taking advantage of a good opportunity is not a bad play.

First paragraph: I don't think these numbers are correct but that's a little nit-picking. My (somewhat vague) recollection is that hitters generally only bunt a ball fair 50% of the time. Success is well under 50%. Anyway, that's not my real point.

 

Second paragraph: Yes, and this is the exact point. The chance of scoring a single run increases slightly but the chance of scoring multiple runs decreases slightly. Those are literally the numbers. It was the seventh inning and the Twins' chances to score more than one run were diminished. If it was a tie game and the Twins needed just one run to win, it's a more defensible move. It's an easily defensible move if the same situation arises in the ninth inning, at which point it becomes the numbers move.

 

The Rays' bullpen is kinda irrelevant in the argument because it's not as if the Twins get to face the Orioles bullpen after the eighth inning if they tie the game. They still have to go out and hack away against one of the better bullpens in baseball, only they do it with nobody on base.

[SpicyGarvSauce]

 

I have not seen definitive information one way or the other but people are indicating that he did so I'm going from that limited information.

 

Hm, I haven't seen anything definitive.

 

The reason I ask is because it was a rather popular topic of discussion when Polanco did it last week, and Baldelli was asked about it in the post game and was quite adamant that he did not call for that (Polanco did it on his own) and would never really think of calling for a bunt in that situation (the two situations were exactly the same, 1st and 2nd, 0 out, but maybe an inning earlier this time).

[SpicyGarvSauce]

 

 

I was talking about bunting as an option to move runners into scoring position.  Are you saying that the bunt rate decreases based on facing elite pitching and that it should not be attempted?  Is that your point?

 

Some of you guys are getting sidetracked here.  I am merely making a claim that bunting can be GOOD.  Not BAD all the time but GOOD.  You don't have to believe me.  Just stick to the notion that is supported by "numbers" you can believe in that bunting has no place in baseball.  Just don't try convincing me.

 

Yes, I agree - bunting can be good.

 

However, the situation last night was not a good one.

[SpicyGarvSauce]

 

 

Certainly seems that this was Rocco's call.  Jonathan squared around early on the first pitch, which is more often than not indication of a manager call.  More importantly, he bunted on the second pitch.  If Rocco didn't want him bunting, it seems somehow that would have been made clear to Schoop before the second pitch.  But of course that's just conjecture. 

 

Polanco squared numerous times in his PA too - the pitcher just didn't throw a strike, or a pitch that Polanco felt he could bunt.

[IndianaTwin]

 

Hm, I haven't seen anything definitive.

 

The reason I ask is because it was a rather popular topic of discussion when Polanco did it last week, and Baldelli was asked about it in the post game and was quite adamant that he did not call for that (Polanco did it on his own) and would never really think of calling for a bunt in that situation (the two situations were exactly the same, 1st and 2nd, 0 out, but maybe an inning earlier this time).

 

A crucial difference in the two situations is the batter, however. Without considering their relative success as bunters, the run expectancy with Polanco hitting away is considerably higher than with Schoop hitting away. Per 162 games in his career, Schoop has hit into 16 DPs, whereas Polanco has hit into 8.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

A crucial difference in the two situations is the batter, however. Without considering their relative success as bunters, the run expectancy with Polanco hitting away is considerably higher than with Schoop hitting away. Per 162 games in his career, Schoop has hit into 16 DPs, whereas Polanco has hit into 8.  

 

I'd hardly call that "considerably".......since we don't know how many chances they had, for example. But, let's go with 720 PA in the "per 162" thing......

 

That's a 1% difference in hitting into a DP......

[MVP Nick Punto]

We won a game without a HR. We won a game without a professional outfielder on the field for half the game. Is this allowed? Is it legal? Someone erase the data for this game before someone from MLB re-checks it.

[IndianaTwin]

I've generally been impressed with Baldelli. He seems to have good people skills, which I think is tremendously under-rated and non-quantifiable, and I've generally sense that he's not given to bunt. It's a small sample, but this site seems to suggest that he has bunted 18 percent less than average so far. I'm not sure I trust that, however, since it seems to be measuring successful sacrifices, rather than attempted. 

 

I've especially been impressed that Baldelli seems to take the long view. We've noted what seems like intentional efforts to get guys rest, etc. That makes me wonder -- he seems cerebral enough to be willing to take an approach that says, "If I bunt in this situation, when the 'traditional' folks say I should and the 'analytics' folks say I shouldn't, I let people think that I'm willing to bunt. In the playoffs or a particularly crucial situation, there's no way I'm going to bunt. But if I never do it, people are going to see that tendency in me. I'm willing to bunt in this 'marginal' situation to keep the fear of a bunt in people's minds down the road." 

 

I was fascinated by Bill James when I was reading his Abstracts back in the 1980s, and I'm analytical by nature. But it's nuances like that where I think analytics can break down. Chiming in on a Web site, we just don't have a way of knowing the entire picture. 

 

And so, in the seventh inning of Game 3 this October, when a 3B sneaks in a step in a similar situation and Arraez smacks one by him, let's remember that game back in June when Rocco went against the book.

[Mike Sixel]

It's certainly ok to go against the odds sometimes, but that's not the argument I'm arguing against......you can't do that all the time, and you have to know the book.

[VATwinsFan]

 

The discussion about Baldelli's decision to bunt is more evidence that baseball is far and away the most interesting sport.  I was at the game, and I can attest that no issue was more debated in my section than the bunt/no bunt decision.  I think most of us can agree there are compelling reasons on both sides of this argument.  As for me, I am generally a "no bunt" guy (and the math is on the side of the "no bunters").  But in this case, I was 100% on board with Rocco's choice to bunt, and find fault only with Schoop's poor execution.  Here is my logic:

 

1) Schoop has had a fine season, but has not been particularly productive recently....231 average with just 1 rbi in his last 7 games.

 

2) Being a solid contact guy with below average speed, Schoop is a likely DP candidate...in fact, his GIDP rate leads all Twins regulars.  While Arraez's single still would have plated one run for the inning,  a DP at that moment would have been a terrible outcome.

 

3) The next two hitters are currently our two best BA guys.  The chance of scoring at least two runs and taking the lead was quite high if Schoop could have laid down a successful bunt.

 

4) A few have said here that Schoop is a very poor bunter, but I was not aware of that...does anyone have his career bunting stats?  If he is something like 2 for 100 lifetime, then I would concur that Rocco blundered here.  But I suspect that Rocco has a better idea of Schoop's chances of laying down a good bunt than any of us here. Shame on Schoop though if he hasn't mastered a basic baseball skill that all middle infielders should have.  

 

Oddly, I felt somewhat relieved after Schoop whiffed on the third strike, because it meant no GIDP...felt even better after Arraez singled, and fortunately Cruz picked up Polanco after his popup.  All in all, a terrfic win last night, and a great baseball discussion!

I'm just sitting hear enjoying this discussion as I eat my popcorn.

[IndianaTwin]

 

I'd hardly call that "considerably".......since we don't know how many chances they had, for example. But, let's go with 720 PA in the "per 162" thing......

 

That's a 1% difference in hitting into a DP......

 

 

I should have started the DP sentence with "Also." My bigger point is that Polanco has been the best hitter on the team and Schoop is hitting ninth for a reason. As well as to note that two baseball situations are rarely "exactly the same," since there are so many variables to account for.  

[crapforks]

Slightly off-topic, but I think people are going a little overboard in calling for Arraez to replace Schoop in the lineup. Schoop is not a superstar, but he is having a quietly solid season. He seems to be a calm presence and has a quiet confidence about him. He is probably the 8th or 9th best hitter on the team, but that's ok. I feel that we fans are undervaluing his skillset (power & defense) because neither is particularly flashy, and because his soft spots (patience and base running) are something the team could use. He is outplaying his career numbers (slightly) and has been pretty much what any reasonable person would have expected from him. He's a bit like a lesser JJ Hardy to me. Very easy to overlook and focus on the negatives because very little he does is highlight-reel worthy. It is very unlikely he is the team's 2B of the future, but he hasn't really done anything to warrant a benching. Arraez has plenty of opportunity (SS, LF, 3B, 2B) to get in the lineup before surpassing Schoop on the 2B depth chart. If Arraez does indeed surpass Schoop, that is an absolutely lovely situation for the team!

 

 

[IndianaTwin]

 

It's certainly ok to go against the odds sometimes, but that's not the argument I'm arguing against......you can't do that all the time, and you have to know the book.

 

 

I'm with you on that. I'm not inherently arguing for or against last night's bunt. And it seems that, if he indeed said that Polanco was on his own last week, that he does know the book. I think that one of the skills of a good manager (and a skill that I think Rocco has the potential to be really good at) is to know when and how often to be a contrarian in a given situation for the greater good.

[the_brute_squad]

 

It was the seventh inning and the Twins have the highest-scoring offense in baseball.

 

You don't play for a run in that situation. You try to take the lead, not tie the game. It's not the ninth inning.

 

And despite giving away an out, what did the Twins do in that situation?

 

They took the lead because Cruz hammering the effing ball, just like the rest of this lineup does on a near-nightly basis.

 

Play for one run when you need one run to keep the game alive. Outside of that specific situation, you play for as many runs as possible.

"You don't play for a run in that situation". I disagree. The bunt was to move two players into scoring position. Additionally, where is it said you don't play for a run in that situation? There are more reasons than that to bunt:

Take the team out of the double play

Get the hitter to see the ball better if they are slumping

Catch the defense off guard

 

I'm not a huge fan of bunting - especially early in a game - but I've seen a lot worse circumstances than Schoop's attempt.

Cruz did hit that effing ball, though!

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

"You don't play for a run in that situation". I disagree. The bunt was to move two players into scoring position. Additionally, where is it said you don't play for a run in that situation? There are more reasons than that to bunt:

Take the team out of the double play

Get the hitter to see the ball better if they are slumping

Catch the defense off guard

 

I'm not a huge fan of bunting - especially early in a game - but I've seen a lot worse circumstances than Schoop's attempt.

Cruz did hit that effing ball, though!

"A run" as in "singular run, not runs". In case the way I phrased that wasn't clear. Bunting with two on and no outs increases the chance of scoring a single run and decreases the chance of scoring multiple runs, hence my "a run" comment.

 

For the record, I'm actually quite a fan of bunting for hits. I think guys like Buxton and Polanco should do it more often to keep the defense honest (unless they can't bunt for a good batting average, then quit it).

 

I'm not a fan of putting a plodding quasi-slugger with no bunting skills in a situation to sacrifice bunt, though. Schoop is unreasonably slow for his athleticism and, as we all witnessed, cannot bunt for ****.