Sabermetrics

[pandy]

Originally Posted by raybo

With no outs, if you can scarifice a runner to 2nd then you take the double play out of the picture and you have at least 2 at bats to get an outfield hit to get the runner on 2nd home. Basic fundamental baseball strategy.



Because the double play is removed from the equation. Any ground ball, or line drive to an infielder could start the double play, then you have no men on base and only 1 out to go. Again, just basic strategy and playing the probabilities. The key to manufacturing runs is to get a runner in scoring position first, regardless of how you do it. With no outs you have the best possibility of scoring because you have more chances and more options. Of course much of it depends on what point you are in the batting order, if one of your best hitters is up, or your power is up, then you probably let them hit away, depending on the situation on the scoreboard and what point in the game you are at.

I know why they do it, but, I'm not sure that it works long term, statistically. Yes, you have less of a chance of hitting into a double play, but you are also giving up one third of your at bats. I've seen it done many times when the hitter is a guy that hits a lot of doubles, which to me makes no sense. And, sometimes the sacrifice doesn't work, either, the batter fails to sacrifice, bunts right back to the pitcher, etc.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by pandy

I know why they do it, but, I'm not sure that it works long term, statistically. Yes, you have less of a chance of hitting into a double play, but you are also giving up one third of your at bats. I've seen it done many times when the hitter is a guy that hits a lot of doubles, which to me makes no sense. And, sometimes the sacrifice doesn't work, either, the batter fails to sacrifice, bunts right back to the pitcher, etc.

Statistically, I am pretty sure it works long term when used with the right hitter. Remember, the coach knows his players and knows when the sacrifice is not ideal, with the hitter at the plate.

If you let the hitter swing away, you have an even lower chance of moving the runner over, because it is more likely that a hitter swinging away will strike out than one who is bunting. The bunt is basically the same as catching a ball, and we all know that everyone in MLB can catch a ball, so the chance of striking out, or even not making contact, is much lower than hitting away. Either way, you go, if it fails to move the runner to 2nd you only lose 1 out.

[pandy]

I actually just found this link, in which it states that Bill James was against the sacrifice bunt, and goes into it in detail. This is pretty much the way I look at it.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-in-todays-mlb

[pandy]

I also find many of the plays used in the NFL puzzling. For instance, most teams run on 2nd and short and 3rd and short, when they are obviously the best passing situations. Second and short is the ideal time to throw long, and third and short is the best play action situation for either a short, mid range, or long pass completion. But many teams don't play the percentages and throw when the defense is expecting it, and vice versa.

[trigger]

The pitcher enters into the managers decision also

[raybo]

Originally Posted by pandy

I actually just found this link, in which it states that Bill James was against the sacrifice bunt, and goes into it in detail. This is pretty much the way I look at it.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-in-todays-mlb

Agree generally, but the article tends to lean on the sac bunt decision being made by the hitter, not the coach. My point of view is from the sac bunt decision coming from the coach, not the hitter. By the way, the video showing the triple play was a bunt in conjunction with a hit and run call, that is a totally different situation because the hitter must make contact regardless of the placement of the pitch. That situation takes control away from the hitter and does not allow him to possibly get ahead of the pitcher in the count. IMO, the reason that the stats for bunting are declining, and failing, is primarily due to hitters not being trained to bunt, like they were in the past. They are trained to hit the ball, not bunt the ball, so their bunting skills are not as proficient as they once were.

As I said, the sac bunt must not happen unless the total situation makes it a good probability of succeeding, and that is the coach's decision, not the player's.

Yes, the game has changed as the players have changed, today's defenses are better able to handle the sac bunt now than in the past, and players are much stronger today than in the past, so bunting usually is not preferable. But still, in certain scenarios, the sac bunt is still a good way to move runners. It all falls back on the coach to make the proper decision at the proper time.

[Longshot6977]

Originally Posted by pandy

I actually just found this link, in which it states that Bill James was against the sacrifice bunt, and goes into it in detail. This is pretty much the way I look at it.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-in-todays-mlb

Great link Pandy. Thanks for finding it and posting it. Has eye opening stats we never realized. It certainly does make your point very well. Just wish someone would go this deep into horse racing stats. But like Raybo said, not enough 'events' to get real specific and meaningful data. Someday though .....

[pandy]

Raybo mentioned how the defenses play the bunt better, I don't know how many of you remember, but the 1986 Mets were the best I've eve seen at playing the sacrifice. They had Keith Hernandez on first, and he played the bunt brilliantly, charging in hard on the hitter. They also had a Hall of Fame catcher, Gary Carter, and a few of the best defensive pitchers I've ever seen, Tug McGraw and Ron Darling, both of whom were very aggressive and sure handed in bunting situations. In the playoffs, they beat the Astros in that 16 inning sixth game and in that game, the way the Mets played the sacrifice bunt had a lot to do with their ultimate success in the game. That Mets team essentially took the sacrifice bunt away from teams, yet for some reason, teams still tried it, even though the Mets had it shut down.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by pandy

I also find many of the plays used in the NFL puzzling. For instance, most teams run on 2nd and short and 3rd and short, when they are obviously the best passing situations. Second and short is the ideal time to throw long, and third and short is the best play action situation for either a short, mid range, or long pass completion. But many teams don't play the percentages and throw when the defense is expecting it, and vice versa.

What to do on second and long is a game theory problem. If you always throw on second and long the defense will play pass and much of the advantange of passing disappears. you have to run some. That said, teams do probably run too much then.
There is probably no stats on anything that have been studied more than horse racing stats. There is some money still to be made in studying stats, but I you are going to do a lot of the work yourself. Get an advanced stats books and learn the teceniques(you may need to learn calculus to use some) and then figure out how to use them on horse racing stats. rememember that some stats as stated earlier are faultly especially lengths back at quarter and half calls in large fields in sprints. you may have to create your own result charts from either observing the races or using. trackus numbers.