"Small Ball": The Cards' Achilles heel?

[Medwicks Ghost]

How many bunts are non-pitchers? That's the number to compare.

But to me, certain pitchers bunting is a crime. Certain pitchers on the team are liable to get a big hit at ANY given time on a mistake pitch. Waino, Garcia and Westie come to mind. I mean, a pitcher has to breathe a sigh of relief when he knows a guy is bunting.

How many times have you seen a pitcher deliver a 2 out hit or work a walk, or even get on base due to an error in the OF? These things cannot happen when you are bunting. I don't know what the actual stats are, but I suspect that a hit or walk is just as likely to happen as a succesful sac bunt by a Cards pitcher.

Bunting is a useful strategy, but probably overused by Matheny.

I must disagree, and strongly. Exept for a squeeze play for a key run in the 9th, I think it should be TOTALLY abandoned.

[Medwicks Ghost]

Anyone remember the situation in game 3 of the 2001 NLDS?

Cards were down 5-3 in the bottom of the 9th, and had runners on 1st and 2nd with nobody out (BY Kim was pitching for the D-Backs).

Mike Matheny was up. Guess what he was asked to do. Guess what he failed to do.

McGwire followed up with his 5-4-3 DP and that was the ballgame.

Thankfully I don't remember that, but that happens way too often. Getting runners on base with no outs and reducing your chances of getting a hit by 1/3! That's not smart baseball. That's not smart anything. (and when you have a position player do it, it's downright defeatist!)

[jim]

How many bunts are non-pitchers? That's the number to compare.

But to me, certain pitchers bunting is a crime. Certain pitchers on the team are liable to get a big hit at ANY given time on a mistake pitch. Waino, Garcia and Westie come to mind. I mean, a pitcher has to breathe a sigh of relief when he knows a guy is bunting.

How many times have you seen a pitcher deliver a 2 out hit or work a walk, or even get on base due to an error in the OF? These things cannot happen when you are bunting. I don't know what the actual stats are, but I suspect that a hit or walk is just as likely to happen as a succesful sac bunt by a Cards pitcher.

Bunting is a useful strategy, but probably overused by Matheny.

I must disagree, and strongly. Exept for a squeeze play for a key run in the 9th, I think it should be TOTALLY abandoned.

By changing the way the game is played (taking away the bunt in your example), you change the way in which things that are successful remain successful. It's The Observer Effect

I know you have watched baseball and heard managers and fans talk about the virtues of the sacrifice, for a more analytical view of bunting you should take a peek at the chapter on bunting in this excellent SABR oriented book: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Playing-Perc ... 1597971294. It's a messy chapter, because unlike most analytical approaches that typically come away saying the bunt is a bad play, these authors did more than scratch the surface of run expectancy matrices. The summary of this chapter is as follows:

If you were expecting a nice, tidy set of rules, such as, "It is rarely correct to sacrifice bunt in this day and age", or, "A bunt is only warranted in the late innings of a close game," you are probably disappointed. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon your point of view, analyzing the efficacy of the sacrifice bunt in the various situations is so complex and difficult and the results are often so close, that we can only offer a few clear-cut rules of thumb and a myriad of recommendations built on somewhat shaky foundations.

We do hope, however, that you now have a clearer understanding of what factors should be considered when the manager makes a decision to sacrifice or not. Of course, it's not like a manger has more than an instant or two to make that decision, so we would hope that you might cut your favorite or not-so-favorite manager some slack when his speedy, good-bunting number-two hitter sacrifices in the first inning. Of course, the next time you see Woody Williams or Livan Hernandez (good hitting pitchers) square to bunt on your favorite team with a runner on first and one out, or you see a batter on your favorite team continue to sacrifice with a 3-0 count, shake your head, and hope for the best.

[jim]

Anyone remember the situation in game 3 of the 2001 NLDS?

Cards were down 5-3 in the bottom of the 9th, and had runners on 1st and 2nd with nobody out (BY Kim was pitching for the D-Backs).

Mike Matheny was up. Guess what he was asked to do. Guess what he failed to do.

McGwire followed up with his 5-4-3 DP and that was the ballgame.

Thankfully I don't remember that, but that happens way too often. Getting runners on base with no outs and reducing your chances of getting a hit by 1/3! That's not smart baseball. That's not smart anything. (and when you have a position player do it, it's downright defeatist!)

I don't remember that either but that is a horrible use of the strategy. If they were down 1, that would be perfect use of the strategy.

[Medwicks Ghost]

Anyone remember the situation in game 3 of the 2001 NLDS?

Cards were down 5-3 in the bottom of the 9th, and had runners on 1st and 2nd with nobody out (BY Kim was pitching for the D-Backs).

Mike Matheny was up. Guess what he was asked to do. Guess what he failed to do.

McGwire followed up with his 5-4-3 DP and that was the ballgame.

Thankfully I don't remember that, but that happens way too often. Getting runners on base with no outs and reducing your chances of getting a hit by 1/3! That's not smart baseball. That's not smart anything. (and when you have a position player do it, it's downright defeatist!)

I don't remember that either but that is a horrible use of the strategy. If they were down 1, that would be perfect use of the strategy.

Ageed. But as you stated, there are a myriad of circumstances and possibilities to evaluate when dicussing bunting.

Do you remember the Westbrook AB the other day when he showed bunt on strike one, showed bunt then hit away on called strike two, and returned to bunt fouling off strike three? It was horrible. He must have looked over to Oquendo 10 times in that AB. His head must have been spinning. If ever there was a free, automatic out, that was one.

[jim]

Jake is a good athlete and I think he's one you definitely should mix it up with. I had an old coach though that thought the element of surprise with 2 strikes sometimes outweighed the penalty of fouling one off - although he mostly did that with the rabbits trying to get on with a hit.

There is a time and a place, and we can debate where that line is, but I do think that in general the pendulum has swung too far to the never bunt side. But I do understand - outs are currency etc.. I get it, there is logic in that thought process.

[33anda3rd]

If small ball is defined by tactics such as base stealing, extra base taking and bunting, then the Cards rate very low in recent years.

In my mind there is one and only one situation to bunt: when the 3rd baseman is playing too deep and a surprize bunt is dropped by a good bunting player looking for a safety. The idea of a "sacrifice" to me is deadball era thinking. There is no limit to the amount of hits and runs a team can get. But there is a set limit of 27 outs. Outs are precious.

Even more horrendous to me is bunting with a man on 2nd with NO OUTS. I don't know how far back this "tactic" goes, and I wonder if Keane, Red or Whitey ever did it.

Nice post, and I agree.

Whitey called for a bunt with a runner on 2nd and no outs only 25 times when a non-pitcher was hitting from 1981-1990. For quite a few of the 25, the logic is ok based on the base/out state + game situation.
1. 6/29/1987: Vince Coleman, top of 9th inning, game tied 6-6. Playing for one run only in a tie in the 9th is fine.
2. Same Day! Vince Coleman again. Still tied 6-6 in the top of the 11th. Still fine.
3. 5/10/1987: Steve Lake, top of the 8th, game tied 6-6. Fine.
4. 6/28/86: Coleman, bottom 9th, tied 4-4. Great! A second run doesn't matter this inning.
5. 6/5/1986, Lavalliere, bottom 8th, ahead 4-3. Probably not optimal, but not a bad play either.
6. 5/27/1986, Pendleton, bottom 7th, tied 1-1. Kind of early with 1/3 of the "game clock" left but still could be considered fine.

These late-inning, close game situations account for 15 of Whitey's 25 bunts in a decade with runners at -2-, no outs, and a non-P hitting. There are some head-scratchers (ahead 5-2 in the 8th; and 8 of the 25 coming in the 3rd inning or earlier) but for Whitey to average one head-scratcher bunt in that situation per year for a decade, and seeing that most of his -2- bunts fall along with the 6 examples above tells me he used the sac bunt in the -2- base state very rarely and usually when the game state dictated that it was a good play.

Under TLR from 1996-2011 we had 1199 sac bunts. 84 of them were with a runner on 2nd, no out and a non-P batting. 25 of the 84 came in the 3rd inning or sooner, and another 26 came in innings 4-6. About 60% of TLR's sac bunts in the situation are questionable to poor.

Matheny: 16 sac bunts with a runner on 2nd and no outs. Of those 16, 8 were by non-P, and of those 8, five came in the 3rd inning or earlier.

Whitey barely gave us a head-scratcher. About once a year.
TLR did it more frequently. about 3-4 times/year.
Matheny is at higher pace than TLR.

Also, a fun note on all bunts.
Whitey: 53% of all bunts were by the P
TLR: 49.5% of all bunts were by the P
Matheny:46% of all bunts were by the P

[Medwicks Ghost]

33 1/3....awesome information! Thanks for taking the time took dig all that up.