Little ball
Last night, I was doing a show on KTRH with Tom Franklin and Alan Ashby and we got yet another call about bunting. It seems to me that many people who consider themselves to be knowledgeable fans, think their favorite teams should bunt more often. Alan stopped that conversation right where it started by pointing out that the Astros are second in the league in sacrifice bunts to the Rockies, with the Cubs running a close third. Last time I looked, none of those teams was having a very good year. And while I know there is more to it than bunting, I also know that bunting is a bad strategy most of the time.
Statistically, you have a 41 percent chance of scoring a run with a man on first and nobody out. With a man on second and one out, your odds go down to 40 percent. In other words, if you are 100 percent successful, your odds of scoring one run will be about the same. But, of course, you are not going to succeed every time. When I was pitching, I was delighted when the hitter squared to bunt -- especially if he was a decent hitter. I'll take an man on second with one out any day. And many times it worked out even better for me because the hitter either made a bad bunt and we got the force play at second, or he went back to hitting with two strikes in the count.
As a manager, I was amazed when opposing managers bunted in the first inning to try to score first. Even if they scored a run, there were still eight innings left to play . One run is not a big deal in the first inning. But the big inning is a big deal. In 70 percent of all major league games, the winning team scores as many or more runs in one inning than the other team scores in the whole game. That suggests that it is better to play for the big inning until late in the game and that's the way I managed. Most managers do the same. That's why the Astros, who don't bunt often, still bunt more than most teams.
With a man on first base and nobody out, you have a chance for a big inning. That chance is greater if you hit away, while your chance of scoring one run is still the same. The only time it is a good idea to sacrifice bunt is when there is a weak hitter at the plate who is also a good bunter and there is a good hitter up next. In other words, with the eighth hitter up when you are going to pinch hit for the pitcher, or when the pitcher himself is up.
• • •
Hit-and-run play: The hit-and-run play is most often a bad idea too. I believe both of these plays hearken back to the dead ball era, when baseball scores looked like soccer scores do now. The value of one run back then was much greater than it is now. One time, in Pittsburgh, I talked to several of our players about the hit-and-run. They felt that it was an aggressive play. I feel that it is just the opposite. If you watch carefully, you will find that the hit-and-run is most often used with a slow runner at the plate and and ground ball pitcher on the mound. The manager is hoping that the slow runner gets a hit and advances the runner to third base. But what he is more concerned with is the batter hitting into a double play. If you hit- and-run, a double play grounder can advance a runner to second base. "If it's such an aggressive play," I said. "Why don't you use it with two outs?" The answer was that with two outs there is no incentive to avoid the double play. I rested my case.
That said, I do believe in bunting and hit-and-run plays in specific situations. I like a fast runner to bunt for a hit with a man of first and nobody out. If he makes it, it can lead to a big inning. If he doesn't, he usually gets a sacrifice. If the other team gets the force as second, he still has a chance to steal second. Craig Reynolds and Terry Puhl were very good at employing this strategy.
I liked to hit-and-run with a slumping player at the plate from time to time. Slumping hitters are usually indecisive. They find themselves caught between swinging and not swinging and often take belated weak swings or checked swings. Once they know the hit-and-run is on, they don't have to decide whether to swing or not. They know they are going to swing; it forces them to be decisive. As a manager, I looked for a situation where I thought the pitcher would throw a strike, like when he was behind in the count, or when the opposing pitcher, like Greg Maddux, got a lot of ground ball outs and seldom threw pitches that were far from the strike zone.
My favorite little ball play was often mistaken for the hit-and-run. I simply gave the runner the green light to steal whenever he thought he could make it, and instructed the hitters to swing away if they got a good pitch to hit. A lot of times they got hits with the runner in motion and everyone said, :"What an exciting hit-and-run play!"
Little ball originated in the dead ball era. It was a good tactic quite often back then. It has survived for 100 years because there are still situations where it makes sense. But those situations are far fewer now.
Posted by Larry Dierker at September 8, 2006 06:35 PM
My favorite little ball play was often mistaken for the hit-and-run. I simply gave the runner the green light to steal whenever he thought he could make it, and instructed the hitters to swing away if they got a good pitch to hit. A lot of times they got hits with the runner in motion and everyone said, :"What an exciting hit-and-run play!"
We talked about the difference between the hit and run and run and hit a year or so ago. This is what we used to call the run and hit.
Fwiw, Jim Bouton has TONS of nice things to say about Dierker the pheenom in "Ball Four". Dierker seems to be an extremely intelligent person.
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2404
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: Re: Larry Dierker for manager!! (I wish)
shoewizard wrote:
(Dierker said) Statistically, you have a 41 percent chance of scoring a run with a man on first and nobody out. With a man on second and one out, your odds go down to 40 percent.
Maybe tangotiger can help me out with this, but the closest verification of these numbers that I could find in The Book was on page 291, table 121: Odds of Scoreless Inning. According to this table, a pitcher's chance of earning a scoreless inning with 1B occupied and 0 outs is .557 (the inverse chance for a team scoring in that circumstance would be .443). With a runner on 2B and 1 out, a pitcher's chance of earning a scoreless inning increases to .586 (the inverse chance for a team scoring in that circumstance would be .414).
If I interpret this correctly, it bears out Dierker's point with very similar numbers.
shoewizard wrote:
I was thinking of Bouton when I posted this, and the fact that "smart" people like Dierker are often considered freaks in the world of baseball.
I think less so today than in 1970 when Ball Four was published. Yes, there are still those like Joe Garagiola Sr. and Joe Morgan who take every opportunity to mock GM's and managers that use numbers to improve their teams, but their close-minded fear is being slowly replaced by a more educated lot.
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 665
Location: worm factory
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:44 am Post subject:
Hey what's small ball? What's little ball? Does the dead ball era, that author said it originated, include going up an ACE? 0-0 games. Teams that rely on the 3 run homers, leading the league in scoring, but scoring less than the median of all teams, in most of their games played. Are those great offensive teams? 3 run homer teams that can't score against the number 1's. HOw about teams that are in slump and scraping to get a run?
Show me a team, that's one dimensional, can't play small ball, and I'll show you team that's ripe for a fall. Nothing has absolutes, but show me any team that has small ball amongst its arsenal, and I'll show you a team that plays above average baseball.
The problem is how small ball, is defined. I can argue other important aspects that's never included in small ball talk is obp, pitches per ab, how often runners are moved up, and it doesn't have to be a bunt btw, and Vlad gurrero is coming up.
Johan pitching- lead-off walk, sb, bunt to get the runner over to third. ground ball over to the right side. Run's across. Look at this D-back team, how often late in games do we see them score? Is it because they can't play small ball?
The hit/run, run/hit does it count as small ball if a hit/run is attempted with Gonz running and Chad Tracy hittting, meaning that's not ideal small ball. Chris Young on first, conor Jackson at the plate, do you get Young started? Heck Estrada at first, Cj 3-1 count, do get Estrada in motion?
The problem the small ball discounters have, is they define the terms of the argument of small ball all wrong.
Ever watch Brett Butler, and the havoc he caused throughout his career, against aces, or pitchers that were pitching great games? I could come up, with a million more examples, but suffice to say, small ball should be as integral as big ball, for most teams. Ask why the late 80's A's lost to both the dodgers and Reds. Why the Yankess lost to the Red Sox 2 years ago.
In finale, Statistically, you have a 41 percent chance of scoring a run with a man on first and nobody out. With a man on second and one out, your odds go down to 40 percent, is not the correct hypothesis, when talking about how to execute small ball, or why discounting its importance.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it
Show me a team, that's one dimensional, can't play small ball, and I'll show you team that's ripe for a fall.
Show me a team that can't play long ball and I'll show you the 2006 Cubs. Small ball is like small dick; only guys who don't have long ones use it.
Quote:
Ever watch Brett Butler, and the havoc he caused throughout his career, against aces, or pitchers that were pitching great games?
Brett Butler averaged 41 SB and 19 CS. That is a pretty crappy percentage. You need about 75% success rate to make a difference; Butler, for all of his running, ended up costing his team more with his CS than helping with his SB. But hey, he was a sparkplug or something.
Quote:
Why the Yankess lost to the Red Sox 2 years ago.
Yeah, all hail that Dave Roberts steal. Ignore those David Ortiz homers. blah blah blah. What a dumb example to use to make a point.
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 665
Location: worm factory
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:44 am Post subject:
Quote:
Dangerfield,
Joe Morgan called; he wants his rant back.
Hey, I just talked to Joe. He says he's still a hof'er, with a sabremetric 81 percent of the vote.
Quote:
Yeah, all hail that Dave Roberts steal. Ignore those David Ortiz homers. blah blah blah. What a dumb example to use to make a point
I could of used dumber examples, but they'd still be playing the 1991 world series.
Quote:
Show me a team that can't play long ball and I'll show you the 2006 Cubs. Small ball is like small dick; only guys who don't have long ones use it.
Only someone who can't defend his argument would resort to referencing the Cubs on anything.
Quote:
Brett Butler averaged 41 SB and 19 CS. That is a pretty crappy percentage. You need about 75% success rate to make a difference; Butler, for all of his running, ended up costing his team more with his CS than helping with his SB. But hey, he was a sparkplug or something
That 75 percent successrate, 41 sb a year, is still amazing when you consider he had a size 7 foot. If it was an 8, he would of easily of aveaged 50, and 80 percent.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it
Last edited by Dangerfield on Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:01 pm; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3239
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:57 am Post subject:
To inject a little sanity here...... before this gets out of hand.....Dierker is addressing the oft erroneous push button nature of how "small ball" tactics and philosophy are typically employed by certain teams and managers.
In fact, if you go back and actually read what Dierker wrote, he gave specific examples of when he would use bunts and stealing, run and hit, etc,.... He is addressing the misuses of the bunt and the steal, and showing how they can and should be used properly.
Nobody advocated NEVER using the bunt or the steal or the run and hit, so the "lecture" from Dangerfield about our lack of understanding of the need for balance was a bit out of step with the actual content that was posted.
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 665
Location: worm factory
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject:
shoewizard wrote:
To inject a little sanity here...... before this gets out of hand.....Dierker is addressing the oft erroneous push button nature of how "small ball" tactics and philosophy are typically employed by certain teams and managers.
In fact, if you go back and actually read what Dierker wrote, he gave specific examples of when he would use bunts and stealing, run and hit, etc,.... He is addressing the misuses of the bunt and the steal, and showing how they can and should be used properly.
Nobody advocated NEVER using the bunt or the steal or the run and hit, so the "lecture" from Dangerfield about our lack of understanding of the need for balance was a bit out of step with the actual content that was posted.
Not true, I was presenting a differen pov, on the criticisms on some of pov the author was referencing the 40 percent etc.... Also, I was including, examples of the importance of small ball, and addressing the importance of it. Is there bad small ball, yes.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it
I could of used dumber examples, but they'd still be playing the 1991 world series.
Game 7, 1991 WS for all those wondering:
TWINS 10TH: BLAUSER STAYED IN GAME (PLAYING SS); Gladden doubled
to center; Knoblauch out on a sacrifice bunt (third to second)
[Gladden to third]; Puckett was walked intentionally; Hrbek was
walked intentionally [Puckett to second]; LARKIN BATTED FOR
BROWN; Larkin singled [Gladden scored, Puckett to third, Hrbek
to second]; 1 R, 2 H, 0 E, 3 LOB. Braves 0, Twins 1.
Seems to me the Gladden double and the Larkin ph were worth way more than the Knoblauch SAC. Even saying that, the SAC was one of the few that would be appropriate to make. End of game situation, good bunter at the plate, leads to a long fly for the win.
To inject a little sanity here...... before this gets out of hand.....Dierker is addressing the oft erroneous push button nature of how "small ball" tactics and philosophy are typically employed by certain teams and managers.
In fact, if you go back and actually read what Dierker wrote, he gave specific examples of when he would use bunts and stealing, run and hit, etc,.... He is addressing the misuses of the bunt and the steal, and showing how they can and should be used properly.
Nobody advocated NEVER using the bunt or the steal or the run and hit, so the "lecture" from Dangerfield about our lack of understanding of the need for balance was a bit out of step with the actual content that was posted.
Not true, I was presenting a differen pov, on the criticisms on some of pov the author was referencing the 40 percent etc.... Also, I was including, examples of the importance of small ball, and addressing the importance of it. Is there bad small ball, yes.
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 665
Location: worm factory
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject:
Dylan wrote:
Dangerfield wrote:
shoewizard wrote:
To inject a little sanity here...... before this gets out of hand.....Dierker is addressing the oft erroneous push button nature of how "small ball" tactics and philosophy are typically employed by certain teams and managers.
In fact, if you go back and actually read what Dierker wrote, he gave specific examples of when he would use bunts and stealing, run and hit, etc,.... He is addressing the misuses of the bunt and the steal, and showing how they can and should be used properly.
Nobody advocated NEVER using the bunt or the steal or the run and hit, so the "lecture" from Dangerfield about our lack of understanding of the need for balance was a bit out of step with the actual content that was posted.
Not true, I was presenting a differen pov, on the criticisms on some of pov the author was referencing the 40 percent etc.... Also, I was including, examples of the importance of small ball, and addressing the importance of it. Is there bad small ball, yes.
In other words you were attacking a straw man?
The whole blog comes across as a women,would of wrote it. Small ball is because of the 40 percent etc.... makes no sense, but here's how I'd use it.
You're guilty too, in the same context as Dierker...you use the 10th inning as Gladden's double more important than the sac, but in context of the forest, the double was a tree, the sac was a tree...I guess I'd use it in that situation
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1555
Location: clawing my eyes out, praying for sleep. booyah.
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject:
don't want to get too involved in this argument, aside from saying that if melvin puts on a bunt from a non-pitcher in the 4th/5th inning again, when we're down by 3+ runs, i will piss on my tv. i'll do it.
bunts are great. they have their place. that place isn't where melvin seems to use it, though.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.
You're guilty too, in the same context as Dierker...you use the 10th inning as Gladden's double more important than the sac, but in context of the forest, the double was a tree, the sac was a tree...I guess I'd use it in that situation
I don't quite know what I'm "guilty" of exactly.
Bottom of last inning, tie game. Home team --lets call them the Triplets-- has a 64.9% chance of winning this game over the away team, the Gallants, when the inning starts.
The first batter leads off the inning with a double. The Triplets chance of winning the games goes from 64.9% to 81.7%. An increase of 16.8%
Next batter SACs him to 3B. Chance of winning goes up to 83.5%. An increase of 1.8%.
The first IBB drops the chance down to 83.2% (Boy that guy was unclutch!) and the second IBB raises it back up to 84.1%.
The single to win the game makes it 100%. An increase of 15.9%.
So, sure, they're all trees in the forest, but the leadoff double and game winning singles are redwoods compared to the sprig of a SAC.
Of course this is one of the most obvious and correct cases to SAC as well. So think about the less positive contributions the SAC makes durring some games.
So I'll ask again, what am I guilty of, being correct?
don't want to get too involved in this argument, aside from saying that if melvin puts on a bunt from a non-pitcher in the 4th/5th inning again, when we're down by 3+ runs, i will piss on my tv. i'll do it.
bunts are great. they have their place. that place isn't where melvin seems to use it, though.
Sadly, Melvin will never be in a position to do this. Still gives me nightmares.
Hey, I just talked to Joe. He says he's still a hof'er, with a sabremetric 81 percent of the vote.
We all know that being a member of Mensa is a requirement for being in the Hall of Fame. Joe Morgan was a very good player, arguably the best 2bman to ever play the game. When it comes to "sabermetrics", Morgan is a real life Verbal Kint.
Quote:
Show me a team that can't play long ball and I'll show you the 2006 Cubs. Small ball is like small dick; only guys who don't have long ones use it.
Only someone who can't defend his argument would resort to referencing the Cubs on anything.
[/quote]
I am very glad you didn't reference the Cubs. Wait, you didn't reference any team. Maybe there is a quintessential "small ball" team out there you would like to share with us? The 2003 Tigers? The 2004 Dbacks? Those teams really were something...
Quote:
Brett Butler averaged 41 SB and 19 CS. That is a pretty crappy percentage. You need about 75% success rate to make a difference; Butler, for all of his running, ended up costing his team more with his CS than helping with his SB. But hey, he was a sparkplug or something
That 75 percent successrate, 41 sb a year, is still amazing when you consider he had a size 7 foot. If it was an 8, he would of easily of aveaged 50, and 80 percent.[/quote]
Uh, dude, Butler DIDN'T have 75% success rate. Maybe if you didn't talk to Joe Morgan as much and took math instead, you'd figure it out. And, Butler may have had size 7 foot, but what really hurt him on the SB % were his ears... too much wind resistance...
Size 7 foot? WTF!?
If you want to make arguments, make arguments, don't pull anecdotes out of your behind--because those anecdotes can be countered by other anecdotes. And, even if you want to use anecdotes, use good ones; don't use Brett Butler, for crying out loud...
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 665
Location: worm factory
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject:
levski wrote:
Dangerfield wrote:
Quote:
Dangerfield,
Joe Morgan called; he wants his rant back.
Hey, I just talked to Joe. He says he's still a hof'er, with a sabremetric 81 percent of the vote.
We all know that being a member of Mensa is a requirement for being in the Hall of Fame. Joe Morgan was a very good player, arguably the best 2bman to ever play the game. When it comes to "sabermetrics", Morgan is a real life Verbal Kint.
Quote:
Show me a team that can't play long ball and I'll show you the 2006 Cubs. Small ball is like small dick; only guys who don't have long ones use it.
Only someone who can't defend his argument would resort to referencing the Cubs on anything.
I am very glad you didn't reference the Cubs. Wait, you didn't reference any team. Maybe there is a quintessential "small ball" team out there you would like to share with us? The 2003 Tigers? The 2004 Dbacks? Those teams really were something...
Quote:
Brett Butler averaged 41 SB and 19 CS. That is a pretty crappy percentage. You need about 75% success rate to make a difference; Butler, for all of his running, ended up costing his team more with his CS than helping with his SB. But hey, he was a sparkplug or something
That 75 percent successrate, 41 sb a year, is still amazing when you consider he had a size 7 foot. If it was an 8, he would of easily of aveaged 50, and 80 percent.[/quote]
Uh, dude, Butler DIDN'T have 75% success rate. Maybe if you didn't talk to Joe Morgan as much and took math instead, you'd figure it out. And, Butler may have had size 7 foot, but what really hurt him on the SB % were his ears... too much wind resistance...
Size 7 foot? WTF!?
If you want to make arguments, make arguments, don't pull anecdotes out of your behind--because those anecdotes can be countered by other anecdotes. And, even if you want to use anecdotes, use good ones; don't use Brett Butler, for crying out loud...[/quote]
Nothing like taking everything out of context, and trying to spin it your direction. I wasn't trying to discount you to strike a nerve, I thought you were joking with me, I was joking back. Obviously I was wrong, you take things a little too personally.. We agree to disagree.
In the core, of things. I believe small ball, not only is wrongly defined in a lot of areas, but is also crucial to a team's success, in a lot of ways, in as much as getting on in front of Derrick Lee, anyway possible, bunt etc...No, I wouldn't want Derrick Lee hitting/running or bunting. I stand by my original post.
My editorial is what it is. Small ball today is just as crucial as it ever was.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it
Simply, you write a lot, thinking you are making a valid point. One would think that, if you would write this much, you'd actually make an argument worth thinking about. You aren't. That's all.
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 665
Location: worm factory
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:53 pm Post subject:
levski wrote:
LOL
I don't take anything personally.
Simply, you write a lot, thinking you are making a valid point. One would think that, if you would write this much, you'd actually make an argument worth thinking about. You aren't. That's all.
Just like 80 percent of the stats you reference. But yeah, I don't take anything personally either. I'll try to do a better job of educating on what's going on during a game, and its generally not wp. also I'll be engaging about it, and not have things devolve into who has a larger male anatomy. Randy Johnson pitching etc....
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it
Bunting looks even less favorable when you look at run expectency numbers. From Tango's book, p. 30, with a man on 1b and nout out a team, on the vaerage, will score .950 runs. With a man on 2b and one out they will score .723. So a "successful" bunt costs your team anout .23 runs.
This is average. If you have slow weak hitter up and good hitters following this may be a good trade. But your number 2 should be one of your best hitters. With him up, you should score more than the average so giving him up for an out really costs you.
Whether to bunt or not depends on the circumstances. As Dierker points out bunting with a good bunter is often a good idea, not to move the runner along but to get a base with the downside being a man on 2b and one out.
If the other team is not expecting it it is sometimes a very good idea even if the guy is not that fast. The other advantage is that if you occassionally bunt unexpectedly then the other team is going to have to maybe play in a little more, more their fielders to unaccustomed places. All of this is to your advantage.
What I hate is the Melvin philosophy of always bunting (or almost always) bunting in certain situations. This plays into the other team's hands and make even the bunt more difficult.
I agree with Dierker that the bunt is overused by some teams, but I also think it is not used as effectively as it could be.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
