Comments on: Gee Whiz: A Look Back at the 1950 World Series

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:34:43 +0000

[57] I guess where we completely differ is: (1) I don’t think there are many situations that either call for the bunt or sit on the borderline, so I don’t even know how you’d go about being unpredictable unless you purposely do something you think is wrong; and (2) in baseball, no, I don’t think most games are more important than others. Besides, how many non-important games do you have to put at risk to set up the deception you want to employ in an important game?

By: 51cq24

51cq24 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:22:18 +0000

[55] well first of all, i’ve been saying all along that i only agree with this when it’s a close call between bunting and not bunting. i would never bunt when it’s definitely the wrong call. so it’s not a question of whether the score dictates that one strategy is better (or less worse) than at other times. but inasmuch as the situation does allow for more flexibility (since i think there’s a pretty big range within which you can play with this- not just when it’s absolutely 50/50), there are games that are less important to win than others (not just runs that are less important to score than others).

By: Horace Clarke Era

Horace Clarke Era — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:17:51 +0000

William, I’ll give you last word. Your energy level – on two fronts – is astonishing sometimes.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:15:26 +0000

[54] All situations are not equally important, but I would think most bunting situations are. Besides, if your suggestion is that one uses the trick bunt strategy when up by 3 or 4 runs, but employs the real bunt strategy when tied or down by one, I would argue that any team bothering to scout for these tendencies would realize the difference.

By: 51cq24

51cq24 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:12:31 +0000

[52] but then wouldn’t it be nice to trick the defense into playing at one extreme?

[53] do you really think that all situations in any baseball game are equally important?

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:08:23 +0000

[51] Right…if I want my batter swinging away, I am not going to be enticed into bunting so at some future time the infielders will play in. As I mentioned, the only way to get those infielders to play in, is to bunt in similar situations. But, if I don’t want to bunt now, why would I want to do it then. Baseball is not poker. You can’t give away a hand to set up a bigger pot.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:06:11 +0000

[49] I am not denying that it would be better to bunt with the IF back and vica versa; I am just stating that unless the defense makes its intentions extreme (infielders in the outfield; corners charging seconds before the pitch), the best strategy is the one most likely to produce the desired outcome.

Being unpredictable has consequences and I just don’t think the benefits come anywhere near close to exposing yourself to them.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:05:54 +0000

“if I think swinging away is the best strategy, I don’t care if the defense plays back.”

Huh.
So, you don’t care whether the defense gives your batter 100 points of batting average?
Okay, in that case, you’re right, you should not worry about surprising the other team.

By: williamnyy23

williamnyy23 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:03:12 +0000

[47] You’ve identified two scenarios where bunting is pretty good call, and in both instances, I wouldn’t care if the defense knew what I was doing. If I am not willing to give away the out, I am not bunting anyway. Similarly, if I think swinging away is the best strategy, I don’t care if the defense plays back. I am not going to make a bad decision to try and surprise them.

And, if there really are 50/50 propositions, the manager himself really wont know how he would decide on case-by-case basis, so how can the opposition? Everyone is just guessing anyway.

By: RIYank

RIYank — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:01:10 +0000

If a sac bunt is a good move, and the other teams knows it, why is that such a bad thing? The chances are still very likely that a bunt will produce the desired result (the thing that made it a good move in the first place).

They are very likely, but more likely if the other team doesn’t know, and less likely if they do.
I assume you are not denying this, so you must think it is unimportant. But I find that kind of bizarre. How could it be unimportant to increase the chance that your tactic has the desired result?

I personally think that squaring late is not smart, but I don’t know for sure. It would be hard to get that data, I imagine.

You’re right that when “the bunt is put in play, most of the time it does the job,” but “most of the time” is an awfully generic characterization. Most of the time, a batter makes an out. That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant that A-Rod makes a whole lot fewer outs than Chone. And it’s very relevant that sacs are successful (and “oversuccessful”) more often when the defense doesn’t expect them, even though most sacs are successful even when the defense does expect them.