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

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

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.

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.

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.

You also seem to be ignoring the possible consequences of “making your choice unpredictable”. For example, you have to consider that by trying to maintain an element of surprise (squaring late for example), the initial strategy of the sacrifice could be compromised (by a bad bunt, the runner not getting a good jump, or the hitter being left in a poor count).

The football analogy (which I admit I introduced) really doesn’t work because the play designs are so intricate and require different kinds of players on the field. In the bunt situation, the defense and offense are often playing for the same outcome (trade an out for a base). If the bunt is put in play, most of the time it does the job.

“Employing a sacrifice is not about overachieving. It is a purposeful act designed to trade an out for a base.” the purpose of the bunt itself is to give up an out to move the runners over. but, as we’re discussing, the decision to bunt or not bunt has more implications than just that. it impacts the defense, and therefore impacts the probability of getting on base.

as for your last point, i think that’s basically right: the defense will be unsure how to play because it isn’t clear one way or another whether the hitter will bunt. but the point is that the manager shouldn’t just decide, “well, if it isn’t 100% clear that a bunt is the right move, i’ll never bunt,” or the opposite. basically, the point is that the manager should treat unclear situations as unclear situations (and acknowledge that there are unclear situations), and not become predictable even in those situations.

Also, you have to assume that the other team isn’t smart enough to figure out this strategy.

No, to the contrary. Mixed strategies (involving randomizing) are used precisely because you assume the other team is as smart as you. So, if you can see that a sac bunt is a good move in this situation, so can they; if they also know you will use the sac whenever it is a good move, they’ll reduce its effectiveness by bringing in their corner infielders. If you randomize, you become unpredictable no matter how smart the other team is being.

It’s one thing to try to conceal a good strategy and another thing to employ a bad strategy because it will be a surprise.

Making your choice unpredictable makes what would be a worse strategy into a better one. Again compare football. Some situations are blitzing situations (down and distance and field position, along with strengths and weaknesses of each team, all public information). In these situations, a smart coach will sometimes mix in a cover-two, or show blitz and back off. If you never do that, you’ll get screened to death on the blitzing downs.

What supports your perspective? It’s fine for you to regret that the games start later, but that doesn’t mean baseball should.

“I have never bought into the argument that late starts are killing the future fan base because as a kid, my fandom wasn’t inspired by the postseason, but by the daily following of the Yankees.”

THAT is where I suggested you were arguing form the personal. If you offer stats showing the audience doesn’t drop, that’s different. If you say Fox looks at it closely and maximizes their ratings … well, that’s how we get extra days off in the ALCS, too. In other words

a) you shifted ground from the personal ‘as a kid, my fandom…’ which was your argument at that point and the one I queried and

b) I find the numbers you cite interesting and maybe even persuasive except … the same numbers would presumably apply to the 11pm to midnight slot if the game had started earlier! AND

c) Basically I am regretting that tv station logistics is determining the SHIFT of start times from the usual 7 to 8 or 8:30

But I see you have a sacrifice bunt fight on your hands and only 6 and a half hours to opening pitch, so I’ll drop this! It really was just an expression of regret.

Employing a sacrifice is not about overachieving. It is a purposeful act designed to trade an out for a base. Besides, how many times do you have to flip a coin to be unpredictable? And, if you only flip the coin when it’s a close call anyway, how does the opposition know which way the manager is leaning. Presumably, in 51/49 scenarios, it is just as likely to lean bunt as don’t bunt.

Fox’s ratings for the Yankees’ 13-inning win against the Angels Saturday night peaked at 11:30-midnight ET, and held 90% of its audience for a game that lasted until 1:07 a.m. For anybody who thinks MLB is impractical by staging late games: That game’s ratings among males aged 18-49 — the demographic craved in TV sports — peaked after 1 a.m.”

I am pretty sure that FOX has looked at this issue very carefully and determined that more people will watch at the current hours. After all, it is in their best interest to attract the most viewers.

If it was determined by my own interest, these games would all start at 6PM. Why I think a 7PM start on the east coast is bad for baseball is because I think it will mean fewer people can watch the games. Starting at 6, 5 and 4 throughout the country will really make it difficult for a large portion of the country to watch, which I think is important to consider.

The point, to rephrase your take, isn’t when they start (7 vs 8) it is when they end.

I do hear your rest of the country argument, but that’s really just the west coast for a 7:30 start and they are used to early starts anyhow, during the season. In effect, baseball has shifted start times BACK an hour or an hour and a half for the WS from the usual 7 pm. I am simply suggesting it is a bad idea and my focus is on the end time, not the start.

Add October, cold, colder later …

Put it another way … what would be bad, from your point of view, with an earlier start?