(02-16-2015 10:41 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First, the bunt in the 9th was with the score tied. One run wins it there.
As for the 10th down 1 run, there are three possible outcomes--you score 0 and lose, you score 1 and play on, or you score more than 1 and win outright. Not bunting increases the probability of scoring more than 1 and winning outright, but it also increases the probability of scoring 0 and losing. Bunting increases the probability of scoring exactly 1 and going to the 11th.

Yes, thanks...I meant 10th. Analysis has definitely shown though that at the MLB level you should absolutely not bunt in that situation. Obviously this is true since even your chance of scoring one run is slightly reduced! In college maybe (depending on the hitter, defense, pitcher) it may often make sense to bunt if you need just one run to win....but it is not so different that you should normally do it if you are behind a run.

What analysis has shown that? I'm a pretty heavy-duty SABR and Sabermetrics guy, and I haven't seen that.

(02-16-2015 09:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 09:02 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:47 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Did not care for the bunt in B10. That was going for the tie, which is the same as playing not to lose.

The book says go for the win on the road and the tie at home. There is hardly a manager or head coach who would not have bunted in that situation. It was absolutely the right thing to do.

On average the chance of winning the game is higher if you try to hit in that situation. Even in college ball. If the book says otherwise then it is wrong.

On average you will score MORE runs not bunting than bunting in that situation. But, the chances of scoring ONE run are higher with the bunt. Not bunting, you will have more innings where you score more runs, but you will also have more innings where you don't score. Bill James would bunt there.

Every Coach would bunt there-- even Earl Weaver.

(02-16-2015 10:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What analysis has shown that? I'm a pretty heavy-duty SABR and Sabermetrics guy, and I haven't seen that.

Googled and this was the first one that returned. I have seen similar numbers elsewhere for MLB.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/pu...druns.html

Chance of >0 runs with a man on 1st and no outs: 0.435
Chance of >0 runs with a man on 2nd and 1 out: 0.414

(02-16-2015 10:58 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 10:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What analysis has shown that? I'm a pretty heavy-duty SABR and Sabermetrics guy, and I haven't seen that.

Googled and this was the first one that returned. I have seen similar numbers elsewhere for MLB.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/pu...druns.html

Chance of >0 runs with a man on 1st and no outs: 0.435
Chance of >0 runs with a man on 2nd and 1 out: 0.414

I actually think those numbers are going to be significantly different at the college level vs. pro. It's not so much the increased chance of errors, walks and poor throws to the plate, but you're dealing with less mature pitchers than those at the MLB level who are more likely to get a bit rattled with a runner in scoring position. The college and MLB games are very, very different; not slightly different.

(02-16-2015 10:51 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 09:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 09:02 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 05:47 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Did not care for the bunt in B10. That was going for the tie, which is the same as playing not to lose.

The book says go for the win on the road and the tie at home. There is hardly a manager or head coach who would not have bunted in that situation. It was absolutely the right thing to do.

On average the chance of winning the game is higher if you try to hit in that situation. Even in college ball. If the book says otherwise then it is wrong.

On average you will score MORE runs not bunting than bunting in that situation. But, the chances of scoring ONE run are higher with the bunt. Not bunting, you will have more innings where you score more runs, but you will also have more innings where you don't score. Bill James would bunt there.

Every Coach would bunt there-- even Earl Weaver.

Bill James would bunt there.

Comparing expectancies with a runner at first and no outs versus a runner at second with one out may indicate a slight preference for not bunting, even to score just one run. But the results of bunting are not always a one base advance in exchange for one out. You have bunt base hits, errors, unsuccessful fielder's choices--and of course double plays--but the positive variances outweigh the negative, and by a wide enough margin to offset the first-base-no-outs versus second-base-one-out differentials.

Of course, pretty much all of the analyses omit one important consideration--who is at bat and who is on deck. You don't have Babe Ruth bunt the runner over for Bob Buhl, but you would have Bob Buhl try to bunt the runner over for Babe Ruth.

Reminds me of an interesting discussion I heard on an Astros broadcast several years ago. They were on the road and I was listening to the home team feed (IIRC Washington) on Sirius/XM. Adam Everett led the inning with a walk or single. Brad Ausmus was at the plate, with Brandon Backe on deck and top of the order Michael Bourne in the hole. Washington made a pitching change, and during the change (after the commercial break), the announcers were speculating that Astros might have Ausmus bunt Everett over for Backe, who was a very good hitting pitcher. Then they were thinking Nats might walk Backe to pitch to Bourne, who was not a great RBI guy nor a good hitter with runners on base (he beat out a lot of grounders that turned into forceouts with runners on base). Interesting possibilities.

(02-16-2015 11:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  but the positive variances outweigh the negative, and by a wide enough margin to offset the first-base-no-outs versus second-base-one-out differentials.

In MLB I think the bunters and fielders are good enough that the difference is minimal and the chart is pretty much valid as is. The vast majority of bunts advance a runner at the expense of a single out.

(02-16-2015 11:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course, pretty much all of the analyses omit one important consideration--who is at bat and who is on deck. You don't have Babe Ruth bunt the runner over for Bob Buhl, but you would have Bob Buhl try to bunt the runner over for Babe Ruth.

True...I remember being frustrated in our regional vs Ark several years ago were we "successfully" sac bunted hitters in the middle of our lineup. The innings all ended with lesser batters at the plate failing to get any runs home.

(02-16-2015 11:32 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 11:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  but the positive variances outweigh the negative, and by a wide enough margin to offset the first-base-no-outs versus second-base-one-out differentials.

In MLB I think the bunters and fielders are good enough that the difference is minimal and the chart is pretty much valid as is. The vast majority of bunts advance a runner at the expense of a single out.

The differences in the tables are so small that it doesn't take much variation in practice to blow them away. NCAA teams don't field as well as MLB, but on the other hand they're probably not as adept at getting the bunt down. Most of these guys spent their HS careers not bunting the runner over, but rather being the batter that others bunted runners over for. Overall, the differences probably are more favorable to the bunt than in MLB.

Quote:

(02-16-2015 11:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course, pretty much all of the analyses omit one important consideration--who is at bat and who is on deck. You don't have Babe Ruth bunt the runner over for Bob Buhl, but you would have Bob Buhl try to bunt the runner over for Babe Ruth.

True...I remember being frustrated in our regional vs Ark several years ago were we "successfully" sac bunted hitters in the middle of our lineup. The innings all ended with lesser batters at the plate failing to get any runs home.

I don't like bunting with the middle of the lineup and I don't like bunting early in the game. Late, tied or down one run, and at home, it makes sense. I mentioned Bill James. He started out totally against the bunt, but at some point he ran some computer simulations, hundreds of thousands of games, and teams that bunted late, tied or down one run, and at home, did improve their won-lost record materially. He concluded that bunting was useful within those parameters.

Bunt is a four letter word, and should be avoided in polite company.

(02-17-2015 01:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bunt is a four letter word, and should be avoided in polite company.

Hmmm, I will try this out..."I think you are a bit of a bunt". That sounds bad, see it works as a four letter word!

Edit: In case I need to clarify, because this is the Internet and all, I didn't mean to address that to OO, was just using bunt in a sentence.

(02-16-2015 11:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 10:51 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 09:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 09:02 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(02-15-2015 06:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  The book says go for the win on the road and the tie at home. There is hardly a manager or head coach who would not have bunted in that situation. It was absolutely the right thing to do.

On average the chance of winning the game is higher if you try to hit in that situation. Even in college ball. If the book says otherwise then it is wrong.

On average you will score MORE runs not bunting than bunting in that situation. But, the chances of scoring ONE run are higher with the bunt. Not bunting, you will have more innings where you score more runs, but you will also have more innings where you don't score. Bill James would bunt there.

Every Coach would bunt there-- even Earl Weaver.

Bill James would bunt there.

Comparing expectancies with a runner at first and no outs versus a runner at second with one out may indicate a slight preference for not bunting, even to score just one run. But the results of bunting are not always a one base advance in exchange for one out. You have bunt base hits, errors, unsuccessful fielder's choices--and of course double plays--but the positive variances outweigh the negative, and by a wide enough margin to offset the first-base-no-outs versus second-base-one-out differentials.

Of course, pretty much all of the analyses omit one important consideration--who is at bat and who is on deck. You don't have Babe Ruth bunt the runner over for Bob Buhl, but you would have Bob Buhl try to bunt the runner over for Babe Ruth.

Reminds me of an interesting discussion I heard on an Astros broadcast several years ago. They were on the road and I was listening to the home team feed (IIRC Washington) on Sirius/XM. Adam Everett led the inning with a walk or single. Brad Ausmus was at the plate, with Brandon Backe on deck and top of the order Michael Bourne in the hole. Washington made a pitching change, and during the change (after the commercial break), the announcers were speculating that Astros might have Ausmus bunt Everett over for Backe, who was a very good hitting pitcher. Then they were thinking Nats might walk Backe to pitch to Bourne, who was not a great RBI guy nor a good hitter with runners on base (he beat out a lot of grounders that turned into forceouts with runners on base). Interesting possibilities.

Personally, I would pinch-hit for Bob Buhl, particularly late in the game.

(02-16-2015 11:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Reminds me of an interesting discussion I heard on an Astros broadcast several years ago. They were on the road and I was listening to the home team feed (IIRC Washington) on Sirius/XM. Adam Everett led the inning with a walk or single. Brad Ausmus was at the plate, with Brandon Backe on deck and top of the order Michael Bourne in the hole. Washington made a pitching change, and during the change (after the commercial break), the announcers were speculating that Astros might have Ausmus bunt Everett over for Backe, who was a very good hitting pitcher.

Given that Ausmus batting with a man on first was almost a guaranteed double play, any move that resulted is Ausmus producing only one out instead of two would be a positive move. Often in that situation, if Ausmus were swinging away instead of bunting, the fans would pray for him to strike out rather than make contact.

(02-17-2015 09:30 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-16-2015 11:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Reminds me of an interesting discussion I heard on an Astros broadcast several years ago. They were on the road and I was listening to the home team feed (IIRC Washington) on Sirius/XM. Adam Everett led the inning with a walk or single. Brad Ausmus was at the plate, with Brandon Backe on deck and top of the order Michael Bourne in the hole. Washington made a pitching change, and during the change (after the commercial break), the announcers were speculating that Astros might have Ausmus bunt Everett over for Backe, who was a very good hitting pitcher.

Given that Ausmus batting with a man on first was almost a guaranteed double play, any move that resulted is Ausmus producing only one out instead of two would be a positive move. Often in that situation, if Ausmus were swinging away instead of bunting, the fans would pray for him to strike out rather than make contact.

I saw Ausmus hit a home run. Once.

(02-16-2015 10:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First, the bunt in the 9th was with the score tied. One run wins it there.

As for the 10th down 1 run, there are three possible outcomes--you score 0 and lose, you score 1 and play on, or you score more than 1 and win outright. Not bunting increases the probability of scoring more than 1 and winning outright, but it also increases the probability of scoring 0 and losing. Bunting increases the probability of scoring exactly 1 and going to the 11th.

Going to the theoretical (I literally brought the audio up for the game to hear the last at bat, so I didn't hear the critical parts of the game).

If the odds of scoring one run bunting are X and odds of scoring one run hitting are Y and two runs Z, then you have to look at the likelihood a team wins once it goes to extra innings. If we were to say that odds of winning in extra innings is 55% for the home team, then you'd have to figure that bunting is better only if:

Likelihood of loss in current inning batting: (1-y)
Likelihood of loss in extra innings batting: (y-z)*.45
Likelihood of loss in current inning bunting: (1-x)
Likelihood of loss in extra innings bunting: x*.45

Scoring one run is greater with a bunt: X>Y>Z
and total number of runs is maximized with a hit: (y+z*2 > x), noting that 2 is a stand-in for any number of runs greater than one, but assume it's not going to be much more than 2... z>(x-y)/2

So, bunt if (1-x)+.45*x < (1-y)+(y-z)*.45, or (1-.55*x) < (1-.55*y-.45*z), or if (.55*x) > (.55*y + .45*z) or (x-y)*(5/4)>z or (x-y)*(5/4)>(x-y)/2 ... since 5/4 > 1/2, it seems like you're more likely to win by hitting.

Sorry that I can't organize it better or doublecheck my logic.

Also, regarding this whole idea of home-field advantage in extra innings, how big is it really? 55% seems high. Is the advantage anecdotal or statistical?

Great article by Kendall on the Rice - Texas series. See my post #6 in the Rice vs. HBU thread for the premium content...

http://csnbbs.com/thread-727357-post-117...id11778465

(02-17-2015 12:14 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Also, regarding this whole idea of home-field advantage in extra innings, how big is it really? 55% seems high. Is the advantage anecdotal or statistical?

I don't have the time now to search and vett the several possibilities, but the "Home Cooking" section of this 2014 article in Hardball Times may be useful.

Of course, the data is from MLB, so one might expect more variance in college games, but here are some quickie conclusions I see. (Read the full article for more explanations/details, of course.)

Quote:We all know about home-field advantage, though isolating its components is a tricky matter. There’s the psychological factor, the boost players get from home-town fans cheering them on, or from being in familiar surroundings. There’s a factor of game structure, where the home team bats last and has the tactical advantage of knowing in late innings how many runs they need to score or prevent to win the game. There may well be a physical fatigue factor, where the team on a road trip has gotten less rest lately and is therefore disadvantaged.

All these factors will come into play in extra innings, but in new ratios. The game structure will rise to dominance, as every inning the home team will know what they must do to win or re-tie the game, and can play small-ball or try to set up a big inning as necessary. The fans will still be there, cheering even harder, but presumably with less time in which to have their effect, and after nine innings of play, both teams are likely feeling fatigue.

With the variables so jumbled, it’s no surprise that home records in extra inning games will be different from the overall numbers. For the century of 1914-2013—averaging by year as usual—winning percentage for all home teams stands at .54175, and in extra innings the home nine performs at .52513.

. . . . .

In the average game, the psychological and physiological component is 78 percent of home-field advantage, with the batting-last advantage a mere 22 percent.

Go into extras, though, and the equation shifts dramatically. ... (T)he advantage accruing from batting last becomes just over twice as important as the rest, 67 to 33 percent, over the average length of extras.

(02-17-2015 12:14 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Also, regarding this whole idea of home-field advantage in extra innings, how big is it really? 55% seems high. Is the advantage anecdotal or statistical?

eh. WAG - I should've made that clear. I didn't really think that 55% was high, but it was something north of 50%, but I don't think that 50-70% really makes much difference in my prior analysis.

One gaping problem that I do see with my analysis is that all of those values - x-y-z are substantially different in different situations. For example, bunting with noone on and two outs, the value x is pretty small compared to man-on-third with no outs.