Game Thread, Twins @ Blue Jays, 8/5 @ 6:07pm CT

[DaveW]

For the record, I hate that sacrifice bunt. They need to play for many not two. Toronto still gets to bat!

the only defensible time to bunt in that situation is if the game is tied.

 

Also, why the ever living **** has Shane Robinson played/started in 2 of the past 4 games?

[Kwak]

Part of me says there was a "gentleman's agreement",  "you start your meatball tosser, and I'll start mine."

[AlwaysinModeration]

I just wanted to check in to express my hatred for the ninth inning bunt. You are behind by two runs, and you have three outs left. Do NOT give away one of them.

[SwainZag]

Down 2, a struggling offense and it assures that your best hitter in Dozier will get to bat with runners on if it's successful.  I didn't mind it.  Puts the DP out of play and gives you two cracks to tie the game with a hit.

[DaveW]

Down 2, a struggling offense and it assures that your best hitter in Dozier will get to bat with runners on if it's successful. I didn't mind it. Puts the DP out of play and gives you two cracks to tie the game with a hit.

any strategy where the main benefit is "staying out of the double play" is a losing strategy.

[twinsnorth49]

Down 2, a struggling offense and it assures that your best hitter in Dozier will get to bat with runners on if it's successful. I didn't mind it. Puts the DP out of play and gives you two cracks to tie the game with a hit.

Instead of a hit which would have scored one, maybe two and given you 3 cracks at more?

 

I don't think a struggling offense needs to give away outs, they need to step up, swing away and make something happen.

[DaveW]

Instead of a hit which would have scored one, maybe two and given you 3 cracks at more?

 

I don't think a struggling offense needs to give away outs, they need to step up, swing away and make something happen.

Or even if Hunter (PH) doesn't get a hit (or a walk) there is still a pretty decent chance the runners advance anyways.

 

even a hit and run would be infinitely better than giving away an out on a bunt.

[Platoon]

Instead of a hit which would have scored one, maybe two and given you 3 cracks at more?

I don't think a struggling offense needs to give away outs, they need to step up, swing away and make something happen.

What we needed more than anything was a productive out! In all seriousness, while I am not a fan of the Hunter signing, he needed to hit for Robinson. Sarcasm aside, he is the veteran leader, that is the spot he should have been signed for.

[Platoon]

To the "you would just complain about something else crowd", yes we would! . But some of the decisions made lately are head scratching. Both on the field and off. The endless bunting, practically no bench, and when there is one, no PH. The use, or lack thereof of May. Arcia in Rochester and Robinson here. Throwing Tyelr Duffey to the wolves. In a normal situation, against a less offensive team at home, yes. But this was a spot for May, 3-4 innings or not. Then you could still use Duffey if it went to hell. The veteran Hunter sits comfortably on the bench, two on and no outs. Bottom of the order up. The season drifting in the same direction as the Edmund Fitzgerald, and never gets an AB. I always considered signing Hunter less than a good idea for this team. And the situation last night made it even more so.

[spinowner]

 

Instead of a hit which would have scored one, maybe two and given you 3 cracks at more?

I don't think a struggling offense needs to give away outs, they need to step up, swing away and make something happen.

But given who was batting you must also factor in the likelihood of a hit vs the likelihood of a successful bunt. If you're not going to pinch hit the bunt was not a bad call.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Just looked up the Baseball Prospectus run expectancy chart, which calculates how many runs actually score in every out/baserunner scenario.

 

With no one out, and runners at first and second, the scoring expectation is 1.43. With one out and runners at second and third, the scoring expectation is 1.29. So Molitor reduced the scoring expectation by 10%, without even factoring in the chance of the bunt failing (pop up/failure to get it down).

 

It's not a huge difference, but the job of the manager is to find ways to increase the team's odds. This was clearcut example of Molitor (micro) managing in a way that actively decreased the team's expected scoring, and thus, chances of winning.

 

"All right boys, we've got ourselves a rally going. Keep it going, let's get some more hits, and do whatever it takes to avoid making an out."

[spinowner]

 

Just looked up the Baseball Prospectus run expectancy chart, which calculates how many runs actually score in every out/baserunner scenario.

With no one out, and runners at first and second, the scoring expectation is 1.43. With one out and runners at second and third, the scoring expectation is 1.29. So Molitor reduced the scoring expectation by 10%, without even factoring in the chance of the bunt failing (pop up/failure to get it down).

It's not a huge difference, but the job of the manager is to find ways to increase the team's odds. This was clearcut example of Molitor (micro) managing in a way that actively decreased the team's expected scoring, and thus, chances of winning.

"All right boys, we've got ourselves a rally going. Keep it going, let's get some more hits, and do whatever it takes to avoid making an out."

This is all true and should be considered in the decision. But also consider what can happen if the bunt is not called. A strikeout or short fly ball does not advance the runners. A long fly ball might advance the lead runner but hardly ever would advance both runners. A high percentage of ground balls fielded by an infielder would result in one of the baserunners being forced out, and quite possibly a double play. With the exception of both runners advancing on a long fly ball these outcomes all worsen the scoring expectation more than a sacrifice bunt. Simply telling the team to "get some more hits" doesn't make it happen. With Shane Robinson batting the bunt was the better choice, IMO. Of course there's also the option of bringing in Hunter to pinch hit but that is a completely different discussion.

[Mike Sixel]

You can't be driven by fear........that's what the bunt is there, fear of bad things happening. Assuming a bad outcome, and therefore making a sub-optimal choice.......that's how you end up losing more often than winning.

[SwainZag]

 

You can't be driven by fear........that's what the bunt is there, fear of bad things happening. Assuming a bad outcome, and therefore making a sub-optimal choice.......that's how you end up losing more often than winning.

 

I wouldn't call it fear it all.  I think in Molitor's mind having runners on 2nd and 3rd with Hicks and Dozier getting at bats had a higher chance of advancing the game than Robinson/Hunter, Hicks and Dozier with runners on 1st and 2nd with zero outs.  It didn't work out.  Going the other way didn't might not have worked out either.  But I wouldn't call it fear per-say.

[Mike Sixel]

The post I was replying to was all about the bad things that could happen if he didn't bunt......in other words, all about fear, imo.

 

I don't think what Molitor did was about fear (I have no idea, actually), I think it was about him not understanding the math......and not wanting to use Hunter for some reason.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Simply telling the team to "get some more hits" doesn't make it happen. With Shane Robinson batting the bunt was the better choice, IMO. Of course there's also the option of bringing in Hunter to pinch hit but that is a completely different discussion.

Roughly speaking, Shane Robinson has a 30% chance of reaching base safely in that PA, and a 25% chance of a base hit, the latter being basically the same as Hunter or Dozier (or probably Hicks, for that matter).  Telling him to bunt reduces that to virtually 0%, considering that the Jays were playing for the bunt, have a great defensive 3B, and that Robinson's record suggests he is not an especially good/experienced bunter (frankly, given his attempts at bunting, they are lucky the runners advanced).  That's HUGE.

 

Also, look at the pitching situation.  Hawkins had thrown 8 pitches that inning, and Escobar and Nunez had made contact on all 6 they had swung at so far, with a called strike and a very close ball.  He's going to be around the zone because he doesn't want to fall behind or walk the #9 hitter there.  That's an opportunity to send the runners, avoid the DP, and let Robinson put the ball in play.  NOT give up an out.  I guarantee that Toronto was happy we bunted there.

[spinowner]

 

The post I was replying to was all about the bad things that could happen if he didn't bunt......in other words, all about fear, imo.

 

I don't think what Molitor did was about fear (I have no idea, actually), I think it was about him not understanding the math......and not wanting to use Hunter for some reason.

No, it's not fear. It's an unemotional analysis. The manager evaluates all the different possible outcomes of all the different options and decides which option is the most likely to be the most advantageous. Lots of good managers would bunt in that situation. Lots of good ones wouldn't. But there's no fear.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No, it's not fear. It's an unemotional analysis. The manager evaluates all the different possible outcomes of all the different options and decides which option is the most likely to be the most advantageous. Lots of good managers would bunt in that situation. Lots of good ones wouldn't. But there's no fear.

 

Actually, lots of existing managers would make the bad decision to bunt......doesn't make it the right decision, even if they are good managers.

 

And, that post was all about the downside, no upside analysis at all. Unless I read it wrong......

[spinowner]

 

Actually, lots of existing managers would make the bad decision to bunt......doesn't make it the right decision, even if they are good managers.

 

And, that post was all about the downside, no upside analysis at all. Unless I read it wrong......

Yeah, the upside is that Shane Robinson could have hit a 3-run home run. Now, if you think it would be good strategy to plan on him doing that, more power to you. And the fact that there's not a consensus about whether to bunt or not shows that it can't be labeled as a good decision or a bad decision.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yeah, the upside is that Shane Robinson could have hit a 3-run home run. Now, if you think it would be good strategy to plan on him doing that, more power to you. And the fact that there's not a consensus about whether to bunt or not shows that it can't be labeled as a good decision or a bad decision.

 

I suggest you read the logical fallacy post in sportsbar thread.....