Can we discuss Molitor and his bizarre obession with bunting?

[TheLeviathan]

They decreased their odds of scoring any amount of runs by giving up an out. Just put the ball in play, the runners still likely move over and maybe, just maybe you actually get a hit......crazy I know.

I don't know the percentages but the risk v reward here isn't being fairly assessed. These were the choices:

 

1 out, no double play possibility, one hit ties the game

 

Or

 

Nobody out, double play is possible, two hits needed to tie

 

I don't have a huge problem with the choice, especially with two of your better hitters coming up.

[Otto von Ballpark]

No bunt means you need two hits or an extra-base hit.

Not necessarily, a non-bunt out could also advance the runners.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Not to mention, Toronto was expecting the bunt and in fact welcoming it (Hawk was pumping strikes) and Donaldson is a great 3B so there was very little chance of Robinson reaching on the bunt, and actually a fair chance of him screwing it up too.

[USAFChief]

I don't know the percentages but the risk v reward here isn't being fairly assessed. These were the choices:

1 out, no double play possibility, one hit ties the game

Or

Nobody out, double play is possible, two hits needed to tie

I don't have a huge problem with the choice, especially with two of your better hitters coming up.

Two hits aren't necessary in either case, if the hit comes before the out.

[USAFChief]

FWIW (not much IMO), BPro's run expectancy chart: 1st and 2nd, no out =1.43, 2ndand 3rd one out, 1.29.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Nobody out, double play is possible, two hits needed to tie

.

Again, "two hits needed to tie" is not accurate. It assumes only single-base advancement, and only on hits. (But with runners at 2nd and 3rd, we have no problem assuming the runner on 2nd will score on any hit?)

 

Also, while DPs suck, by definition playing to avoid them has a cost.

[Otto von Ballpark]

FWIW (not much IMO), BPro's run expectancy chart: 1st and 2nd, no out =1.43, 2ndand 3rd one out, 1.29.

And for the record, I am not basing my opinion on that. It is simply a matter of how precious outs are. Robinson, for all his faults, still has a 1-in-4 chance of getting a hit (not much different in that specific regard than Dozier). Giving away that chance has a cost.

 

Ask Toronto how they felt about the bunt, it seemed like they welcomed it.

[TheLeviathan]

Two hits aren't necessary in either case, if the hit comes before the out.

Even if Robinson gets a hit it's still not a tie game, after the bunt one hit (given those on base) was likely to result in a tie. B-ref's win probability difference was +4% after the bunt so strictly by percentages it was not the best call! but also not as crippling as many of you are making out.

[TheLeviathan]

Not to mention, Toronto was expecting the bunt and in fact welcoming it (Hawk was pumping strikes) and Donaldson is a great 3B so there was very little chance of Robinson reaching on the bunt, and actually a fair chance of him screwing it up too.

They were pumping him hard and in, which is what you do when you expect a bunt. Playing for the strategy you expect doesn't mean you're inviting it, you're just playing to make sure you get the out.

[Shane Wahl]

 

I don't like bunting, but it totally made sense in that situation. On the road, you play for the tie and keep the game going. I have zero problem with it in that case.

 

On the road you play for the tie? What? Giving up an out there down TWO does not, in any, way, shape, or form make sense. Down one, sure (a second out can produce the tying run).

[DaveW]

Even if Robinson gets a hit it's still not a tie game, after the bunt one hit (given those on base) was likely to result in a tie. B-ref's win probability difference was +4% after the bunt so strictly by percentages it was not the best call! but also not as crippling as many of you are making out.

But if Hunter gets a hit it could be a tie game since he actually ha doubles and HR power.... This also doesn't factor in positive things like: walks, wild pitches etc

 

If Hunter comes to the plate you are looking at the following:

 

10% chance he gets a double or better (ties the game)

25% chance he gets a single or walk (one runner score one on third potentially)

5% chance he GIDP

40%chance he gets out (1st and 2nd 1 out)

20%chance he gets out but advances the runners anyways.

[Mike Sixel]

Uh, if you aren't using run expectancy, you aren't using logic to make the decision. I find it funny that people are actually using run expectancy to explain their position, but for some reason don't want to use the math based on millions and millions of calculation......very funny.

 

Molitor is not yet showing to be good at his job. He bunts for no good reason. He brings in the wrong RP a lot. He won't platoon. He doesn't PH at all. I'm not a fan yet. It's only 1 year, but if he's still like this next year, he should be gone, imo.

 

For all the talk of being modern and trusting numbers.....he clearly isn't doing that tactically.

[TheLeviathan]

Strictly speaking it did drop their chances of winning and I would have rather seen Hunter as well, but it wasn't crippling stupidity either. Other bunts by this team have made far less sense.

[Seth Stohs]

 

On the road you play for the tie? What? Giving up an out there down TWO does not, in any, way, shape, or form make sense. Down one, sure (a second out can produce the tying run).

 

You have to score two to keep the game going. Three would be great, but if you don't get two, you lose. 

[DaveW]

Strictly speaking it did drop their chances of winning and I would have rather seen Hunter as well, but it wasn't crippling stupidity either. Other bunts by this team have made far less sense.

Perhaps, but combined with all of the other bunts he has called this year, one could argue that those as a whole are "crippingly stupid"

 

If you don't have Hunter on the bench, I don't have as big of an issue with it since Robinson is a bad hitter. But with Hunter on the bench, you absolutely have to have him bat there. Add to the fact that the Twins are in a tailspin, it's not the time to play super conservative anyways.

[DaveW]

You have to score two to keep the game going. Three would be great, but if you don't get two, you lose.

and giving away an out gets you 1/3rd closer to losing.

[USAFChief]

 

Even if Robinson gets a hit it's still not a tie game, after the bunt one hit (given those on base) was likely to result in a tie. B-ref's win probability difference was +4% after the bunt so strictly by percentages it was not the best call! but also not as crippling as many of you are making out.

This is quite simple...in either case, at least one more hit is needed to tie the game.

 

The lead runner makes no difference to the game, it's the runner on 1st base that matters.

 

By bunting, the second runner (the one that matters) is on 2nd with one out.  One hit is needed to tie the game.  He can't score without benefit of a hit (or an error/WP, which isn't a strategy, and in any case, has as much chance of happening whether you bunt or not).

 

By not bunting, if you get that same one hit, now the second runner is on 2nd (or third, or already across the plate), only now there are no outs.  Now the tying run doesn't need another hit to score.  Two sac flies would do it.  A bunt NOW puts the tying run at third instead of second.

 

No matter how you play that inning, you need at minimum, one more hit.  I would prefer to have three shots at it, with the understanding that I'm losing flexibility if that hit doesn't come in the first of the three tries.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

They were pumping him hard and in, which is what you do when you expect a bunt. Playing for the strategy you expect doesn't mean you're inviting it, you're just playing to make sure you get the out.

If you think those two pitches were "hard and in", you may want to go back and look at them.  The first one was middle of the zone, outer half of the plate, Robinson pulled the bat back and it was called a strike (how often do inside pitches get called strikes on pulled back bunt attempts?).  The second pitch was middle of the plate, about level with Robinson's head.

 

Here's Gameday:

 

And here's the strike zone map from Toronto's broadcast:

 

Here's Martin set up on pitch #1 (almost exactly where it came in):

 

And here he is, in a very similar spot set up for pitch #2:

 

And regardless of how/where they were pitching him, put your shoes on their feet for a minute.  If Perkins came in with a 2 run lead, and put the first 2 runners on, we'd be ecstatic if the other team decided to bunt with the third batter (assuming the third batter wasn't a pitcher or Butera/Fryer, and he wasn't -- for all Robinson's shortcomings, his batting average is just a hair below league average this year, basically the same as Hunter's and Dozier's so far).

[USAFChief]

 

Uh, if you aren't using run expectancy, you aren't using logic to make the decision. I find it funny that people are actually using run expectancy to explain their position, but for some reason don't want to use the math based on millions and millions of calculation......very funny.

 

Molitor is not yet showing to be good at his job. He bunts for no good reason. He brings in the wrong RP a lot. He won't platoon. He doesn't PH at all. I'm not a fan yet. It's only 1 year, but if he's still like this next year, he should be gone, imo.

 

For all the talk of being modern and trusting numbers.....he clearly isn't doing that tactically.

I don't like run expectancy charts because using the average of thousands of situations to describe the likely outcome of a specific situation doesn't seem to me very helpful, or very accurate.

 

By using thousands of situations, you have described the perfectly average pitcher, pitching to the perfectly average hitter, in a perfectly average inning, with perfectly average runners, in perfectly average weather....etc etc etc.

 

A specific situation isn't anything like that.  Shane Robinson against LaTroy Hawkins, two on none out, ninth inning, isn't anything like Miguel Cabrera against a tiring Tommy Milone, 6th inning, which isn't anything like Eric Fryer against Max Scherzer, first inning, .... 

 

I shouldn't have even brought it up, because using run expectancy charts to dictate strategy is not smart, IMO.

 

[Shane Wahl]

`

 

This is quite simple...in either case, at least one more hit is needed to tie the game.

 

The lead runner makes no difference to the game, it's the runner on 1st base that matters.

 

By bunting, the second runner (the one that matters) is on 2nd with one out.  One hit is needed to tie the game.  He can't score without benefit of a hit (or an error/WP, which isn't a strategy, and in any case, has as much chance of happening whether you bunt or not).

 

By not bunting, if you get that same one hit, now the second runner is on 2nd (or third, or already across the plate), only now there are no outs.  Now the tying run doesn't need another hit to score.  Two sac flies would do it.  A bunt NOW puts the tying run at third instead of second.

 

No matter how you play that inning, you need at minimum, one more hit.  I would prefer to have three shots at it, with the understanding that I'm losing flexibility if that hit doesn't come in the first of the three tries.

 

It isn't clear that there is any counter-argument to this, so I am befuddled as to why there still are attempts to do so.

[Shane Wahl]

Are we still at the stage of explaining why giving up outs is prima facie a bad thing? That some serious reasons have to be given to ever give them up willingly? I am OK bunting there if down one run, given it's Shane Robinson and, for whatever inane reason, Torii Hunter wasn't an option to pinch hit. Down two, you need a hit, regardless and you have three chances.

[Mike Sixel]

Except, Chief, you are using run expectancy in every explanation you make.....you are just using words. I don't get why, but you really same to hate math, even though you are using a word problem in place of numbers......

 

Either way, it was a bad decision.

[Otto von Ballpark]

While we're discussing bunts, how about Sunday's game?  Bottom of the 10th, tie game, leadoff walk, Rosario swings and fouls the first pitch, then spends the next two pitches squaring to bunt (a take and a bunt foul) before striking out on the fourth pitch.

 

Interestingly, in Sunday's game, Robinson was due up next, but Hunter pinch-hit for him, and hit a grounder to shortstop which did NOT result in a double play -- Nunez (the same runner who was on first last night) still advanced to second base, no bunt necessary...

[jorgenswest]

The Twins have 21 sacrifice bunts this year and that puts them in the middle of the pack in the AL. Hardly an obsession.

 

As for last night, the Twins did increase the likelihood that they would score exactly two runs slightly by successfully bunting. It helps that the double play possibility is eliminated by the bunt. However by bunting, they decreased the likelihood they would score more than 2 runs significantly. Therefore the likelihood that they would win the game went down from 23% to 16%.

 

Of course this is all without context. A good hitter batting with no outs and runners on first and second is optimal. The bunt is probably the best move with a weak hitter. The Twins had Torii Hunter on the bench. Perhaps they no longer view him as a good hitter in that situation.

[Pardon My Dinger]

Bunts are bad...mkay?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Of course this is all without context. A good hitter batting with no outs and runners on first and second is optimal. The bunt is probably the best move with a weak hitter. The Twins had Torii Hunter on the bench. Perhaps they no longer view him as a good hitter in that situation.

I mentioned upthread, but I don't consider Robinson to be a generically "weak hitter".  This is basically his third full season in MLB, and he has been just under the league batting average in all three.  The power leaves something to be desired, which is why pinch hitting with Hunter might have been a good play, but in terms of getting a hit, Robinson is not Butera, Fryer, 2015 Herrmann, or a pitcher up there.  His likelihood of simply getting a base hit is about equal to Hunter and Dozier.

 

Actually, I could see some argument that letting Robinson hit instead of Hunter makes Toronto prepare for a possible bunt, and maybe reduces the chance of a DP, without losing any likelihood of a simple base hit.  But I don't think actually making him go through with the bunt, on the first two pitches, the second of which was way out of the zone, was a good idea in that situation.

 

Also, if Hunter is no longer viewed as a good hitter in that situation, and is ceding more starts to Robinson... maybe there actually is room for another outfielder/bat to get playing time?

[jimmer]

old school guy went with his gut instead of what the math geeks say :-)

[Otto von Ballpark]

Interestingly, Shane Robinson had zero successful sacrifice bunts in his Cardinals career.  B-Ref shows a single failed attempt in 2012.  He is now 2-for-2 in sac bunt attempts for the Twins this year.  Yay!

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinsh01-bat.shtml#batting_situational::none

[Mike Sixel]

 

Interestingly, Shane Robinson had zero successful sacrifice bunts in his Cardinals career.  B-Ref shows a single failed attempt in 2012.  He is now 2-for-2 in sac bunt attempts for the Twins this year.  Yay!

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/robinsh01-bat.shtml#batting_situational::none

 

coaching, it's all in the coaching.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No matter how you play that inning, you need at minimum, one more hit.  I would prefer to have three shots at it, with the understanding that I'm losing flexibility if that hit doesn't come in the first of the three tries.

 

That's fair, I just think the decision here is more of a toss up than many are giving it.  The bunt gave them a better chance to tie, while you're talking about a better chance to win.  (Fair to say that perhaps it should've been more about winning than prolonging the game) Also, as you pointed out, not every situation is the same, I think that's important.

 

Hicks was swinging well that game and the bunt guaranteed (for all intents and purposes) that one of your best hitters would get a shot.  Is it a great decision?  No, I'd have preferred a pinch hit, but it wasn't that awful.