Can we discuss Molitor and his bizarre obession with bunting?

[Loosey]

 

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.

I don't like the play for the tie mentality and giving up an out.  Bat Hunter and hope he can drive the ball and a run in, or both.  Or maybe he moves the runners with a ground ball to the right.  I play to win on the road and at home, but I am not a Major League manager, so I could be wrong.  Also, playing for the tie with this bullpen is a risky proposition.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This infatuation with bunting is beyond absurd. Come on, Paul, you're smarter than this.

 

With that said, I didn't really mind last night's ninth inning bunt. It wasn't the call I'd make but at least it can be defended as sound thinking, which unfortunately cannot be said for the vast majority of the Twins' recent bunt attempts.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This infatuation with bunting is beyond absurd. Come on, Paul, you're smarter than this.

 

With that said, I didn't really mind last night's ninth inning bunt. It wasn't the call I'd make but at least it can be defended as sound thinking, which unfortunately cannot be said for the vast majority of the Twins' recent bunt attempts.

 

Is he? After this long, are we convinced he's really new school at all?

[John Bonnes]

Well, in this case, I'd rather use win probability than run expectancy. And per fan graphs, the probability of winning went down about 4% with a successful bunt. That's not crippling, but considering that there was only a 27% chance to begin with, that's hurting you pretty bad.

 

If Hunter was truly available - if there isn't something going on that we don't know about - then it's terrible.

 

But if he wasn't really available, then it's not a bad move and might be the best move. Those probabilities don't account for the players in the game, and the next two hitters up were Hicks (who has cooled off a bit this last week but also had two hits already in that game) and Dozier (who has also cooled off but certainly has also been clutch).

 

That's exactly the case - weak batter up, two strong batters behind him - that you can show bunting makes sense sabermetrically, if you care to crunch those numbers rather than just look up a if-everything-is-equal chart. And that's even more true if the batter has some speed that might work to his advantage, ala Shane Robinson.

 

So I guess I would read this as an indication that something is going on with Hunter, moreso than an indictment that Molitor doesn't understand when to bunt or when not to.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, in this case, I'd rather use win probability than run expectancy. And per fan graphs, the probability of winning went dow................

 

So I guess I would read this as an indication that something is going on with Hunter, moreso than an indictment that Molitor doesn't understand when to bunt or when not to.  

 

John, if it was an isolated incident, that argument would carry more weight, but we've seen him sacrifice in the third and fourth innings......haven't we?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

John, if it was an isolated incident, that argument would carry more weight, but we've seen him sacrifice in the third and fourth innings......haven't we?

To me, the difference is last night's bunt was defensible, maybe even the right move (though not my preference).

 

I don't think we should muddy the conversation with defensible actions... If you want to criticize Molitor for calling too many bunts, there are plenty of good examples that are completely indefensible from a numbers standpoint.

[Mike Sixel]

I thought this thread was about his obsession with bunts, not just last night's bunt......

 

and, last night happened, imo, because he thinks sacrifice bunts are a great idea. There is 2/3 of a season worth's of evidence of that.

[jimmer]

 

John, if it was an isolated incident, that argument would carry more weight, but we've seen him sacrifice in the third and fourth innings......haven't we?

it's been done in the 2nd inning as well.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If Hunter was truly available - if there isn't something going on that we don't know about - then it's terrible.

 

But if he wasn't really available, then it's not a bad move and might be the best move.

Robinson and Hunter are about equally likely to get a base hit in that situation, and also have similar probabilities of a DP (Robinson hits more balls on the ground, but is faster).  Obviously Robinson doesn't have the XBH potential to tie the game in that at-bat, but he seems to have very similar likelihood of runner advancement if you let him swing away:

 

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

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hunteto01-bat.shtml#batting_situational::none

 

Like I mentioned above, you might get some benefit from Robinson being a threat to bunt too, that Hunter would not get.  I doubt Donaldson confers with Hawkins if Hunter is walking up to the plate.

 

Also, if Hunter were to PH and reach, there would be no one to pinch-run for him (his run isn't that important, obviously, and it would be great if he reached, but he would become a DP liability on the bases).

[Willihammer]

 

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...

A while back fangraphs did a study and found just under half of committed bunt attempts actually put the ball in play. The truth is, not only are the benefits of the strategy dubious, but the execution is difficult. You're probably going to give away at least one swinging strike. There's an unquantified percentage of times where hitters will pull back the bat and take a called strike. And of course still more PAs that will go to two strikes and the batter will have to swing the bat anyway, only now he'll have to try to hit a pitchers pitch.

 

Seems to me that such a risky tactic as bunting ought to have a higher payoff than merely advancing the runners (at the cost of an out) in order to even be on the table.

 

edit: here's the fangraphs page

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Seems to me that such a risky tactic as bunting ought to have a higher payoff than merely advancing the runners (at the cost of an out) in order to even be on the table.

Yes, this. That's why I believe in bunting only when you need a specific amount of runs, those runs are on the basepaths, and outs are at a premium (generally, the last inning of the game).

 

Last night teetered on that being the case, though I wouldn't have called for a bunt with no outs. IMO, it would have been a more clear-cut case had the Twins been down by one run in that situation. Moving the winning run to second base in that situation is more important than the tying run. The Twins should have played for three runs in that situation by swinging away.

[Loosey]

 

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

That's an infinite Percentage improvement!

[Shane Wahl]

 

To me, the difference is last night's bunt was defensible, maybe even the right move (though not my preference).

 

I don't think we should muddy the conversation with defensible actions... If you want to criticize Molitor for calling too many bunts, there are plenty of good examples that are completely indefensible from a numbers standpoint.

 

Brock, you are remembering that the Twins were down two runs and not one, correct? (just honestly checking)

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, if you see my B-Ref link above, Robinson has ZERO bunt hits for his MLB career, and had zero successful sac bunts prior to this season.  I am not sure he's even a good bunter, even though he's the type of player you would expect/hope to be.

 

He certainly didn't look good bunting last night, pulling the bat back on a down-the-middle strike, then bunting a pitch level with his head up in the air.

 

Maybe it wasn't "awful" in that it didn't end the game, but I can't endorse that bunt call at all.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brock, you are remembering that the Twins were down two runs and not one, correct? (just honestly checking)

Hah, I just mentioned why I wouldn't have called a bunt in that situation just a few seconds ago.

[Willihammer]

I'll pile on.

 

Does it seem like this team makes a lot of outs on the bases? FWIW fangraphs says the Twins have lost 7.5 runs on the bases this season. I wonder if this is how great players rarely seem to become good managers. Like maybe they're applying the logic of their own talents onto less talented players. Eg. Plouffe getting picked off of 2nd base in the first inning yesterday. Plouffe.

[gil4]

 

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?

The good news is Buxton likely to start his rehab assignment on Friday.

[SwainZag]

 

I'll pile on.

 

Does it seem like this team makes a lot of outs on the bases? FWIW fangraphs says the Twins have lost 7.5 runs on the bases this season. I wonder if this is how great players rarely seem to become good managers. Like maybe they're applying the logic of their own talents onto less talented players. Eg. Plouffe getting picked off of 2nd base in the first inning yesterday. Plouffe.

 

With so many young players, mistakes are going to come out.  I don't see how you can blame anyone but Plouffe on getting picked off yesterday.

[John Bonnes]

Doing an analysis of a bunt can turn into a rabbit hole, but the perception that sabermetrics just says "bunting is wrong" is incorrect. What sabermetrics was saying, back in the day, is that "bunting is not always right." That seems obvious but was bunting was viewed as this glorious self-sacrificing act that put the team ahead of a ballplayer's own stats. Thus, it was praised unanimously in almost every situation 20-30 years ago. 

 

The truth is that Sabermetrics shows there are lots of good times to bunt both early and late in a game. The keys seem to be:

1) What is the likelihood that the bunter can actually get on base with the bunt? If it's pretty good, then go for it. Or....

2) If the bunter is a bad hitter in front of two good hitters, it works, too. 

 

This particular situation had #2, might have had #1, AND also had a situation in which it was late in a close game. (And the fact that the Twins were down by 2 isn't necessarily a deal-breaker. The bunt got a tying run into scoring position.) 

 

So I don't have any problem with it if Molitor felt like Hunter couldn't go for some reason. As for other examples, we can look at them, but we would need to talk about one specifically.

[gil4]

 

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

I'm sure it's worth more than my guessing. I know some  have mentioned that it doesn't take into account the skill level of the pitcher or hitter, but I don't think any of the parties involved were far enough from average skew the numbers too badly

I saw somewhere in the thread that the odds of scoring exactly two runs went up by bunting, but that still means they have to outscore the Jays while having one less time at bat, and as a result the win probability dropped after the successful bunt (FWIW, also probably not much).

 

The main problem was being down two going to the 9th, which means no strategy is particularly likely to be successful.  It would be nice to maximize the possibility, but the differences between the strategies are miniscule compared to the differences of allowing that lead in the first place.  The real cure - pitch better and hit better.

[jimmer]

From Fangraphs

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-sacrifice-bunt-the-real-rally-killer/

 

'The only thing that needs to be executed is the sacrifice bunt from the playbook of Major League managers. It is not always the wrong move, but it is used far too often and in too many situations where swinging away is more likely to produce a positive result. At the front office level, every organization in the game is getting smarter. In some cities, the on-field personnel are utilizing facts and logic to better inform their tactical decisions. But, by and large, most Major League managers are still like Mattingly and Wedge, and they’re going to bunt regardless of whether or not it actually helps their team’s chances of winning.

 

We don’t live in 1953 anymore. We have access to more and better information than ever before. Teams are spending large amounts of resources to make better decisions to get improvements on the margins that may end up winning them one or two games over the course of the season. And yet, at the end of the day, most of these teams are still entrusting their in-game strategy to people who simply don’t understand the basic probabilities of the sport.

 

Maybe it’s going to take five more years. Maybe even 10 or 15. But at some point in our lifetime, teams are going to start hiring managers who understand that giving away an out should be a rare occurrence.

 

Bunting for a base hit, putting on a well-timed squeeze, beating an overshifted defense, having a pitcher move a runner into scoring position… there’s room for bunting in baseball. The frequency of sacrificing bunting that is prevalent now, though, is simply incorrect strategy, and the sooner it is removed from the sport, the better off Major League teams will be.'

[Kwak]

This is a 2-part question:  1) Too much bunting in general  2) The 9th inning bunt.

 

1) Yes.  Bunts work best with an element of surprise.  There needs to be a reasonable expectation that the bunter can reach base.  But, with the infield up, maybe even someone charging, a base hit expectation is lower.  Giving up an out--that's what a sacrifice means--reduces the probability of scoring more than those already on base.  Is scoring one (or two) enough to be decisive is the real question?  Let's be blunt, the Twins scored three in the top of the first--Toronto scored two in first then tacked on Seven (!) more.  Throwing away an out early doesn't make much sense.  Which brings us to Part 2)--the bunt in the 9th.

 

Does a sacrifice bunt make it easier to score two?  Maybe marginally.  BUT, here's the key, scoring two runs cannot win the game.  Three are required.  There is even more evidence.  Tonight the bats are alive--it's already 9-7--there has been a lot of scoring, and more is to be expected.  Runs have been scored in bunches!  The lowest scored has been two in an inning (when there is scoring); Toronto is known to be a high-scoring team with HR power aplenty.  Fact is, the Twins just plain don't know how many they need to score to win--except that that number is more than two runs.  More evidence--LaTroy is pitching--a known entity, and he is wobbling!  Two of Minnesota's "non-stars" got hits!  This could be a huge inning!  LaTroy is a strikeout/fly ball type pitcher, not the ground-ball (DP-inducing type).  Plus, Robinson is tough to double-up anyway  Finally, if Molitor truly believes Robinson can't hit LaTroy--he should pinch-hit!  Hunter has XBH power, and two hits may not be needed to score two--or even three runs.  A double, and two "productive outs" nets three runs.  Preface the double with a sacrifice bunt (and the two outs)--Oh no!--only TWO runs score.  Yikes!

[Shane Wahl]

Leaving this thread for good . . . eek.

[jorgenswest]

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

That sounds impressive until you realize his career from 2009-2014 consists of around 70 starts. He isn't going to be in a bunting situation as a sub pinch running or defensive replacement. Even as a pinch hitter they would leave in the pitcher to bunt. Of those starts the majority of them are batting 8th and 7th. No manager is going to bunt with the pitcher coming up. It is quite possible that a similar situation never came up in his time with the Cardinals.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That sounds impressive until you realize his career from 2009-2014 consists of around 70 starts. He isn't going to be in a bunting situation as a sub pinch running or defensive replacement. Even as a pinch hitter they would leave in the pitcher to bunt. Of those starts the majority of them are batting 8th and 7th. No manager is going to bunt with the pitcher coming up. It is quite possible that a similar situation never came up in his time with the Cardinals.

Perhaps.  But St Louis non-pitchers batting 7-9 had 21 sac bunts during Robinson's two main years there.  Peter Bourjos (Robinson's effective replacement in St. Louis) is 6-for-12 in sac bunt attempts in just a season and a half.  Pete Kozma has been deployed similarly this season, and has 4 sac bunt attempts.

 

And as I added in another post, Robinson has zero career bunt hits.  I think some posters were taking it for granted that Robinson should be able to bunt -- he certainly didn't look good doing it last night.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The truth is that Sabermetrics shows there are lots of good times to bunt both early and late in a game. The keys seem to be:

1) What is the likelihood that the bunter can actually get on base with the bunt? If it's pretty good, then go for it. Or....

2) If the bunter is a bad hitter in front of two good hitters, it works, too. 

 

This particular situation had #2, might have had #1, AND also had a situation in which it was late in a close game. (And the fact that the Twins were down by 2 isn't necessarily a deal-breaker. The bunt got a tying run into scoring position.) 

John, how exactly is #2 true?  Robinson is overall a worse hitter than Hicks and Dozier, true, but he's not pitcher- or even Fryer-level bad, that you just hope he can advance the runners with an out rather than K'ing or bouncing the ball back to the pitcher.  The likelihood of getting a base hit is about the same with Robinson as Hunter and Dozier (admittedly not for extra bases, but once you sac bunt you're not looking for extra bases anyway).

 

And how likely is #1 to be true?  Robinson has zero career bunt hits, and zero career sac bunts before this season.  Donaldson and Hawkins were prepared for the bunt, and even the announcers were expecting it.

[Shane Wahl]

Nothing seems wrong with Hunter . . .

[Mike Sixel]

 

Nothing seems wrong with Hunter . . .

 

yup. It's just clear Mollie wanted the bunt, and doesn't PH much. Reality, deal with it.

[jimbo92107]

There's a fine line between surprising your opponent, versus shooting yourself in the foot and saying, "Hey, I bet you didn't expect that!"

 

On the other hand, Paul Molitor's moves against Toronto don't matter any more than my chess moves against Kasparov. The mismatch is so great that the outcome is never in doubt.

 

With the lineups as-is, I don't think the Twins could beat the Blue Jays more than maybe 3 times out of 20. That murderer's row of their first six batters is enough to bash around any Twins pitcher, and the Twins don't have nearly enough pop in their lineup to put real pressure on Toronto's starters.

 

Basing your evaluations of Molitor on this series is unsound. Toronto right now is my favorite to win the American League pennant, if not the Series. They look considerably better than the Yankees, the Royals or the Astros. The Twins are just the first of many teams that are about to find this out.

[jimmer]

 

There's a fine line between surprising your opponent, versus shooting yourself in the foot and saying, "Hey, I bet you didn't expect that!"

 

On the other hand, Paul Molitor's moves against Toronto don't matter any more than my chess moves against Kasparov. The mismatch is so great that the outcome is never in doubt.

 

With the lineups as-is, I don't think the Twins could beat the Blue Jays more than maybe 3 times out of 20. That murderer's row of their first six batters is enough to bash around any Twins pitcher, and the Twins don't have nearly enough pop in their lineup to put real pressure on Toronto's starters.

 

Basing your evaluations of Molitor on this series is unsound. Toronto right now is my favorite to win the American League pennant, if not the Series. They look considerably better than the Yankees, the Royals or the Astros. The Twins are just the first of many teams that are about to find this out.

I'm confused by your reasoning.  Are you saying no one can make evaluations on Molitor's in-game strategy during the current series because they are so much better than us it didn't matter what he did, we'd lose? Can we only evaluate his in-game strategy against poor teams?

 

People are questioning his in-game strategy not saying he stinks because we keep losing to these guys.  Let's not pretend it's just about this series.