Make It Official! Twins 7, Phillies 2: Bailey Ober Doesn't Phear the Phillies

40 minutes ago, Joe Schmitt said:

When people talk about the approach, it is important to remember that both the process and the results will be impacted by the identity of the people taking the at bats.  Last year, we had a number of hitters who really leaned into the three true outcomes. That approach increases the # of pitches per AB but also increases the # of Ks. This year, the Twins replaced a number of those players with hitters who have much lower strikeout rates. I suppose in a sense that is a change in philosophy, but if so, the change is at the front office, not by Rocco.

Also, when citing evidence, providing one (or two, or even ten) examples of a good or bad outcome isn't nearly as persuasive as citing a statistic that accounts for those examples and all of the other examples.

Personally, I think the Twins offense is much, much better this year.  I think that's because (1) they have better players and (2) they are much healthier this year. I don't think Rocco is managing any differently this year.

Thumbs up on all of it, double on the bolded.

One additional point:  god knows the front office takes a ton of abuse on these boards, and that just goes with the position, but I for one think they did a damned fine job of building the offense this year. And they get extra points from me because they showed intellectual flexibility to recognize a flaw in their prior approach and adjust. The ability to recognize when something isn't working and change should never be taken for granted. Especially when one has to admit that one was wrong. Very few people can do that.
On that note: I was definitely wrong about Santana. And happy to have been wrong.

2 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

So you know what people's intentions are?  I saw that exact same thing and said to my wife that Margot has no intention of trying to move this guy over. 😄

Not knowing but proving we both thought the same thing when he didn't attempt to square up and try to bunt on 2nd pitch.  I haven't been a Margot hater as others might be, he did get key hit with runners in scoring position already.  Little things at times for putting pressure in the defense to get you out is irritating.  

Good win, keep the wins coming

38 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

IMO FWIW

Rocco is managing differently but I'm pretty convinced that it was due to circumstance and not a philosophical change. 

 

 

This, entirely.

I think if you gave Rocco a roster that included 25 year old versions of Carew, Oliva, Hrbek, Mauer, and Morneau he would look for ways to platoon them.  Every one of them hit lefties at a significantly lower rate.  He believes in platooning, I assume with the blessing of the FO.

We don't have to love it, but we will have to live with it.

It was definitely a surprising win ...

It definitely was a good win against a winning team ...

If definitely would be nice if the twins had the killer instinct  and took the series or all 3 games ...

Yes it definitely would be nice ...

Hot take: Bailey Ober is the Twins' best pitcher and if there's a game one in the post-season, he should start it.

48 minutes ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

Hot take: Bailey Ober is the Twins' best pitcher and if there's a game one in the post-season, he should start it.

You can say that. But that's if you safely know you're going to make the playoffs. It allows them to juggle the rotation. If the Twins are battling to make the playoffs till the last week. That might not be possible. Ober might be pitching game 162 just to get in.

1 minute ago, Schmoeman5 said:

You can say that. But that's if you safely know you're going to make the playoffs. It allows them to juggle the rotation. If the Twins are battling to make the playoffs till the last week. That might not be possible.

Yeah, that's true. They may not have the luxury of setting the rotation before the post-season. But, if they're lucky enough to do that - Ober in game one isn't a bad idea.

3 hours ago, JD-TWINS said:

Again, we all have opinions. I am not if the opinion that Baldelli walked in the Clubhouse one day late in April and said, make contact and quit swinging for the fences…….guys started to execute the ALASAYS plan of getting the barrel on the ball. Execution got better not some mystical change in philosophy. They just hit HR’s in 29 straight games - guys are still swinging hard!!

The win last night being attributed to small ball seems a bit flawed to me since I saw at least 3 balls hit the wall……no HR’s granted. it was hardly hit and run.m baseball though.

I never said anything about not swinging hard or about not hitting HRs. I said the focus cannot be on hitting HRs. on every pitch. Of course, when a pitcher gives you a pitch to hit you take it long. I never said that the Twins' focus is on small-ball, contrary I said they are slow at it. I said that small ball should be their focus. Where do you guys come up with this? Below is some quote from report from his player meeting.

On 7/23/2024 at 5:46 AM, umterp23 said:

Small ball is just as important as putting the ball in the seats.  2 cases in point: Extra inning loss to Brewers with man on 2nd to start the inning, Castro wanted to be the hero swings at low first pitch strike and lazily flies out to CF.  I don't care if defense is going to pinch the corners which they they weren't at the time of 1st pitch. Job is to move the runner to 3rd, didn't happen.  

Margot last night half hearted attempt at 1st pitch bunt and didn't even come close to getting on ground in play.  Swings with all his might to and K's on pitches out of the zone.  He had no intentions of moving the guy over.

Small ball means putting pressure on the defense to execute for outs and Twins don't do it enough or one could say at all.  

Bunting doesn't always mean for base hits.  Hell Brewers bunted multiple times and Twins didn't execute on defense well enough.

The problem here is that you're assuming not only that the attempt at small ball would have been successful if only it was attempted, but that it also makes scoring a run/runs more likely--that's an irresponsible assumption.  Let's look at your two examples;

When Castro flied out without advancing the runner, he cost the Twins about 0.4 expected runs (see the RE matrix in the article here).  However, an XHB hit wins the game--that's immensely valuable.  A single might win the game too with Martin on 2B, but with the potential cost of Martin being thrown out at home.  Even if it's a single with Martin stopping at third, he's now profited the Twins about 0.8 expected runs.  Alternatively, if Castro does lay down a successful bunt, or hits a grounder to the right side that is soft enough to allow Martin to get to third, assuming Castro is out at 1st, the expected runs goes from 1.068 to 0.865.  Yes, you read that correctly--Castro moving he runner to third without also getting on base actually makes it less likely the Twins win.

For the Margot example, it seems odd to criticize him when the Twins had an over 98% win probability entering his PA, especially because just like mentioned in the Castro example, a successful bunt again reduces the Twins expected runs.

I'm not saying there's no place in the game for trying to move runners over, but it's probably a much better idea to actually try and score the run, rather than set it up for the next guy.

18 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I think the problem here is you're assuming Castro gets a hit.

The research is pretty clear cut.

One run wins? Bunt that guy on second to third. 

And I'm a guy who hates sac bunting...in just about every circumstance.

Extra innings, at home, visiting team didn't score?

Bunt.

https://theanalyst.com/2023/03/should-mlb-teams-be-bunting-the-ghost-runner-to-third/

Not assuming at all, just saying that bunting actually decreases run expectancy (not as much as not advancing the runner while making an out, to be fair); the best case scenario of a bunt statistically speaking, barring the bunt becoming a base hit, is a reduced amount of run(s) scored.

As for the research, I have some good news for you--you can resume unequivocally hating sac bunting, because the article you listed is riddled with issues, and nowhere near clear cut.

To start, they're looking at only 138 total occurrences of bunting--that's an incredibly small sample size, and one that could skew quite quickly.  Furthermore, while they're saying that in 80 out of those 138 instances the ghost runner scored (31 of 56 for road teams, 49 of 82 for home teams), they're not saying how the ghost runner scored.  In their analysis, a hypothetical scenario where the leadoff man bunted foul 3 straight times, followed by the second hitter smashing a homer counts as a success for bunting, even though the bunt was not successful.  Conversely, a scenario where the leadoff hitter laces a gapper, but the lead runner is thrown out at home because he stumbled and fell halfway between third and home counts as a failure for swinging away, even though the hitter had an XBH.

The entire analysis falls prey to the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after it, therefore because of it).  To actually determine if bunting is the correct strategy, an analysis would need to be done to determine how often the bunt directly contributed to the win.  In my mind, that means that the only times you can definitively say bunting worked is if the ghost runner reaches third on a bunt, and then scores on a passed ball/wild pitch, a sac fly, a safety/suicide squeeze, or a shallow single.  In almost every other alternative, the runner being on third v second is somewhat to completely irrelevant.

Finally, the analysis completely ignores context.  Even if none of the issues I described above were pertinent, perhaps the bunting works more regularly because it is only utilized when the leadoff hitter is proficient at bunting?  If your leadoff hitter is a terrible bunter, it's probably not advisable to bunt, even if the stats actually suggest it is, on average, the appropriate decision.

To sum up, the article linked is shot through with analytical missteps and illogical conclusions, and should not in any way be taken as a convincing argument in favor of bunting.

Just now, USAFChief said:

Nonconcur.

And total run expectancy is irrelevant. 

The first run is all that matters. 

If you're tied as the home team yes, otherwise no.  And for what it's worth, the run expectancy for runner on second no outs is 1.068.  For runner on third 1 out is 0.865.  So a team that bunts with a runner on second and no outs will on average, not score that "all-important" first run.

Other than that, care to expand at all on why you don't concur?  I'd love to continue the discussion, and see if there's something I'm missing.

7 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I specifically said situations where "one run wins."

I also see no logical fallacies in the article. Bunting in such situations led to more wins than not bunting. 

There is no added value to extra runs...which isn't the case if you're the road team. Swing away.

As I said, in most cases I don't like sac bunting.

In the specific case of one run wins, bunting the runner from 2nd to 3rd is pretty clearly better than letting the 1st hitter swing away.

Now, it may be that MLB has let skill at bunting atrophy so badly that some players literally can't do it. I don't know. Sad, if that's the case. 

 

I'm honestly amazed you don't see the logical fallacy, even after I spelled it out.  The article only measured bunt attempts, not successful bunts.  As I said, if a player tried to bunt, but popped into an out, or rolled it foul three straight times, or sent it directly to the third baseman, preventing the runner from advancing, but then the next guy hits a homer, the article is counting that as a successful instance of bunting, even though by any definition, the but was a complete failure, and in no way contributed to success.  Surely you can grasp that reality?

It's like saying if a pitcher walks the bases loaded,but then strikes the next 3 guys out in one inning, but in the next gets two outs before giving up a solo homer, that loading the bases via walks to start an inning is a better run prevention strategy than getting outs to start the inning.

Or if an analysis was done that showed NFL teams who run the ball for no gain on 1st and 10 pick up the first down more often than teams that try to pass on 1st and 10; if that were true, should every team attempt to run the ball for no gain on every 1st down?

Absent the context of HOW the ghost runner scores, you cannot in any way say whether the bunt was actually beneficial

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

The logical falicy would be if they ONLY measured successful bunts.

Not every bunt attempt would be successful, which needs to be accounted for. Failed bunt attempts are a possibility. 

Just like not bunting will sometimes be successful. That needs to be accounted for too. And will fail, sometimes.

But bunting, or attempting to bunt and failing, led to more wins than not bunting, even accounting for the times one if the next hitters gets a hit and drives in the winning win. Which is also a possibility. 

I think you have the logical falicy backwards.

Not at all.  Their conclusion is that bunting is the best strategy, since the ghost runner scores more often when the leadoff hitter attempts to bunt (by the way, they also don't clarify what that means; if the leadoff hitter whiffs on a bunt attempt, but on the next pitch jacks one into the stands, which bucket does that go into)?

The fallacy comes into play because they are directly attributing the success of the ghost runner scoring to whether or not a bunt was attempted, even though there are manifold occasions where the bunt was irrelevant.  They are saying that because teams scored the ghost runner more often after attempting a bunt, that therefore bunting leads to success; this again includes scenarios where the bunt was completely irrelevant, even if it was a successful attempt.

If I decide that I should never eat vegetables again because I get massive heartburn after eating them (even though I also ate a gallon of ice cream as well), am I being logical?  Of course not, because there are other factors at play that might better explain my heartburn than the vegetables.  By the same logic, I'm saying in the analysis the article did, there are other factors at play that might better explain the ghost runner scoring than the bunt, and without an analysis of how the ghost runner scored, the focus is on only one of a multitude of variables.  That leads to PHEPH thinking, which can be accurate, but is also illogical.

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Your words:

"bunting is the best strategy, since the ghost runner scores more often when the leadoff hitter attempts to bunt"

 

Yes.

/thread. 

 

Not actually my words.  Go back and look at the 4 words before the quotation you selected.  Those words are "THEIR CONCLUSION IS THAT".  You're a smart guy--are you really trying to tell me you didn't understand that I was summarizing someone else's argument in that statement, particularly when I've made it abundantly clear that I reject and disagree with their argument (you know, the whole reason we're having this discussion)?

This is pretty disingenuous unless it's an honest mistake.

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Did the ghost runner NOT score more often following a bunt attemt?

He did.  That’s not up for debate.  What’s up for debate is if he scored more because of the bunt.

When margarine consumption rates in the United States fall, so does the divorce rate in the state of Maine.  Is that because eating less margarine makes people more likely to stick with their spouse?

The more ice cream is consumed, the more people die from drowning.  Does eating ice cream raise your risk of drowning?

As MLB salaries have increased, so have house prices.  Do higher MLB salaries cause higher house prices?

When I wake up at 7:00 AM, the Twins win 60% of their games, as opposed to only 40% when I wake up at 6:30.  Does my waking up at 7 make the Twins more likely to win?

And finally, more ghost runners have scored when a bunt was attempted.  But just as the 4 previous examples clearly show that two things happening at the same time does not necessitate a relationship, so attempting to bunt and scoring the ghost runner don’t either.

You have confused correlation and causation, much as the authors of the study did.  It is entirely possible that by controlling for more variables, the same conclusion would be reached, but until that is done, the connection the authors have made is specious, akin to Lisa selling Homer the rock to keep tigers away.