Sox hitting??

[moonslav59]

Never, you're sure about this?

 

As a percentage decision, bunting has a lesser success rate by non-pitchers than not bunting.

 

Wasting an out lessens the chance of scoring even one run.

 

Man of first no outs: chance of scoring at all is .499.

 

Man on second with one out: chance of scoring at all .477.

 

Even if the bunt attempt was 100% successful, the odds get worse.

 

The average runs scored?

 

Man on 1st and no outs: 0.84

Man on 2nd and one out: 0.65

 

With man on first and second with no outs, the bunt looks like it might be a tiny bit better for scoring just one run, so I guess one should never say never.

 

1st and 2nd, no outs:

 

.649 with no bunt to .695 after successful bunt (2nd and third with one out)

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by moonslav59

[harmony]

The Red Sox/Yankee series provided the intro to this piece about pitch selection:

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/slow-down-yankees-leading-change-114640425.html

[sk7326]

As a percentage decision, bunting has a lesser success rate by non-pitchers than not bunting.

 

Wasting an out lessens the chance of scoring even one run.

 

Man of first no outs: chance of scoring at all is .499.

 

Man on second with one out: chance of scoring at all .477.

 

Even if the bunt attempt was 100% successful, the odds get worse.

 

The average runs scored?

 

Man on 1st and no outs: 0.84

Man on 2nd and one out: 0.65

 

With man on first and second with no outs, the bunt looks like it might be a tiny bit better for scoring just one run, so I guess one should never say never.

 

1st and 2nd, no outs:

 

.649 with no bunt to .695 after successful bunt (2nd and third with one out)

 

 

very very rare ... there you go. And again, bunting for a hit is totally cool

[crtveone]

Farrell is a clueless manager and our number one problem. No intelligent manager in their right mind would have ever allowed Fister to start again never mind being left in for 100 pitches. Abad is probably our second worst pitcher on the club. Our second problem is Dombrowski who thinks a bunch of tiny tots can fill Papi's void. Lastly, Hanley, Moreland and 3B need to be addressed because all the good pitching in the world doesn't put runs on the board.

 

Bad managing, no power and a weak pen won't get it done period. We have no business being in first place other than the fact our entire division stinks.

[Jasonbay44]

How many times are people going to mindlessly say Abad sucks? He has been a solid reliever this year and his hatred is absolutely unwarranted.

[Spudboy]

How many times are people going to mindlessly say Abad sucks? He has been a solid reliever this year and his hatred is absolutely unwarranted.

 

I agree.

[Kimmi]

Nobody out, speed on first and a tendency to be singles hitters. Opposing teams are aware of how our team is configured and tries hard to prevent the steal. We don't seem to want to try to bunt and the hit and run is a lost art. Even if our hitters could get the ball in the air it would be better than what we have been getting. Frustrating to watch but I'll bet it is fairly common among teams this year.

 

I am not a fan of the sac bunt at all. Basically, if it's not the 8th or 9th inning, playing for one run, with a runner on 2nd base and 0 outs, I would not call for a sac bunt. And even in the situation I just described, it depends on who is up to bat.

 

I much prefer a hit and run or a straight out steal. But it still has to be the right players and the right situations.

[Kimmi]

Bunting is a perfectly legitimate way to try to get a hit.

 

But sacrificing? In short, the only time it's a good idea is if you only really need one run - where the value of the second run is nil ... that situation is very very rare

 

Agree 100%.

[Kimmi]

As a percentage decision, bunting has a lesser success rate by non-pitchers than not bunting.

 

Wasting an out lessens the chance of scoring even one run.

 

Man of first no outs: chance of scoring at all is .499.

 

Man on second with one out: chance of scoring at all .477.

 

Even if the bunt attempt was 100% successful, the odds get worse.

 

The average runs scored?

 

Man on 1st and no outs: 0.84

Man on 2nd and one out: 0.65

 

With man on first and second with no outs, the bunt looks like it might be a tiny bit better for scoring just one run, so I guess one should never say never.

 

1st and 2nd, no outs:

 

.649 with no bunt to .695 after successful bunt (2nd and third with one out)

 

 

If there is a man on 2nd base and 0 outs (whether there is a man on 1st or not), a successful bunt increases the chance of scoring 1 run.

 

I think in every other case, a sac bunt decreases the odds.

[fxkatt]

How many times are people going to mindlessly say Abad sucks? He has been a solid reliever this year and his hatred is absolutely unwarranted.

 

I think he's had a damn good year, but Farrell only uses him in lost cause situations or when he absolutely has to (maybe one recent exception), so I think bringing him in today was for Farrell, if not necessarily for me, equal to waving the white flag.

[oldtimer]

If there is a man on 2nd base and 0 outs (whether there is a man on 1st or not), a successful bunt increases the chance of scoring 1 run.

 

I think in every other case, a sac bunt decreases the odds.

 

When statistics are given they cover the league as a whole. In the case of the Sox, we are a team with good defense, good starting pitching and decent to good relief pitching. What we haven't done well is hit for power or in many cases hit for average. One run to the Sox can be very meaningful as opposed to the Dodgers or Astros for instance. What we have been doing is not advancing the runner but often hitting into double plays. To me, that is the worst rally killer there is. Instead of one out and a man on second, we wind up with 2 outs and the bases empty. What seems to apply for some teams may not apply to the Sox.

[moonslav59]

If there is a man on 2nd base and 0 outs (whether there is a man on 1st or not), a successful bunt increases the chance of scoring 1 run.

 

I think in every other case, a sac bunt decreases the odds.

 

I just finished Smart Baseball by Keith Law. He provides data from studies that shows man on 2nd no outs vs man on 3rd with 1 out is a "push". The odds are 0.66 vs 0.66. Only 1st and 2nd, no outs gives a very slightly better odds after a successful bunt only. There was no data on how failed bunts, bunting into DPs, or other possibilities affected the odds.

 

man on 1st and 2nd no outs .65 chance of scoring 1 or more runs.

man on 2nd and 3rd one out .69 chance of scoring 1 or more runs.

 

man on 2nd and no outs .66 chance

man on 3rd and one out .66 chance

 

All others are worse, such as...

 

man on 1st and 0 outs .50 chance

man on 2nd and 1 out .45 chance

 

There may be other studies that show some differences.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by moonslav59

[sk7326]

Law is right in general here - but even he will point out there are a couple of very specific times where it makes sense to get the sacrifice ... like 1st and 2nd, nobody out in the bottom of the 9th ... where exactly one run is all that matters. But that occasion (where one run is really all you care about) is pretty infrequent.

[moonslav59]

Law is right in general here - but even he will point out there are a couple of very specific times where it makes sense to get the sacrifice ... like 1st and 2nd, nobody out in the bottom of the 9th ... where exactly one run is all that matters. But that occasion (where one run is really all you care about) is pretty infrequent.

 

I think even in the ninth, unless you have a super weak hitter up that knows how to bunt, it's still not worth it in any situation, except 1st & 2nd and 0 outs.

[cp176]

No one has suggested bunting to move runners over is something that should be done on any type of regular bases but when you are weak hitting good fielding little guy who has been so lucky as to get to the ml, then being able to do anything it takes to be useful might be what keeps you there. The Red Sox this season would have helped themselves on a number of occasions if they had been able to move a runner along here and there. Bat control is a skill that I would think I guess is still valued.

[jad]

If there is a man on 2nd base and 0 outs (whether there is a man on 1st or not), a successful bunt increases the chance of scoring 1 run.

 

I think in every other case, a sac bunt decreases the odds.

 

Well yes, but not all bunts are 'successful'. One could also say "a successful home run swing increases the chances of scoring two runs." Not sure why the bunt is so persistent (although Moneyball's analysis that it has to do with the word itself 'sacrifice' is very cool). But I do remember reading as a kid in the early sixties articles about how the math showed absolutely that it was a bad tactic.

[greenwell]

No one has suggested bunting to move runners over is something that should be done on any type of regular bases but when you are weak hitting good fielding little guy who has been so lucky as to get to the ml, then being able to do anything it takes to be useful might be what keeps you there. The Red Sox this season would have helped themselves on a number of occasions if they had been able to move a runner along here and there. Bat control is a skill that I would think I guess is still valued.

 

Exactly. The numbers Moon showed made it seem that you should never bunt with man on first and 0 out, but the numbers don't account for the fact that the actual comparison might be, man on 1st 0 out and 9th hitter up vs man on 2nd 1 out with leadoff hitter up.

[Maxbialystock]

The Red Sox/Yankee series provided the intro to this piece about pitch selection:

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/slow-down-yankees-leading-change-114640425.html

 

Meh. I completely agree with the basic point and have seen it done to us countless times this year. But guess what? We all saw it way back in 2006, Josh Beckett's first season in Boston (after great success in Miami) when his ERA was 5.00 largely because he loved his fastball and opposing hitters loved it even more.

 

And wasn't it like 5 years ago when rookie Daniel Nava hit a clean, sharp single off Verlander's 100 mph fastball?

 

One of the things that made Sandy Koufax so great during his brief (but HOF) career was that he had a great curve--it dropped off the table--to go with a great fastball.

 

What sometimes infuriates me about Sox pitchers is how few of them have really good breaking stuff. On the other hand, that kid Stroman from the Jays had a slider that our guys never came close to hitting.

 

What I don't like about the article is its stupid claim that the Sox have a really great lineup and can hit anybody. Also that the Yankees have discovered something no one else knew about.

[moonslav59]

Meh. I completely agree with the basic point and have seen it done to us countless times this year. But guess what? We all saw it way back in 2006, Josh Beckett's first season in Boston (after great success in Miami) when his ERA was 5.00 largely because he loved his fastball and opposing hitters loved it even more.

 

And wasn't it like 5 years ago when rookie Daniel Nava hit a clean, sharp single off Verlander's 100 mph fastball?

 

One of the things that made Sandy Koufax so great during his brief (but HOF) career was that he had a great curve--it dropped off the table--to go with a great fastball.

 

What sometimes infuriates me about Sox pitchers is how few of them have really good breaking stuff. On the other hand, that kid Stroman from the Jays had a slider that our guys never came close to hitting.

 

What I don't like about the article is its stupid claim that the Sox have a really great lineup and can hit anybody. Also that the Yankees have discovered something no one else knew about.

 

Good points, but the Yankee staff throws way fewer fastballs than the next team and the league average, so whatever it is, they are following this strategy much more than the rest of the league.

 

They may not have "discovered it", but they are adhering to it way more than other teams.

[illinoisredsox]

Good points, but the Yankee staff throws way fewer fastballs than the next team and the league average, so whatever it is, they are following this strategy much more than the rest of the league.

 

They may not have "discovered it", but they are adhering to it way more than other teams.

 

 

They most certainly did not discover it. As one Hall of Fame pitcher put it 60+ years ago:

 

"Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing." - Warren Spahn

[Maxbialystock]

Good points, but the Yankee staff throws way fewer fastballs than the next team and the league average, so whatever it is, they are following this strategy much more than the rest of the league.

 

They may not have "discovered it", but they are adhering to it way more than other teams.

 

Can't disagree, moonslav. They are making it work and I sure wish we were too.

 

However, the Sox currently have the third lowest ERA in MLB and the lowest in the AL, so somebody has to be doing something right.

[illinoisredsox]

Can't disagree, moonslav. They are making it work and I sure wish we were too.

 

However, the Sox currently have the third lowest ERA in MLB and the lowest in the AL, so somebody has to be doing something right.

 

Many of the Sox pitchers are pitching high in the strike zone (at least to my untrained eye). As the article pointed out, modern swings allow low balls get hit, but that comes at a price; it is harder than ever to get to the higher pitches. Sox pitchers are getting a lot of strikeouts on high pitches. I just looked at the defensive stats and the Sox are near the bottom of the list in number of assists but have more putouts than any other team. This, while not a perfect indicator, tells me they are getting a lot of outs on pop ups and fly balls as well, which one would also expect from balls up in the zone.

[Maxbialystock]

Many of the Sox pitchers are pitching high in the strike zone (at least to my untrained eye). As the article pointed out, modern swings allow low balls get hit, but that comes at a price; it is harder than ever to get to the higher pitches. Sox pitchers are getting a lot of strikeouts on high pitches. I just looked at the defensive stats and the Sox are near the bottom of the list in number of assists but have more putouts than any other team. This, while not a perfect indicator, tells me they are getting a lot of outs on pop ups and fly balls as well, which one would also expect from balls up in the zone.

 

Good stuff, thanks. I also like the Warren Spahn quotation, which I emphatically believe.

[moonslav59]

They most certainly did not discover it. As one Hall of Fame pitcher put it 60+ years ago:

 

"Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing." - Warren Spahn

 

That's one reason I always loved sticking a knuckleballer in the middle of a rotation.

 

It messes with opposing teams' timing, sometimes for days afterwards.

 

(I actually did an in depth study of Sox starters after a Wake start and found their collective ERA was lower in starts after Wake than one not directly following a Wake start. I lost the study when my old PC got wiped out.)

[oldtimer]

Reading our box score we got all our hits off their starter who lasted 4 innings. Five runs came in the first. No HRs. Our pitching needs to stay great to win games.

[cp176]

Reading our box score we got all our hits off their starter who lasted 4 innings. Five runs came in the first. No HRs. Our pitching needs to stay great to win games.

 

Couldn't agree more! This team obviously isn't the White Sox of the late 50's but a good number of these guys better be willing to do what ever it takes to get runners into positions that they can score from.

[Larry Cook]

Moreland is in a horrible slump and Farrell needs to move him out of the four hole. This is beyond embarrassing. The guy is hitting less than 200 over the past several weeks.

 

Our lineup should start with betts, benintendi, bogey, and then Bradley or Hanley. Get Moreland out of there before he costs us more games.

 

It would be nice to trade for beltre and hit him 4th.

[a700hitter]

Moreland being our #4 hitter at anytime during the season screams out for lineup help. The guy is not that good. He is a bottom third of the lineup type hitter -- #6 at best.

[Spudboy]

Moreland being our #4 hitter at anytime during the season screams out for lineup help. The guy is not that good. He is a bottom third of the lineup type hitter -- #6 at best.

 

At least he is a Gold Glove!

[Kimmi]

When statistics are given they cover the league as a whole. In the case of the Sox, we are a team with good defense, good starting pitching and decent to good relief pitching. What we haven't done well is hit for power or in many cases hit for average. One run to the Sox can be very meaningful as opposed to the Dodgers or Astros for instance. What we have been doing is not advancing the runner but often hitting into double plays. To me, that is the worst rally killer there is. Instead of one out and a man on second, we wind up with 2 outs and the bases empty. What seems to apply for some teams may not apply to the Sox.

 

I don't have any problems with trying to advance runners with a hit and run or a steal. I am strongly opposed to using a sac bunt in the vast majority of cases. Yes, individual factors have to be taken into account, but even with that, it is almost never a good idea to sac bunt.

 

I don't remember the exact number, but a batter has to be really bad, like pitcher bad, in order for sac bunting to be more beneficial than swinging away.