So, Ron Gardenhire, you were down 4-3 in the 9th inning of a game you needed to win. Jason Tyner led off with a single. Excellent. What are your options now?
Nick Punto, Alexi Casilla, and Jason Bartlett are due up next. Basically, they are all singles hitters. On your bench, you have Brian Buscher and Jason Kubel--both left-handed hitters--to use against the right-handed Joe Borowski. Kubel has not been a singles hitter. Buscher has also shown little power in his career, and could reasonably be considered a singles hitter.
So now we turn our attention to Nick Punto, the guy you are about to send to the plate. He's been the worst-hitting regular player in baseball this year, and it's not even close. Let's make some lists.
Things that Nick Punto isn't bad at doing:
Defense
Things that Nick Punto isn't totally awful at doing:
Getting walked
Things that Nick Punto should never be expected to do, ever:
Hitting singles
Hitting doubles
Hitting triples
Hitting home runs
Bunting
Yes, yes, Ron Gardenhire. You knew it when you sent him up there--don't try to fool yourself. You've seen him go up there time after time--just as I have--and fail time after time when you have asked him to bunt. Yet stubbornly, despite the availability of options on the bench you ordered up the bunt anyway.
As planned, Punto popped up the bunt, effectively wasting the out.
With two singles hitters (Casilla and Bartlett) due up after Tyner, it makes sense to want him to get to second base. After all, it would take two hits to score him from first base, and it would take just one hit to score him from second base. Asking Nick Punto to bunt is not an effective strategy for getting a runner to second base, though. Even if you just let Punto stand up there with the bat on his shoulder, you probably have a better shot at getting Tyner to steal second than you have of Punto getting that bunt down.
So after Punto pops out, you decide to pinch hit Buscher for Casilla. Casilla has had a pretty solid day against a great pitcher and this is how he is rewarded? Okay, I at least understand the thought process here. Casilla is a rookie, we don't want to damage his fragile psyche, so we'll keep him away from the scary high pressure situations. (Though, of course, this didn't keep you from exposing a young Jason Kubel to Mariano Rivera in the playoffs, but I digress.) I would argue that Kubel is a better hitter than Buscher, but whatever, you decided to go with Buscher.
What happened? He grounded into a double play--one that would not have been in order if Punto had executed his bunt properly.
Why Ron? Why? Why can't you look at Nick Punto with the same skeptical eyes that you view Jason Kubel and Alexi Casilla with? Why must you start him in 13 straight games? Hell, whatever, let him field for 8 innings for all I care, but for crying out loud don't send him to the plate in the ninth inning when the game is on the line!
Whatever, I guess. My team has been reduced to a bunch of stars and scrubs who couldn't do the little things if their careers depended on it. Maybe I should just be glad that Gardy didn't just insert Rick White into a ridiculously high leverage situation in the middle of a real pennant race.
"Obviously we have put ourselves in a deep hole here in this series by the leaders and they swept us," Twins manager Ron Gardenhire said. "Until somebody says you don't have a chance, we have to keep playing."
I hate to break it to you Mr. Gardenhire, but you don't have a chance and you have to keep playing anyway.
Amen!
I think it's time for a Banjo defense of the manager.
Ok, ok....as long as it doesn't get me uninvited to the convention...
This is really the only thing I could come up with:
Gardy perhaps knew before the start of the half inning that if Tyner got on that they would attempt a sacrifice rather than hit away and that someone would be pinch hitting for Casilla to drive in the run. I guess you are not normally going to ask either Buscher or Kubel to sacrifice bunt - event though, as natural LH bats, they may have been a better choice. You pay Punto to do these things.
That would mean when the Twins went out for the bottom of the 9th, someone would have to play second base and the only option for that is Punto. I'm not sure why he chose Buscher over Kubel. I probably would have let Kubel hack and then put Buscher in the field. Maybe if Tyner was on second, Kubel would have gotten the call and with Tyner stuck on first you use the opportunity to test Buscher in a tight spot.
It seems like it would have been hugely out of character for the Twins and Gardenhire to approach the sitution with Tyner on first any other way (meaning that they would go the sacrifice route rather than hit away). If part of the art of managing people is putting people into sitations they can succeed, even though Punto has sucked, laying down a sacrifice is a defined part of his role, and other than Mauer, I can't say I like any of the available options much better.
With my job or season on the line, I might have opted to go a different direction.
You pay Punto to do these things.
That sounds about right. Getting down that bunt is part of Punto's job description. If he can't perform that basic function, in Gardy's mind, it's not the manager's fault. He also may have thought he needed Punto to play 2B after he removed Casilla, as you said, if the Twins had to take the field again.
...I can’t say I like any of the available options much better.
So, considering that you know Punto could very well botch the bunt, he probably won't get a hit, and you don't want to waste a pinch-hitter on a sac bunt, you could... a) ask Tyner to try to steal and hope that works out, or b) yank Punto and let the pinch-hitter swing away with the man on 1st, or c) just accept that your pinch-hitter will give himself up--as long as he can do the job, it's OK. Then, whatever happens, pinch-hit for Casilla; if the Twins tie or go ahead, move Cuddyer to 2B, put Buscher at 3B, move Tyner to RF, put Kubel in LF in the bottom of the 9th.
Why not at least try Option B or C? It's been awhile since Cuddyer played 2B, but I bet he could still do it in a pinch. I'd rather take the chance of holding a lead w/ Cuddyer at 2B in the 9th than to pin my comeback hopes on Punto doing anything productive with a bat in a key spot.
It seems like it would have been hugely out of character for the Twins and Gardenhire to approach the sitution with Tyner on first any other way
I think you've spotted the problem.
You know, it seems like Gardy is always worrying what to do should the Twins end up tying the game, and because of that, the Twins never do.
Off the top of my head (and I'm likely wrong)
a.) My guess is that Punto getting the sac. bunt down is about 50/50
b.) With a left hander off the bench with the available options it's maybe 1 in 3 they get hit, but the chances of a DP are pretty high as well.
c.) They were holding the runner - Tyner as not as prolific a base stealer and it's a worse gamble to attemt a steal
d.) Cuddyer at 2nd is just pretty radical - I see the logic but how many in 10 managers would you see do this move?
I'm just reminded of the lyrics from "Luck be a Lady",:
A lady never flirts with strangers, She'd have a heart, she'd be nice. A lady doesnt wander all over the room and blow on some other guys dice
They call you lady luck
But there is room for doubt
At times you have a very un-lady-like way
Of running out
Your on this date with me
The pickins have been lush
And yet before the evening is over
You might give me the brush
You might forget your manners
You might refuse to stay
And so the best that I can do is pray
Luck be a lady tonight
Luck be a lady tonight
Luck if youve been a lady to begin with
Luck be a lady tonight
Luck let a gentleman see
Just how nice a dame you can be
I know the way youve treated other guys youve been with
Luck be a lady with me
A lady never leaves her escort
It isnt fair, it isnt nice
A lady doesnt wander all over the room
And blow on some other guys dice
Lets keep this party polite
Never get out of my sight
Stick with me baby, Im the guy that you came in with
Luck be a lady tonight
A lady never flirts with strangers
Shed have a heart, shed be nice
A lady doesnt wander all over the room
And blow on some other guys dice
Lets keep this party polite
Never get out of my sight
Stick with me baby, Im the guy that you came in with
Luck be a lady tonight
Would the chances of Tyner stealing a base really be worse than 50 pct.? He's 61/76 in his career, 8/11 this year. Of course the 1B would be holding the runner, but most stolen bases are taken when the 1B is doing that. It shortens the runner's lead, but it's not a complete deterrent against even attempting to steal a base.
And I wonder what are the actual odds of hitting into a DP with a man on 1st.
I don't think that asking Cuddyer to finish a game at 2nd base is all that radical. He's played 383 innings at the position, and Gardy would think nothing of moving him to 1B, where he has less experience, if needed. We're not talking about moving him there for the rest of the season, just possibly for one or a few innings in a game that represented a crucial 2-game swing in the standings.
Victor Martinez has thrown out just 24% of would-be basestealers in his career, too, and Borowski is a RHP, so Tyner had those things working to his advantage, too.
Also, the payoff of a stolen base is much higher than the payoff of a "successful" sacrifice bunt. From tangotiger's run frequency matrix, with a runner on first and no outs, the offense scores at least one run ~44% of the time. With a runner on second and no outs, the offense scores at least one run ~63% of the time. With a runner on second and one out, the offense scores at least one run ~41% of the time. (I think this sells the sac bunt strategy a little short in this particular situation, since the Twins had so many singles hitters due up.) With no one on and one out, the offense scores at least one run 17% of the time.
With those percentages, if Tyner is successful at a 59% rate, attempting a stolen base is a breakeven strategy--overall, you'll score at least one run 44% of the time. If Tyner can steal at better than a 59% rate, then it increases the Twins' chances of scoring at least one run.
And I wonder what are the actual odds of hitting into a DP with a man on 1st.
League average for hitting into a DP in DP situations is about 12-13%. The Twins' DP percentages for this year are here. Buscher hasn't been around long enough for his percentage to really mean anything. Punto's been better than average at staying out of DPs, so maybe we can add that to the list of things he's not terrible at. The rest of the team essentially falls into the 12-20% range.
If part of the art of managing people is putting people into sitations they can succeed, even though Punto has sucked, laying down a sacrifice is a defined part of his role, and other than Mauer, I can’t say I like any of the available options much better.
This is something I left out but couldn't quite figure out how to phrase right. I do think that part of what goes into good managing is putting players in situations where they can succeed. Right now, Punto is in such a bad slump that I don't think it's to anyone's benefit to ask him to do anything at the plate in a key situation. Now, on top of everything else Punto has failed to do this season, he's got this failed bunt in the back of his head. I mean, when a relief pitcher is really struggling, no one expects the manager to throw him into a save situation. You throw him in low leverage situations until he figures things out.
As far as the defensive alignment goes, if you're really worried about that, there's really no reason that you need to PH for Casilla. He had a good game, throw him a bone. Put Buscher in for Punto, ask him to do something simple, and then see if Casilla can hit a single. Even if Casilla can't, there's only one out in the inning, so he's not your last hope. And if part of the reason to bring Casilla up this season was to get him ready for next year, I don't see how taking him out in the 9th inning of every game helps accomplish that goal.
As I said, if I were the manager, I might have tried something different. I was just trying to present a defenisble argument for what happened. I definitely would like to know more about how things came down and have the manager or the bench coach explain the thinking. As someone known for being a little "out of the box" as a thinker business-wise, I can appreciate the power of staying in the box too.
As for Casilla, I personally may have let him hit, but we have been told he's a little erratic mentally. And two days ago, the Godfather of Twins Bloggers told us that Casilla has very little plate discipline. The sitation would then suggest you might want someone at the plate with a.) more power, b.) The ability to take a better at bat and maybe coax a walk? Cassilla went 3-4 is he likely to get that 4th hit? if you had a better PH option, nobody would even question the move, especially if Punto had gotten the runner over.
Cassilla went 3-4 is he likely to get that 4th hit?
You sir, need to familiarize yourself with the gambler's fallacy. The fact that he's gone 3-4 has no real bearing on how he is expected to perform in this 5th AB. If anything, his 3-4 that night would indicate to me that he's feeling well or seeing the ball well or something along those lines that would make him more likely than normal to get that 4th hit. I wouldn't expect him to get that 4th hit, but that's because even hitting extremely well he's not a .500 hitter. Of course, I would say the same thing about any of our hitters.
As for Gardenhire and his mentality, I would say that he's a manager who's very concerned with the status quo. He's not a manager who's willing to step on the toes of the traditionalists and will do whatever he thinks is least likely to get him fired. This can manifest itself in a number of ways, including misuse of relievers, over dedication to some player and under dedication for others. One he gets a belief in his mind, it is often difficult to change it.
For instance, a few years ago Terry Ryan probably came to him and said "Rivas will be our 2B of the future". Then, Gardy played him for years despite the fact that he was terrible and showed no signs of improvement. All the meanwhile, other more deserving players get shuttled back and forth between AAA and the majors.
The story with Punto is similar. The team is "committed" to Punto for at least one more year and so Gardy is committed to him as well. In the eyes of Gardy, Punto should be able to lay down a sacrifice there and so he'll let him try. This will allow him to use his other bench players in situations where they not just be sacrificing themselves. After all, wouldn't that be terribly wasteful?
After Punto failed to deliver the sacrifice bunt, Buscher gets sent up there because he has more power than Casilla and has a better chance of driving him in from first.
In a nutshell, Gardenhire isn't really smart enough to figure out what he should be doing on his own, and I think that in the back of his mind, he knows it. This leads to him managing out of fear at times and doing thing entirely by the book, not realizing when it's better to deviate from the traditional knowledge for more radical ideas. Pinch hitting for Punto and having the pinch hitter bunt probably seems like a ridiculous idea to him.
For instance, a few years ago Terry Ryan probably came to him and said “Rivas will be our 2B of the futureâ€. Then, Gardy played him for years despite the fact that he was terrible and showed no signs of improvement. All the meanwhile, other more deserving players get shuttled back and forth between AAA and the majors.
What do you do when your boss tells you to do something? Tell him to f' off?
Not quite in those words obviously, but I would be respectful and tell him that I didn't think Rivas was going to be able cut it and that I'd rather go with somebody else. These are professionals and there should be mutual respect.
It's not like Gardy is a minimum wage worker at McDonalds here. If he thinks Ryan has made a mistake, he should tell him.
OK, prove to me Gardenhire hasn't challenged Ryan on the roster construction and I'll buy your argument. You or I or anybody on this site has any idea what conversations/arguments have gone on between the coaching staff and the general manager's staff. Also, despite the thousands of games you've watched, you have no idea how smart Gardenhire is or isn't. Spend six months traveling with the guy, attend some practices, spend some time in the clubhouse and get back to me on an assesment of his intelligence.
I can tell you this, there is at least a half a dozen nuggets in the press where the coaching staff is lobbying for one thing and then is given something else by the GM and his staff. The most blatant I can remember is regarding Tony Batista and Gardenhire's comment "they tell me he can hit."
Pinch hitting for Punto and having the pinch hitter bunt probably seems like a ridiculous idea to him.
At this moment in time, if you're committed to bunting, you're deciding between Buscher, Punto or Kubel bunting. Sure you could have had Busher or Kubel bunt, and it's plenty radical, but really, is that how you want to use those bats? Who do you suppose practices bunting more? Who is paid to bunt? Who has the best chance of beating out a bunt or advancing an extra base if there's an error?
OK, prove to me Gardenhire hasn’t challenged Ryan on the roster construction and I’ll buy your argument.
I'm not saying that this doesn't happen, in fact I'm sure this happens a lot. My point is that it should happen a lot. I know that if I had been manager during that time, I would have pushed very hard to get Rivas set down to AAA.
Also, despite the thousands of games you’ve watched, you have no idea how smart Gardenhire is or isn’t.
Despite the way it sounded, what I said wasn't quite as much a knock on Gardenhire's intelligence as it may have seemed. He's basically doing the same thing that most managers do. Playing it by the book.
However, I've seen him make enough in game mistakes to indicate that these aren't just flukes. In many cases, he either (a) Doesn't know what the correct thing to do actually is; or (b) Is to afraid or unconfident to actually do the right thing to do. Now I don't think that Ryan is going to fire him for pinch hitting for Punto in last night's game or for occasionally putting in Nathan in non-save situations.
I'm a math grad student and have seen a lot of samples of student's work in my life. I can tell you, it doesn't take me very long to figure out which of my students are the smart ones and which ones aren't. Typically I just need to look at a single test to get a good idea. I don't need to go on the road with them or sit there and watch them do their homework to tell that they're not all that bright. This doesn't mean that they're not gifted in other areas or are bad people or anything like that, it just means they're not good at math. When it comes to Gardenhire, I've seen more than enough of his work to confidently say that he's not all that smart when it comes to baseball. It's just obvious.
At this moment in time, if you’re committed to bunting, you’re deciding between Buscher, Punto or Kubel bunting. Sure you could have had Busher or Kubel bunt, and it’s plenty radical, but really, is that how you want to use those bats? Who do you suppose practices bunting more? Who is paid to bunt? Who has the best chance of beating out a bunt or advancing an extra base if there’s an error?
The best poker players I know in the world have the gift of foresight and the ability to constantly keep themselves in situations where they're decisions will be easier to make. In this case, not having Punto in the lineup in the first place would have avoided that decision all together. Given the situation, having Punto bunt is obviously terrible. If you don't like Buscher or Kubel to bunt there, it's not as if you don't have other options. You can simply pinch hit for Punto and not bunt.
Nick Punto, Alexi Casilla, and Jason Bartlett are due up next. Basically, they are all singles hitters.
That's pretty kind words to call Nick Punto a singles hitter, basically. He's not even 1/5 of a singles hitter, basically or not.
Though, of course, this didn’t keep you from exposing a young Jason Kubel to Mariano Rivera in the playoffs, but I digress.
Yeah, well we all know how that turned out.
NOW what is Gardy doing?!
Mr. Gardenhire,
How's the inside of your colon looking these days?
Signed,
Moss
The thing is, I think Gardy is still convinced that Punto is a good bunter. His "logic" is this: Small, light-hitting, hustling infielders are good bunters. Nick Punto is a small, light-hitting, hustling infielder. Therefore, Nick Punto is a good bunter."
He is so convinced that this has to be true that he can't see that it isn't. Everytime Punto fails to get a bunt down, it's just a fluke, an aberration, because he just knows that Punto is a good bunter. He's so convinced of it that no amount of evidence will change his mind.
By the way, are there any stats out there that would quantify just how bad Punto is at bunting? Are there stats kept on successful bunt percentages, or anything similar? It would be interesting to know just how often Punto really does fail to get a bunt down, in comparison to other big-league players.
The thing is, I think Gardy is still convinced that Punto is a good bunter. His “logic†is this: Small, light-hitting, hustling infielders are good bunters. Nick Punto is a small, light-hitting, hustling infielder. Therefore, Nick Punto is a good bunter.â€
Sounds like Gardy is using good logic here. Too bad his premise is false.
Quantifiying how good someone is at bunting is trickier than it seems. It would be easy if every hitter was Nick Punto and just simply popped the ball up when he attempted to bunt, but the problem runs deeper. Much of the time, people attempt to bunt they will fail twice (either by taking strikes or bunting the ball foul). The bunt is then taken off and the hitter is forced to hit starting in an 0-2 or 1-2 hole. This is trickier to quantify since this kind of failure is better than a Nick Punto failure, but it's still greatly reduces the chances of the hitter doing something useful.
That's why I asked if there were any stats on it. There's no reason a group like STATS, Inc. couldn't keep track of the number of bunt attempts that went foul, the number that were popped up, the number that were on the ground fair but resulted in a force out, etc. Maybe nobody's interested enough to do it, but it could be done.
If Punto regressed to his "career" numbers it would be a huge improvement from where he's at today. As it has been drilled into my head on these sites, you would link, the only physical impediment to this happening, is between Punto's ears.
I don't think Gardy is convinced at all he is a good bunter - I think he's convinced, based upon his overall athleticsm that he capable of making that play - and he damn well should be capable of making the play.
So why stick with him in this situation?
I would guess that it's easy to overthink yourself on the bench and if you start making a lot of exceptions to the basic strategy, the more it looks like you've got no strategy. Gardy can surely sit Punto more than he has, but the truth is, Punto, because of the state of the roster, has to play some and invariably he will be put in high pressure situatuions where he needs to perform.
Since Punto is also here to stay, Gardenhire and his coaches are tasked with getting everything they can out of him - part of that is continuing to show confidence in him so that the player, when called upon has the mental outlook to perform. I believe if they could have, he would have "Lew Forded" Punto, out of here a while ago.
There's some truth here, which a huge indictment of the front office. Here they have the worst offensive regular in the bigs and they have to play him because they have no real options.
As I said yesterday, they don't have to play him. I'm not saying he should sit out every game the rest of the year, but they don't have to play him every single. While Casilla and Buscher may not be clearly better, they are also not clearly worse (I'm not sure what "clearly worse" would even be right now). They could make those two the regulars and use Punto every third game or so. They are choosing not to do that.
That's "every single game". I've got to start being more careful in these letters.
That's the thing that gets me the most at this point. Gardy is clearly finding excuses to play Punto at this point. There's no reason he needed to start 13 straight games.
But is it really helpful to a player's confidence to keep running him out there when he clearly isn't getting the job done? As I've written before, at this point, even Punto has to know that he's been awful. Does it help his confidence to keep putting him into situations in which he can let down the team? Or does that simply make the situation worse?
I can see sticking with a player in a slump, but this is beyond a slump. Continuing to play Punto is not doing him or the team any favors right now.
And even if you think you need to play Punto to boost his confidence, what does that do to the rest of the team? I don't expect or want them to say anything publicly, but still, here you are, down by one run in the ninth inning of a game you have to win to have any chance to make the playoffs. There's a runner on first, and no one out. The worst batter on the team, who is also not a good bunter, is coming up to bat. Don't you think at least some of the players were wondering why there was no pinch-hitter used? As far as I know, they all like Punto fine, but I suspect they also would like to win the game. How does it affect their confidence, or their morale, to see the game given away like that?
Now, in fairness, Nick Punto is not the only reason the Twins lost last night, and neither is Ron Gardenhire. This was just the play that killed the last hope. But how many of us, when we saw Punto coming up, really expected him to get the bunt down? Anybody? If we knew he probably couldn't do it, the players must have known it to. How do you think they feel?
Punto has started the last 13 games in a row. He has almost 400 ABs - fifth highest on the entire team. That doesn't at all sound to me like a player the manager would "Lew Ford" - i.e. send to the minors - if he could.
If the weasel is trying to preserve Punto's delicate psyche - a 29-year old veteran with almost 1500 ABs - why isn't he similarly inclined with players who are actually young and inexperienced? We've seen no such careful handling - either on the field or in the press - of Cuddyer, Bartlett, Morneau, Kubel, Baker, or Casilla when they've struggled. Why the delicate handling only of Punto?
Letting Kubel sit - against a right-handed pitcher - while watching the worst every-day hitter in the major leagues bat in a high-leverage situation in the ninth inning of a game you basically have to win was just classic; pure Gardenhire.
Not relevant to last night's situation, but here's another thing you can't expect from Punto: avoid stupid baserunning mistakes.
One way to avoid stupid baserunning mistakes is to never get on base.
Casilla is a rookie, we don’t want to damage his fragile psyche, so we’ll keep him away from the scary high pressure situations.
Buscher is also a rookie, so it's even more perplexing.
Punto was a good bunter last year and had one or two in the last few weeks. Until he consistently is getting bunts down, don't let him try in key situations.
*just shakes his head, because there's nothing else to say*
Has Punto ever tried to pitch? Because he could really use Pitchers' Batting Practice.
Thinking costs money. And since the Twins cant afford a bat or two, the Twins cant afford thinking
One thing that's been nagging me since last night is the fact that in the ninth inning, Gardy was playing for the tie and not the lead. I thought conventional wisdom in that situation (visiting team, 9th inning, down by one) was to play for the lead, which means getting two runs instead of one if possible. If you play for the lead there, that pretty much takes the sac bunt out of order, and it also means no way should Punto bat. The right move then, I would think, is to pinch hit Kubel for Punto and worry about defensive alignment if and when you extend the game. Screw the bunt. Go for the blast. With Tyner on first and Kubel up, a double down the line or in the gap could tie the game and a homer gives you the lead. Cue Joe Nathan, stick whoever out in the field and hope for the best. Am I way off base with this line of thinking?
That's the conventional wisdom, but I could go either way. Focusing on the first run does make the second run somewhat more unlikely, but doesn't eliminate the possibility altogether.
probability of winning when you are the visiting team and behind when going into the bottom of the ninth: zero.
probability of winning when you are the visiting team and tied or ahead when going into the bottom of the ninth: higher than zero.
there is no point in worrying about defensive alignments in the top of the ninth as the visiting, trailing team.
If Buscher drives in the run with 1 out, you've got Bartlett, Hunter and Morneau up, with Bartlett up and perhaps Buscher on base. If Bartlett hits into a DP, you're out of thie inning. Or Hunter gets a chance to hit. It could be if you make to the top of the 10th, you'd have Hunter, Morneau and Cuddyer up.
Given how few runs they score, I can see why you might think - hey, let's get at least one and extend this thing. If I crap out and I make it to the 10th, I've got my big boppers due up.
The main difference between being at home and on the road here is that on the road, your opponent will immediately get a chance to come out and win the game in the bottom of the inning without you getting a chance to respond. By contrast, if your opponent scores in the next AB, you will have a chance to come out and try to tie it again. Of course, in both cases, if you fail to score you lose immediately. On the other hand, if you're at home, then a second run would win the game immediately.
I would not necessarily play for a win or a tie here. I would simply play to maximize my chances of winning the game (either now or at some point later). The value of a bunt decreases as the skill of the hitter increases. Bunting with Punto is a lot better than bunting with Morneau since you're giving up a lot more with a Morneau sacrifice.
I don't really think being at home or on the road would make as much of a difference on my decision as the hitter who is bunting or the quality of my bullpen.
The value of a bunt decreases as the skill of the hitter increases.
it also decreases with the bunting skill of the batter. At this point, asking Punto to lay down a bunt is like asking Chuck Knoblauch to make a throw to first or Steve Blass/Mark Wohlers/Rick Ankiel to throw strikes from the mound.
Yeah. The problem here is that Punto can't bunt OR hit. A player like this have almost no value in a situation like this and should always be pinch hit for if there is a better option.
The point you make is also a fundamental problem that proponents of "small ball" often ignore. When they speak of bunting, they say it like it's a 100% certainty that the hitter will successfully be able to execute. This is of course ridiculous as Twins fans have noticed all season. There are a lot of things that can go wrong. Of course, there are also a lot of things that can go right following a successful bunt too. Many of these are things that would have scored the runner anyway, making your sacrifice bunt essentially a useless out.
Yup. 2004 BP expected runs chart. Runner on first, no outs: 0.926. Runner on second, one out: 0.710. On average, the bunt is a losing proposition.
Of course, the "loss" is mostly of multiple-run innings. But something tells me that giving up the out doesn't do very much (positively) for getting the first run across.
here's a link to tangotiger's Run Frequency table for 1999-2002.
runner on first and no outs: zero runs 56.3 pct of the time.
runner on 2nd and one out: zero runs 59.4 pct of the time.
yah. it's a losing proposition to bunt the man over.
That's with typical hitters, though. In 2000, the AL average ISO was .168. Every hitter the Twins were likely to send up that inning had an ISO below that:
.158 -- Kubel
.111 -- Bartlett
.100 -- Buscher
.058 -- Punto
"Scoring position" is of course an oversimplification. With a fast runner on first base and a doubles/HR hitter at the plate, you've got a decent chance to score from first base. With those guys up to bat, though, Tyner didn't have a great chance of scoring from first base.
So you're generally looking at getting two singles over the course of three outs (with the DP looming as a possibility for the first two hitters) or getting one single over the course of two outs (with no DP in order.) That's a different situation than a typical team from '99-'02 because the Twins have such a pathological offense.
My piranhas were able to gain a little bit more from bunting, but their situation was the same. They lost a lot of run expectation, but were able to score at least 1 run more frequently. In some sense, I would say they were the ideal team to bunt with because they hit for such a high average but with zero power.
The problem is (as stated before), bunting is a losing proposition overall even if your sacrifice bunts are 100% succesful. Clearly, they aren't.
Ubes are you saying that in this case, it was somewhat rational to attempt to sacrifice the runner over?
That's what I said in the initial post, and I stand by that. This is basically as good a situation as any for a sac bunt, but I just don't think Punto is the guy who should be asked to get that bunt right now.
OK - so you're committed to bunting -this means you would plan to ask Kubel or Buscher to bunt. Why are these guys, who arguably have many less bunt attempts,than Punto, a better option? Is there something statistical which drives this conclusion or is it simply an 'anyone but Punto' call?
Or is this because with Buscher or Kubel there's a better chance of something good happening if they were forced to hit had it gone to a two strike count, or because fundamentally you feel better in their ability to execute? (Or maybe they would disregard the directive and swing away?)
That’s with typical hitters, though.
well, no. That's an exact distribution from observed data. It's not predicted values, it's observed values.
Now, of course, one could estimate a model, using "typical hitters". But I'm not sure what that means in this case. The data is the data. A higher proportion of runner on 2nd, one out cases ended up with zero runs scored than the proportion of zero run cases with runner on 1st, zero out.
But you still can't get around the fact that the hitters in those situations were, on average, different than the set of hitters the Twins sent up there--in a potentially meaningful way.
The problem as I said before is that Punto can't bunt OR hit. You can debate whether or not a bunt is valuable in this situation. What is not debatable is whether or not Punto should be doing it.
Obviously we'd rather see either Kubel or Buscher hit than Punto. The data shows that bunting is at best a marginal gain here--and that's if you do it correctly 100% of the time. Punto fails so frequently at bunting that I would rather see him try to get on base than lay down a bunt. It lines up like this:
Kubel/Buscher hitting >>>>>>>>>>>> Punto hitting > Punto Bunting
I have no idea how good Kubel and Buscher are at bunting, but the key is that having either of them hit is a much better option than having Punto do anything, so we shouldn't even have to consider how good they are at bunting. The point is that we already have a better option so we don't even need to consider relative bunting ability. Suppose Kubel/Buscher bunt successfully 0% of the time. Our option is clear then, we have one of them pinch hit and not bunt.
The question was directed at Ublemann and not you and it was asking for a clarification of his post - strategically if you were faced with the Tyner on First would you bunt. If you can read the response the answer was yes.
It had nothing to do with if Buscher or Kubel would be asked to hit. Yes, it's an option, but it's not a part of this particular conversation.
If one is committed to bunting in that sitation, you have three choices - Punto, Buscher or Kubel. Hence the question:
Why are these guys, who arguably have many less bunt attempts,than Punto, a better option? Is there something statistical which drives this conclusion or is it simply an ‘anyone but Punto’ call?
My guess is that if you drilled into it, Punto would have a larger universe of bunt attempts and probably more success than either Buscher or Kubel and from that perspective (if it's true), even though Punto sucks, it's a rational decision to let him attempt the bunt versus Buscher or Kubel.
If you are going to ask Buscher or Kubel to bunt, the only justification you have is that you are confident Punto will not be able to execute and therefore you chose option B.
The thing is, some guys would debate out of both sides of their mouth regardless of what decision was made. If Gardenhire does something radical he would have been hammered for not bunting the runner over and playing it conventional.
Am I safe to assume that this is directed at me? My post wasn't directed at you--or anyone in particular. I thought the point was to discuss baseball. If you don't like what I have to say, feel free not to read it.
My question (to anybody who feels like answering it) is why would we simply decide that a bunt is the best option here without considering the skill of the bunters? If Banjo is correct and Punto is indeed the best of the three players at bunting, then bunting is just a terrible option here. Our best option is clearly not bunting and pinch hitting with someone else.
Punto: bringing Twins fans together since 2004. Now, shake hands and come out swingin'
Them's fightin' words.
ding ding.
I did not see this game, and I'm glad I didn't... but the one thing that bothers me more than anything else is why Nick Punto has been in the linup at some position day after day after day after day. We can fault TR all we want, but Gardy has better options, and he refuses to use them.