Punto

Them's fightin' words.

The question was directed at Ublemann and not you

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?)

.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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What do you do when your boss tells you to do something? Tell him to f' off?

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.

Maybe try thinking?

Thinking costs money. And since the Twins cant afford a bat or two, the Twins cant afford thinking

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.