On Marlon Byrd bunting
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 7, 2008 4:16 PM CDT
Email
PrintI got into a discussion at Jamey's site about the wisdom of Marlon Byrd bunting this past weekend against Jered Weaver, with Hank Blalock on first base and none out in a 0-0 tie in the top of the second.
And it occurred to me...I could run the scenarios with various likelihood of events occurring (based on what I think are reasonable assumptions of the likelihood they would occur), and make a determination as to whether, from a run expectancy standpoint, it made sense.
The 2007 run expectancy table says how many runs would expected to be scored given a certain set of runners on base and a certain set of outs. A runner on second, and one out, has an expectancy of .72482 runs. So, if it makes more sense to have Marlon Byrd swing away rather than execute a successful sacrifice, the weighted aggregate run expectancies of all the possible outcomes has to exceed .72482.
So...first off, let's take into account the situation. It is a slumping Marlon Byrd facing Jered Weaver, who, throughout the course of his career, has allowed a .228/.276/.348 line to righties, versus a .275/.329/.441 line to lefties. Marlon Byrd is a career .271/.332/.391 hitter, which is a little worse than the line for the average A.L. hitter in 2007 (.270/.338/.423). He doesn't have a huge platoon split, but he has been in a marked slump.
So, given that Byrd is a little below-average hitting-wise anyway, and given that he's in a slump, what is a reasonable expectation for what his average line against Weaver in this situation would be? Say, .220/.270/.320? I think so.
Now...Weaver allows righties 1 XBH in every 15 PAs. Byrd gets an XBH roughly every 15 PAs. So, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the expected breakdown of XBHs for Byrd in this situation is the same as for Weaver overall, with a small discount for Byrd not having as much HR power as the average hitter -- 5% chance of a double or triple, 1.5% chance of a HR. There's also a 1.5% chance of a GIDP, given Weaver and Byrd's historical averages.
Okay. So there is a 71.5% chance that Byrd will make a non-GIDP out. I am going to assume that, if he makes an out, he's not going to advance the runner. A runner at first with one out has a run expectancy of .54239.
The 1.5% chance of a GIDP leaves you with 2 outs and none on, a run expectancy of .10899.
There is a 5% chance of a walk, which would generate a first and second, none out situation, worth 1.51044. I am assuming a single would only advance the runner to second, given the situation, the runners, and the outfielders, so there's an additional 15% chance of having that 1.51044 (assuming that, with a 22% chance of getting a hit, 15% is a single and 7% is an XBH).
The 1.5% chance of a home run gives you a run expectancy of 2.53542 (2 runs scoring, plus the run expectancy of none on and none out), and the 5.5% chance of an XBH gives you a run expectancy of around 1.75, assuming 5% doubles and .5% triples.
So, totalling it out, using these run expectancies, that gives you an expected .825919 runs scored if you let Byrd swing away, versus a .72482 expected runs scored if Byrd successfully sacrifices.
Now, I think the reality ends up being a lot closer, when you factor in the possibility of Byrd successfully reaching on the bunt (either as a bunt single or an error) or a walk, versus the possibility of him not getting the bunt down.
But this ended up being an interesting exercise, because I would have expected the edge in favor of bunting to be a little closer than it was. I think I may have overestimated the chances of Byrd getting an XBH, which is where most of the swing takes place, but maybe not.
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
woot
Loves me some slide rule blogging.
But that river of tears has dried for all of us.
One run strategies
The problem here is that you are applying multi-run outcomes for a one run strategy. (of course, applying it makes sense given the game situation, 1 on, 0 out, top of the second.
More likely wash is simply hoping that a successfull bunt from Byrd will boost his confidence and hlp him hit better.
Walks and Bunt hits?
Great analysis Adam.
I'm curious though, how does the decision to bunt rather than swinging away preclude Byrd from taking a walk. Seems like the walk possibility should still be there.
Also, what about the possibility that the sacrifice attempt actually turns into a hit. Small chance, but it happens sometimes, and the returns would be great.
Both of these would pull the bunt scenario closer to the swing away scenario.
Yeah
I sort of alluded to that at the end...I think the run expectancy for a bunt is a little higher than indicated...
But on the other hand, you also have the possibility (if you are trying to bunt) of popping it up or bunting into a force play...
It is a tough call there...
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 7, 2008 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
What this really boils down to is...
...Ron Washington is an F'n moron.
Of course he is hardly alone in that, even among major league managers. He's no more of a dinosaur than a lot of them, he just sounds a lot more stupid when he speaks.
Right around the time all the young talent is ready to contend is when the organization will realize that Ron Washington is the wrong man for the job.
extra base hits
I think the 1 in 15 for Weaver and 1 in 15 for Byrd equate to a 1 in 15 possibility is a problem. If 1 in 15 were league average, then I'd say it is okay. The problem is that if 1 in 15 is good for one, it is correspondingly bad for the other. So the advantage is amplified in that direction.
Say the average in baseball is 1 in 12. Then Weaver is 25% better than average when it comes to extra-base hits. Likewise, Byrd is 20% less likely than average to get an EBH. Put it together, if Byrd's chance for an EBH was 1 in 15 against a league average guy, it is probably closer to 1 in 19 for Weaver (15*1.25 ~= 19) in this example. It really all depends what the average is.
Nice analysis though
Yeah
I think you are right. I probably overstated the chances of Byrd getting an XBH (as I sort of speculated I might have at the end).
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 7, 2008 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions
did I follow correctly?
Are you also assuming that if a sacrifice is called for, it would have 100% chance to be successful?
I didn't see any factors for an unsuccessful bunt, a double play on bunt attempt, or lead runner out.
In weighing the possible outcomes of the decision, shouldn't the chances for an unsuccessful sacrifice also be factored in?
Pedro: "I wasn't cockfighting, I just have a wide stance."
Well...
There is quite a bit of assumption and guesstimation in all that statistical analysis.
"what is a reasonable expectation for what his average line against Weaver in this situation would be? Say, .220/.270/.320? I think so."
"I am going to assume that, if he makes an out, he's not going to advance the runner. "
"I am assuming a single would only advance the runner to second,"
Well, any analysis has assumptions
By themselves, assumptions aren't bad. But you have to support the ideas. For instance, a single only advancing a runner to 2nd is fair. Usually guys only go from 1st to 3rd on hits to RF, and Vlad has a huge, huge arm out there.
I think the problem with this analysis (and most baseball analysis in general) is disproportionate use of precision. Adam cites a "bunt is good" value to be at .72482 runs expected. This is an incredibly precise number. But then he guesses at a few things to only 1 or 2 significant digits (indeed, a guess should be a low precision guess). That's fine, but it correspondingly lowers the precision of the outcome.
Given that he saw about a 10% difference, with all of the assumptions, I'd probably say that at worse, the bunt is equally valuable to swinging away, and most likely swinging away is more valuable. But it is hard to say anything more than that.
I think the other key factor in this is the marginal benefit of runs scored (as was mentioned above )- basically how much increasing runs expected increases win expectation. In the 2nd inning, the marginal benefit of 1 run is likely about equal to that of the 2nd run. Whereas in the late innings of a tie game, scoring 1 run may be much more valuable compared to scoring 2 runs. That has to be factored into most analyses, but in this case is probably fair to ignore.
I like the analysis
And think a bunt at that point in the game with no outs is a fair call, but think a huge concern is the skill of the batter. Can he bunt well? How many tries at bunting has he made, career wise? How many successful, either for a SAC or a hit? Can the runner on first get a decent jump on Weaver? or whomever is pitching?
The objective parts of a call, even with assumptions, are easier to make than the subjective (skill based rather than quantitative).
'At Georgia Southern, we don't cheat. That costs money and we don't have any.' Erk Russell / Georgia Southern
by Ed Coffin on Apr 7, 2008 5:35 PM CDT reply actions
As is true in most situations
EV(bunt) < EV(no bunt)
Too comlicated
Can't we just go with the simple answer which is to look at the run expectancy table and see that a runner on first with 0 outs has a run expectancy of 0.92599 which is better than 0.72482? Those numbers are based on every at bat for 2007.
In the specific situation of Byrd vs Weaver, you need to look at their splits. Since we are using 2007 as our basis, we can see that last year, Byrd went 3-5 with a BB and a BB against Weaver. That's a line of .600/.667/.800. You need to take that into consideration, too. I don't know how good Byrd is at laying down a bunt, but I can see that he had no SACs last year and only one in 2006, so I would assume he's not a good bunter.
Add that to the fact that its only the 2nd inning and I think you need to let Byrd swing away.
Also, I don't think asking a slumping hitter to bunt increases his confidence; I think it tells him that the manager does not have confidence in his ability to hit the ball.
by NorCalRangersFan on Apr 7, 2008 5:45 PM CDT reply actions
well
a runner on first with 0 outs might have a run expectancy of .92599, but a runner on 2nd with 1 out is higher than a runner on 1st with 1 out (0.54239).
I think the idea was that Marlon Byrd is in a slump and getting the guy over with 1 out is better than leaving the guy at 1st and still getting that 1 out.
Byrd
I don't think Byrd would take it that way. I would think that if they scored a run, he would feel like he had finally contributed something to his team this year.
by badradiorules on Apr 7, 2008 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Very nice analysis.
While I'm typically against the sac bunt at the big league level, if you are watching a guy swing the bat the way Byrd has been, it is not such a bad move against that guy.
Conclusion
Botts swinging > Byrd bunting.
by robert_d_wilfong on Apr 7, 2008 6:25 PM CDT reply actions
Buck
frowned on bunting in most situations. At least we're finally talking about fundamental baseball.
There is no such thing as global warming. David Murphy was cold, so he turned the sun up.
You know
I think the real question here is not whether Marlon Byrd should bunt or swing, but why he is in the lineup in the first place.
How about we send him down to AAA, and call up Kevin Mench? It's not like Mench will do any worse, and Marlon seems like he could use some time in AAA.
Normally I would banter over this with you
but... Byrd man hasn't given much ammo to argue with. The second half was pedestrian and he's struggling now. At least with Mench I can hear those "look at the sieeeze of that heeed" Sportscenter comments.
There is no such thing as global warming. David Murphy was cold, so he turned the sun up.
by SarasotaRanger on Apr 7, 2008 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't really like Mench either
But the way I look at it, he's going to be on this team sooner or later anyway - I believe we have to add him to the roster by May 1st, or he's a FA.
So instead of axing Jason Botts, who has had all of one AB so far to prove himself with, why not axe a guy who's not performing at all? After all, we have Murphy, who is basically doing what Byrd was expected to, and then some.
by LSJ on Apr 7, 2008 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Because Marlon...
can play defense and still has a little trade value.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Well
If you try to send him down, he has to clear waivers, and if he does clear waivers, he can reject an outright assignment and declare free agency.
In essence, you'd be releasing Byrd to bring up Mench.
Which seems pretty extreme, given we are 6 games into the season.
by Adam J. Morris on Apr 7, 2008 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Ah, okay
For some reason, I thought Byrd had a minor league option.
If that is the case, then you can't do that after all - but perhaps we should trade Byrd instead. Oh, wait - we already spoiled our chance to do that. Nevermind.
by LSJ on Apr 7, 2008 8:13 PM CDT up reply actions
well
This team doesn't exactly need Matt Murton either. Another 4th OF who can only play a corner? Got several of those already...
JD tried to trade him for someone actually, well, worth trading for. But no one bit...
Hey, at least Murton can hit
Even if he can only play corner, we've still got David Murphy in the bigs, and Brandon Boggs in the minors. We really could use Murton's offense more than Byrd's defense, IMO.
Just pinch hit
or start someone else for him and be done with it.
A working class hero is something to be.
Great game
between Kansas-Memphis.
Awesome shot there at the end
"Why do you think you're baseball jesus?" AirJordan to LonestarJon
You talk about what a ..........
shitty hitter he is and then you conclude he should've 'swung away'?
That in-depth mathmatical BS makes my head hurt.
Maybe Wash needs a slide rule in the dugout?
I was waiting for the 'He should have been playing Botts, anyway' line.........
you obviously missed the point
which is that bunting is very rarely a good idea, even when you are the shittiest of hitters. but then again, if you don't believe in "mathmatical (sic) BS," there's not much hope.
BTW, personally as a big Botts fan, I can't really complain about his playing time. Maybe he should be playing a bit more often against righties, but I think everybody has accepted his role as the 25th man
scap load or die
I know 'Moneyball' says you never.......
bunt or steal, but they are part of the game and useful at times......as we've seen with our defense, it's sometimes a good idea to make them 'make a play' (another thing which drives me crazy is the 'a strikeout is the same as any out'....bullshit!).
I have a great appreciation for the Jamesian side of baseball, but not to the detriment of everything else in the game.... both approaches have their place. (you can't tell me Adam's post didn't make your head hurt).
I also have no real problem with Botts, just find it hard to believe a 25th man gets so much discussion & ink.
I have real trouble
believing bunting ever makes sense in the 2nd inning, unless you have Roger Clemens in his prime on the mound.
"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck
I personally have
no problem with Byrd bunting in that situation. I do think that anytime you have MY bunting it is a bad idea. That did happen in one of these first games.
I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it. ~Rogers Hornsby
Or Kinsler
You don't bunt with Kinsler, either. And Ron's done that quite a few times, going back to last year.
by LSJ on Apr 8, 2008 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions
What I'd like to see
is how many times a successful bunt helps a cold batter get going. I see a lot of hitters trying to bunt their way on base or sacrifice bunting when they are cold and its always said that this would help them. If it really does, then it might be worth Byrd trying to bunt than have him try to get a hit.
Well, Juan Pierre bunts a ton
And look at him. Bunting doesn't help hitters rediscover their swing, spending extra time in the batting cage does. Bunting is just something you do with a cold player to ensure that he doesn't hit into a double play, and that the out he is probably going to make is a productive one.
by LSJ on Apr 8, 2008 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Juan Pierre
his problem isn't hitting, it's drawing walks.
by Randy Richardson on Apr 8, 2008 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions
That doesn't detract from my point
Bunting isn't going to miraculously snap a guy out of a slump.
by LSJ on Apr 8, 2008 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Proclaimeth
Baseball Jesus
"You are this month's NYTXFAN." - t ball
by inactive lsb user on Apr 8, 2008 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions
heh
Rex Hudler is in demand as a motivational speaker.
by Brian Thomas on Apr 9, 2008 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lone Star Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
