True, but then you take into account the chance that the bunter will bunt for a hit and the chance that the pitcher will UNintentionally walk (or hit) the next batter, etc., etc. It's all pretty close to a wash. Or close enough to a wash that the situational variability (who's bunting, pitching, fielding, game situation, etc.) removes much, if not all, of the significance from the difference.
This is twofold: One is that he assumes the other team would then intentionally walk the next hitter, which is amusing. Just like it would be silly in most situations to bunt, it would be very silly to intentionally walk unless the situation unfolds in a particular way. In most cases, teams would not be intentionally walking the next batter. Two is that he thinks bases loaded, 1 out, is somehow not a very advantageous position. Without knowing the situation, I would definitely prefer bases loaded 1 out to 1st and 2nd with no outs. In general, hitters perform better with the bases loaded, because the pitcher is in a tough spot. The median batting average among teams this year with the bases loaded is .270. I don't know what the average is because I don't have the complete stats. In 2010, the MLB average was .281.
This is true, but that ignores the tremendous advantage in the first and second none out situation of having an extra out to work with, which is why it's basically a wash. In my view by far and away the two most important things sabermetrics showed was that walks and outs are both far more valuable than they were given credit for. Almost all of the specifics that came out of "Moneyball" that drove the traditionalists crazy (use OBP instead of BA, the importance of WHIP, bunting is usually bad, trying to steal is often bad, intentional walks are often bad) ultimately came down to the two ideas of get on base and don't waste outs (add in hit home runs and you've basically got 90% of what matters). The amazing thing is that it took 100 years for people to get it (and some still don't), even though the evidence of people like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Grover Alexander, and Tom Seaver was staring them right in the face.
those two things are really the same thing. The way to win baseball games is by avoiding outs. Hits avoid outs, but so do walks. There's no clock, so the way to think of it is you have 27 outs. The way to score as many runs as possible is simply by having as many hitters as possible not get out. It is pretty amazing that it took so long for people to catch on. It's close to a wash, but I still think the advantage is clear enough. Losing one out to get an additional runner on base (even most of the best hitters aren't even getting on at a 40% clip) and getting the bonus of hitting in a bases loaded situation.
The advantage is clear enough all other things being equal. Thing is, though, all other things aren't equal. It's a statistically significant advantage when averaged over all players in baseball, but that statistically significant advantage will inevitably be masked by the much larger variance inherent from batter to batter, lineup to lineup, pitcher to pitcher, and game situation to game situation. It's too easy for any of those metrics to tip the expectancy one way or the other that the clear advantage doesn't mean as much in a real game situation. ETA: I'm of the opinion that outs are precious things and that teams should be loathe to give them up. But here's just one example... the home team is batting in the ninth inning of a tie game with runners on first and second, nobody out. Here, you just want the one run and a sac bunt creates a situation where the team is more likely to get that run across.
yes, there are situations where the bunt makes sense. The sabmetric position is that it should only be done by pitchers or in late/extra innings situations where the game is tied or you trail by a run. Certainly if it's the 9th inning and the run would tie/win the game, you would bunt with 1st and 2nd and no outs. Obviously the game situation can change a great deal. These types of things can only be said as a general statement. Inning, score, lineup status matters a great deal. In general, I think you'd score more. I was responding to a general statement made by Francesa.
It's in the football forum but this is too good not to post here too (and this is more baseball relevant anyway): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aAONQyJWC-8 I'm not the world's biggest Sweeny fan but geez, he doesn't put me to sleep...
Congrats to Mike Francesa on his Marconi Award! ZZZZZ...zzzzz...ZZZZZ...zzzzz...Mar...zzzzz...co...ZZZZZ...ni...zzzzz...ZZZZZ...zzzzz...
He missed it... ZZZZZZZZ.........zzzzzzzzzzzz.......ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......dawg..........zzzzzzzzzzzz..............ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............
Da Yanks are in trouble dis series becawwse da Tiegizzz have Alberto Jose Burquerque [YOUTUBE]Bfdc8n93Mfs[/YOUTUBE]
Folks, I just got my tickets to da Yanks game, so da game mattahs moah. I'll be sittin behind duh plate. Youah seats? You'll be in da noze bleedahs! Or maybe watchin it online on youah calculatah.
