Smallball is infecting my brain, please help AN!

by bvank on Oct 26, 2005 3:32 PM PDT Comment 51 comments

After three-plus weeks of watching National League teams, and the White Sox, constantly play for one run my subconscious mind is being taken over by the "small ball" theory. I know that it is wrong to play for one run, particularly in the first inning, but I find myself expecting just that. When Craig Biggio leads off the game with a single, my first thought is "Now, if Taveras can bunt him over to second then Berkman and Ensberg will each have a shot to drive him in."

AACCKK!

When I stop to think about it, I can force myself to adjust my thinking regarding Biggio at first and Taveras at the plate with nobody out in the top of the first to something like "If Taveras can get on then Berkman, Ensberg and Lane all have shots at really breaking this thing open before the Sox even get to bat." But it didn't used to be this way. For as long as I can remember, the norm for me was more like "play for the big inning, don't be desperate, one run will not win this game." I am afraid that all of this Tim McCarver/Joe Buck/dare I say Joe Morgan hooey is really getting to me.

Please, can somebody point me in the right direction? I need stats, probabilities and situations to get me back on track.

Thanks.

0 recs | Comment 51 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Here's some numbers

The probability of the team scoring that many runs with the win probabilty at the end of the inning in parenthesis.

Runner at 1st, no outs:
0 runs: .58 (.41)
1 run: .17 (.52)
2 runs: .13 (.67)
3 runs: .06 (.65)
4+ runs: .06 (.87)

Runner at 2nd, 1 out:
0 runs: .59 (.41)
1 run: .25 (.52)
2 runs: .10 (.67)
3 runs: .04 (.65)
4+ runs: .03 (.87)

So, by multiplying the probability of each outcome by the associated winning percentage then adding them up for each strategy, we can get the average winning percentage of each move:

Swing away: 51%
Bunt: 49%

Both represent improvements over the visiting team's odds of winning the game before first pitch: 46%

Swinging away represents a bigger improvement.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 26, 2005 3:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

but "swinging away" isn't an improvement

... if you're Scott Podsednik ...

Bill loved butter.

by monkeyball on Oct 26, 2005 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, explain something to me...

How is a team's odds of winning the game before first pitch 46%?

I mean, there are two teams, nothing has happened on the field yet, so wouldn't thier odds of winning be 50%?

Very interesting stats though. Personally, I am not a fan of bunting. I always kinda cringe and yell at the tv "don't BUNT!" whenever someone squares around, regardless of the situation.

"If I'm not having fun, then I am not playing well" ~Bobby Crosby

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 26, 2005 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Home field advantage.

These are based on the actual games - that's the winning percentage of all home teams.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 26, 2005 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting!

Thanks!

"If I'm not having fun, then I am not playing well" ~Bobby Crosby

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Oct 26, 2005 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

With a great pitching staff:

Giving your guy a lead in the first is a huge bonus.

It puts added pressure on the opposition and let's your guy challenge the other team when the bases are clear.

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint on Oct 26, 2005 3:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

But, Saint ...

look at my numbers above - you're very slightly more likely to score ANY runs by not bunting.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 26, 2005 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is really subjective:

It is actually VERY subjective.

Is your lead-off guy fast?

Is your #3 hitter hitting .300 +

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint on Oct 26, 2005 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's in the sum total of all situations

so the guy on base has average speed and all of the batters hit roughly .270.

It's also not subjective at all, just, perhaps, overly general.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 26, 2005 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right...Overly generalized!!!! Thanks...

If your offense is built with a .400 + OBP guy with some speed at the top and a succesful bunter in the 2 hole then the odea would be to get player A on and then get him to 2nd for the #3 and 4 guys in the order.

The conventional DP is eliminated and you have your two best options for driving him in up.

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint on Oct 26, 2005 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

devo's on the right track

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2005/9/5/18366/80853

This article explains how to use the stats of the upcoming batter in the context of the situation.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Oct 26, 2005 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless hitter #2 hits into a DP...

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint on Oct 26, 2005 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then all you do

is add a row to your spreadheet and account for that. The article is meant as an illustrative example.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Oct 26, 2005 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

All of this chatter just makes me miss Rickey:

Seriously...

Walk...Steal second...Steal third...Fly ball...One run...No hits.

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint on Oct 26, 2005 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't this make Saint's point?

After a quick read of this, I'm left with the impression that there ARE times when the bunt is appropriate, when you're playing for one run with a relatively fast runner on base and decent bunter at the plate -- in layman's terms, when the utility of that run outweighs the need for a big inning.

by oblique on Oct 27, 2005 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, it doesn't make saint's point

I invited saint to use this approach to make his point. He didn't, and instead went off about missing Rickey.

You could use this approach to see if bunting the runner over works in the first inning. You will find that it does not, given the quality of most 2-3-4-5 batters.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Oct 27, 2005 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope ...

there ARE times when the bunt is appropriate. Nobody's disputing that. Sal and I believe that those times are fairly rare - typically occurring probably about 20-30 times each season. Those time are when you would think they would be: late in close games - especially when you are down 1 or tied - when you have a crappy batter up.

This is exactly the situation that Sal's describing in his article.

What I'm saying is that for the #2 guy to bunt the leadoff hitter over in the first inning to EVER be a good play, you've go to have a truly screwed up lineup.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 27, 2005 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha :-)

Thanks!

by oblique on Oct 27, 2005 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and where have you

found this to be true? link?

"If people don't know who he is, they'd better turn on the television and check him out."

by jacobo2u on Oct 27, 2005 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure what you're asking ...

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 27, 2005 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but salb

sorry, but that guy has good intentions, but he is the equvialent of a guy using a home chemistry set to make some medication... he doesn't even have an error value associated with anything.

there are way too many independent variables that are not being addressed to come to a accurate analysis. personally, i don't know the numbers, but you would have to do a similar approach with each situation being unique.

"If people don't know who he is, they'd better turn on the television and check him out."

by jacobo2u on Oct 27, 2005 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's bs

sure, it's not a perfect study. You could figure out some more variables to throw in there that would make it more accurate. Who cares?

It accounts for everything that is going to happen in 99.something% of the situations. It's not rocket science - or medicine, it's an approximation that is more than accurate enough for our discussions on a fan site.

I also guarantee you that Sal could put together much more thorough, accurate studies than that. It just wouldn't make much sense, because most of his readers would be completely lost and he wouldn't be communicating anything with anybody. It's sort of the Rob Neyer syndrome - except not so much as to become largely irrlevent.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 27, 2005 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its not bs

if you look at the facts. you are wanting to generalize, and apply whatever the result was to everything. personally, i don't think quantifying baseball is necessarly a good thing in every situation. stats are very revealing, but that is because stats are kept for every person. a stat that is based on every player, such as the "percentage that a run scores in X situation" is not very helpful when applied to a unique situation. it is simply not understanding statistics. not in the average statistics, in the mathematical sense.

I also believe that better stats can help this site, why? because we all really care about the A's, and baseball, and want to understand the game, and why BB does the things he does, and if we agree with it all. billy doesn't use stats from sal, he uses real statistics which are much more thorough than these. I would like to see the system that he uses in helping him make decisions.

"If people don't know who he is, they'd better turn on the television and check him out."

by jacobo2u on Oct 27, 2005 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you even read his study?

It was applying the probabilities of the specific batter to the specific situation.

I'm saying it's BS because you're not making any argument you're just trashing the good work that he did. It's not perfect, so what? It's a hell of a lot better than you have to offer - which isn't hard, since everything you've said has been dead wrong. Well, except the obvious, yes BB does have superior stats available to him than we do. But, no, he sure as hell isn't going to share them.

And I do understand general statistics and their usefulness, clearly you don't. They don't create a be all and end all truth. They create a baseline from which you can use the specifics of the current situations to adjust your strategies appropriately.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 27, 2005 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, let's try this ...

With the heart of your lineup coming up is exactly the time you wouldn't want to bunt.

The time to bunt is at the bottom of the order, when you have guys who are unlikely to string together multiple hits or knock extra base hits.

A good #3 hitter - Lance Berkman, for example - is almost as likely to knock an extra base hit as he is to hit a single. You want baserunners on in front of him, the base doesn't matter that much.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 26, 2005 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

damn lookout landing.

Player A just reminds me of Spiezio now.

*Don't tell the Raiders, either. Just leave Mt Davis at the site, with a note: "We believe this is yours, Al. Enjoy! - AN"* - calgbear

by Jjjsixsix on Oct 26, 2005 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly:

The A's are built so contrary to this, which A-Mazes me given thier pitching prowess, that they have had Hatteberg in the #1 hole and Mini-G too!!!

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint on Oct 26, 2005 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You'll notice we've gone away from this, though

and everyone we've added recently (Kotsay, Kendall, Payton) plus many of the guys we've drafted are excellent baserunners, if not basestealers.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 26, 2005 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree:

That is my only hope right now.

There are a few things that make me think this will never happen though.

In 2005 we had the best base stealing team that we have had in years, YET, we only stole (An Oakland record for futility) 31 bases all year long!!!

The A's could not hit for power or extra bases with the big boys and did nothing to try and get extra bases, except go from 1st to third better than before.

And finally, Macha was rehired because he was "Good Enough"

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint on Oct 27, 2005 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well ...

You can see the math in response to your other post (http://www.athleticsnation.com/comments/2005/10/27/85751/050/14#14) but I showed that a great basestealer (56/70, 80%) will only add 5.6 runs to his teams' total for the season.

Only Eric Chavez (100%) was able to top a 73% success rate. Kendall and Scuctaro were the only others to come close (73%, 71%). It probably would have helped us to let Chavvy run a little more - but that's it. Even if he tripled his total - and kept his 100% success rate - that only leads to an extra 3 runs scored on the season. Of course, Chavvy isn't that good of a basestealer and he only had that success rate because he was cherry picking.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 27, 2005 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but devo

you can also say that the difference between a .300 hitter and a .330 is like 8 hits. which can translate to about how many runs?

i think saints point is that a well placed bunt here and there could have saved us a couple of games, which could have pushed us into the playoffs.

"If people don't know who he is, they'd better turn on the television and check him out."

by jacobo2u on Oct 27, 2005 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Based on 600 ABs

it's actually 18 hits. How many runs that translates into is dependent on the kind of hits the player produces. But since .52 runs are scored for every hit, that seems like a relatively good approximate rate - meaning, on average, 18 hits = 9 runs. While, of course, the player's team would affect this, context, in theory, shouldn't, since the hits are spread over the course of the season.

But the situations are not parallel. You're comparing a good hitter with a very good hitter. and saying the difference is 9 runs.

I'm comparing one of the two or three best basestealers in the league with someone who never even attempts a swipe and the showing that the difference is a half dozen runs.

When you look at it that way, it's very clear that, while stolen bases do some good, when done by players who succeed at an effective rate, they have nowhere near the effect that a quality hitter does.

A well placed bunt here and there can save a few games. It's true. No one denies that. My point is (and the numbers show this) that in the great majority of situations, a bunt actually hurts you, so you should only consider bunting when the situation strongly dictates it.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 27, 2005 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes, they aren't completely parallel

and don't get me wrong, i actually agree with most of your points!!! i just think that its really annoying when people bring up stats that reek of "fuzzy" math. generally you should just let your players hit! old wisdom also says that you want the game on the line with your best players with the bat in their hands!

some of this is a moot point, (point A) since our team can't run worth beans. our 2001 team could hit the lights out, this team cannot however. so we should be bunting more which goes back to point A!
hopefully next year we will be killing the ball consistently, and we won't even need to talk about these things!

"If people don't know who he is, they'd better turn on the television and check him out."

by jacobo2u on Oct 27, 2005 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just because you don't understand it

doesn't make it "fuzzy math".

Don't listen to our president, ignorance is not a good thing. Analyze the numbers, think about them, think about what they mean, think about problems that might exist with them. Talk about those problems, don't just write complicated ideas off as "fuzzy math".

No, we shouldn't be bunting more, or at least not much more - there may have been a situation or two where a bunt would have been a good idea, I'm not sure.

Unless your hitter is absolutely worthless, the only time it ever pays off to bunt is close and late (tied or down 1) and your current hitter sucks. Those situations don't happen very often.

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 27, 2005 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

now your just putting words in my mouth

i never said we should bunt.

and yes, i know enough about statistics to know that any statistic without an error value attached is very close to worthless.

i also don't understand your feelings towards 'fuzzy math', as it is actually a very funny term, if you understand mathematics, and no, i voted for kerry.

im not even arguing that we shouldn't go for the big inning.

all im saying is that from a chemist's point of view, all these stats are basically moot until you get an error value, or uncertainty if you will.

note to salb.
you really should add a error term to all your imputs!!! its pretty easy, a program can probably calculate it for you, or you can do some simple vector calc.

"If people don't know who he is, they'd better turn on the television and check him out."

by jacobo2u on Oct 27, 2005 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

heh.

The joke on LL was the Spiezio's name was unmentionable because he was so bad, but now that you bring it up, I see that point as well.

I'm going to have to agree with devo here though, in that we have been going away from this process for a good while now.

*Don't tell the Raiders, either. Just leave Mt Davis at the site, with a note: "We believe this is yours, Al. Enjoy! - AN"* - calgbear

by Jjjsixsix on Oct 26, 2005 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've seen this before, bvank...

I'm afraid I have to inform you that you have a brain cloud. It's fatal, and there is no cure.

"HRs by second basemen are sexy. They're rare and exotic." -Kyli

by McFood on Oct 26, 2005 4:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nurse!

Get me a vial of NeoTheoDepo, STAT!

Bill loved butter.

by monkeyball on Oct 26, 2005 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look for AN Book Club Diary #5

coming in 2 weeks!

SmallBall vs. Moneyball

Best Coliseum promotion of the year? 2005 Oakland A's baseball.

by baseballgirl on Oct 26, 2005 5:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

But when is #3 coming?

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 26, 2005 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less.

Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

by Apricot on Oct 26, 2005 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

1 ... 2... 3 ...

Monkeyball Note: if the A's postgame radio host was an evil supervillain, his official Evil Supervillain Laugh would be "Buan-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!")

by devo on Oct 26, 2005 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

3... is a magic number

I believe BBG plans to post a new Book Club Diary each Sunday. Awesome diaries (and subsequent discussions)!

by calgbear on Oct 26, 2005 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Awesome! I can totally count!

I meant #4.

FOUR.

I'm TIRED! Stupid extra innings.

Best Coliseum promotion of the year? 2005 Oakland A's baseball.

by baseballgirl on Oct 26, 2005 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Cuz Crede's and Blum's bombs plus a walk with the bases loaded all equal small ball... The Sox are riding Moneyball at its finest. Come crunch time, even Scott Podsednik is drawing walks like he's Youkilis.

by OaktownTribesman on Oct 26, 2005 6:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

LOB and Small Ball

Any stats? Run productivity? Seemed like a lot of LOBs on this Series. Maybe it's just me.

by Dan_Honolulu on Oct 26, 2005 9:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Take two walks.

and Homer in the morning.

by StewFan on Oct 27, 2005 3:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Very Telling stat

Going into yesterday's game, the Sox had hit 18 home runs, and at least one in every game but one. The finnished teh playoffs hitting homers in 10 of 12 games. That and their amazing pitching won the WS, not Podsednik and small ball.

RIP Bill King "By the Beard of Zeus!" "I don't know if you heard me counting. I did over a thousand"

by ohad on Oct 27, 2005 7:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Much thanks Brothers and Sisters!

I knew that there was a reason that the White Sox were winning post season ball games that was outside the realm of the "Big Three" talking heads. A constant barrage of "That was great situational hitting by Taguchi to get Podsednik into scoring possition" has clouded my judgment.

At last a glimmer of reason was heard prior to the game last night when Jon Miller declared that "big innings have been the specialty of the White Sox this postseason."

My mind raced. I asked myself "How can a big inning occur with a single or double followed by a sacrifice bunt and a single or sac fly? The best any team could hope for is a single, a sacrifice, another single for a run, another sacrifice, yet another single for a second run and a K. Two runs does not make a big inning." Then it hit me "The White Sox must be swinging away sometimes. But no bunting, how do they do it? Oh, they must use another small ball tool, the Hit & Run."

So I watched. Finally one of the teams used the Hit & Run instead of a bunt. Guess what happened next - Adam Everet still managed to hit into a double play. Well, that wasn't it.

Then, I read AN and it all fell into place.

Ohad, thanks for your homerun stats. I am guessing that none of those homers came on a failed bunt attempt.

Devo, thank you for probabilities. It is more than very interesting to (re)learn that there is only a slightly better chance of scoring even one run with that runner moved to second base with a sacrifice than not sacrificing him. As for scoring multiple runs, stay put and let the hitters do what they do best.

Saint, thank you for reminding us that sometimes you should play for one run, although the media commentators would disagree and suggest that you should always do so.

Salb, thanks for a cool link.

BBG, thank you for great reviews. I can hardly wait for #4.

Now, if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to practice my mantra courtesy of Earl Weaver.

Pitching, defense and the three-run homer . . . . Pitching, defense and the three-run homer . . . . Pitching, defense and the three-run homer . . . . Pitching, defense and the three-run homer . . . .

"Great minds (or complete idiots) think alike." - Nico

by bvank on Oct 27, 2005 10:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I believe I can help

Instead of small ball and money ball or ozzie ball, take a step back, a cleansing breath, too, and re-focus on.....BASEball...realizing of course, that there is more than one way to play the game. You'll run into small ball die-hards...and Moneyball die-hards along the way...

sometimes you'll stray and actually EXPECT the A's to sacbunt...that's okay...I'll simply remind you that early in the game they probably won't, and later in the game they might. I hope that by now you don't expect the stolenbaseattempt. Good. Now that that's clear we can move on...

How are you feeling now...?

Keith (Not Keith Ginter)

by kmonaco on Oct 27, 2005 11:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs