Pitcher mad over this?

[everyoneneedsasmil]

Avila has an OBP of .343. Assuming we are asking him to do something new (bunt single against the shift), it only makes sense if the return is equal or greater than the average result.

That means it's never going to be a valuable tool for high average, high OBP, high power hitters. But, for players that are not big bats to begin with, a new strategy makes a ton of sense. Simply, beating out the throw on a bunt against the shift is a LOT easier than bunting in any other situation. Any player with decent speed and decent bunting skills should be able to convert about 50% of the time. That's significantly higher than any average at bat. Of course that requires players to practice bunting. I don't see how being MORE skilled is a bad thing in any scenario.

Still, we are talking about a very specific scenario. It would never occur against guys who can hit to both sides to begin with. It would never occur against guys who are aces at blasting the ball or taking walks. It's only for dead-pull hitters who get shifted regularly. Why NOT take an easier shot at a base if you can? Where is the logic in swinging away when the opposing team has already calculated that is their best shot to get you out?

 

[Mitchrapp]

Ok that's fine. I think it's reaching a little bit though. If he bunts only once in every 30 at bats (I just made up a number) then I think the lost pitch count is pretty insignificant. He's still getting 29 regular at bats to do his usual thing.

That's all I'm talking about. Just a few bunts here and there.

So 5 bunts in 150 at bats? To be worth it he'd have to be better than 1 of 5. Personally, I don't think he can.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Avila has an OBP of .343. Assuming we are asking him to do something new (bunt single against the shift), it only makes sense if the return is equal or greater than the average result.

That means it's never going to be a valuable tool for high average, high OBP, high power hitters. But, for players that are not big bats to begin with, a new strategy makes a ton of sense. Simply, beating out the throw on a bunt against the shift is a LOT easier than bunting in any other situation. Any player with decent speed and decent bunting skills should be able to convert about 50% of the time. That's significantly higher than any average at bat. Of course that requires players to practice bunting. I don't see how being MORE skilled is a bad thing in any scenario.

Still, we are talking about a very specific scenario. It would never occur against guys who can hit to both sides to begin with. It would never occur against guys who are aces at blasting the ball or taking walks. It's only for dead-pull hitters who get shifted regularly. Why NOT take an easier shot at a base if you can? Where is the logic in swinging away when the opposing team has already calculated that is their best shot to get you out?

Considering where Alex average his the .343 says he shouldn't bunt..based on your "It would never occur against guys who are aces at blasting the ball or taking walks".

Which was my point.

 

[UMRules06]

So 5 bunts in 150 at bats? To be worth it he'd have to be better than 1 of 5. Personally, I don't think he can.

I just made up the number. And if you personally don't believe he can, then that's ok. I think that's probably the heart of our disagreement anyway, because I think he could.

No way to prove either of us correct unless he actually starts trying it. Not gonna happen this year at any rate.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I say they should give it a shot, having Alex square to attempt a bunt against the shift.

He pops out to the catcher, so what? He was probably going to strike out two swings later anyway.

Just if the guy even squares, and the first pitch is a ball, that might take them out of the shift, at at least until the first strike is thrown.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I say they should give it a shot, having Alex square to attempt a bunt against the shift.

He pops out to the catcher, so what? He was probably going to strike out two swings later anyway.

Just if the guy even squares, and the first pitch is a ball, that might take them out of the shift, at at least until the first strike is thrown.

I'm not sure one pitch will change a shift.

My old coach when I was in grade school would tell me flat out "now go get hit by that pitch."

I had a slight problem that year but my OBP was huge.

 

[SouthOfMackinac]

I'm not sure one pitch will change a shift.

My old coach when I was in grade school would tell me flat out "now go get hit by that pitch."

I had a slight problem that year but my OBP was huge.

Castellanos often times shifts after the first strike.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Castellanos often times shifts after the first strike.

After a strike, less chance for batter to pull I suppose. With a particular player. That's a bit different..I just don't think a player who never bunts would get the shift changed based off a bunt try.

 

[SouthOfMackinac]

After a strike, less chance for batter to pull I suppose. With a particular player. That's a bit different..I just don't think a player who never bunts would get the shift changed based off a bunt try.

Nick stays over to prevent the bunt. After strike one Ausmus figures they surely won't be bunting so he moves him between 1st and 2nd. Week ago or so Cabrera was giving him crap like "Why are you coming over here?" and Nick gave a shrug and you could read his lips "They told me to."

 

[Mitchrapp]

Oh I read that wrong..I thought you meant he went from shift back to 3rd.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm not sure one pitch will change a shift.

if it doesn't, Square around to bunt on the next pitch too.


Keep squaring around until the first strike is thrown.

And when you get a good pitch to bunt, bunt it and get a base hit.

If Alex doesn't know how to bunt, that's on him and every buddy around him.

Every baseball player at every level should know the fundamentals of laying down an effective bunt.

 

[Rebbiv]

The is something called "smart" baseball. Many a time, the 3rd baseman was playing deep and Trammell would lay down a bunt for a base hit. Ron Leflore did a decent job of bunting for a hit. Bunting for a hit, at times and game conditions, is just smart baseball.

Sacrifice bunting, in virtually most situations, is statistically going against the odds. Giving up an out for another base is just not successful as one would think.

 

[Thumb]

Reminds me of Brad Pitt in moneyball talking about bunting: "When the other team makes a mistake, don't get in their way. Don't even try to throw to 2nd, they are giving us a free out, we'll take it every time".

 

[tinselwolverine]

Castellanos often times shifts after the first strike.

Do we know that other teams don't also do this when they shift against Avila? To my knowledge this is the first time the shift against Avila Has been discussed on a thread.

 

[gotime909]

Whoops

 

[Thumb]

JV is gonna no hit these mother fuckers

nice going.

 

[gotime909]

nice going.

Dammit, busted me before I deleted it. lol Did it in the wrong thread anyways.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

I think the whole argument comes down to: what is the best option for the Tigers.

There are a ton of factors, but if we limit our discussion only to the shift, then introducing bunting becomes a much more useful tool. Avila is not a great example because he draws a lot of walks, and that makes up for a lot of his poor batting average. Then again, it also comes down to the specific conversion rate of bunting against the shift.

It's all opportunity cost issues. If a good bunter will get a hit 50% of the time bunting against the shift, he should deploy a bunt every time the shift occurs. This is because there are no .500 OBP batters in the league, and a 50% shot in any situation is almost always the best option available. Now, if someone happens to be a terrible bunter or runner, and can only convert 25% of bunts against the shift, they should almost never do it, as in most cases they will be better off swinging away.

I don't know where to find that specific of a stat. Maybe someone else can help me out there. Bunting in and of itself shouldn't be gotten rid of, because it provides one more option that COULD be better than others in specific situations.

 

[Rebbiv]

I think the whole argument comes down to: what is the best option for the Tigers.

There are a ton of factors, but if we limit our discussion only to the shift, then introducing bunting becomes a much more useful tool. Avila is not a great example because he draws a lot of walks, and that makes up for a lot of his poor batting average. Then again, it also comes down to the specific conversion rate of bunting against the shift.

It's all opportunity cost issues. If a good bunter will get a hit 50% of the time bunting against the shift, he should deploy a bunt every time the shift occurs. This is because there are no .500 OBP batters in the league, and a 50% shot in any situation is almost always the best option available. Now, if someone happens to be a terrible bunter or runner, and can only convert 25% of bunts against the shift, they should almost never do it, as in most cases they will be better off swinging away.

I don't know where to find that specific of a stat. Maybe someone else can help me out there. Bunting in and of itself shouldn't be gotten rid of, because it provides one more option that COULD be better than others in specific situations.

Boog Powell or Frank Howard have no business bunting, period!


Shifts are normally applied to "dead pull" hitters. It would be easier to teach them to occasionally hit to the opposite field then to teach them to bunt. We are not talking about pitchers who rarely make contact. We are talking about MLB hitters.

 

[SouthOfMackinac]

Do we know that other teams don't also do this when they shift against Avila? To my knowledge this is the first time the shift against Avila Has been discussed on a thread.

I have not seen it done. They seem to start in the shift on him.