Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   News: MLB team allows video assistant to participate in team bunting competition. Fark: He finishes 2nd. Not News: The Cubs   (sports.yahoo.com) divider line 15
    More: Obvious, David DeJesus, MLB teams, Cubs, Dale Sveum, Sam Fuld, Earl Weaver, Theo Epstein, Diamondbacks  
•       •       •

1390 clicks; posted to Sports » on 11 Mar 2013 at 6:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



15 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-11 07:09:46 AM  
Bravo subby, bravo
 
2013-03-11 07:33:24 AM  
That doesn't bode well, but I can't say the Reds have historically been a better bunting team than the Cubs.
I mean, we have Dusty Baker for holy shiat's sake.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-03-11 08:24:12 AM  
I found a rare image of the Cubs not completely sucking at bunting.

www.thestadiumshoppe.com
 
2013-03-11 10:04:54 AM  
If it was the music guy, he'd have come in first.

/Go Baysox!
 
2013-03-11 10:36:31 AM  
Should offer him a contract.  I mean some teams carry a legally blind in one eye, right handed third baseman who only hits knuckleballers on even days of the month in late inning situations... why not a designated bunter?
 
2013-03-11 10:55:40 AM  
I remember a while ago BP basically said that unless you're sending up a pretty bad hitting pitcher, statistically you're probably better off not bunting.
 
2013-03-11 11:40:26 AM  
Guys it's the Cubs. It was clearly a home run derby.
 
2013-03-11 11:42:25 AM  

Weigard: Guys it's the Cubs. It was clearly a home run derby.


If Andre Dawson's knees were healthy, I bet he could hit a home run from a bunt stance.
 
2013-03-11 11:47:18 AM  

zarberg: I remember a while ago BP basically said that unless you're sending up a pretty bad hitting pitcher, statistically you're probably better off not bunting.


So the tradeoff of a GIDP or a strikeout without moving the runner vs. a hit is better than the pretty much automatic runner movement of a sac bunt?
 
2013-03-11 11:58:50 AM  

IlGreven: zarberg: I remember a while ago BP basically said that unless you're sending up a pretty bad hitting pitcher, statistically you're probably better off not bunting.

So the tradeoff of a GIDP or a strikeout without moving the runner vs. a hit is better than the pretty much automatic runner movement of a sac bunt?


A runner on first with no out gives a team an average of .95 runs per inning. "Sacrificing" to get a runner on 2nd with 1 out lowers that to an average of .73

An analysis with a lot more visible math shows that if you're playing for just 1 run, bunting is ok, but statistically, over the course of a season, you have a much better chance of scoring multiple runs if you don't bunt.

So, yes, statistically the tradeoff is better than the "pretty much automatic" sac bunt.
 
2013-03-11 12:02:31 PM  
Miami University guy, awesome.
 
2013-03-11 01:43:14 PM  
Oh yay, the first of the daily posts about the awful Cubs, to go along with the soon-to-be daily posts about the Red Sox and Yankees.

/There's more to baseball, Fark modmins, than those three teams
//No, really, there is
 
2013-03-11 03:13:54 PM  

zarberg: So, yes, statistically the tradeoff is better than the "pretty much automatic" sac bunt.


Especially because sacrifice bunts are nowhere near "pretty much automatic".  Called strikes, pop-ups, fouling it off, etc.  Heck, 33 GIDPs in 2012 on bunts, and that takes a pretty collossal screwup.  Overall, of the 3108 PA that ended in a bunt attempt (so not counting failed bunts that caused the batter to take a strike and then swing away with 2 strikes), 1039 of them ended in an out and didn't advance the runner.

The odds look even worse for sac bunts when you factor in those events.

On the flip side, if the hitter is fast and accurate, the "single" and "reached on error" odds make it useful.  Situations where bunting isn't really dumb:

1) 1st and 2nd, no outs.  Two extra bases for the price of one.
2) One-run game in the final half-inning, no outs, runner on first or second.  The real drawback of bunting is that it only slightly raises that chance of one run, but it murders your chance of scoring 2 or more.
3) When the batter has a legitimate chance of a bunt single.

Even these outcomes depend heavily on who is hitting, who is running, who the 3B/1B/P are (including P handedness), and who is on deck.  The Fielding Bible guys did a study on this a few years back, and the difference between Adrian Beltre and A-Rod manning 3B was night and day.  (A-Rod was not a bad defender in general, but as he was a SS for years, fielding bunts was never his thing.)
 
2013-03-11 03:29:59 PM  
www.aceshowbiz.com
/hot, but knows what you're talking about
 
2013-03-11 10:09:01 PM  
in other news, the Yankees are apparently courting Derrek Lee to play 1B
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report