THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

That’s all true, but major leaguers are not optimal game theorists in fact the fake bunt very frequently draws the infield in more than your optimal movement (which is not equal to zero because the batter is taking a penalty by faking a bunt which he is more likely to do if he was told to bunt [when there are men on base]) therefore it may make sense to pull back a bunt and play off your opponent’s irrationality.

To me, this seems like an empirical question ... after the batter shows bunt, does the 3B change his position?  Game theory suggests he shouldn’t.  But does he?

Mike, yes of course, players (and managers) operate incorrectly all the time, which requires their opponents to have a certain strategy which is different than if their opponents operated correctly.  The correct strategy for any player in a game depends on the actions of their opponents. 

Phil, as much as I watch baseball, I really don’t know. I am not even sure if batters feign bunts very often or they were going to bunt and didn’t like the pitch or changed their mind.  I think that they feign bunts some of the time in order to draw the third baseman in (at least that is what the commentators say), but I am not sure. 

It is conventional wisdom that that is what some batters are supposed to do.  I was challenging that conventional wisdom for the 1,385th time. I suppose they are supposed to do that if third baseman (and their managers) are dumb and do in fact move in after a bunt, but can they be that dumb?

What would they say if you asked them, “Why did you just move in?”

If they say, “Well he might be bunting on the next pitch,” your response is, “Didn’t you know that before he feigned the bunt?  Or did he just remind you that he sometimes bunts?”

Or, “Don’t you think that now that you moved in, he WON’T be bunting?  Either you were out of position before or you are out of position now.”

mgl/2 ... I’m with you.  The 3B could argue that if the batter shows bunt, he actually *is* more likely to be bunting next pitch.  But, again, that would be an empirical question, and I bet the answer is no.

It seems possible that the 3B will move in just to not be shown up if the batter *does* bunt.  He doesn’t want to look like a fool, and maybe if a line drive goes over his head while he’s playing in, it’s not as as bad as he’s playing back for a telegraphed bunt.

Just thinkin’ out loud.

It looks like both Gameday and Retrosheet need an additional Pitch Classification Category for “showed bunt but took pitch for a ball” then we could do some research on this.  Or at least be prepared to do research when we get Field f/x.

Another possibility: Instead of trying to alter the defense what if the batter is trying to affect the pitch selection/location?

If the batter sets up to bunt/fake early the pitcher might alter his delivery. I’m thinking that this might increase the chance of a pitcher missing the strike zone. I wonder what the ball/strike ratio is on a fake bunt?

Are they really feigning a bunt, or is it that they are in the act of bunting, but change their mind once they see the pitch closer to the plate?  In order to bunt, they may have to start the action of bunting earlier before realizing if it is a good pitch to attempt the bunt.  So when they do pull the bat back and do not bunt, it may look like they were faking a bunt, but in fact, maybe they initially thought they’d attempt one, only to decide to pass since the pitch wasn’t a buntable one.

King, that’s what I said. It is hard to tell whether a batter is feigning or just changing his mind, although I think that clearly sometimes some batters do feign the bunt.

I have definitely seen batters attempt a bunt more than once in an AB, which looks strange but must be done sometimes of course.  Whether you attempted a bunt before should have no bearing on how often you bunt after, unless the third baseman moves in, incorrectly so.

Mr. bogus, any time you try and trick anyone into doing anything you run the risk of giving away information that they can use to their advantage.  Good poker players rarely try and trick other good opponents. They simply are hard to read because they do and say nothing to give away their position.  Bad players and amateurs can be easy to read because they are always trying to trick their opponents. As I always say to a person who comes up against a “trick artist” in poker, if you think you can figure him out, go ahead and do so. If not, just ignore him and play your hand as if he said and did nothing.  That way you can never be tricked.  It is very difficult to trick someone when they know or suspect that they are being tricked.  A con artist, even a good one, can only con you if you don’t suspect that he is a con artist. If you do, the gig is usually up…

I can think of a good reason to fake bunt. To test the 3Bman. If he just got off the DL you might want to see how he reacts to a bunt. Or maybe he’s a recent call up or a bench player who doesn’t play there much.

You could gain info about how well a player moves that could be valuable later.