THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

This is one of those situations where players and manages are simply not going to do the optimal thing, because it is perceived as not being macho or “fair.”

A long time ago, I remember a power hitter being “criticized” (by his opponent third baseman, I think) for laying a bunt down the third base line while the third baseman was playing way back.

His reasoning for the criticism was that if the player was going to occasionally bunt and force the third baseman to play in a little, that he was putting the health of the third baseman in jeopardy (getting hit by a screaming ground ball). 

The criticism is not entirely without merit.

Anyone have a picture of Pete Rose against Mickey Rivers in the first at bat in the World Series?

How nice of the 3B to be concerned for the safety of fielders when he’s 90 feet away in the “ready position”.  But what about his pitcher who’s 60 feet away, falling over on one leg?  I dunno, I think it’s without merit.  How many professional 3B have you heard of getting injured because of a batted ball at them?  Bottom line is this: if you need to be more than 90 feet away to be able to safely react to a batted ball, then it’s your responsibility to move yourself to where you need to be - for your team, and for your own safety.

Tango how are you bucketing Ortiz bunt PAs?  Was there ever an instance in which he squared for the bunt until 2 strikes, and then swung away?  And if so, presumably that PA counts towards his bunting value, even if he hits a HR after 2 failed bunt attempts, right?

---"The criticism is not entirely without merit”

Yes, it is, IMO--at least at the major lg level.

Ignoring what the numbers say is the break even point for a slugger like Ortiz bunting against the shift, etc.--From an esthetic sense I would love it if these guys decided to take what the defense was giving them, work on their bunting, and bunt often and successfully enough to force the fielders to play them ‘honestly’. That’s real baseball. I’d also rather Ortiz and Hafner have to play the field, too, as another facet of real baseball…

I don’t disagree that if I were the player or his manager, I would make sure that they “paid” for the shift, but I am just saying that there are some unwritten “courtesy” rules in baseball, as we all know, and while this is not a hard and fast one, and there are plenty of exceptions, one of those rules is that your sluggers won’t bunt on me, no matter how far back I am playing.

How about the “courtesy double” where there is an unwritten agreement that when a player hits an obvious double to the outfield, he does not have to run hard into second base and the outfielder will not throw to second - he will let the runner coast in?

Obviously, teams with sluggers are at a disadvantage, but there is not necessarily anything wrong with, “Your sluggers won’t bunt on me and our sluggers won’t bunt on you.”

"How about the “courtesy double” where there is an unwritten agreement that when a player hits an obvious double to the outfield, he does not have to run hard into second base and the outfielder will not throw to second - he will let the runner coast in?”

Never in my life have I heard of this.

If the courtesy double is an unwritten rule, I think there’s a lot of players that need to be informed of it.

It is not universal, but it is there nonetheless.  Just watch some games and pay attention to when a ball is hit to the outfield wall, it is an obvious double and it is obviously not going to be a triple.

Ortiz’s prodigious bunting ability is a vestige of his days as a Twin:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/04/23/papelbon_gets_8th_save_as_sox_dump_jays/

The Twins also encouraged him to hit the ball on the ground and use his speed to leg out hits.

I remember Jim Edmonds (when he was good) bunting for hits every once in a while against the shift.

I think it is worth pointing out that what is here called a “courtesy double” is also pretty much in line with the best intrest of the fielding team.

If we assume that the hit is an obvious double and hence that the hitter will almost never be out at second presuming reasonable hustle getting the ball to second base at “maximum effort” just increases the risk of an error without much gain.

As for the safety argument I find it ridiculous, espesially given the type of hitters we are talking about here. I mean it’s not as if the 3rd baseman has to be waaaaay in on the grass to defend an Ortiz bunt. If you can’t field that you should be on the bench.

As for the bunting itself and the estimated value I think that if you chose in which situations you bunt the value is probably there even at .500 given that when runners are on a higher proportion of outs will be “productive outs” then what swinging away will be.

My guess is that you should bunt more when there are runners at 1st and/or 3rd and less when there are runners at second or with bases empty against the shift. (But it still needs to be somewhat random I think.)

The shift is far less pronounced when there are runners on, however. If there are runners at first and third, then the first baseman has to hold down the runner, and the third baseman has to be in the realm of the bag, otherwise Ortiz could put on a squeeze play with a massive chance of success because of the lead the runner could get, and the lack of a fielder there.

When the runner is on second, putting the shift on makes third base an easy steal.

He should bunt when the infielders are shifting to the point they can’t effectively field the bunt. Chances are that will only happen with a runner on first, or the bases empty.

If I’m wrong, someone please feel free to correct me.