THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

First of all, I don’t think that any manager has a “no bunt” sign, although I suppose that they could.

Secondly, he is going to get a lot of heat since he bunted into the double play.  What if he had a 25% chance of getting a hit and a 60% chance of moving the runners over and making out?  That would probably be the correct play (the bunt).  If Laroche had been successful and the Braves won the game or at least tied it up or went ahead in that inning, he would have been lauded for an unselfish play.

As we discuss in The Book, a bunt by a good hitter is often just as good if not better than a bunt by a weak hitter because the infield is playing back such that the chance of a bunt hit or ROE is a lot higher than if the infield were playing in expecting the bunt.  In fact, the bunt by the good hitter when the infield is back may be the BEST time for a sac bunt attempt.

That being said, the key in this situation (whether the bunt was “correct” or not) is probably how good a bunter Laroche is.  Since he is not fast at all (a large factor in how often the bunter reaches a hit or an error), he better be a very good bunter.

Finally, everyone is leaving out one important thing.  I watched the game, and there is no way he would have been doubled up had he not hesitated after he made contact, presumably to see whether the ball was fair or not.  When you lay down a bunt, either for a hit or a sac, you put your head down and run your ass off.

And the idea that LaRoche was “hot” recently or hits well in road games, is nonsense of course, and has nothing to do with the decision to bunt or not.  It is simply a matter of the Brave’s win expectancy with him hitting, which is based on his projection versus Borowski, as compared to the win expectancy when atempting a bunt, which is based on the frequency of the various outcomes when attempting the bunt (DP, moving runners over and making out, single or ROE, getting to 2 strikes and swinging away, force out, etc.).

I definitely don’t think that this was a “stupid” play and I am surprised that Tango is implying that it is.  We would have to know or at least estimate what Laroche’s chances are of the various outcomes when bunting.  I did not notice if the infield was playing back with no expectation of the bunt.  If they were and LaRoche is at least a decent bunter (and planned on running hard) then it can’t be a really bad play no matter what.

I didn’t see the play, and just going from the accounts of the game, and what I can infer from other data.

For example:
http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/scoutResults2005_ATL.html

The fans think that his speed, as it is used in his fielding, is a “21”, on a scale of “50” being average, and 1 standard deviation being “20” (i.e, two-thirds score between 30 and 70).  He is one of the slowest runners on the team, and pretty slow in the league.  In his minor league career, since 2002, he has 3 SB and 7 CS.  That’s a big strike on him.

In his minor league career, since 2002, he has TWO sac bunts.  And that was in 2002!  That’s a big strike on him.

He figured, on a whim, to bunt.  I have two problems with this.  First of all, this is a huge high pressure situation.  Who the heck is he to decide anything?  Secondly, if he was heck to decide something, you have to be prepared.  He’s just going to react to the situation after the ball hits his bat?  The way he talked, it was like “well, you know...”.

You have a guy like this on your team, a slow guy, a guy who never ever bunts, a high pressure situation, and a manager who has decided that he does not want him to bunt.... isn’t it the manager’s job to tell the batter: “I’ve thought about this, and I’m not putting the bunt sign on.  Don’t bunt.”?

To me, it’s not really a question of whether the bunt was an acceptable play, given all the factors involved. It’s that it should really be up to the manager to call for a ‘surprise’ play in a game situation. Cox should be real pissed off.

I agree, and it is my point, that the decision should be Cox’s, and no one else’s.

But, why be pissed off for Cox?  Shouldn’t you be pissed off AT him (if you are a Braves fan)?  The decision to bunt, or NOT bunt, is totally up to the manager, and no one else.  If Cox doesn’t have a “no bunt” sign on, then that’s his fault.

Furthermore, in this situation, when so many bunts would be called, it’s obvious that Cox had to have decided not to bunt.  As it stands, by not telling him not to bunt, he was abstaining.

The choices should always be: do X, don’t do X, your discretion.  Cox didn’t tell him the first two, meaning that the default is #3.  Are we saying that because Cox didn’t call for a bunt in a situation that a bunt could have been called, that Laroche should have assumed that the default was #2? 

If 90% of the time during the game, it’s hitter’s discretion, then that carries over in possible bunt scenarios.  The default shouldn’t change.

***

Pyscho Lyons also was thrown out at third in the ninth inning of a close game.  A walk-off caught stealing of third base (and there can’t be too many of those!), with Wade Boggs at bat:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B06050MIL1986.htm

If your nickname is Pyscho, the manager better have a “don’t steal” sign.

I have never heard of a manager having (or needing) a “don’t bunt” sign, so I don’t think it’s line to blame Cox on that count.

I agree with Tango that the chances that LaRoche was actually making a smart play here are ... remote.  He’s slow and seems to have practically no experience with bunting, which is a bad recipe.

Why can’t the manager tell all his players: no one has the green light to bunt with a man on base.  That prevents the need to have a “don’t bunt” sign.  And, if it’s the manager’s call to bunt, why even have the possibility of the player calling for it himself?  I mean, whatever it is the player sees, the manager can see (where the fielders are playing).

Under what possible situation can there be a player on the bases, and the manager not call for a bunt, but a player decides it’s a good idea to bunt?

With stealing, you can certainly see it.  The player sees a slow move, and he goes for it.  But again, the manager can say: only try to steal, if you think you will be safe 80% of the time; otherwise, wait for my call, and I’ll lower that to 70%.

If I don’t blame Cox, then I have to blame every manager in MLB.

About “not doing things” signs… Bear with me on this one, but my uncle coaches high school ball in Iowa.  And being sick and tired of guys missing signs and doing stupid things, he changed the way he presented signs.  If a guy reached first he had to touch something--his right cheek, his letters, his left thigh.  If my uncle wanted him to steal, somewhere in his sign he would mimic what the runner did.  If he didn’t duplicate what the kid did, the kid stayed put.  It eliminated the “I missed the sign” excuse, and it also kept the kid from just taking off at random times. 

Now I realize it’s different in MLB, but I agree that if there’s a situation like this where a bunt might be called for--first and second and nobody out--there’s gotta be at least a “swing away” sign passed along.

Well, none of us really knows what understanding Cox has established with his players in general, and how that applied to a player like LaRoche. Whether it was a specific sign to not bunt, or an understanding that you don’t make an unusual decision like that in a game situation--I have to assume that Cox probably communicated his wishes to the players, and they knew (should have known) what not to do on your own. Whether the specifics of that are satisfactory to Tango in retrospect does not mean that they were not adequate in real life. It seems like LaRoche simply decided to go out on his own here, Cox be damned, hope it works. Until I hear something specific to the contrary, I will assume that Cox is not to blame.

It’s Cox fault.  Not for not having a no-bunt sign, which is kind of silly, but for not having LaRoche practice his bunting.  Since he is slow and a power hitter, opportunities will present themselves where the fielders are playing back and the downside of a swing-away double play is great.  If LaRoche is confident in his bunting he should be allowed to make the decision if he sees the opportunity.

"It’s Cox fault. Not for not having a no bunt sign...but for not having LaRoche practice bunting.”

Well, are you just pulling that out of the air? Maybe he practices bunting alot, which is why he felt confident to try it there. But even if not, Cox is under no obligation to follow mgl’s game theory analysis of bunts. If he would rather have his good/power hitters not bunt often, and use their available practice time to work on other facets of the game, then so be it. There’s only so much time to work on things, and maybe Cox would rather see LaRoche work on his “scoop” defense at 1st, and his power swing on offense. If the downside of that is that LaRoche is not prepared to bunt in the couple times per year when it might make sense, then that’s the tradeoff.

No matter what people want to argue, Cox expressed surprise/dismay at LaRoche’s move. That either means that Cox failed to communicate enough along the line, or that LaRoche went out on his own. To me, the latter seems much more likely. Or maybe, Cox doesn’t want to be too controlling, because he has seen that players tend to produce more overall when left to their own instincts. So, now he sees one instance where that didn’t work. That doesn’t mean that it is not a productive policy overall. Every strategy has a break even point, and instances where it doesn’t succeed. So, he will now address this specific play, and try to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

I still see little or no blame for Cox.

Yes, I agree that not giving the “bunt sign” is tantamount to giving a “don’t bunt” sign.  There is no question about that and that is why managers do NOT have a “no bunt” sign.

Managers do in fact have a “don’t steal sign,” as well as a “steal if you can” sign.  They do not have a “must steal” sign as you would have in youth baseball.

I agree that since Cox essentially had a “no bunt” sign, that LaRoche should be chastised, although, as usual, that should not be in public.

It is a little funny though, that you occasionally hear how a player “bunted on his own” and when it is successful, he is applauded.  If a player bunts his own, he should be privately chastised regardless of the result, since, as several people have already said, when a manager does not give the bunt sign, that automatically means that the manager does NOT WANT a bet.

I also agree that an underused strategy is a bunt attempt by a good hitter when the defense is playing back, assuming that the batter is a decent bunter with decent speed.  Of course, as Tango says, we know that managers do not understand the nuances (including game theory) of the sacrifice attempt.

Other than Peter, who says that if Laroche sees a play, he can go for it, I think the consensus is: it’s Cox’s choice to decide.  (Really, Peter, why in the world should Laroche have that decision?)

The question then is how should Cox’s decision have been communicated.  Is the silent treatment tantamount to “don’t bunt”?  It should certainly be, if Cox has actively told his batters that before the game (or before the season, as part of his “code of conduct").  If players are left to assume as to what parts of the strategy they are to decide upon, then we have a different situation.

I guess what I wanted Cox to say was “I decide on who bunts, and only me.” Maybe he can’t be that clear to the media.  I sure hope he’s that clear with his players.

What is clear is that Laroche seems to be under the impression that he has discretion. 

Do runners have a discretion to run through the third base coach?  If he does, and he’s thrown out, it’s obvious to all that he blew it.  And, the runner will not say “it seemed like a good idea at the time”.  He will have to admit that he blew it, and should never have done it.  Same here.  There should be no player discretion in running through a coach, or bunting.  Why?  Because the coach sees everything the player sees, and more.  The player has nothing to add to the situation.  He should be out of the decision-making process.

Stealing bases, as I’ve noted, is a bit different.