The Matt Williams Effect

[PC]

Or you could have three chances with a man on first

Davey Williams agrees.

[HalfSmokes]

Math's a nag, run expectancy is higher with man on first no outs than man on second one out (and that's before you factor in the odds of the bunt not working)

[PC]

Math's a nag, run expectancy is higher with man on first no outs than man on second one out (and that's before you factor in the odds of the bunt not working)

I repeat what I said last year, Run Expectancy doesn't have MASN so he's never seen the Nationals play.

Oh, and I love math.  It was always my favorite subject but I can't ignore the eye test when it comes to this team.  Remember the game where Williams had Lobaton swinging instead of using a pitcher to bunt the runner to third?  The odds of scoring a run were better then too...letting Lobaton swing...unless you've watched Lobaton at bats all season.

[HalfSmokes]

I've seen this team botch plenty of bunts and I've seen our middle of the order strike out plenty of times, I'll take three shots over two any day

[Slateman]

I've seen this team botch plenty of bunts and I've seen our middle of the order strike out plenty of times, I'll take three shots over two any day

This. We're also amongsth the leaders in sacrifice bunts.

[PC]

I've seen this team botch plenty of bunts and I've seen our middle of the order strike out plenty of times, I'll take three shots over two any day

I've seen Lobaton "botch" even more at bats...and McLouth who was at bat last night in the 10th with Espinosa on first.

[Ray D]

Oh come on, now I'm not a big fan of the sacrifice bunt (for a non pitcher) but three shots vs. two is a plain distortion.  Runner at second, two shots to get a single and score the run. Runner at first, you don't have three shots to score him with one single, you need two hits.  That's two hits in three shots, and the math says that two hits in three shots is harder than one hit in two shots.   And yes, my analysis is way simplistic too, I'm just making a point that it isn't all that simple.

[MorseTheHorse]

I found it somewhat odd to have Treinen lead off the 6th down 2-0 last night, with the plan to have him only pitch one more inning.  Seems to me in that situation you have to choose is he going to pitch 5 innings or is he going to pitch 7 innings. 

I also found it odd to have Storen come in with 2 outs and nobody on in the 7th. 

That's what bothered me last night. 

[HalfSmokes]

Oh come on, now I'm not a big fan of the sacrifice bunt (for a non pitcher) but three shots vs. two is a plain distortion.  Runner at second, two shots to get a single and score the run. Runner at first, you don't have three shots to score him with one single, you need two hits.  That's two hits in three shots, and the math says that two hits in three shots is harder than one hit in two shots.   And yes, my analysis is way simplistic too, I'm just making a point that it isn't all that simple.

A double also scores the runner and a deep single puts them on third (hell, if you assume a proper bunt, why not assume the first batter gets a single putting a man on third?)

[PC]

A double also scores the runner and a deep single puts them on third (hell, if you assume a proper bunt, why not assume the first batter gets a single putting a man on third?)

McLouth?  Really?

[Slateman]

McLouth?  Really?

Yea, great plan. I'm sure we'll definitely score a lot of runs by bunting McLouth and bring the pitcher to the plate.

[HalfSmokes]

McLouth?  Really?

Does he bunt any better than he hits?

[PC]

Does he bunt any better than he hits?

He must!

[DPMOmaha]

Does he bunt any better than he hits?

Hitting .304 over the past two weeks. Not the worst guy to have up there right now.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I found it somewhat odd to have Treinen lead off the 6th down 2-0 last night, with the plan to have him only pitch one more inning.  Seems to me in that situation you have to choose is he going to pitch 5 innings or is he going to pitch 7 innings. 

I also found it odd to have Storen come in with 2 outs and nobody on in the 7th. 

That's what bothered me last night. 

didn't you find a table that had the expectancy of scoring at least one for given base and out combinations?  if you could post a link it would be useful for us.

The run expectancy tables I've found in Tango's The Book blog were the amount of runs likely to score given base and out combinations.  Late and where one run makes the difference, it is the wrong question, certainly at home where one run wins and ends the game and you do not care about multiple runs.   IIRC, you said runner on 3d, one out, was 4% more likely to score a run than runner at 2d, no outs (this was the Lobaton situation).

[MorseTheHorse]

didn't you find a table that had the expectancy of scoring at least one for given base and out combinations?  if you could post a link it would be useful for us.

The run expectancy tables I've found in Tango's The Book blog were the amount of runs likely to score given base and out combinations.  Late and where one run makes the difference, it is the wrong question, certainly at home where one run wins and ends the game and you do not care about multiple runs.   IIRC, you said runner on 3d, one out, was 4% more likely to score a run than runner at 2d, no outs (this was the Lobaton situation).

Second table here:  http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Second table here:  http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

thanks.  I may add that to a stats thread or to the useful links.

[welch]

I am in favor of a squeeze bunt with a runner on 3B and nobody out. Many hitters don't bunt well. Phil Rizzuto used to teach bunting every year during spring training. I also like the suicide squeeze...one of the most exciting plays in baseball. Too many games decided by one run.

However, I hate seeing any ballplayer square for a bunt almost while the pitcher is getting the sign.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Welch - do you feel differently about squeezes early or late in the game? 

You make a good point about looking at the quality of the bunter, too.

[tomterp]

Oh come on, now I'm not a big fan of the sacrifice bunt (for a non pitcher) but three shots vs. two is a plain distortion.  Runner at second, two shots to get a single and score the run. Runner at first, you don't have three shots to score him with one single, you need two hits.  That's two hits in three shots, and the math says that two hits in three shots is harder than one hit in two shots.   And yes, my analysis is way simplistic too, I'm just making a point that it isn't all that simple.

Ray, are you talking about chances to score exactly one run, or optimizing total runs scored, or something else?

In 2013 teams scored on average 0.637 runs with a runner on 2nd and 1 out, versus 0.826 runs with a runner on first, no outs.  (Source:  BP)  http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1405284


Runners   Runs expected with # of outs
          0 outs      1 out        2 outs
000   0.4672   0.2489   0.0918
003   1.2833   0.8939   0.3527
020   1.0499   0.637   0.3054
023   1.866   1.282   0.5663
100   0.8262   0.4934   0.2064
103   1.6423   1.1384   0.4673
120   1.4089   0.8815   0.42
123   2.225   1.5265   0.6809

The difference between those numbers would indicate a 30% reduction in runs scored if a sacrifice is successful (not accounting for the impact of bunt failures, just assume 100% success).  Clearly if it's early in the game or you're trailing late, you want to score as many runs as possible and would never want to truncate your run scoring upside.

[PC]

Remember, Nate McLouth was at bat in the 10th.  There is no upside with Nate McLouth.  With McLouth, it's all backside.

[Slateman]

Remember, Nate McLouth was at bat in the 10th.  There is no upside with Nate McLouth.  With McLouth, it's all backside.

Except for the .300 OBP. And the fact that the pitcher's spot is due up behind him. Or the fact that in hiz last five starts, he's OPSing over .700.

But hey, he should have bunt. Then we could bash Williams for pinch hitting for thr pitcher and not pitching the 9th inning.

[welch]

Welch - do you feel differently about squeezes early or late in the game? 

You make a good point about looking at the quality of the bunter, too.

Late in the game? Absolutely. Early? Yes, maybe that too, assuming the score is tied or maybe my team is one run behind. If you can tie a game early, or take a one-run lead, it seems to strengthen the pitcher. If the Nats are trailing by a run against Yu Darvish (or equally good pitcher) it never hurts to tie the game.

[Slateman]

No more bunting. This team doesn't win games 2-1 or 3-2. Only way to win is by scoring tons. No bunts. Just mash.

[Ray D]

Ray, are you talking about chances to score exactly one run, or optimizing total runs scored, or something else?

Neither, I was just taking issue with the  oversimplifiction "three chances vs.  two chances".