Bunting and new extra innings rule

[Natsinpwc]

Came across this article while last night's game was going on.  Makes sense to me to bunt in extra when you are the home team and just need the one run to win.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/so-you-want-to-bunt-in-extra-innings/

"When the game is tied to start the bottom of the 10th, playing the game “straight up” results in a win 60.8% of the time — the percentage of innings where a team scores at least once. If the bunt succeeds, that number ticks up to 64.8%, a meaningful improvement."

Of course the odds are much better when the bunt is successful.  That happens most of the time except for the Nats I guess. Bad things happen only 15% of the time according to this article but the Nats somehow replicated non success two innings in a row.

 "To get an idea of how often a bunt moves the runner over from second to third base, I looked at every time a batter bunted with a runner on second base, and only second base, since 2008. I excluded bunts with two outs, since those are aiming for a different outcome, but there were luckily few of those. 70.8% of the time, things went as planned — a successful sacrifice bunt. Another 14.3% of the time, something good happens; a bunt for a single, an error, or an attempt on the lead runner that isn’t in time. The remaining 14.8% of the time, it’s a disaster; an out without advancement. More specifically, the lead runner is out 4.1% of the time and the bunt results in an out without advancement another 10.7%."

[JCA-CrystalCity]

To me, I read that as saying you have an 85% chance of increasing your odds of winning 4%, and a 15% chance of lowering your odds. It really seems like enough of a wash that it depends on skills. Do I bunt Trea, Soto who are hitting well? Prob no. Thames? Can he bunt? Maybe yes if it is Eaton or another guy.

[Duke of Earl]

 "To get an idea of how often a bunt moves the runner over from second to third base, I looked at every time a batter bunted with a runner on second base, and only second base, since 2008. I excluded bunts with two outs, since those are aiming for a different outcome,

You really have to exclude bunts with one out as well, don't you?  Moving a runner to third with one out (resulting in two outs) doesn't accomplish much, other than hope for a wild pitch.

[Elvir Ovcina]

You really have to exclude bunts with one out as well, don't you?  Moving a runner to third with one out (resulting in two outs) doesn't accomplish much, other than hope for a wild pitch.

One out bunts would be a messy data set.  It'd consist primarily of pitchers bunting, but there would also be some position players bunting mostly for hits in there.  Like you implied, very few pure sacrifices. 

I don't know why the Fangraphs dude didn't just use a data set that was the exact situation he needed - running on second, tied game, no outs, ideally only by the home team in late innings - other than sample size issues.  What you're looking to capture is how teams behave and should behave when they need one run and a second run is of basically no benefit. 

[Smithian]

I'm embarrassed to admit I like the new extra innings rule.

[Duke of Earl]

One out bunts would be a messy data set.  It'd consist primarily of pitchers bunting, but there would also be some position players bunting mostly for hits in there.  Like you implied, very few pure sacrifices. 

 

I don't think the bunt for a hit will ever become obsolete.  But I do think sacrifice bunting will, if the DH is adopted.  For the one situation where it makes sense, it probably isn't worth the trouble to prepare every hitter to be able to bunt. If a batter bunts only in that one situation, he will likely bunt about once in a season, in which case the likely outcome will be a bunt popup like we saw (twice) recently.

[Elvir Ovcina]

I don't think the bunt for a hit will ever become obsolete.  But I do think sacrifice bunting will, if the DH is adopted.  For the one situation where it makes sense, it probably isn't worth the trouble to prepare every hitter to be able to bunt. If a batter bunts only in that one situation, he will likely bunt about once in a season, in which case the likely outcome will be a bunt popup like we saw (twice) recently.

The prevalence of shifting is eventually going to lead to a lot more bunting for hits, so I'd expect more guys to eventually become reasonably good bunters, even righties.  It'll take a while, but teams will eventually react to the batting average drop with more bunting for hits.  That said, they'll be using it for hits, which is a bit of a different skill than sac bunting - which would indeed largely die with a universal DH. 

[ajcartwright]

I'm embarrassed to admit I like the new extra innings rule.

considered myself an old school baseball purist, thought less of the AL because of their use of the DH and dismissed the extra innings rule out of hand as an amateurish bush-league rule. now i gotta admit that i actually like them both, especially the extra innings rule.
"I guess what I'm trying to say is that if i can change, and you can change, everybody can change!"

[Elvir Ovcina]

considered myself an old school baseball purist, thought less of the AL because of their use of the DH and dismissed the extra innings rule out of hand as an amateurish bush-league rule. now i gotta admit that i actually like them both, especially the extra innings rule.
"I guess what I'm trying to say is that if i can change, and you can change, everybody can change!"

I like the 7-inning doubleheaders.  I'm in favor of more doubleheaders.

The DH remains an abomination.

[imref]

I'm embarrassed to admit I like the new extra innings rule.

funny you say that:

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/09/mlb-rob-manfred-expanded-playoffs-universal-dh-extra-innings-2021.html

Manfred is bullish on all the new rules, including expanded playoffs.

[DPMOmaha]

I'm embarrassed to admit I like the new extra innings rule.

I love it. I hope it stays for the regular season. Play it straight up in the playoffs.