Sox hitting??

**Kimmi** · 07-22-2017, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by moonslav59

I just finished Smart Baseball by Keith Law. He provides data from studies that shows man on 2nd no outs vs man on 3rd with 1 out is a "push". The odds are 0.66 vs 0.66. Only 1st and 2nd, no outs gives a very slightly better odds after a successful bunt only. There was no data on how failed bunts, bunting into DPs, or other possibilities affected the odds.

man on 1st and 2nd no outs .65 chance of scoring 1 or more runs.
man on 2nd and 3rd one out .69 chance of scoring 1 or more runs.

man on 2nd and no outs .66 chance
man on 3rd and one out .66 chance

All others are worse, such as...

man on 1st and 0 outs .50 chance
man on 2nd and 1 out .45 chance

There may be other studies that show some differences.

The run expectancy matrices that I have seen have slightly different numbers than Law's, but that depends on what sample of data you're looking at. I'm good with Law's numbers as well.

Out of curiosity, what does Law say about batting order? Is there anything different than what the previous studies have found?

**Kimmi** · 07-22-2017, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by jad

Well yes, but not all bunts are 'successful'. One could also say "a successful home run swing increases the chances of scoring two runs." Not sure why the bunt is so persistent (although Moneyball's analysis that it has to do with the word itself 'sacrifice' is very cool). But I do remember reading as a kid in the early sixties articles about how the math showed absolutely that it was a bad tactic.

I have no disagreement with this post.

**Kimmi** · 07-22-2017, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by illinoisredsox

Many of the Sox pitchers are pitching high in the strike zone (at least to my untrained eye). As the article pointed out, modern swings allow low balls get hit, but that comes at a price; it is harder than ever to get to the higher pitches. Sox pitchers are getting a lot of strikeouts on high pitches. I just looked at the defensive stats and the Sox are near the bottom of the list in number of assists but have more putouts than any other team. This, while not a perfect indicator, tells me they are getting a lot of outs on pop ups and fly balls as well, which one would also expect from balls up in the zone.

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

**jacksonianmarch** · 07-22-2017, 07:16 PM

I actually disagree with the elevated pitching statement to a point. You cannot pitch up if you don't have velocity and the pitches up aren't up in the strike zone, they are up out of the strike zone. Only the best pitchers are able to command above the zone, because if they miss at the top of the zone, it's a homer.

**Larry Cook** · 07-22-2017, 07:49 PM

Seems like this team is looking for someone to step up.

In my mind, we need mookie to get hot as fish grease for the rest of the season.

**Bellhorn04** · 07-22-2017, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Larry Cook

Seems like this team is looking for someone to step up.

In my mind, we need mookie to get hot as fish grease for the rest of the season.

Hot as fish grease, I like it.

**moonslav59** · 07-22-2017, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Kimmi

The run expectancy matrices that I have seen have slightly different numbers than Law's, but that depends on what sample of data you're looking at. I'm good with Law's numbers as well.

Out of curiosity, what does Law say about batting order? Is there anything different than what the previous studies have found?

It was a great read for the airport and plane rides to Maine.

He touched on a few things we've discussed here in a chapter titled "Bulfinch's Baseball Mythology: Clutch Hitters, Lineup Protection and Other Things that Dob't Exist."

On lineups: (after discussing more PAs for the first few hitters)

...why [not] simply suggest the best hitter lead off...? The answer is the lead off spot ...comes up far to often with the bases empty, and thus moving your best hitter to that spot gains you another 20 or so PAs but at the cost of a lot of run-scoring opportunities from other baserunners. The Book showed that the lead off slot has 64% of its PA come with bases empty, far more than any other spot in the line up, none of which comes in above 56%. So, your leadoff hitter should be someone who gets on base at a high clip but doesn't have much power..."

"...your number 2 hitter should be your best overall bat...preferably someone who gets on base and also hits for power...."

He doesn't really get into the whole line-up construction thing.

He also dispels the "hot hand" theory.

**Spudboy** · 07-22-2017, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Kimmi

I don't have any problems with trying to advance runners with a hit and run or a steal. I am strongly opposed to using a sac bunt in the vast majority of cases. Yes, individual factors have to be taken into account, but even with that, it is almost never a good idea to sac bunt.

I don't remember the exact number, but a batter has to be really bad, like pitcher bad, in order for sac bunting to be more beneficial than swinging away.

The problem is that our guy who hits that poorly can't even bunt well enough to make it worth trying.

This team already gives away too many outs as it is.

**Kimmi** · 07-23-2017, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by moonslav59

It was a great read for the airport and plane rides to Maine.

He touched on a few things we've discussed here in a chapter titled "Bulfinch's Baseball Mythology: Clutch Hitters, Lineup Protection and Other Things that Dob't Exist."

On lineups: (after discussing more PAs for the first few hitters)

...why [not] simply suggest the best hitter lead off...? The answer is the lead off spot ...comes up far to often with the bases empty, and thus moving your best hitter to that spot gains you another 20 or so PAs but at the cost of a lot of run-scoring opportunities from other baserunners. The Book showed that the lead off slot has 64% of its PA come with bases empty, far more than any other spot in the line up, none of which comes in above 56%. So, your leadoff hitter should be someone who gets on base at a high clip but doesn't have much power..."

"...your number 2 hitter should be your best overall bat...preferably someone who gets on base and also hits for power...."

He doesn't really get into the whole line-up construction thing.

He also dispels the "hot hand" theory.

Sounds like a good read. I was wondering if Law conducted any new studies that either supported or disagreed with previous studies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like he is pretty much just restating what previous studies and books have already stated.

**moonslav59** · 07-23-2017, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Kimmi

Sounds like a good read. I was wondering if Law conducted any new studies that either supported or disagreed with previous studies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like he is pretty much just restating what previous studies and books have already stated.

Yes, I did not notice any studies made by Law.

He basically cited other multiple sources that all came to the same conclusions.

**moonslav59** · 07-23-2017, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Spudboy

The problem is that our guy who hits that poorly can't even bunt well enough to make it worth trying.

This team already gives away too many outs as it is.

Yes, the study I provided assumed every sac bunt was successful, and the numbers still come out bad for all but 2 situations where one was a push (man on 1st and 0 outs) and one was slightly worth it (man on 1st & 2nd with 0 outs), but without a batter up who knows how to bunt well, there's probably no situation where bunting improves the odds of scoring.

**fxkatt** · 07-23-2017, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Larry Cook

Seems like this team is looking for someone to step up.

In my mind, we need mookie to get hot as fish grease for the rest of the season.

If there is one hitter in the current Sox line-up I trust to do this, it's Mookie. We're currently LAST in the Am. League in home runs with 98, so we also need to trade for some big bopper to hit in that dead zone 4-5 spot in our line-up. It seems to me we might be leading the league in scoreless innings (I don't mean our pitchers) too which is a reflection on our lack of power. Mookie and co. and power is the combo we need and as soon as possible.

**OH FOY!** · 07-23-2017, 01:54 PM

Here's a good read.

https://robaseball.com/the-value-of-...e-bde51e64df8b

**oldtimer** · 07-23-2017, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by moonslav59

Yes, the study I provided assumed every sac bunt was successful, and the numbers still come out bad for all but 2 situations where one was a push (man on 1st and 0 outs) and one was slightly worth it (man on 1st & 2nd with 0 outs), but without a batter up who knows how to bunt well, there's probably no situation where bunting improves the odds of scoring.

Another BB article dealing with the sacrifice bunt.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/471027...nts-continues/

**SoxHop** · 07-23-2017, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by fxkatt

If there is one hitter in the current Sox line-up I trust to do this, it's Mookie. We're currently LAST in the Am. League in home runs with 98, so we also need to trade for some big bopper to hit in that dead zone 4-5 spot in our line-up. It seems to me we might be leading the league in scoreless innings (I don't mean our pitchers) too which is a reflection on our lack of power. Mookie and co. and power is the combo we need and as soon as possible.

Step up???? How about slack ass Pedey stepping up..... Oh wait....

Thread: Sox hitting??

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions