I cannot believe that the A's are significantly better at bunting than the Astros. So, I can only assume that it is a data driven strategy to not bunt in extras.

The Astros has multiple opportunities to attempt to manufacture a run and chose not to, and the gambit didn't pay off. Frustrating to say the least.

The Porkchop Express said:

---

What irks me the most is that if you have this glaring hole in your game that nobody can bunt, could your HITTING COACH conceivably have guys practice bunting for say, 30 minutes a week, so that when the situation comes up, they might be able to halfway attempt to bunt?

---

Last year, or maybe the year before, I heard Dusty day that the Astros had a lot of players who had never bunted at any level. As if it was something out of his control.

Anyone know what the Astro's record is in extra innings during the five years of the manred runner? It must be the worst in baseball, pr pretty close.

of course one counter to that...

the first chance with the runner on 3rd --- comes with the infield drawn in

Would love to see the Astros' batting averge in extra innings this year, and their whiff %

Valid thought process in yesteryears when we were hitting better. Just glancing at our historical OPS figures this is our weakest year outside of the 2020 covid year, figures below. The Manfred ball W/L figures speak for themselves, we need to approach extra innings differently.

2024 - 0.738
2023 - 0.768
2022 - 0.743
2021 - 0.783
2020 - 0.720
2019 - 0.848
2018 - 0.754
2017 - 0.823

Ag_07 said:

---

Yeah I think that's what it comes down to. It's not that we can't bunt but that they don't wanna give the free out.

They rather have 3 chances to score from 2B than 2 chances to score from 3B.

Not that I agree with it but I imagine that's the thinking. Don't give them a free out.

---

It's not that they just don't want to give them a free out. It's that the free out lowers the run expectancy from over 1 run with a man on 2nd, no out to under 1 with a man on 3rd, 1 outs. That's the reason most teams DON'T bunt. That's for the opportunity to score more than 1 run an inning.

The point of contention is what is the data for run expectancy when you're trying to score one run only. That's the major point Mathguy makes when the run expectancy matrix is brought up, and it's a fair point. While the normal matrix contains the 1 run needed to score, if the intention and strategy shifts, it stands to reason the run expectancy for that scenario can change. The issue is that data is not readily or easily findable for the general public.

I believe Mathguy and I both share the sentiment that teams, especially the more analytically driven teams, have that data. Since bunting has been uncommon for all teams, but especially the analytically driven teams, since Manfred ball started, my conclusion is that data still doesn't support the idea of bunting the ball and giving up the out because it lowers run expectancy for the 1 run only, so teams aren't doing it.

Whether that's right or wrong is the discussion, but the crux of THAT discussion is I believe most people think a run is all but guaranteed with a runner on 3rd with 1 out and an approach that is just to put the ball in play or make contact. I personally don't believe that. Problem is, there isn't data easily available to prove it either way, so it will be an ongoing argument because it's feeling.

Good points! I'll have to check out slugging on its own now with all the homers in the 2019 juiced ball era

Are we just letting Seth Martinez recover in the minors and plan to bring him up soon? Or does the organization think he has pitched too much this season?

Ok, so the math and analytics we are using are saying not to bunt because it increases our chance to win, but we are among the worst in the league at Manfredball. You are saying that if we tried to bunt we would somehow be worse at Manfredball? I would think two chances to score a runner from 3rd with the infield in would be better than 3 chances with a runner at 2nd and the infield at normal depth and shifted to account for a batter's proclivities. Not sure how the analytics account for the infield being in, if at all, but that seems like a big piece of it to me.

Regarding hitter's approach, nobody gets to the big leagues without at least some ability to change their approach at the plate to adjust to how they are being played/pitched. Those guys who keep getting whiffed on outside sliders are mostly doing so because they are trying to pull them into the crawford boxes. If they were to react to how they are being pitched and start slapping those pitches into right field (for a RH hitter), it would make a big difference in how they are played/pitched to. The reason it doesn't happen more is that guys are getting paid for power stats more than RBIs.

Beat40 said:

---

Ag_07 said:

---

Yeah I think that's what it comes down to. It's not that we can't bunt but that they don't wanna give the free out.

They rather have 3 chances to score from 2B than 2 chances to score from 3B.

Not that I agree with it but I imagine that's the thinking. Don't give them a free out.

---

It's not that they just don't want to give them a free out. It's that the free out lowers the run expectancy from over 1 run with a man on 2nd, no out to under 1 with a man on 3rd, 1 outs. That's the reason most teams DON'T bunt. That's for the opportunity to score more than 1 run an inning.

The point of contention is what is the data for run expectancy when you're trying to score one run only. That's the major point Mathguy makes when the run expectancy matrix is brought up, and it's a fair point. While the normal matrix contains the 1 run needed to score, if the intention and strategy shifts, it stands to reason the run expectancy for that scenario can change. The issue is that data is not readily or easily findable for the general public.

I believe Mathguy and I both share the sentiment that teams, especially the more analytically driven teams, have that data. Since bunting has been uncommon for all teams, but especially the analytically driven teams, since Manfred ball started, my conclusion is that data still doesn't support the idea of bunting the ball and giving up the out because it lowers run expectancy for the 1 run only, so teams aren't doing it.

Whether that's right or wrong is the discussion, but the crux of THAT discussion is I believe most people think a run is all but guaranteed with a runner on 3rd with 1 out and an approach that is just to put the ball in play or make contact. I personally don't believe that. Problem is, there isn't data easily available to prove it either way, so it will be an ongoing argument because it's feeling.

---

According to the Society for Baseball Research, a runner on third (and only 3rd) and 1 out scores 66% of the time.
chance of 1 run with runner on 3rd and 1 out

I found one thing saying that 62% of the time a run scores when you have a runner on 2nd and no outs. But according to this, when the Manfred Runner is bunted over to 3rd:

Quote:

---

The percentage of runners who have scored from second after a plate appearance with nobody out in innings one through nine is 64.3% when the team attempts to bunt and 58.8% when teams have chosen to cut it loose.

---

Should MLB Teams Be Bunting The Ghost Runner To Third

So the chances of a runner on 3rd with one out scoring are pretty close to the teams who sac bunt the Manfred Runner to third scoring.

Remember, we're not looking for anything more than scoring 1 run here. Obviously the calculus changes as the home team if we're behind rather than tied. If we're behind then I'd think you swing away but maybe lean on scouting reports to be a bit more selective in swing choices.

The Astros against Joey Estes: Altuve 4, Alvarez DH, Diaz 2, Bregman 5, Singleton 3, Peña 6, Gamel 9, Meyers 8, Dubón 7

Brown RHP

— Chandler Rome (@Chandler_Rome) September 11, 2024

Hope Hunter can make 1 run hold up, if he's lucky enough to get it.

This says it uses all games from 1957-2015.
https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/runsperinning.html

Odds of scoring zero with a runner on 2nd and nobody out is 37.9%...but a run expectancy of 1.12

Odds of scoring zero with a runner on 3rd and 1 out is 34.1% ...but with a run expectancy of 0.95

The other part that's hard about using statistics like this is situational. Runner on 3rd and 1 out in the 1st inning...defense is playing back and will concede the run. In the bottom of the 10th of a tie game, not so much.

We're 4th in baseball in runs per game in Sept. We've scored at least 5 runs in 75% of our games since 8/28.

The paragraph you refence is for innings 1-9.

The next paragraph says this:

Quote:

---

That might lead fans to think that bunting is the better strategy. And it may be if a team wants to play for one run because the game situation dictates it or if the team believes it only needs a couple of runs to win because it has a dominant pitching staff.

---

That tells me the article doesn't have conclusive data on run expectancy when playing for one run only, which is the importance of the conversation. It's the crux, actually.

The question that nags at me is always this: if the most analytics teams are not bunting to play for one run, why not? It's not just the Astros.

I'm not advocating one way or another. I'm just saying I don't think bunting is as much as a lock as people here make it out to be.

And 0 in Hunter Brown starts in September.

txags92 said:

---

Ok, so the math and analytics we are using are saying not to bunt because it increases our chance to win, but we are among the worst in the league at Manfredball. You are saying that if we tried to bunt we would somehow be worse at Manfredball? I would think two chances to score a runner from 3rd with the infield in would be better than 3 chances with a runner at 2nd and the infield at normal depth and shifted to account for a batter's proclivities. Not sure how the analytics account for the infield being in, if at all, but that seems like a big piece of it to me.

Regarding hitter's approach, nobody gets to the big leagues without at least some ability to change their approach at the plate to adjust to how they are being played/pitched. Those guys who keep getting whiffed on outside sliders are mostly doing so because they are trying to pull them into the crawford boxes. If they were to react to how they are being pitched and start slapping those pitches into right field (for a RH hitter), it would make a big difference in how they are played/pitched to. The reason it doesn't happen more is that guys are getting paid for power stats more than RBIs.

---

No, the math and analytics for not bunting do not say it increases the chances of winning. They say it increases the chances of scoring more runs. That can equal more wins.

Again, the Astros are 2-3 wins in Manfredball away from being in the middle of the pack.

No, I am not saying the Astros would be worse at Manfredball if they started bunting. I'm not even advocating one way or the other. I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind mocking the idea of "don't give up an out." I've said multiple times the discussion is different when only one run is needed, but the data for playing for one run only for fans to have an informed discussion doesn't appear prevalent at this time. I'm saying the discussion is a feel discussion not based on data, and therefore will continued to be argued.

I'm also saying I believe most have the idea that bunting guys to 3rd almost guarantees a run scored if the batters adjust their approach and "just put the ball in play." Again, it's a feel discussion. I'm less optimistic the run scores as much as people believe it would. Therre is always something to be said for making the defense make a play, but this also isn't little league or NCAA.

I hope Altuve has a leadoff bunt. Can I prop bet that?

For the record in all this, I agree with Beat. These decisions are analytically based for a lot of teams, and somewhere we have some data (unavailable to the public) that says "dont give up the out and you are better off". And we and others are sticking to that choice.

Fine. I want them making sound decisions. That one of the things that won this team 2 rings and has them in 7 straight ALCS's They make more good decisions than other teams. We dont give free bases with IBB. Up until very recently, we would never bunt anyone over ever. Playing statistical baseball is like playing blackjack. You have to be willing to stick with the rules that math says gives you the best chances of winning. Or more correctly the rules that minimize your chances of losing. You must always split 8's and A's. The first time you decide to stay on 16 because you have been hitting on 16 and busting all night, you increased your long term chances of losing. You had bad luck busting on 16. You dont fix bad luck by doing something different and deviating from the optimal strategy..

But man I am tired of the bad beats. 5-10 this year and 1-8 last year is a lot of bad beats.

Not having the data to see the strategy is what is hard for me. It feels like they are sticking with something that may be flawed. Its not a run of bad luck, its a flaw.

Mathguy64 said:

---

For the record in all this, I agree with Beat. These decisions are analytically based for a lot of teams, and somewhere we have some data (unavailable to the public) that says "dont give up the out and you are better off". And we and others are sticking to that choice.

Fine. I want them making sound decisions. That one of the things that won this team 2 rings and has them in 7 straight ALCS's They make more good decisions than other teams. We dont give free bases with IBB. Up until very recently, we would never bunt anyone over ever. Playing statistical baseball is like playing blackjack. You have to be willing to stick with the rules that math says gives you the best chances of winning. Or more correctly the rules that minimize your chances of losing. You must always split 8's and A's. The first time you decide to stay on 16 because you have been hitting on 16 and busting all night, you increased your long term chances of losing. You had bad luck busting on 16. You dont fix bad luck by doing something different and deviating from the optimal strategy..

But man I am tired of the bad beats. 5-10 this year and 1-8 last year is a lot of bad beats.

Not having the data to see the strategy is what is hard for me. It feels like they are sticking with something that may be flawed. Its not a run of bad luck, its a flaw.

---

I am with you, brother. Sucks to lose those Mandfredball games.

Also generally agree with you that if a strategy across multiple years doesn't work, maybe try something else for a while.

We had two different chances in extra innings last night with a runner on 3rd base and 1 out with our middle of the order up and neither scored. I do not think bunting (or lack thereof) is the issue.

So in simpler terms, try something different! What we've been doing hasn't been working, force the other team to make defensive plays. When the infield is in and the ball is hit, a lot of weird things can happen. I mean look at our defense what happened to them. But oh well, I just keep telling myself that Espada is gonna manage different in the playoffs! Hehe

Mathguy64 said:

---

For the record in all this, I agree with Beat. These decisions are analytically based for a lot of teams, and somewhere we have some data (unavailable to the public) that says "dont give up the out and you are better off". And we and others are sticking to that choice.

Fine. I want them making sound decisions. That one of the things that won this team 2 rings and has them in 7 straight ALCS's They make more good decisions than other teams. We dont give free bases with IBB. Up until very recently, we would never bunt anyone over ever. Playing statistical baseball is like playing blackjack. You have to be willing to stick with the rules that math says gives you the best chances of winning. Or more correctly the rules that minimize your chances of losing. You must always split 8's and A's. The first time you decide to stay on 16 because you have been hitting on 16 and busting all night, you increased your long term chances of losing. You had bad luck busting on 16. You dont fix bad luck by doing something different and deviating from the optimal strategy..

But man I am tired of the bad beats. 5-10 this year and 1-8 last year is a lot of bad beats.

Not having the data to see the strategy is what is hard for me. It feels like they are sticking with something that may be flawed. Its not a run of bad luck, its a flaw.

---

But the percentages are just that. Whether it's blackjack or baseball because the percentages in blackjack say to do something until the rube at the seat before yours hits on 17 when the dealer is showing a bust card and gets your ace when you're splitting 8s.

This link says that when playing Manfred ball you swing away if you're the road team and bunt if you're the home team and you're tied or only down 1.

Quote:

---

And when home teams have attempted to bunt with the game tied or trailing by one, the ghost runner has eventually scored 59.8% of the time compared to 54.3% when they've decided to swing away. The hosts have a 76.9 win percentage when attempting to lay one down and just a 60.4 win percentage when swinging away.

Keep in mind that everything doesn't add up exactly on home/away win percentages because our study is only looking at these specific game situations (tied or trailing by one) to begin the inning. Hence, it would exclude any occasions when the visiting team scored more than one run in the top of the inning that's why the home winning percentages are so high.

Plus, the instances of a team both bunting and swinging away to open different extra innings in the same game would cause games to be double-counted in some instances but not others.

So according to the data, clubs should be swinging away if they're on the road but bunting if they're tied or trailing by a run on their home field.

---

Bunt vs. swing away

I would also think the same could be applied, especially in late innings of a tie game or when a team is only down by 1.

Speaking of Altuve, going 3 for 5 moved him up 2 more spots on the all-time hit list to #182 at 2,221.

He passed Juan Pierre (2,217) and Joe Kelley (2,220).

Pierre, the pride of Galveston College, also got to this # in 14 seasons, which is where Tuve is at right now. He also retired very early at age 35 in 2013 after hitting .307 with 37 SB the year before in Philly. I did about 10 seconds of research and it just sounds like nobody wanted to sign him in 2014, really weird. He had 23 steals in 2013 in 113 games with Miami.

All in all, he stole 614 bases, good for 18th all-time end led the lead 3 times, including 68 with the White Sox in 2010. He played in 162 games five straight times from 2003-2007, led the league in hits twice and triples once.

Despite finishing 18th all-time in steals with a .295 batting average and a .304 post-season average he did not receive a single vote for the Hall of Fame. He hit .333 with a .481 OBP in the 2003 World Series as the Marlins beat Satan's Army.

I thought Joe Kelley was the old Twins' manager, but apparently they count pre-1900 stats on BR these days (or maybe always, IDK). Anyway, he played from 1891-1908 and died 81 years ago. 1B/LF from Massachusetts who is in the HOF. In 1896, playing for Boston, he stole 87 bases, drove in 100 runs, and had 19 triples while hitting .364.

Reading Kelley's bio on BR-Bullpen has led me to the insane discovery that the Rule V draft has existed since 1903.