Games: Minnesota Twins, June 4: Judging the Royals with Lee Judge

Games » Minnesota Twins

Jun4

Should Escobar have bunted in the fourth inning?

Here’s the situation: The Royals and the Twins were tied at 4 in the fourth inning. The Royals were behind 4-1 when Johnny Giavotella led off the inning, but he singled, Billy Butler singled and Mike Moustakas doubled. The Twins then made two errors, E-6 and E-4, and the score was tied with Jeff Francoeur on second and Eric Hosmer on first. Manager Ned Yost then had Alcides Escobar bunt Francoeur and Hosmer into scoring position.

Here are the reasons I heard put forth by members of the media as to why that was the wrong move: It’s the American League. It’s too early to bunt. You have a young pitcher on the mound who isn’t likely to hold a one-run lead. Escobar is swinging the bat well. Ned should have showed some confidence in the bottom of the batting order.

Here are the reasons I heard put forth by Ned Yost as to why it was the right move: If he grabbed the lead, he could have gone to Kelvin Herrera.

I don’t know if Ned intended to use Herrera to start the fifth inning or send Will Smith back out there on a short leash. But to do either (I’ll ask tomorrow), he had to have a lead. Yost figured the Royals had a good chance to grab a run if Jarrod Dyson just put the ball in play, and, failing that, Humberto Quintero had a chance to drive in two runs with a two-out hit. But Dyson and Quintero both struck out looking.

Managers always have to think about the next game, and they tend to avoid using up quality innings out of the bullpen unless they have a lead. So without that lead, Will Smith was going back out there. He then walked Josh Willingham and gave up a homer to Justin Morneau. After that, the Royals were behind the rest of the way.

Game notes

• After the game, I came across Jeff Francoeur icing the heel he hurt on that play at the plate the other day. I asked him about the bunt, and he said, “That’s not a bad play there.” Frenchy thought that if the Royals had been able to grab the lead, it would have changed what they could do with the bullpen.

• Yost ended up having to go to the pen anyway, but went to Louis Coleman instead of Herrera.

• In that fourth inning, Mike Moustakas hit a double and Billy Butler wound up on third. Third-base coach Eddie Rodriguez got Mike’s attention over at second base and pointed to his own eyes. If you‘ve watched our videos with Eddie, you know that’s the sign he gives a trail runner when the lead runner is slow. Eddie then mouthed the words “watch him,” meaning he didn’t want Moose running up Billy’s back.

• The two called strikeouts in the fourth inning made the bunt decision look worse. Earlier, I asked hitting coach Kevin Seitzer about bad pitch-selection decisions, and he said they usually indicate late movement on the pitch.

• In the sixth inning, Jarrod Dyson made a heads-up play when Minnesota’s Ben Revere got caught off first base. Jeff Francoeur threw the ball home in an attempt to keep a run from scoring. The throw was up the line, and catcher Humberto Quintero realized Revere was trying to advance to second on the throw. The play went 9-2-6-3-8, and if the 8 hadn’t sprinted in from center field, Revere would have made it to second base.

• The Royals lost 10-7, and two walks scored. It would have been a much different ballgame if the Royals pitchers hadn’t given up five walks. (Although one was intentional, and that decision worked out when Tim Collins struck out Justin Morneau.)

• With two outs in the nine inning and the Royals down by three, Alex Gordon had a great plate appearance. He saw eight pitches and walked. It’s good to see Alex not mail it in at that point of the game.

• Before the game, I talked to Ned Yost about dealing with a player who makes a mistake in a game. Ned said he deals with it right away — if it’s something that is going to come up again before the game is over. If not, he will wait until the next day to talk to the player. He will be calmer, and the player will be more receptive to what Ned has to say.

• After getting picked off first base, failing to slide after it happened and making an error on a routine grounder, I get the impression Yuniesky Betancourt got talked to right away and the next day. (Just a guess on my part, but it may not be an accident that Johnny Giavotella started in this game.)

The other half of a great play

Brayan Pena knew he was going to get blown up at the plate Sunday. Alex Gordon had just made the catch and throw that had everyone coming out of their seats, and Brayan was at home plate, waiting on the ball. The runner was bearing down on him.

After catching the ball, Brayan tried to get “soft.” If his body was tense, it would have been easier for the collision to jar the ball loose. Brayan told me the only tense thing on his body was the right hand that held the ball. Hold the ball loosely, and it can get knocked away.

Brayan said he didn’t have any plan except to: 1.) give with the hit 2.) hold onto the ball and 3.) show it to the home-plate umpire afterward. He may have gone 0-3 at the plate Sunday, but Brayan was 3 for 3 on this play.

Heads up

Hosmer will debut in right field Friday night against the Pittsburgh Pirates. Jeff Francouer will shift to center field.

Comments

Andy Heer
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Anyone can look back and criticize Ned after the game…I guess when the play occurred in the game I was thinking this is a bad decision…last year we heard time and time again that Escobar will be a good hitter and we did not PH for him to give opportunities to grow up…this seems like a good opportunity to show us what he has learned while he bats about 300.

If Ned gets the credit for good decisions he also needs to take the blame for the bad decisions…it seems like the media is quick to bail him out and make excuses when things go wrong…we keep hearing what a good decision it was by Ned to force Escobar to hit in tough situations last year…look he is hitting 300 this year.

In leadership circles they talk about the “It” factor…could it be Ned does not have “It”? He is a nice guy…smart baseball man…but when given a couple of opportunities he was fired in Milwaukee and now that this is “our time”…we lack results and have several head scratching decisions by Ned that at least should make one wonder.
Chris Campbell
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Ned has done rather well considering the starting rotation he’s been forced to deal with, but that sac bunt was easily one of the dumbest moves I’ve ever seen.

The decision to bunt was a stupid move on multiple levels: The game is already a high scoring one. Will Smith is pitching for the Royals, so that trend is going to continue. The Royals has already scored three runs in the inning. The Twins just committed two errors. There’s STILL nobody out. The Twins are trying to have a meltdown, and Ned bails them out by giving them an out WTF? You’re also asking a .300 hitter to give himself up so that a .260 and a .230 hitter can hit with RISP.

Dumb, dumb, DUMB move Ned. Hopefully someone let’s him know why that was such a bad move so that there’s some hope that Ned will never do something thaty boneheaded ever again.
Donald Wilson
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Bad game! Bad pitching - bad fielding - bad times at the plate - and TERRIBLE coaching!!!! Our fans deserve better!
Terry Payne
11 months, 2 weeks ago

I don’t disagree with the bunt call. I’m just so frustrated with the team’s inability to get a run home from 3rd with less than two out. It’s getting to be an epedimic of ineptness, and a good team gets those kinds of things done. Bye, bye, Jarrod?
Brian Grant
11 months, 2 weeks ago

The bunt was a terrible call. I knew it immediately. Announcers said “Minnesota is in at the corners, expecting a bunt.” I said “No way he’s bunting, we’ve got this team on the ropes and one of our better hitters at the plate. No way you give up an out.”

And then…he bunted. I was stunned. Literally stunned. I’m not a Yost hater, but this was a TERRIBLE baseball move. Just terrible. He must have had no feel for that game. Next two hitters forgot how to swing, which is probably why they are hitting 8th and 9th in the order…inning over. Smith takes the mound again (hopefully for the last time), and it’s game over.

Teams will little talent, struggling talent, and/or young talent…of which the Royals have all three…simply cannot afford crucial mistakes by a veteran manager who is supposed to know better.
Jim Kissane
11 months, 2 weeks ago

I wasn’t thrilled to see Escobar bunting - not in the fourth inning of an American League game. But I understand that Ned had a strategy in mind and I’m okay with that. There will often be times when our philosophies differ, but I can still appreciate his perspective. It didn’t work, so this one may go into the “Things to do differently next time” file.

What bothered me a whole lot more was seeing the Twins score two runs in the eighth, with both runners moving up on stolen bases. Neither of them scores without the SB. Maybe a moot point because in an 8-5 game Capps starts the ninth, but still… Neither of the stolen bases would be considered “defensive indifference,” but it sure looked like bad baseball to me. Bad job of holding runners close, bad job of receiving the pitch in a position to throw when it’s obvious the Twins wanted to run. It just seemed to me like Crow and Quintero had already clocked out - I hate to say that, and I hate to see that, on any team at any level.
Jim Kissane
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Memo to MLB Rules Committee: Can we please dispense with the idea that a player on a team trailing by five runs should be creditied with a sacrifice fly? Trading runs for outs is a defensive strategy, not an offensive one. The rule should be amended similar to the Save rule - no sac fly unless your team is ahead or, if you’re trailing, the tying run has to be on deck. Brayan Pena had a good at-bat, but even he will tell you the last thing in the world he wanted to do was make an out in that situation.
Lester Frost
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Everyone is talking about the bunting decision but (to me) the absolute worst part of the game was the unforgivable back-to-back CALLED strikeouts with runners on 2nd and 3rd and one/two outs. That absolutely drives me nuts. Just sayin.
Jay Hall
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Two consecutive games where a team bunted earlier than the 7th inning and ended up stopping their own rally. Sunday it was the A’s and we were the beneficiary. Last night it was us and we gave a game away to the worst team in the American League.

As it has been noted above, the Royals had the Twins in a real mess - two on, nobody out, three runs already in. This was the situation where the Royals could have chased the Twins starter and possibly given Will Smith or whoever was coming out to pitch the 5th a lead - and not just a 1 run lead, but maybe a 2 or 3 run lead if things work out.

Instead they give the Twins an out, which is even worse when you consider that they took the bat out of the hands of a good hitter in Escobar and put the pressure on the two worst hitters in the lineup to bring home the runs. And this wasn’t a pitcher’s duel like Sunday. It was pretty clear it was going to take 7 or 8 to win last night.

The sac bunt to kill a rally strikes again. It’s like calling a timeout in basketball when you’re on a run. You don’t stop YOUR OWN momentum.
Roger Alderman
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Why does Yost need a lead to go to Herrera? If you can turn over a lead to the bullpen there, then you can turn over a tied game to the bullpen as well. And if he needed a lead to make a move, it still seems to make more sense to let Escobar hit away. You’ve got a pitcher who has just given up 3 runs without an out, the defense has fallen apart behind him. It seems the aggressive move would be to let him hit, and we are always told how aggressive the Royals want to be.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

“Instead they give the Twins an out”

Dyson and Quintaro gave the Twins outs by leaving the bat on the shoulder, Yost traded an out for two bases. which is a better return than the Royals’ game average last night of trading 27 outs for 30 bases. Even a better return than the Twins 47 bases for 27 outs. The math is simple enough and the fact the following two hitters couldn’t even get wood on the ball and Alex went 0-4 last night showed that the odds probably favored Yost’s call. Escobar does have a seeming habit of hitting into double-plays.

“It seems the aggressive move would be to let him hit, and we are always told how aggressive the Royals want to be.”

A foolish consistency…?

I will assume that this is the cause celebre of talk radio today and note that the Star’s reporter Covitz adopted Jay’s phrasing in his piece, without attribution.
Thayne Griffin
11 months, 2 weeks ago

I’m ok witht the bunt. I’m not ok with the two called strikeouts on what were probably the most hittable pitch of both at-bats!!! I mean Quintero’s wasbasically down the friggin middle! Swing the bat!!!

It also didn’t help that our defense was atrocious. Escobar error, Moustakas dropping the ball when dozier easily would have been out but then scored. And to top it off Dyson not getting to Carroll’s triple it looked like he could have gotten there, but maybe not. He had a long ways to go because it looked like he was in RCF to begin with (that or he read it terribly, I don’t know). Just a poor, poor game.
Lee Judge
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Roger: Just so everyone understands what Yost was thinking: you can certainly turn a tie game over to the pen, but managers don’t like to use up quality innings from relievers unless those quality innings are likely to pay off. It’s a risk vs. reward thing.

The pen has been very good in general. Ned was thinking if he could grab a lead, he could go to the pen early. Using up those innings would then be worthwhile, they might pay off in a win.

Without a lead he didn’t want to chew up his pen (they’ve still got to play today and tomorrow) in a situation that might not pay off with a W. (Although Smith was unable to finish the 5th, so Ned had to go to the pen early anyway.)

And Jim makes a good point: Escobar, Dyson and Quintero went a combined 1 for 10. The imaginary rally everyone is lamenting losing, did not appear likely.

The pitcher that “was on the ropes” still had good enough stuff to strike out Dyson and Quintero looking.

The most likely thing any hitter is going to do when he steps to the plate is make an out. I don’t have a problem (like it matters what I think) with a manager making one of those outs a productive out.

Trading an out to put the winning run on third with 1 down does not strike me as crazy. You can disagree (and most of you will), but I don’t see that as evidence that Ned Yost is a bad manager. He had a plan in mind: grab the lead, go to the pen. But Dyson striking out looking with the infield back and a fast runner on third, made that plan fail.

The Royals have bunted before this and when it works, people are generally silent. When it fails, people get upset.

I’ve got sympathy, empathy—whatever—for the players, coaches and managers who have to make the decisions before they know the outcome.

I don’e expect anyone to change their minds if they absolutely hate the bunt, but the purpose of this site is to explain how the participants look at the game and the participants, in this case, look at it differently than the people in the stands.
Lee Judge
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Thayne: I agree with you—I’m OK with the bunt as well, but that does not mean the Royals are blameless. Too many errors lately, too many walks, too much bad baseball in general.

And by the way, some of the Royals I’ve talked to agree. They need to clean things up. They’re not going to make a run in June playing this way.

As for Dyson: they were playing Carroll to go the other way (so a mistake by Smith to let him hit it into an unprotected gap) and Jarrod had to run forever just to make it close.

I’ve seen some of the interesting routes Dyson will take to get to a ball, then make up for it with speed, but in this case I think it was more on Smith than Dyson.
Eric Akers
11 months, 2 weeks ago

I disagree with it being a bad decision. I also would not disagree with letting him hit. But to get runners on second and third with one out with the numbers 8 and 9 hitters coming up is not bad. The inexcusable part of this situation was the striking out looking, not the bunt. If Dyson puts the ball in play anywhere, we might score a run.

Situation 1: Rely on one of the next three guys to get a hit and score a run leaving the possibility of a double play. Best case: hope for a double or a couple of singles from the numbers 7,8,9 hitters. Worst case: double play, lead off the next inning with number 9.

Situation 2: Bunt them over, can score a run without getting a hit. Worst case, both guys cannot put the ball in play. Best case, hope first guy can put ball in play which moves runners, possibly get a 2 out hit from number 9 guy.

Do you go aggressive with the bottom third and try to score two runs, or do you go conservative and try for one run, which has a much high probability of actually happening, as you don’t even need a hit to score a run. I am angry at Dyson and Humberto in this situation.

I understand both sides, the pitcher was having issues, but it is our numbers 7,8, and 9 guys coming up. Escobar has been hitting well this year, however he has also been extremely lucky with about a .360 BABIP.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Terry -

The Royals are league average at bringing home a runner at 3rd with less than 2 outs. I posted the exact stats yesterday.

Jim F -

It seems like you’re trying to develop a crude run expectancy measure with your outs-for-bases calculations, but we don’t need a crude one because sophisticated ones based on hard data already exist. Bunting with runners on first and second lowers run expectancy.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Eric and Jim F -

Here’s what I don’t understand about bunting to avoid the double play:

A double play occurs on about 7.5% of the at bats when there’s a runner on first and less than 2 outs.

An intended sacrifice bunt put in play fails to move the runners on 40% of attempts (AL only so we avoid crappy pitchers’ bunts from contaminating the data).

If you bunt, a failed sacrifice bunt is a far, far more likely outcome than a double play is if you let batter swing away.
Thayne Griffin
11 months, 2 weeks ago

But increases the chances of one run scoring. We’ve been through this circus before….
Bob Forer
11 months, 2 weeks ago

I am not an opponent of the bunt, and typically have no problems with Yost’s strategic moves. However, there has been a few times this year when I thought Yost made the wrong move. Having Escobar bunt was one of them.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Lee -

People who don’t like sacrifice bunts in certain situations are really damned if they do and damned if they don’t around here.

May 10: “It’s kind of amazing that people are still finding ways to complain about a bunt that worked.”

June 5: “The Royals have bunted before this and when it works, people are generally silent. When it fails, people get upset.”

The Royals are scoring fewer runs than teams with their hitting usually do. A lot of people think that playing for one run instead of big innings is playing a major role in that, and it’s ultimately costing us wins.
Chris Limbird
11 months, 2 weeks ago

1st off, to the idea that Escobar “has a habit of hitting into double plays” - he’s hit into 6 dp’s in 50 opportunities.

2nd off, the Twins pitcher wasn’t the only guy on the ropes - the fielders had just booted two balls. The Twins team as a whole was showing signs of cracking under the pressure. Trying to hit away keeps that pressure on them.

3rd - # of bases / 27 outs is a foolish stat. The number you should be trying to maximize is bases/inning or bases/3outs, because until you get 4 bases / inning you can’t get a single run. And technically, you could get 6 bases in an inning and not score a run (3 singles loading the bases = 6 bases by Jim’s math).

Baseball has no time limit. The only limiting factor is 27 outs. Once this are gone, you’re done. That’s why many people feel that intentionally giving up an out is a foolish trade off except in very late game situations where the oppositions chances to recover are extremely low - for example in the bottom of the 8th or 9th.
Gary Chesney
11 months, 2 weeks ago

If Escobar had hit away into a double play, would the same folks complaining about the bunt now complain about hitting into a double play? The bunt decision did not loose the game. Giving up ten runs cost the game. If some of you believe the Royals should never, ever bunt……..then you are saying you are smarter than every manager in the majors. All teams bunt sometimes.
Bob Forer
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Brendan, Last time I looked at the charts, bunting with runners on first and second and one out slightly decreases the average number of runs scored, but slightly increases the chances of plating one run.
Bob Forer
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Corrrection to my post immediately above: “one” out should read “no outs”
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Gary -

I don’t think you can find anyone who’s really thought about it who says that a team should never bunt. Even the advocates of Small Ball (including sacrifice bunting) would acknowledge that its goal is to increase the odds of scoring a run in an inning at the cost of reducing total amount of runs scored.

In situations where you should play for one run (tie game in the 9th), everyone agrees that a bunt can be a good strategy.

In the 4th inning of a high scoring game, many people feel playing for one run is a bad strategy.
Thayne Griffin
11 months, 2 weeks ago

I know everyone is talking about to bunt or not to bunt, but I still can’t get over the fact that the two allowed to swing away didn’t swing. That’s more criminal than making escobar bunt in my opinion (for those who think the bunt was a bad idea).

Also, brendan, only 60% of bunts succeed? That’s awful for professionals (even if it’s more than twice as good as most batters swinging away)!
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Thayne -

Here’s the source: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2012-situational-batting.shtml

71% of the Royals’ sacrifice bunt attempts have succeeded, helped by Getz’s 4/4. Escobar was 2/4 coming into last night.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

“Jim F -

It seems like you’re trying to develop a crude run expectancy measure with your outs-for-bases calculations, but we don’t need a crude one because sophisticated ones based on hard data already exist.”

And here I thought I was offering a very valid price value of exchange and supported it by showing the out-value/base using last night as an example. The math is quite simple, Escobar generated two bases with one out. My data is as hard as any you have and is much more focused on the game at hand.

“3rd - # of bases / 27 outs is a foolish stat.”

Seemed to work well enough last night, the Twins got 47 bases in 27 outs for 10 runs, 4.7 bases per run not being unreasonable efficiency, Royals got 30 bases in 27 outs for 7 runs, 4.11 bases per run, quite efficient. Sacrifice bunt got two bases for one out. Math seems simple enough, the very rare three singles not producing a run not withstanding.

“The Royals are scoring fewer runs than teams with their hitting usually do.”

Because three of their Big Ballers have underperformed this year?

“In the 4th inning of a high scoring game, many people feel playing for one run is a bad strategy.”

I’ve noticed that. The conventional wisdom.

“Trying to hit away keeps that pressure on them.”

Sounds more a criticism of a strike out looking.

“But increases the chances of one run scoring. We’ve been through this circus before….”

It’s a fad, Thayne, the talking-point du jour from our frenemies in a competitive niche.
Bob Forer
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey Jim, I liked the way you approached the issue from a bases/outs ratio. I think its very interesting, and hardly crude. Seems like another useful tool, just like conventional sabermetrics. Anything that helps fans or managers view and analyze the game is ok in my book, even if it merely rejects or affirms “gut instinct.”
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim F -

If the point of the bases/out calculation wasn’t to try to estimate whether a team had improved its run/win expectancy with a play, I guess I misunderstood the point.

I see you’re throwing the kitchen sink at criticism of the sac bunt last night. The criticism is both “conventional wisdom” and a “fad”/”talking point du jour.” Good to cover all of the bases.
Joel Kallem
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Log me in as another one who is okay with the bunt. Lower end of the lineup coming up. With runners in scoring position, we have a better chance of at least a productive out from them than relying on them to get several hits to get the run(s) in. I agree with Thayne that the real “crime” is that neither the 8 or 9 slot did not at least get a ball in play. Yost’s strategy is a legitimate option; the execution is the let down here, and the players not the manager have to take the heat for that.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

“I guess I misunderstood the point.”

The point is simple, Escobar’s sac bunt traded one out for two bases, probably wise as Escobar, Dyson, Quintero, and Alex were a combined one for fourteen on the night, as I recall, not something history could have predicted but that a manager in the game might have had an insight to.

“The criticism is both “conventional wisdom” and a “fad”/”talking point du jour.” Good to cover all of the bases.”

Brendan, this isn’t the only site I read and you aren’t the only sabr guy I deal with. “Conventional wisdom” and “fad” both apply.

“Yost’s strategy is a legitimate option; the execution is the let down here, and the players not the manager have to take the heat for that.”

Very well said, Joel. Thanks.
Jay Hall
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Here’s what bunting doesn’t take into consideration.

Escobar is at the plate. The Twins have to come after him because a walk loads the bases. That means likely more fastballs (Escobar is a good fastball hitter) because the pitcher isn’t going to want to lose Escobar and load ‘em up with no one out. Escobar is basically coming to the plate in a great hitting situation for a guy that has been hitting pretty well.

The guys behind him are coming up in a slightly worse hitting environment. With one out (but first base open) the pitcher is going to still be aggressive to avoid a walk, but if he walks Dyson, Quintero is definitely a DP candidate, and the force is set up at every base.

If Escobar swings away he may get doubled up, or he may drive in two runs, or something in between those two options.

Factor in that the Twins were unsettled, and the bunt may have helped settle them down by giving them an out to catch their breath on.

The back to back strike outs were bad and they are just as culpable in the outcome, but to give the decision to give them the first out a pass is wrong.

Even if the bunt works and Dyson gets the run home to put us up 5-4, is 5 runs going to hold up? It was the 4th inning, not the 8th.
Lee Judge
11 months, 2 weeks ago

I think you could’ve gone either way on the bunt and neither decision would’ve been terrible.

Jay, I think a lot of managers feel putting a bunt on will put more pressure on the defense than hitting away. People have to go to the right spots and do the right things, they can’t just lay back and do what they normally do.

Many managers like to run some kind of play after the other team has something bad or weird happen to them, hoping to catch them flat-footed when they’ve lost focus.

And if Ned hadn’t planned on going to the pen with a lead, I might agree that one run did not look likely to hold up.

As good as the pen has been, trying to get to it with a lead seemed like OK strategy. Either way, bunt or not bunt, it seemed worth saying that it wasn’t a crazy move and that seems to be the popular media position this morning.

BTW: Thanks to everyone for making reasoned arguments for their side. When we do that, this is a terrific forum for thinking about the game and considering the other side.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

“Escobar is basically coming to the plate in a great hitting situation for a guy that has been hitting pretty well.”

So the disagreement comes down to being between two bases for one out compared to what might have happened with four batters who ended up going one for fourteen? As suggested earlier, two-fer-one seems look a good deal. Just a failure of execution after the good deal was made. That’s why they play the game.
Bob Forer
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Great, well reasoned arguments on both sides of the fence. Kudos to Lee for attracting a baseball savy (AND VERY CIVIL) readership base, and thanks to all for their contributions.

As mentioned earlier, this is one time I have to disagree with Yost’s move. Has nothing to do with conventional sabermetic wisdom. Its a good tool, but it relies too much on averages, and there is no such thing as an “average” baseball player, or for that matter, an average game situation. Each circumstance is unique with tons of variables at play.

My decision pretty much comes down to the fact that Escobar, who has swung a decent bat all season and is somewhat hard to double up, was at the plate. If he comes through with a hit, a run probably scores, and we are looking at the prospects of a big inning.

On the other hand, had the 8 and/or 9 hitter done something good instead of watching strike three, and we scored two, took the lead, and watched as the bullpen held it, then I might be calling Yost a genius.

It’s one thing to be intellectually honest, and we all hope we are that. But I gotta admit that hindsight is not only 20/20, but tough to ignore when evaluating a strategic move that has already unfolded.

Suffice to say, at least there was logical reasoning in Yost’s decision—something that was sometimes lacking with the previous manager.
KC Guy
11 months, 2 weeks ago

To me, the idea of playing for a big inning nearly all of the time is kind of like going to the horse track and trying to make money by betting on the longshots in every race. Sure, when you win, the payoff is a lot bigger than it would be if you were mixing in some safer bets, but that payoff also happens much less often, so you’re likely to go home broke more often than not. If you average the big payoffs with all of the small losses, it might look like a good strategy overall, but if it’s more important to try to come home with a reasonable amount each day, it may not be the best way to go about things.

I think what gets lost a lot of times in the debate about using the bunt to increase your chance of scoring in an inning vs. playing for a theoretical big inning is that scoring something in an inning always helps your chances in an individual game. Sometimes it means much more than other times, but it’s always valuable to some degree. Winning a safe bet in Race #4 at the horse track means that money is in your pocket. Whether it ends up being enough to cover what happens the rest of the day isn’t something you necessarily know up front, but it’s generally better to have it than not. Going for a higher risk/higher reward gamble means you’re more likely to come up empty, which is usually going to make it harder to come out ahead at the end of the day. Then again, if you’re always conservative, you’re never going to make as much as you could have..

Of course, in baseball, even if you beat the odds and have a huge payoff one inning and live a life of ease the rest of the day…you don’t get to keep your winnings to use tomorrow.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim F -

The disagreement comes down to letting the best hitter of the next 3 swing instead of giving away one of three outs in the inning.

Also, I can’t figure out how you’re getting 47 bases for the Twins last night.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

KC Guy -

Are you suggesting that teams that score more runs by playing for big innings underperform their expected wins? Or that teams that play for small innings overperform their expected wins?

I was under the impression that the correlation between runs scored and wins (holding runs allowed steady) was very strong. You seem to be saying that it’s not.
Nick Kinney
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Before I get started, I’d like to say that this bunt call wasn’t even close to the most disappointing thing about last night’s game. The starting pitching and defense played much larger roles in the loss. That said, I’d like to ask a question that I don’t think has been brought up yet:

Lee, you said that if Dyson or Quintero succeed in getting the run in and giving the Royals the lead, Yost can go to the bullpen, which he doesn’t like to burn up early unless the Royals have a lead. But what if Escobar was allowed to swing away, gets a hit, and the Royals proceed to take the lead by more than 1 run? Wouldn’t that allow us to play with a lead AND send Smith back out with a little more leash, giving the bullpen a little more (much needed) rest?

By the way, A little quick research shows that with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs, on average, you’ll put up a little over 1.5 runs. With runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out, you’re likely to get a little over 1.4. This means we were extremely likely to get 1 run out of the inning either way, but gave ourselves a better chance at more by swinging away.

All this, by the way, doesn’t factor in that we had a .300 hitter sacrificing to set the table for two sub-.250 hitters or the fact that we were a knockout punch away from chasing the Twins’ starter from the game – which would have been valuable to the team both last night and for the rest of the series.
KC Guy
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Are you saying that teams that “play for big innings” necessarily score more runs? Can “playing for a big inning” actually be categorized as a specific strategy to begin with, or is it just anytime a team doesn’t sacrifice?

I’m just saying that big innings are going to happen less often, so disregarding any strategies that make it more likely to score individual runs seems a little shortsighted. And this underlying idea that bunting destroys your chances for a big inning seems way overblown anyway. There seems to be this sentiment that whenever the Royals sacrifice, they’ve ruined the inning, and they totally would have scored multiple runs if they wouldn’t have. The percentages say you’re going to score less often with runners on 1st & 2nd, 0 outs, than with runners on 2nd & 3rd, 1 out. And even less with runners on 1st & 2nd, 1 out, which is where the Royals would likely have been if Escobar had done what he’s statistically likely to do, which is make an out. Yost gave the Royals a very good chance of at least taking the lead, and of scoring two more runs with just a single, but this time the safer gamble didn’t work. It’s all part of the risk/reward decisions that happen in baseball every play..
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

KC Guy -

I think the stats show that scoring more runs results in more wins. If you’ve got something that shows otherwise, I’d like to see it.

Obviously, late in a close game, scoring a single run should be prioritized over scoring lots of runs. Despite the repeated attempts to construct a straw man, nobody here is actually arguing that we should never bunt. It’s the circumstances here (early in a high-scoring game with a better hitter bunting than the ones that follow) that people are reacting to.

Also, if we’re going to repeatedly emphasize that allowing him to swing wouldn’t necessarily have worked (which is true), it bears repeating that sacrifice bunts are not nearly automatic. Escobar is a better than average bunter, but even he only succeeds in moving the runner(s) 73% of the time.
KC Guy
11 months, 2 weeks ago

You’re right, I’m absolutely trying to argue that scoring fewer runs means you will win more. If you’re getting that impression, you’re reading something wrong.

Who’s to say that if the Royals took the lead this would continue to be a high scoring game? Games that involve a lot of early scoring turn into late-inning pitcher’s duels all of the time. Which is why this concept that, “Well, I guess we can’t stop this team from continuing to score runs this game, so we’re going to need a bunch” isn’t necessarily true. The Royals had a chance to grab a lead and take some control of the game, but couldn’t do it. But this was absolutely one of those situations where it’s reasonable to either sacrifice or not, though clearly some don’t see it that way..
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

“Also, I can’t figure out how you’re getting 47 bases for the Twins last night.”

I went through the log, added each base, subtracted forces and caught stealing. That’s how I got that the sac created two bases. It’s a team stat.

“The disagreement comes down to letting the best hitter of the next 3 swing instead of giving away one of three outs in the inning.”

Escobar’s double-play percentage in that situation is 12%, his K% is 16.6%, so the likelihood of a bad result, .286, is nearly identical to his batting average. Once more, contrary to the talking point, the out wasn’t given away, it was traded for two bases. Had he failed to advance the runners, the out would have been given away.

“I think the stats show that scoring more runs results in more wins.”

Brendan, is there a stat that shows whether “playing” for more runs results in more wins for the Royals? Obviously, more runs actually scored are good, but we’ve often seen the bases loaded and zero outs come up empty. A lot of it is dealing with the players you have. If Esky made an out with no advance, you have less than a coin-flip chance of the next two hitters getting a hit.
Jason Ray
11 months, 2 weeks ago

I normally don’t comment because there are people already commenting who express my views better than I would (thank you Brendan).

I felt compelled to comment today to defend my views against the people who think that those of us who thought the bunt was a bad decision are basing our opinions on the results. I, and I would guess many of us who are complaining, didn’t like the bunt because it reduces run expectancy, and wouldn’t have been happy with the bunt even if it had resulted in a lead that held up to win the game.

I am more of a poker player than a baseball fan (although I’m enough of a fan to have season tickets), and have no problem with losing my whole stack in a hand in which I had a positive expected value, but am disappointed in myself when I make a decision that puts me in a spot where I have a negative EV, even if I get lucky and win the pot. I don’t see how baseball is any different. I want to see the manager make decisions that give the team the highest run expectancy, regardless of the results.

So, to those of you who dismiss us complainers as beneficiaries of 20/20 hindsight, you can disagree with our approach, but don’t tell us that we would be happy with the bunt if it had worked.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

If a sacrifice bunt was as automatic as many of its proponents seem to assume, it would be a better proposition.

Even if a sacrifice bunt works, it lowers the run expectancy of the inning, and, even for a good bunter like Escobar, 30% of the time it doesn’t succeed in moving the runner.

If a sac bunt always succeeded, I could see calling this a toss up. The number of runs you’d expect to score in an inning goes down a little; the number of times you’ll score at least one run goes up a little. But sacrifice bunts don’t always (or even almost always) work. Escobar had failed at half of his opportunities this year coming into last night’s game.
Brian Rose
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Lee, or any of the stat guys, do you have stats on players averages in meaningful situations vs when outcome of the game is already know. For example hitting a solo home run in the 9th when down by 7 isn’t as important as hitting an RBI single in the 3rd to get the lead. Some times a team will concede a run to get an out too with a big lead. Seems opposing pitchers are able to impose their will on our hitters when it matters most. Just curious if anyone knew stats on who is more productive when game is undecided. looking for a little more than average with RISP. Thanks!
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

“Even if a sacrifice bunt works, it lowers the run expectancy of the inning”

I think Bob and KC covered the actual numbers and run expectancy would have to be weighted to the actual players involved to have some meaning in a particular situation, something coaches and managers have to do in their heads in real time based on specifics rather than historical averages.

Here’s Esky’s “clutch stats” from B-R. his best BA is less than the probability that he strikes out or hits into a DP.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=escobal02&year=Career&t=b

Escobar is hitting well this year in tied or 1-run games.

And here are the team clutch stats.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/split.cgi?t=b&team=KCR&year=2012#clutc
Joel Kallem
11 months, 2 weeks ago

One thing not mentioned in the debate over whether Esky should have bunted or swing away is the fact that his season average is higher than his performance in the most recent games. He was a “hot” hitter earlier this year, but the last several games he has not been at that same level which shifts the odds to his bunting and letting one of the next two get the runner home from third.
Brian Rose
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim, thanks for the link!! best i can tell the stats are for the entier team. was wondering if they had anything for each player. Might surprise people who is most reliable when game is on the line and who’s stats are padded with late game nonconcequential success. Thanks!!
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Brian, I gave the ones for Esky. To find an individual, type his name in search, then select batting in the horizontal menu bar, the splits a few inches down, by year or career. Then scroll down to “clutch”.
Devan Shopinski
11 months, 2 weeks ago
A couple things bothered me about this game ( and the bunt wasn’t one of them).
1. Another dreadful starting pitching performance.
2. Two guys watching called 3rd strikes in a situation that requires the hitter, especially Dyson with one out, to put the ball in play. You won’t hit the ball 1 foot if you don’t swing the bat. Dyson has been getting called out a lot lately on called third strikes. Why? I’m fairly confident that Dyson and Quintero were not given the take sign with two strikes. Swing the bat!
3. Walks in the 6th to Jamey Carroll and Denard Span lead to a run.
4. Two stolen bases in the 8th off Aaron Crow ended up scoring.
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Good points, Devan.
Lee Judge
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Game’s about to start and just had time to check and see how the debate was going. I think everybody’s making good points and arguing their side in a civil manner, thank you.

BTW: Brendan was right, I should’ve said “some” people are silent when bunts work and complain when they don’t.

Brendan—among others—has been very consistent in his point of view.
Curtis Ruder
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Royals fan in San Antonio here, which basically means I am paying a lot more attention to the NBA than the Royals right now. Popovich has a favorite expression: don’t be in a hurry to win the game.

I think it has a lot of value in considering the fourth inning last night. In the fourth inning of a tied game, there is a whole heck of a lot of baseball left to be played. Even as good as our bullpen has been, expecting them to hold a one run lead for fifteen outs is really poor strategy. This was not exactly Verlander against Hamels out there; the ninth run in the fourth inning was not likely to be the game winner.

Of course the bunt would have looked better if the next two guys hadn’t struck out. But there is also a difference. Sometimes, the other team strikes you out. It is part of baseball and you doff your cap. Sometimes, you lose because the other team beats you. But when you regularly employ strategies that reduced your expected runs scored, then you are beating yourself, and that is an entirely different situation.

I am not always against a bunt; in addition to all of the reasons Brendan mentions, I think the poker analogy brought up by Jason is apt as well. Never bunting is equivalent to never bluffing in poker. It is to our advantage to force the defense to respect the bunt, and moving infielders around provides more alleys for ground balls to get through. So just because one decision seems sub-optimal does not make it a poor one.

At this point, however, I don’t think it was a bluff but a bad play. We just have too much evidence.
Brendan Woodbury
11 months, 2 weeks ago

Very well said, Curtis (and I too agree that Jason’s analogy was effective)
Jim Fetterolf
11 months, 2 weeks ago

“At this point, however, I don’t think it was a bluff but a bad play. We just have too much evidence.”

All comes back to one out for two bases. And in that situation, as Yost pointed out, if he gets one run he goes directly to the bullpen. But the good news is that the bloggers I read here all mirror your opinions, so you are not alone:)