Q. Are there times when moving runners along is good?
A. (1) when you have two runners you're moving along, Dr. D is always pleased, but note even here the massive power of an out:
- 0 out, men on 1B + 2B = 157 runs per 100 innings
- 1 out, men on 2B + 3B = 147 runs per 100 innings!
Runners on base, nobody out, that's the truly scary situation for the defense. You don't want to give it up!, by bunting (or by swinging weakly for the right side).
.
Q. But if you swing for the right side, the ball might go through and give you a hit for a bonus. Does the math cover that?
A. It's more than covered by the times the hitter makes an out and does not advance the runner -- strikeouts, infield flies, etc.
The hitting coaches always tell the hitters to have an idea up there. How is it having an idea, to try to take a high 94 mph jam pitch .... on the ground the other way? And don't think ML pitchers don't know that.
.
Q. What if the hitter at the plate is better, or worse?
A. Note well that this run expectancy chart reflects the situation where you have an average hitter at the plate.
As the hitter gets better, the RE goes much higher for swinging away. If 0 out, man on 2B is 119 runs per 100 innings with Michael Saunders at the plate... what is it with Albert Pujols at the plate? 170 runs? Of course you can't trade that for the 98-run return that occurs if Albert gives himself up.
And ML managers have been able to perceive this for at least 80 years. They let their big boys swing away with a runner on 2B and 0 out. Nobody talks productive out then.
.................
The converse is true. If you've got Jack Wilson up, then the 0 out, man on 2B goes down to what -- 70, 80 runs per 100 innings and BOOM, all of a sudden you'll trade that for 1 out, man on 3B.
The pitcher factors in! As that pitcher-batter matchup gets worse for the offense, then sure, it wants to grovel away its scoring chances for single measly runs.
.
Q. So maybe that's what they're talking about, when they say a hitter should give himself up.
A. Nope. Right now, today, the perception exists that [1 out, man on 3B] is a more favorable situation than [0 out, man on 2B]. Why this first-order thinking error is still around is a great mystery to SSI. (It may be explained by the third-order thinking below.)
.
Q. What about the special case where Ichiro bunts with a man on 2B and first base open? Dave Henderson sticks Ichiro on a spit and roasts him over Hades for that.
A. Here are the expected runs:
- 0 out, man on 2B = 119 runs per 100 innings
- 0 out, men on 1B, 3B (if Ichiro makes it) = 190 runs per 100
- 1 out, man on 3B = 98 runs
Hm. Gain 71 runs or lose 21. Ichiro only has to bunt .228 for a hit for this to help his team, not even counting throwing errors. Ichiro actually bunts .400 or .500. Funny how the zeal for productive outs breaks down under the macho coin of the realm.
.... if you bunt for a hit with 1 out, you gain .52 runs with a hit or lose .34 runs: he does have to bunt .395 to make it work with 1 out. (Some guys bunt .800 in individual years.)
.
.
Printer-friendly version