How to get back in this thing

[Ale Xander]

Roster for August (without counting trades) should be:

3B Devers
SS X
2B Story
1B Casas
C Wong/CV
OF Verdugo/Duran/Enrique
OF4 JBJ
MIF Arroyo
DH JDM
Guy #26 Arauz or Cordero (if Enrique or JDM traded)

SP Sale, Nate, Wacha, Seabold, Hill
HLev Whitlock, Houck (moves to starter if Hill traded)
SR/SU Danish, Strahm
CL Carmart
CL2 Ort
LR Darwinzon

 

[JCizzle]

Zack Kelly is 27 years old.

Eduard Bazardo, Kutter Crawford, and Connor Seabold are 26.

Brandon Walter is 25.

Frank German is 24.

Chris Murphy and Josh Winckowski turn 24 next month.

If the Red Sox cannot internally improve upon the likes of Ryan Brasier, Hansel Robles, and Phillips Valdez, then they do not have a developmental system but rather a graduate program for mound mediocrities facing batters often a half-decade younger.

This is a great point. I didn't realize that some of these guys were so old. What's with the waiting game compared to the guys you listed? It seems like the organization is being stubborn for the sake of stubbornness. Nobody should be losing sleep over losing Ryan Brasier to waivers. I'll add Sawamura, he's a 34 YO pitcher with a 4.89 FIP over two years. What are they hoping for at this point?

 

[BaseballJones]

The average age of a AAA player last year was 28. At AA it's 23.

So Seabold is 2 years younger than the average AAA player. Winckowski is 4 years younger. Bazardo is 2 years younger. German is just a year older than average for AA.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

This is a great point. I didn't realize that some of these guys were so old. What's with the waiting game compared to the guys you listed? It seems like the organization is being stubborn for the sake of stubbornness. Nobody should be losing sleep over losing Ryan Brasier to waivers. I'll add Sawamura, he's a 34 YO pitcher with a 4.89 FIP over two years. What are they hoping for at this point?

Everyone lost a year to covid.

The average age of a AAA player last year was 28. At AA it's 23.

So Seabold is 2 years younger than the average AAA player. Winckowski is 4 years younger. Bazardo is 2 years younger. German is just a year older than average for AA.

The average age of a AAA player is older than the average age of a MLB player. The average age of a player in AAA is not the same as the average age of a prospect in AAA. True in the lower levels too. 24 is old for a prospect in AA.

 

[BaseballJones]

Everyone lost a year to covid.



The average age of a AAA player is older than the average age of a MLB player. The average age of a player in AAA is not the same as the average age of a prospect in AAA. True in the lower levels too. 24 is old for a prospect in AA.

So....maybe these guys aren't real prospects?

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Casas and Duran are the guys you care about at AAA, Winckowski, Seabold, and Downs after that. Not sure anyone else is really terribly interesting (and Seabold and Winckowski don’t seem all that compelling, and many don’t think Duran is either)….

 

[Mueller's Twin Grannies]

Going back to the mid-2000s approach of making the pitcher throw a ton of pitches rather than the swing for the fences approach that worked much better when there were no holes 1-9 and the MVP of the league was on the team seems like it might be a good starting point.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

So....maybe these guys aren't real prospects?

Fringy ones that would probably be just as bad or worse than the players they are replacing. Outside of Duran and Walter, anyway. Murphy and Winckowksi are still young enough to be considered prospects. I like Murphy but he has a way to go. Walter could be in the bullpen later this year if they think that's where he ends up. Duran isn't fringy but I'm not a buyer.

They are all far from sure things and if all of them were called up, it would mean the Sox had a fire sale and are going to have a top 5 pick.

If one considers Kutter Crawford a prospect, lets just say most prospects are like Kutter Crawford. JAGs, if you will.

 

[Diamond Don Aase]

The average age of a AAA player last year was 28.

The average age of a level populated by the likes of Dustin Garneau and Ryan Lavarnway is inflated so much to be almost meaningless.

Bazardo has been pitching professionally since 2015.

Winckowski since 2016.

Crawford, Kelly, and Seabold since 2017.

Even allowing that a season spent at Alternate Training Sites would not be as beneficial as a season of game competition, at some point you are not developing major leaguers so much as simply marinating minor leaguers.

 

[catomatic]

Going back to the mid-2000s approach of making the pitcher throw a ton of pitches rather than the swing for the fences approach that worked much better when there were no holes 1-9 and the MVP of the league was on the team seems like it might be a good starting point.

Middle relief was virtually every team’s soft underbelly. That’s no longer the case - nearly every reliever out of the pen is touching mid-90s and above. The game has changed.

Edit; grammar/diction

 

[jon abbey]

Fringy ones that would probably be just as bad or worse than the players they are replacing. Outside of Duran and Walter, anyway. Murphy and Winckowksi are still young enough to be considered prospects. I like Murphy but he has a way to go. Walter could be in the bullpen later this year if they think that's where he ends up. Duran isn't fringy but I'm not a buyer.

They are all far from sure things and if all of them were called up, it would mean the Sox had a fire sale and are going to have a top 5 pick.

If one considers Kutter Crawford a prospect, lets just say most prospects are like Kutter Crawford. JAGs, if you will.

But it's true that occasionally guys just need chances in the bigs and they surprise everyone, Robinson Cano was never a top 100 prospect and looked like a lock for 3000 hits for a long time. I would guess the lighting must be much better in MLB than in AAA on average, for one thing.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

But it's true that occasionally guys just need chances in the bigs and they surprise everyone, Robinson Cano was never a top 100 prospect and looked like a lock for 3000 hits for a long time. I would guess the lighting must be much better in MLB than in AAA on average, for one thing.

Yeah, or someone like Travis Shaw. Felix Doubront, Manny Delcarmen, Noe Ramirez. Guys who are serviceable for at least a few years.

I know fielding conditions get considerably better as you move up levels, too.

 

[JCizzle]

The average age of a level populated by the likes of Dustin Garneau and Ryan Lavarnway is inflated so much to be almost meaningless.

Bazardo has been pitching professionally since 2015.

Winckowski since 2016.

Crawford, Kelly, and Seabold since 2017.

Even allowing that a season spent at Alternate Training Sites would not be as beneficial as a season of game competition, at some point you are not developing major leaguers so much as simply marinating minor leaguers.

According to: 2022 Major League Baseball Attendance & Team Age | Baseball-Reference.com

The Red Sox have the oldest average pitching age and are 14th in average hitter's age. Heavily influenced by a guy like Rich Hill, but it's not like this team is replacing youth with youth across the board. Diekman, Barnes, Sawarmura, and Brasier are all over 32 not exactly lighting the world on fire.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Leaving aside Whitlock and Houck (Taylor's 29 and injured), it's hard to be worried about losing any of the bullpen arms to take a flyer on guys on the farm, waiver claims, or street FAs. Let's get Ontiveros out of retirement again. He's only 61.

 

[jon abbey]

Nestor Cortes Jr. is another contemporary one, a slow-throwing lefty who three teams gave up on by 25 and he was a minor league signing for NY before 2021, but not in my top 10 on their rotation depth chart. He got a chance a couple months into the season and has been great ever since, a 2.68 ERA in 118 innings. No one saw that coming until it happened.

Even Whitlock was not so highly regarded until Matt Andriese taught him the change last spring training, no one was surprised that Cashman left him unprotected.

 

[Mueller's Twin Grannies]

Middle relief was virtually every team’s soft underbelly. That’s no longer the case - nearly every reliever out of the pen is touching mid-90s and above. The game has changed.

Edit; grammar/diction

Right, but if you knock the starters out early on a regular basis, even a lights out relief corps will start to falter. That would help in the long run.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Every day that passes we are one day closer to the point where it's just not possible to "get back in it". Right now they're "only" 6.5 back of the wild card, and obviously there's tons of games left. But they have to pass 7 teams, and the way they're going, they can't even win a series.

And here's the big concern: the starting rotation has been so good, that at some point THAT will go downhill. It will probably coincide just as the offense starts hitting, so they'll be losing games 7-6 instead of 2-1 every night.

I still think we should give them to the 40 game mark.

But each game that passes seems to make a theoretical resurgence that much less likely.

 

[catomatic]

Right, but if you knock the starters out early on a regular basis, even a lights out relief corps will start to falter. That would help in the long run.

Even more effective a strategy if one team’s manager regularly requires his bullpen to get 12+ outs/game. He’s gotten the starter out early for you. This ploy is working wonders for the opposition’s offense.

 

[YTF]

I still think we should give them to the 40 game mark.

But each game that passes seems to make a theoretical resurgence that much less likely.

I think that the 40 game mark is fair, perhaps more than fair given the division. So the question is what can this team do differently over the course of the next 12 games. Expecting a .500 record of 20-20 is unreasonable given what we see on a daily basis, so what are we looking for? Offense of course, but with so many guys hovering around the .200 BA mark, not working walks, chasing bad pitches and "being aggressive" there seems to be a team philosophy that needs to change. Team personnel is an issue that's not going to be fully addressed in the next 12 games, but better management of the pieces that we do have when it comes to the pitching staff can be addressed. We need to see growth/improvement from a strategic standpoint as well as growth/improvement from individual players. Bloom left this lineup with obvious holes, but there are certain players who atm are not meeting expectations as well on field mismanagement of games and players. Improvement in 12 games is a tall order. What sort of needle movement can/should we expect?

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I think that the 40 game mark is fair, perhaps more than fair given the division. So the question is what can this team do differently over the course of the next 12 games. Expecting a .500 record of 20-20 is unreasonable given what we see on a daily basis, so what are we looking for? Offense of course, but with so many guys hovering around the .200 BA mark, not working walks, chasing bad pitches and "being aggressive" there seems to be a team philosophy that needs to change. Team personnel is an issue that's not going to be fully addressed in the next 12 games, but better management of the pieces that we do have when it comes to the pitching staff can be addressed. We need to see growth/improvement from a strategic standpoint as well as growth/improvement from individual players. Bloom left this lineup with obvious holes, but there are certain players who atm are not meeting expectations as well on field mismanagement of games and players. Improvement in 12 games is a tall order. What sort of needle movement can/should we expect?

Cora and Bloom needs to manage the starters better. I think Houck is the better move to the rotation than Whitlock. Letting the rotation go deeper if they are doing well.

I’ve been a defender of Dalbec but I think it’s time to bring up Casas and Duran full time.

Other than that…. Not much else can be done. If the pen continues to be an embarrassment and the offense doesn’t start just generally being better then starters going 6 innings allowing 2 runs doesn’t mean shit.

 

[VORP Speed]

Right, but if you knock the starters out early on a regular basis, even a lights out relief corps will start to falter. That would help in the long run.

The average pitches per start across all of MLB this season is 79. Last season it was 83. In 2004 it was 95. The % of starts where the pitcher threw 100 or more pitches, this year 4%, last year 14%, 2004 45%.

Starters are increasingly managed by times thru the order and matchups as they get to the middle innings, not by pitch count. Running up the count and seeing lots of pitches doesn't impact when you get into the bullpen like it used to.

 

[bosockboy]

At 10-19 you’re on the brink of the wheels coming off. Start playing well tomorrow and it’ll take 4-5 weeks to get to .500. It’s getting late early.

 

[E5 Yaz]

At 10-19 you’re on the brink of the wheels coming off. Start playing well tomorrow and it’ll take 4-5 weeks to get to .500. It’s getting late early.

I guarantee they won't lose tomorrow

 

[donutogre]

I guarantee they won't lose tomorrow

Rarely has a team needed two off days in the same week more.

 

[moondog80]

Just saw that Casas was 219/289/301 vs LH last year and 154/267/192 so far this year. I'm OK giving him more time in the minors to figure that out a bit.

 

[Van Everyman]

I think you start by moving Whitlock back to the bullpen. My theory is that they started their slide when Whitlock had to be moved to the rotation because Shithead Houk couldn't play in Toronto because he wouldn't get vaccinated like an asshole. Then they lost their bullpen weapon and the other guys who were decent enough role players got exposed in high leverage situations. And when a bullpen pitches badly, it can infect the rest of a team.

Obviously it doesn’t solve the putrid offense problem. And it opens up a hole in the rotation. But it def. will help slam the door situationally which could maybe have a domino effect throughout the team. Maybe.

 

[Yankeessuck4ever]

Yes, we stink! It's extremely hard to watch. We all want our team to play better.

Please quit with the shortened ST excuses. These guys are supposed to be professionals that make millions of dollars to play a game. All of these "struggling" players should have come to ST ready to play. It's not like they didn't know that there was going to be a lockout......it happened in December! No excuses for not working on their game or their bodies during the lockout. IMO, they are not all on the same page. Some guys run out grounders and pop flies, other guys don't. A change in personnel won't help if they don't change their attitudes.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I guarantee they won't lose tomorrow

I choose to believe they can find a way.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I choose to believe they can find a way.

You're right ... they could read this thread

 

[Rovin Romine]

You're right ... they could read this thread

I'm thinking panic move. That could be a way.

Or a team meeting that results in a Covid outbreak.

Don't count them out yet!

 

[simplicio]

Yes, we stink! It's extremely hard to watch. We all want our team to play better.

Please quit with the shortened ST excuses. These guys are supposed to be professionals that make millions of dollars to play a game. All of these "struggling" players should have come to ST ready to play. It's not like they didn't know that there was going to be a lockout......it happened in December! No excuses for not working on their game or their bodies during the lockout. IMO, they are not all on the same page. Some guys run out grounders and pop flies, other guys don't. A change in personnel won't help if they don't change their attitudes.

Because working out at the gym is the same as facing live mlb-calibre pitching?

 

[Rovin Romine]

With the Yanks and Baltimore both winnng, we are now 10.5 games back from the division lead, and 6.5 games back from the wildcard.

Only Detroit has a worse record than we do. Although, to be fair, we're clustered with 2 or 3 games of 5 AL teams. Given the two games against the Braves, a sweep would be fantastic (and not impossible.)

After @ATL (2), we face:
@ TEX (3)
HOU (3)
SEA (4)
@ CWS (3)
BAL (5)
CIN (2)

All of these are sub .500 teams, except HOU. 22 games total.

So if you were going to design a schedule for a struggling team to get back on track with, before facing more AL East opponents, this would be it. The Sox are currently 10-19. To get to .500 (ish), they'd need to go 15-6. But if they blow the ATL series, they'd have to go 17-4 the rest of the way.

If they bumble to a .500 (ish) record agains these teams, and we hit the game 50 (ish) zone with a record of 22-30. . .I think they're likely done, regardless of the quality of play and individual player-performance renaissances we may see.

Of those potential renaissances, the hitting would have to get unstuck somhow, and there's a bit of fungibility there. Hernandez/whomever and Story/whomever need to provide a strong 1-5 at minimum. As far as pitching, we'd have to assume Sale and/or Paxton would be available and competent in a summer-run. But to get there, we really need the good Pivetta going forward. Barnes coming around would be nice but not necessary. . .with the cavet that like JBJ, Franchy, Dalbec, etc. the team can only carry X number of "high upside reclaimation projects" at any given time. And right now, they're carryng too many.

 

[Archer1979]

With the Yanks and Baltimore both winnng, we are now 10.5 games back from the division lead, and 6.5 games back from the wildcard.

Only Detroit has a worse record than we do. Although, to be fair, we're clustered with 2 or 3 games of 5 AL teams. Given the two games against the Braves, a sweep would be fantastic (and not impossible.)

After @ATL (2), we face:
@ TEX (3)
HOU (3)
SEA (4)
@ CWS (3)
BAL (5)
CIN (2)

All of these are sub .500 teams, except HOU. 22 games total.

So if you were going to design a schedule for a struggling team to get back on track with, before facing more AL East opponents, this would be it. The Sox are currently 10-19. To get to .500 (ish), they'd need to go 15-6. But if they blow the ATL series, they'd have to go 17-4 the rest of the way.

If they bumble to a .500 (ish) record agains these teams, and we hit the game 50 (ish) zone with a record of 22-30. . .I think they're likely done, regardless of the quality of play and individual player-performance renaissances we may see.

Of those potential renaissances, the hitting would have to get unstuck somhow, and there's a bit of fungibility there. Hernandez/whomever and Story/whomever need to provide a strong 1-5 at minimum. As far as pitching, we'd have to assume Sale and/or Paxton would be available and competent in a summer-run. But to get there, we really need the good Pivetta going forward. Barnes coming around would be nice but not necessary. . .with the cavet that like JBJ, Franchy, Dalbec, etc. the team can only carry X number of "high upside reclaimation projects" at any given time. And right now, they're carryng too many.

Not to sound pessimistic, but the ChiSox just swept our boys at home. Some of those teams may be looking at playing Boston as a way to get back on track.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Not to sound pessimistic, but the ChiSox just swept our boys at home. Some of those teams may be looking at playing Boston as a way to get back on track.

I don't disagree.

I was just trying to frame what a comeback scenario might look like, be it high or low percentage. My assumption is that they have to claw back to quasi-respectability in the next month, otherwise the defecit will be too large to make up, even if they start playing better with the new format. For example, right now, if the season had 10 games left, and the Sox went 10-0, while all other teams went 5-5, we'd miss the playoff threshold with another non-playoff team in front of us.

Based on current team performances, June's not particularly bad, schedule-wise:
@OAK (3)
@LAA (4)
@SEA (3)
OAK (3)
STL (3)
DET (3)
@CLE (3)
@TOR (3)

But July features 14 games against NYY and TBR right before the All Star game. Even if the team has it "figured out" by then, those will be a dogfight.

 

[Niastri]

Having those 14 games right before the trade deadline could be very important in determining whether we should stand still or sell off all viable assets.

If we are clearly out of it by the end of June, I hope Bloom sells a little early to ensure we get creamed those series and increase our draft picks' value.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Having those 14 games right before the trade deadline could be very important in determining whether we should stand still or sell off all viable assets.

If we are clearly out of it by the end of June, I hope Bloom sells a little early to ensure we get creamed those series and increase our draft picks' value.

FWIW, the trade deadline is August 2 this year, and the ASG break is July 18-22. So even if they played through the string of 14 games, they'd have two weeks to work out trades.

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Does anyone know of analysis that looks at whether/when manufacturing runs becomes a good idea? As in, I imagine there is a point of offensive futility when steals/bunts/hit and run/aggressive pinch hitting would become a better option than the team's current adopted approach (which is based on more than 3 players being offensively competent).

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I'd have to look for it, but I think Fangraphs ran a study like that a few years ago.

 

[Mueller's Twin Grannies]

I know there are exceptions, but I think the universal consensus was that it's not good to give up outs unless they are extremely productive (SF, RBI GO, maybe even an RBI squeeze in the right spot) and that giving the other team a free out to move a guy 90 feet was not a good use of outs for a team that hopes to score more than one run that inning.

But in the new dead ball era, bunts could come roaring back.

 

[Jerry’s Curl]

Hopefully, the Rangers series is what’s needed to propel us forward.

 

[tims4wins]

I'm not going to pretend that much has gone right, and I also realize that the last two games have skewed this number, but the Sox run differential on the year is only -6. For comparison, the 20-14 Rays are -4 on the year. The Sox are 3-7 in one run games and 0-6 in extra innings. I know that the cynics will argue that losing the close games is a function of the manager, roster construction, etc., but the analytics say that these types of stats are random and overall run differential is a better predictor of team performance. The Sox pythag is 16-17 which, while not good, is not nearly the disaster of 13-20.

I'm willing to be patient and see what happens over the next 4-6 weeks before punting.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'm not going to pretend that much has gone right, and I also realize that the last two games have skewed this number, but the Sox run differential on the year is only -6. For comparison, the 20-14 Rays are -4 on the year. The Sox are 3-7 in one run games and 0-6 in extra innings. I know that the cynics will argue that losing the close games is a function of the manager, roster construction, etc., but the analytics say that these types of stats are random and overall run differential is a better predictor of team performance. The Sox pythag is 16-17 which, while not good, is not nearly the disaster of 13-20.

I'm willing to be patient and see what happens over the next 4-6 weeks before punting.

The last three games have also been very promising.

Insofar as the close games, the outcomes would be random only if the teams playing the games were equally likely to win that particular game. But one team is more likely to have the actual personnel on the field that will score runs while not giving up runs. Since those are starters/key players, and will play often, the propensity to score runs while not giving up runs is reflected in the pythag, and that propensity is what matters.

It's only predictive if the players/play on the field is constant. Having all these guys break out of slumps is pretty much the equivalent of trading half a AAA roster for MLB players. Which is another way of saying the pythag thus far is probably not predictive.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Does anyone know of analysis that looks at whether/when manufacturing runs becomes a good idea? As in, I imagine there is a point of offensive futility when steals/bunts/hit and run/aggressive pinch hitting would become a better option than the team's current adopted approach (which is based on more than 3 players being offensively competent).

To figure this out, you'd have to figure out the current run expectancy for the potential events. As runs become more valuable, manufacturing runs becomes more valuable in certain situations.

Here's a long article from 2006 that goes through the analysis: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php..

 

[BaseballJones]

To figure this out, you'd have to figure out the current run expectancy for the potential events. As runs become more valuable, manufacturing runs becomes more valuable in certain situations.

Here's a long article from 2006 that goes through the analysis: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php..

I’m not at my computer so can’t easily look this up but there’s only very rare situations when bunting, for example (a classic “run manufacturing” tactic) is the right play. And essentially it’s in the last inning and you need *one* run.

So bunting lowers your run expectancy versus swinging away - that is, you’re expected to score more runs on average by not giving up the out - BUT, if you just need the ONE run, you are potentially more likely to score that ONE run if you employ the bunt.

 

[Mueller's Twin Grannies]

The last three games have also been very promising.

Well, the last 3 out of 4 anyway. Three games ago was the bullpen meltdown.

 

[lexrageorge]

I’m not at my computer so can’t easily look this up but there’s only very rare situations when bunting, for example (a classic “run manufacturing” tactic) is the right play. And essentially it’s in the last inning and you need *one* run.

So bunting lowers your run expectancy versus swinging away - that is, you’re expected to score more runs on average by not giving up the out - BUT, if you just need the ONE run, you are potentially more likely to score that ONE run if you employ the bunt.

Statistically, this is correct. Although one also has to take into account some pitcher vs batter matchups and other situational factors as well. The 2011 Carl Crawford was an automatic out against left handed pitchers, so there are cases where it could made sense in those situations to take advantage of the out that is almost certainly coming anyway.

But one consideration that gets lost in the numbers is that sometimes a team just needs to break their losing streak. Get into the late innings clinging to a 2-1 lead, tied 2-2, or even trailing 2-1, sometimes just getting that single run across in the 7th or 8th can be just as helpful psychologically. It's obviously not quantifiable, and it's not a strategy to be repeated, but baseball players aren't robots either.

EDIT: It would also be interesting to understand the impact of the shift. Grounding into the shift for a double play destroys the run expectancy for that inning.

 

[Max Power]

I’m not at my computer so can’t easily look this up but there’s only very rare situations when bunting, for example (a classic “run manufacturing” tactic) is the right play. And essentially it’s in the last inning and you need *one* run.

So bunting lowers your run expectancy versus swinging away - that is, you’re expected to score more runs on average by not giving up the out - BUT, if you just need the ONE run, you are potentially more likely to score that ONE run if you employ the bunt.

Those run expectancy calculations are based on league average hitters coming up. I wonder how things would be different if you plugged the first month Red Sox run of 6 straight sub 65 OPS+ hitters. It seemed like a runner at second and 0 outs was still not a scoring situation to that group.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I’m not at my computer so can’t easily look this up but there’s only very rare situations when bunting, for example (a classic “run manufacturing” tactic) is the right play. And essentially it’s in the last inning and you need *one* run.

So bunting lowers your run expectancy versus swinging away - that is, you’re expected to score more runs on average by not giving up the out - BUT, if you just need the ONE run, you are potentially more likely to score that ONE run if you employ the bunt.

Bunting lowering a team's run expectancy versus swinging away isn't necessarily true in all situations and in today's low run environment maybe could be beneficial in more.

You might be interested in this 2013 article where the author takes a fresher look bunting: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/21998/baseball-therapy-what-my-four-year-old-taught-me-about-bunting/. Here are a couple of his conclusions (again, this was in 2013):

Bunting is also something that actually should experience a small Renaissance, assuming that the era of lower scoring sticks around for a while. Rates of run scoring when batters swing away aren’t that great. Bunting has a certain value for hitters who aren’t all that gifted, and while it isn’t much, with offense down there isn’t that far to climb until it’s worth it.​

​

Managers, for all the grief that we sabermetricians give them, do show some skill at picking their spots. It’s not that everyone should bunt all the time, it’s that managers, as a collective, show some smarts in knowing when it’s a good time to bunt and when it’s not. On average, they still do get it slightly wrong, but the net loss is only a few hundredths of a run each time they do it. And there are probably cases where calling for a bunt is perfectly defensible. It’s still somewhat fashionable to rage against bunts (#killthebunt?) but the game has evolved to a point where the sin is not worth the outrage. Sabermetricians are fond of saying that they want to revolutionize the game. In fact, the game has evolved. We need to evolve as well.​

​

Yes, constructing the lineup to insert a poor hitter in the two-hole so that he can bunt is still silly. Having your .300/.400/.500 hitter drop one down is silly. A bunt is not the solution to all sentences starting with “there’s no one out and a runner on first.” But it is one tool in the belt that can be used in certain situations as part of a larger strategy to score runs. And yet it is woefully misunderstood.​

 

[BaseballJones]

I agree that definitely for a team struggling to score, you’ve got to do ANYTHING to get some runs on the board.

 

[tims4wins]

Bunting may decrease overall run expectancy, but it can also increase the chances of scoring a SINGLE run, which in the late innings can be important.