Bunting is like Greg Davis, everybody has a (mostly negative) opinion. With all the hoopla surrounding the bunt the last few weeks, we thought we'd take the opportunity to defend the bunt as an offensive strategy which has helped make Augie Garrido the winningest coach in NCAA history. We aren't as conversant in the language of Moneyball, so our apologies in advance.
The anti-bunting argument posted by Huckleberry relies on the NCAA expected runs table for an average offensive team, and the argument is supplemented by using the 2008 Longhorns offensive statistics (which more or less conform to what we'd expect to see nationally). Of course the 2009 Longhorns have as much in common with the 2008 Longhorns as the '08 Longhorns football team had with its predecessor.
The fact is, had Texas been an average offensive team this season (or above average as the 2008 Horns were) they may not have lost a game all season. The Horns are 29-1-1 when scoring 6+ runs this season. The Horns don't have a single player hitting over .350, no player has more than 8 HRs, and this year's Texas squad is Augie's worst slugging team since he came to Texas. Instead they are what they are, an elite pitching squad with very good defense that does just enough offensively to get by. And so far it has gotten them to Omaha.
The offensive answer for Texas this season, more than any Augie-coached Longhorns team other than 2005, has been the bunt. Game two against TCU showed this team all too often is power deprived with trouble scoring if it cannot get the leadoff man on base. Texas has more bunts than any team in the country precisely to get the leadoff runner to second where only a single is needed for him to score.
Before getting into the stats, we'd like to note that bunting statistics -- as well as the bloggers who log them -- are imperfect. Some scores probably reflect times Texas tried to bunt but failed, some scores reflect times the player popped out or grounded into a double play but Texas managed to score anyway, some scores reflect times Texas was playing Nebraska. We suspect those failures even out over the course of a season and probably do not significantly affect the totals.
As Huckleberry pointed out, Texas faced 129 "bunting situations" in 2008 and decided to bunt 34 times (or just over 25% of the time). In 2008 Texas scored, on average, about .25 fewer runs per inning when bunting as compared to when a hitter was allowed to swing away. In contrast, what we found for the 2009 Horns is as follows:
Texas thus far has faced a "bunting situation" 150 times in 2009 (these numbers may not be perfect but they're close enough...so bear with us). Texas bunted 84 times in 2009 (56% of the time) facing this situation, scoring 103 runs in 53 innings. The Horns chose not to bunt 66 times (44% of the time), scoring 62 runs in 25 innings. Included in that total are 19 runs scored in two innings versus Army and Missouri which can be taken -- depending on where you stand on bunting -- as either proof that not bunting has the potential to pay off with the big inning, or (if you remove those 19 runs as outliers) even stronger evidence that the bunt is essential to Texas scoring runs this season.
Anyhow, the expected run table for Texas in 2009 based on these numbers is:
Bunting --> 1.22 runs per inning
Not Bunting --> .939 runs per inning
Statistically speaking, the nature of the 2009 Longhorns has made bunting even more important, not less important, for Texas to score runs. What's more, the stats show that Augie recognizes this, hence bunting more than twice as often this year as the much more offensively-minded 2008 Horns. If the stats were all that went into the bunting the stats indicate bunting is by no means a dumb offensive strategy for this team.
As far as the anecdotal evidence goes, the bunt does the following things for Texas:
So, what's the bottom line with bunting? The clear answer is that the answer isn't really clear. Should Keyes or Belt be bunting? Probably not. Should everybody else? Probably. Has Augie tailored Texas' offense to maximize the effectiveness of the bunt? It would seem so. With last season's offense, it would seem almost criminal to bunt as often as the Horns do. But this year, needing just 6 runs to almost guarantee victory, and having a pitching staff that has regularly performed at a very high level...every bunt that makes scoring a single run easier makes sense.
Given the intangible advantages, the nature of the 2009 Horns as a great pitching/poor hitting club, the fact that UFCUDFF is a pitcher's ballpark, and the results for Augieball (1700 wins, 5 championships...so far), it stands to reason that the bunt is an important part of that success.
0 recs | 14 comments
We Appreciate The Work You Did.......
on this piece awsome. Thanks
I hope we keep getting men on base where we will have the option to bunt or not to bunt.
TCB Orange Dino - June 10, 2009
The problem with your stats here...
Is that they don’t take into account the number of outs there are when the “bunting situation” arises. If the leadoff man gets on, Augie will bunt almost all of the time unless we’re down by a lot of runs. That means that the vast majority of times you reach a “bunting situation” with nobody out, you bunt. And far more often, if there is already 1 person out with runners on, he has the hitters swing away in that “bunting situation.”
So in instances in which Augie has them hit away, there’s almost always 1 out in the inning, and a substantial majority of times Augie has them bunt, there is no one out. Therefore, instances of hitting away are going to be less likely to score runs simply by virtue of how many outs there are when they occur. Statistical studies done by professionals take this into account. Yours don’t. That’s not a dig, 40AS (I understand it’s hard to do stuff like this, believe me), but the statistical bias exists. Additionally, as you note, your statistics are based on box scores, which sometimes don’t record attempted bunts that fail as bunt attempts. You just can’t trust those stats if they don’t take these things into account.
As for the anecdotal evidence, your first 2 bullet points would be completely subsumed by the amount of runs that score per inning. Maybe bunting does “keep the pressure on” and “avoid double plays” but to the extent that it does, it’s reflected in runs scored. The third bullet point is so mushy, it’s almost impossible to defend other than on a spiritual baseball level (and believe me, I have a deep appreciation for the spiritual aspect of the game of baseball that goes back to when I was a small child). But none of us can pretend to know what camraderie is built by bunting, but I do know this: if a career .300 hitter is up to bat, he’s going to get a hit about 3 times out of 10, no matter how “mentally strong” he is.
billyzane - June 10, 2009
Boxscores
Does a bunt popout count as a bunt attempt of does it count as a popout? I think Torres did this in the third game against TCU to their first baseman.
run Bevo run - June 10, 2009
My bad
I should’ve defined “bunting situation” in the original post. I went through the box scores and counted as a “bunting situation” any time that Texas got the leadoff runner on base (with no outs). Obviously the numbers would be skewed if I counted man on first and 1 our 2 outs. The 150 situations reflect only man on first, no outs. By no means do I consider myself a statistician…like I tried to point out, there are probably times in there where Augie called for the bunt and it was popped up, or the man failed to get the bunt down and he swung away. I think over the course of a season these failed bunts probably even out, with the batter sometimes getting a hit which leads to a run (would’ve been logged as a ‘no bunt run’) or getting out and leading to no run. Either way, I don’t believe this affects the final tally too much to bias the results. You’re free to disagree and I’m sure if anybody redid the tally their numbers would be different. I don’t think, though, that the numbers would be so different as to change the results.
40AS - June 10, 2009
Scary stat
patienthornsfan - June 11, 2009
Taking away the double play?
I’m sorry, but that makes no sense to me. The guy bunting is one out. The next guy who might have grounded into the DP still grounds out. That’s two outs. So what did the bunt buy you? A near-certain out that puts the next hitter in a worse position (1B does not need to hold the runner). And now you get two outs with not just the dreaded grounder, but also the fly out, strike out, and weak grounders.
Caradoc - June 10, 2009
It's percentages
With a double play, you have 2 outs and no one on. With a bunt, you have 1 out and a runner on 2nd. If the next guy up grounds out, the runner on 2nd is likely to get to 3rd with 2 outs, but even if he doesn’t, the premise is the same with a runner at second … you get 2 outs to get a single and drive in a run. There’s a much greater chance of that happening than scoring a run with 2 outs and no one on base.
bassale47 - June 10, 2009
Stats aside (yes, I know they matter)
(1) The bunt “hands” an opponent an out, at the tradeoff of advancing one base; unless the hitter is weak and the runner at least average in speed, this is a bad tradoff.
(2) Bunting virtually assures the hitting club will not have a big inning; you play for one run, that’s the max you’ll get
(3) Bunting isn’t the weapon against regional (and beyond) competition, because teams reaching that level are better-coached and more capable defensively; in other words, they’re not likely to botch the play and get nobody out
(4) Bunting in almost every leadoff-man-reaches-first base-situation takes away the element of surprise and reduces the chance of even a good bunt advancing the runner
Finally, I love (and pitchers and catcher hate) the runner at first base situation . . . because the pitcher must work from the stretch (most are less capable when not working from the windup) and pitcher and catcher have to deal with the possibility of a steal. Better strategy is to work toward a favorable hitter’s count and hit line drives or ground balls; double plays are still tough to turn unless the ball is hit squarely at a fielder, and ground balls with a runner at first have the potential to lead to a two- or three-run inning.
That said, if Augie won’t stop bunting and produces a winner, he’s my guy.
edsp - June 10, 2009
I disagree with this one point
First Scenario: Because the 1st baseman has to cover the runner at first, a good bunt should always advance the runner going from 1st
-—→ 2nd. Otherwise the baserunner gets a free jump to steal 2nd.run Bevo run - June 10, 2009
Auggie Sometimes Illogical
First things first 40 – thanks for the post – much appreciated.
But does anyone really have a problem when Auggie takes a 275 hitting infielder and has him execute sacrifice? Heck no.
But when you take the bat out of the few studs that he has – I want to choke the ever loving *&&$#! out of him. There are key run producers in that lineup, and they should not trade their outs.
realmccoy - June 10, 2009
Belt and Keyes
Those are the only two guys who shouldn’t be bunting. Everybody else is a singles hitter (maybe with the exception of Rupp). And I think we see less bunting from Belt and Keyes…Belt faced a “bunting situation” in game 3 against TCU and swung away.
40AS - June 10, 2009
patienthornsfan - June 11, 2009
Tim Griffin weighs in
Small Ball Success
patienthornsfan - June 11, 2009
I actually like the logic there, but still disagree.
I like the fact that he’s thinking about relative advantages and trying to exploit them where he can. That’s the sign of an excellent coach (which Augie undoubtedly is). The problem I have is that it’s freaking college baseball. You’re playing with metal bats. You’re not facing Johann Santana out there. Hitting is much easier in college baseball than pitching is. It’s probably reversed in the majors, but that’s just a different game, which is why you don’t see guys with .450 averages in MLB like you do sometimes in college baseball.
The only thing that is the same is that when you bunt, you are purposefully making an out and you only get 3 of those per inning. If you don’t trust your hitters to get hits, then try some other stuff, like hitting an running or just straight stealing bases. The advantage of these is that, while they do have the downside of potentially making an out, they also have the upside of turning into much more. That’s why swinging away is usually a better plan than bunting: because the potential upside outweighs the safer “make an out on purpose” strategy. If you want to cut down on double plays or whatever, then have your hitters work counts and try to hit and run. Or if you have someone on first, think about having him steal. Maximize advantages.
billyzane - June 11, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Burnt Orange Nation to post a comment.