Fangraphs: Bunting for a hit

[weams]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-unexpected-leader-in-trying-to-bunt-for-a-hit/

The rate stat of choice: bunt attempts over total pitches, with the bases empty. For example, take those 77 Hamilton attempts. With no one on, he faced 1,631 pitches, so he gets a rate of 4.7% ? 4.7% of the time, with no one on, Hamilton tried to bunt last season. Some other example rates:

Dee Gordon: 4.2%

Leonys Martin: 4.1%

Adeiny Hechavarria: 3.7%

Jordan Schafer: 4.5%

Ezequiel Carrera: 5.6%

Danny Espinosa: 3.5%

[Can_of_corn]

Did they include the success rate somewhere and I missed it?

How could they not include the success rate?

Oh well I am sure it is very high since we have those highly informed posters telling us how easy it should be for Davis to bunt for base hits against the shift.

[weams]

Did they include the success rate somewhere and I missed it?

How could they not include the success rate?

Oh well I am sure it is very high since we have those highly informed posters telling us how easy it should be for Davis to bunt for base hits against the shift.

I'll look, but I think it is close to zero.

[backwardsk]

I'll look, but I think it is close to zero.

Wouldn't a more informative equation be bunt hits over bunt attempts than bunt hits over total pitches seen with nobody on?

Also, I would imagine that p/pa in non bunting scenarios is higher than p/pa in non bunting scenarios.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[backwardsk]

That would be better but even that wouldn't tell the whole story since you need to know in which situations the hitter was intending to give himself up on a sacrifice. In Chris Davis' case and hitters like him, the assumption would be that any bunt attempt was for a hit. In this age of statistics, it's interesting that there doesn't seem to be that kind of breakdown.

As far as bunting against the shift, it's hard to believe that hitters wouldn't be successful at least 1/3 of the time.

To the first part, the study is only taking into account pitches where nobody is on base. So you wouldn't need to worry about differentiating between a hit attempt or sacrifice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

I'm not sure what this really tells you. If you bunt in fair territory on your first attempt, then there is no second attempt, whereas if you bunt and miss, there may be. You might attempt to bunt for a hit with runners on base, too. In any event, only three players in MLB had more than 10 bunt hits, so let's look at them:

Dee Gordon had 20 bunt hits and was successful 42.6% of the time. I believe that means he hit the ball in fair territory 47 times and was safe 20 times.

Leonys Martin had 18 bunt hits and was successful 50% of the time (18/36).

Billy Hamilton had 17 bunt hits and was successful 32.7% of the time (17/52).

From the article, we know Hamilton attempted a bunt hit 77 times with the bases empty. Therefore, we know he failed to put the ball in play at least 25 times, and presumably more.

[srock]

Is this point of this article: MLB players don't try to bunt for a base hit very often?

I think we already knew that.

Or is: Andrew Cashner is a novelty in the sport.

Both?

[weams]

Is this point of this article: MLB players don't try to bunt for a base hit very often?

I think we already knew that.

Or is: Andrew Cashner is a novelty in the sport.

Both?

I think that pitchers at bat is a novelty that will soon be eliminated. I think bunting for base hits has been something that we rarely see, and rarely see effectively. Maybe in the new post PED era it will have a Wee Willie resurgence.

[Can_of_corn]

I think that pitchers at bat is a novelty that will soon be eliminated. I think bunting for base hits has been something that we rarely see, and rarely see effectively. Maybe in the new post PED era it will have a Wee Willie resurgence.

Fielding is too good.

[srock]

I think that pitchers at bat is a novelty that will soon be eliminated. I think bunting for base hits has been something that we rarely see, and rarely see effectively. Maybe in the new post PED era it will have a Wee Willie resurgence.

I thought this was where the article was headed. Then it was mostly about Andrew Cushner being a renaissance man.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk