Cedric Mullins and the buntin’ Birds

[weams]

I absolutely hate the bunting for strategy part of the game. The 80's games had concrete floors and rubber carpets. I do like a poor hitter utilizing the bunt to enhance his hitting. But that is only a poor hitter. The best OPS a bunting guy can hope for is less than half of a marginal major league hitter. That won't work. All this bunting is out of deficiency and an extremely modified game with thin talent pools, shortened games,  poor game shape of some players, unusual routines, and a score or die extra inning format. 

I prefer the real game, but I do have interest in watching this. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Morgan423 said:

 

I think you guys are on to something here.  

Think about it.  Historic results will tell you that in most situations, bunting is an even or negative proposition.  In situations where it is actually positive (say, it makes you more likely to score at least one run in the inning), it still almost always reduces the probability of a big inning, due to the expected out you will be giving up.

However:  Keep in mind that the majority of historic stats and results that tell you this were contributed prior to the Age of Analytical Shifting that started in the early to mid 2010s.   

As far as I know, no one has put up a dedicated experiment of a bunch of speedy control guys bunting all the time.  What does that do to the defense, when they can't play their normal stupid shifting on your guys due to having to not give up guaranteed singles to them every time they come up?  If the defense alters their normal shifts, can your speedy guys (and other guys in the lineup who benefit from reduced shifting because you have base runners on more often during their at bats) take advantage of this exploited defense?

There may very well be more here than meets the eye.

I think it's more along the lines of using bat control guys with limited bat speed, fast, high OBP, good defense.  Bunting might be a small part of this.  If you identify players who swing a big bat really slow, hitting the ball the other way, unshiftable... you can get those guys four for a dollar.  While teams are trading Jonathan Villar for Griffin Conine because Conine has great launch angle even if he almost never actually hits the baseball.

A team might get some big advantages from collecting dozens of athletic bat control guys who work the count and (relatively) rarely strike out for almost free.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think it's more along the lines of using bat control guys with limited bat speed, fast, high OBP, good defense.  Bunting might be a small part of this.  If you identify players who swing a big bat really slow, hitting the ball the other way, unshiftable... you can get those guys four for a dollar.  While teams are trading Jonathan Villar for Griffin Conine because Conine has great launch angle even if he almost never actually hits the baseball.

A team might get some big advantages from collecting dozens of athletic bat control guys who work the count and (relatively) rarely strike out for almost free.

Or that might be something you'd really like to see.

[DrungoHazewood]

23 minutes ago, weams said:

The best OPS a bunting guy can hope for is less than half of a marginal major league hitter. That won't work.

Exaggeration?  A marginal major leaguer might OPS .700.  A pitcher who's barely trying can OPS .350.

The benefit of bunting isn't that you have a bunch of guys whose only skill is to bunt.  It's a tool to exploit defensive holes.  When the opposition says to you "go ahead and bunt, we're not even covering that side of the field" you reply by getting a hit 70-80% of the time.  Which forces their hand, makes them align less optimally.  Then the players you employ have the skill set to swing away into this less optimal defense.

And if you have players with bat control skills instead of just having max bat speed, you can't shift on them at all.  If you have guys who only strike out 40 times a year instead of 140 you might negate a lot of the advantages of a modern team set up to defend behind a pitcher who gets 40% strikeouts.  If a team has a Mancini or a Trumbo in the field because defense isn't that important when everyone strikes out... well, take advantage of that.  Hit a lot of balls in the direction of Mark Trumbo.

[SteveA]

9 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Mullins sprint speed: 28-29 ft/sec.

Davis: 24.  

A Mullins bang-bang play at first would be Davis out by 10 feet.

Worse than that, isn't it?

28 ft/sec gets you to 1st base in 3.2 seconds.   In 3.2 seconds Davis covers 77 feet.   So that's 13 feet using the low end (28) for Mullins.

[Frobby]

8 hours ago, CallMeBrooksie said:

We will be making Chris Davis references long after his time here is up. Our children's children will know of the legend of Chris Davis. He might deserve the O's hof based on that alone.

Heck, I’m still making Glenn Davis references.   

[SteveA]

18 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Heck, I’m still making Glenn Davis references.   

All time Oriole Davis's, ranked on their Oriole career:

1 Chris

2 Storm

3 Tommy (70s DH)

4 Eric

5 Glenn

6 Butch

7 Blake

8 Tommy (cup of coffee 1999)

Broadcaster Tom Davis has to slot in there somewhere.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, SteveA said:

All time Oriole Davis's, ranked on their Oriole career:

1 Chris

2 Storm

3 Tommy (70s DH)

4 Eric

5 Glenn

6 Butch

7 Blake

8 Tommy (cup of coffee 1999)

Broadcaster Tom Davis has to slot in there somewhere.

Jumbo Davis led the American Association with 19 triples for the O's in 1887.  He was a third baseman listed at 5' 11", 195, which was big for the era.  But the weights from back then are often just guesses from old photographs.  The '87 O's were the best of the AA Oriole teams under Bald Billie Barnie.  Matt Kilory went 46-19, his last great year before feeling the effects of throwing 1100 innings in his age 20-21 seasons.

Calvin Davis played 44 games for the IL Champion '21 Orioles.

Lee Davis was an early Baltimore radio announcer on WCBM.

Riley Davis pitched for the Negro League Black Sox during WWI and lived to over 100.

Another Butch Davis (unknown if related to the 80s version) played for the Elite Giants in the 40s.  Roosevelt Davis and Schoolboy Davis were Elite Giants, too.

 

[Tony-OH]

On 9/2/2020 at 7:17 AM, Moose Milligan said:

That's what I came in here to ask/figure out.  His bunts are great but the rest of his batting leaves much to be desired.  

He's below average in every major offensive statcast metric:

Barrel %:  2.2% vs 6.2% MLB AVG
Hardhit%: 21.4% vs 34.8%
xBA: .173 vs .250
xSLG: .231 vs .416
xWOBA: .227 vs .322
K%: 28.4% vs 21.7%
BB%: 8.1% vs 8.3%

The bunts are nice, and they've propped up his average and OBP, but his numbers look very similar to last year when he was a disaster at the plate. Also, while still very fast, his sprint speed his dropped for the 3rd straight year. His arm looks stronger this year though.

I don't think his "hot streak" is sustainable.

[weams]

12 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

He's below average in every major offensive statcast metric:

Barrel %:  2.2% vs 6.2% MLB AVG
Hardhit%: 21.4% vs 34.8%
xBA: .173 vs .250
xSLG: .231 vs .416
xWOBA: .227 vs .322
K%: 28.4% vs 21.7%
BB%: 8.1% vs 8.3%

The bunts are nice, and they've propped up his average and OBP, but his numbers look very similar to last year when he was a disaster at the plate. Also, while still very fast, his sprint speed his dropped for the 3rd straight year. His arm looks stronger this year though.

I don't think his "hot streak" is sustainable.

His arm does appear stronger.

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

He's below average in every major offensive statcast metric:

Barrel %:  2.2% vs 6.2% MLB AVG
Hardhit%: 21.4% vs 34.8%
xBA: .173 vs .250
xSLG: .231 vs .416
xWOBA: .227 vs .322
K%: 28.4% vs 21.7%
BB%: 8.1% vs 8.3%

The bunts are nice, and they've propped up his average and OBP, but his numbers look very similar to last year when he was a disaster at the plate. Also, while still very fast, his sprint speed his dropped for the 3rd straight year. His arm looks stronger this year though.

I don't think his "hot streak" is sustainable.

Agreed.    What I’ve found surprising about Mullins as a major leaguer is his lack of power. He had a .161 ISO as a minor leaguer, and even hit his share of homers for a little guy.   But his ISO in the majors is .098 and it’s been lower than that the last two years.  I wonder what he was able to do to generate power in the minors that hadn’t translated over to the majors, and why.    Any thoughts on that?

Looking back on old OH scouting reports, there always were concerns about his swing as a RHB, but not really as a LHB.    E.g. here:

 

[Philip]

Mullins is bad. Sometimes, like now, he is less bad. But he’s bad. Points for making lemonade out of his lemons, but it only lasts so long. I want Austin Hays back.

[weams]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

Mullins is bad. Sometimes, like now, he is less bad. But he’s bad. Points for making lemonade out of his lemons, but it only lasts so long. I want Austin Hays back.

He's hurt all the time. Like Jeff Hammonds. 

[Aristotelian]

21 hours ago, weams said:

I absolutely hate the bunting for strategy part of the game. The 80's games had concrete floors and rubber carpets. I do like a poor hitter utilizing the bunt to enhance his hitting. But that is only a poor hitter. The best OPS a bunting guy can hope for is less than half of a marginal major league hitter. That won't work. All this bunting is out of deficiency and an extremely modified game with thin talent pools, shortened games,  poor game shape of some players, unusual routines, and a score or die extra inning format. 

I prefer the real game, but I do have interest in watching this. 

If it is a Billy Hamilton type, a bunt could be as good as a triple even if it doesn't show up in OPS.

[Aristotelian]

20 minutes ago, Philip said:

Mullins is bad. Sometimes, like now, he is less bad. But he’s bad. Points for making lemonade out of his lemons, but it only lasts so long. I want Austin Hays back.

Agreed, the Mullins experiment is fun to watch but it's not a long term strategy. We do need Hays for offense and defense.