Scioscia bunting Mike Trout over with Erick Aybar

[stormngt]

Aybar is gonna bunt.  From the two spot, the 6 spot, the nine spot etc.  Generally, it's not a good play and in particular if he hits second.

 

Reason #1:  Trout is fast.  His odds of making an out on a steal are about 10%.  Aybar bunted 40 times last year and made out in 24 of them.  So he had 16 hits in 33ab with 7 sacs.  Pretty good but still worse odds of than letting trout steal. 

 

Reason #2:  Trout gets on.  Aybar bunts him over.  Walk pujols.  Bring in a LHer to face hamilton who has an .808 career ops vs. lefties. 

You are mistaken in your logic:  If Aybar bunted 40 times and got 33 hits off of them that would be an BA of of .400!  (16/40)  Hell, that is a 40% chance that Pujols comes up with runners on first and second!  I like that situation. 

 

What I would not like is Aybar bunting for a sacrifice.  Then your logic is correct.  However, I would bet there wouldn't be a manager in baseball who wouldn't want a 400 hitter batting behind Trout and in front of Pujols.

 

(note:  yes i know by bunting you are eliminating any chance for an extra base hit thus no chance Aybar would drive Trout in on a double.  However, the increase percentage of a hit (let's say 270 to 400) is worth it.  We can let Pujols or Hamilton drive them in in that case).

[stormngt]

I don't think he over uses the suicide squeeze. Seriously, how many times has he really utilized that play over his tenure? Not very often. I'd say the best example of over use and losing effectiveness is the contact play.

 

Small ball requires players who can execute the play. It should be used infrequently and only with the right personnel on the bases and in the box. I don't mind sac bunts in certain situations but those are very limited. I do think that the dynamics of Trout's speed and Aybar's bunt skills and speed would lead to a higher success rate for both advancing the runner and getting on base, but again, it should be overused.

 

The hit and run play needs to have a hitter that can execute. The hit and run is a much more useful aggressive strategy than the sac bunt and isn't really "small ball".

 

I agree.  Sosh really hasn't used the suicide squeeze play often, but does over use the contact play.

 

I also believe Sosh is given a bad rap as a "small ball" manager.  He didn't play that way in 2002.  He started managing that way in the mid 2000's, but that was because the Angels has so few power hitters.  If we see him playing small ball with this lineup than I think there is an argument to his reputation.

 

However, I do believe it would  be a good strategy to have aybar try to bunt for a hit with Trout on 1st in some situations.  I would be against bunting for a sacrifice.  The problem might be the fact that few fans can recognize when the player is bunting for a hit or sacrificing.

[stormngt]

and that would be bad if Aybar has 12 outs on those bunt attempts.  But how would you feel if he has 4 hits in those 12 AB's, that would be a BA of 333 in those circumstances.  Wouldn't that make the 12 bunts worth it?

Tell you what, I'd be willing to bet that Aybar has 12 or more bunt attempts by the end of April (regular season only).

Wanna take me up on that?

[Eric]

How would I feel if he makes only one? How about all 12?

Incidental. And Strawman...

[laagamer]

I agree.

 

Skip isn't ever going to change though. He's a National League guy. 

[YouthofToday]

Our lineup is so good we might as well give up a few outs per game to keep the game competitive...

[Angel Oracle]

^{I always wondered why they call it hit and run, instead of run and hit.}

[Mark68]

Bunting Trout over to 3rd with no outs is a horrible idea. I've never been a fan of sacrificing an out when a runner is already in scoring position. Especially Trout. Take your chances with Aybar, Pujols, and Hamilton. As stated earlier, this team needs to score runs. We aren't going to be battling in tight 3-2, 2-1 games this season. We'll score in bunches and can't afford to give up these outs. I do think its just spring training and Aybar is probably just getting some bunts in to be ready so I'm not going to overreact.

I do think we'll be in some tight games. 9-8 and 8-7 are still tight.

 

But I will puke if I see Trout being bunted to third with zero outs, especially early in games. With this lineup, that strategy would be, shall we say, sub-optimal.

 

It may make more sense late and close, when one run could likely make a difference, but I would rather have three shots at a run-scoring single than two at a single or one at a ground ball.

 

Check that, ZERO at a ground ball, because we ALL know what will happen with a runner at third, less than two outs, and a ground ball to the infield...

[Chris]

I'd like to see a couple runners get on base and then a 3 run bombsauce from Pujols, Hamilton, or Trumbo. 

[Mark68]

the hit and run is an even worse play than a sac bunt

Not in the right situation, with a hitter that won't swing and miss a lot, leading to a strike 'em out, throw 'em out double play.

 

So, in this starting lineup, you hit and run with....Callaspo? Maybe Aybar? Everyone else has just as good a chance at adding intensity to a Santa Ana than to make contact and move the runner over.

[stormngt]

How would I feel if he makes only one? How about all 12?

Incidental. And Strawman...

The argument I have been giving is that I have no problem with Aybar bunting for a hit.  Last season got a hit out 16 times out of 40 bunt attempts.  That is a 400 average.  I would love to see Aybar bunt in front of Trout every time if he would get a hit 40% of the time!  

 

I agree with most when they say we shouldn't be giving up an out.  However, those people really are not distinguishing the difference from bunting for a hit or a sacrifice.

[Eric]

Those must have either been a lot of games I never ended up seeing (a very distinct possibility with my schedule) or those 16 must have included quite a few Fielder's Choices.  Not only that, but 40 bunt attempts seems awful low, unless that number does not include the number of times he attempted to bunt and popped it up for an out that's not called a bunt or fouled it off and ended up swinging away on the next pitch.  You gotta admit, there's no way on earth Aybar only squared around to bunt 40 times last year and got wood on the ball.  No.....way.... That number must be that 40 times he put the ball in play as a bunt and was standing on first 16 of those 40 times.

[Lifetime]

FC's and errors do not count as hits so that is not part of those numbers. If he squares around and pops out, it counts as an attempt.   They would not reflect squaring up and fouling followed by swinging away however but what's the point of that anyway. 

[yk9001]

in 2002, when we had a contact vs power balanced lineup, much like we do now, the small ball tactics were fewer and further between. The shift to more small ball came when that balance went askew.

The Angels led the league in sacrifice bunts with 49 in 2002.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2002.shtml

[tdawg87]

No they didn't.

[Eric]

FC's and errors do not count as hits so that is not part of those numbers. If he squares around and pops out, it counts as an attempt.   They would not reflect squaring up and fouling followed by swinging away however but what's the point of that anyway. 

 

The point is, the number 40 is deceiving.  It makes it sound like Aybar only tried to bunt just over once a week, which anyone who has watched the Angels knows is not the case.  Aybar tries to bunt closer to an average of around once a game, which means that the number of bunt attempts ought to be closer to 160.  Even being generous and cutting that number in half to about 80 times is well above the number 40 cited above.  Aybar did not try to bunt only 40 times last year and was successful 40% of the time.  There's just no way that's the case.

 

Which brings me to the wager put forth above.  If Aybar only squares around to try to bunt less than 12 times in the entire month of April (a number well above the average stated in this thread) I lose.  However, if he squares around to bunt even once during an at bat and tries to put the bat on the ball, it qualifies as a bunt attempt.  He only has to do this one time during the at bat, whether he's successful or not for it to qualify as a bunt attempt during that at bat.  And no single at bat can produce more than a single bunt attempt.

 

But then again, no one here would take me up on that wager simply because they know the reality of Aybar's approach at the plate rather the fantasy of the scorecard.

[Lifetime]

Well your statistical estimate is without merit and not supported by facts. But hey, you hold to it anyway if you must. It's pointless to count every bunt attempt that does not end an AB. It's an exercise in stupidity. 

[Eric]

Well your statistical estimate is without merit and not supported by facts. But hey, you hold to it anyway if you must. It's pointless to count every bunt attempt that does not end an AB. It's an exercise in stupidity. 

If we are not talking about every bunt attempt, even those that do not end the AB, then what the hell qualifies as a bunt attempt?  If I attempt to jump into a pool, and miss the pool entirely and go to the hospital instead, does that no longer qualify as an attempt?

[Lifetime]

Bunt attempt numbers are calculated based on an attempt that ends an AB with either a SAC, hit, or out. Counting the other bunt attempts within an AB is pointless. Who cares.

[Jim]

The thread is about bunting, so I would imagine those taking part in the discussion.

[Lifetime]

So those taking part in the discussion care about accounting for every time a player squares up? I doubt that.

[Jim]

I believe what Eric is saying is true. Aybar squares up most every at bat, whether it gets counted or not.

[Lifetime]

Over exaggeration but again, who cares.

[Eric]

The next time Aybar unsuccessfully drag-bunts his way into a 0-2 count to lead off the bottom of the 8th with the Angels trailing by 1 run, only to swing wildly at strike three resulting in a K, will you still be asking "Who cares?" since it's not "technically" a bunt attempt?

[Lifetime]

About accounting for the number of "bunt attempts", yes. Can you show that Aybar ends up 0-2 due to failed bunt attempts more than he does otherwise? Can you show that he fails to reach base more often when the AB includes a bunt attempt at some point in his AB? Counting every square up is ridiculously useless but whatever floats your boat. By the way, Erick has good close and late and tie game stats so I'm not to concerned there will be an abundance of bunt attempts followed by a failed AB.