I think what you are looking at is reporters/bloggers oversimplifying the actual analytic work. “Bunting results in lower expected runs overall” becomes “never bunt.” But the real analytics knows that you can increase your chances of scoring a single run with a bunt.
In other words, analytics knows that “never” is almost never true, but commentators just oversimplify it.
I could not agree more with these points.
There must be a balance.
I can understand having a philosophy that “small ball” hinders overall production and success. But that very philosophy acknowledges it will sacrifice individual success at times in search of a bigger catch.
There are times where a multi run inning doesn’t help. So, focusing on that while reducing the chances to score one run is detrimental.
Nothing works every time in every situation.
Keep your overall philosophy but give yourself flexibility to adjust to a specific situation.
And have a 2 minute offense.
Then execute.
I haven’t read this article in depth (I’m scanning it during a work meeting I’m halfway listening to), but it seems to lay out the kind of math the Astros might be looking at:
This team has been great at getting runners in scoring position. Really good. And as good as they are at getting in scoring position they are equally as bad at driving them in.
That Billy Beane is still alive and kicking.
The Fangraphs article confirms the common-sense conclusion that the Astros should have bunted last night. According to that data (from 2020), only 14% of the time does a bunt result in a negative outcome, and overall the likelihood of scoring increases by more than 3%.
That the Astros never seem to bunt in these situations suggests that they think their odds of a negative outcome are much higher than 14 in 100. Possibly this is due to an organizational de-emphasis on bunting.
And a lot depends on who is at the plate. Would I have bunted in the 10th with Bregman? No. Would I have with Caratini in the 11th? Absofuckinglutely.
That Billy Beane is still alive, the Billy Beane that passed away is the former openly gay player
Billy Bean.
For real? That’s funny. When I heard that he’d died I thought: “He was gay?”
They seem to have decided they don’t trust most of their hitters to bunt, probably because they don’t teach them to bunt, so the last time a lot of these guys bunted was probably on campus. No question they need to start drilling it.
Kessinger and King recalled.
McCormick to IL, Nick Hernandez sent down.
Looks like they want an extra infielder while they wait to see whether Altuve needs to go to the IL. Makes sense; no need to enforce the 10-day absence at this point.
Dezenzo reportedly joining the team in Cleveland, no word on a corresponding move.
Yordan to the IL?
Does the 10-day IL reset for the postseason?
I think it ends. Anyone on the 40-man or 60-day IL (prior to August 1sr) is Postseason eligible. I’m not 100% though.
That is my understanding as well. I think they can still replace an injured player on the active roster, though, but even as I type that I can see seventeen ways to abuse that clause, so maybe not.
That’s what I can’t confirm: is a guy on the 10-day who hasn’t sat out the full 10 days eligible once the postseason starts?
If not, then IL-ing Yordan would mean he misses the first 2 games.
From: Postseason Roster Rules & Eligibility | Glossary | MLB.com
Teams submit a 26-man roster (it was 25, prior to 2020) prior to each round of the postseason comprised of postseason-eligible players. A club may request permission from the Commissioner’s Office to replace a player who is injured during the course of a series, but that player is then ineligible for the rest of that round and the subsequent round, if there is one. A pitcher may be replaced only by another pitcher, and a position player only by another position player.
Teams carry extra players throughout the postseason in the event of injuries, and those players, as well as players on the injured list, can be in the dugout during games, within reason.