Second Guessing the Moneyball philosophy

by salb918 on Sep 5, 2005 5:52 PM PDT

The very word bunt has been anathema to fans of Moneyball and the Billy Beane disciples. Some Giants fans hate it, others are jealous, others think it is silly. One thing Giants fans love to do is second-guess Felipe Alou.

I've expanded on the bunting question in a way that I think will be of interest to the McCovey Chronicles community on Beyond the Boxscore, another SBNation site.

If you're interested, the story can be read by clicking here.

Here's a preview:

"You're Mike Scioscia (keep reading, I promise it gets better), it's the bottom of the ninth and you're trailing by one run at home. Vlad Guerrero works a walk and Garret Anderson singles up the middle, and now you have runners on first and second with Darin Erstad coming to the plate. Most managers would be frozen with horror at the the thought of Rex Hudler attempting to analyze your moves, but you're Mickey Scioscia, former manager of the year, and you wonder: do I let Darin Erstad swing away and risk the double play? Or do I recognize Erstad's bat-handling abilites and call for the sacrifice bunt?

You have been given a fortune (the expected runs of this situation) to invest. Since you understand the intricacies of Moneyball, you pull out your Dell Inspiron 1150 and, after Bud Black points out the power button, make a little Excel Spreadsheet: "

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

Tweet Comment 2 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Question

I just read the article, and looked over it quickly again, and I think you have a flaw in your reasoning. My comment should actually support your position, though. In the situation you describe, the goal is not to win the game. At that point, the goal is to NOT LOSE, and to increase your chances of winning the game. Thus, the goal is not to get 2 runs; it is to at least get 1 run and the tie. 2 runs and winning in the 9th is gravy. You cannot win unless you first tie the game. Therefore, "if you play for one run, you'll only get one," is a perfectly defensible strategy if getting only one run is the goal, because the double play is such a killer and Erstad is a good bunter. (I'm sure the math will also bear that out.)
By my reading, the article's math works as is if the situation is changed to: "the Angels are down by 2 in the bottom of the 9th."

venividivixi.blogspot.com

by David A. Arnott on Sep 5, 2005 11:29 PM PDT reply actions

Right and wrong

Win Expectancy data, such as they are, measure your chance of winning a particular game - but not the chance of winning a game in a particular inning. So by moving the runners over, you increase your chances of winning and, by proxy, increase your chances of rying the game. It's all wrapped up in the historical data used to calculate Win Expectancy.

If the Angels were down by 2 in the bottom of the ninth, then the Win Expectancy numbers would change altogether. I would have to redo the math, but I would guess that it decreases the overall utility of bunting because the best you could hope for with that strategy is a tie - and after a tie, you're basically looking at a 50% shot of winning, give or take.

Thanks for the insight.

by salb918 on Sep 6, 2005 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions