View Full Version : Derek Jeter
Jersey Yankee
07-27-05, 08:43 AM
It's been said that he's the "anti-SABR" player, since he doesn't rate well on the Sabermetrics thing.
Which SABR stats doesn't he fare well on, and how does this relate to his value in the real world? Please note, I'm not a SABR guy, so please explain the stats, how they were arrived at.
Thanks. :)
in MO I trust 42
07-27-05, 11:47 AM
yea, ive never understood sabermetrics either. it would be great if someone could explain it, thanks!
Sabermetrics is the complex study of various entities in conjuction with a multitude of disciplines only mastered by upper level institutions and organizations of whom develop and disclose an amalgamation of linguistics and operations.
RIyankee
07-27-05, 01:33 PM
Jeter is "clutch"
According to sabermetrics, there is no evidence that proves clutch hitting. When asked if Derek Jeter is "clutch", Billy Beane responded "he's a very good player who has played in plenty of postseason games." Bean was alluding that if any player plays as many playoff games as Jeter has, he's going to be in many clutch situations.
Jeter's fielding
Jeter has taken a beating in this area by media pundits. He won his first ALSSGG in 2004, but he was in the middle of the pack in the AL in ZR (zone rating) last year. This year, Jeter is near the bottom of the AL in ZR.
Jeter's hitting
Jeter's aggressive hitting apprach, especially during the first two pitches, reduces his ability to walk and makes his OBP fall closer to his batting average. His career SLG is mediocre. The following link is a sabermetric view on Jeter...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=olney_buster&id=1803781
Jeter's Value
His salary pays him the following...
2005 - $20.00mil
2006 - 21.00
2007 - 22.00
2008 - 22.00
2009 - 20.00
2010 - 21.00
He's clearly not worth that kind of money.
As a Yankee fan, I want my team to be more sabermetric-minded. Unfortuneately they are not. As much as it galls me to see Boston winning the WS, in a way, it was a victory for Moneyball. The following link was written on July 04, 2004...
http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/2004/07/derek_jeter_bil.html
As a subscirber to Moneyball philosophy, reading that link makes me laugh. As a Yankee fan it make me want to imitate Kevin Brown.
NJASDJDH
07-27-05, 02:27 PM
Jeter is "clutch"
According to sabermetrics, there is no evidence that proves clutch hitting. When asked if Derek Jeter is "clutch", Billy Beane responded "he's a very good player who has played in plenty of postseason games." Bean was alluding that if any player plays as many playoff games as Jeter has, he's going to be in many clutch situations.
Jeter's fielding
Jeter has taken a beating in this area by media pundits. He won his first ALSSGG in 2004, but he was in the middle of the pack in the AL in ZR (zone rating) last year. This year, Jeter is near the bottom of the AL in ZR.
Jeter's hitting
Jeter's aggressive hitting apprach, especially during the first two pitches, reduces his ability to walk and makes his OBP fall closer to his batting average. His career SLG is mediocre. The following link is a sabermetric view on Jeter...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=olney_buster&id=1803781
Jeter's Value
His salary pays him the following...
2005 - $20.00mil
2006 - 21.00
2007 - 22.00
2008 - 22.00
2009 - 20.00
2010 - 21.00
He's clearly not worth that kind of money.
As a Yankee fan, I want my team to be more sabermetric-minded. Unfortuneately they are not. As much as it galls me to see Boston winning the WS, in a way, it was a victory for Moneyball. The following link was written on July 04, 2004...
http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/2004/07/derek_jeter_bil.html
As a subscirber to Moneyball philosophy, reading that link makes me laugh. As a Yankee fan it make me want to imitate Kevin Brown.
Buster Olney does not represent a sabermetric viewpoint.
That said, the big divide for sabermetric-focused baseball fans and everyone else when it comes to Jeter is that the "regular guys", for lack of a better phrase, tend to overrate Jeter for "being clutch" and being a "terrific defender". In reality, at least statistically, Jeter isn't so much clutch as it is that he's had the opportunity to be in so many situations due to the team that he plays for that he can't help BUT have loads of clutch moments. In addition, the sabermetric community is coming around on the idea of clutch. As far as Jeter's defense, Jeter is a guy who looks really good on defense, but isn't. Early in his career he was around average and then for a few years he was horrific to the point that there was speculation it negated his offensive talents, which sabermetricians have always loved, and now he's been back to around average since the beginning of '04. If you don't believe the thing about Jeter's defense, and I didn't, just try and pay attention to how many times you here "...and past a diving Jeter" as opposed to "...and past a diving (insert other team's SS here)".
PaulieIsAwesome
07-27-05, 04:03 PM
Buster Olney does not represent a sabermetric viewpoint.
That said, the big divide for sabermetric-focused baseball fans and everyone else when it comes to Jeter is that the "regular guys", for lack of a better phrase, tend to overrate Jeter for "being clutch" and being a "terrific defender". In reality, at least statistically, Jeter isn't so much clutch as it is that he's had the opportunity to be in so many situations due to the team that he plays for that he can't help BUT have loads of clutch moments. In addition, the sabermetric community is coming around on the idea of clutch. As far as Jeter's defense, Jeter is a guy who looks really good on defense, but isn't. Early in his career he was around average and then for a few years he was horrific to the point that there was speculation it negated his offensive talents, which sabermetricians have always loved, and now he's been back to around average since the beginning of '04. If you don't believe the thing about Jeter's defense, and I didn't, just try and pay attention to how many times you here "...and past a diving Jeter" as opposed to "...and past a diving (insert other team's SS here)".
Well, I disagree that the sabermetric community is coming around on clutch hitting, one article which says that clutch is very difficult to identify by Bill James notwithstanding, but the rest of this post is spot on.
That being said, most people in the saber community agree that Jeter is a very very good player, and probably a Hall of Famer. His defense was pretty bad for a while. His clutchness probably doesn't exist. He's definitely overpaid, by almost any measure. The reason he's overpaid is actually that his 1999 was so good. 11.0 WARP3 is a great season. The Yankees almost certainly believed that he would contribute similar production the rest of his career.
Instead, he's never touched any of his numbers from that season. Still good production, especially from a SS, but nothing like .349/.438/.552.
justinvarnes
07-27-05, 05:12 PM
True he is overpaid, but we must also keep in mind that Jeter's contract was before the price bottomed out after A-Rod's contract.
It seems to me that some people have a beef with Jeter in that he is lauded for being a great player, but in statistics that matter to sabermetricians - OPS, etc. - he comes up short as compared to other players who don't get as much "love".
What I mean by that is that his highlight reel plays in the field and big hits in big games tend to put him in a class above guys like (to pick 2 random "sluggers") Manny, Giambi, etc. who just mash (injured/weak giambi aside) on a regular basis, but don't have quite the highlight reel to put together.
However, I do believe in the misnomer of "intagibles". They aren't intagible, they are just oft-overlooked for Homers and Doubles.
Jeter's value is definitely greater than the regular offensive and defensive stats show, but I agree that not to the point that most lay people think. For example: he has probably the most presence on a baseball field that I've ever seen. That doesn't necessarily translate into x amount of defensive stops or x amount of runs per game.
What it DOES mean, however, that when it matters, Jeter can usually outthink the average player, and that can be as simple as having a good at bat in a pressure situation or as obvious as tagging up last year on Jones, when most players would not have attempted. It also means he does little things like hold the tag on the base stealer, so that the occasional time he overlslides, they'll pick up the out. Or how he seems to NEVER get thrown out on the basepaths when he's aggressive.
He is also an EXTREMELY well rounded player in that he isn't superior at one thing (power, defense, etc.) but he is either decent or very good at almost everything: hitting for average (Good), power (decent), defense (decent), baserunning (Very Good), speed (Very Good), Arm Strength and Accuracy (Very Good), Presence (Very Good), bunting and situational hitting (Very Good).
these things add value that a Manny, etc. doesn't have. They usually have average and power, or average and defense. Although that still doesn't add up to a 40 HR, .980 OPS.................Manny would be more valuable to your offense by as MILE, but over the years, Jeter can make up some of that ground in smaller ways.
The bottom line: IMO, Jeter's value is greater than the usual stats show, since he is so smart and aware. But his myth has outgrown the extent to which he is better than his OPS or RF shows.
JeffWeaverFan
07-28-05, 02:15 AM
The one other thing I didn't see mentioned here is that Jeter bunts the guy over a lot. I mean, how often when Jeter was batting 2nd last year, did we see him bunt the leadoff guy over to 2nd in the very first inning instead of swing away? It happened a lot and continues to happen (although now not so much). That is bad because sabermatricians argue that you should never give away outs. (This is especially true with Jeter because he is a very good hitter and he gets on base anyways about 38% of the time). It is also a fact that a team scores more runs with a man on 1st and no outs rather than a man on 2nd with 1 out.
PaulieIsAwesome
07-28-05, 09:08 AM
True he is overpaid, but we must also keep in mind that Jeter's contract was before the price bottomed out after A-Rod's contract.
It seems to me that some people have a beef with Jeter in that he is lauded for being a great player, but in statistics that matter to sabermetricians - OPS, etc. - he comes up short as compared to other players who don't get as much "love".
What I mean by that is that his highlight reel plays in the field and big hits in big games tend to put him in a class above guys like (to pick 2 random "sluggers") Manny, Giambi, etc. who just mash (injured/weak giambi aside) on a regular basis, but don't have quite the highlight reel to put together.
However, I do believe in the misnomer of "intagibles". They aren't intagible, they are just oft-overlooked for Homers and Doubles.
Jeter's value is definitely greater than the regular offensive and defensive stats show, but I agree that not to the point that most lay people think. For example: he has probably the most presence on a baseball field that I've ever seen. That doesn't necessarily translate into x amount of defensive stops or x amount of runs per game.
What it DOES mean, however, that when it matters, Jeter can usually outthink the average player, and that can be as simple as having a good at bat in a pressure situation or as obvious as tagging up last year on Jones, when most players would not have attempted. It also means he does little things like hold the tag on the base stealer, so that the occasional time he overlslides, they'll pick up the out. Or how he seems to NEVER get thrown out on the basepaths when he's aggressive.
He is also an EXTREMELY well rounded player in that he isn't superior at one thing (power, defense, etc.) but he is either decent or very good at almost everything: hitting for average (Good), power (decent), defense (decent), baserunning (Very Good), speed (Very Good), Arm Strength and Accuracy (Very Good), Presence (Very Good), bunting and situational hitting (Very Good).
these things add value that a Manny, etc. doesn't have. They usually have average and power, or average and defense. Although that still doesn't add up to a 40 HR, .980 OPS.................Manny would be more valuable to your offense by as MILE, but over the years, Jeter can make up some of that ground in smaller ways.
The bottom line: IMO, Jeter's value is greater than the usual stats show, since he is so smart and aware. But his myth has outgrown the extent to which he is better than his OPS or RF shows.
I don't agree with everything you say (without Giambi's "clutch" 2 homers in Game 7 v. Pedro, Jeter's double would have been meaningless) but I am inclined to agree with you. His baseball smarts add a little to his value which most players don't have. According to some, though, this added value is huge, and makes him one of the top 5 players in baseball.
PaulieIsAwesome
07-28-05, 09:10 AM
The one other thing I didn't see mentioned here is that Jeter bunts the guy over a lot. I mean, how often when Jeter was batting 2nd last year, did we see him bunt the leadoff guy over to 2nd in the very first inning instead of swing away? It happened a lot and continues to happen (although now not so much). That is bad because sabermatricians argue that you should never give away outs. (This is especially true with Jeter because he is a very good hitter and he gets on base anyways about 38% of the time). It is also a fact that a team scores more runs with a man on 1st and no outs rather than a man on 2nd with 1 out.
Yes. I really hate this. It's bad when any player does it (especially in the first freaking inning, with your 3-4-5 hitters coming up) but when a hitter as good as he sac bunts, it's insane.
Oh, and another one of those intangibles is definitely his baserunning. It is very, very good.
justinvarnes
07-28-05, 11:06 AM
I apologize if I wasn't clear: Giambi's "clutchness" wasn't really the point of my argument. It actually wasn't meant in any way to devalue what someone like Giambi, Ramirez, etc. does.
The point was that as valuable as they are (and they are very valuable), if you JUST stack up their numbers vs. Jeter's you will not get the full picture.
Baserunning, heads up play in the field, versatility at the plate, a strong and accurate arm (how amyn times does Jeter make perfect relays, especially when it counts...one that is forgotten was in game 7 last year vs. bos, he gunned down a runner at home in the 1st) al the things i mentioned above add value to him that a scorecard doesn't always account for. These, to me, are the "intagibles" that are actually quite tangible...if you know what you're looking for.
some of these things are weaknesses in alot of sluggers, as well as pure "defenders". Jeter has I believe the most balanced attack on the field.
The question is: How MUCH value do they add?
I believe they add a decent amount, but I don't believe the pundits who say Jeter is a top 5 player.
I would DEFINITELY have him on my team, but you can bet I'd have Ortiz, A-Rod and Vlad on there first.
PaulieIsAwesome
07-28-05, 02:03 PM
I apologize if I wasn't clear: Giambi's "clutchness" wasn't really the point of my argument. It actually wasn't meant in any way to devalue what someone like Giambi, Ramirez, etc. does.
The point was that as valuable as they are (and they are very valuable), if you JUST stack up their numbers vs. Jeter's you will not get the full picture.
Baserunning, heads up play in the field, versatility at the plate, a strong and accurate arm (how amyn times does Jeter make perfect relays, especially when it counts...one that is forgotten was in game 7 last year vs. bos, he gunned down a runner at home in the 1st) al the things i mentioned above add value to him that a scorecard doesn't always account for. These, to me, are the "intagibles" that are actually quite tangible...if you know what you're looking for.
some of these things are weaknesses in alot of sluggers, as well as pure "defenders". Jeter has I believe the most balanced attack on the field.
The question is: How MUCH value do they add?
I believe they add a decent amount, but I don't believe the pundits who say Jeter is a top 5 player.
I would DEFINITELY have him on my team, but you can bet I'd have Ortiz, A-Rod and Vlad on there first.
I think you're right. I would certainly have him on my team, and recognize that he has value a little over his numbers. I don't think it's that much, but whatever.
chanman7483
07-28-05, 02:39 PM
Jeter's pay isn't only based on what they expect of him... it's that high because it's rewarding him for his contributions in the past. Same as Bernie.
PaulieIsAwesome
07-28-05, 04:48 PM
Jeter's pay isn't only based on what they expect of him... it's that high because it's rewarding him for his contributions in the past. Same as Bernie.
I'm sorry, I have to say, if that's true, then the Yankees were being run by chimps. Chimps with overly developed emotional responses, but chimps nonetheless. These are baseball players making millions of dollars, who made millions before signing their large multi-year contracts. I don't think that rewarding them for past contributions makes any sense.
Derek's family was not about to starve to death if he had only signed a contract that was 15 million a year.
If the Yankees really gave extra dollars to Bernie and Jeter, to thank them for previous contributions, rather than, I don't know, having a day to celebrate them, or praising them in the media, or retiring their numbers when the day comes, or inviting them to Old Timers' Games, or ... then they deserve the economic restraints that they seemed to place on themselves by not signing Beltran.
But of course, even the Yankees weren't run like that. This is just post facto reasoning to rationalize the current huge sums given to Bernie and Jeter.
And oh yeah, almost everyone who knows anything about their contract negotiations agree that Bernie was signed for the amount he was signed for because the Red Sox offered a huge contract, and so to try and woo Bernie, the Yankees offered the number they did (I can't remember if the Sox in fact offered more.) No matter what, Bernie was not signed to a 7 year 87.5 million dollar deal because of past contributions to the team.
ChewieTobbacca
07-28-05, 08:20 PM
Yes if they indeed did pay to reward them (and I do get this feeling sometimes), they are run by chimps (and sometimes, that seems to be true).
To say Jeter isn't a good baseball player of course is wrong - he has lots of baseball instincts, runs the bases well, and so on. However, most sabermetricians disagree with the common notion of people that he is one of the greatest players in the game, when even among shortstops, he isn't near the top (sans 1999 DJ).
Cousin Brewski
07-29-05, 07:25 AM
"As a Yankee fan, I want my team to be more sabermetric-minded. Unfortuneately they are not. As much as it galls me to see Boston winning the WS, in a way, it was a victory for Moneyball.
As a subscirber to Moneyball philosophy, reading that link makes me laugh. As a Yankee fan it make me want to imitate Kevin Brown." - RIyankee
Wait 'til you read Mind Game (by the Baseball Prospectus crew). It's an analysis of how the '04 Red Sox were built, how the front office works, etc. It's going to make the Yanks (and any of their sabr-inclined fans) feel behind. Very behind.
As a Yankee fan, I want my team to be more sabermetric-minded. Unfortuneately they are not. As much as it galls me to see Boston winning the WS, in a way, it was a victory for Moneyball.
The Red Sox finished second in the AL East - they couldn't even win their own division. If ever second-place team in baseball history was given a free 7 games to try and redeem their seasons there would be a whole lot of rings on a whole lot of different fingers.
PaulieIsAwesome
07-29-05, 11:37 AM
As a Yankee fan, I want my team to be more sabermetric-minded. Unfortuneately they are not. As much as it galls me to see Boston winning the WS, in a way, it was a victory for Moneyball.
The Red Sox finished second in the AL East - they couldn't even win their own division. If ever second-place team in baseball history was given a free 7 games to try and redeem their seasons there would be a whole lot of rings on a whole lot of different fingers.
Good point. Teams shouldn't be able to use the new rule changes baseball has instituted. David Ortiz and Jason Giambi's numbers should be thrown out. If every player in baseball history who couldn't field was allowed to stick around playing designated hitter, there would be a lot more home runs for Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle.
Man, I love that the Yankees have won 29 championships. Remember that awesome 2002, when we knocked off the A's and went on to beat the Braves in that classic World Series. And who can forget 2003? Aaron Boone with that magical walk-off home run against the Braves again, fueling our great rivalry with them, 2003 was one of my favorite Yankee years. It was a good LCS against the A's, also.
Good point. Teams shouldn't be able to use the new rule changes baseball has instituted.
Finishing first beats finishing second. Add a few more rounds to the playoffs, as Bolshevik Bud has suggested, and we'll have a sub-.500 team getting hot just in time to wipe out 162 games of work by a superior team.
You want to worship at the altar of "Moneyball"? Fine. But 98 wins isn't as many as 101 wins, and second place isn't as good as first. You let every second place team get a playoff slot and you'll have quite a few "also-ran" World Series.
PaulieIsAwesome
07-29-05, 01:06 PM
Good point. Teams shouldn't be able to use the new rule changes baseball has instituted.
Finishing first beats finishing second. Add a few more rounds to the playoffs, as Bolshevik Bud has suggested, and we'll have a sub-.500 team getting hot just in time to wipe out 162 games of work by a superior team.
You want to worship at the altar of "Moneyball"? Fine. But 98 wins isn't as many as 101 wins, and second place isn't as good as first. You let every second place team get a playoff slot and you'll have quite a few "also-ran" World Series.
If we're going to really play that game, then why have a World Series in the first place? Throw all 30 teams in the same league, have them play 175 game seasons, and the team with the most wins finishes first and gets to be called the champion.
Baseball history is riddled with teams like the 1954 Indians, who won 111 regular season games and lost in the World Series. Or the 1990 Reds, who beat a better Pirates team and a much better A's team in the World Series. If we're going to have a postseason, there's going to be some luck involved in any short series, and also, sometimes regular season records don't perfectly describe a team's success.
So, I'll conclude with a question. Do you consider the Yankees 1996 World Series win invalid? Because, if MLB was following the rules from before 1994, before "Bolshevik Bud" stepped in, the Indians would have won the reconstituted East, and the Yankees would not have made the playoffs?
If we're going to really play that game, then why have a World Series in the first place? Throw all 30 teams in the same league, have them play 175 game seasons, and the team with the most wins finishes first and gets to be called the champion.
Why 175 games? Why not 20? Why not a single-elimination tournament to begin the season and continue until one team is left undefeated?
Baseball history is riddled with teams like the 1954 Indians, who won 111 regular season games and lost in the World Series.
How unfair to the 103 game-winning Yankees! Or the 94 game-winning White Sox! Why can't everyone get a shot at the World Series instead of only those who finish first? What's so great about this whole "first" thing anyhow? Both the Yankees and White Sox played .500 ball against these Indians - why should they lose a chance to play in the World Series just because they couldn't finish first over the course of the season?
If we're going to have a postseason, there's going to be some luck involved in any short series, and also, sometimes regular season records don't perfectly describe a team's success.
And the more teams you add in to the postseason, the more luck will influence the final outcome. Perhaps 4th place + luck will win out over 1st place, but that doesn't make 4th place equivalent to first place.
Do you consider the Yankees 1996 World Series win invalid?
The Yankees finished first in their division, didn't they?
Because, if MLB was following the rules from before 1994, before "Bolshevik Bud" stepped in, the Indians would have won the reconstituted East, and the Yankees would not have made the playoffs?
Perhaps they would have, and perhaps not. What cannot be disputed is that the Yankees finished with a better record than any other team in their division, as did Cleveland for their own respective division. This isn't about the 1980 103 game-winning Yankees losing in the playoffs to a Royals team that would have placed third in the AL East, had they been in the AL East. The 1980 Royals played in their own division, and 1996 Cleveland in theirs. Perhaps the second-place 1980 Baltimore Orioles who finished the season with a better record than Kansas City could have won the World Series that year, but they didn't earn the chance to find out because they proved themselves inferior by finishing second in their division. Given a second chance and a short series, perhaps we'd have heard crowing about the brilliance of these Orioles, instead of their being forgotten simply because they were a second-place team in a sport that held the quaint notion of first place meaning something more than second place.
PaulieIsAwesome
07-29-05, 01:57 PM
If we're going to really play that game, then why have a World Series in the first place? Throw all 30 teams in the same league, have them play 175 game seasons, and the team with the most wins finishes first and gets to be called the champion.
Why 175 games? Why not 20? Why not a single-elimination tournament to begin the season and continue until one team is left undefeated?
Baseball history is riddled with teams like the 1954 Indians, who won 111 regular season games and lost in the World Series.
How unfair to the 103 game-winning Yankees! Or the 94 game-winning White Sox! Why can't everyone get a shot at the World Series instead of only those who finish first? What's so great about this whole "first" thing anyhow? Both the Yankees and White Sox played .500 ball against these Indians - why should they lose a chance to play in the World Series just because they couldn't finish first over the course of the season?
If we're going to have a postseason, there's going to be some luck involved in any short series, and also, sometimes regular season records don't perfectly describe a team's success.
And the more teams you add in to the postseason, the more luck will influence the final outcome. Perhaps 4th place + luck will win out over 1st place, but that doesn't make 4th place equivalent to first place.
Do you consider the Yankees 1996 World Series win invalid?
The Yankees finished first in their division, didn't they?
Because, if MLB was following the rules from before 1994, before "Bolshevik Bud" stepped in, the Indians would have won the reconstituted East, and the Yankees would not have made the playoffs?
Perhaps they would have, and perhaps not. What cannot be disputed is that the Yankees finished with a better record than any other team in their division, as did Cleveland for their own respective division. This isn't about the 1980 103 game-winning Yankees losing in the playoffs to a Royals team that would have placed third in the AL East, had they been in the AL East. The 1980 Royals played in their own division, and 1996 Cleveland in theirs. Perhaps the second-place 1980 Baltimore Orioles who finished the season with a better record than Kansas City could have won the World Series that year, but they didn't earn the chance to find out because they proved themselves inferior by finishing second in their division. Given a second chance and a short series, perhaps we'd have heard crowing about the brilliance of these Orioles, instead of their being forgotten simply because they were a second-place team in a sport that held the quaint notion of first place meaning something more than second place.
So then, if the Yankees ever won a World Series thanks to the wild card (like they hopefully might this year) you would not count it as valid?
I don't like the wild card concept - second shouldn't confer the same privileges as first if merit is to mean anything at all. Consider this - Boston finished three games behind first-place New York last year and made the playoffs. Oakland finished one game behind first-place Anaheim last year and received nothing, even though they were clearly much closer to "earning" a playoff slot through the merit of their play. As my opinions on the wild card are fairly straightforward, I don't believe either team earned the right to play in the postseason, yet our current Selig scheme tells the team that missed by three games, "Close enough - keep playing!" while the team that wasn't eliminated until the 161st game of the season was told to go home because they weren't worthy.
Second place isn't as good as first. Baseball managed to do OK with such an approach for a fair long time, but like interleague play and hanging home field advantage on the outcome of the All-Star exhibition, it just wasn't "kewl" enough for Bud Selig, the man who thought putting Spider Man on the bases was what baseball really needed.
pedromartinezfan
07-29-05, 02:27 PM
The Red Sox had 98 wins. Second most in the American League. They deserved it more than Oakland, considering they had more wins than them and the the other two division winners.
The Red Sox had 98 wins. Second most in the American League. They deserved it more than Oakland, considering they had more wins than them and the the other two division winners.
Do you think Boston deserved a playoff slot *more* than the other two division winners? They did win more games, after all.
Of course in 2003, Seattle (93 wins, 2nd place AL West) finished the season with more wins than Minnesota (90 wins, 1st place AL Central) and got nothing while Minnesota went on to the playoffs. Do you think 2nd-place Seattle deserved a playoff slot more than 1st-place Minnesota?
justinvarnes
07-29-05, 03:20 PM
not to get into you guys' argument (you're BOTH pretty!) but one of Beane's principals is that the playoffs are based on luck.
either the A's are unlucky or the red sox are lucky.
Snatch Catch
08-01-05, 10:06 AM
Jeter actually stacks up well offensively when analyzing his production with some sabremetric tools.
Career EqA (Adjusted for all-time) up through the current season-
Palmeiro: .308
Gwynn: .306
Brett: .306
Jeter: .300
Winfield: .299
Molitor: .299
Yount: .286
I-Rod: .286
Tejada: .284
Ripken .284
Granted Jeter is still in his prime years, but it still illustrates his effectiveness.
The one other thing I didn't see mentioned here is that Jeter bunts the guy over a lot. I mean, how often when Jeter was batting 2nd last year, did we see him bunt the leadoff guy over to 2nd in the very first inning instead of swing away? It happened a lot and continues to happen (although now not so much). That is bad because sabermatricians argue that you should never give away outs. (This is especially true with Jeter because he is a very good hitter and he gets on base anyways about 38% of the time). It is also a fact that a team scores more runs with a man on 1st and no outs rather than a man on 2nd with 1 out.
I agree that he bunts way too much (unless he is bunting for a hit, which is fine in most instances). However, I do have a question...
I know more runs score when you swing away instead of sacrifice with no outs and a runner on 1st. But......what is the % of scoring in that inning? That actually has a major affect on the validity of a bunt and the game situation. Do you score a higher % of the time when you bunt, but have much less of a chance of a multiple run inning? Or do the chances of scoring at all remain the same? If it's the latter, then bunting almost NEVER makes sense.
By the way, if I faced the Yanks I would always bunt against Mariano with a runner on first, no out, and down by a run. The reason is that he almost never gives up the extra base hit. So instead of needing two hits to score a run, you would need one from two hitters.
Please forgive what will probably turn out to be my ignorance, but ...
I understand that sac bunting in general tends to give up multi-run innings for the sake of one run.
But don't the studies of "sac" bunting tend to gloss over some important differences in the diverse situations where it occurs, and perhaps miss some reasons why it can be more productive than it seems over the short or long run, relative to swinging away?
I don't just mean "late in close games vs. early or in blowouts," a factor that I know has been studied and acknowledged as somewhat significant. I mean:
1. When a smart hitter (let's use Jeter, a very, very smart player) believes the current pitcher is particularly tough on him, i.e. he is less confident of his chances of getting a hit
2. When he's just not feeling confident in general (funky background, glare, muscle ache, gas pain, slump, etc.)
3. Whe he thinks the defense is particularly unprepared for a bunt (thus creating a half-sac, half bunt-for-a-hit environment)
4. When the hitter is fast to first (like Jeter), also creating a better chance at a hit
5. When the pitcher or catcher may have trouble fielding the ball due to his poor fielding ability or injury (SCHILLING GM. 6 AAAAHGAHGAGHAHGGHAAAAA!)
6. When he judges that a bunt now can scare infielders into cheating in during later ABs, thus increasing his chances of hits later
7. When a hitter is just particularly good at placing bunts to create at least some potential for a bunt hit or an infield error (potentially even a two-base error), as Jeter is, no?
8. When both teams' current pitchers (and maybe their available, likely relievers) are so good that the game figures to be close the whole way (e.g., a rested, hot Santana vs. a dominant Unit and Mo), thus making an early sac a better play
9. You get the idea ...
Thoughts?
PaulieIsAwesome
08-02-05, 01:59 PM
I agree that he bunts way too much (unless he is bunting for a hit, which is fine in most instances). However, I do have a question...
I know more runs score when you swing away instead of sacrifice with no outs and a runner on 1st. But......what is the % of scoring in that inning? That actually has a major affect on the validity of a bunt and the game situation. Do you score a higher % of the time when you bunt, but have much less of a chance of a multiple run inning? Or do the chances of scoring at all remain the same? If it's the latter, then bunting almost NEVER makes sense.
By the way, if I faced the Yanks I would always bunt against Mariano with a runner on first, no out, and down by a run. The reason is that he almost never gives up the extra base hit. So instead of needing two hits to score a run, you would need one from two hitters.
Sac bunting usually increases one's chances of scoring one run, though not by that much.
PaulieIsAwesome
08-02-05, 02:08 PM
Please forgive what will probably turn out to be my ignorance, but ...
I understand that sac bunting in general tends to give up multi-run innings for the sake of one run.
But don't the studies of "sac" bunting tend to gloss over some important differences in the diverse situations where it occurs, and perhaps miss some reasons why it can be more productive than it seems over the short or long run, relative to swinging away?
I don't just mean "late in close games vs. early or in blowouts," a factor that I know has been studied and acknowledged as somewhat significant. I mean:
1. When a smart hitter (let's use Jeter, a very, very smart player) believes the current pitcher is particularly tough on him, i.e. he is less confident of his chances of getting a hit
2. When he's just not feeling confident in general (funky background, glare, muscle ache, gas pain, slump, etc.)
3. Whe he thinks the defense is particularly unprepared for a bunt (thus creating a half-sac, half bunt-for-a-hit environment)
4. When the hitter is fast to first (like Jeter), also creating a better chance at a hit
5. When the pitcher or catcher may have trouble fielding the ball due to his poor fielding ability or injury (SCHILLING GM. 6 AAAAHGAHGAGHAHGGHAAAAA!)
6. When he judges that a bunt now can scare infielders into cheating in during later ABs, thus increasing his chances of hits later
7. When a hitter is just particularly good at placing bunts to create at least some potential for a bunt hit or an infield error (potentially even a two-base error), as Jeter is, no?
8. When both teams' current pitchers (and maybe their available, likely relievers) are so good that the game figures to be close the whole way (e.g., a rested, hot Santana vs. a dominant Unit and Mo), thus making an early sac a better play
9. You get the idea ...
Thoughts?
1. Just because he believes something doesn't make it so. Wakefield was dominant against the Yankees in the ALCS in 2003, and if Boone went up there thinking about that and looking for a bunt hit, who knows?
More importantly, even when Jeter is facing the best pitcher in the league, he probably has about a .300 OBP and .350 SLG. These are bad numbers, very bad numbers, but still, they mean that 3/10 of the time that Derek comes up against that pitcher, he will find his way to first base, which is almost certainly a better outcome then the sac bunt.
2. See #1. Whether or not you are confident, most hitters still don't have .000/.000/.000 lines against pitchers.
3. This is not a bad point. Still, if you're bunting for a hit, just try to bunt for a hit. Sometimes trying to bunt for a hit is good, most of the time it isn't.
4. True.
5. Yes.
6. Probably a marginal factor. It's a couple of steps, and it's usually only the third basemen. It would only help if Jeter later hits a ball hard to third base, which isn't that common an occurence in any 3 plate appearances.
7. I'd like to see how many errors there are on bunt attempts. I'd guess not many.
8. Yes. But even then, in the first inning, given the run environment players play in today, you can score a good number of runs off of Johan, or his bullpen...
In other words, yes. All those things should go into a calculation of the expected value of a bunt. Bill James pointed that out (at least the error part) in his interview of a couple months ago. However, those things aren't that likely. If we assigned them values and probability, we probably wouldn't see sac bunts go up more than maybe a tenth of a run in run value. Almost certainly, still a poor play.
PaulieIsAwesome
08-02-05, 02:13 PM
To give a final answer, the best way I've heard it described is as follows. Sac bunting and similar strategies, stealing bases, productive outs, ..., are best used in close games. When every game begins, no one knows whether the game will be close. Therefore, these strategies are best used when it is very likely the game will end up being close (tie game in the 8th or something.)
For instance, if Womack comes up against Johan Santana in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game, with Jeter on second and no one out, sac bunting is a good strategy. Else, very unlikely.
DkNNy79
08-02-05, 02:18 PM
Jeter is overpaid in a sabermatrics sense.
However, from George's standpoint, Jeter more than makes up for it in his "star" value. Like many have called him in the past, he is kinda like the Yankee's mascot and he draws many young kids into the game. His commercial and merchandising value has no bounds.
justinvarnes
08-02-05, 02:24 PM
To give a final answer, the best way I've heard it described is as follows. Sac bunting and similar strategies, stealing bases, productive outs, ..., are best used in close games. When every game begins, no one knows whether the game will be close. Therefore, these strategies are best used when it is very likely the game will end up being close (tie game in the 8th or something.)
For instance, if Womack comes up against Johan Santana in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game, with Jeter on second and no one out, sac bunting is a good strategy. Else, very unlikely.
I disagree...if Womack is up against Santana AT ALL he should Sacrifice.
Wait, I guess that goes for any pitcher...
;)
PaulieIsAwesome
08-02-05, 02:54 PM
I disagree...if Womack is up against Santana AT ALL he should Sacrifice.
Wait, I guess that goes for any pitcher...
;)
Even then, actually, with Womack's absolute suckiness, it still might be more beneficial to have him swinging... but probably not.
At least he's better than Cristian Guzman.
PaulieIsAwesome
08-02-05, 02:56 PM
Jeter is overpaid in a sabermatrics sense.
However, from George's standpoint, Jeter more than makes up for it in his "star" value. Like many have called him in the past, he is kinda like the Yankee's mascot and he draws many young kids into the game. His commercial and merchandising value has no bounds.
By sabermetrics sense, do you mean a statistical or actual performance sense? Because that seems to be the definition you leave to that term.
And, I don't know that the second part is true. If the Yankees didn't have Jeter, and only had A-Rod, Sheff, RJ, Jason, Moose... all the other stars, do you really think fewer people would show up to the games? Aren't the people who come to Yankee games generally Yankee fans more than fans of simply one player?
And of course his commercial and merchandising value have bounds.
To go slightly off-topic again....the Jorge Posada bunt attempt the other day was ludicrous. The fact he hasn't bunted much in his life, compared with the need for him only to pull the ball.....coupled with the chance that a pulled ball ends up as a hit.....ugh.
Snatch Catch
08-02-05, 03:29 PM
Sac bunting usually increases one's chances of scoring one run, though not by that much.
Run Expectancy:
Man on 1st, 0 out: .953
Man on 2nd, 1 out: .725
Run Expectancy:
Man on 1st, 0 out: .953
Man on 2nd, 1 out: .725
Interesting. Thanks.
I guess, though, you could get even more in depth and study the run expectancy against very good pitchers. For example, you are hypothetically going to be bunting against very good pitchers and not slop. And my sense is that the ability to string together hits and walks against a good pitcher (or get one loud hit) is harder to accomplish than simply blooping a single.
I'd be interested to see/hear about any such study....
justinvarnes
08-02-05, 03:54 PM
Also, as it was suggested, there are MANY factors.
Including, is the pitcher a groundball or flyball pitcher? Is the batter capable of staying out of the DP while attempting a hit? Does the runner have a +80% chance of stealing the base? Is the hitter a contact hitter and if so, shoudl a hit and run ( a Joe favorite) be employed?
To me the #'s Snatch put up would make me as a manager decide that the above factors must outweigh the natural expectancy.
Also, does the run expectancy with runner on 1st no out INCLUDE the times that a runner gets sacrificed?
In other words, are the sacrifices contributing to the .953 ?
To me that's an important figure as well.
Thanks, PaulieIsAwesome, for your polite and enlightening responses. You're probably right about most of them, individually, and probably about the whole thing.
How-EV-uh, ...
7. I'd like to see how many errors there are on bunt attempts. I'd guess not many.
I don't know about this. On pure sac bunts, I'd guess not that many, but on bunts-for-hits down the lines, with pitcher, catcher and infielder converging on no-man's-land, decisions about whether to let it roll foul, funky grass/dirt margins, awkward throwing angles and footwork, etc., I'd bet there are more errors than you think. I, too, would like to see how many there are.
...those things aren't that likely. If we assigned them values and probability, we probably wouldn't see sac bunts go up more than maybe a tenth of a run in run value.
When a saber man says "If" and "Probably," I get curious! As with my last comment, I wonder whether we'd be better off knowing these things for sure, or at least trying to quantify them. Ain't that the raison d'etre of sabermetrics? I mean, my speculations are obviously not that valuable, and while your numerically informed judgments are no doubt better, wouldn't you like to see those factors quantified and factored in?
Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple questions that better math minds than mine could ask the numbers:
1. Re: The Santana Question, what's the winning percentage of teams that DO bunt early in games featuring two SPs with ERAs under 3.00 or 3.5 and great bullpen stats, (and/or two teams with weak offenses) vs. that of teams that DON'T bunt early in those games?
2. What's the scoring rate in an inning when a Jeter-class bunt hitter (one with a statistical record of successful bunt hits) bunts for a hit with a runner on first and no outs? (One could use official scoring to judge sac vs. hit attempt, but since it seems to be rather bad on this point, one could use a UZR-style eyeball call of whether the ball went down the lines, trying for a hit, or right in front of the plate for a sac.) This would capture all the times it ended up working as a sac (with man on second and one out = low scoring average), but also all the times it went for a hit (first and second, no out = good scoring average) and those cases where all hell broke loose (one run in, man on second, no out, flustered/sore pitcher and infielders = great scoring).
Yeah, yeah, I know. I wouldn't ask such complicated questions if I was the one who had to do the math! ;) And I realize I'm wading into the swamp of small sample sizes.
But as with stolen base attempts, this is such an enduring subject of controversy that maybe it needs more study. Are you sure that wouldn't be worthwhile?
Sabermetrics isn't always against sac bunts, it just preaches that they should be used less than conventional small ball uses them. A hitter as bad as Womack who hits in front of very good hitters should sac bunt fairly often. If Billy Beane became the GM of a NL team, I doubt he would keep his pitchers from sac bunting because it 'lowers run expectancy.' It isn't set in stone that A's player won't sac bunt, it only happens in extreme circumstances. While Sheffield, Arod and Matsui are all better hitters than Jeter, he should not sac bunt. It is not worth it.
PaulieIsAwesome
08-03-05, 12:12 AM
Run Expectancy:
Man on 1st, 0 out: .953
Man on 2nd, 1 out: .725
But the probability of scoring 1 run is in fact higher: I can't find the full matrix, for some reason, but I distinctly remember the probability goes up with 1 run.
To Squid: I think you have something there. There are some other factors that have an impact on the value of a sac bunt, that are not often examined. However, as you explain, the kind of research that is needed is very difficult. I am interested in it, so I will look into it on retrosheet a little.
Personally, I can't get over the following:
Expected Value of Sac Bunt with runner on 1st and no one out, for a hitter like Jeter, against a very good pitcher (against whom Derek has a .250/.300/.350 line) = Prob(good bunt)*Run Expectancy on runner on 2nd and 1 out + prob(popped up bunt)*Run Expectancy of no one on and 2 outs + prob(error)* Run Expectancy of runners on 1st and 2nd 0 outs.
Expected Value of swinging away in the same situation = Prob(Derek makes a non-DP out) *RE(runner on 1, 1 out) + Prob(Derek makes a DP)*RE(0 runners on, 2 out) + Prob(Derek makes a Productive Out)*RE(runner on 2nd, 1 out) + Prob(Derek gets on base)*RE(2 runners on, 0 out)
The Run Value of 2 runners on with 0 out times the 30% chance that Derek gets on at least first base seems to me to be much larger than anything the first function can come up with.
Also, not to sound condescending, but you are asking very good questions. This is how every baseball fan should think, rationally, carefully examining the game, and always trying to poke holes in evidence that is not based on facts, and only based on speculation.
PaulieIsAwesome
08-03-05, 12:14 AM
And oh yeah, I'm trying to work on a project that's got me a little miffed. If anyone wants to help out, I'd love to talk it over. It's about the conjecture I had when I looked at the A's success this year. I propose that the largest market inefficiency in baseball last offseason was for "pitchers with a positive history" and that some teams, which ignored that market, were able to get more positive value.
PaulieIA, please feel free to condescend! I'm purely a stat wannabe, and I appreciate your taking my questions seriously.
Personally, I can't get over the following:
Expected Value of Sac Bunt with runner on 1st and no one out, for a hitter like Jeter, against a very good pitcher (against whom Derek has a .250/.300/.350 line) = Prob(good bunt)*Run Expectancy on runner on 2nd and 1 out + prob(popped up bunt)*Run Expectancy of no one on and 2 outs + prob(error)* Run Expectancy of runners on 1st and 2nd 0 outs.
Expected Value of swinging away in the same situation = Prob(Derek makes a non-DP out) *RE(runner on 1, 1 out) + Prob(Derek makes a DP)*RE(0 runners on, 2 out) + Prob(Derek makes a Productive Out)*RE(runner on 2nd, 1 out) + Prob(Derek gets on base)*RE(2 runners on, 0 out)
The Run Value of 2 runners on with 0 out times the 30% chance that Derek gets on at least first base seems to me to be much larger than anything the first function can come up with.
If I understand this formula (a risky presumption), it captures quite accurately some of the factors I asked about, including Jeter's lower expected hit-away numbers against a very good pitcher, and the possibility of errors on a sac bunt.
It satisfies a large part of my qualms about more simplistic bunt analysis, by recognizing that not all sac bunt attempts end as expected, with man on second, 1 out. It helpfully measures from the time of the decision, instead of after its execution.
And it seems to suggest that swing-away is still better than sac for most situations. My sense is that this is true, though I don't know the numbers enough to be sure. (Although your formula reminds me how valuable the bunt's avoidance of double plays might turn out to be.)
And in practice, many of Jeter's bunts lately seem to be pure sac bunts, which I think makes them a bad idea much of the time.
BUT ... the first half of your comparison assumes a pure sac bunt, as opposed to bunt-for-hit, which perhaps has more possibility of approaching swing-away success rates just through expert placement and Jeter's speed, along with perhaps greater possibility of infielder surprise, confusion, slips, errors, etc.
Jeter does seem to do this sometimes, and that's more what I suspect may be a good, or at least saber-underrated, tactic in traditional sac bunt situations.
I'll shut up now, but I'll be sure to check back here and see if you come up with anything on this. Thanks for your attention.
PaulieIsAwesome
08-03-05, 08:27 AM
PaulieIA, please feel free to condescend! I'm purely a stat wannabe, and I appreciate your taking my questions seriously.
If I understand this formula (a risky presumption), it captures quite accurately some of the factors I asked about, including Jeter's lower expected hit-away numbers against a very good pitcher, and the possibility of errors on a sac bunt.
It satisfies a large part of my qualms about more simplistic bunt analysis, by recognizing that not all sac bunt attempts end as expected, with man on second, 1 out. It helpfully measures from the time of the decision, instead of after its execution.
And it seems to suggest that swing-away is still better than sac for most situations. My sense is that this is true, though I don't know the numbers enough to be sure. (Although your formula reminds me how valuable the bunt's avoidance of double plays might turn out to be.)
And in practice, many of Jeter's bunts lately seem to be pure sac bunts, which I think makes them a bad idea much of the time.
BUT ... the first half of your comparison assumes a pure sac bunt, as opposed to bunt-for-hit, which perhaps has more possibility of approaching swing-away success rates just through expert placement and Jeter's speed, along with perhaps greater possibility of infielder surprise, confusion, slips, errors, etc.
Jeter does seem to do this sometimes, and that's more what I suspect may be a good, or at least saber-underrated, tactic in traditional sac bunt situations.
I'll shut up now, but I'll be sure to check back here and see if you come up with anything on this. Thanks for your attention.
For just one quick response, thanks to his speed, Jeter doesn't hit into that many DP's/Balls in Play.
Last year, in fact, when he hit his career high in Sac Bunts (16), he had his career high in Double Plays. Of course, some of that came during his slump, but even the rest of the year he hit into a lot of GIDP.
Hmmm, good point. Speedsters who bunt-hit well already stay out of DPs well.
Snatch Catch
08-03-05, 02:19 PM
But the probability of scoring 1 run is in fact higher: I can't find the full matrix, for some reason, but I distinctly remember the probability goes up with 1 run.
I think I've seen the matrix that you're talking about. Palmer has done research that has shown the sac bunt needs to be successful 80% of the time in order to reach a breakeven point.
The flip side to the sacifice argument is that we're assuming it is successful.
Lets say it is an UNSUCCESSFUL sacrifice, that leaves you with a runner on first and 1 out (.544), effectively costing the team nearly four tenths of a run.
I don't have a link for this, as I'm copying it from the book, but:
It isn't quite that simple, of course, since the alternative to sacrificing isn't to do nothing, but to swing the bat. We have to take our results and offset the against the average impact of swinging away. Looking at 2003 performances, we could make the broad statement that every five Major League plate appearances yielded roughly 3.75 outs, 1.1 hits (worth 1.3 bases), and .15 bases via other means (walks, hit batters, etc.), the sum total amounting to a loss of about a fifth of a run. That data still suggests that bunting is always a bad play. But that conclusion, too, is based on averages, when in fact managers often base their bunting decisions on something that is very unaverage, namely the below average ability of the guy coming to the plate to hit the ball.
So what's the book on the bunt? It is this:
1) If you feel the urge to signal for a sacrifice, lie down and give the feeling a chance to pass. Statistically, the bunt is usually a bad bet, because the trade of a base for an out decreases, not increases, the likelihood of scoring.
2) The exceptions: If you've got the pitcher up with none out, or if its the final innings of a close game, you're playing for one run, and your weak hitting shortstop is at the plate.
3) Finally, if you absolutely must bunt, make it work.
justinvarnes
08-04-05, 08:33 AM
The sacrifice bunt in relation to Jeter is a bit skewed however, since a) he is no longer in the 2 hole, and has bunted significantly less this year. and b) unlike a pitcher, or flaherty, etc. Jeter can bunt for a base hit. He is a VERY good bunter, who usually bunts for a base hit when sacrificing - unless he's in a slump. It seems as though when he is in a slump, he tends ot be more "fundamental".
This of course only pertains to guys like Lofton, Jeter, Pierre, etc. Guys who are speedy and really know how to bunt.
Snatch Catch
08-04-05, 01:25 PM
He is a VERY good bunter, who usually bunts for a base hit when sacrificing - unless he's in a slump.
This just isn't true.
You either bunt for a basehit, or bunt with the intent to sacrifice. There is no grey area, really.
You can lay down a sac bunt and then still try to beat it out, but the type of bunt that was played (wanting the pitcher or catcher to field the ball) is a scrifice.
justinvarnes
08-04-05, 04:28 PM
I understand your distinction, my point is just that Jeter will bunt for a base hit (intentionally) in certain sacrifice situations.
In other words, the sacrifice is on (i'm assuming, by the way, could be wrong) and Jeter tries to bunt for a base hit and succeeds.
Which I think is relevant to the Jeter and SABR conversation.
He doesn't get that many basehits in sac situations, because the defense is expecting it. I'd imagine the sac bunt is messed up more often than he gets a hit in that situation.
He doesn't get that many basehits in sac situations, because the defense is expecting it. I'd imagine the sac bunt is messed up more often than he gets a hit in that situation.
Would it help if he bunted down the first base line in these situations? Usually the third baseman cheats in, but the first baseman less often.
Snatch Catch
08-08-05, 11:19 AM
I understand your distinction, my point is just that Jeter will bunt for a base hit (intentionally) in certain sacrifice situations.
In other words, the sacrifice is on (i'm assuming, by the way, could be wrong) and Jeter tries to bunt for a base hit and succeeds.
If it is a scarifice situation, Jeter would never bunt for a basehit. That would increase greatly the likelyhood that the runner going to 2nd gets thrown out.
There is a reason that there is a physical defference between a sacrifice bunt and bunting for a basehit; it isn't just a situational/terminology thing.
justinvarnes
08-08-05, 12:34 PM
If it is a scarifice situation, Jeter would never bunt for a basehit. That would increase greatly the likelyhood that the runner going to 2nd gets thrown out.
There is a reason that there is a physical defference between a sacrifice bunt and bunting for a basehit; it isn't just a situational/terminology thing.
Except that I've seen him do this. As a #2 hitter, though.
Snatch Catch
08-08-05, 02:43 PM
Except that I've seen him do this. As a #2 hitter, though.
My bad, I think I was unclear in my post.
He may bunt for a base hit in a situation with a runner on first and no one out, but then he isn't sacrificing.
If the defense is aligned as though they are playing for a scrifice, DJ is not going to be bunting for a basehit, because it will likely result in the runner giong to 2nd being forced out.
justinvarnes
08-08-05, 03:30 PM
Gotcha. Agreed.
justinvarnes
08-19-05, 08:02 PM
My bad, I think I was unclear in my post.
He may bunt for a base hit in a situation with a runner on first and no one out, but then he isn't sacrificing.
If the defense is aligned as though they are playing for a scrifice, DJ is not going to be bunting for a basehit, because it will likely result in the runner giong to 2nd being forced out.
Tonight (8/19 vs. CHW) in the 3rd inning is an example of this discussion. Jeter bunts with the intent of a base hit, knowing that if he gets thrown out, it will be a sacrifice.
Which works as Cano doesn't score onSheff's hit w/o the sac bunt.
Yep, yep.
And since Jeter doesn't always bunt there (unlike, say, a National League pitcher), the defense won't necessarily be pre-charging for the bunt, and they may not be playing in that much, so I would think that even a sharp down-the-lines bunt can still go for a hit, or at least advance the lead runner the way a sac would.
Of course, if the defense IS playing way in, pre-charging, doing the wheel play, etc., then bunting down the lines for a hit is terribly wrong (and even sac bunting may backfire), but aren't opponents wary of doing that against a good swing-away hitter like Jeter?
In other words, I don't agree that there are only two kinds of bunt situations, sac and hit. For a guy who's both a very good swing-away hitter and a very good bunter (like Jeter), and who's willing to vary his tactics unpredictably, I think it's sometimes possible to have your cake and eat it, too.
Munson's 'Stash
08-31-05, 10:52 PM
Re: Bunting.
BP did a nice article recently showing that the value of a bunt is for a team ahead by one run to try to increase their lead by sacrificing an out to get ahead by 2 runs. Their point is that for the team behind it is more than twice as hard to come back from a deficit of 2 runs than it is a deficit of 1 run.
Re: Jeter's baserunning.
BP's 2005 publication included a through study of baserunning, and he did quite well, but they also concluded that good base running isn't going to amount to a lot of extra wins over the course of the season.
My conclusion.
Jeter is a very good hitting SS. In fact he, along with Nomar and A-Rod pretty much defined the era of SS as a valuable offensive position (Yes, Larkin really did it first, but nobody payed attention). So traditionalist noted that his defense was sub par. And this is true, but because defensive stats are so primitive no one can prove it. The real problem is that because he plays in NYC, he suffers from an insane level of hype (NY media), and there is a corresponding backlash by people who get annoyed by people saying things that make a great story, but are not statistically true. So they go and prove that clutch hitting is a myth (it's now right up there with the lefy masher, labled as "the numerical proof that could be provided is smaller than the margin for error.")
And his playoff performance doesn't help. It's a small sample size issue. Beane thinks that the playoffs are luck because of the sample size issue, but look at Jeter's total playoff numbers for his career. I imagine that given enough data they'd look mostly like his numbers in the regular season (which, again, are pretty good for a SS).
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0