I just watched yet another left handed hitter ground out into an over shifted infield. This time it was McCann w/ the Yankees. Every night its someone different.
What will it take for McCann or Ortiz or any of them to put the ego aside for a few at bats and lay down a bunt single down 3B?
I have to believe that if you did that about 3 times the shift would probably disappear for the rest of the season. And the number of base hits through the right side would jump.
What am I missing?
Rich
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I just watched yet another left handed hitter ground out into an over shifted infield. This time it was McCann w/ the Yankees. Every night its someone different.
What will it take for McCann or Ortiz or any of them to put the ego aside for a few at bats and lay down a bunt single down 3B?
I have to believe that if you did that about 3 times the shift would probably disappear for the rest of the season. And the number of base hits through the right side would jump.
What am I missing?
Rich
It depends on the situation. It depends on how they're being pitched. McCann went the other way three times in a three game series against the Red Sox. I've seen Ortiz go the other way. I've seen Ortiz drop bunts down third for hits.
Just as baseball took a while to warm up to the concept of shifting, it may take time to warm up to the idea you've presented. Baseball is PAINFULLY traditionalist, and anything outside the "norm" is met with undue criticism. Nonetheless, most data agrees with you that players should at least attempt to bunt more against the shift.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...d-beating-the-shift/
Ortiz has 13 bunt attempts in 8408 PAs and going back to 2012 is hitting 309/400/576 in spite of the shift. It's entirely possible, even likely in my opinion, that between not being adept at bunting and being quite good at crushing the ball swinging away, it's just not worth the trade off for him to bunt.
McCann's numbers aren't all the different, especially when you account for the fact that a lot of his bunts are from a decade ago. Even Carlos Pena, who's somewhat notorious for bunting against the shift, has less than 1 bunt attempt per 100 PA in his career. If you spend your whole career pulling/mashing the ball, successfully bunting a 90mph fastball might not be the easiest thing to pull off, and the cost of even 1 fouled bunt attempt is substantial (relative to just swinging away from the get go).
Do guys like Ortiz or McCann get paid to bunt.
Do guys like Ortiz or McCann get paid to bunt.
They get paid to not make outs. Theoretically, a potential bunt could help do this - whether it be by virtue of successful execution or simply by having the opponent aware of this possibility and, thus, shift to a less extreme extent.
I think if you do it once, then "show it" from time to time you will keep the defense honest.
I'm not advocating these big bashers bunt for a living. I'm advocating that they look for a way to tip the scales in their favor just a bit. Giving up 1 ab over 50 or 100 ab's would be a good investment vs hitting ground outs to 2B that is playing shallow RF or a 3B playing in shallow CF.
Just my 2 cents. I do remember when the traditionalist bashed the shift. Now its the "norm". Funny how that happens.
Rich
There will be a point in time in the (probably distant) future when pitchers never throw more than one time through the order, platoon advantages will be exploited at an all-time high, and the normal number of pitchers on a roster is 11. When that happens, I'll pass around my Master's Thesis (written last year) and say "see? Told ya so." 
I think if you do it once, then "show it" from time to time you will keep the defense honest.
I'm not advocating these big bashers bunt for a living. I'm advocating that they look for a way to tip the scales in their favor just a bit. Giving up 1 ab over 50 or 100 ab's would be a good investment vs hitting ground outs to 2B that is playing shallow RF or a 3B playing in shallow CF.
Just my 2 cents. I do remember when the traditionalist bashed the shift. Now its the "norm". Funny how that happens.
Rich
Except that, as the fangraphs link above shows, teams just adjust slightly to the bunt possibility while still shifting. It's a game theory problem, and the Red Sox and Yankees aren't run by idiots, so I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that they've decided it's not really worth it to have McCann and Ortiz bunt more often. FWIW, the fact that Pena's bat has declined in recent years probably has a fair amount to do with him actually bunting more vs the shift. The relative payoff has been higher for him than it has been (or currently is) for Ortiz.
I think if you do it once, then "show it" from time to time you will keep the defense honest.
I'm not advocating these big bashers bunt for a living. I'm advocating that they look for a way to tip the scales in their favor just a bit. Giving up 1 ab over 50 or 100 ab's would be a good investment vs hitting ground outs to 2B that is playing shallow RF or a 3B playing in shallow CF.
Just my 2 cents. I do remember when the traditionalist bashed the shift. Now its the "norm". Funny how that happens.
Rich
Except that, as the fangraphs link above shows, teams just adjust slightly to the bunt possibility while still shifting. It's a game theory problem, and the Red Sox and Yankees aren't run by idiots, so I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that they've decided it's not really worth it to have McCann and Ortiz bunt more often. FWIW, the fact that Pena's bat has declined in recent years probably has a fair amount to do with him actually bunting more vs the shift. The relative payoff has been higher for him than it has been (or currently is) for Ortiz.
Or, the front offices would prefer they bunt (or just try to hit it to the open area) and the players themselves just don't see the value or don't want to or whatever. Ultimately, it's up to the player and if the player won't do it for whatever reason, it's probably not worth the fight for the front office and/or coaches.
I think if you do it once, then "show it" from time to time you will keep the defense honest.
I'm not advocating these big bashers bunt for a living. I'm advocating that they look for a way to tip the scales in their favor just a bit. Giving up 1 ab over 50 or 100 ab's would be a good investment vs hitting ground outs to 2B that is playing shallow RF or a 3B playing in shallow CF.
Just my 2 cents. I do remember when the traditionalist bashed the shift. Now its the "norm". Funny how that happens.
Rich
Except that, as the fangraphs link above shows, teams just adjust slightly to the bunt possibility while still shifting. It's a game theory problem, and the Red Sox and Yankees aren't run by idiots, so I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that they've decided it's not really worth it to have McCann and Ortiz bunt more often. FWIW, the fact that Pena's bat has declined in recent years probably has a fair amount to do with him actually bunting more vs the shift. The relative payoff has been higher for him than it has been (or currently is) for Ortiz.
Or, the front offices would prefer they bunt (or just try to hit it to the open area) and the players themselves just don't see the value or don't want to or whatever. Ultimately, it's up to the player and if the player won't do it for whatever reason, it's probably not worth the fight for the front office and/or coaches.
Convincing the players it's worth doing would be fairly easy, if it was actually worth doing. Convincing Ortiz, who's career OPS with the bases empty is .909 (vs .949 with runners on, primarily due to more BB/1B), that the odd bunt single is going to make a real difference is going to take some real numbers though. Especially weighed against the fact that his career OPS drops to .773 after he starts a PA 0-1.
The point that is being missed is if they cared about the bunt they wouldn't do it. If Ortiz bunted 100 times successfully they other team would thank him 100 times because they kept off 2nd or in the park. We can put this on players all we want and call them hard headed but if it was a serious problem the Managers would address it.
IEBSBL -
Really good response!
The point that is being missed is if they cared about the bunt they wouldn't do it. If Ortiz bunted 100 times successfully they other team would thank him 100 times because they kept off 2nd or in the park. We can put this on players all we want and call them hard headed but if it was a serious problem the Managers would address it.
PIS I follow you on twitter and I know you saw the game a few weeks ago involving Prince Fielder where he grounded into the shift three straight times. All were likely basehits through the hole without the shift.
To IEBSBL's point I saw Washington interviewed. His point was that sure they could bunt Fielder but he is hitting 4 hole for a reason. That reason is to drive in runs. Solo home runs, XBH and he is paid to drive the ball and sometimes that is going to drive the ball into the shift.
FWIW he did double off the wall in left yesterday and his average is up about .060 over the last four weeks or so. Partially because he is hitting the ball the other way some.
It is becoming more and more common for teams to use some type of shift on everyone. I noticed the Astros played the SS right behind second base against Choo this series. He hit the first ball right up the middle for an out but the next two ABs were singles that would have been right at short.
The shift giveth and taketh away.
The point that is being missed is if they cared about the bunt they wouldn't do it. If Ortiz bunted 100 times successfully they other team would thank him 100 times because they kept off 2nd or in the park. We can put this on players all we want and call them hard headed but if it was a serious problem the Managers would address it.
OK - but if Ortiz leads off the 9th and they are down by 2 runs, then should he bunt? That seems to be the situation where "just get on base" is the best result.
The point that is being missed is if they cared about the bunt they wouldn't do it. If Ortiz bunted 100 times successfully they other team would thank him 100 times because they kept off 2nd or in the park. We can put this on players all we want and call them hard headed but if it was a serious problem the Managers would address it.
OK - but if Ortiz leads off the 9th and they are down by 2 runs, then should he bunt? That seems to be the situation where "just get on base" is the best result.
Even accounting for IBB, Ortiz' career OBP is north of .360 in spite of the shift. Given the cost of a missed bunt or two to his chances of getting on base, he'd have to be a very good bunter to make trying to bunt even in that situation a particularly good idea.
In fact, given Ortiz' career batting numbers, it's not particularly clear to me that the shift is really having that big n impact on him. He's hitting as well now as he did in his prime, despite being 10 years older. Maybe you could attribute some of his 2008-2010 decline to the defense, but even if that were to turn out to be the case, he's pretty clearly made adjustments of his own to negate it.
McCann is probably following this thread. He fouled off a first pitch bunt attempt yesterday. Got to 1-2 and grounded out that AB. The shift did not change after his bunt attempt.
McCann is probably follow this thread. He fouled off a first pitch bunt attempt yesterday. Got to 1-2 and grounded out that AB. The shift did not change after his bunt attempt.
Maybe these guys are starting to think more about this. Anthony Rizzo of the Cubs had two bunt singles last night against the shift, scoring once on an HR by Starlin Castro.
Texas - I wouldn't expect a shift to change if a hitter goes down in the count. At that point you almost know he's swinging away.
My thought is that is if you show it or actually do it successfully like the last example then it may make a defense consider playing straight up to start the AB. Thus tipping the scale back in the direction of the hitter.
This has been a pretty interesting thread.
One thing I was thinking about, baseball people love stats and numbers. I don't think we can properly measure this because of the small sample size. Does showing a bunt or actually bunting today move a defense tomorrow which leads to a hit that would've otherwise been an out? Tough to measure.
What do they say is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I know that if I'm smoking balls that should be base hits that are outs because of the shift I'm looking for alternatives.
Rich
Best way to get them out of the shift is to do what Rizzo did yesterday. Two bunt singles and sayonara shift. BTW shifting with men on has to be just this side of a crapshoot.
