McSquirl to miss ATL series

[roger_that]

As Lloyd Bridges' character might have said in AIRPLANE, "Guess I picked the wrong week to have a baby," but McNeil is indeed going to be AWOL in the paternity ward while the team is fighting for first place with Hot 'Lanta.



My question about him, though, concerns one at-bat which I saw hastily at the end of the Miami series: my memory (which could be mistaken) is that in his final at-bat in that series, he tried to bunt his way on base with two strikes, bunted foul, and slammed his bat into the ground as he walked back to the dugout in disgust. First question is: do I have that right?



If I do, my second question is: Why did he try to bunt with two strikes at all? It's not a bad idea, bunting down the 3B line when the shift is on, but why not try it with 0 strikes or with 1? As I recall (could be mistaken) they put the same shift on him the whole AB--three fielders on on side of the diamond, and the fourth one basically playing SS. A quick runner/decent bunter like McNeil should be able to beat out most fair bunts that get past the pitcher, no?



And the 2-strikes question aside, why bunt at all? With no one manning 3B, wouldn't it be smarter (and easier) just to try to hit a ball on the ground in the general direction of 3B? You could do that even with 2 strikes on you, because by hitting away, you avoid getting struck out if it goes foul.



I didn't understand what McNeil was thinking there at all. Maybe I misunderstood something about that bunt attempt completely?

[Edgy MD]

It is better with 0 strikes or 1, but with two strikes, rather than leave one lone infielder on the weak side, the shift often utterly abandons it.

[Frayed Knot]

It wasn't his last AB of the game but an earlier one when Alcantara was still in.

It wasn't a bad idea, Ronnie was all in favor of it, just not great execution. Wonder if that's one of those things hitters practice for two minutes before getting bored and figuring that they're as good at bunting as they're going to get.





And they've got to keep these players from having sex in the off-season. Probably the fuckin' CBA that keeps ownership from outlawing it.

[86dreamer]

a good explanation I heard (I think it was from Howie) is that the MLB batting average across all hitters is .180 with two strikes. so if a shifting team abandons 3B with 2 strikes you significantly improve your odds of a hit even if you fail 3 out of 4 times to get the bunt down.

[roger_that]

.180? Really? I'd like to see some documentation there. Seems low to me. When I think of a good 2-strike hitter, I usually think well north of the Mendoza line.



In any event, I really don't see why you'd bunt with two strikes when they're giving you the whole left side of the infield. If you can't hit a groundball towards 3B, how much better is a bunt going to be?

[Ceetar]

This season, Boston leads the league in BA after 0-2 with .192. The Mets are .178. (and that's 4th)





McNeil is at .186. Minimum 20 PA, J.P Crawford is at .407, then Andrew Vaughn at .308, Steven Kwan at .306, Wilmer Flores, Luis Arraez and Jarren Duran at .300. These are like, 20-60PA samples, with pretty high BABIP for the most part. unsustainable. I'm sure if you broke it down you'd find a lot of lucky flares or squibs that found holes for these guys..



It's why the Dodgers were right to let ..was it Betts? take first on the 0-2 appeal a few weeks ago.

[MFS62]

Back to McNeil being out of this series.

If there is one position I feel confident in the backup, it is Guillorme at second.

We got this covered.

LFGM!



Later

[roger_that]

This season, Boston leads the league in BA after 0-2 with .192. The Mets are .178. (and that's 4th) McNeil is at .186. Minimum 20 PA, J.P Crawford is at .407, then Andrew Vaughn at .308, Steven Kwan at .306, Wilmer Flores, Luis Arraez and Jarren Duran at .300. These are like, 20-60PA samples, with pretty high BABIP for the most part. unsustainable. I'm sure if you broke it down you'd find a lot of lucky flares or squibs that found holes for these guys.. It's why the Dodgers were right to let ..was it Betts? take first on the 0-2 appeal a few weeks ago.

Oh, you know what? I misread ".180 when 0-2" for "180 with 2 strikes." My bad. .180 when 0-2 seems about right.

[Frayed Knot]

Of course the numbers will vary between specifically an 0-2 count vs the more general 'with two strikes', but the point still holds either way. Then tack on the JMcN was face maybe the best pitcher in the league this year, one of the points Ronnie was making.





oe: cross-posted with above

[Edgy MD]

My only problem with bunting against the shift is that it isn't done all day in all counts.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: My only problem with bunting against the shift is that it isn't done all day in all counts.

this is one of those things that the data is pretty convincingly in support of not bunting.

[Edgy MD]

I'm happy to look at the data.

[kcmets]

I'm not being argumentative but how much 'data' about not bunting to

vacated bases can there be when it's only occasionally done?



I know it drive some nuts, but HIT IT WHERE THEY AIN'T!!!



(edited for clarity)

[Ceetar]

I'm not being argumentative but how much 'data' about not bunting to vacated bases can there be when it's only occasionally done? I know it drive some nuts, but HIT IT WHERE THEY AIN'T!!! (edited for clarity)

counter-point: STAND WHERE THEY HIT IT!!



there's plenty of data on bunting, on how successful it is. There's plenty of data on the relative value of a double, triple or homer over a single too. Bottom line is you better be a damn good bunter, and then it'd only be a matter of days before the defense adjusted to stand where you hit it, and your success rate plummets and now you're a .220 singles hitter.

[roger_that]

Yeah, but that means that you've effectively moved the defense out of what they think is their best positioning against you. What I'm talking about here is bunting against the shift, not bunting against a more traditional defense.

[Frayed Knot]

Just as the "Walk him every time" crowd is/was wrong when they promote that strategy against the rival menace or even against Bonds in his prime (I remember various number crunching articles on that topic at the time) if the defense is giving you something approaching a 1.000 OBA by leaving half the field deserted then the lack of outs being committed would more than make up for the lack of XBHs

[Edgy MD]

Again, I'm happy to review any data presented to me.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: Just as the "Walk him every time" crowd is/was wrong when they promote that strategy against the rival menace or even against Bonds in his prime (I remember various number crunching articles on that topic at the time) if the defense is giving you something approaching a 1.000 OBA by leaving half the field deserted then the lack of outs being committed would more than make up for the lack of XBHs

Yeah. I agree. I also think this is being over-analyzed. Why did McNeil bunt? Easy. Because he thought he could pull it off successfully. Wanna get into the minutia of why McNeil thought he could bunt for a hit? You'd have to get into his head. Only he knows and there could be an infinite number of reasons why. Why did Django Reinhardt play that particular lick when he did? How many jellybeans are in Meryl Streep's jellybean jar?

[TransMonk]

I 100% DO NOT want to be in Jeff's head.



I'm pretty sure he would yell at me.

[ashie62]

I CAN'T TAKE IT!



Hurry back Jeff.

[Ceetar]

Yeah, but that means that you've effectively moved the defense out of what they think is their best positioning against you. What I'm talking about here is bunting against the shift, not bunting against a more traditional defense.

sure..because then they've gotten what they want, reducing your .ISO and what not.



Like everything else in baseball, it's a bit of a cat and mouse thing..if you can improve your bunting skill enough that you're competent with you, there are certainly high-value times you can do it, where the risk-reward calculus makes it worthwhile. But altering your game on a more macro scale to become more of a singles hitter isn't going to work out long term. There are players of course, where it's more valuable, Jeff McNeil is basically a singles hitter already, so you don't really need to be much better at bunting than hitting to make it worthwhile.



But of course, McNeil isn't frequently _over_ shifted. It's not particularly difficult to pick the 4 best spots on the infield to stand against him here. [attachment=0]mcneil.jpg[/attachment]

[kcmets]

Hit it where they ain't > fancy spray graphs.

[Ceetar]

=kcmets post_id=99279 time=1657566454 user_id=53]
Hit it where they ain't > fancy spray graphs.

[roger_that]

The one variable I've introduced here that isn't being discussed is the "hitting a grounder towards an unoccupied 3B vs. bunting towards an unoccupied 3B" question. Am I wrong to think that the former is easier than the latter for most hitters?



Even forgetting about the advantage that swinging away gives you on two strikes (fouls count as fouls, not strikes three), it seems to me more natural and more feasible to do. Plus if you actually get the ball hit semi-hard to 3B, you might get a double out of it.



So why bunt with two strikes instead of trying to hit a grounder towards 3B?

[kcmets]

So why bunt with two strikes instead of trying to hit a grounder towards 3B?

I'm not sure, but I think the answer is "why not."

[batmagadanleadoff]

So why bunt with two strikes instead of trying to hit a grounder towards 3B? I'm not sure, but I think the answer is "why not."

Because probably, McNeil thought he had a better chance of reaching base by bunting than by swinging.

[kcmets]

Right, I'm not ignoring previous comments. I agree with you.

[batmagadanleadoff]

So why bunt with two strikes instead of trying to hit a grounder towards 3B? I'm not sure, but I think the answer is "why not." Because probably, McNeil thought he had a better chance of reaching base by bunting than by swinging.

Why? Who the hell knows why? You'd have to know how McNeil was weighing the defensive alignment, the particular pitcher, how he was swinging or bunting lately. Maybe the bunt wasn't premeditated, but an improvisation based on the incoming pitch. And many other factors to consider.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=kcmets post_id=99284 time=1657568514 user_id=53]
Right, I'm not ignoring previous comments. I agree with you.

[Ceetar]

The one variable I've introduced here that isn't being discussed is the "hitting a grounder towards an unoccupied 3B vs. bunting towards an unoccupied 3B" question. Am I wrong to think that the former is easier than the latter for most hitters? Even forgetting about the advantage that swinging away gives you on two strikes (fouls count as fouls, not strikes three), it seems to me more natural and more feasible to do. Plus if you actually get the ball hit semi-hard to 3B, you might get a double out of it. So why bunt with two strikes instead of trying to hit a grounder towards 3B?

It's a 90mph slider tailing away from you, or a 98 mph fastball letter-high, now you don't just want to hit it, you want to hit it a tiny fraction of a second late so it goes towards third?