Jerry Manuel and Bunts

by ams258 on Jun 17, 2008 5:19 PM EDT

In an effort to figure out whether or not Jerry Manuel is the buntingest bunt who ever bunted, I looked up the number of sacrifice hits for the Chicago White Sox from 1998-2003, which were the years that Manuel managed the team. In those years, the White Sox had the following number of sacrifice hits:

1998 - 38

1999 - 40

2000 - 55

2001 - 63

2002 - 48

2003 - 43

Average - 47.8

Baseball-reference doesn't list where these totals rank in the majors or the American League, so let's compare them to the number of sacrifice hits the Mets had each year under Willie Randolph.

2005 - 69

2006 - 77

2007 - 77

Average - 74.3

So Manuel should order his players to bunt less than Randolph did. Great. Wait, what's that? This isn't a fair comparison because Randolph often (correctly) had his starting pitchers bunt? Okay, well then let's take a look at how many sacrifice hits Joe Torre's Yankees had from 1996-2007. After all, Torre and Randolph have similar managing styles.

1996 - 41

1997 - 34

1998 - 32

1999 - 22

2000 - 16

2001 - 30

2002 - 23

2003 - 25

2004 - 37

2005 - 28

2006 - 34

2007 - 41

Average - 30.25

Uh oh. Manuel's teams bunted significantly more than Proven Winner Joe Torre's did. But maybe Manuel isn't so bad. Let's do one more comparison, this time with everyone's favorite bunter and Manuel's replacement with the White Sox, Ozzie Guillen.

2004 - 58

2005 - 53

2006 - 44

2007 - 41

Average - 49

Crap. Manuel's teams bunted only slightly less than Ozzie Guillen's do. And we all know that no one loves bunts more than Ozzie Guillen. This quick and dirty study is by no means definitive, but it suggests that we can expect lots of small ball from the Mets under Jerry Manuel. At this point, I can't say I'm happy with the Mets decision to make him their manager.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Small ball

They aren’t hitting many homers (at least it doesn’t seem that way) gotta score somehow.

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Jun 17, 2008 5:42 PM EDT reply actions

yeah

And what better way to score than giving away outs to the opposition?

Once more, with feeling: sacrifice bunts almost always DECREASE the chances of scoring in a given situation.

by anonymous on Jun 17, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Well Manuel seems to know how to read

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/sports/baseball/18manuel.html?ref=sports

Maybe he read Moneyball after the White Sox fired him.

by ams258 on Jun 17, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Manuel

Wasn’t Manuel the guy who talked Willie into NOT bunting and instead PH’ing the injured Cliff Floyd in game 7 of the 2006 NLCS? Or is my memory failing me?

by Mikeybags84 on Jun 18, 2008 8:45 AM EDT reply actions

That's the rumor

no idea if it’s really true though.

by ams258 on Jun 18, 2008 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions

Good call by Jerry

The fact that a decision doesn’t turn out well doesn’t make it a bad decision

by JoshNY on Jun 18, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Not sure about that

I’ve read some stuff suggesting that it can be beneficial for a team to bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd with no one out. This was the position the Mets were in when Floyd came up to bat.

by ams258 on Jun 18, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions

I'd be interested to read that

by JoshNY on Jun 18, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

yes

That’s the one and only situation in which executing a sac bunt increases the run expectancy for the inning (lineup considerations excluded).

by anonymous on Jun 18, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't believe that's true

Per the run expectancy tables on Baseball Prospectus, in 2006 a team with runners on first and second and nobody out scored, on average, 1.57781 runs. With runners on second and third and one out, teams scored, on average, 1.45439 runs.

Maybe the stat you’re getting at (which would’ve been relevant in the bottom of the 9th inning down 2 runs) is the percentage chance of scoring two or more runs? This article would seem to suggest suggest (scroll all the way down) that the probability of scoring (without qualification as to how many runs) is higher with runners on second and third and one out (71%) than with runners on first and second and nobody out (66%), but bear in mind A) that it uses stats from 1959-60, when the game was played somewhat differently, and B) it doesn’t exactly address the relevant point, which is the probability of scoring TWO OR MORE runs for those situations, since that’s what the Mets needed to do.

So, I’m open to being persuaded that a bunt in that situation would’ve increased the Mets’ chances of scoring two or more runs that inning, and thereby at least prolonging the game. Can anyone provide anything to address that point?

by JoshNY on Jun 18, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions

okay, that's weird

Apparently these stats fluctuate enough from year to year that things come out looking a little differently. I think my recollection was based on older stats.

by anonymous on Jun 18, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions

They do

The fluctuation from year to year isn’t huge, but the difference between now and 1968 or earlier is striking.

by JoshNY on Jun 19, 2008 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions

I wasn't trying to say it was a good or bad decision

It was what I wanted at the time, actually. I really thought Cliff was going to win it for us. In fact I told my friends before the game that he was going to come up huge off the bench for us, and when the chance came up I thought I was going to be right. Too bad.

I was just bringing it up because it’s interesting that such a “bunty” coach would convince the manager NOT to bunt in that kind of situation.

by Mikeybags84 on Jun 19, 2008 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions