When Joe Buck and Tim McCarver agree that it was a bad play, it was indeed a bad play. (We’re still waiting on Chip Caray’s brilliantly guided analysis.) I’m referring to the apparent decision by Jeter to try to bunt in the seventh inning of last night’s game. Two runners were on base—Melky Cabrera, who had knocked Pedro Martinez out of the game, and the King of Speed, Jorge Posada, who had greeted the new pitcher, Chan Ho Park, with an RBI single—to set the table for Jeter. The Yankees had a 3-1 lead, but it was apparent Joe Girardi would be turning to Mariano Rivera for an extended save unless more runs were scored.
When you have one of your best hitters at the plate, one who has a knack through coming through with runners on base—Jeter has a career .308 average when runners are in scoring position—you’d surely give him a chance to knock in some runs, especially one with decent base running skills, like Melky Cabrera, is on second. That’s not the play that was on, though. The bench had initially told him to bunt, so Jeter squared.
His first attempt went foul. A four-seamer buzzed the outside corner, putting Jeter in the hole 0-2. Now, we all know that when you bunt with two strikes and you foul a pitch off, you’re out, so teams usually take the bunt off and allow their hitter to swing. That’s exactly what Joe Girardi did, but the man who hit .334 in the regular season decided to give himself up once again. On the third pitch of the at-bat, Jeter again squared, this time laying wood on the ball. It went foul right in front of catcher Carlos Ruiz. Instead of having a productive AB, perhaps moving runners over on a deep fly or maybe even getting a hit, Jeter took the bat out of his own hands.
Why even risk bunting in that situation? According to run expectation, with runners on first and second and no out, a team is expected to approximately 1.5 runs in an inning. When there are runners on second and third with one out, the run expectation actually goes down to 1.4. There’s always a chance that Jeter hits into a double play—Jeter ranked 20th in the league in DP% with 17 percent—and he is a ground-ball hitter, but when you’re in the World Series and have one of your best hitters at the plate, it’s better to take the risk.
Some people laud Jeter for being willing to give himself up for the good of the team, but the whole point of a good hitter is that he’s too good to throw away his at-bats on something with as limited potential to do good as a bunt. Worse, the Yankees did not score again, thanks in part to the botched call by first base umpire Brian Gorman on Johnny Damon’s liner to Ryan Howard.
Jeter said after the game that deciding to bunt with two strikes was his call. “That was me,” Jeter said. “I was stupid.”
I don't know how to find the stats, but I wonder how the run expectation might change with the batter having an 0-2 count, and Jeter specifically at an 0-2 count in 2009 and for his career.
In his career, with an 0-2 count, Jeter is a .231 hitter, and he was hitting .182 this season in those situations. I'm not sure about how the run expectation would change based on the count, but it was giving away an AB when the count ran to 0-2 and he tried to bunt. The overall risk was far too high to outweigh the good.
Run expectation doesn't tell the whole story. Even getting just one more run would have put the game farther out of reach for the Phillies. The odds of scoring at least one run are greater with one out and runners on 2nd and 3rd than with no outs and runners on 1st and 2nd.
The move wouldn't have made sense in the 3rd inning, but in the bottom of the 7th with Mariano coming in to pitch two innings it's the right move.
This doesn't excuse Jeter trying to bunt with two strikes, though.
I'm not a huge fan of someone like Jeter bunting, but I can see your point. My biggest beef was when he tried to bunt with two strikes, because there is a far greater chance of an out than there is of him moving the runners over. In that situation especially, I'd let most everyone swing away, whether the batter is Jose Molina or Derek Jeter.
If the Yankees had managed to score a couple of more runs, I expect that Girardi would have held off on using Rivera until the 9th inning. I believe he had Chamberlain warming a bit earlier, and even Aceves was up, though that simply could have been to get some work in.
Aceves didn't get up til the bottom of the 8th, after the Yanks already went to Mo. The only possible explanation would be, as you said, to get some work in.
The fact that he said "I was stupid" relates to Joe's comments about Jeter in his Unfiltered post yesterday. Even for us inveterate Yankee-haters, it's hard not to feel grudging admiration for The Captain.
Not to plug another site, but Dave Cameron of Fangraphs disagrees with you. If I may quote that article:
Jeter successfully laying down a bunt in the 8th inning would have increased the Yankees odds of scoring one more run from 61.8 percent to 68.9 percent. Moving the runners over would have added seven percent to the odds of Melky Cabrera scoring – that’s a real benefit. The cost of the sacrifice bunt is in the reduced chance of a multi-run inning, but in that situation, there really wasn’t a tangible difference between a three run lead and a 10 run lead. Those additional runs that could have scored in a big rally would have been essentially worthless.
With a ten run lead, or even a four or five run lead, Rivera doesn't get used in the game. Saving Rivera, or at least, not subjecting him to the mere chance of an injury, is definitely a tangible benefit.
True, but the Yankees don't have to play tonight, making a long outing for Rivera is much less of a concern. The chance of scoring a single run increasing could make it acceptable play.
He's 40 years old and normally doesn't throw two-inning saves. Besides, anything can happen in baseball such as a line drive back to the mound, muscle strain from the cold/wet night, slipping on the field, etc.
Just not worth the risk.
Also, if the Phillies are able to threaten, you can still bring Rivera in, but in that case, he might've already had an out or two or three worked for him by the rest of the Yankees bullpen.
I guess in poker terms, it's called a freeroll, where you push an advantage (with Jeter swinging away, 2 on, no out), and let the extra benefits roll in for free.
Actually, the bunt wasn't the path to a shorter outing for Rivera. If the Yankees go up 5-1, he's pitching. The path to a shorter outing for Rivera is a big inning, where they go up 8-1. That's when you would have seen Aceves, who was up in the eighth.
So the bunt worked against that goal, if that was the goal.
Ha! Actually, that's exactly what I said. If you get the extra runs you save Rivera from throwing 40 pitches, which has value.
In any case, I didn't post it because I agreed with it, just because it's a dissenting point of view from an intelligent analyst and that adds value to the discussion.
I agree. If the Yankees did manage to score a few more runs, Rivera doesn't throw all of those pitches, and that preserves him more when the games pick back up in Philly. He's the best man in the pen by far, and even with a day off, you still hold your breath when you have a closer throwing that many pitches in an inning.
I'm perfectly fine with a dissenting opinion. I should have made it more clear that my biggest problem was with Jeter bunting with two strikes. I know Jeter is very much a ground ball hitter, so as much as I don't like to see him bunt, I can see why the bench called for it. To me, the real value was in putting the game out of reach for Philadelphia and saving Mariano Rivera the extra trouble. If it's a 10-run inning, Mo most definitely doesn't get used, though he may throw to keep fresh, and the Yankees blow through some of the Philly relievers.
I might've let Jeter attempt a bunt once, just once, since it has the added advantage of bringing the corner defense in for the second pitch and might force Park to throw something straight.
I doubt I would've let him bunt on the second pitch, and definitely not with two strikes.
A very good point. Keeping the infield guessing as to whether or not Jeter was going to swing and then pushing them out of alignment by letting him swing on the second pitch after he showed his willingness to bunt on the first pitch could have hugely benefitted the Yankees...if they'd taken it.
I think generally that players with speed underutilize the "fake bunt". When a third baseman plays in to prevent or discourage the bunt, he is not in as good a position to field ground ball. Such players should fake a bunt early in a game/series to encourage the third baseman to play in.
I'm not a statistician so I may be incorrect here but this analysis seems wrong. These two situations don't seem independent. If Jeter is swinging there are a range of possible outcomes, some better than others - i.e. HR vs double play. Of course one possible outcome is advancing the runners and increasing the chance of scoring one run. By bunting, there are very few positive outcomes.
Don't you have to consider the opportunity cost of having a good hitter intentionally make an out before simply looking at the percentage of times one run scores with second and third and one out vs. first and second and no outs?
The 61.8% chance of scoring one run is incorrectly low, as it assumes Joe Average hitter is at the plate. I hate Derek Jeter, but he's a significantly better hitter than the average player. It also doesn't account for Damon to follow Jeter, and Tex behind him. Not to mention Arod was up 4th, and was more likely to bat if you don't start throwing away outs bunting. That's the point of this entire argument -- it's not that there was a bunt with two on and no outs, it's the fact of who was bunting, who else was coming up. Maybe if there was a groundball-inducing pitcher on the mound, you could try to make a semi-rational argument, but Chan Ho Park is not a groundballer.
To me, this is exactly the right point. The difference between a 61% and 68% chance of scoring is material but not so outlandish as to make the bunt "stupid". Obviously, neither is the difference between 1.4 expected runs and 1.5. But here, you have Derek Jeter - great hitter, former WS MVP, future hall of famer - vs. Chan Ho Freaking Park! In Yankee Stadium with the crowd going nuts and 3 hits and 1 run already in ... if there is anything at all to situations, pressure, momentum, etc. it was ALL on the Yankees side. As a fan sitting in the stands, I can tell you the odds of scoring 2+ runs felt like 99%. Until he squared to bunt. And we all sat down and cursed. Girardi really needs to burn that book.
Isn't it more relevant to consider this move in light of the changes in win expectancy, rather than in terms of expected runs or even the chances of scoring at least one run?
According to WalkOffBalk.com, the chances of the home team winning up two runs in the seventh with a base-out state of 12-/0 -- that is, the state in which Jeter stepped to the plate -- is 94.7%. Had the bunt been successfully executed, the base-out state would have changed to -23/1 and win expectancy would have inched up to 95.3%. Instead, the failed bunt, leaving a base-out state of 12-/1, dropped win expectancy to 93.5%.
In any case, the changes in win expectancy, regardless of the outcome, are so ridiculously low that it amounts to little more than a form of self-gratification. Of course, the overall upside for Jeter is solidifying his canonization as the Patron Saint Of The Right Way To Play The Game, which I would tend to believe is no small consideration for Derek Jeter.
As you said, the change in win expectancy wouldn't be that great. I wasn't keen on the idea of using Mo for two innings if the Yankees didn't have to, and regardless of what their bullpen had showed on Wednesday, they are much more stable than the Philly pen. With a 3-1 lead, the Yanks had a very solid chance at winning, and they had Mo to slam the door.
Jeter hit .334 during the regular season and has shown himself more than capable of swinging the bat with runners on base. I think the chance of scoring another run and potentially letting Mo sit for another inning were much better if Jeter had been allowed to swing away, and those were the biggest benefits on the line.
There are many outcomes possible when Jeter stepped to the plate. I agree that win expectancy is the way to analyze the situation. I like that website... very nice.
With that, here are the win expectancies from some of the common possible occurrances we might expect:
As he steps to the plate: 94.7% win expectancy
Double play, man on 3rd: 91.7%
Jeter out, runners stay put: 93.5%
Sac bunt, man on 2nd & 3rd: 95.3%
Single, +1 run, man on 1st & 2nd: 97.3%
Single, +1 run, man on 1st & 3rd: 99.2%
Double, + 2 runs: 99.4%
So Girardi played for a best case increase in his win expectancy of about 0.6%, with a downside risk of 1.2%.
With Jeter swinging away, he would have an upside of 4.7%, with a downside risk of 3%.
... and that's assuming that the downside of the sac bunt is just an out, rather than the possibility of a double-play, which still might have happened on a badly placed ball.
I think Jeter was trying to be too smart/slick by bunting with two strikes. Conventional wisdom, as Christina said, is that you take off the bunt sign with two strikes. Jeter probably thought the Phillies knew this, that the Phillies wouldn't expect another bunt attempt, and with a lead he figured he could take the risk.
In effect, he overthought the situation, got cute, and lost.
Well, I wouldn't say he lost. He made an out, which he probably shouldn't have made, at least not in that way. But the end result was that it didn't end up costing the Yankees much.
Maybe he thought that by bunting with 2 strikes (and cattching Philly off-guard) he'd actually beat it out for a hit? Jeter is known to lay down bunts for hit attempts.
If so, the decision is still a poor one, but somewhat more defensible.
Assume that a career .317 hitter with a career .388 OBP actually thinks he has a better chance getting on base via a bunt hit than a normal hit. You still lose the chance that a runner scores from second on a bunt hit play. You also lose the opportunity to foul off/spoil a "pitcher's pitch" and might be forced to bunt at a low-and-away strike or some other less-than-ideal strike for bunting. You also have Feliz at third base which makes bunting for a hit harder.
I forget the inning, but there was an instance when Rollins came up with a man on second, & when it got to 2 strikes, I was thinking a bunt could work there, with the element of surprise and all. As it happened, he whiffed on a nasty curve, so a bunt probably would have been unsuccesful. Anyway, I remember several times Lasorda used the 2 strike bunt successfully, and I don't think its such a bad play.
A very interesting topic of discussion. Being a New Yorker, I can only imagine what it would have been like had the Yankees ended up losing by a run after Jeter's stupid decision. And if it had been A-Rod, forget it.
To Richard's point, I often wonder why managers rarely put up the bunt sign on the first pitch and take it off on the second, or vice versa. It seems to me you would keep the infield defense off balance if they really weren't sure whether you were going to bunt or swing away.
Everybody remember the Edwin Encarnacion at-bat where Dusty had him try to bunt with runners on in a tie game, and he failed to lay it down on the first two pitches, and Jeff Brantley announces to the world that Encarnacion has no business being on the field if he can't lay down a bunt? Then Encarnacion promptly hit the walk-off home run. Shouldn't Jeter be subjected to the same treatment by the announcers? Not only was it a stupid choice, but he couldn't even lay down a bunt.
During the 1979 World Series, the Orioles had men on 1st and 2nd with no outs and Lowenstein up. Lowenstein swung away and hit into a double play.
After the game Earl Weaver was asked why he didn't bunt in that situation. Earl responded, "You can take the bunt and shove it up your ass."
That about sums up the Earl Weaver position on sacrifice bunting, and I agree.
I don't understand why hitters, if they're going to bunt, don't attempt to bunt for a base hit. If you get thrown out you've still advanced the runners.
The thought process in sac bunting as opposed to bunting for a hit is that sac bunting is easier. You square around earlier and are less concerned with getting a running start out of the box. The prime concern is getting the ball on the ground.
That all said, I agree with the Earl of Baltimore.
I said last night that I wish a team would offer Earl Weaver $15 million to manage for a year. Hell, let him manage home games only. I would give anything to see Earl Weaver managing against what passes for MLB managers in today's game. Truly. It would be like watching Usain Bolt at the BP Field Day.
i think jeter is doing this to send a signal to the team to play "tough" or more grinding. he started bunting from the beginning of the playoffs, ircc, in one of his first at bats. whether bunting and smallball is the right way notwithstanding, jeter understands them as such.
Late to the discussion, but the decision to bunt with 0 and 1 strike was the correct one; tough to argue bunting with two strikes is ever the right call unless it's a relief pitcher in an NL park where the K is highly likely anyway.
The marginal value of the 4th run for the Yankees in that situation was far higher than the cumulative value of the 5th, 6th, 7th runs, etc combined as it would have raised their win expectancy from +/- 90% to +/-95%.
Actually, I think Manuel's decision not to send the runners on the 3-2 pitch to Utley in the top of the 8th was worse than Jeter's bunt. A stupid move on a player's part or a gutless move on the skipper's part...it's a tossup.
OK, I guess it's time for some data on what % of bunt attempts go foul, so we can properly analyse the follies/brilliance of 2 strike bunting. Given what MLers hit with 2 strikes, I can't believe it's such a horrible play.
I'm not sure you're asking for the right data and seeking the percentage of all bunts that go foul. You should be asking for the percentage of all 2-strike bunts that go foul. Then, you'd have to compare that to Jeter's history of getting a hit with two strikes.
Keep in mind, if Jeter fouls off a two strike hit, he gets another chance. He also retains the ability to work a walk (which he is quite proficient at). In addition, a wild pitch or passed ball can always happen in the subsequent pitches, which accomplishes the same mission as the bunt but saves the out.
The interesting question is "how bad would a hitter have to be for a bunt with two strikes to be a viable option in that situation"? My hunch is that the batter would have to be something like a .370 slg .330 obp.
48 comments have been left for this post.
I don't know how to find the stats, but I wonder how the run expectation might change with the batter having an 0-2 count, and Jeter specifically at an 0-2 count in 2009 and for his career.
In his career, with an 0-2 count, Jeter is a .231 hitter, and he was hitting .182 this season in those situations. I'm not sure about how the run expectation would change based on the count, but it was giving away an AB when the count ran to 0-2 and he tried to bunt. The overall risk was far too high to outweigh the good.