Charlie Montoyo Egregious Mistake Tracking Thread

[TheHurl]

I suggest you wait until Montoyo gives Vlad a rest day before starting the Fire Charlie thread though. It will happen and it will happen probably more often than anyone wants.

[LGBJ29]

I see, was just being clear, bunting early in games drives me mad, though.

 

For sure, and with a real lineup I hope the trend doesn't continue

[Brownie19]

that's right, a man on second with no outs has higher expected run total than a man on 3rd with 1 out, however the % chance of scoring 1 run is about 6% higher with the man on third, and since it was bottom 9 with a tie game it was a fine move. It really makes no sense to be upset about that move.

 

 

Does anyone know if those run expectancy charts take into account the % of failed bunt attempts?

 

ie, does the % chance of scoring 1 run being about 6% higher with the man on third factor in that sac bunts fail 20% to 30% of the time?

[Spanky99]

I suggest you wait until Montoyo gives Vlad a rest day before starting the Fire Charlie thread though. It will happen and it will happen probably more often than anyone wants.

 

lol... that's expected, but you're right, people going to lose their s***.

[Brownie19]

stomp their feet, autocorrect on my phone. There wasn't anything else you could pull from the post?

 

Hold on. "stomp their feet" turned into "stop their fists"

[LGBJ29]

Hold on. "stomp their feet" turned into "stop their fists"

 

To answer your first question, it does not take into account failed attempts, that is assuming a successful bunt. Also to your 20-30% point, a runner on second with nobody out has the highest sac success rate coming in close to 90%

 

And yes, are you implying I tried to write "stop their fists" on purpose soldier?

[TheHurl]

The data on Vlad isn't good enough yet but his recorded sprint speed is 26.4 feet/sec and Hansen's was tied for 111th last year at 28.4 (he is down in a small sample this year). That's more than a 6 foot difference based on sprint speed. There are other things like leadoff and reading off the bat but those of you that are saying Vlad is just as fast as Hansen are blinded. If it's a wash defensively and you think you gain about 6 feet each base, it's a move you should always do. Thinking about Vlad's AB 9 batters away while in the 10th inning is just a non factor.

[polar bear]

I see, was just being clear, bunting early in games drives me mad, though.

 

If bunting (early or late in the game)leads to a run scored,do you still get mad?

[Spanky99]

If bunting (early or late in the game)leads to a run scored,do you still get mad?

 

Early in a game, yes, don't give up outs and always go for crooked numbers.

[Olerud363]

I suggest you wait until Montoyo gives Vlad a rest day before starting the Fire Charlie thread though. It will happen and it will happen probably more often than anyone wants.

 

Given that they mandated rest days for Vlad and Bo when they were 18 it probably isn't just Charlie's decision. Could be the FO has a workload limit on Vlad.

[KevinGregg]

The data on Vlad isn't good enough yet but his recorded sprint speed is 26.4 feet/sec and Hansen's was tied for 111th last year at 28.4 (he is down in a small sample this year). That's more than a 6 foot difference based on sprint speed. There are other things like leadoff and reading off the bat but those of you that are saying Vlad is just as fast as Hansen are blinded. If it's a wash defensively and you think you gain about 6 feet each base, it's a move you should always do. Thinking about Vlad's AB 9 batters away while in the 10th inning is just a non factor.

 

I am surprised it took so long to find a dissenting opinion. I remember thinking at the time that the move made sense. Win the game right there.

[Terminator]

The data on Vlad isn't good enough yet but his recorded sprint speed is 26.4 feet/sec and Hansen's was tied for 111th last year at 28.4 (he is down in a small sample this year). That's more than a 6 foot difference based on sprint speed. There are other things like leadoff and reading off the bat but those of you that are saying Vlad is just as fast as Hansen are blinded. If it's a wash defensively and you think you gain about 6 feet each base, it's a move you should always do. Thinking about Vlad's AB 9 batters away while in the 10th inning is just a non factor.

 

Why are you white knighting for Montoyo so much? Are you angling for a job for Shatkins?

 

I didn't know Vlad's recorded sprint speed as it wasn't posted yet but I did know Hansen's was a tick below average at 26.8 this year. Just eyeballing it and it *seemed* like they were pretty close and it is.

 

But I might have made a faulty assumption in thinking that sprint speed needed larger sample sizes to stabilize? Why would that be though and how many samples does it need? If that's true and Hanson's speed stabilizes back to where he used to be then I get your point even though I don't agree about about Vlad's AB being a total non-factor. The 5 spot (lol at Montoyo's cleanup rotation with Tellez) did come up again and a 130 wRC+ bat was replaced with an 80 wRC+ bat, so it was a factor, no matter how small of a factor it was.

[Terminator]

There are also scenarios where he could pinch run for Tellez, slowest guy on the team, and hasn't. Can't remember them all exactly but this game against Boston where we lost by a run is one example. Check out the top of the 9th where an extra run would have been huge. Not an exact duplicate of the circumstances though.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=401074919&wsVar=us~mlb~gamepackage,desktop,en

[glory]

If Hanson was Jarrod Dyson on the base paths and was going to steal a base or two, then I can at least find logic in that, but getting a marginal upgrade in speed with 1 out and a runner on 1st is incredibly pointless, especially if it means taking your best hitter out of the lineup.

[Terminator]

If Hanson was Jarrod Dyson on the base paths and was going to steal a base or two, then I can at least find logic in that, but getting a marginal upgrade in speed with 1 out and a runner on 1st is incredibly pointless, especially if it means taking your best hitter out of the lineup.

 

Well Hurl's point is a good one in that it might not be a marginal upgrade, it might be a huge upgrade. Vlad Jr. isn't really THAT slow though, he's probably a tick below average and he can thank being 20 for that because when he's 30 he's going to be slow as s***. So Hanson would need to be pretty fast to make it worth it IMO.

 

Hanson has been fast before in his career and he's got a good amount of "Bolts" in his career which is a stat used to track REALLY fast guys. But players lose speed, you wouldn't expect it to happen at age 26 but it does happen. If it's simply sss stuff then Montoyo's move isn't that bad.

[Brownie19]

To answer your first question, it does not take into account failed attempts, that is assuming a successful bunt. Also to your 20-30% point, a runner on second with nobody out has the highest sac success rate coming in close to 90%

 

 

Interesting. The possibility of a failed sac bunt certainly has to be taken into account when considering the run expediencies. Of course that success rate varies by individual. Where did you find your data on % of successful sac bunts? I was looking a couple of weeks ago and couldn't find anything.

[Terminator]

Interesting. The possibility of a failed sac bunt certainly has to be taken into account when considering the run expediencies. Of course that success rate varies by individual. Where did you find your data on % of successful sac bunts? I was looking a couple of weeks ago and couldn't find anything.

 

Yeah if the data doesn't include unsuccessful attempts than it's even worse than we all think. Seems like a pretty significant amount of the time a guy can't get the bunt down.

[Brownie19]

Yeah if the data doesn't include unsuccessful attempts than it's even worse than we all think. Seems like a pretty significant amount of the time a guy can't get the bunt down.

 

To be fair, that table also needs to be updated to reflect the increased K% and decreasing BABIP around the league. I have to assume teams have the current info.

[LGBJ29]

Interesting. The possibility of a failed sac bunt certainly has to be taken into account when considering the run expediencies. Of course that success rate varies by individual. Where did you find your data on % of successful sac bunts? I was looking a couple of weeks ago and couldn't find anything.

 

Yeah agreed it needs to be taken into account. You can get that by multiplying the bunt success rate by the % chance of scoring a run. I think that lowers the chance of scoring a run by about 6% in the bunt scenario which then brings the %chance of scoring a run right about equal. As you acknowledged uou then though need to factor in the hitter who is sacrificing himself. A below average hitter would bring the chances of scoring a run down in the swing away circumstance, above average hitter raises it.

 

I found the bunt info here. It is from 2015, the most accurate and recent info I could find unfortunately, but still a good resource.

https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/exploring-2015-bunts/

[Brownie19]

Yeah agreed it needs to be taken into account. You can get that by multiplying the bunt success rate by the % chance of scoring a run. I think that lowers the chance of scoring a run by about 6% in the bunt scenario which then brings the %chance of scoring a run right about equal. As you acknowledged uou then though need to factor in the hitter who is sacrificing himself. A below average hitter would bring the chances of scoring a run down in the swing away circumstance, above average hitter raises it.

 

I found the bunt info here. It is from 2015, the most accurate and recent info I could find unfortunately, but still a good resource.

https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/exploring-2015-bunts/

 

Ah - that was one I was looking at. I think I was too dumb to understand that chart though (just figured out what 010 0 means!)

[LGBJ29]

Ah - that was one I was looking at. I think I was too dumb to understand that chart though (just figured out what 010 0 means!)

 

Yeah I didn't get the chart at first either I needed to read the article for context. I'm sure there are even more factors at play such as success rate of the bunter and who is pitching as well.

 

I think there are so many additional variables on both plays (bunt and swing away) that we can't draw the conclusion just based on the standard charts we find online that either a) bunting is always bad or bunting is great small ball. I find most on this board are either on one extreme or the other, but it's important to realize in certain circumstances we have less information available to us and standard graphs or our own bias isn't always the most accurate

[L54]

I think expectations are the key. There is a lot of talk about the Rays way without really regularily watching Rays games. I remember the shock when people watched Maddon regualarily during the Cubs playoff run. The decisions seemed so bad to many...those of that watched the Rays on a regular basis were like "Yep that is Maddon" We don't get it sometimes but it seems to work. The sacrificing will get frustrating but for years i have said that a managers in game decisions don't matter so if he is going to throw away a few expected runs i just don't care

 

I'm not of the never sacrifice crowd so I don't really care about them sacrificing more than in recent past. There is obviously a method to the madness, more so than the casual observer knows. It sounds as if there is a synergy from the top down, so these decisions aren't split second decisions made by Montoyo. Atkins talked about how everyone was involved with the decision making process to hit Vlad fifth in his debut, so I'm sure they have had many discussions on small ball so to speak.

 

Like jmomcc was talking about, there has to be times where increasing the probability of scoring a single run is preferable to maximizing run expectancy (and not just tie game bottom nine). Playing with a lead is always better than holding out hope for a three run shot.

 

Now pinch running for Vlad, that's another story. I think that's a reach from Montoyo.

[BTS]

I'm not of the never sacrifice crowd so I don't really care about them sacrificing more than in recent past. There is obviously a method to the madness, more so than the casual observer knows. It sounds as if there is a synergy from the top down, so these decisions aren't split second decisions made by Montoyo. Atkins talked about how everyone was involved with the decision making process to hit Vlad fifth in his debut, so I'm sure they have had many discussions on small ball so to speak.

 

Like jmomcc was talking about, there has to be times where increasing the probability of scoring a single run is preferable to maximizing run expectancy (and not just tie game bottom nine). Playing with a lead is always better than holding out hope for a three run shot.

 

Now pinch running for Vlad, that's another story. I think that's a reach from Montoyo.

 

I think this is an interesting topic. We know for a fact that this is the case if you're tied in the bottom of the 9th. It's also probably true tied bottom 8. I wonder what other situations would dictate that you're better off increasing odds of scoring 1 run at the expense of overall run expectancy. Probably more than we all think?

 

Some of these bunts are still a tough sell for me though, especially early in a tie game.

[KevinGregg]

I think this is an interesting topic. We know for a fact that this is the case if you're tied in the bottom of the 9th. It's also probably true tied bottom 8. I wonder what other situations would dictate that you're better off increasing odds of scoring 1 run at the expense of overall run expectancy. Probably more than we all think?

 

Some of these bunts are still a tough sell for me though, especially early in a tie game.

 

This made me want to look up if bunting a dude over from 1st in the bottom of the 9th is even a good play.

 

In the bottom of the 9th of a tie game with 0 outs and a runner on first, the home team has a 0.715 win probability.

Teams that successfully bunt change the state of the game to 1 out and a runner on 2nd, which is on average a 0.703 win probability.

 

So you don't want to bunt a runner from 1st to 2nd in this situation.

 

An example of a good bunt is when you have a runner at 2nd with no out in the bottom of the 9th. Your win probability is 0.807. Bunt him to third, you now have a runner on 3rd with one out and your win probability goes up to 0.830. (using tables from http://www.tangotiger.net/welist.html)

[L54]

I think this is an interesting topic. We know for a fact that this is the case if you're tied in the bottom of the 9th. It's also probably true tied bottom 8. I wonder what other situations would dictate that you're better off increasing odds of scoring 1 run at the expense of overall run expectancy. Probably more than we all think?

 

Some of these bunts are still a tough sell for me though, especially early in a tie game.

 

I do too, because there are a few variables at play that I mentioned earlier too that are hard to quantify, but generally follow suit:

 

You're more likely to use your better relievers with the lead

 

The other team is more likely to use their lower leverage guys when trailing

 

If applicable, your better defenders enter the game

 

Less pressure on your own D, more pressure on the other team to produce

 

I'll leave it to the sabr nerds to answer, but its an interesting topic nonetheless.

[Deadpool]

Okay, I'm not saying "never pinch run for Vladdy", what I'm saying is that with a runner on 1st and one out, run expectancy is 0.509 (just over 50%). I'm all for increasing the chances to score and win the game, but it's VERY likely that you don't score in that situation, and removing your best bat from the linup when he's not THAT slow and he's not THAT bad on defence isn't worth it to me. Call me risk averse if you will, but I'm playing for the win in the 10th, 11th, 12th in that situation rather than the incredibly marginal increase in your chance of winning in the 9th.

 

If it had been Tellez, for example, in that situation, I wouldn't have had any issue with the pinch run (because he is both FAR slower and not as good a hitter.)

 

I also wouldn't have an issue with the pinch run if the pinch runner was Rickey Henderson and he immediately stole second and third.

[Carlos Danger]

Okay, I'm not saying "never pinch run for Vladdy", what I'm saying is that with a runner on 1st and one out, run expectancy is 0.509 (just over 50%). I'm all for increasing the chances to score and win the game, but it's VERY likely that you don't score in that situation, and removing your best bat from the linup when he's not THAT slow and he's not THAT bad on defence isn't worth it to me. Call me risk averse if you will, but I'm playing for the win in the 10th, 11th, 12th in that situation rather than the incredibly marginal increase in your chance of winning in the 9th.

 

If it had been Tellez, for example, in that situation, I wouldn't have had any issue with the pinch run (because he is both FAR slower and not as good a hitter.)

 

I also wouldn't have an issue with the pinch run if the pinch runner was Rickey Henderson and he immediately stole second and third.

 

I understand all you are saying except for the part in red.. Why are you taking the risk of playing for win in the 10th, 11th 12th when you are the home team in the 9th, tie game?

 

A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush... You have a runner on... in the 9th... No guaranty you will any other inning. So increase your chances to score anyway you can and finish it.. Also. we had basically one pitcher left.... That has to be factored..

[Deadpool]

I understand all you are saying except for the part in red.. Why are you taking the risk of playing for win in the 10th, 11th 12th when you are the home team in the 9th, tie game?

 

A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush... You have a runner on... in the 9th... No guaranty you will any other inning. So increase your chances to score anyway you can and finish it.. Also. we had basically one pitcher left.... That has to be factored..

 

If you were increasing your chance of scoring by 50%, sure, but you're most assuredly not. This isn't something for which there is data, but the difference between scoring a run with Vladdy and scoring a run with Hanson there is pretty negligible. Yes, he's faster, but lot of things would have to happen before that speed would come into play. If Hanson sores on a double there 8/10 times, Vladdy probably does 7/10 times (obviously not accurate numbers, those numbers simply don't exist). He didn't attempt a steal, so that obviously wasn't a consideration, and beating out a close throw, again, would require outside factors.

 

It simply wasn't a sure enough thing to be worthwhile in that situation. Maybe if it was 2nd with 1 out, or 1st with no outs I'd be closer to okay with it, but 1st with 1 out is not a situation where I'm comfortable gambling the future.

[Brownie19]

Yeah if the data doesn't include unsuccessful attempts than it's even worse than we all think. Seems like a pretty significant amount of the time a guy can't get the bunt down.

 

I guess to be fair, you'd also have to factor in the # of times that you end up bunting for a base hit or reach on an error.

[Olerud363]

2015 Blue Jays (managed by John Gibbons) - 891 runs 36 SH

2015 Kansas City Royals (World Series Champions) - 724 run 34 SH

 

Conclusion - though the 2015 Blue Jays had an incredible offense they made too many bunts. The KC Royals made a lot of bunts too, but surprisingly not as many the the Blue Jays.

 

This may be a really stupid discussion.

 

NY Yankees 1998 - 114 wins, 960 runs, 32 bunts

Cleveland Indians 1999 - 1009 runs, 54 bunts

 

Does it matter if you bunt 2 times a year or 50 ?? It probably matters a little bit, but teams have scored 1000 runs with 50 bunts.

Does it matter if you get a team .298 on base percentage or .350?? Yes. No team has gotten 1000 runs, or 900 runs, or even 800 with a .298 team on base percentage. It matter a lot. To the tune of a few hundred runs.

 

People seem to be having the wrong conversation here.