Brandon Bum

[sfgdood]

I just read in the Mercury News that Brandon Belt wants to bunt more this year...oh wonderful. We lost all that power over the offseason and now one of the guys we are counting on for some pop says he wants to be Brett Butler. This just flat out SUCKS!

[Islandboagie]

Oh my god..he wants to learn more fundementals, the world is ending!

[sfgdood]

We need Belt to swing for the Cove and Triples Alley. We don't need a bunt/slap hitter in the middle of the order...it's freakin' lunacy. The worst part is Belt's power was one of the excuses used for bringing in no pop Judys like Aoki and McGehee. What a joke.

[donk33]

Mar 2, 2015 14:15:04 GMT -5 sfgdood said:

We need Belt to swing for the Cove and Triples Alley. We don't need a bunt/slap hitter in the middle of the order...it's freakin' lunacy. The worst part is Belt's power was one of the excuses used for bringing in no pop Judys like Aoki and McGehee. What a joke.

dk..what I read was that if they put a shift on against him he is not afraid to lay down a bunt........much different than what you are saying...

[Rog]

Randy -- I just read in the Mercury News that Brandon Belt wants to bunt more this year...oh wonderful. We lost all that power over the offseason and now one of the guys we are counting on for some pop says he wants to be Brett Butler. This just flat out SUCKS!

Rog -- This pretty much sucks only to the same degree that everything else with the Giants sucks.

There are several reasons why scoring is down, and one of them is the huge increase in over shifts the past few seasons. Brandon is being very intelligent and practical in deciding to bunt to help neutralize shifts. There are times for power, but most of the time if a player simply gets on base, he is helping his team.

The Giants pride themselves on "keeping the line moving." Doesn't bunting for base hits help that concept? Rather than being criticized for being wise enough to use the bunt selectively to help get on base and neutralize over shifts, Brandon should be complimented.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum#ixzz3TJ6tGde2

[Rog]

Randy -- We need Belt to swing for the Cove and Triples Alley.

Rog -- More than anything, we need for him to avoid making outs.

Randy -- We don't need a bunt/slap hitter in the middle of the order...it's freakin' lunacy.

Rog -- Not if used wisely. If Brandon is batting third ahead of some of the best hitters on the team, you don't want him to bunt his way on when leading off an innings?

Randy -- The worst part is Belt's power was one of the excuses used for bringing in no pop Judys like Aoki and McGehee.

Rog -- I didn't see that. I thought they brought in Aoki and McGehee because they were good values in an off-season in which the Giants didn't have enough in the salary budget to replace their free agents.

Randy -- What a joke.

Rog -- Hopefully, and I don't mean this in a personal way but rather a general one, the joke will be on you.

Here's a hypothetical. Let's suppose Brandon gets an extra dozen hits with his bunting and by neutralizing the over shift. And let's suppose it instead costs him a home run and two doubles. Isn't that an excellent trade off?

If Brandon is able to bunt for hits successfully, it will be a very positive move for the team.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum?page=1#ixzz3TJ8CTkFM

[Rog]

dk..what I read was that if they put a shift on against him he is not afraid to lay down a bunt........much different than what you are saying...

Rog -- You're right on target here, Don. Ted Williams would have been an even BETTER hitter if he had bunted for a decent number of base hits. Not only would his average and on-base percentage increased to even higher figures, he would have made it more difficult for defenses to over shift against him.

We talk in sports of adjustments and counter adjustments. Defenses have made excellent adjustments with over shifts. It is past time for hitters to make a counter adjustment to help neutralize the over shift.

In basketball, if a player plays you to the right, it makes sense to drive left on him on occasion in order to keep him more "honest." In football, if a defense crowds the line, it is time to throw the ball to keep the defense "honest."

Why wouldn't the same principle apply in baseball?

We have heard here how some people just don't get it, but this is an easy principle to grasp.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum?page=1#ixzz3TJ9lysIK

[sfgdood]

dk..what I read was that if they put a shift on against him he is not afraid to lay down a bunt........much different than what you are saying...

Dood - when you bunt to "defeat" a shift you have already lost because you are doing exactly what the defense wants you to do...you are taking your power completely out of the equation.

[sfgdood]

Randy -- We don't need a bunt/slap hitter in the middle of the order...it's freakin' lunacy.

Rog -- Not if used wisely. If Brandon is batting third ahead of some of the best hitters on the team, you don't want him to bunt his way on when leading off an innings?

Dood - no. I want him to do what a #3 hitter is supposed to do...hit away for both power and average. To drive in runs, even himself via the long ball. If you need to bunt to get on base then you have no business batting in the middle of the order. It's the job of the #1 and 2 hitters to get on for the 345 hitters.

[rxmeister]

I'm sure this is situational against the shift and more players should do it. It's a smart strategy. Obviously he's not going to do it with RISP, but leading off innings and times when they need a base runner? It's absolutely the right move.

[Islandboagie]

Even Will Clark would lay a bunt down on an occasion if the 3rd baseman was playing back. I see no problem with Belt taking first base if its given to him.

[sfgdood]

it's a smart strategy if you heat leadoff or down in the order. Any decent middle of the order hitter would never let the shift dictate that he should bunt. When that is the case, that guy needs to be moved to a less important part of the batting order.

[Rog]

Randy -- it's a smart strategy if you heat leadoff or down in the order. Any decent middle of the order hitter would never let the shift dictate that he should bunt.

Rog -- I understand your concept, but let's not forget that the guys in the middle of the order often lead off an inning. In such a situation a third-place hitter should score a high percentage of the time when he reaches first base. Being on first base when the power guys are coming up is a very good position to be in.

These numbers are a decade old, but perhaps when these overall numbers are broken down in today's game with a runner on first base with the heart of the order coming up and no outs they are probably pretty close. 10 years ago with the average hitter in the order coming up (which would include the 8th place hitter and the pitcher) the expected runs in the 2004 season were .93.

Getting on base to lead off an inning is a big thing. If a batter can do so, he has made a nice accomplishment -- especially if the big hitters are coming up behind him.

The time that Brandon bunted in the Series came in game 5. Hunter Pence led off the bottom of the second with a single. Belt's thinking was that he had a fine chance for a hit with a bunt and that if he made an out, at least he would have sacrificed Pence into scoring position.

Belt beat out the bunt, and the Giants manufactured the first run of the game. Belt's logic was sound -- even with the 7th, 8th and 9th spots coming up behind him.

Madison Bumgarner was pitching for the Giants, so the chances that an early run would count for more were better than the average game. When that is the case, that guy needs to be moved to a less important part of the batting order.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum#ixzz3TLpLeekL

[Rog]

Randy -- Any decent middle of the order hitter would never let the shift dictate that he should bunt. When that is the case, that guy needs to be moved to a less important part of the batting order.

Rog -- The game situation and how likely the bunt is to turn into a hit has a lot to do with the soundness of the strategy. The blanket statement above doesn't always fit the facts.

Let me ask you this: Giants are tied entering the bottom of the 9th. Buster Posey is batting cleanup and leading off. If hits a single or takes a walk, are we disappointed? Or do we applaud because the Giants' situation has improved?

Buster batted 605 times last season. He had 52 extra base hits. Less than 10% of the time he did better than a bunt single would have been. He hit 22 homers. Less than 4% of the time did he do what you really want him to do by swinging away. 377 times he fared WORSE than a bunt hit. That's over 60% of the time.

When a bunt single is better than a top batter like Buster accomplished over 60% of the time and is worse less than 10% of the time, the bunt single is a good play leading off an inning. It's actually a VERY good play.

Don has made an excellent point on the board. He says that each situation should be looked at individually. He's right.

Come to think of it, how often would you NOT choose to do something that is more successful over 60% of the time but is less successful less than 10% of the time?

The only problem with the bunt in most situations is if it leads to an out. If the batter -- even the best hitter on the Giants -- bunts successfully, most of the time he did the right thing.

In Belt's case, he figured the WORST he could do was get a fast runner to second base one out. If he had that much confidence and it wasn't false hope, his logic was impeccable, his execution was excellent, and the result followed suit.

Sometimes it pays to look beyond the "book."



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum?page=1#ixzz3TLtRbY00

[sfgdood]

Using your logic, every hitter should ALWAYS bunt because every hitter fails 60% of the time anyway. I'd rather have Posey--or any decent middle of the order guy--swing away because the opportunity exists for extra base hits. I'd rather not take that away...plus with Posey's lack of speed the bunt would need to be perfect and even then he might not leg it out. He loses about 10 doubles a year due to being so slow.

If you have a middle of the order with no pop then that makes a difference. Are you saying you expect Belt's power to disappear? If so then that's an even bigger indictment on Sabean's poor offseason. We aren't the Herzog Cardinals stealing 1000 bases...we need our middle of the order to give us power.

The book exists for a reason...because what's in it is time tested.

[Islandboagie]

Is it really that big of a deal? Belt isn't going to be bunting every game. It might happen a few times this year, it might not even happen at all. He was just making the point that he'd lime to practice bunting a little bit so he's ready when the rare opportunity does come up. I don't think its worthy of getting all upset about it.

[Islandboagie]

Like, not lime.

[sfgdood]

Well Andrew Baggerly seemed to be indicating it was a big deal with his article. My whole point was and is that if Belt uses this as a counter to the shift on a regular basis--and that is what it sounds like from his quotes--it is BAD for the team.

[Rog]

Randy -- Using your logic, every hitter should ALWAYS bunt because every hitter fails 60% of the time anyway.

Rog -- It he can be sure of getting a hit, absolutely.

I suddenly realized how to crystalize this in one quick question: If a bunt single were a bad outcome for a hitter in a given situation, why wouldn't the opponents simply walk him intentionally, guaranteeing that "bad" result?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum#ixzz3TNkPqhtj

[Rog]

Randy -- I'd rather have Posey--or any decent middle of the order guy--swing away because the opportunity exists for extra base hits.

Rog -- Brandon Belt, the guy we were originally talking about, averages the most bases per hit of any Giant: 1.67 bases per hit. It could easily be argued that he is the Giants' most powerful hitter. He gets an extra base hit once every 11 times he comes to the plate.

The opportunity exists for an extra base hit, but that opportunity is slim. Let's suppose Brandon is batting 3rd and is followed by Buster Posey, Hunter Pence and Angel Pagan. If Brandon bunts for a single, Buster's chance of getting an extra base hit is about the same as Brandon's. And if Buster now gets the extra base hit, Brandon very likely scores -- whereas Brandon's odds of hitting a home run are 3%.

With two outs and one run down in the 9th, I would rather have the 10% chance of tying the game with the next batter at the plate than the 3% chance of tying the game with the original batter hitting.

When one gets down to the nitty gritty, the proper strategy is to bunt for a base hit -- as long as it is successful. If a guy can bunt for a hit 75% of the time, he likely should be bunting almost every time he comes to the plate. Again, if the opponents are OK if the hitter merely reaches first base, why wouldn't they walk him intentionally?

If merely reaching first base is a bad outcome for the hitter, walk him virtually every time.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum?page=1#ixzz3TNlV9kSk

[Rog]

Randy -- We aren't the Herzog Cardinals stealing 1000 bases..

Rog -- Neither were the Herzog Cardinals. The most they stole in a season was 314, which is indeed impressive. Yet they didn't win the World Series that season despite having the top OPS and the 2nd-best ERA in the National League.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum?page=1#ixzz3TNp6Pu1p

[Rog]

Randy -- The book exists for a reason...because what's in it is time tested.

Rog -- It's time tested, but not necessarily right. Having a "book" makes managing easy. There is no need to think creatively if one is simply going to follow the book no matter where his thoughts lead him.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum?page=1#ixzz3TNro4buL

[Rog]

Randy -- My whole point was and is that if Belt uses this as a counter to the shift on a regular basis--and that is what it sounds like from his quotes--it is BAD for the team.

Rog -- If your point were right, why wouldn't teams simply walk Brandon intentionally, since you seem to be saying that would be BAD for the Giants? If a team can easily get a bad result from its opponents, wouldn't it use that strategy?



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum?page=1#ixzz3TNsRoHCc

[donk33]

This is one crazy argument...the "Book" says your first job as a hitter is to get on base and to finally score...if you oppose bunting to get on, than you certainly are against walks and hit batters. Belt would not be bunting every time he has an at bat...in fact, if he beats the shift with an occasional bunt, the shift goes away and it opens up the whole field to the hitter...that is how many hitters have beat the shift or the over play to a hitters power....if someone wants to measure 3,4 or 5 hitters by homeruns per at bat, than most would be hitting .100.. bunting once a game would leave the hitter 3 more at bats to go for the seats.....

[Rog]

How in the world did a thread ever come to be titled "Brandon Bum?" If the Giants are to be successful this season, it might be spurred by Belt's having a breakout season. Remember, from August of 2013 through his broken finger last May, Brandon was an excellent player. Far better, in fact, than Pablo Sandoval over that period.

Wouldn't it be nice if Brandon does have a breakout season to help offset the loss of Pablo?

[sfgdood]

Not too long after creating the thread I did realize Brandon Bunt would have been more clever and appropriate but hindsight is 2020 as they say. It would be nice if Brandon has a the breakout season we have been waiting 4 years for. But if he insists on making the bunt a big part of his game plan, then all is lost for that breakout happening.

[Rog]

Randy -- It would be nice if Brandon has a the breakout season we have been waiting 4 years for. But if he insists on making the bunt a big part of his game plan, then all is lost for that breakout happening.

Rog -- First of all, I'm not sure Brandon is planning to make the bunt a big part of his game plan. I believe he has bunted for a hit twice in his career, with the only resultant hit coming in the World Series as we have discussed already.

Secondly, why would his bunting do to make a breakout impossible?

Third, if bunting successfully for a base hit is so horrible for the Giants' why don't teams simply walk Brandon intentionally, since the result would be the same if not better than a bunt for a hit?

Fourth, if the WORST he can do (as he explained as his reasoning behind his World Series bunt) is to advance a fast runner to second base with one out, where is the logic that says bunting was a bad move (especially the way it worked out, contributing to breaking a 0-0 tie?

Fifth, if even the threat of a bunt might make teams think twice about over shifting against Brandon, why would it work again his having a breakout season? Making fewer outs because teams are afraid to over shift is a detriment?

Sixth, if bunting for a hit is bad for the Giants, why would teams even consider eliminating their over shift against Brandon because of the threat of it?

Seventh, if successfully bunting for a hit is a better result than Brandon achieves in about 65% of his plate appearances, why is it a bad thing?

Eighth, even when an extra base hit is needed (not required), why take a less than 10% chance to achieve that extra base hit when one can bunt for a single base, providing a base runner and possibly advancing a runner?

Ninth, when a strikeout is two and a half times more likely than an extra base hit, why not take the sure thing?

Tenth, when a strikeout is 8 times more likely than a home run, why not take the sure thing?

Eleventh, if preparing to bunt for a base hit contributes to a more intelligent approach to hitting, why is it bad?

Twelfth, if Brandon learns how, with a third baseman as far off the line as occurs in the over shift, it is quite possible to bunt for a double. Perhaps more often than once every 15 trips to the plate as he does now.

Lastly and least, your idea to change the title of the thread from Brandon Bum to Brandon Bunt is both more accurate and more clever. Why not expand it to Brandon Bunt, Let Him Eat Cake? Or perhaps If Brandon bunts more, would he be tightening the Giants' belt?

By the way, the explosion of the over shift is one of the biggest contributions to less hitting in the game.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2740/brandon-bum#ixzz3TWdJHoxy