The Jeter Bunt
Posted: October 30th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball, New Words | 75 Comments »
There’s a wonderful new iPhone app — put together, as I understand it, by Derek over at U.S.S. Mariner — called 2nd Guesser. Basically, it’s like this: You can punch in any game situation and the app will give you various win and run expectancies. More, it will let you punch in any scenario and tell you if the managerial move on your mind is a good idea or bad.
For instance, say, it’s the first inning inning, nobody out, runners on first and second. Is this a good time to steal? Well, the app asks what you think is the percentage chance (your best estimate) that the lead runner will steal third successfully. At 60%, the app says it’s a bad idea. The risk of getting thrown out is not worth the value of the extra base. At 70%, however, the app says it’s a good idea. Steal the base. The risk outweighs reward. You get the picture. It’s a lot of fun. You’ll want one for your very own.
In any case, the one thing the app does not do is suffer fools. And so, if a team is winning or losing by more than one run, and you try to plug in a sacrifice bunt — well, the app will not even consider the option. It will give you an automatic message:
“A bunt never increases the chances of scoring more than one run and, since the team is behind by two or more, it needs more than one run. Ahead of behind by more than one run? A bunt is never a good idea.”
That’s it. That’s the message the app will give you every single time a batter tries to sac bunt when the team is ahead or behind by more than one run. A bunt is never a good idea. This is entirely correct, in my opinion, but it is not entirely satisfying. And that’s because the app will not differentiate between bad bunt attempts, stupid bunt attempts and monumentally stupid bunt attempts.
Example: Let’s say a team is up 3-1 in the seventh inning. There are runners on first and second. There is nobody out. A future Hall of Famer with a .400 on-base percentage is at the plate. There are two strikes. Do you bunt?
I suppose that what I want from my app if I ask THAT question is for it to start yelling at me in the voice of the late Sam Kinison and then maybe have a hand out from the side of the iPhone so and slap me in the head.
Of course, this was the situation when Derek Jeter decided to bunt in Game 2 of the World Series. Nobody out. Two on. Two strikes. Yankees ahead two runs. Jeter would later admit in his own understated way that it was dumb to try and bunt there (he bunted foul for strike three), but, of course, “dumb” doesn’t begin to cover the lunacy of that bunt attempt. It is dumb to send an insulting text message to the insult-target by mistake. It is dumb for the Coyote to keep buying his Road Runner hunting products from the Acme Corporation. It is dumb to pull on Superman’s cape, to spit in the wind, to tell Batman your villainous plan when you have him captured, to give Gilligan some sort of meaningful role the rescue mission. That bunt wasn’t dumb. It was closer to a nervous breakdown.
Thing is, it didn’t matter. The Yankees did not score in the inning, but they won anyway, and The Jeter Bunt quickly became something for his most intense fans to pretend never happened and his most intense critics to cherish as official proof that Jeter is not infallible when it comes to playing the game the right way.
But I have a quick third thought about it. A while ago, I came up with one of my favorite new words — Diloneism. The word has not caught on, and I don’t expect it will catch on, but I still like it. I think about Diloneism in sports and life all the time. Diloneism, you might recall, is the misguided belief that your success is based on what is actually a flaw. The word is inspired by Miguel Dilone, who was an extremely fast baseball player for the Cleveland Indians and who seemed to believe that he was a power hitter who could hit 20 or more home runs in a season if given the freedom to swing away. As a slappy little speed guy, Dilone hit .340 and stole 62 bases one year. But since he did not see himself as a slappy little speed guy, he soon played himself right out of the game as a swing-for-the-fences hack.*
*It’s not quite THAT simple for Dilone, of course. Nothing is that simple. But as a sports parable, it works. Bill James suggests that Fred Patek — a wonderful soul — might be a better example. Bill loves Patek, and figures he launched many fly balls to the warning tracks all around this great country of ours.
I have considered that the better word for my concept is probably: Belichickism. Bill Belichick is one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. Why? Well, again, my opinion, but it seems to me it’s because of his remarkable ability to break down film, his brilliance for identifying talent and developing winning game plans, his singlular focus in following those game plans, his refusal to allow personal feelings (such as loyalty) to encorach on his determination and unbreakable goal to win. He’s got some of Lombardi’s drive for perfection, some of Brown’s sense for innovation, some of Parcells’ blunt focus for winning, and he adds in a bit of his own talent for reinventing his team week after week. I really do believe he might be better at this than anyone, ever.
But here’s the thing: I would imagine that Belichick believes (and, more importantly, the people around Belichick believe) that a big key to his coaching success is the way he treats the media and the outside world. For him, it’s all part of this winning formula, the Patriot Way, you have to be secretive, you have to be dismissive, you have to create an atmosphere of mistrust. Build walls! Keep people out! Don’t divulge secrets! They’re out to get us! This is the Patriot Way, and so many young coaches and GMs (especially those with ties to Belichick) bring THIS part of the Way with them to their new jobs.
And — I’ll admit, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Belichick’s success has absolutely nothing to do with treating the outside world like a bunch of jerks. He’s able to do that BECAUSE he’s successful, but it’s not WHY he’s successful. And many of the young clones he unleashes on the world, well, they manage to be private and dismissive and secretive because it’s easy, but they don’t win because that dismissive and secretive stuff (in my opinion) doesn’t help you win. I would be willing to mockabet* that if Belichick had the human personality of Dick Vermeil or Bill Walsh or Bill Cowher or any number of of the guys, the Patriots would win just as much. He doesn’t. That’s not his fault. But it’s also not his strength.
*New word! Mockabet (mahk-uh-bet), verb, challenging someone to bet you on something fanciful that nobody could ever prove. Example: “I’ll bet that Babe Ruth would be an even better hitter today than he was in 1921.” Example: “I’ll bet that if the umpire had not blown the double play call, we would have won.” Example: “I’l bet that Napoleon would have been a huge Chad Ocho Cinco fan.”
All of this leads us back to Derek Jeter. He is a great player. A Hall of Famer. One of the greatest to ever play shortstop. He has been a great player more or less since his rookie days with the Yankees. I cannot say this enough times because I know how many “You hate Jeter” emails are coming.
But WHY is he a great player? Is he great because he’s so good in the clutch? I don’t think so. I think he has had some memorable moments in the clutch because the Yankees have been in the playoffs almost every year he has been a Yankee and because, as mentioned, he’s a great player.
Is he great because he never makes a mistake — sort of the way DiMaggio famously never threw to the wrong base? Of course not. Derek Jeter has played in thousands of games, he’s been involved in tens of thousands of plays both offensively a defensively. It is not human to play that many and never make mistakes. Does he make fewer mistakes per capita than most? Of course. Seems to me, though, that’s BECAUSE he’s a great player, it’s not WHY he’s a great player.
Is he great, finally, because he’s so smart –because he’s always thinking two steps ahead of everyone else on the field? We are the crux of things. Many of his fans would probably say, yes, this is at the heart of their love for Jeter. They love him for being so smart, for always having has his mind in the game, for being there to make the Jeremy Giambi flip, for sacrificing his body and running full force after that foul ball, for having his head up and seeing that Nick Punto had overrun third base. They love Jeter for being “a winner” — with all the mythical qualities that word consumes* — and that is for making so many plays that, through the years, have helped the Yankees win games and championships. You cannot blame them for this.
*You probably know this: When the movie Gandhi was being made, there was a group of people who did not feel that Gandhi could be portrayed by a mere human being. Instead, they thought he should have been presented on film simply as a bright flash of light. I bring this up because on video board highlights of Jeter, they add a glimmer of light to him so that it appears he is shining. They also do this for various food items on the Slap Chop infomercial. Somehow, it all connects.
And his critics despise how Jeter gets glorified by media types and teammates and his fans for every little thing he does, as if nobody else in the history of baseball would have been smart enough or bold enough to make those winning plays. I invented a word for that too. Jeterate.
Here’s the thing: I believe Jeter is a great player because he hits (especially for a shortstop), because he gets on base, because he’s out there every day no matter how the body feels, because he carries himself well, because he does not shy away from leadership responsibilities or the huge expectations that comes from being the face of the Yankees. I believe he is great because he does not seem to mentally or emotionally take days off. I believe he is great for plenty of other reasons. He is a powerful package of baseball talent.
The big thing, though, is that he hits. The rest is nice. But it’s mostly because he hits. If Derek Jeter was a .240 hitter (with the accompanying .320 on-base percentage), he would not be a great player, or even a good player. He would not have won Gold Gloves (I don’t think) and he would not have had such an intense cadre of fans calling his defense brilliant. Look: He does not provide THAT much power or THAT much speed — not enough to make a living on those alone. He has only once been Top 5 in stolen bases, and never top 10 in slugging percentage. His leadership skills would be nullified too if he hit .240 — I’ve often pulled out the Terry Pendleton line that if you’re not hitting, you’r not leading. And I imagine if he was hitting .240, people would realize that those so-called intangibles that have helped define him do not come up quite as often as people believe.
So Derek Jeter will go to the Hall of Fame first and foremost because he hits well and often. In the pitch-perfect words of Theo Epstein: He does the most important thing an offensive player can do. He gets on base. That’s not to say the other stuff doesn’t exist. That’s not my point. The other stuff is secondary — and that’s my point.
To the bunt. With runners on first and second, with nobody out, with the Yankees leading by two runs, it is simply wrong to ask Jeter to bunt. I don’t consider this an argument. I consider this fact. Apple seeds become apple trees. That kind of fact. What makes Derek Jeter a great player is that he is more likely that most to get a hit in that situation. He’s more likely to do it than the guy hitting behind him, Johnny Damon. More likely than the guy hitting third, Mark Teixeira.
And the reason Joe Girardi called for the bunt (I believe) is because his impression Jeter’s greatness isn’t because of his hitting. No, his impression, like most, is that Jeter is a great hitter but, more, he’s a great presence, a great leader, a great teammate, a gamer. And look: You can ask him to give himself up for the sake of the team! He will do it too! He will be HAPPY to do it. That’s the kind of guy Derek Jeter is!
And undoubtedly, Jeter believes this himself. That’s the only possible reason he would have tried to bunt with two strikes, even after Girardi called it off. Jeter wants to sacrifice himself there, I think, because he believes sacrifice is a big part of what makes him great and different. Would A-Rod bunt there? Would Miggy Cabrera? Would Manny Ramirez? Would Albert Pujols? No (nor should they). They would not bunt … but Derek Jeter would. Because he is not just a great hitter. No, he’s a guy who would do anything to help the team win.
Trouble is — he IS a great hitter, and hitting is the best way he can help the team win — in that situation and in pretty much every other situation. He should know this. The Yankees should know this. But the Jeter mystique has been blown up to such proportions that it has become its own monster, and monsters need to be fed.
When I saw Derek Jeter foul bunt on strike three like some helpless pitcher, I immediately thought it was one of the five dumbest plays I had ever seen* — and I know I would have felt that way had he gotten the bunt down.
*Hey, a fanbole! I’m getting to use all my Joe Words.
In retrospect though, well, it’s still one of the dumber plays I’ve seen. But I think of it now as more of a case of mistaken identity. After all these years, the Yankees still don’t seem to full understand or appreciate why Derek Jeter is one of the great players his generation. And what’s even stranger is that Jeter may not be entirely sure himself.
Loading ...
Dave Cameron at Fangraphs disagrees:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/defending-the-jeter-bunt
the key to spitting into the wind is to turn around.
Dumbest thing I ever did was piss on a tree while barefoot.
I read on ESPN that Jeter called the bunt, not Girardi. I missed the game though.
You really think Girardi had those “Jeter is a great leader” softies floating through his heart when he ordered that bunt? You’re crazy.
Didn’t The Book show us that there are times when bunting is the correct call? All those definitive statement at the beginning of this post bother me.
He dare you desecrate the image of our prophet?
circle me Mickey’s original #6! war Yankees!
First of all, neither a Yankees fan nor a Jeter fan. Secondly, I tend to agree with Dave Cameron’s article linked above – the bunt decision in general is defensible. Lastly, I actually think (and apparently I’m in a very small minority here) that the 0-2 bunt attempt itself is quite defensible. As I cross-posted in the comments on Dave’s article:
I disagree that the 2 strike attempt was so monstrously bad. Jeter is a career .231/.250/.331 hitter with an 0-2 count; given that the defense would be playing back with 2 strikes and not prepared for a bunt, the chance of him reaching on a bunt were actually much higher at that point than earlier in his at bat. Good bunters generally reach on 40-50% of their bunts for hits (with the infield presumably pulled in several feet further than they were playing for Jeter), so Jeter could probably equal his OBP when swinging away by getting down only half, or perhaps slightly more, of his bunt attempts – and this is before even beginning to consider the benefits of the bunt as a sacrifice.
The dumbest thing about the whole situation was actually Jeter coming out and saying that it was a dumb play – he should have said that he thought it was a good play that he didn’t execute, so that regardless of what he thought, the Phillies (and other teams) would have to take that into consideration when positioning their defense should the situation arise again.
Recommended – for the Sam Kinison reference.
Awesome.
I bet Freddy Patek really IS Napoleon
Fascinating. Do people write such articles about ANYONE in baseball other than Derek Jeter? I don’t think so. It’s amazing the lengths people will go to to tear down this man’s image. No, I’m not calling you a Hater, but that is a LOT of deep thinking about a single fouled-off bunt.
That said, I agree with much of what you wrote. I was shaking my head at the TV and saying it was a bad move when he attempted the first two. And I was dumb-founded when he stayed with it with 2 strikes.
But there’s no way any of the motivation is as deep as your theory suggests. Joe asked him to bunt because he just wanted to grab one more run. Giving Mo a 3-run lead is like giving any other pitcher a 10-run lead.
The Captain’s decision to try it with 2 strikes — I believe — comes down to him feeling like he let his manager down by not getting the job done. “Sure,” he thinks, “the bunt is off now, but Joe wanted me to lay it down…so I’m going to do it.”
Earlier today I likened the move to Ruth’s getting thrown out stealing to end the 1926 World Series. They both tried to put the team on their backs and make something happen — even if it appeared to be foolishly against the odds.
That’s what Ruth did his whole career. That’s what Jeter has done his whole career.
That’s why future generations of baseball fans will remember these two players for as long as the game is played.
On another note, how ironic is it that FanGraphs has now had 2 posts in the last 3 days (MGL’s epic post on bunting – http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/were-the-yankee-sac-bunts-in-the-8th-inning-correct – and now Dave’s post) that directly contradict the automated message in their own app.
Well, they’ll remember Ruth as long as the game is played.
Lot of pent-up hatred of Belichick from a Cleveland fan and media member who thinks coaches owe him and his brethren all the time in the world when said media couldn’t be less useful to the coach’s actual purpose.
He unleashes his assistants on the world? Really? Like chemical weapons or Dr. Evil or what?
Good points on Jeter though.
joe – entertaining as always. a little off base today, but still entertaining. hey, it’s impossible to get in to joe girardi’s or derek jeter’s heads. but my guess is girardi wasn’t thinking cap’n jeets is a great leader, will give himself up for the team, etc. my guess is girardi was thinking that jeter is a pretty good bunter and that, with mo rivera, one extra run is like 3-4. of course this is a pure guess, but i think you made too much of the jeter is magic angle.
oh, and the 2-strike bunt was stupid. yup, i’m here to state the obvious.
I’m looking forward to the days when ‘The Captain’ puts a C on his jersey to remind people that he is a leader, ala Jason Veritek.
Jeter is a very, very good player who played on consistently terrific teams for his entire career. I’m not sure #10’s prediction that we’ll one day hold him in the same regard as Ruth will pan out, at least not outside of NYC.
Anyways, interesting read as always.
In Cameron’s defense, he said it was a good idea to bunt up until there were 2 strikes.
I generally agree: I never want to see Jeter bunt. But I also think it’s worth considering that Jeter often does the whole “bunt for a hit, if it fails it’s a sacrifice” thing, and he may have been trying to catch the defense off-guard, since there were 2 strikes.
Speaking of which, I’ve never understood taking the bunt off with 2 strikes. Bunting is a bad decision, usually, but it seems to me that bunting foul twice and then striking out is worse. Once you’ve bunted yourself into a whole, you might as well take all three opportunities to get the bunt down; otherwise it’s like punting on 3rd down.
Jeter hitting with an 0-2 count is more likely to hit into a DP or strike out than he is to get on base (piggy-backing on Preston’s research), so why not try to move runners to third with Damon and Tex coming up, to give Mo a bigger lead?
With that said, it was a dumb move. But maybe not historically dumb.
Brilliantly insightful post. Thanks, Joe.
~
Didn’t The Book show us that there are times when bunting is the correct call? All those definitive statement at the beginning of this post bother me.
There are a few times when bunting is the correct call. But, as Joe (in agreement with the Iphone app) says, those few times do not include the occasions when up or down more than 1 run. (Honestly, don’t people *read*?).
~
For all the talk of Jeter’s love of Yankee lore, I think he forgot something. The last time a Yankee bunted foul with two strikes, he (Reggie) got in a punch-up with his manager…
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by OldHossRadbourn: A wonderful article (http://bit.ly/JVqJc), except for the fact that it’s totally wrong. Thank goodness I played in the pre-Euclidean era….
@ #10 JIK2 – So, it’s fascinating that someone writes an article for the sole purpose of tearing down this great man…and oh, by the way, you agree with him. Never mind the fact that Joe refers to him a “great” and half dozen times and a Hall Of Famer.
I have little doubt that if Chase Utley had tried to bunt in the exact same situation, Joe would have mentioned it. If you doubt this, check the archives.
@ #13 Nitpicker – “He’s got some of Lombardi’s drive for perfection, some of Brown’s sense for innovation, some of Parcells’ blunt focus for winning, and he adds in a bit of his own talent for reinventing his team week after week. I really do believe he might be better at this than anyone, ever.” – Yes. Yes, that sure is a lot of pent up hatred.
Did you guys read the same article that I did?
Regarding Belichickism. I’m reminded of what Bill said about Rogers Hornsby, who thought that his success was based on not smoking, not drinking, eating lots of steak, not going to movies, etc. and wanted all his players to do the same.
#10 JIK2:
Well, few write articles about ANYTHING like Joe, but people write articles about guys bunting with two strikes, yeah. I wrote one on Jhonny Peralta (as part of a larger game recap, linked above) about how it not only boggled my mind, but how doubly preposterous it was because Eric Wedge felt forced to defend him as a “good bunter” (which is demonstratably is not).
I guess the return volley is, “Does anyone get defensive about articles written about poorly-executed or ill-conceived baseball plays made by players other than Derek Jeter?”
bunting with two strikes and a Hall of Famer-in-waitin’ like Jeter up sounds ridiculous…even if the count is 0-2, the worst hitting counts possible. but let’s say there are runners on first and second, no outs, the kind of situation where managers often think, “dang. sure would be nice if them runners were on second ‘n third instead. mebbe he oughta bunt.”
let’s say Captain Jeter is up to bat. he hit a whopping .215 with a .243 OBP and .524 OPS after an 0-2 count. In 111 ABs, he had only 5 extra base hits after that count.
So simplistically, let’s say that the chance he makes a “productive” (runner advancing out) is canceled by the chance that he grounds into a double play.
We have a 75% chance he makes an unproductive out.
A 25% chance he gets on base…of that, the vast majority of the time he hits a single. Let’s say that single scores a run half the time.
Now let’s say he bunts. I have no idea how often Jeter can get a bunt down…but let’s say 70% of the time. Of that, let’s say 70% of the time he does his job, advancing runners. And 20% of the time he doesn’t, and a runner is thrown out at second or third. And 10% of the time he ends up with a bunt hit, bases loaded.
SO IF HE SWINGS AWAY:
So overall, a 75% chance he makes an unproductive out, runners stay put, one out. A 12.5% chance the bases end up loaded, no outs. A 12.5% chance two men on, no out, one run driven in (again, he barely ever gets an extra base hit…we’re being simplistic.)
SO IF HE BUNTS:
44% chance he makes an unproductive out, runners stay put, one out. A 7% chance the bases are loaded, no outs. A 49% chance of 2 runners in scoring position, 1 out. (Again for simplicity), a 0% chance of a run getting driven in.
So at this point we could keep going (no thanks) or just make a judgment call since this was completely unscientific anyway.
It seems to me that these scenarios look closer than we’d expect–mostly because hitters suck with an 0-2 count. The odds against something good happening are low, and the odds against something REALLY good happening are really low. Then again, if you bunt, you say goodbye to the 25% of the time where you’re set up for a big inning. And if I have freakin’ Damon, Tex, A-Rod, and the rest of the goon squad lurking, I’d love to roll the dice on the big inning and not give up outs. If these were stats for the Royals…well, I’d be thinking about bunting quite a bit on 0-2 counts.
And yeah, I know my analysis largely sucks. But I’m the kind of guy that has two portraits of myself as a centaur over my bed, so I put it up anyway.
Didn’t The Book show us that there are times when bunting is the correct call? All those definitive statement at the beginning of this post bother me.
There are a few times when bunting is the correct call. But, as Joe (in agreement with the Iphone app) says, those few times do not include the occasions when up or down more than 1 run. (Honestly, don’t people *read*?).
…ummm … sorry, but do you read? specifically the recent fangraphs post and the MGL fangraphs post, linked to above in several comments, that directly contradicts what you are saying?
how ironic is it that FanGraphs has now had 2 posts in the last 3 days [. . .] that directly contradict the automated message in their own app.
The app in question here is Derek Zumsteg’s “2nd Guesser” app, which isn’t affiliated with Fangraphs.
Joe,
I love that you posted this. When I saw the play with my buddy, I couldn’t believe it. Today, though, I almost forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me. Anyway, I gotta run… I’m going to the Bob Dylan concert that starts in 25 minutes.
See ya,
Bobby A
Maybe Jeter wanted to make sure Mariano got a save. Don’t make it a 4- or 5-run lead.
From baseball analysts.com (click above to read the full article):
“Over the past couple of decades baseball analysts have seemingly discredited the bunt in all but the most obvious situations. Much of their evidence is based on the use of an overall run expectation table that reveals a loss of run potential even with a successful sacrifice. These overall expected runs tables, however, fail to differentiate between the innumerable possible scenarios of the ability of the hitter at bat and those following in sequence. Subdividing the data by batting order position allows a look at more finely dissected sequences of player ability. Although most of this analysis still indicates a successful bunt does not increase the run potential, it certainly shows that it in certain base/out situations it is not as detrimental as commonly believed. In fact, disaggregating by batting order still averages over many different player ability sequences, suggesting that in a number of instances a bunt may actually increase the run potential. ”
The Retrosheet play-by-play data allows us to partially test this hypothesis that managers can outperform the run expectation tables by a selective employment of the bunt. While not conclusive, the data here is clearly suggestive: in some base/out situations teams do increase the run expectation with a sacrifice bunt beyond the overall run potential implied by the ERT. And furthermore, even in those cases in which the runs expected over the remainder of an inning after a sacrifice bunt are less than that derived from the ERT, the decrease is typically less than the derived value. In addition we can assume that a manager typically bunts in those situations in which the specific sequence of batters is inferior to the average reflected by the ERT.
It is in the case of playing for one run, however, that the overall aptitude of managerial decisions shows up most clearly. As table 6 reveals, when managers bunt they usually increase the likelihood of scoring at least one run in the inning. And this increase is materially greater than that suggested by simply looking at run probability tables. While the bunt should and will remain a controversial managerial decision, it is clear that managers use it more judiciously than a cursory analysis based on the run expectation and probability tables would suggest.
@23 “And yeah, I know my analysis largely sucks. But I’m the kind of guy that has two portraits of myself as a centaur over my bed, so I put it up anyway.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
If Derek Jeter had played in Kansas City or Pittsburgh his entire career his perception would be nowhere near HOF worthy. He’s a good player (offensively); not a Hall of Fame player. Spend almost every season in the playoffs, play for the most famous team in baseball, in the largest media market in the world, and perception gets skewed.
You know, I’ve seen a lot of Yankee games since I’ve lived in NY most of the time Jeter’s been a big leaguer… and that was the most perplexing at bat I’ve ever seen him have. I was like, “What am I missing here? The Yanks must know something I don’t, because this just does not seem remotely reasonable for Jeter to bunt in a World Series game…up 2 runs.” …and then the bunt didn’t work, and I found myself more puzzled.
DarkSide: Fail. Very big fail. One might even say “epic”….
Here’s some homework. Find out how many HOFers play shortstop; then find out how many are better offensive players than Jeter. Assume Jeter is among the five worst MLB defensive shortshops every year. He’s still an easy HOF choice. Nobody, not the most defensive-statistic-obsessed Yankee hater, disagrees.
As for the post-season: you can make the same argument about every Yankee who played between 1996-2000. All those overrated guys, carrying each other to multiple World Series victories…
@#7: If, as you say, “good bunters generally reach on 40-50% of their bunts,” why wouldn’t good bunters just bunt EVERY time up, and bat .400-.500?
Something tells me your numbers are off.
Yes, THANK YOU. The play wasn’t just stupid, it was beyond that.
I’d give him even less credit: I saw his bunt with two strikes as ostentatious.
He’s like a guy who drags an old lady across the street so that everyone can see what an awesome guy he is (even though the old lady lives in the opposite direction). It was Peyton Manning’s “I’m trying to be a good teammate here” speech. It was Kobe Bryant passing exclusively to his teammates.
Worst of all: it struck me as something that *ARod* would do.
Ick.
Nothing to do with the bunt — which was obviously weird — but in one at bat Jeter coughed . . . and took his hand off the bat to bring his fist up to his mouth to smother it.
My reaction was Wow! How many baseballers would be so polite as to think of those about them in that situation.
Say what you like about him but the man is a class act.
It was dumb, dumb, dumb, insanely dumb. The only thing I will say though, is I saw some speculation that he was trying to bunt for a hit on the 0-2 count (not before, that was clearly a sacrifice), figuring the Phillies weren’t expecting it.
It’s still dumb. It was insanely stupid to ask him to bunt in the first place, and it was even stupider to try to bunt with two strikes and nobody out even if it was a hit attempt and not a sacrifice. Just wanted to throw that out there though.
I use the term “hypothe-bet” for what you call a “mockabet”.
Jeter has essentially become the legend of Derek Jeter. His identity is effectively that of the archetypal hero. He has transcended himself. He is the perfect postmodern protagonist.
Actually, I will say this though, I don’t know that it’s really true that the sac bunt is ALWAYS bad when a team is down by, say, 2 runs. I hate the sac bunt in general, but picture this situation, I’ll use the Yanks as an example. Game 5 comes along. Phillies lead 3-1 in the top of the 7th. Melky Cabrera and Jose Molina somehow, against all odds, manage to reach base. First and second, nobody out, AJ Burnett at the plate, and for whatever reason they’re not pinch hitting for him (low pitch count, gave up all his runs early, bullpen shaky, whatever). Is a sac bunt REALLY a worse play than letting AJ Burnett swing away, with Derek Jeter and Johnny Damon up next? Especially since it’s only the 7th inning and even if they only get the 1 run off a sac fly, it puts them closer with 2 innings still to hit? I hate sac bunts in most situations, especially when a guy like Jeter is doing it, but I have to imagine it can’t ALWAYS be a terrible play, depending on how bad the hitter at the plate is and how good the guy behind him is.
@7, 23
Sure, it was an 0-2 count at that moment, but putting up Jeter’s career stats with an 0-2 count is only marginally useful — the count could have been 0-2 on its way to being 2-2 or 3-2. Only by attempting to bunt did he ensure that the 0-2 pitch would be the final one.
I think we’ve reached the point where Jeter is properly appreciated by most intelligent people. It’s been argued since the early days of the Internet — one of the quickest ways to make your bones as a sabermetrician was to give young Jeter the “Bill James on Enos Cabell” treatment, which riled folks up. But there’s not much left to say on the topic, and I think we’ve mostly moved on.
Wanna stick up for Belichick, sort of, and say I doubt he thinks his handling of the media is a big part of his success. I think Nitpicker came closer when he noted that the media can do little to help him win, so he doesn’t pull punches. You should know, though, that it has a lot to do with the questions he gets. Mike Reiss’s questions, for example, usually get respectful answers, from what I’ve seen.
It’s of a piece with his playing fast and loose with the injury report, which I think gets closer to the heart of your point.
sacrificing his body and running full force after that foul ball
I assume this is the play on Trot Nixon in the 12th inning on July 1, 2004. Not that it really matters, but it was a fair ball. The play-by-play at baseballreference agrees:
Popfly: SS (Deep 3B)
And here’s a picture:
http://home.comcast.net/~john458/Jeter1.htm
35: Graphite: “Nothing to do with the bunt — which was obviously weird — but in one at bat Jeter coughed . . . and took his hand off the bat to bring his fist up to his mouth to smother it.
My reaction was Wow! How many baseballers would be so polite as to think of those about them in that situation.
Say what you like about him but the man is a class act.”
Isn’t this comment pretty much definition of Jeterating? Brush over the fact that he tried to bunt in a bad situation, AND FAILED, and point out that he covers his mouth when he coughs! What a class act! WOW!
I think you may have been being sarcastic here. If so, I apologize.
sasho1 @ 40–
those weren’t actually stats for hitting with an 0-2 count. they were stats for hitting once the count has reached 0-2, which includes just what you said. and obviously the analysis was marginally limited. hence the mea culpa.
but the overall point is this–pretty much EVERYBODY is bad on an 0-2 count. People are still lousy on a 1-2 count. And generally not great on a 2-2 count either. Hell, look at Pujols, the greatest hitter of his generation, for his career. 0-2 count, .623 OPS. 1-2 count, .704 OPS. 2-2 count, .774. Guess what happens when the count goes full? 1.101 OPS. What makes Pujols great isn’t how he hits with a tough count–it’s how hard it is to get him in a tough count (get a first-pitch strike and give a sigh of relief right? Nope, 1.101 OPS again with a 0-1 count. Good luck getting to two strikes.)
Go read my second post’s attached article. That’s a serious methodological study that says there ARE times when it’s at least neutral in terms of expected runs to bunt and times when it may actually increase the odds. And there are times when you just REALLY want one more run late in a game (as some have pointed out re: having Mariano the Great waiting in the wings).
Saying that bunting is always stupid doesn’t seem to make statistical sense. Saying that bunting on a two-strike count (namely, 0-2) is always stupid may also not make statistical sense…when your OPS is .623 (even Albert the Great) on that count, there is most certainly a break-even point in success rate where bunting (and achieving a positive result) equals hitting crappily. And most people are, obviously, not Albert Pujols.
That’s all I’m sayin’.
****************************
On a final long-winded note, I think it’s so interesting looking at A-Rod and Jeter right now. Years ago, they were part of the holy trinity of shortstops…and look where they’ve ended up. One is, yes, a cultural archetype–the hero. The matinee idol. The other (who is vastly superior at the actual game!), despite being perhaps a top-20 all-time great, is a third baseman in the other’s shadow, and somewhat of a joke. Seriously? He’s A MUCH BETTER PLAYER. Even in an “off year”…even THIS year his OPS was sixty points higher than Jeter’s.
You think of Jeter off the field–class, grace, and somehow nary a scandal despite allegedly dating a string of high-profile women so incredibly hot they could fry an egg on the most unsexy part of their body (if one exists). You think of A-Rod–Madonna, Stray-Rod, Roids, ridiculous 60 minutes interview, that bizarre self-loving photo shoot, and hey, news is the rags now is that he and Kate Hudson are nymphos who enjoy sexathons and he used to have paintings of himself as a mythical beast over his bed. What?!?!
Barack–The fact we can’t tell if that post about Jeter was sarcasm is incredible! Did someone seriously compliment him for coughing properly! I have heard that there was one and only one time he forgot to lift the toilet seat in the Yankees clubhouse before taking a piss. He dribbles on the seat…and not only does he wipe it up with some Charmin, he finds a Lysol wipe to disinfect it, goes and gets some Clorox toilet cleaner and shines the bowl up, and then grabs Pine-Sol and washes the floor. At the same time, A-Rod, is pissing in the sink so he can look at himself in the mirror, and doesn’t even wash his hands afterwards. That about sums it up.
I give the man some credit for the Jeteration surrounding him. If Jeter was an idiot, the Post et al. would have eaten him up. A-Rod was such an idiot that EVERYBODY ate him up. I get that we are all about stats in terms of greatness, but no matter how incredible a guy is, if he’s a complete d-bag off the field it’s hard to appreciate that greatness at its true level. See Rose, Pete. Bonds, Barry. Clemens, Roger. And on and on, including, of course, Rod, A.
Isn’t it possible that Jeter was mad that Girardi wanted him to bunt in that situation? Couldn’t it be something like Reggie Jackson when Billy Martin ordered him to bunt back in ‘78? Reggie was so mad that he bunted for a 3rd strike even though Martin had taken the sign off. I guess a team first guy like Jetes would never do such a thing.
Would he?
[...] Joe Posnanski took Jeter to task for the bunt. Because Posnanski has a way with words and images, take a read: Jeter would later [...]
Gotcha Jay. Poor reading comprehension on my part.
Freddie Patek: 1972 All-Star
Line: 212/280/276
Funny thing about apple seeds. It is definitely a fact that apple seeds become apple trees. But most apple seeds do not become apple trees.
That’s not the same kind of fact as the fact that it is wrong to ask Jeter to bunt with runners on first and second, nobody out, and the Yankees leading by two runs.
@32 Nick L, who’s taking 30, Dark Side of the Mood to task: I agree that it’s an exaggeration to say that if Jeter played his whole career in KC or Pittsburgh, he would be perceived as nowhere near HOF-worthy. But I don’t think it’s an epic fail. If he were a career Pirate or Royal, would he really beanointed a “no-doubt, first-ballot” HOFer? Or would he be viewed more or less as Barry Larkin is now? Larkin, it seems, is considered by many to be probably a HOFer, a few (especially Reds fans) to be definitely a HOFer, and many (including, I fear, a good many baseball writers) as below the cut. In my view, Jeter’s probably a bit better than Larkin. He’s certainly been healthier, which gives him better counting stats, and he hasn’t yet had his rate stats dragged down by decline years. But they’re pretty similar, and I suspect that if Jeter played in flyover country, they’d be widely viewed that way.
I agree that the extremes of adulation Jeter has received (and yes, he has been made a legend in his own time) can be annoying (and especially to non-Yankee fans). Yet the backlash is no less unrealistic. Objectively (and as Joe acknowledges), he is a hall of fame quality shortstop who has now had a hall of fame career. He has not been the best shortstop in baseball every year, but he has consistently been one of the best. No, he is not the perfect player — he sometimes makes errors, sometimes makes outs in big spots, sometimes gets thrown out on the bases and, as demonstrated by his 2 strike bunt attempt last night, can make absolutely brain dead moves (even on the biggest stage). But with all star quality consistency, he tends to come through and often brilliantly. Sure he has been lucky to have been on the Yankees, but it’s no less true that the Yankees have been fortunate to have had a player as special as he has been as their shortstop. For better or worse, a player’s career can only be judged on the career he had, and Jeter’s has been a great one.
There is nothing wrong with the bunt. With Mariano on the mound, the Yankees don’t need a multiple run inning. They just need one run. That’s why a bunt made sense. Sure, Jeter is more likely to get a hit than Damon or Tex, but all Damon would need is a sac fly.
Barack Obama @43
What you have to understand about me is that I’m from New Zealand (a warmer Wisconsin if you will), which makes me quasi-British — except with better teeth and eating habits. And that makes me a stickler for fair play.
The coughing comment? I saw a chap who was being berated on all sides for a momentary lapse and thought I’d put in a good word. Remind readers that Mr Jeter is, at bottom, a jolly good fellow. Decent and all that.
I’m positive I wasn’t jeterating. Joe’s definition is “to praise someone for something which he or she is entirely unworthy of praise”. I’m hope you’re not saying that Mr Jeter’s politeness is not worthy of praise.
Was I being sarcastic? I don’t think so. But I’ll leave it up to you to make your own decision on that. At least you’d be in no doubt about the bloke @44. All that Charmin, Lysol and Clorox (what are these things?) talk. About as subtle as an episode of How I Met Your Mother.
And please, don’t apologise. Remember, you’re an American. The President no less.
Jeter and fans know exactly why he’s revered in NY and hated so much everywhere else.
Torre knew what made him great, Girardi though, he’s an overmanaging dolt.
He seems to be out there with a misplaced chip on his shoulder needing to micromanage in a way Torre never could. It’s hurting more than it helps.
Like tonight, Hughes should’ve never been removed from the game, his confidence is shaken and he needs to know in his own mind that he can get through this Phillies offense. The Yankees will not win this series unless he and Joba get their swagger back.
Instead, Joe goes to Mariano for an unnecessary appearance to get two outs with a 3 run lead. That was Hughes’ inning to win or lose.
As for the bunt, another mismanagement. Once he asked Jeter to lay it down, Jeter had no other aspiration in the at bat but to bunt, because if Torre had asked him to do it (which he wouldn’t have) he would’ve put the sign on again even with 2 strikes to re-affirm to Jeter that he had faith in him.
Another mis-management by Girardi that the Yanks still got around.
Graphite has been commenting on this blog a long time; I tend to find him a classy fellow as well. Knows a lot about horses. That’s worth something.
I just read a book that featured another manager who tended to take pitchers out as soon as they did something he didn’t like. It was a good freaking book. I only wish the blogger responsible for this site would give people a link that would let them buy it. But, you know, you get what you pay for.
Having Jeter bunt with an 0-0 count was wrongwrongwrong. His bunting 0-2 was, well, whatever. A moment in the greatest game this shitty, shitty planet has ever invented. I know what I’m showing the aliens when they arrive to judge us. Baseball.
And maybe puppies. And poker. And kilts.
@Graphite–I think “A Warmer Wisconsin” was the B-side to a Hootie and the Blowfish single. I never made the New Zealand connection until now.
Trey Hillman thought the 2 strike bunt was an excellent idea.
“A bunt never increases the chances of scoring more than one run and, since the team is behind by two or more, it needs more than one run. Ahead of behind by more than one run? A bunt is never a good idea.”
This is true if your game is in the 9th inning, any other time the bunt can be helpful. Eat the elephant one bite at a time.
@Matt – if it’s not the ninth inning, you want to maximize run expectancy. Sacrifice bunting does not do that.
I’m conflicted.
This is one of my favorite things you’ve written, but, I’m also a Red Sox fan reading about Derek Jeter.
The world is topsy-turvy… up is down, down is up.
A lot of jeteration in the ninth inning of Game 4 while Damon and Rodriguez (and Posada) were the real heroes.
Clearly Jeter set up the rally with that clutch strikeout.
Just wanted to mention this, everyone keeps talking about Manuel deciding to start Blanton over Lee, etc. etc…Lee and Blanton were starting Games 4 and 5 no matter what. The only question was which order. The game this would REALLY effect is Game 7 if it goes that far, as you have to pitch Cole “I’m mentally tired and want next year to come quicker” Hamels instead of Cliff Lee.
If Lee wins tomorrow then the Lee/Blanton thing didn’t mean much for Games 4 and 5.
Michael (in NYC) @ 55
And I find you to be very perceptive.
Just make sure when those aliens arrive that they’re kept well clear of soccer. If they catch a sight of that we’ll be vapourised within seconds.
When A-Rod hit his home run off the camera and they were waiting for the umpires to sort it out, I think Timmy actually said, “we’re going to have to see if the ball was on it’s way down when it hit the camera.” Are you kidding me??? FTM
Joe Words…you mean “jowords?”
So after game 4, does Johnny Damon take the Title as Smartest Player in the Clubhouse for the Yankees?
Quite a Jeterism by JD last night.
Only Joe could get me to read 2500+ words telling me how wonderfully human and yet, still better than me Derek Jeter is.
The frustrating brillance of the Yanks is this: even when they do something that makes the casual fan say “that was dumb”, they still win. Had that maneuver been tried by the Phils, Angels, Sox, Cards, or any other elite team, they would have promptly given up 5 runs in the next half inning and lose.
I need a shower.
Yeah, but it finally paid off for Patek at the end of his career when he hit 3 HRs in a game with the Angels.
I still think that is one of THE most remarkable achievements in baseball history. That should be your next book, Joe. :0)
But Siberian, as I recall, Freddie P. did that at Fenway. Maybe playing in that ballpark his whole career instead of the cavernous Royals Stadium would have done wonders for his HR totals.
Come on Joe — breaking down improperly obtained film of the opposing team is the secret to Belichick’s success. Everyone knows that.
I get annoyed when people think of all bunts as intentional sacrifices. Bunting for a base hit is very different than a sacrifice. It’s something that isn’t done enough anymore, even in these OBP times.
Jeter was definitely bunting for a hit with 2 strikes. If it was fair and down the third baseline, it would’ve been a hit. With the third baseman moving way back with two strikes, his odds of getting a hit there by bunting are probably quite a bit higher than his odds of reaching base by swinging away.
I say this as a Jeter disliker and avid Yankee hater.
What’s stupid isn’t Jeter bunting, it’s that so many current players not being able to bunt, so that third basemen are able to get away with moving deeper with two strikes on a little shrimp of a hitter.
If David Ortiz learned to bunt the ball down the third baseline with any regularity, he’d be able to bunt for a hit 80% of the time against that shift, and they would be forced to take the shift off. Instead, he just keep hacking away and losing hit after hit to the shift.
Good analysis on Jeter, and I think it applies to a lot of other players. For instance, Varitek’s role on the Red Sox hasn’t declined because he’s lost his intangible leadership qualities. It’s because he can’t hit. And I’m a huge Chase Utley fan and absolutely love the heads-up plays he makes that no one else seems to think of. But it wouldn’t amount to nearly as much if he couldn’t hit like nobody’s business (though I think he’s slowly turning his defense into a real asset as well). Then you’re anti-Jeter in this case is Eckstein, whom some people love for his “heart” and “hustle.” It’s true that the guy plays hard, which is respectable, but it doesn’t nearly make up for his lack of overall talent, which is why any team would kill for a Derek Jeter, but Eckstein bounces around the league.
@Glenn et al
Cameron only said that bunting on the first or second strike was not a bad decision. He agreed that the third bunt was a mistake.
[...] of conventional wisdom. Just for a couple of sports-related examples: it has been shown that sacrifice bunting is most often a bad idea, going for it on 4th down is often a good idea, and striking out really [...]