.

There's a cool article here that offers, admiringly,

In 2011, the Giants scored 570 runs. They finished with a wRC+ of 87, the fourth worst mark in baseball. Put simply, the Giants couldn’t hit, and their best hitter — Carlos Beltran — was a free agent.

The Giants didn’t re-sign him ... in fact, they didn’t sign anyone of note last winter. ... they traded for Angel Pagan and Melky Cabrera and signed Gregor Blanco to a minor league contract, essentially building an entirely new outfield from scratch with players that weren’t wanted by their previous organization. Then, they handed shortstop and first base over to rookies Brandon Crawford and Brandon Belt. That was their offensive makeover. That was the plan to fix an offense that couldn’t score.

The Giants just won the World Series, beating the crap out of the team who spent $214 million to sign Prince Fielder last winter.

Repeat after me ... you don’t need a power hitting first baseman or a true slugger in left field. You don’t have to hit home runs.

.

One thing Dr. D sincerely likes about this argument is that --- > it does not try to argue that one particular paradigm is correct.  The logic is scaled back to argue that the favorite paradigm is feasible, that it is one of several legitimate macro strategies.  It goes on to subtly concede that the distasteful $214M Prince contract was not insane.  

Small favors, Mrs. McCready :- )

.

=== Honda Civics vs Stars & Scrubs ===

Asking what the 2012 Giants prove, is kind of like asking what it proves if Rod Carew bunts Darin Erstad to second base ... and Carew winds up safe at first.  I dunno, what does that prove?

Readers tell us they enjoy Dr. D's hero worship of the Founding Father.  Here's a Hey Bill:

..................................

In a tie-game in the 9th inning, you're the home team and you get a lead-off double. Do you have such a dispassionate proclivity towards bunting that you'd rather have three chances to drive that run in from second instead of a lone chance from third? Obviously all situations are different, I get that. But, of all the bunting situations, is there one that doesn't suck as much as others to your mind?

Asked by: soprismb

Answered: 10/29/2012

Well, playing Ballpark baseball, I do bunt sometimes, if that tells you anything.   The arguments against the sacrifice bunt are sufficient to convince me that you don't want teams bunting A LOT, but they're not sufficient to convince me that there are no times when a team should bunt.

 

An interesting study in the bunt is actually the Cardinals of the 1940s, under Billy Southworth.   Here's a dominant team that led the league in sac bunts every year, often by huge margins.  In 1943 the Cardinals won the National League by 18 games--and led the league in sac bunts by 53 (173-120); they bunted so often that six of the other seven teams were under the league average in bunts.   They finished 105-49.  

 

It's a situation that challenges our assumptions about the bunt.   The Cardinals were not using the bunt to try to manufacture a run out of scarce opportunities; rather, they were using the bunt to ensure that they cashed in their abundant opportunities at some reasonable rate of return.    They had LOTS of runners on base in the early innings; they would bunt to try to get ahead 1-0 or 2-0....in essence trading off potential big innings for frequent one-run and two-run payoffs that enabled them to win 70% of their games.   I think it would be difficult to establish that if they hadn't bunted like fiends they would have won 110 games, instead of 105. 

..................................

Another time, Bill said that MLB managers ask him for advice.  Frequently.  Usually he tells them, "Don't bunt.  But as to the rest of it, do what you feel is right.  Most issues can be argued two ways," or somesuch.

In other words, after 35 years of research, James tells the managers ONE thing:  don't bunt.  Much.  And even there -- couldn't you sometimes bunt and it be the wise thing to do?

..............

Stars & Scrubs, in the abstract, that it is a General Principle you want to use, that is one of the very few baseball things that Dr. D is absolutely sure about.  It's like saying you want to swing away rather than bunt.

But hey.  What if it's Rod Carew bunting?  ... what if it is Pat Gillick using 25 Honda Civics, and he's got a magic ability to point at Arthur Rhodes and say "THAT one," and then do the same with Mark McLemore and Bret Boone and Mike Cameron and John Olerud and Aaron Sele and Jeff Nelson and 12 other guys?  Maybe Brian Sabean is developing into the 2010's Pat Gillick.  Doesn't mean everybody in the lineup should be bunting ....

If I wanted respect for being cheap with a buck, I wouldn't use one playoff team that took the winter off and then saw Melky Cabrera go bananas.  But I could sure use Pat Gillick's 4-for-4 day at the plate, 16 total bases, four franchises and four lousy teams turned into four great ones.  Can you win without hemorrhaging cash?  Sure.  You just gotta be Pat Gillick -- or somebody who was temporarily as lucky as he was good -- or a GM who seems to be trying to prove that he IS as good.

.............

Swinging away is better than bunting.  But might you watch Ichiro or Gardner or Pierre lay down a bunt and watch a third baseman fire the ball down the RF line?

The 2012 Giants were a verrrrrry cool team.  They took a laissez-faire to the offseason, shrugged their shoulders, stuck a Civics roster into the slot machine, and the bells and alarms started blazing.  Good on them.

A Civics team might win next year too.  Doesn't mean you want to bunt to lead off the game.  It does mean you owe the bunters their due amount of game respect.  They'll beat you if you play too far back.

NEXT