The Jays really need to get going. Perhaps some Purposeful Yelling at the guys stranding all the runners will help.
I'm not losing faith, but I miss the Wham-co days.

Is there a more worse broadcast team than the White Sox announcers? They make Yankee broadcasts appear balanced.

I'm proud of myself, I'm again resisting the urge to read Griffin!

I think it's about time that Rickey invests in a copy of The Big Book of Non-Baseball Related Hobbies.

Is there a more worse broadcast team than the White Sox announcers? They make Yankee broadcasts appear balanced.

Any game involving Tim (I'm on the Yankees payroll) McCarver or Joe Morgan.

What Happen'? I agree with RG today and Zaun is batting over 600. I don't think I can take anymore Jays hitting shallow fly balls on the first pitch. The pitching the Jays are getting is awesome. For an average group, 3, 4 runs is very good. VW forget that diet you were on and get back on the chicken. Monday bitterness and the day rests like ashes in my throat.

Christopher: Bonus points for all the Wham references. Very nice! The song was indeed Careless Whisper by Wham.

Is there a more worse broadcast team than the White Sox announcers? They make Yankee broadcasts appear balanced.

I actually don't mind homerism if it's the team's station that the game is being broadcasted on. If the game is on TBS you know that the audience is made up of Braves fans and the announcers cover nothing but Braves games, so I don't mind if they're rooting for the Braves.

What drives me up the wall is when the game is on an impartial station, like TSN or a Fox Game of the Week or whatever and they're actively cheering for one side or the other. That drives me nuts. I hate it when Calgary plays Toronto on HNIC when Bob Cole and Harry Neale are broadcasting. The way they cheer Toronto you think they were playing the Soviet Red Army.

RE: Griffin. I didn't think today's article was all that bad, though I do think he's completely wrong. Small ball has it's place, but not at the top of the order! The Jays aren't stranding runners because they're not playing small ball. They're stranding runners because their #3 hitter is hitting .156/.182/.188 with RISP. Hinske is hitting .211/.357/.263 with RISP. The only guy at the heart of the order doing anything to drive in RISP is Phelps. The Jays big guys are just killing their offense. Small ball is defensable with the bottom of the order, but they're the ones who are producing! They don't need to change tactics.

Careless Whispers? I always thought it was Hairless Sisters!

I'm not saying that we should go small ball. However do you do little things like start putting the hit and run on with VW at the plate?(I know it doesn't work with the bases loaded) Those DP's are killer. I'm not saying that Delgado should be bunting. I'm saying that we should be mixing it up a bit. We can't assume that VW is going to bring them all home so perhaps you have to scratch for a run. This wouldn't really be a problem is the Jays could even muster a sacrafice fly right now. They probably could have won 2 more games with a couple of long outs. Big picture, small ball won't help this club. Moffat is right, no timely hitting from Wells and Hinske means a long year for the fans.

Speaking of Braves games. I like some of the gimmicks they use.

1) The Catcher cam: It is really cool to see a curve ball come breaking in from the catcher's perspective.

2) The graphic they lay down at first base to show how far the runner is leading off. I think they reserve it for runners that might steal.

http://www.phillies-fan.com
Actually, the Braves announcers are downright impartial compared to the ChiSox clowns, and at least the Braves (and most other homer) announcers are willing to give credit to the opposition/umps when something goes against them. I actually prefer having the announcers partial to one team, gives a fuller picture of the teams I'm seeing when I flip through games on extra-innings.

But I simply can't watch the Sox games, they're way past the homerism line and into full on sycophancy.

the funny part is that colour analyst and one-half of the 'chisox clowns' tandem is none other than former Blue Jay OF (albeit for a brief time) Darrin Jackson -- you can put it on the board -- yes!

do you do little things like start putting the hit and run on with VW at the plate?

Cutting down his swing really isn't Vernon's best game though. I think if he's still struggling in July, I'm more tempted to try different things, but it's May 3rd and I think he will snap back to being VW pretty soon.

If I want Vernon Wells to play like Vernon Wells, I want Vernon Wells playing Vernon Wells's game. :)

Is there a more worse broadcast team than the White Sox announcers?

It was mentioned in yesterday's game thread, but the Toronto Maple Leafs' radio announcers make Hawk and DJ sound like Vin Scully by comparison. All three of the Leafs' primary radio guys (Beyak, Bowen, Ralph) are among the very worst in their roles I have ever heard. Ralph's the worst (what a One-Note Charlie) but Beyak and Bowen are both terrible because they get miles and miles behind the play. Anyway, enough bitching from me.

Not to mention the homerism!

On Griffin's thesis (didn't read the article, I'm going from the title) I will just say this: the Jays not making productive outs (I think they are trying, but failing - these are primarily errors of execution, not of strategy) has nothing to do with their not scoring runs.

The Jays are 11th in the AL in runs scored per game. They are 9th in walks, 12th in slugging percentage and dead last in home runs. That's the problem with the offense.

It's not strategic, not at all. They are 9th in sacrifice bunts, fourth in sacrifice flies, second in staying out of double plays. The problem isn't with the kind of outs the Jays are making - the problem is that they are making too many outs. I'd be loath to say that Mike Barnett is the problem; I just don't think a hitting coach deserves that much credit or blame over a relatively small sample. But if the team is unable to put the bats back together, it will be a very long season.

Craig, you're certainly right that the problem with the offence is that it's not executing its strengths -- patience and hitting for power.

I do think, though, that alsiem's point is that when the big guys are slumping and you can't count on them for power production, it might make sense to manufacture runs elsewhere in the order. I agree with you that they should never take the bat out of Vernon's hands -- even partially, as in the case of the hit & run. But one-run strategies from the bottom of the order, especially when the Jays get a quality start, might come in handy until the heart of the order awakens. Maybe O-Dog or Woody can handle a hit-and-run assignment.

Having said that, what Griffin (and today, Rutsey in the Sun)fail to mention when they lament the lack of small-ball is that the Jays can't execute it worth a damn. Not one of the Jays is on the team because of their speed, savvy baserunning, bat control or bunting. Maybe Reed Johnson, but he's been an atrocious bunter this year. I think this is a problem on a big-league club; many of you could, and probably will, disagree. But Griffin's rather facile suggestion that the Jays should just flip a strategy switch and start playing like the White Sox or Marlins won't work.

Finally, and I've said this before, Bob Cole favours the home team, which is usually the Leafs but not always. If you thought he treated the Flyers like "the Soviet Red Army" yesterday, you're simply crazy.

Speaking of announcers, if there's one positive we can take from Toronto's ineptitude at the plate, it's that we haven't had to listen to Rob Faulds' annoying "What do you think about that!" home run call very much this year.

Is there a more worse broadcast team than the White Sox announcers?

Whoops. 'more' shouldn't be in there. I originally was going to write 'more obnoxious broadcast team' but wasn't sure I could spell 'obnoxious' correctly so I went with worse and never proofread what I wrote.

"Careless Whisper" was done famously by George Michael solo. George Michael is now a honorary member of Mick's first name/last name club.

Bill Liming, "way past homerism into full-on sycophancy", I like it.

Speaking of Braves games. I like some of the gimmicks they use.

My favorite gimmick is when the Braves have a PIP of the baserunner on a hit. I'd think Fox and/or ESPN would pick that up.

I agree completely with Craig B and Mike D. There is nothing wrong with developing the ability to execute one-run strategies, but this shouldn't happen during the year.

There is also a time and place for these strategies- to introduce surprise as an element, and as a tactical decision depending on the hitter and the game situation. Bunting twice with a man on second and nobody out early in the game, once with the #2 hitter, as Guillen did yesterday, is a poor tactical decision. It worked yesterday, but if Guillen keeps doing it, it'll cost his team a game or two over the course of the season.

I finally saw a TV replay of the Wells GIDP, which was the turning point of the game, and all I can say is, "Wow, what a great pitch."

Vernon, reacting to what looked like a belt-high fastball on the outer half, began a hard rip that would have produced a bases-clearing double in the opposite gap, or at the very least, an RBI sac fly. However, it was a breaking ball that dropped out of the zone, and we all know what happened -- he couldn't check his swing. When things are going good, you one-hand a flare over the second baseman's head in that situation, even though you're off-balance. When you're in a slump, the same effort produces a weak ground ball.

Because we're impatient with Wells right now, there's a tendency to blame him for failing there, but Garland deserves plenty of credit for snapping off a perfect pitch. Vernon will hit his way out of this funk by sticking with the very sound Mike Barnett philosophy that helped set a team record for runs scored last season, not by making panicky adjustments to his approach.

I repeat what I said in the game thread -- Chicago didn't win because of sacrifice bunts, they won despite them. Anyone who advocates that the Jays emulate Ozzie Guillen's "strategy" just doesn't understand AL baseball, or percentages.

Bob Cole favours the home team

It's still homerism by definition. And it's really annoying, IMO. If he can't be an impartial play-by-play guy, he shouldn't be doing national broadcasts.

I do think, though, that alsiem's point is that when the big guys are slumping and you can't count on them for power production, it might make sense to manufacture runs elsewhere in the order

I'd agree with that, except that the bottom of the order is already producing. All that would accomplish is have the Jays lose 4-1 instead of 4-3.

Wells should be dropped down in the order until he gets his stroke back. He's pressing like mad, and the Jays need to do whatever they can to take the pressure off, for a little while at least.

Wrong, Moffatt. "Homer" in the sports broadcasting sense is still too much of a slang term to have a definition. But manifestly, it refers to a biased broadcast in favour of a particular team, not home teams generally. Thus, Joe Bowen and Hawk Harrelson are homers -- not Bob Cole.

And it's not a lack of impartiality. He's simply susceptible to the arena atmosphere in which he calls the game -- as are most announcers. After Games 3, 4 and 6, CBC was deluged with calls from lame Leaf fans, accusing him of being pro-Ottawa. Sounds ridiculous, I know...

He's still not impartial. If I'm watching the Flames play the Leafs in Toronto, do I really care if he's hugely pro-Leafs coz they're playing in the Leafs barn, or because he loves the Leafs like Joe Bowen, or because his wife ran off with Terry Crisp? It's still all root root root for the home team (which just happens to be the Leafs 90% of the time in the regular season). If he can't be impartial, he shouldn't be doing national broadcasts.

By the way, Nate Silver had an excellent article in Baseball Prospectus last week on trying to make RBI context-independent. Interesting stuff.

While it certainly wasn't the focus of the article, one of the observations is that there's a big difference in the likelihood of driving a runner home from third as opposed to second -- so much so that the phrase "scoring position" probably shouldn't apply to runners on second. It seems that where a one-run strategy is warranted, moving a runner to third with no outs would be much more effective than attempting to steal second (or, heaven forbid, attempting to move a runner over to second).

I have to admit, if my wife ran off with Terry Crisp, I'd probably forever bear a grudge against the Flames and the Lightning.

Sorry Moffat, the Leafs are CBC's meal ticket. Flames, nice little story but Leafs Nation is millions of viewers. The homerism showed for the Leafs is part of the product as is Cherry's unflagging support. It's not an error or an oversight but a deliberate attempt to pander to the audience, national broadcast or not.

Then this year's stanley cup final would be a bitch to watch for you. ;)

Is there any way they can sit Vern for a game? Maybe start Johnson or Clark in CF? I know it'd cost a lot on defense, but it really is weird for them to not have that option, for Vern to pretty much have to play every inning except in a blowout. Seems like it couldn't hurt to try- it isn't like they'll miss his bat...

One more freak-show Barry Bonds stat- 54 ABs, 44 walks. It is conceivable that by the end of the season over 1/2 his plate appearances will result in a walk. Even when he sits out a game, he still is a factor. On the weekend, the Giants went into extra innings and needed a pinch-hitter for the pitcher leading off an inning. Bonds steps in, and of course, walks and proceeds to score the winning run.

He'll be turning 40 in July.

Anybody going to tonight's 7:05 start at the Dome? It features the 1-0 lefty Jimmy Gobble for the 7-16 Royals vs. the 0-0 Justin Miller for the 8-17 Blue Jays. If you do go to the game, try to enthusiastically support the home squad. Bonus points for anyone who makes a sign telling Vernon Wells that we're still rooting for him!

Moffatt, did you forget about Incredible Noise Night? It's tonight!

Anyone who wants to join us and didn't get this morning's mailing, drop me a line (COMN).

Short version: either come to the gate 9 box office around 6:50 or meet us inside at section 518 during the game. If we're not in 518, listen for the sound of the drum and follow it.

I'll make a Vernon sign. What should it read?

Moffatt, did you forget about Incredible Noise Night? It's tonight!

Whoops.. I thought it was tomorrow. Sorry about that, I would have given you a plug.

Either way, I can't make it. I've got to give a biggish presentation Wednesday morning.

I'll make a Vernon sign. What should it read?

Sweeet. Anyone have any suggestions? I'll have to think about it.

Didn't you get the e-mail?

Arrgh, maybe it's trapped in everyone's junk mail filters!!

Yep.. I actually just checked my e-mail for the first time today.

I don't have filters on that account, so I get everything, both good and bad. So if Bob Cole wants to send a flame mail. ;)

I got the e-mail, Aaron, but I can't make it tonight (work) or tomorrow (high school game). Make some extra noise for me.

I'll make a Vernon sign. What should it read?

Get Wells soon.

Groan.

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html
Anyone who advocates that the Jays emulate Ozzie Guillen's "strategy" just doesn't understand AL baseball, or percentages.

Here's the run expectancy tables that Tango came up with based on 1999-2002. COMN for the link.

Looks like a sacrifice is costing you about .2-.25 runs compared to not sacrificing.

99-02..  0      1      2  
Empty..  0.555  0.297  0.117  
1st....  0.953  0.573  0.251  
2nd....  1.189  0.725  0.344  
3rd....  1.482  0.983  0.387  
1st_2nd  1.573  0.971  0.466  
1st_3rd  1.904  1.243  0.538  
2nd_3rd  2.052  1.467  0.634  
Loaded.  2.417  1.650  0.815  

Bad news: no drum for tonight.

Good news: I have been promised drum clearance for the series against the Red Sox, May 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th.

Other bad news: I can only show up to the game on the 13th. Who wants to lead the Cheer Club while I'm out of town?

Baseball question (for once):

What does everything think of the idea of picking up Jeff DaVanon from the Angels for cheap, seeing as the Halos refuse to play him. He's a 30 year old right handed hitting outfielder, who can play all three positions. He's got a career .284/.391/.500 line against lefty pitching, albeit in only 74 at-bats. Overall in his career he's .254/.333/.434. He seems like he'd be a lot more useful on the bench than Dave Berg, and I imagine the Jays could pick him up for pretty cheap.

Any thoughts?

It's worth noting that this chart, showing the Jays last in the AL East at the start of May, 2003, is not all that different from this chart, showing the same thing only in 2004.

DaVanon would be fine. He's actually a switch hitter, who hits much better from the right side. He reportedly plays good defence, but I don't have access to defensive numbers for him.

Incidentally, while Cat's bat has been fine, his range seems to be decreasing each year, perhaps because his back problems interfere with mobility.

DaVanon would be fine. He's actually a switch hitter, who hits much better from the right side.

Ooops.. my mistake. You're right.

A Cat/DaVanon platoon in left would look quite good. I wonder how much the Halos would want for him.

What does everything think of the idea of picking up Jeff DaVanon from the Angels for cheap, seeing as the Halos refuse to play him. He's a 30 year old right handed hitting outfielder, who can play all three positions. He's got a career .284/.391/.500 line against lefty pitching, albeit in only 74 at-bats. Overall in his career he's .254/.333/.434. He seems like he'd be a lot more useful on the bench than Dave Berg, and I imagine the Jays could pick him up for pretty cheap.


Sounds good to me. Though if Garrett Anderson stays hurt for long, they Angels will not be willing to trade outfield depth.

Does anyone find it weird that Chone Figgins is picking up playing time while DaVanan rots on the bench?

Also, I wonder what the chances are of the Angels moving Erstad back to CF and calling up uber-prospect Casey Kotchman to play some 1B.

NFH,

Do you not have any drum clearance for any of the 6 games this homestand? Do you have other noise-makers to bring along, at least?

I repeat what I said in the game thread -- Chicago didn't win because of sacrifice bunts, they won despite them. Anyone who advocates that the Jays emulate Ozzie Guillen's "strategy" just doesn't understand AL baseball, or percentages


I've gotta disagree with you on that one Coach. Small-ball strategies aren't always dumb.

In a game where both pitchers are throwing well, it makes sense to try to scratch out a few runs. Also, since Tosca has a fetish for the IBB, bunting against the Jays doesn't reduce scoring expectation much at all (in some cases, it actually increases it).

5 hits and a walk over 8 IP (Batista's Sunday line) sounds like a pitcher who was on his game. Holding out for a big inning against someone who's pitching well seems pretty foolish to me. The Jays got 11 hits and a walk off Garland over 7IP. That should have been good for more than 2 runs.

I'm sure Ozzie will push this small ball thing way to far over the course of the season, but there's no doubt in my mind that it was the correct strategy on Saturday and Sunday.

http://www.battersbox.ca/archives/00001719.shtml
Do you not have any drum clearance for any of the 6 games this homestand? Do you have other noise-makers to bring along, at least?

Security and publicity are swamped with other things right now, so the drum has been backburnered for a week and a half, until the Boston series.

At work with me I don't have any other noisemakers, but you can bring anything that you'd ordinarily bring to a game.

I started another thread about tonight to hash out this stuff -- COMN.

The Jays got 11 hits and a walk off Garland over 7IP. That should have been good for more than 2 runs.

I think that's the whole point. The Jays had a decent offensive day and only scored 2 runs. Imagine if they were giving up outs! A team like the Jays should expect that 11 hits and a walk in 7 innings is going to translate to more than 2 runs, so there's no need to use the sacrifice.

I find myself in the rather uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with Griffin re yesterdays game. The manager's job is win games first and massage ego's second. If VW comes to bat in a close game and you need 1 run to get back in the game then VW or Delgado bunt/sacrifice, whatever for the team.

Contrary to JP's statement the team lost yesterday because it did not do the little things (ie, small ball) necessary to win. Batista finally pitches a good game and the team can't push across 4 runs to win the game for him. His comment after the game I think tells it all - the Sox played better than we did (not an exact quote but close).

I don't think as a general rule that you should play small ball but if you want to win the close games and in the playoffs - if we ever get there - you have to be able to scratch and claw for a run when the situation demands it.

If the Jays continue to play this badly for another 3 or 4 weeks, the rest of the season will be academic - and I don't think baseball in TO can handle that. I attended all the home games this April in Dunedin and what you see now on the field is exactly what we saw in spring training - 1 good game followed by several poor ones.

I think that's the whole point. The Jays had a decent offensive day and only scored 2 runs. Imagine if they were giving up outs! A team like the Jays should expect that 11 hits and a walk in 7 innings is going to translate to more than 2 runs, so there's no need to use the sacrific


"Imagine if they were giving up outs!"

Ok, I will. Let's see, I would guess there would be 1-2 less baserunners, and maybe one less double play, and another sacfirice fly. Hey, do you think that might have led to a few extra runs?

My point is if you _cannot_ translate 12 baserunners into more than two runs over 7IP, maybe you ought to consider bunting runners over now and again.

If you knew Bautista was going to pitch that well, then maybe there's a case for small ball. But given his performance this year, and the bullpen's weakness, and the fact that they were hitting Garland- small ball seems like a great strategy if you know the outcome.*

*As a qualifier, I've been reading Moneyball all day (yeah, I waited), so maybe I'm a bit too caught up in it. But if I were JP/Tosca, I don't bet that 3 runs wins a game the way Bautista's been going.

My point is if you _cannot_ translate 12 baserunners into more than two runs over 7IP, maybe you ought to consider bunting runners over now and again.

Well yeah, but how do you know if you can translate them into runs or not? You don't, you just know the likehoods. And the likelyhood is that on a day like yesterday the Jays would score more than 2 runs.

I can see the other side, and I'm not totally against, but I don't think it's a cut and dried thing. Part of the problem is that the lower half of the order is actually hitting well. So then who bunts? Phelps or Wells? Forget about the fact that they're your power hitters, how about the fact that as power hitters they probably suck at bunting?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2828
COMN for Rany's account of Colorado's 4 man rotation effort. Dreaming of a Halladay, Batista, Bush, McGowan rotation in 2005, anybody?

Dreaming of a Halladay, Batista, Bush, McGowan rotation in 2005, anybody?

My latest Blue Jay-related dream consisted of Chris Woodward and Felipe Lopez scuba-diving...so no. But if Batista could find himself, that would be nice.

My point is if you _cannot_ translate 12 baserunners into more than two runs over 7IP, maybe you ought to consider bunting runners over now and again.

Well, you certainly ought to consider it. I'm sure that Tosca considers it every time there's a runner on base with less than two out. The question isn't whether you consider it, it's when you pull the trigger.

I went back to the Griffin piece and read it, because I wanted to get to grips with this stuff. Griffin picked out one situation where the bunt could have been called for... first and second with nobody out, Howie Clark up.

Now just using the run expectation chart (not an ideal analysis, but worth noting) a successful bunt in that situation moved the run expectancy from 1.573 to 1.467 - down .106 runs. Certainly might be called for on occasion. In the fifth inning, down two runs, isn't it. You're down two runs in the middle innings and instead of playing for a big inning, you play for the tie? On the road? I wouldn't do it. Some might; three innings later I'd think about it; not in the fifth though.

It's pretty much a rock-solid principle that you don't play for the tie on the road. One might make an exception in certain circumstances where you're in the late innings. The 5th doesn't qualify.

There's another factor here. Not all bunts are successful. IIRC, about two-thirds of bunt attempts are unsuccessful; either they fail to advance the runner, or end up as a strike. The "sacrifice numbers" are for successful sacrifices only; and while the occasional hit or error oes in the positive column, we don't keep numbers about how going 0-1 or 0-2 affects the bunt attempter. That's may main reason for disliking bunts; not that it's a bad play when you do it right, but that it's damn hard to do it right.

What other situations in yesterday's game could a sacrifice have been called?

1) 1st inning, 0-0, nobody out, man on first, Cat up.
2) 1st, one out, 0-0, man on first, Wells up.
3) 3rd, one out, 1-1, man on first, Wells up.
4) 5th, no out, 3-1, man on first, Zaun up.
5) 5th, no out, 3-1, first and second, Clark up (mentioned earlier).
6) 5th, one out, 3-1, first and second, Wells up.
7) 7th, no out, 3-1, man on first, Gomez up.
8) 7th, no out, 3-1, first and third, Clark up.
9) 7th, one out, 3-1, first and third, Cat up.
10) 8th, no out, 3-1, man on second, Delgado up.
11) 8th, no out, 3-1, man on third, Delgado up.
12) 8th, one out, 3-1, first and third, Hudson up.
13) 9th, no out, 3-2, man on first, Gomez up.
14) 9th, one out, 3-2, man on first, Clark up.

In seven of these situations, there is absolutely no way you ever call a sacrifice for anyone but a pitcher. That leaves 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and 14.

8 is a possible squeeze play. Would I order a squeeze there? No, just about never. I can't imagine anyone who would; I'm not even sure a deadball manager would with Eddie Collins at the plate. Squeezing to get the run that puts you down one is a great way to come out with no runs. Even a double-play ball nets you one run. The successful squeeze only gets you to 3-2 down.

1 and 2 are classic Dumb Manager Tricks. No manager really would ever bunt with one out and his three hitter up; but lots try #1, even in the first inning (hell, some maangers design their whole lineup around that exact situation, putting a contact hitter/good bunter in the 2 slot). It's a bad move though, playing for one run on the road in the first inning. A classic yuck.

5 I dealt with earlier.

3 is also a no-brainer, for the same reason 2 is. Wells is your 3 hitter. Mind you, I feel better about bunting at 1-1 than I do at 3-1, since at least you're playing for the lead. But Wells doesn't bunt anyway.

13, though, is a case where I might well do it (in the abstract). No, playing for the tie isn't good; but on the other hand you have Gomez at the plate (a good candidate to get doubled up), the top of the order follows him, and presumably your light-hitting utility infielder can actually bunt.

I wouldn't have done it in that situation, though, because it's Billy Koch up there. Koch throws awfully hard to bunt on him, he's wild which makes it even harder, and furthermore it's Billy Koch. I like my chances of scoring a run off him once I get a man on.

14 is a bad situation to bunt in, though. Bunting a guy to second with one out, even where it works, reduces you to one crack to win the ballgame. Bad decision, defensible if you have a pitcher up and no one left on the bench.

I should point out that if you factor in unsuccessful bunt attempts, you also should factor in "success-plus" bunt attempts, where the batter is safe at first, either because he legs out the play or it's misplayed for an error (or a "rolling ball stays fair" hit). Bunts are tricky plays to field, and more error-inducing than a typical ball in play. Because these plays are not "sacrifices," they're not factored into analyses of the success rates of bunts.

That said, I think you're absolutely correct when you say that 13 is the only "maybe bunt" situation. And with Koch...maybe you don't do it. He's a poor defensive pitcher, which is tempting, but his pitches are tough to bunt.