Encarnacion at the plate. Brantley keeps saying he should bunt, and Dusty Baker obliges. Back to this decision in a moment. After Encarnacion displays absolutely no talent for bunting, and has a 1-2 count, Brantley says:
If he can't bunt, get him out of there. Put someone else in. HE DOESN'T HIT IN THE CLUTCH. THIS GUY IS NOT A CLUTCH HITTER!
I capitalized the last two sentences because Brantley was literally yelling, as if he were actually angry about it. The very next pitch -- approximately 2 seconds later -- Encarnacion clubbed one into the left field seats to give the Reds a 6-5 victory.
When hearing Brantley, I had two immediate thoughts: (1) lots of studies show there is no such thing as clutch ability that is repeatable from year to year and (2) what does he have against Encarnacion that would make him yell out to millions of people "This guy is not a clutch hitter"? I hope Brantley never has to interview him.
Now, let's consider whether Encarnacion should be bunting, assuming he is an average hitter (fair assumption) and average bunter (unfair assumption...he looked terrible bunting and had no sacrifices last year).
Cincinnati's win expectancy, down by 2 in the bottom of the ninth, with men on first and second, is 34.6%. If Encarnacion gets the bunt down, there will be one out and men on second and third. The win expectancy for that situation is 30.1%, so the bunt is a bad play for an average hitter/average bunter because it reduces Cincinnati's chances of winning by 5%.
Arguably Encarnacion is a slightly above average hitter, and he certainly is a below average bunter. The bunt, then is a pretty bad play, if you are actually expecting him to bunt. One caveat -- if you are merely attempting the bunt to draw the third baseman in, you may be increasing your chances of scoring if you then swing away. That's not what Dusty was trying however.
