A general response to reader mail in no particular order and with really bad grammar;
BECAUSE YOU SHOULD NEVER BUNT NO MATTER HOW MANY MORONIC SPORTSWRITERS AND JOE MORGANS SAY YOU SHOULD.

The above was mentioned in a post a few days ago. Some readers responded by mentioning situations when they felt it is okay to bunt. Some even produced Game 1 of the 2003 ALDS when Ramon Hernandez bunted as an example.

The following is blatantly and wholly lifted from the paperback version of Moneyball by Michael Lewis. The passage is taken from page 299 of the AFTERWARD.

(begin lifting of material)
"Ramon Hernandez bunted.



The A's had won the first game of the Red Sox series when their molasses-footed catcher, with two outs, dropped a bunt down the third base line. The act itself triggered a chemical reaction in the minds of Club members.



Moneyball teams don't bunt! These . . . little nerds all say that smart managers don't trade outs for bases. Ha! Look! Okay, they won. But, they've proven our point!



Never mind the absurdity of attributing the outcome of a game to the single event. Never mind that a single exception does no harm to the larger argument: that over the long haul it's a mistake to give away outs for bases. Never mind that the dislike of the sacrifice bunt is a trivial sliver of the new approach to baseball. It wasn't a sacrifice bunt. There were two outs! Ramon Hernandez wasn't trying to trade a base hit for an out. He was bunting for a base hit."
(end lifting of material)

I suppose I could have just presented the play-by-play and mentioned that there were two outs when Hernandez dropped the bat down, but it seemed like an easy enough way to work in the note that Lewis has an afterward available in the paperback. You can buy it...or you can deprive the man of residuals by reading it in a Barnes y Noblet (or you can ask me to email you the PDF version!).

THEN

From the same post there were several mentions in regards to .091405, KEN MACHA'S MARGIN FOR ERROR.

Succinctly, it's a notion that Ken Macha has less than a tenth of a run to play with when making decisions that decide a game. Since that post, the margin of error has been updated to .072552 (3.53409090_ more runs in their wins against 3.46153846 runs in their losses).

Is it really true that the A's win or lose by 7 hundredths of a run? No. But it sure as hell feels that way.

And note, this stat was just made up of runs scored, not of runs allowed so it had nothing to do with the pitching staff or necessarily the offense. It was a simple matter of looking at how many MOREruns the A's score when they win against the number of runs they are beaten by when they lose. They have scored 311 more runs in their wins and 225 in their losses. From the 311 runs less the 88 wins (the A's, like most teams, need one more run than the opponent to 'win'), the A's have scored 223 extra runs and 165 fewer runs in their losses.

Does this stat hold any water? I don't know, because I'm too lazy to spend the 25 minutes per team entering the data into a spreadsheet. And I forgot more than I learned about statistical variances to write a script or plot a graph. But, if I can bang heads with some of the white coats at UC Berkley I might get an answer.

AND THEN

There are no statistics available to tout, support, or even crucify Eric Chavez in regards to any lifestyle or 'faith' choices he might have made. Though, I can crucify Chavez for his unspectacular performance at the plate and his general lack of 'leadership' (that being said, we can all attack the A's for their poor play over the last few weeks). It's a situation where some point to Chavez' age and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry. That doesn't work anymore.

Regardless of age, Chavez has been in the league for six seasons and has been in the playoffs four times. While his OPS is up, it is largely due to his On Base Percentage. His Slugging Percentage is down as his is his Batting Average. And don't blame his injury, the dip started in 2002.

ERIC CHAVEZ: CAREER STALLING?

Season	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
1998	16	45	6	14	4	1	0	6	3	5	.311	.354	.444	.798
1999	115	356	47	88	21	2	13	50	46	56	.247	.333	.427	.760
2000	153	501	89	139	23	4	26	86	62	94	.277	.355	.495	.850
2001	151	552	91	159	43	0	32	114	41	99	.288	.338	.540	.878
2002	153	585	87	161	31	3	34	109	65	119	.275	.348	.513	.861
2003	156	588	94	166	39	5	29	101	62	89	.282	.350	.514	.864
2004	117	447	85	121	18	0	29	73	91	93	.271	.395	.506	.901
Total	861	3074	499	848	179	15	163	539	370	555	.276	.353	.503	.856
162 AVG	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
5.31	162	578	94	160	34	3	31	101	70	104	.276	.353	.503	.856

Yah, those are very good numbers. But they are not great. They aren't $11 Million a year numbers (unless were are comparing them to Jermaine Dye). But, the kicker has always been his defense.

Eh.

That's an iffy argument unless you can quantify the value of his defense. Only a few people can, including the A's front office and they aren't giving me access to their databases (or the databases Paul De Podesta took with him to Chavez Ravine - no relation).

Here's the bottom line numbers; when it counts:

PLAYOFFS	OPP - W/L	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS
2000	NYY - L	5	21	4	7	3	0	0	4	0	5	.333	.333	.476	.809
2001	NYY - L	5	21	0	3	1	0	0	0	0	5	.143	.143	.190	.333
2002	MIN - L	5	21	3	8	0	0	1	5	2	1	.381	.435	.524	.959
2003	BOS - L	5	22	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	3	.045	.087	.091	.178
2004	??? - ?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?
Total	0 - 4	20	85	8	19	5	0	1	9	3	14	.224	.250	.318	.568

There's an old argument about "clutch hitting". It's a lame argument. But, there's the question of being, "clutch". That's a lame argument, too. But, in your recent memory, how many times do you recall Eric Chavez wining a game with his heroics at the plate? I recall a win against Seattle a when he hit an opposite field 3 run jimmy-jack (June 20th, 2001). There was a game winning single earlier this month...but think about Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, hell, even Scott Hatteberg and Mark Ellis. There were some epic performances by those lads when it counted.

Yes, and some when they didn't come through, too.

Maybe the averages even out in 2004?

They had better.