To bunt or not to bunt, that is the question

JamesOOTP · 06-10-2004, 11:25 PM

If anyone has any statistics to shed some light on this question I'd dance at your wedding if you'd give us the stats.

Baseball Prospectus did a study on whether or not it was advantageous to sacrifice bunt the runner from 2nd to 3rd with no one out when needing only one run. I'm not a premium subscriber so I couldn't see the results of the study.

Assuming the sacrifice moved the runner over to third and adding the likelihood that the opposing team would intentional walk the next batter to add the possibility of a double play, is it worth the risk to sac bunt?

I know it would depend on several variables but...

danwaechter · 06-11-2004, 12:31 AM

With an average hitter, you have to bunt him over, but if it was one of my best hitters up there, i'd let him swing away and trust that even if he couldnt get a hit, hed be able to advance the runner.

rschick · 06-11-2004, 02:19 AM

alot would depend on who was on deck or who could pinch hit off the bench after the sacrifice.

mlyons · 06-11-2004, 07:26 AM

Sacrifice, but only if the guy at the plate is not a great hitter and is a good bunter.

ctorg · 06-11-2004, 10:07 AM

Assuming that everything is average, that there are no unusual conditions, etc., I would bunt most of the time. I don't know if that actually works better, but I can understand why it probably would...

1. You can then score on a decent fly ball
2. You get out of the double play possibility (unless the bunt gets screwed up)
3. You can make the other team have to play its infield in, which increases your hit chance

Reasons that can work against it:
1. If the guy on deck is your best hitter, they can then walk him, setting up a possible double play again
2. If the guy at the plate is a poor bunter but a good hitter, you may be better off letting him swing away
3. If the guy at the plate is a decent hitter and the guy behind him is a very weak hitter, swinging away may be better.

Malleus Dei · 06-11-2004, 11:28 AM

Never. Never give up an out voluntarily.

DawnBTVS · 06-11-2004, 11:43 AM

I wouldn't bunt because it gives the other team an automatic free out. Now say the next hitter grounds out, that's now 2 outs and you now depend on your 3rd hitter to get a hit because a fly ball is now rendered worthless. Basically you give the other team a free out and are now banking on the 2nd hitter hitting a fly ball or getting a base hit and if he does neither, that's 2 "wasted" outs.

ctorg · 06-11-2004, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DawnBTVS
I wouldn't bunt because it gives the other team an automatic free out. Now say the next hitter grounds out, that's now 2 outs and you now depend on your 3rd hitter to get a hit because a fly ball is now rendered worthless. Basically you give the other team a free out and are now banking on the 2nd hitter hitting a fly ball or getting a base hit and if he does neither, that's 2 "wasted" outs.

Well, if the player at bat swings away and grounds out, it may very well be two outs as well, since the team in the field will try to turn a DP.

Do we have any statistical data that shows whether it is more likely that a team will score with runners on 1st and 2nd and no outs than with runners on 2nd or 3rd and one out. That's what it comes down to. Which situation is more advantageous? Does anyone know? I can see both arguments.

Ktulu · 06-11-2004, 02:11 PM

Well it all depends on the game situation. If you have a one run lead in the late innings and the bottom of your order is up, I would move him over. Thats just one of many situations.

There are just way too many factors that go into the decision for it to be a yes or no question.

DawnBTVS · 06-11-2004, 02:37 PM

Credit to tangotiger. Top of the 9th, hitting first and down by a run with 0 outs and a runner on 2nd. Win Expectancy is .112 whereas if you bunt the runner to 3rd and now have 1 out, the WE is .113. Bottom of the 9th, WE is .437 with 0 outs, runner on 2nd and WE is .412 with 1 out and a runner on 3rd. So going by that, bunting a guy over really doesn't dramatically increase the odds of winning if you're hitting in the top of the 9th and greatly decreases the odds in the bottom of the 9th. http://www.tangotiger.net/welist.html is the link

ctorg · 06-11-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DawnBTVS
Credit to tangotiger. Top of the 9th, hitting first and down by a run with 0 outs and a runner on 2nd. Win Expectancy is .112 whereas if you bunt the runner to 3rd and now have 1 out, the WE is .113. Bottom of the 9th, WE is .437 with 0 outs, runner on 2nd and WE is .412 with 1 out and a runner on 3rd. So going by that, bunting a guy over really doesn't dramatically increase the odds of winning if you're hitting in the top of the 9th and greatly decreases the odds in the bottom of the 9th. http://www.tangotiger.net/welist.html is the link

If the score is tied, however, with 0 outs in the bottom of the 9th, runners on 1st & 2nd, you do increase your win chance by bunting. It goes from .816 to .839.

So it does depend on your situation.

Dan Theman · 06-11-2004, 02:59 PM

Interesting - does it say anywhere what the sample size is? Nice stats.

PS - of course, one does have to take the individual team into account when making this decision.

Bobbo · 06-11-2004, 03:54 PM

w/ no outs and a runner in scoring position, it would seem really dumb to give away an out. If you don't have enough confidence in your next 3 hitters to drive him in, they shouldn't be in your lineup.

kingcharlesxii · 06-11-2004, 04:02 PM

I think it is purely dependent on the hitters you have. With a high BA guy, I'd have him swing away. If a .200 hitting backup infielder is at the plate, I'd most likely bunt. Then you have to consider the guy on-deck. If the on-deck guy is a high percentage flyball hitter, I might have the guy at the plate bunt.

Ideally in this situation, I'd want a left-handed hitter at the plate who could at least hit the ball to the right side of the infield even if he doesn't get a hit and a power-hitter to bat after him and drive in the run either by a base hit or deep fly ball.

Cooker · 06-11-2004, 04:02 PM

This is a fascinating discussion! I love this kind of baseball strategy!

I typically bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd and none out, but only if it's late in the game (8th or 9th) and I'm down only one run. It's not based on stats but on having seen too many double plays. The stats others quoted are interesting, though.

But I won't bunt if (a) my batter is super fast and therefore very tough to double up since then I've got 1st and 3rd and only one out, i.e., same result as a bunt, (b) my current batter is an awful bunter, or (c) my next batter is a chump by comparison and I have no decent pinch-hitters available.

These decisions are why big league managers get paid the big bucks. Sort of like the decision by Grady Little whether or not to take Pedro out and go to the pen ....

satchel · 06-11-2004, 04:08 PM

Two bunts and you win the game.

mlyons · 06-11-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bobbo
w/ no outs and a runner in scoring position, it would seem really dumb to give away an out. If you don't have enough confidence in your next 3 hitters to drive him in, they shouldn't be in your lineup.

Even if the next three hitters are all .300 hitters, there's only around a 65% chance that at least one of them will get a hit, which is the only way to drive in a run with a man on second. If you move a runner to third, you only have two chances to drive him in, but your odds of driving him in are greatly increased, because he will score on a fly ball or on a ground ball through what would be a drawn-in infield. The question is, how much better are those odds, and are they increased enough to justify the out? It's certainly not "really dumb" to give away an out if it increases your chances of scoring that one run you need.

JamesOOTP · 06-11-2004, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mlyons
Even if the next three hitters are all .300 hitters, there's only around a 65% chance that at least one of them will get a hit, which is the only way to drive in a run with a man on second. If you move a runner to third, you only have two chances to drive him in, but your odds of driving him in are greatly increased,

Good point. Its okay to give up an out to increase the chance of scoring.

JamesOOTP · 06-11-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dsidnt
OOPS - if I wasn't clear - if your big men are up immediately after the sac bunt, they are going to get intentionally walked to load the bases, setting the force out at home, and increasing the chance for a double play.

Good point as well. I just wonder what the risk/reward is. The risk being a double play, the reward having a runner at 3rd with one out.

Dave Hansen · 06-11-2004, 06:10 PM

I would also check the pitcher's ground ball% as well as his overall effectiveness. I would bunt and play for one run vs. Kofax, an average or below average pitcher swing away.

If your current batter has a good eye for walks and the pitcher gives up a lot of walks...swing away...could get a runner to third on a walk with no outs.

View Poll Results: Need 1 run in Bo. 9th--no outs--avg runner on 2nd--avg bat--avg pit- DO YOU SAC BUNT?
SACRIFICE BUNT THE RUNNER OVER	36	64.29%
OTHER STRATEGY	20	35.71%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

06-10-2004, 11:25 PM	#1
JamesOOTP Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 81	To bunt or not to bunt, that is the question If anyone has any statistics to shed some light on this question I'd dance at your wedding if you'd give us the stats. Baseball Prospectus did a study on whether or not it was advantageous to sacrifice bunt the runner from 2nd to 3rd with no one out when needing only one run. I'm not a premium subscriber so I couldn't see the results of the study. Assuming the sacrifice moved the runner over to third and adding the likelihood that the opposing team would intentional walk the next batter to add the possibility of a double play, is it worth the risk to sac bunt? I know it would depend on several variables but... __________________ Save the interns- vote Bush Last edited by JamesOOTP; 06-10-2004 at 11:38 PM.

06-11-2004, 07:26 AM	#4
mlyons Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 3,725	Sacrifice, but only if the guy at the plate is not a great hitter and is a good bunter. __________________ Things can always be worse.

06-11-2004, 10:07 AM	#5
ctorg Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 9,848	Assuming that everything is average, that there are no unusual conditions, etc., I would bunt most of the time. I don't know if that actually works better, but I can understand why it probably would... 1. You can then score on a decent fly ball 2. You get out of the double play possibility (unless the bunt gets screwed up) 3. You can make the other team have to play its infield in, which increases your hit chance Reasons that can work against it: 1. If the guy on deck is your best hitter, they can then walk him, setting up a possible double play again 2. If the guy at the plate is a poor bunter but a good hitter, you may be better off letting him swing away 3. If the guy at the plate is a decent hitter and the guy behind him is a very weak hitter, swinging away may be better. __________________ My music "When the trees blow back and forth, that's what makes the wind." - Steven Wright Fjord emena pancreas thorax fornicate marmalade morpheme proteolysis smaxa cabana offal srue vitriol grope hallelujah lentils

06-11-2004, 11:43 AM	#7
DawnBTVS Major Leagues Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 416	I wouldn't bunt because it gives the other team an automatic free out. Now say the next hitter grounds out, that's now 2 outs and you now depend on your 3rd hitter to get a hit because a fly ball is now rendered worthless. Basically you give the other team a free out and are now banking on the 2nd hitter hitting a fly ball or getting a base hit and if he does neither, that's 2 "wasted" outs. __________________

06-11-2004, 12:31 AM	#2
danwaechter Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 67	With an average hitter, you have to bunt him over, but if it was one of my best hitters up there, i'd let him swing away and trust that even if he couldnt get a hit, hed be able to advance the runner.

06-11-2004, 02:19 AM	#3
rschick Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 14	alot would depend on who was on deck or who could pinch hit off the bench after the sacrifice.

06-11-2004, 02:11 PM	#9
Ktulu Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: BC Posts: 4,506	Well it all depends on the game situation. If you have a one run lead in the late innings and the bottom of your order is up, I would move him over. Thats just one of many situations. There are just way too many factors that go into the decision for it to be a yes or no question. __________________ "The ice is getting even more thinner, my friend!"

06-11-2004, 02:37 PM	#10
DawnBTVS Major Leagues Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 416	Credit to tangotiger. Top of the 9th, hitting first and down by a run with 0 outs and a runner on 2nd. Win Expectancy is .112 whereas if you bunt the runner to 3rd and now have 1 out, the WE is .113. Bottom of the 9th, WE is .437 with 0 outs, runner on 2nd and WE is .412 with 1 out and a runner on 3rd. So going by that, bunting a guy over really doesn't dramatically increase the odds of winning if you're hitting in the top of the 9th and greatly decreases the odds in the bottom of the 9th. http://www.tangotiger.net/welist.html is the link __________________

06-11-2004, 03:54 PM	#13
Bobbo Minors (Double A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 141	w/ no outs and a runner in scoring position, it would seem really dumb to give away an out. If you don't have enough confidence in your next 3 hitters to drive him in, they shouldn't be in your lineup.

06-11-2004, 04:02 PM	#14
kingcharlesxii Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,730	I think it is purely dependent on the hitters you have. With a high BA guy, I'd have him swing away. If a .200 hitting backup infielder is at the plate, I'd most likely bunt. Then you have to consider the guy on-deck. If the on-deck guy is a high percentage flyball hitter, I might have the guy at the plate bunt. Ideally in this situation, I'd want a left-handed hitter at the plate who could at least hit the ball to the right side of the infield even if he doesn't get a hit and a power-hitter to bat after him and drive in the run either by a base hit or deep fly ball. __________________ OTBA - Stockholm Royal Squirrels of Sweden OOTP Grand League Champion 2015

06-11-2004, 04:02 PM	#15
Cooker All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 592	This is a fascinating discussion! I love this kind of baseball strategy! I typically bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd and none out, but only if it's late in the game (8th or 9th) and I'm down only one run. It's not based on stats but on having seen too many double plays. The stats others quoted are interesting, though. But I won't bunt if (a) my batter is super fast and therefore very tough to double up since then I've got 1st and 3rd and only one out, i.e., same result as a bunt, (b) my current batter is an awful bunter, or (c) my next batter is a chump by comparison and I have no decent pinch-hitters available. These decisions are why big league managers get paid the big bucks. Sort of like the decision by Grady Little whether or not to take Pedro out and go to the pen ....

06-11-2004, 04:08 PM	#16
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith Ark. USA Posts: 2,681	two Two bunts and you win the game.

06-11-2004, 06:10 PM	#20
Dave Hansen Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 345	I would also check the pitcher's ground ball% as well as his overall effectiveness. I would bunt and play for one run vs. Kofax, an average or below average pitcher swing away. If your current batter has a good eye for walks and the pitcher gives up a lot of walks...swing away...could get a runner to third on a walk with no outs.