Baseball Newbie Rules/Terms/Plays Question Thread

[monkeystyxx]

Thought it'd be a good idea to start one of these, as I can't be the only one in this situation and I couldn't find any other similar threads here, sorry if I missed it. Basically the idea is that we have a thread where we can ask "stupid" baseball-related questions about why things are the way they are, that fans with more knowledge can answer.

I'll kick us off with bunting with nobody on a base. Saw this twice in G7 of the World Series and it confused me, as previously I assume bunting was something you only did to advance runners. I mean, of all the bunts I've seen (not that many, I'll freely admit, I only started following baseball properly in about August of this year...) the guy doing the bunting very, very rarely gets to first base. Maybe I've seen it twice, and one of those was because of an atrocious throw.

Even when the commentators lavish praise on him for a 'perfect bunt', he still gets out. But I'd previously assumed that was the point, since the other runners advance, and sometimes score (since usually the third baseman has to come off the bag to field the bunt).

So what's the point in doing what Joe Panik (might've been Buster Posey, they basically look the same with a helmet on) and Escobar did/tried to do , where you bunt with nobody on base? Are they really just trying to outrun a throw to first, or is there something else going on that I don't understand yet?


Secondly, can someone explain the term 'hit and run'? At first I thought it just meant that the baserunners automatically run when the ball is hit even if they're not forced, regardless of how 'good' the hit is, but there must be something more to it than that...


Thirdly, why is it ok to sprint past first, as long as you touch the base, and not be out. Yet on second or third you have to stop on the base. Even when you're forced to run (and thus don't need to be tagged). Is that just a rule; 'you can't be out if you've touched first base unless you're trying to run to second'?
For (a hypothetical) example: Sandoval hits, runs to first then keeps going, jogging to a stop. He's way past first at this point. First baseman catches the throw to first. Sandoval's safe even though he's not touching the base, because he arrived there before the ball.
However on the next hit he runs to second, slides, touches the bag but keeps going and slides past it, second baseman catches, tags him, he's out, right? Is there a reason the rule seems to be different for first base?

[AdamJones113]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Thought it'd be a good idea to start one of these, as I can't be the only one in this situation and I couldn't find any other similar threads here, sorry if I missed it. Basically the idea is that we have a thread where we can ask "stupid" baseball-related questions about why things are the way they are, that players with more knowledge can answer.

I'll kick us off with bunting with nobody on a base. Saw this twice in G7 of the World Series and it confused me, as previously I assume bunting was something you only did to advance runners. I mean, of all the bunts I've seen (not that many, I'll freely admit, I only started following baseball properly in about August of this year...) the guy doing the bunting very, very rarely gets to first base. Maybe I've seen it twice, and one of those was because of an atrocious throw.

Even when the commentators lavish praise on him for a 'perfect bunt', he still gets out. But I'd previously assumed that was the point, since the other runners advance, and sometimes score (since usually the third baseman has to come off the bag to field the bunt).

So what's the point in doing what Joe Panik (might've been Buster Posey, they basically look the same with a helmet on) and Escobar did/tried to do , where you bunt with nobody on base? Are they really just trying to outrun a throw to first, or is there something else going on that I don't understand yet?


Secondly, can someone explain the term 'hit and run'? At first I thought it just meant that the baserunners automatically run when the ball is hit even if they're not forced, regardless of how 'good' the hit is, but there must be something more to it than that...


Thirdly, why is it ok to sprint past first, as long as you touch the base, and not be out. Yet on second or third you have to stop on the base. Even when you're forced to run (and thus don't need to be tagged). Is that just a rule; 'you can't be out if you've touched first base unless you're trying to run to second'?
For (a hypothetical) example: Sandoval hits, runs to first then keeps going, jogging to a stop. He's way past first at this point. First baseman catches the throw to first. Sandoval's safe even though he's not touching the base, because he arrived there before the ball.
However on the next hit he runs to second, slides, touches the bag but keeps going and slides past it, second baseman catches, tags him, he's out, right? Is there a reason the rule seems to be different for first base?

Let me take a shot at answering (though more knowledgeable heads will too):

1) For a hit. If you are fast and/or can catch the other team off guard, then that's a single.

2) The runners run like they're going to steal but the hitter tries to a) get a hit or b) advance the runners by hitting behind them (ie to the right side of the field). This way, a man on first can advance easily to third on a single or a man on second to home because they're running with the pitch.

3) Not so sure, but I'd assume it's to prevent injuries. At first because the batter has a full head of steam and it wouldn't be safe to stop suddenly, but more so because if the first baseman is covering the bag stopping on the bag or sliding is likelier to injure both players.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Thought it'd be a good idea to start one of these, as I can't be the only one in this situation and I couldn't find any other similar threads here, sorry if I missed it. Basically the idea is that we have a thread where we can ask "stupid" baseball-related questions about why things are the way they are, that players with more knowledge can answer.

I'll kick us off with bunting with nobody on a base. Saw this twice in G7 of the World Series and it confused me, as previously I assume bunting was something you only did to advance runners. I mean, of all the bunts I've seen (not that many, I'll freely admit, I only started following baseball properly in about August of this year...) the guy doing the bunting very, very rarely gets to first base. Maybe I've seen it twice, and one of those was because of an atrocious throw.

Even when the commentators lavish praise on him for a 'perfect bunt', he still gets out. But I'd previously assumed that was the point, since the other runners advance, and sometimes score (since usually the third baseman has to come off the bag to field the bunt).

So what's the point in doing what Joe Panik (might've been Buster Posey, they basically look the same with a helmet on) and Escobar did/tried to do , where you bunt with nobody on base? Are they really just trying to outrun a throw to first, or is there something else going on that I don't understand yet?

These are great questions. Let me try to answer without writing a novel.

What you saw were two variations of bunting. Bunting for a hit and sacrifice bunts. Sacrifice bunts are, as you saw, used to advance a runner or runners into scoring position. We could have a long discussion on the correct use of this strategy ( does it work, batter type, what inning, current score etc) but the concept is simple. You give up an out with the expectation that you have a better chance to score (in dispute). Sacrifice bunts are controversial because the perception of success far exceeds actual success.

Bunting for a hit is an underused strategy especially in the current era. Bottom line is if you are a fast runner and the infield is playing normal or back you could get 30 hits a season from it. I expect fake bunts (complimentary strategy) and bunting for hits to make a comeback next season to combat infield shifts and IF who play deep.

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Secondly, can someone explain the term 'hit and run'? At first I thought it just meant that the baserunners automatically run when the ball is hit even if they're not forced, regardless of how 'good' the hit is, but there must be something more to it than that..

Hit and run is a strategy used to help steal bases and/or prevent double plays on ground balls. It's a high risk high reward strategy and requires a batter who can make contact even with a pitch out of the strike zone. The key component in a hit and run is that the batter will try to hit the ball no matter where it is if the runner goes. It is count dependent ie you don't usually H&R with 2 strikes. The ideal H&R is a ground ball that passes by the spot vacated by the 2B (or the SS). H&R is not normally used with power hitters who hit fly balls and line drives. Also note that H&R does not require a fast runner. Even if not successful it may move a slow runner up a base like a sacrifice.

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Thirdly, why is it ok to sprint past first, as long as you touch the base, and not be out. Yet on second or third you have to stop on the base. Even when you're forced to run (and thus don't need to be tagged). Is that just a rule; 'you can't be out if you've touched first base unless you're trying to run to second'?
For (a hypothetical) example: Sandoval hits, runs to first then keeps going, jogging to a stop. He's way past first at this point. First baseman catches the throw to first. Sandoval's safe even though he's not touching the base, because he arrived there before the ball.
However on the next hit he runs to second, slides, touches the bag but keeps going and slides past it, second baseman catches, tags him, he's out, right? Is there a reason the rule seems to be different for first base?

The rule that you could overrun 1B came in 1870. Details are sketchy but it may have been brought in to increase scoring via more hits. Remember outs at first base on a hit ball are by force not tag so hits may have been very scarce when you had to slow down at 1B. In 1848 the rules were changed to require fielders to have possession of the ball in order to get an out and that only runners at 1B could be forced. It seems obvious in today's game that if you could not overrun 1B hitting and scoring would be reduced significantly.

[Airdrop01]

If I were a guy they played that ridiculous shift on (ie Moustakas) I'd bunt down to third almost every time they did it....until they stopped doing it. Some guys just can't but a lot could.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by RchW

Bunting for a hit is an underused strategy especially in the current era. Bottom line is if you are a fast runner and the infield is playing normal or back you could get 30 hits a season from it. I expect fake bunts (complimentary strategy) and bunting for hits to make a comeback next season to combat infield shifts and IF who play deep.

I would love to see an emphasis placed on bunting next year.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I would love to see an emphasis placed on bunting next year.

I would be shocked if most teams in ST don't establish a shift busting strategy for batters who were affected. They have the data. It's not farfetched IMO that GM's and managers will make it clear to certain batters that they need to be proactive in order to combat shifts. It seems obvious (because we saw it) that defensive teams will abandon or modify severe shifts if the batter in question is successful 2 or 3 times.

Pitchers will also influence shift deployment. Did anyone see the reaction of Jason Frasor (can't remember what WS game) where a sure GB out went for a hit. He was pissed. I can see some RP going to the manager and asking for the defense to play based on how they pitch/get batters out. It seems pointless to induce a GB to 2B if no one is playing there.

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

I'll kick us off with bunting with nobody on a base. Saw this twice in G7 of the World Series and it confused me, as previously I assume bunting was something you only did to advance runners. I mean, of all the bunts I've seen (not that many, I'll freely admit, I only started following baseball properly in about August of this year...) the guy doing the bunting very, very rarely gets to first base. Maybe I've seen it twice, and one of those was because of an atrocious throw.

I'll parrot what other people have been saying about this. Bunting for a hit was never something that a lot of people did. But there were a couple players who did it *a lot*. Two players that I can think of that were successful 20-30ish times a year. These guys are long since retired, but the baseball pendulum always swings back and forth....

Brett Butler & Ozzie Smith

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Even when the commentators lavish praise on him for a 'perfect bunt', he still gets out. But I'd previously assumed that was the point, since the other runners advance, and sometimes score (since usually the third baseman has to come off the bag to field the bunt).

If the commentator says it's a perfect bunt and the batter gets out, it's because one of three things happened.

1) He was sacrifice bunting. (Trying to move runners into scoring position)
2) There was an equally amazing defensive play.
3) The announcer is an idiot.

[Nitrovenge]

Originally Posted by RchW

These are great questions. Let me try to answer without writing a novel.

What you saw were two variations of bunting. Bunting for a hit and sacrifice bunts. Sacrifice bunts are, as you saw, used to advance a runner or runners into scoring position. We could have a long discussion on the correct use of this strategy ( does it work, batter type, what inning, current score etc) but the concept is simple. You give up an out with the expectation that you have a better chance to score (in dispute). Sacrifice bunts are controversial because the perception of success far exceeds actual success.

Bunting for a hit is an underused strategy especially in the current era. Bottom line is if you are a fast runner and the infield is playing normal or back you could get 30 hits a season from it. I expect fake bunts (complimentary strategy) and bunting for hits to make a comeback next season to combat infield shifts and IF who play deep.




Hit and run is a strategy used to help steal bases and/or prevent double plays on ground balls. It's a high risk high reward strategy and requires a batter who can make contact even with a pitch out of the strike zone. The key component in a hit and run is that the batter will try to hit the ball no matter where it is if the runner goes. It is count dependent ie you don't usually H&R with 2 strikes. The ideal H&R is a ground ball that passes by the spot vacated by the 2B (or the SS). H&R is not normally used with power hitters who hit fly balls and line drives. Also note that H&R does not require a fast runner. Even if not successful it may move a slow runner up a base like a sacrifice.




The rule that you could overrun 1B came in 1870. Details are sketchy but it may have been brought in to increase scoring via more hits. Remember outs at first base on a hit ball are by force not tag so hits may have been very scarce when you had to slow down at 1B. In 1848 the rules were changed to require fielders to have possession of the ball in order to get an out and that only runners at 1B could be forced. It seems obvious in today's game that if you could not overrun 1B hitting and scoring would be reduced significantly.

Hi. New to the forums myself.

As for bunting, BIll James has proven that giving up an out just to advance the runner to second is usually a very bad idea. Some may argue against that. A better usage of the sacrifice bunt, is if you have a medium or slowish runner on first, less than two outs, and the worst hitter in your lineup at bat. Usually the pitcher in the MLB. This is to avoid the double play, with the added bonus of getting the runner to second. According to Bill James, there is a slightly better chance for a runner on second to score, than there if he were on first. IMO it is almost always better to give up one out, than to potentially end up with two.

For myself, the bunt-for-hit is more of an instinctual thing. If I see the third baseman playing back a bit, and I get a strong feeling that I can make it, I will attempt the bunt.

In associate with the bunt-for-hit. If you plan it out correctly, this is a great chess-like strategy:

As a leadoff hitter, you could attempt the bunt-for-hit. If it works, awesome! If not, that's ok too.

In your second at-bat, you would show the bunt to pull the infielders in, but fake it at the last second and attempt a slap hit for a dumpy little Texas-leaguer just over the infielder's heads. It's a lot of fun when you pull it off.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Nitrovenge

In your second at-bat, you would show the bunt to pull the infielders in, but fake it at the last second and attempt a slap hit for a dumpy little Texas-leaguer just over the infielder's heads. It's a lot of fun when you pull it off.

It also makes you look like an idiot if it fails lol

[Nitrovenge]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

It also makes you look like an idiot if it fails lol

Why's that? 70 percent of the time, you fail. If you're decent at low levels of play.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by monkeystyxx

Thirdly, why is it ok to sprint past first, as long as you touch the base, and not be out

If you watch baseball long enough you'll realize why this rule makes sense. Mainly because without it, every semi close play at first would have someone diving or sliding. No other base would this happen as often. It cuts down on injuries and the constant maintenance around first base.

The only other thing I can add is regarding hit and runs. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but unlike a steal, the runners make sure the pitcher is going to the plate before they take off. So the batter should make sure he makes contact to avoid double plays on ground outs, and advance a runner an extra base on a single.

[Matt Arnold]

To me, I treat the hit and run sort of like a bunt, but with slight differences:
-you may miss the pitch, so the runner should be decent enough at stealing to not be an automatic out. The Jays hitting and running with Navarro on first this year I found stupid.
-you need to avoid the line out, as that essentially turns into a double play.
-if the batter makes crappy contact, then it's essentially just a bunt
-if you get a hit, then because the runner is running, he'll always make it to third on a single, or score on a double. So with that, it makes less sense to try with someone like Billy Hamilton at first, as he'll make it to third anyways on a single.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

To me, I treat the hit and run sort of like a bunt, but with slight differences:
-you may miss the pitch, so the runner should be decent enough at stealing to not be an automatic out. The Jays hitting and running with Navarro on first this year I found stupid.
-you need to avoid the line out, as that essentially turns into a double play.
-if the batter makes crappy contact, then it's essentially just a bunt
-if you get a hit, then because the runner is running, he'll always make it to third on a single, or score on a double. So with that, it makes less sense to try with someone like Billy Hamilton at first, as he'll make it to third anyways on a single.

In theory Hit and Run is the strategy used for slow runners. Probably more correct to say not fast runners. If it moves Navarro to 2B and avoids a DP it can't be stupid. I have a personal affection for moving the runner over via contact vs giving up the out willingly via a sacrifice FWIW.

With a Billy Hamilton on 1B you are going for the Run and Hit/straight steal. They are identical only modified by making or not making contact. Hamilton will not make third on every hit made, but he may score on a deep single or an OF bobble on a shallow hit after a Run and Hit. To me that clearly establishes a distinction between the two main strategies.

[MorseMoose]

My stupid question...there are certain players that get the shift that are not Jim Thome-slow. Are they that inadequate at bunting, or is it more that a single is overrated compared to what they could do given the opportunity to hit into a shift.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Nitrovenge

As for bunting, BIll James has proven that giving up an out just to advance the runner to second is usually a very bad idea.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what he said in his guide to baseball managers, actually. Are you thinking of John Thorn/Pete Palmer?

[Nitrovenge]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what he said in his guide to baseball managers, actually. Are you thinking of John Thorn/Pete Palmer?

Are you sure? I'm going have to go back and re-read the abstract.

[Jason Moyer]

I can't say I've read every single thing he's written, but I've never seen him say that a bunt is always a bad play. It's a bad play in most situations, but no one bunts in those situations anyway.

[Boozie1580]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

My stupid question...there are certain players that get the shift that are not Jim Thome-slow. Are they that inadequate at bunting, or is it more that a single is overrated compared to what they could do given the opportunity to hit into a shift.

It's a combination of reasons, usually. Both of your reasons are somewhat correct - they're generally not very good at bunting, and they're usually guys whose value lies in their ability to hit home runs / extra base hits. There also tends to be some stubbornness involved too.

[Nitrovenge]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I can't say I've read every single thing he's written, but I've never seen him say that a bunt is always a bad play. It's a bad play in most situations, but no one bunts in those situations anyway.

I am going to have to go through some of my literature I have in storage now.

[Postman]

I don't believe bunting for a hit will become more prevalent in Baseball for three reasons.

1) It's only used if the bases are empty (otherwise it's a sacrifice).
2) It's difficult to execute, and even when done well, it requires world class speed to beat out.
3) Barring an error, it can only result in a single, while if a batter swings through, even a weak hitter has a chance for extra bases.