To sac bunt, or not?

[battists]

Rpriske mentioned in another thread he was wholly against sac bunting. I confess, I definitely use the sac bunt. But I don't know a lot about the data behind that, and I'm SUPER SURE someone here does.

What are your guys thoughts around bunting?

If you're anti-bunt, then from a game management perspective, what approach do you suggest, for example, if you're down by one late in a game with 0 outs and a runner on first?

Do you hit&run? Run&hit? Steal? Just hope the hitter gets a base hit?

Opinions appreciated.

(Oh, and I still don't really get what "run and hit" is and when you would use it, let alone "send forced".)

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by battists

What are your guys thoughts around bunting?

That it means the opposing team only has to earn two outs in that inning.

It's a pretty inefficient way to try to get a run. You only get 27 outs a game and to use 1 to advance one base isn't the best use of that out.

There are studies on average run probabilities with and without sacs. I'll see if I can find one....

[TribeFanInNC]

Here is a quite long-winded evaluation:
The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 3 - Lookout Landing

The Bullet Point Synopsis:

Originally Posted by Lookout Landing

So to the bullet points:


•The sacrifice bunt significantly lowers a team's chances of scoring multiple runs. However, if successful, it often raises a team's chance of scoring one run.
•Forgotten by managers, however, is the fact that you rarely know exactly how many runs you're going to need.
•Even though most managers would happily take an automatic sacrifice from a bunting situation, they shouldn't. It's the chance that the batter reaches safely, through hit or error, that makes the sacrifice bunt close to being worthwhile.
•Position players are just as successful as they used to be at getting on base with their sacrifice bunts. Pitchers aren't.
•Neither position players nor pitchers are as good at getting at least an acceptable sacrifice down. Pitchers are striking out more, position players are putting the ball in play but failing to advance the runner.

[rpriske]

This is dead on, in my opinion.

There are very good times to use a sac bunt... but they are pretty rare.

Bottom of the 9th, tie game, none out, poor hitter up. That sort of thing.

Outs should never be given away.

I took my opinion from a book called 'The Book'.

[Questdog]

When you absolutely, positively need to get 1 run, the bunt of a runner from 1st to 2nd with no outs gives you a better chance at it, unless the batter is an elite hitter.

The bunt of a runner from 2nd to 3rd with no outs is likewise a good play when a run is required, but the quality of the hitter being asked to bunt should be considered. Also the batter that follows him should be considered. Is he a player who is likely to make contact and get the runner home from third? If he is a high strikeout hitter, then the benefit of having the runner at third is considerably less.

Bunting with non-pitchers in the early innings is not usually a good idea, but in real life, you have to do it occasionally, just to keep the defense on their toes. You need to stay away from the opposition being able to judge exactly what you will do in every situation. In OOTP, however, this is not a consideration.

[swoboda]

Originally Posted by rpriske

This is dead on, in my opinion.

There are very good times to use a sac bunt... but they are pretty rare.

Bottom of the 9th, tie game, none out, poor hitter up. That sort of thing.

Outs should never be given away.

I took my opinion from a book called 'The Book'.

I would also do it in the bottom of the 8th if you have an outstanding closer

[battists]

Thanks, this is great information everybody! I mainly use the bunt when I am trailing by only one, in the last three innings. And I also do not have designated hitter, so pitchers often bunt...

What about hit & run and run & hit? When do you guys use those?

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by battists

Thanks, this is great information everybody! I mainly use the bunt when I am trailing by only one, in the last three innings. And I also do not have designated hitter, so pitchers often bunt...

What about hit & run and run & hit? When do you guys use those?

In OOTP, I never use either. I have not been too confident in the modeling of this.

[swoboda]

If my base runners have speed and the batter has a decent contact rating and the catcher does not have a bazooka-arm and the pitcher is not top notch at holding runners on, ....... I use them often.
I consider my results to be good, my team often leads the league in runs scored even when it's middle of the pack in HRs

[david limbaugh]

To Sac or Not Sac?

I just completed my 20th season of high school baseball. Have spent many an hour talking sac bunt or not with 2 awesome head coaches of our program.

My late Papa was an Earl Weaver type - don't give up outs, hit the 3 run homer.

My late Dad was a fundamentals, get the bunt down, do your job, man.

I know we beat the 3-time defending state champion in the state tournament, eliminating them from the post-season, on a walk-off suicide squeeze bunt by our freshman third baseman (that happened to lead our district in hitting his freshman year and just graduated and will be playing at Middle Tennessee State next season) that he was able to get down against a future MLB draftee who went on the play at Tennessee and had allowed 0 runs and only 3 hits as their closer that season throwing 90+ mph.

He was able to do that because we emphasize bunting. We win games because we can bunt. Bunting puts balls in play in sometimes uncomfortable positions for the defense. Look at the Mets-Cards extra innings game the other day. One inning, Mets get 1st and 2nd no outs and don't bunt. They don't score. Next time they get in that situation, they do bunt and pitcher has trouble handing it and doesn't even get an out. Mets go on to score and hang on and win the game.

One argument: Explaining Why the Bunt Is Foolish in Today's MLB | Bleacher Report

Cardinals are studying it: Cardinals Insider: Cards are learning if bunt has benefits : Sports

I realize high school ball is not pro ball. But I watch my Cubs and wish Maddon would bunt every now and then. Strikes, popups and weak fly outs are bad baseball. Double-play ground balls really kill rallies. If you are winning 10-8 then bunting isn't really needed.. When you are constantly losing 3-1 or 2-0 perhaps a couple of bunts may have made a difference?

[curt]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

That it means the opposing team only has to earn two outs in that inning.

It's a pretty inefficient way to try to get a run. You only get 27 outs a game and to use 1 to advance one base isn't the best use of that out.

There are studies on average run probabilities with and without sacs. I'll see if I can find one....

What about the probabilities of hitting into a double play?

[curt]

I run and hit with a good base stealer on first and a decent contact hitter at the plate. In my opinion, I am forcing a steal situation. I'm not too patient with the "4" key. My basestealers seem to run on strikes too much and my batter is not swinging. I get thrown out more that way.

[battists]

Continued thanks for all of your feedback people.

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by david limbaugh

I just completed my 20th season of high school baseball.

You should probably study harder.

[/rimshot]

Har! (Just kidding, of course.)

[IsaacR]

I never hit and run, always run and hit. The hit and run forces a batter to swing, no matter where the pitch is. Even the bunt is better.

Run and hit is a steal, where the batter has the green light to swing, but only if it's a good pitch. If my batter hits a line drive right at somebody and the runner gets doubled up, oh well. Better than the batter flailing at a pitch just to protect the runner.

Bunting. I don't bunt a ton. I even let my pitchers swing occasionally with a runner on. Only times I so it is with a speedy guy on first with no outs, and a good bunter up, and in a close game. I tend to build my teams around free swinging power hitters, so this is rare.

What I do a lot of, probably more than I should, is the suicide squeeze. It's impossible to defend. I use this in any close game, as long as I have a respectable bunter, it's somewhat late in the game, and the run would have an impact (anywhere from down one to up two.) The late in the game varies for me. If it's shaping up to be a 3-2 game, I might do it in the 5th, but if it's 10-9, I probably wouldn't do it until the 8th. Everything is situational.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by curt

What about the probabilities of hitting into a double play?

So, the table in the article I linked gives different probabilities of scoring runs for different situations of outs and baserunners. It's kind of a general cheat sheet, kinda like a table for how to play blackjack. It shows you the best move in a given situation. These probabilities take into account all eventualities like DPs, errors, all hits, outs.

DPs are really just one bad outcome. Strikeouts, flyouts, and several other things are also quite bad (i.e. hurt your chances of scoring a run at all). DPs do change the probability more to the negative, but not enough to justify throwing away an out. For instance, runner at 1st, no outs is 17% chance to score 1 run. But no runners, 2 outs is still a 5% chance to score one run. To prevent double plays, you are probably better off hitting and running because of the improved chance to get a hit.

**********

To clarify, there are a couple scenarios where a sac bunt is useful. I think most recognize that. I think the key point I outlined above is that you rarely know how many runs you need, much like situation of two point conversions in football. Sac bunting before the 9th inning is giving away opportunities to score extra runs you may end up needing.

[Matt Arnold]

Biggest point to remember about those run expectancy tables though is that those are averages. If your team is loaded with power hitters, it makes less sense to bunt. Similarly, if you only need 1 run, then sometimes you should pretty much always bunt (ie. bottom 9, tie game, you get first and second nobody out, unless if you have your best hitter up, a bunt is almost always what you want to do in that situation).

And everything depends on context. For example, if I have Kershaw on the mount, I'm going to be more likely to bunt, because I know that he will very likely not allow very many runs. If I have my 5th starter pitching, then I know that one run will likely not make a difference, so I tend to not play small ball then.

The biggest point that the stats have shown is that the "standard" bunt of moving a guy from first to second is pretty much always a bad move, unless if you have a pitcher up. Double plays suck, sure, but nobody hits into enough double plays that you should give up the out for any somewhat decent hitter.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by rpriske

This is dead on, in my opinion.

There are very good times to use a sac bunt... but they are pretty rare.

Bottom of the 9th, tie game, none out, poor hitter up. That sort of thing.

Outs should never be given away.

I took my opinion from a book called 'The Book'.

Completely agree. Rusty is correct! Where have I heard that before.

To add a little more; faking a bunt or acting as if you will bunt is as effective or maybe more than an actual bunt. I wish we could do this in OOTP.

When the defense is expecting a bunt then the bunt is not the best strategy.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Biggest point to remember about those run expectancy tables though is that those are averages. If your team is loaded with power hitters, it makes less sense to bunt. Similarly, if you only need 1 run, then sometimes you should pretty much always bunt (ie. bottom 9, tie game, you get first and second nobody out, unless if you have your best hitter up, a bunt is almost always what you want to do in that situation).

I so vehemently disagree with the bold. If you have runners on 1B, 2B and no out you already have a runner in scoring position. Giving up the out with anything but the weakest of weak hitters is bad strategy period. Even more if the defense plays for a bunt. That precludes an infield shift vs the batter and because the infield is in this wastes the known 0.050 boost in BA from hitting with the infield in. Since it is late in the game there is no question of a pitcher batting unless you are out of bench players.

Consider now that a successful bunt wastes we presume an average or better batter. If it happens to be a poor batter I pinch hit every time. With runners on 3B, 2B and one out the defense has no need to pitch to the next batter. They can just walk him setting up a force at any base and a DP or just not give him anything to hit and/or play on his aggressiveness. Either way the defense escapes two opportunities for a regular MLB batter to stroke a run scoring hit while increasing their opportunity to turn an inning ending DP. I'm aware of all the ways one can score from 3B and justify the bunt post facto but as the defensive manager I'll take that scenario any day and twice on Sundays if it is the meat of the order.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by david limbaugh

I realize high school ball is not pro ball. But I watch my Cubs and wish Maddon would bunt every now and then. Strikes, popups and weak fly outs are bad baseball. Double-play ground balls really kill rallies. If you are winning 10-8 then bunting isn't really needed.. When you are constantly losing 3-1 or 2-0 perhaps a couple of bunts may have made a difference?

David, are you aware that Tom Tango co-author of The Book, works for the Cubs. In the Church of Small Ball he may be the Devil Incarnate.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by RchW

I so vehemently disagree with the bold. If you have runners on 1B, 2B and no out you already have a runner in scoring position. Giving up the out with anything but the weakest of weak hitters is bad strategy period. Even more if the defense plays for a bunt. That precludes an infield shift vs the batter and because the infield is in this wastes the known 0.050 boost in BA from hitting with the infield in. Since it is late in the game there is no question of a pitcher batting unless you are out of bench players.

Consider now that a successful bunt wastes we presume an average or better batter. If it happens to be a poor batter I pinch hit every time. With runners on 3B, 2B and one out the defense has no need to pitch to the next batter. They can just walk him setting up a force at any base and a DP or just not give him anything to hit and/or play on his aggressiveness. Either way the defense escapes two opportunities for a regular MLB batter to stroke a run scoring hit while increasing their opportunity to turn an inning ending DP. I'm aware of all the ways one can score from 3B and justify the bunt post facto but as the defensive manager I'll take that scenario any day and twice on Sundays if it is the meat of the order.

Good points, and it certainly depends heavily on who's up vs on deck, but to me getting the winning run to 3rd with only one out is a big edge. The other team now has to bring infield and outfield in, and forces any throws to the plate, which gotta think has some mental troubles.

For example, if this is the Jays, I think I would call for the bunt even with a guy like Reyes. Sure, the other side can walk Donaldson next, but bases loaded for Bautista is a huge edge to the offense. I won't call for a bunt with an above average hitter, but anyone average or below (ie. Reyes or worse), unless if the guys up after him are worse or I have a weird configuration coming up (Harper on deck with crap after him), I think I would opt for the bunt.