PDA

View Full Version : The sacrifice bunt



alloverjr
07-10-2010, 11:41 PM
Because I only pay attention to the Reds I have no idea if all of the other clubs do the same, but with the exception of the pitcher, why do the Reds and Dusty continue to bunt or attempt to bunt guys over from 2nd to 3rd with no outs? Giving up outs on purpose is just maddening to me. Did it twice tonight hoping for a sac fly and obviously neither panned out. The next guy up K's. Call it poor execution and/or great pitching but I simply don't know why you don't put confidence in the people you put on the field to at least hit the ball to right side to move the runner over. He might even get a hit to drive a run in or move him to 3rd with still no outs. Yeah he could pop out or ground out to 3rd with no advancement but in either scenario you're still talking about execution. I hate the old school approach that Dusty (and maybe every other manager) employs. Stop giving away outs when it's not necessary. Maybe this is off the same page as lefties can't hit lefties, fast guys lead off and only one guy can close for a team. Tough loss tonight against good pitching. Which IMO is another reason not to put the opposition 1 out closer to the end of an inning.

reds1869
07-10-2010, 11:43 PM
I agree, bunting in that situation makes very little sense. Putting the ball in play would likely move the runner just as well.

OnBaseMachine
07-10-2010, 11:45 PM
I can't stand the sac bunt. Can't stand it. I can understand sac bunting with a bad hitting pitcher but not the rest of the lineup. I would rather have three outs to get a runner in from second than two outs to get a runner in from third base. JMO.

kaldaniels
07-11-2010, 12:14 AM
Execution is everything and each situation is unique. But the percentages part of my brain says if you are playing for just one run, getting that guy to 3rd with 1 out drastically improves your odds.

Ron Madden
07-11-2010, 12:19 AM
I can see bunting a runner over from 1st to 2nd late in a close game, I would never do it early in a game though.

I'd never bunt runners over to 3rd from 2nd either.

Ron Madden
07-11-2010, 12:26 AM
Execution is everything and each situation is unique. But the percentages part of my brain says if you are playing for just one run, getting that guy to 3rd with 1 out drastically improves your odds.

If you play for one run thats most likely all you'll get is one run.

I might do it once in awhile late in a close game but I wouldn't make a habit out of giving away outs.

WVRedsFan
07-11-2010, 12:30 AM
Never before trhe 7th inning and you are ahead or tied. And only to move a runner into scoring position and always with any pitcher not named Wood or Owings or Leake.

TheNext44
07-11-2010, 01:20 AM
It all depends on the situation.

There are definitely times when the sac bunt is the best option, but it depends on the score of the game, the inning of the game, the pitcher, the defense, the hitters and runners involved, and sometimes even the weather.

I think two good examples were in the game tonight against the Phillies.

Tie game, late in the game is a good time to use it, especially when it's low scoring, or against a tough pitcher.

In the first one, in the 8th, Cairo was on second, Stubbs up, Hanigan and Wood up next.

Bad time to sacrifice. Even if it is successful, they are not going to give Hanigan anything good to hit with the pitcher on deck. You pretty much are forcing Hanigan to go out of his zone to put the ball in play, and thus increasing his K or pop up potential.

Second time in the 10th. Bruce on second, Cairo up, with Stubbs and Hanigan and the pitcher's spot up next.

Not a bad time to sacrifice, not the best, but the odds should be with you here. They should pitch to Stubbs here, and even if they don't, they have to pitch to Hanigan, since a pinch hitter is up next.

Neither one worked out, but the second one had a better than 50/50 chance of working.

Ron Madden
07-11-2010, 01:31 AM
It all depends on the situation.

There are definitely times when the sac bunt is the best option, but it depends on the score of the game, the inning of the game, the pitcher, the defense, the hitters and runners involved, and sometimes even the weather.

I think two good examples were in the game tonight against the Phillies.

Tie game, late in the game is a good time to use it, especially when it's low scoring, or against a tough pitcher.

In the first one, in the 8th, Cairo was on second, Stubbs up, Hanigan and Wood up next.

Bad time to sacrifice. Even if it is successful, they are not going to give Hanigan anything good to hit with the pitcher on deck. You pretty much are forcing Hanigan to go out of his zone to put the ball in play, and thus increasing his K or pop up potential.

Second time in the 10th. Bruce on second, Cairo up, with Stubbs and Hanigan and the pitcher's spot up next.

Not a bad time to sacrifice, not the best, but the odds should be with you here. They should pitch to Stubbs here, and even if they don't, they have to pitch to Hanigan, since a pinch hitter is up next.

Neither one worked out, but the second one had a better than 50/50 chance of working.


Maybe a better than 50/50 chance to get the runner to third.

The odds of him scoring must be a lot higher than that.

mbgrayson
07-11-2010, 02:09 AM
Want a sabermetric view of bunting?

Check out "Empirical Analysis of Bunting (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php)"

TheNext44
07-11-2010, 02:19 AM
Maybe a better than 50/50 chance to get the runner to third.

The odds of him scoring must be a lot higher than that.

That is one great point that most people miss, that you have to factor in the odds of actually advancing the runner.

I was just guessing on the 50/50. I'd refer to the great article that mbgrayson just posted. It has most of the odds, and explains them very well.

TheNext44
07-11-2010, 02:20 AM
Want a sabermetric view of bunting?

Check out "Empirical Analysis of Bunting (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php)"

That's a great find. I just bookmarked it.

Thanks! :thumbup:

mth123
07-11-2010, 07:37 AM
I hate the bunt. Except for some extreme "one run wins the game" situations, the only reds guys who should sacrifice are the pitchers, Janish, Cabrera, and Miller.

RedsManRick
07-11-2010, 11:26 AM
While the article shows that the spot in the batting order matters, the general relationships are all same as shown in the table below:



NL 0 1 2
--- .261 .148 .061
x-- .424 .268 .124
-x- .609 .400 .216
xx- .622 .413 .220
--x .814 .648 .267
x-x .847 .650 .275
-xx .838 .664 .267
xxx .860 .668 .315

With no outs, giving up a run to go from 1st to 2nd slightly decreases your chances of scoring 1 run. From 2nd to 3rd you slightly increase your chance.

However, as others have pointed out, this assumes perfect execution of the bunt. When you ask a guy to square and bunt, those slight changes are the bets case scenario. There's a not-insignificant chance of making the out without advancing the runner.

What I hate about the bunt is that, unless you have a pitcher up, the guy at the plate has at least a 20% of getting a hit which is a MUCH better outcome than a successful bunt. And there's a decent chance that, even if he makes an out, it serves the same purpose as the bunt. Especially if you have a good offense, making outs on purpose is just bad baseball.

Unfortunately, the bunt is used because of human irrationality and that irrationality isn't going away. We love to have control over things and, more importantly in this case, we stink at probability. We can't begin to keep all of the possible outcomes and their chances of occurring in our head. So we end up simplifying the model and over-weighting the outcomes we hope for. Unless you do the math and make up your mind ahead of time, your "intuition" is going to lead you down a path that makes sense emotionally, but not actually.

*BaseClogger*
07-11-2010, 02:24 PM
What I hate about the bunt is that, unless you have a pitcher up, the guy at the plate has at least a 20% of getting a hit which is a MUCH better outcome than a successful bunt. And there's a decent chance that, even if he makes an out, it serves the same purpose as the bunt. Especially if you have a good offense, making outs on purpose is just bad baseball.

Great analysis, Rick. One other factor you failed to consider is the quality of the pitcher on the mound. Bunting against Roy Halladay is much different than bunting against your average pitcher...

osuceltic
07-11-2010, 02:27 PM
Everyone did their jobs last night except Hanigan. You absolutely have to put the ball in play in those spots. Those strikeouts were brutal.

TheNext44
07-11-2010, 02:39 PM
Great analysis, Rick. One other factor you failed to consider is the quality of the pitcher on the mound. Bunting against Roy Halladay is much different than bunting against your average pitcher...

I think that the chances of doing anything successful against Doc are worse than against a normal pitcher. Getting hits, getting the runner over, getting a fly ball to get the run in, all are much more difficult with Doc on the mound. That's why there are times against a tough pitcher like Doc, that a bunt makes sense.

*BaseClogger*
07-11-2010, 02:50 PM
I think that the chances of doing anything successful against Doc are worse than against a normal pitcher. Getting hits, getting the runner over, getting a fly ball to get the run in, all are much more difficult with Doc on the mound. That's why there are times against a tough pitcher like Doc, that a bunt makes sense.

I agree and that's why I made the post. I agree that Halladay will make bunting/hitting more difficult, but I think he will negate the hitting part much more than the bunting part. Hell, if I was Halladay I would welcome a batter showing bunt...

WMR
07-11-2010, 02:53 PM
As I typed in the game thread, I detest the sac bunt. Outs are the most valuable commodity in baseball. You get 27 of them per game and to give a single one away except in the rarest of circumstances is asinine.

Brutus
07-11-2010, 02:53 PM
While the article shows that the spot in the batting order matters, the general relationships are all same as shown in the table below:



NL 0 1 2
--- .261 .148 .061
x-- .424 .268 .124
-x- .609 .400 .216
xx- .622 .413 .220
--x .814 .648 .267
x-x .847 .650 .275
-xx .838 .664 .267
xxx .860 .668 .315

With no outs, giving up a run to go from 1st to 2nd slightly decreases your chances of scoring 1 run. From 2nd to 3rd you slightly increase your chance.

However, as others have pointed out, this assumes perfect execution of the bunt. When you ask a guy to square and bunt, those slight changes are the bets case scenario. There's a not-insignificant chance of making the out without advancing the runner.

What I hate about the bunt is that, unless you have a pitcher up, the guy at the plate has at least a 20% of getting a hit which is a MUCH better outcome than a successful bunt. And there's a decent chance that, even if he makes an out, it serves the same purpose as the bunt. Especially if you have a good offense, making outs on purpose is just bad baseball.

Unfortunately, the bunt is used because of human irrationality and that irrationality isn't going away. We love to have control over things and, more importantly in this case, we stink at probability. We can't begin to keep all of the possible outcomes and their chances of occurring in our head. So we end up simplifying the model and over-weighting the outcomes we hope for. Unless you do the math and make up your mind ahead of time, your "intuition" is going to lead you down a path that makes sense emotionally, but not actually.

I don't have a problem with sac bunts in late inning situations when we're talking about getting a runner into scoring position. I think if you examine the chances of a groundball versus the chances of simply getting a hit, it's probably a 50/50 proposition.

Where my issue comes in is Dusty playing for one run both of those situations. While one run may have done the trick, the problem is that I like the chances better that one of two batters can simply get a base hit than sacrificing a guy to third and expect the next guy to hit a fly ball deep enough to score him.

Chip R
07-11-2010, 11:32 PM
I don't necessarily like the sac bunt but with s guy like Stubbs up, it's not a bad idea. Stubbs has a problem making consistent contact and him bunting at least has him make contact. Also, Stubbs is so fast that the defense may make a mistake trying to throw him out at 1st. But Stubbs contact problem also includes bunting so it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Far East
07-12-2010, 09:56 AM
Everyone did their jobs last night except Hanigan. You absolutely have to put the ball in play in those spots. Those strikeouts were brutal.
Personally, I wanted Hanigan to attempt a squeeze bunt in both of those situations.

It's still a question of whether the hitter can successfully execute; but when he does, it's an actual run, an RBI, not just a potential run as in the other sac bunts which merely move a runner a bit closer to home.

bucksfan2
07-12-2010, 11:20 AM
I am a big believer in situational baseball. I think in a one run game, either way, or a tie game you absolutely bunt a runner over to third with 0 outs unless one of Phillips, Votto, Rolen, and maybe Gomes up.

In a tight game I am more than willing to sacrifice the probability of a big inning if I increase the probability of scoring 1 run. Also to consider is late in the game if there is an important run on 3rd base the infielders play in and the outfielders will play a step in, making it an easier hitting environment.

kaldaniels
07-12-2010, 12:04 PM
I always seem to hear, "outs are valuable, you only get 27 of them don't waste one", and I get the thinking on that, I do.

But think about the worth of an out on defense for a moment. Lets say there is a single, with a runner on second. Lets say that the runner is decent and there is a 10 percent chance of throwing him out at home. Since an out is so valuable, do you still attempt to throw him out, allowing the batter to probably go to second on the throw?

Outs are very valuable, don't get me wrong. But somewhere there has to be a line drawn, and I want to see where you guys think it is. And before you say that well, a sacrifice bunt is an automatic out, it isn't. Again, just looking to see where you draw the line.

nate
07-12-2010, 12:14 PM
I always seem to hear, "outs are valuable, you only get 27 of them don't waste one", and I get the thinking on that, I do.

But think about the worth of an out on defense for a moment. Lets say there is a single, with a runner on second. Lets say that the runner is decent and there is a 10 percent chance of throwing him out at home. Since an out is so valuable, do you still attempt to throw him out, allowing the batter to probably go to second on the throw?

Outs are very valuable, don't get me wrong. But somewhere there has to be a line drawn, and I want to see where you guys think it is. And before you say that well, a sacrifice bunt is an automatic out, it isn't. Again, just looking to see where you draw the line.

I think you make the high-percentage plays (IOW, play it safe) the vast majority of the time.

In your example, you simply shouldn't allow the runner to get to second unless it's (very) late and close. Especially if there's only a 10% chance of throwing the runner out at home.

blumj
07-18-2010, 08:15 AM
Okay, here's a good one: you're down by 1 run in the 9th inning, leadoff hitter gets on base, next guy up is a good bunter, but he's a RHH who hits LHPs really well, and the pitcher in the game is a really good LHP and the guy up after him is a LHH who hasn't been good vs. LHPs. You have a good matchup right now, but you're worried about a DP if you don't bunt, and you get a lousy matchup with a runner on 2nd and 1 out if the bunt works. And the other team has their closer warmed up, a really good RHP, so you're not going to get a better matchup by PHing. Do you bunt?

reds1869
07-18-2010, 09:24 AM
Okay, here's a good one: you're down by 1 run in the 9th inning, leadoff hitter gets on base, next guy up is a good bunter, but he's a RHH who hits LHPs really well, and the pitcher in the game is a really good LHP and the guy up after him is a LHH who hasn't been good vs. LHPs. You have a good matchup right now, but you're worried about a DP if you don't bunt, and you get a lousy matchup with a runner on 2nd and 1 out if the bunt works. And the other team has their closer warmed up, a really good RHP, so you're not going to get a better matchup by PHing. Do you bunt?

I swing away every time in that situation. When there is that much doubt I'll let it rip and hope for the best.