Sacrifice Bunts

[jbooth]

I'm not a statistician, or a mathematician, just a baseball player and fan.

I HATE sacrifice bunts. Except when the pitcher is batting, I think it is a total waste of an out.

Are there any stats or research related to the value of a sacrifice bunt? How often, or much, does it help in producing a run?

I may lean in favor of it with 0 outs and the pitcher batting, but with one out, or with no outs and a regular hitter up, I wouldn't use it.

[brett]

At producing runs, I'm pretty sure that a sac bunt overall is a negative.

It might be slightly positive at producing 1 and only 1 run, if that is what the team needs. Runner on first and no outs versus runner on second and 1 out. The runner has to be fast enough to score from second on just about any single.

Also would help if the hitter was a likely double play.

So if you have a hitter with a high DP rate, and a runner on first who is fast, then a SUCCESSFUL sac bunt probably gives the team a substatially better chance of scoring one and only one run.

One question is "when SHOULD a team play for one and only one run?"

Lastly, it might be possible that infields are more prone to making errors on sac bunts in high pressure situations. It seems that way anyway. I've seen a first baseman make a great pickup and throw but fail to get the runner out at second just because somebody can't get there to cover.

[jbooth]

At producing runs, I'm pretty sure that a sac bunt overall is a negative.

It might be slightly positive at producing 1 and only 1 run, if that is what the team needs. Runner on first and no outs versus runner on second and 1 out. The runner has to be fast enough to score from second on just about any single.

Also would help if the hitter was a likely double play.

So if you have a hitter with a high DP rate, and a runner on first who is fast, then a SUCCESSFUL sac bunt probably gives the team a substatially better chance of scoring one and only one run.

One question is "when SHOULD a team play for one and only one run?"

Lastly, it might be possible that infields are more prone to making errors on sac bunts in high pressure situations. It seems that way anyway. I've seen a first baseman make a great pickup and throw but fail to get the runner out at second just because somebody can't get there to cover.

I totally understand the strategy, I'm just wondering if stats support the thinking. I'm guessing that they don't.

You're trading an out for a base, IF the sac works. Sometimes, the hitter screws up the bunt and they get the runner, or they even get a DP. Now, you have to hope somebody gets a hit within the next two outs.

Why not save your out and hope for a rally? This is usually done late in the game, when you're low on outs anyway. Why throw one away? Sure, you moved him into scoring position, but at the cost of a precious out.

As you said, and I did also; there are times when it makes sense, but to do it just for the sake of getting the guy to second, is not smart IMO.

Makes sense with a pitcher up, or a high K hitter, or a weak hitter who hits into DP's a lot, but I've seen it done with a number 1, 2, or 6 hitter up, and I've seen it done with already 1 out.

[digglahhh]

Run expectancy Matrix, 99-02 courtesy of Tango Tiger:

At producing runs, I'm pretty sure that a sac bunt overall is a negative.

It might be slightly positive at producing 1 and only 1 run, if that is what the team needs. Runner on first and no outs versus runner on second and 1 out. The runner has to be fast enough to score from second on just about any single.

Also would help if the hitter was a likely double play.

So if you have a hitter with a high DP rate, and a runner on first who is fast, then a SUCCESSFUL sac bunt probably gives the team a substatially better chance of scoring one and only one run.

One question is "when SHOULD a team play for one and only one run?"

Lastly, it might be possible that infields are more prone to making errors on sac bunts in high pressure situations. It seems that way anyway. I've seen a first baseman make a great pickup and throw but fail to get the runner out at second just because somebody can't get there to cover.

Co-sign.

Also, Tango notes in his book, some of the advantage of hitting in bunt situations is derived from the fact that IFs must guard against the bunt and it is therefore easier to get balls through. So, if you minimize bunting to the point that it is no longer a legit threat in the eyes of the defense, you mitigate some of the advantage you get by swinging away.

[jbooth]

Run expectancy Matrix, 99-02 courtesy of Tango Tiger:



Co-sign.

Also, Tango notes in his book, some of the advantage of hitting in bunt situations is derived from the fact that IFs must guard against the bunt and it is therefore easier to get balls through. So, if you minimize bunting to the point that it is no longer a legit threat in the eyes of the defense, you mitigate some of the advantage you get by swinging away.

The Matrix seems to answer my question and confirm my belief.

.953 runs score with R1 and 0 outs.

If you sacrifice him to second;

.725 runs score with R2 and 1 out.

Am I wrong in concluding that you're better off to try and hit away and get R1 to score, than to give up an out and move him to second?

Or, does the .953 include sacrifices to get him to second?

[mikefast]

The Matrix seems to answer my question and confirm my belief.

.953 runs score with R1 and 0 outs.

If you sacrifice him to second;

.725 runs score with R2 and 1 out.

Am I wrong in concluding that you're better off to try and hit away and get R1 to score, than to give up an out and move him to second?

Or, does the .953 include sacrifices to get him to second?

If you assume that sacrifice bunt attempts always result in a runner reaching second and the batter being put out at first, you're missing a lot of options and will come to inaccurate conclusions.

MGL covered this extensively in the Book. The basic answer is, "It depends." I'm pretty sure the conclusions are available in condensed form somewhere on the web if you don't want to buy the Book. In fact, this is a good thread over at their blog: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...chard_justice/.

[jbooth]

If you assume that sacrifice bunt attempts always result in a runner reaching second and the batter being put out at first, you're missing a lot of options and will come to inaccurate conclusions.

MGL covered this extensively in the Book. The basic answer is, "It depends." I'm pretty sure the conclusions are available in condensed form somewhere on the web if you don't want to buy the Book. In fact, this is a good thread over at their blog: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...chard_justice/.

Thanks, that gave me the info I was looking for.

[digglahhh]

I'm sure this have been covered in the reading you've done, and Brett mentioned it here, but I just want to be sure it's covered.

0 out/Runner on 1st has a higher run expectancy than 1 out/Runner on 2nd. However much of that advantage comes from the greater likelihood of the big inning. It may have a higher expectancy of total runs, while simultaneously having an overall lower likelihood of scoring anything. Risk vs. reward.

The oversimplified, soundbyte version of my conclusion about this I like to give is that it is generally a bad idea to bunt with any player other than the pitcher before the 7th inning.

After that point it gets a lot more situation/player/opponent/platoon,etc-specific. The question is usually one of: Is it in my interest to increase the likelihood of me scoring one run here at the cost of decreasing the likelihood that I'll score more than one. Pretty hard to defend that in the first 2/3 of the game, IMO.

Another problem I have, and I see mgrs. do this all the time, is this situation. Let's use the Mets as an example here, Reyes on 1st, no out. Castillo up, Wright on deck. If you bunt with Castillo (death, taxes, and Castillo bunting), they're just going to intentionally walk Wright! So, you put Reyes in scoring position, but you took the bat out of the hands of your best hitter in the process. Teams do this all the time and it infuriates me.