Joe Maddon thinks bunting is overrated

In 18u woodbat (competitive-- trying to win the game; not showcase), bunting with R1/R2/no-outs has helped my teams score more runs more than it has cost them.  This is my opinion, which I can't prove.

 

 

I am torn on this subject, between what I know to be true (in the MLB context) - as the article linked to details, the average expected runs in a 1-out, men on second and third situation is actually less than the no outs, men on first and second situation, even though the expectation of scoring one run is increased - and what I know to be a proven strategy in certain situations.

 

One of the problems with statistics based on an "average" is that you don't score an "average" number of runs, and there is really no such thing as an "average" batter.  Your line-up is full of hitters who are "above average" or "below average" (and some in between) and you are either going to score, or not.  I think whether it is a good strategy or not depends on a lot of context, but in general, I believe that it usually  only makes sense to bunt runners over in a 1st & 2nd, no outs situation when a single run is what you need: the classic example being the bottom of the ninth in a tie game.  BUT, who you have coming up, who is pitching, how much your team has been struggling to score, etc., could ALL potentially change the calculus and cause me to change my mind.

 

In the Rays-Red Sox game that prompted Maddon's comments, it was the top of the ninth in a tie game.  Yes, the one run would have put the Rays ahead, but it wouldn't have ended the game - and the go-ahead run was already in scoring position.  A good argument could be made that it makes more sense to play for the big inning there than to play for one run...but I can see the opposite argument, too, especially given the Rays' run-scoring troubles so far this season (and this game).

 

In the end, I generally trust the coach to make the best choice for his team.  He usually has more and better information than any fan (or parent) about who is capable of doing what, in what situations, and has a better feel for the rhythm of the game.  People only criticize this decision - regardless of which choice is made - when it doesn't work.  As long as the decision is the result of a thoughtful process, I'm good with either decision.

I happen to agree everywhere here. I agree with the author that in this particular situation, a bunt may have been warranted. I also STRONGLY agree with Maddon that bunting is overrated and grossly overused.

 

Run expectancy and game theory are interesting and useful resources within the game of baseball. While they are certainly not the be-all and end-all decision makers, one can never have enough information when making a decision.

 

I'm glad to see the forward-thinking mindset of (in my opinion) one of the game's best managers on full display. I'm also glad to see the questioning of that mindset by a rational and curious onlooker. Good for the game, all around.

Or you could do what our high school coach did--sacrifice bunt when we were down 12-3 and 12-5 in the same game!

Now THAT would bother me!

Augie Garrido disagrees, and I agree with Augie!! http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4247075

I'm not a huge fan of bunting and would rather not do it but late in the game and we need a run (or two) then I'm going to bunt.  I see no reason why you would have your number two hitter lay down a bunt in the first inning when your lead off got on.  Let them swing those several hundred dollar bats they buy and see what happens.

 

Now late in the game and my 1,2,7,8 or 9 hitter is up then we are going to bunt to get that runner into scoring position.

 right, I'm sure Texas's 2.95 team ERA that year, which the author conveniently neglected to mention, had nothing to do with it.

 

I'd be interested in seeing a run expectancy database for NCAA baseball. If the data proves to be the same (which I think it would), I would hope a smart guy like Augie would trust the facts. 

EdgarFan...maybe that's a project we could tackle. If the data comes out the same, I'd love to present it to Augie (and other coaches) and discuss it.

I thought some of the same thoughts, J H.  The other one I'd highlight is the comment from one of the other coaches quoted in the article, which mentions that even though Texas was very adept at getting the sac bunt down, they were also very adept and the following guy getting a base knock to get the run in!  And I guess I would point out that Maddon isn't saying he has no use for the sac bunt, just that it is over-used in some circles.  I also think Maddon would concede (as Josh did above) that the situation he was talking about was one where a decent argument for its use could be made.  He just chose the other strategy, for which an equally (if not better) argument could be made.

 

If there is a college run expectancy table (or better, one by division) I have a feeling that the run expectancy tables would follow the same general theme in college baseball as in the pros, but the numbers might be a bit closer because there might be a higher variation in ability (and execution) of college players.  I also think the data from pre-BBCOR days might be quite a bit different than post-BBCOR, and the post-BBCOR era isn't a big enough sample yet to stabilize the run expectancy tables enough that I'd be comfortable presenting them to anybody.  BUT, I agree that Augie (or any rational coach), if presented with such data, would not be so foolish as to dismiss it or not consider it in his decision-making, even if he might not ever make it the CORE of his decision-making on the subject.  Like I said, as long as a coach makes a considered, thoughtful decision, I don't think anybody can criticize it as being "wrong" just because things don't work out the way he hoped.

 

I do have to say that that is a MUCH bigger project than I think I have time for, but it would be pretty interesting (if there is even a decent database of college games play-by-play, ala Retrosheet).  Knock yourself out, Josh! 

Oh, and Josh, you might find this interesting:

 

Examining Division I College Baseball's Run Scoring Environment (Beyond the Boxscore)

My use of the sac bunt has always been based on the following factors. How good is the team we are playing. How good we were. How good was the pitcher we were facing? How quick is he to the plate? How good was the catcher? Who was the base runner? How do I feel about the match up between my hitter and the pitcher?

Some times I would lay a sac down early in a game just to see how they would defend it. How would the pitcher handle it? How are they going to react to it? Many times I would try a drag bunt and if we didn't get it down follow up with a straight sac. Force them to make a play. Make them move. Fake a bunt to move them and open up the infield.

There are numerous reasons to bunt that have nothing to do with simply moving a runner. Especially early in a game. I understand there is a big difference in MLB and HS. But for the sake of discussion I just wanted to throw this out there.

In 1st and 3rd situations the fake bunt can give you indications of how the 1st and 3rd is being defended. The bunt game if properly executed can lead to big innings. It can rattle the other team. It can rattle a pitcher. It can break open a game.

I am not a fan of giving up outs simply to move a runner except in a couple of scenarios. But I am a huge fan of using the bunt game to change the pace of the game. To disrupt the flow and create an attacking mentality vs a defensive mentality.

How athletic are the corners? How athletic is the pitcher? Many things to consider. And the fact is if you work on the bunt game offensively you will better at defending it as well. Again I understand there is a big difference in levels of play. I'm speaking at the HS level really.

I agree with Maddon that bunting is overrated overall.   However, bunting is a tool to be used in certain situations.   One such situation was the one he found himself in yesterday with runners on first and second and no outs in the 9th inning. 

I like Coach May's response...lots of good things to think about.

 

My opinion is this- when coaching bunt defense, what does every coach harp on? "Hey, they are giving you an out...just throw a strike, field it cleanly, and take the out". Then that same coach turns around and bunts on offense. This seems a bit ironic doesn't it? 

 

I do think there's a time and place for a bunt, and like I said, Coach May presents several situations where a bunt is a weapon for more than advancing a runner. 

JH, I believe you missed the whole point of the article. Read Augie's quote. Something along the lines of "If hitting a baseball (getting a base hit) is the hardest thing to do in all sports, why not try something else? Running is easier, bunting is a lot easier." I agree with that whole heartedly. We are in the era of "look at me" and "swing away". Those two are a deadly combination. It is the means to many losses imo.

 

I know there is no certain evidence to back up my theory, but I must say I feel the A.L. style of get a runner on and hit away (which I truly feel they hit into double plays far more than base hits, not advancing the runner from first) is a bad strategy. I would take a shot at 1 out and runner on 2nd any day... I don't care if it's early or late, a run is a run and you need all you can get.

Love this topic but will keep my response short and simple...I like the bunt in this situation becasue it takes the routine dbl-play out of the picture and give you two shots at a single or better.

 

I do support Maddon because it is his call to make

Runner on 1st and 2nd no outs - in a close game I'm probably bunting. Maybe not with 3-4-5 up.

 

I'll take that runner at third who can score in many ways over the runner at 2nd who needs the ball hit out of the infield at minimum to score.

 

I don't think run expectancy is the correct measure in this situation.  Comparing the fact that 1+2 with no outs is expected to score more runs than 2+3 with one out isn't what we should be looking at.  It should be percentage chance to score any runs given the two scenarios. I think the two would be different.

 

Of course I suck at math, so maybe one of those stats guys could weigh in.

As far as Maddon, did the Rays win the game? All I read was they went into extra innings. What was the score in the 9th?

 

If I get runners on first and second with no outs, I'm bunting them over. No questions asked. Once again, he went into his A.L. coaching mode which is get two on and clear the bags with a HR. In HS, we are not that fortunate to have such hitters to clear the bags at will...

Late in the game, when you need one run, I like the bunt. However, it is always situational. For instance:

 

If you have a right hand batter who isn't good at hitting to the right side, then bunt. If you have a lefty pull hitter or a righty who is good at going backside, well, you do have a big hole on the right side if the runner is being held on.

 

It drives me crazy to see a lefty bunt when a runner is on first. It drives me crazy to see a steal when a lefty is batting. Why, because the hole is open over there with the runner being held. If the guy steals he is now in scoring position, but the hole is now gone.

 

Don't give up outs with a bunt unless it is late. Don't close down the open hole with base stealing that may result in an out.

 

Just my opinion, and obviously an incorrect one based on how I see others manage.

 

Another factor for me is how "skilled" at bunting are my players.

 

I didn't miss the point of the article. I realize what Augie is saying and respect his decision and authority to act on his beliefs. I am in no position to argue what is right or wrong- not because he is Augie Garrido- but because he is the coach and I am not. 

 

As mentioned several times, bunting is useful in some (very few) situations within a game. The situation outlined pertaining to Maddon could have been one of those situations.

 

Your thinking, however, has been proven wrong time and time again by every statistical study in the MLB. An out is more valuable than advancing a runner 90 feet the majority of the time, and over a large sample, not bunting is more successful than actually bunting. According to Baseball Prospectus's run expectancy curve, here are the expected outcomes for your hypothetical situation:

Runner on 1st, no one out: 0.8577

Runner on 2nd, one out: 0.6551

 

As I said, this is strictly pertaining to the big leagues, and is not case specific (Ie: does not take into account the inning, batter, pitcher, score, etc.). But in general, a team is expected to score less runs if they have a runner on 2nd and one out than with a runner on 1st and nobody out. And in my opinion, the facts are enough to sway the argument one way or the other.

Coach Mills I have to ask would you do this if it was the first inning and your number three guy coming up with nobody out?  I don't think anybody would ever disagree with this late in the game and you need runs to tie, go ahead or increase a lead.  But it just seems like some backward thinking to have one of (if not your best) hitter lay down a bunt.

 

If you haven't read Coach May's post then I highly suggest you do because he has put out there a great example of the little games within the game.  It's amazing what you can find out by putting the defense in motion just by showing bunt.  But at the end of the day I like the theory that if you play for one run then you're only going to get one run.

 

You're right in that we can't go out and recruit / sign a slugger who can mash homeruns but I feel pretty confident that I can teach 9 guys to put the ball in play to keep pressure on.  Whenever I post my next point I usually get criticized for it but I don't care - in what I've seen in my 20 years it typically holds true.  I would rather have guys go up there and get singles and doubles instead of homeruns (or in this case bunts).  Psychologically the singles / doubles will keep pressure on the pitcher and defense.  Giving up a homerun allows them (if they are mentally strong) a chance to reset.  Get back on the mound, go from the wind up and wash the bad stuff out of their head.  Don't get me wrong - if I have a guy blast one over the fence I'm going to high five him like we just won the lottery.  But when a pitcher has to constantly worry about runners on, checking their leads, wondering if the next pitch is going to get hit hard, how many runs he's going to give up in this jam etc....is more challenging to a pitcher / defense mentally than giving up a homerun.  Over the course of the game three innings of this will do more damage than a two run homer in the first then the pitcher settles down.  Giving up an at bat through a bunt could allow a mentally strong pitcher to rebound as well to help get him out of the jam. 

 

But these are decisions left up to each coach and how they want to run their team.  Talent has a lot to do with it and if I have a team that I can't teach to hit you better believe we are going to bunt more.

I'm still waiting on specifics to Maddon and the Rays game. Were they down by 1 in the 9th> Were they tied? If so, bunt them over and play for the 1 hit = 2 run scenario. Glory hounds are all around us. No one likes to bunt because that's team play and most now days stand for personal play. I don't care what level, runners at 1st and 2nd with 0 outs, bunt them over and save the double play. Give me your percentages of how many times teams actually get base hits in that situation as opposed to them not scoring any runs by allowing them to swing away. Here are accurate statistics:

 

Chance of scoring from third and second with 1 out:

3b= 55%

2b= 43%

 

Chance from scoring from second base and first base with 0 outs:

2b= 45%

1b= 28%

 

Tell me once again why you wouldn't want to sac bunt to have a greater chance to score one, if not two runs?

 

Reference: http://www.insidethebook.com/e...n_expectancy_matrix/

I'm speaking of Maddon's situation. In HS, if my #3 is up in this situation, I would most definitely show fake bunt and see if the pitcher gets wild. It's not beyond me to try and force a bad throw to advance runners. As far as late in the game, I'm bunting my #3 if we are tied or down my one. I will play my odds that my #4 will pick both those runners up with 1 out. UNLESS, my #3 is hot that day and his seeing the ball well. Every situation is different and you have to go with what may seem the best idea. I would hate myself if one of those base runners were the winning run and I let my player swing away and he hit into a double play. That would be on MY shoulders...

I don’t like to see people make definitive statements on things of this nature because the factors can and often do vary wildly, and most often depend on some combination of the coach’s philosophy, the players he has to work with, and the players on defense against him.

 

This year we have a bunch of Greyhounds who make a lot of contact, but in past seasons we’ve had players who generally couldn’t outrun a turtle and had trouble putting the ball in play. Even with the same coach, the “styles” of what took place on offense was very different indeed.

Your chance of scoring one run does go up in certain situations, especially the runners on 1st and 2nd no out, with a successful sac.  That comes at the cost of your chances of scoring more than 1 run decreasing.  In a late game situation where the margin is 0 or 1 runs, that often is a trade-off worth taking, which is when the sac bunt makes the most sense.  In the bottom of the 9th in a tie game, for instance, you don't care about missing out on opportunities to score more than 1 run.

 

You do still need to take into account the entire situation, who's up, who's on, etc. of course, which isn't really covered in the generic run-expectancy calculations.  I mean, you're probably not going to ask Adam Dunn to bunt in that situation, regardless, because he probably hasn't tried to lay down a bunt since middle school.

 

With a runner on 1st (at least) and less than 2 outs last year, ML hitters as a group batted 276/327/439 with 593 hits, and 273 GIDP.  So that's 32.7% of the time that the end up with same number of outs swinging away, and a better baserunner/runs scored outcome vs about 11.1% of the time they end up with a GIDP.  In non-1-run will win it situations, that's a tradeoff you should take every day and twice on Sundays.

 

FWIW, sac bunting will increase in value as the run-scoring environment decreases, so I'd expect NCAA run-expectancy numbers (if you had them) pre-BBCOR to make sac bunting in college ball substantially a worse bet in general. With BBCOR, it probably runs closer to MLB, but variability of hitter/team talent levels will make using averages less useful.  For example, bunting with your 1/2-hole hitter in the typical college came is likely to be worse than doing so in an MLB game even in the same run environments, because the average 1/2-hole hitter in college should be better relative to the league than in MLB.  Conversely, the 7/8/9 guys (ignoring MLB pitchers hitting) are probably going to be worse relative to the league and thus better bets to bunt in college.

 

Finally, a lot of the run-expectancy stuff ignores the game-theory reasons for bunting (which I think someone touched on before).  If you never bunt, the defense never has to play to defend the bunt, which will lead to better defensive results when you swing away.  So, there's some game-theoretically optimal amount that you should be bunting (whether for a sac or hit) to keep the defense playing in/corners-in enough so that when you are swinging away you get the benefit of doing so against a sub-optimally positioned defense some of the time.  The worse the defense is at defending the bunt (and the better the offense is at bunting for a hit relative to getting on by swinging away), the more bunts are going to be called for in this case.  Because of this, though I think HS teams still probably bunt too much and are too keen to sac vs bunt for a hit, what looks like excessive bunting in HS probably isn't completely over the top.

jacjacatk- Great post.

 

I'm not one to argue deliberately for or against a specific action at a specific time in a game. I think that every situation needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. I am, however, a firm believer that it is laughable how much sac bunting goes on in the game of baseball, especially given how the numbers behind it so immensely discourage it.

 

Coach Mills- As I mentioned before, the Maddon/Rays situation may very well have been a situation in which a bunt could have and should have been used. In certain scenarios that involve the necessity for one run, a sac bunt is a good weapon...obviously depending on the batter, pitcher, baserunner, defensive alignment, etc. However, this particular situation is just one example...and a very rare one at that...of the appropriate usage.

 

I truly don't believe anyone is right or wrong here, but there have been many instances in which people seemingly ignore the facts they are provided. That frustrates me. Augie has his rationale- that should be something that is completely respected. Same with Maddon. Blindly utilizing a play with no factual backing should never happen.

 

Coach May made an outstanding point about defensive positioning and drawing tendencies to your offensive advantage as a coach. I wholeheartedly agree with this stance. However, I don't believe it is extremely applicable at the major league level.

After research, Rays/Red Sox tied 1-1 top of the 9th. First two batters walked, Sox brought in sinker thrower Uehara. Maddon pinched hit James Loney for Shelley Duncan( Maddon was obviously looking for a base clearing hit in Loney). Loney K's looking (OUCH! What a horrible AB...) Next batter shallow fly out, third out was pop up to second. Rays deserved to lose imo. That is all on Maddons shoulders. He was trying to justify why he didn't do, imo the logical thing which was bunt them over, and simply dismissed the loss as "bunting is over rated". 

 

Personally, I would rather lose a game trying to bunt them over and coming up short than the way he managed it. Sam Fuld, lefty would have been perfect coming off the bence to lay one down. At that moment, the momentum could have shifted and assuming the Sox would have walked the next batter, that would have given bases loaded with 1 out. GAME ON! 

In that situation I would bunt the vast majority of time.  Only exception would be if my 3 or 4 hitter is up but then it's going to depend how their day has went. 

 

No real answer here because there are so many variables to go through.

At this point, I'm playing for 1...

A few years ago at the Japan HS Baseball Spring Tournament, Yu Davish is pitching, 40,000 cheering fans + a few Japan and American pro scouts.

 

From my Koshien Stadium seat with the President of Japan HS Baseball, I watched this game when the President said the coach of the opposing team was Ichiro's coach in HS.

 

This coach is famous in Japan for having his players bunt or show bunt on every pitch until 2 strikes. Then the batter can swing "away".

 

I mentioned to the President that if I was the opposing coach, I would bring in my LF to the infield until 2 strikes, move my CF to left center and RF to right center.

 

The President said that Ichiro's HS Coach would lose "face".

 

However, I would win the game and probably never coach again in Japan.

 

The defense alignment is the key. Take the out!

 

Bob

Love the complexities of this topic.  Some other thoughts that come to mind...

 

ML level - pitchers' ability to work for a K situtionally and ability to bring in quality relievers for better K matchups are a factor in making the bunt less affective at that level.

 

Another reason I think it should be used more at all levels - the secondary effects of a double play.  You don't only avoid DP but you avoid the quick inning that shifts momentum toward the defense and gives the P new life and conserved pitch count.

 

For us at the HS level, we will usually identify games that are likely to be low scoring and lean toward working for one run in those instances.  I also put value on getting ahead early.  So, with the right scenario, I will bunt early to get that one run first, understanding I may be sacrificing the chance of a bigger inning.  Once we have that lead, I'll open up.  As others have mentioned, it also keeps defenses honest the rest of the game and opens up holes not otherwise there.

 

A few interesting things have happened for us this year.  Although we have a good hitting team, it has been a well placed sac bunt that turns into a hit or errant throw that has sparked many of our biggest rallies.  On the other side of the coin, we also have our best base-stealing leadoff hitter we've ever had.  So, since he can usually take the base without sacrifice, we have done far less bunting with our two hitter.  It is truly a great combination to have a base-stealer at the top and a guy that can hit behind the runner in the two hole.  

Not sure if it's a factor, but Uehara's only given 4 SH in 266 innings in the majors.  For perspective, Paplebon's allowed 15 in 504 IP, so at least in theory that could be a factor.

 

Also, Fuld was already in the game at this point, but Kelly Johnson was still on the bench and a decent bunting candidate.  Seems like if he goes in and gets it down, the Sox are faced with having to walk Escobar and face Roberts and then either Molina or a PH or play the IF in to pitch to Escobar.

Uehara is from Osaka University and he practiced fielding bunts daily. HS and college.

the Japanese pitcher reaction time from release to a fielding balanced position is one second! "Do not bunt"!!!

 

Bob

But Loney would have still been available off the bench. As far as Uehara, he is a sinker pitcher. But that's exactly what you want in a sac bunt situation, a low ball you can drill into the ground.

Coach;

Uehara can turn a DP on a hard bunt faster than the average pitcher.

 

His training in Japan HS began at 6:30 am to 9 am then class and again 3 PM to dark on the train to home and again the next day, 6 days each week for 9 months.

 

"do not bunt"!!!!

 

Bob

Sorry Consultant, I will take my chances pushing one up first base line for the sac. 1st baseman, 2nd baseman, 3rd baseman and SS can all turn a double play as well. Swinging away gives them more of an opportunity to do so. As far as Uehara being able to basically field his position, great for him! At least he's one of a lesser % MLB pitcher who can probably do so.

Coach Mills- The following was posted by jacjacatk:

 

"With a runner on 1st (at least) and less than 2 outs last year, ML hitters as a group batted 276/327/439 with 593 hits, and 273 GIDP.  So that's 32.7% of the time that the end up with same number of outs swinging away, and a better baserunner/runs scored outcome vs about 11.1% of the time they end up with a GIDP.  In non-1-run will win it situations, that's a tradeoff you should take every day and twice on Sundays."

 

Your scenario is assuming that the bunt is perfectly executed as well, which is an entirely different topic for discussion.

 

I respect your opinion and as I've mentioned, there are certainly a small number of situations in which a bunt is warranted. But the numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of the opposite approach from yours.

I guess it goes back to my philosophy, I will bunt and get my runners at 2nd and 3rd with one out. Better getting thrown out at third trying to bunt than watching strike 3 wouldn't you say? Did you see my stats on % of scoring from 1st an second with 0 outs as opposed to scoring fro 2nd and 3rd with one out? I like those odds a lot better as well.

I also think we have to factor in those gut instincts that we all have. I have gone against the book many times. Even gone against my own beliefs several times. It's just a feeling you get. I never coached with set in stone game plans. I may sac. I may drag. I may hit and run. I coach by feel a lot. It has served me well over the years. I like the idea of simply going with what feels right even though the book would say something else. As a general rule I have none.