Joe Maddon thinks bunting is overrated

I would be the first to admit I like to push the envelope when it comes to high school baseball. In college, I went more by the book however. HS tends to allow for more potential to force errors.

I was pitching a simulated game today in practice. There was a runner at 1st and 2nd with 1 out. The batter bunted in my vicinity, and I instinctually picked the ball up and slung it to 3rd base. We got the force out. Basically traded an out for a different runner. Would this be the case with majority of HS pitchers though? Well, my experience proves that most HS pitchers would be satisfied not even looking at third and settling for the out at first. Remember, we are talking HS now. You know, where turning two is all but an after thought as long as you get the lead out at second...

My son's college team has lost just one game in it's last fifteen played. The game was a 6-5 loss when our team came into the bottom of the ninth against a ranked team with a 6-4 deficit. The first two guys who were the eighth and ninth batters reached with no one out. My son who is a .330 hitter so far this year, already had two hits in the game and is a very good bunter was up. Since his whole lineup is hitting over .300 his coach does not use the sacrifice bunt very much although the team does bunt for hits quite often. I knew it was going to happen. The coach went ahead and sacrifice bunted with the early turnaround and it was executed perfectly with both runners advancing. With runners on second and third the next two guys, one a .320 hitter and the other a .420 hitter who leads the conference in hits, only one run was scored on a groundout and the team lost. I still feel like our team went for a tie instead of trying to win the game and I would have just swung away especially since the guy who bunted is not likely to ground into a double play and is a lefthanded hitter who can really pull the ball behind the runners anyway.

I feel the only time to use the sacrifice bunt MIGHT be late in a one run game where a pitcher is dominating. By playing passive baseball we lost and if that was going to happen anyway, I would rather have taken my chances with swinging away. But this is a good subject to debate and there are going to be differences of opinion.

Really interesting topic.

I can't argue with Maddon's decision at the MLB level. More SO's and better defense. Maybe just to show confidence in Loney. It's a 162 game season.

At the college level, it's very situational. Where are you in the order? Who's up now? So on.

HS, I almost always bunt. 2-3 with one out will always pressure the pitcher and the defense.

The ability to bunt has always been a strength for web. All through HS ball, he was always able to sac when asked and could bunt for a base hit in the right situation. I know that this will be a strength in college ball.

What about the lost art of being able to bunt for a base hit in the majors? Think about Brett Butler. How many times do you hear about the speedy player in MLB that is working on bunting? One of the most exciting plays in baseball is a great bunt hit.

In absolutely no circumstance in any baseball game I've ever been a part of have I ever remotely come close to agreeing with this. Why on earth would you rather lose an out AND a baserunner over just an out? That makes no sense whatsoever.

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?

The stats you cited by Tom Tango are not accurate for this scenario because they are representative of those runners individually, not as an expectancy considering both runners being on base together. There is a higher run expectancy in the big leagues with runners on 1st and 2nd and 0 outs than with runners on 1st and 3rd and 1 out.

1st and 2nd, 0 out: 1.4423 runs expected

2nd and 3rd, 1 out: 1.2898 runs expected

Tango's piece makes the argument that perhaps Maddon should have bunted in the originally situation that was referred to by the OP, given the necessity for one run. 

However, if you notice the end of the piece, he provides a run expectancy for each situation, much like I did above. In both charts he provided, the run expectancy is higher with 1st and 2nd, 0 outs than 2nd and 3rd, 1 out. So with regards to the argument that advancing runners in this scenario via sacrifice bunt is a smart thing, the evidence disproves that.

Bottom of the 7th, tied 1-1, bottom third of the order up. First batter reaches on an error. Second batter executes a beautiful bunt, mishandled by 3rd baseman, now runners at 1 and 2. Third batter executes a perfect sacrifice bunt, now runners at 2 and 3, one out. Fourth batter appears to be laying down a suicide, but misses, runner makes it back to 3rd. Pitcher throws a wild pitch which hits the plate and bounces over the backstop. Game over. 

This was yesterday, my son's high school game. His team won. 

Let me reprhase: BETTER GETTING THROWN OUT AT THIRD TRYING TO BUNT HIM OVER THAN WATCHING A THIRD STRIKE WOULDN'T YOU SAY!? Were you a pitcher? If so, that explains a lot in you way of thinking...

And that is EXACTLY why I keep arguing for the sac bunt. Because IT WORKS in most cases.

What does pitching have to do with logic?

At no point in my baseball career would I ever rather have my team get thrown out at third than strike out. I would rather have an additional out with a runner still in scoring position than an additional out with one less runner in scoring position. That holds true 100% of the time. It has nothing to do with what position I may or may not play, it has to do with logic.

You are missing my whole point with your "logic". It's a wash. Still one out with runners at 1st and 2nd, only difference is one person tried to make something happen while the other stood there and took third strike. But then again pitchers don't think about these types of things. JUST THROW STRIKES!

Finally caught on to what I was saying huh? I can respect that... Have a good one.

Not at all. Actually, I'd prefer to not be involved in a conversation in which I provided hard, factual evidence and then was retorted with a somewhat personal response directing backhanded negativity towards pitchers- which I don't fully understand either. If you don't want to listen to the facts, that's completely fine. I don't have to listen to your rationale either. 

You are obviously not listening to ANYTHING I say. Attempt to bunt runners over to 3rd and 2nd but the runner gets thrown out at 3rd. Still have runners at 2nd and 1st with one out. You said you would NEVER do that. You would rather have your batter stand up there and strike out looking. Nice philosophy guy.

If you don't receive typed sarcasm about pitchers, that's a totally different situation. 

A few posts up, a guy simply said his son's team won yesterday utilizing the sac bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd. What is so difficult to get about sac bunting runners over to position yourself to win the ball game? It's really not that difficult of a concept.

I understand everything you're saying. And I will repeat what I said as well, in the majority of game situations, it is statistically more beneficial to let hitters hit in Major League games. The statistics may be different in high school due to the quality of the opponent and the extreme differences in talent amongst hitters throughout a lineup. I don't have numbers to back up whether twotex's scenario was commonplace or fluke, nor can I say whether or not it is a good coaching decision. Obviously, given the specific situation she outlined, it was in that instance.

Getting runners in scoring position does not outweigh the outs that you lose when sac bunting. If you don't understand the run expectancy chart, I'd be happy to explain it. As I said several times in this thread...this theory could be completely wrong at different levels, because that chart is for MLB games only. So in high school, sac bunting may be beneficial in more situations than in MLB games. But until evidence comes out supporting that, I will always subscribe to the theory that bunting is grossly overused. There is a time and a place for it, just not many.

Let me say it was a GREAT decision! The sac bunt call was directly related to them winning the game. Thanks for your time. I wish you the best of luck. I feel this conversation has run its course.

You can't compare apples to oranges to bananas. It's what you get when you start comparing MLB ball to college ball and high school ball. The context of Maddon's situation is MLB only. Had he bunted, based on what followed the Rays still wouldn't have scored. Bill James did the research on bunting at the MLB level. History and stats show hitting away is the best solution for first and second, no outs. The theory is to not give away outs by bunting.

The outcome of the Rays game is not evidence that Maddon made the wrong decision, and the outcome of the HS game mentioned above is not evidence that the coach in that game made the right one.  Good decisions don't work out all the time, and bad decisions actually work out well some of the time.

As a manager/coach, the only you thing you can concern yourself with is taking all the information you have in to account and making the best decision you can under the circumstances.  If you make the right decision every time, you'll win more than you lose.  And given that humans are inherently prone to selective memory when it comes to making decisions, allowing results-oriented thinking to cloud your judgement is going to cost you in the long run.

Thank you.

You can't work in conditionals like this.  Had Maddon elected to have someone bunt, you have no way of knowing what the outcome would have been.

If winning the game is the goal, there are absolutely situations where bunting with runners on 1st and 2nd and no outs is correct.  It's possible that this was one of them. If scoring the most runs is the goal, you're correct that it's always better (essentially) to swing away (excepting any small game-theoretical advantage that can be obtained by occasionally bunting to keep the defense honest).

The outcome of the Rays game wasn't necessarily based on Maddon's decision. As far as Maddon bunting them over and they still would not have scored comment, that's impossible to tell. The whole approach to the game changes at that point.

However, I feel the HS game's outcome was SQUARELY based on the coach's decision to sac them over. Way more opportunities to score with one out from third to end the game, and they found one of those many ways to score.

Let me end on this; In both situations, I would have bunted them over. Who knows if the Rays would have scored from third with 1 out? The bottom line is it wouldn't be because they weren't in optimal position to do so. In the HS game, I would have done the exact same. In that instance, my team would be celebrating the victory that evening while the other team had a long bus ride home. When it's time to play for one (and the win), BUNT THEM OVER!

Does it not concern you at all that you're convinced Maddon was wrong because what he decided to do was not successful and it's not what you would have done, while you're equally convinced that the HS coach was correct both because it worked and because it's what you would have done?

It more concerns me that I never said Maddon was wrong but you obviously think I did. My statement was Augie Guarrido likes the sac bunt and I agree with him. Me not agreeing with someone doesn't mean I'm saying he's wrong. Now, what I truley feel in the situation is if the bunt moved the runners over, much like the HS game, it would have optimized the opportunity to score. How many different ways can you score from third? Answer the same question from 2nd. My coaching book (my mind) says take the one out to advance 90 feet and get ready to score for the victory! YEE HAW! Not a difficult concept people.

Now, may I ask why you and JH are trying to conveince/convict me of "being wrong"?

When I was in high school, I partied and drank alcohol with my friends. Because I didn't get caught for underaged drinking that one time, I continued to do it because it was destined to work. 

How many different ways can you score from third? Answer the same question from 2nd. 

A lot more ways if there's one less out.

My coaching book (my mind) says take the one out to advance 90 feet and get ready to score for the victory! YEE HAW! Not a difficult concept people.

Yes it is, because all factual evidence supports the contrary.

Dumbest analogy I've ever heard. Party on dude!

That's my point.

You are o for 2 in your last two comments man. 1 was the correct answer. I can count over a handful from third. Thanks JH, it's been real and it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun... Evidence that the slowest guy on the team is on second and the weakest batter/best bunter is at the plate? I just sac'ed you over to third with one out. You can thank me now or later. Either way, we have a lot better chance of winning now. See you guys in another topic.

Sounds good to me. You enjoy bunting, I'll enjoy winning.

Notwithstanding that they won, attempting a suicide squeeze in this spot seems rather foolish (without knowing a lot more about the players involved, at least).  The whole point of getting a runner to 3rd with less than 2 out by bunting in this situation is to draw the IF in and improve your odds that much more when swinging away.  Squeezing to a drawn-in IF seems like a really good way of increasing your odds of playing the 8th inning.

Where I come from, you can't disagree with someone and both of you be right.

I don't think it's a given that Maddon made the correct decision in his situation, but I think it's arguable that he did.

Ignoring this specific situation for a moment, the fact that there are more ways to score from 3rd base is essentially nullified by the fact that you have more opportunities to score with nobody out.  When only one run is necessary (bottom of the 9th of a tie game, for instance) trading opportunities for alternatives is possibly (even likely) going to be better.  Doing it as your default at other times in the game is going to cost you runs, and consequently wins.

Your way proved a loss, mine proved a win. I'll sac bunt a win every time. You just keep pitching strikes! Better yet, keep watching 3rd strike...

Inventing scenerios to prove a point is not what I'm arguing here. One instance, one opportunity to score a run. That's it. I already said there is 55% chance of scoring a run from third with one out and 45% chance of scoring from second with no outs. This is a dead conversation. I would like to carry on, but JH killed it with resorting to ad hominem and red herring. TTYL

Ok, I'm back.

I resorted to ad hominem? I provided hard, statistical evidence indicating that in nearly every single situation in a Major League game, it does not behoove a team to sac bunt, due to the lower run expectancy as a result. Certain instances, as jacjacatk alluded to, warrant the call. But not many.

Don't contradict yourself by saying that you aren't inventing scenarios, and then in the same sentence deliberately saying "one opportunity to score one run". That, in and of itself, is an invented scenario.

I will repeat what I said once again: the vast majority of the time, a sacrifice bunt is the wrong call. There is no statistical evidence that exists in the world of baseball that contradicts that claim. Therefore, until I find it, I will continue to consider this the right method to go by. It's worked for me pretty well up to this point.

Take it for what its worth...I really don't care if you agree or not. I just find it ironic that you accuse me of steering clear of facts when facts are the only thing I've ever cited.

Exactly how did I invent the scenerio that is at topic of conversation? THAT WAS THE SCENERIO! I also enjoy how you say you throw out facts but then discard my facts.

 It's been fun never the less.

Here you go, enjoy. http://www.insidethebook.com/e...high_school_edition/

Coaches, please keep in mind the importance of outs when calling for a sacrifice bunt. And other than the very few, very rare situations in a game that I've outlined, DON'T BUNT.

That's what the facts say. 2+2=4. That's it.

I hesitate to get back into this conversation, but I feel the need to point out that, in Maddon's situation, playing for one run did not necessarily mean a win, because the Rays were the visiting team.  One run would have given them the lead, sure, but the Red Sox would have had the opportunity to tie or win in the bottom of the ninth.

Had the Rays been the visiting team, I would be much more inclined to agree with the criticism of Maddon for not sacrificing those two runners over - though I agree with jacjacatk that it isn't a given (in either scenario) that Maddon made the "correct" or "incorrect" decision.  Both decisions are defensible; had I been making the decision, I would have played it as Maddon did, but if the game had been played with the Rays at home, I would have sacrificed.

Rays were visitors/ Sox didn't score in bot 9. That's why the reporter second guessed Maddon not sac bunting and Maddon (in my mind as a defense) said bunting was overrated.

I realize that, and pointed out that the Rays were visitors.  I don't think you can assume that had things gone differently in the top half of the inning (had Maddon's stragegy worked, for instance, or perhaps because he sac bunted and they got one run), they would have gone the same way they did for the Sox in the bottom half.  Beyond that, I don't think you can judge Maddon's decision at the time he made it based on what did or did not happen later.  Judge the decision-making process, based on the information available at the time of the decision, not the result (and especially not assumed results based on a hypothetical change of that decision).

There are 11 ways to score from 3rd base with less than 2 outs. If the game was on turf, "DON'T BUNT".

In HS the winning team wins not because of execution, but because of the opposing team not executing. The difference between HS, College and Professional is the ability to execute the plays and the quickness of the player - mentally and physically and the intelligence of the Manager. Read the book "Pure Baseball" by Keith Hernandez.

Bob

I rarely disagree with J H - and honestly I offer this less as disagreement than clarification - but I think it is overstating the case for not sac bunting based on run expectancies to imply that this is "fact" or something that is mathematically precise.

First, these charts assume an average batter facing an average pitcher - something that rarely, if ever, occurs.  Every team is full of better hitters, and lesser hitters, and to complicate matters more, guys who have speed, or are adept at hitting behind the runner, or spectacularly good (or bad) at bunting...and rarely do all these things add up to point in a single decision-making direction.  Even if you assume an "average" pitcher, is he tired, or fresh?  Is he on that day, or struggling?  And, as many of the coaches in this thread explained very well (I'm thinking particularly of Coach May's post, but I know that there were several others who made excellent and similar observations), there are many other coaching reasons you might want to sacrifice, as well, because you value the intangible benefit of doing so more than the "average" runs you "lose" (I use quotes because, again, the result is binary and the average run "expectancy" is in no way a guarantee).

There are so many factors that a coach has to mentally "adjust" for in making a bunt/swing away decision that, IMO, even at the MLB level, the most you can say about these run expectancies is that (a) they should be strongly considered, and (b) if you choose to go against it, you should have good and strong reasons for ignoring what is generally true in these situations - the out is more valuable than the base advancement, with some exceptions in close and late situations.

Secondly, if you look at the comments to Beyond the Boxscore link I previously posted (as well as some of the comments to the link J H posted, above), you will see that one of the authors of The Book (the originators of these run expectancy tables), "MGL" or Mitchel Lichtman, explains why simply referring to the RE charts does not necessarily dictate the decision making behind swinging away or sac bunting in the way it would appear you can and maybe even should.  The charts are only a start, and there are many other factors to consider: how often do you bunt and things other than an out and a base advancement occur?  How does a consistently infrequent bunting team change the way the defense approaches these situations, and what subtle differences in the "average" run expectancies would you expect that to produce?  How often does a particular batter/bunter beat out a sac bunt just because he is an excellent bunter?  Or, on the other hand, what are the chances of a particular bunter/batter popping up a bunt, or bunting into a double play, or otherwise failing to execute?  What are the chances of a ROE against a particular team with a particular batter?  For better or worse, no matter what side of this debate you are on, you can't just assume one out and a one-base advance, particularly as you move to lower levels of baseball.

Which brings me to the last point, which has been the subject of a pretty great discussion here: what applies in MLB doesn't necessarily apply in the minors, or in college, or in HS baseball.  Higher run environments, less power/SLG, more variability of talent throughout a league or a line-up - all these things can change the "equation" pretty dramatically.

All things considered, it is rarely a yes/no answer to the "should you bunt?" question.  Maybe on the extremes.  Everything else is debatable.

Josh, I hope you felt that was a fair criticism / clarification of the valid point you made....