Joe Maddon thinks bunting is overrated

EdgarFan- Outstanding points. I was most certainly too vague, I appreciate the thoughtful response. Truthfully, it frustrates me more than anything to find people who seem to not only ignore facts presented to them, but make it a point to go against these facts. For the record, I am not suggesting this was something that anyone here was doing, especially not Coach Mills. It is just something that is a pet peeve of mine.

 

Many coaches have reasons for doing the things that they do. Augie Garrido is a great example of that. He has a foundation of a rationale behind his methods, and it works for him based on the roster he has built. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that approach. But to ignore the facts pertaining to run expectancy, etc. is very naive and would almost certainly negatively impact a team. I have no doubt that individuals like Augie have looked at both ends of the spectrum, as most that are at the very top of their profession do. And that is all I try to urge people to do...soak in all available information and try to form a conclusion based off of facts. All cause and effect related to such experiments are case specific, and should obviously be treated as such.

 

I'm sorry to those onlookers here for coming off as having a short fuse. I have a passion for the game and try to learn as much as I can. When I feel as though something is being misconstrued or miscommunicated, I sometimes tend to respond irrationally...and the original cause was, ironically, often my fault.

 

As a conclusion, I would urge all coaches to take a solid look at the links provided and the discussion being had on this page. I think a lot of the information is very beneficial.

I stand by my opinion that sac bunting is GROSSLY overused and I wish that coaches would attempt to curtail its usage. But I also recognize the benefits, at every level.

One problem with going by the book is that the other guy knows what you are going to do.

In my son's game today the other team's coach sacrificed in the first with the second batter of the game. He sacrificed with the second batter in the second with a walk,error and double following and only netting two runs absolutely killing a big inning by giving us an out. He then sacrificed a runner over despite being down 5-2 in the seventh. We ended up winning 5-4. Those three free outs cost that team the game no ifs and buts as twice the sac was followed by a walk that would have moved the runner anyway.But since we then only had to get two outs we got out of both innings without disaster.

Three Bagger- You can never assume the exact situation if the play call was different. There's no doubt that he may not have used the sac in the "right" situations, but to assume the sac bunts were the reason the team lost is an incorrect assumption. Too many other variables to decide what determined the outcome. If it were late in the game and it was tied or that team down by one and they utilized the sac bunt and scored the winning or tying run, the tune would be a little different.

Three Bagger;

You are correct. When I played in Texas, we we never bunted, because of the thin air.

You know the answer.

Bob

Sure, you can never assume the loss was the result of the sac bunts, but if you win the sac bunts were definitely the right choice.

I think coaches that are in love with the sacrifice bunt start tending to use it in inappropriate situations like bunting in the first inning against a team batting .335 as a team and scoring 8 runs a game. That coach gave us one inning worth of outs and that will lose you a lot of ball games. Sure it works sometimes and the coach looks like a small ball genius, but you can't even figure how many total runs are lost because of free outs.I feel this guy was happy if he could get two or three runs by the sacrifice even knowing that wasn't likely to be enough to win the game against one of the top DII's in the nation. Our boys hit into DP's and did all kinds of misadventures on the bases but we still just swung away or bunted for HITS and it was the difference. We used all 27 of our outs swinging versus the 24 they used.

 

One of the bunts really bugged me as the guy bunted right after a new relief pitcher walked a guy and was having a terrible time even getting a ball over. After the bunt he immediately walked the next guy. I was SOOO thankful for that sac out they gave us.

 

I say all this even though I definitely am an advocate of bunting for hits at any time in the game. To me there is a real difference. One is aggressive baseball at the higher levels and one is passive and predictable. That's my opinion anyway.

I forgot to add, that there is room in my mind in a one run low scoring game for a late inning sac bunt. I'm not totally against it but some of these uses make me just shake my head.

I agree. I kills me when I see a coach sac bunt a runner over to second when they already have 1 out in the inning. WHAT!?

I know that this subject has been beaten to death but there was an interesting line in the box score of web's game today. He was hitting in the two hole today. 1st inning, lead off hitter is on, web gets HBP, moves the runner to 2nd, lead off scores. 6th inning lead off on base, no outs, web bunts the runner over, lead off scores. 2-0 final. I think that this is the right use of the sacrifice.

 

Web is 0-2 but has a big impact on the game.

 

I'll say it again. In MLB Maddon made the right call. In college ball, good strategy.

HS game this weekend. We had runners on 2nd/3rd no out, weaker hitter up. He sac bunted both runners over. Next batter hit a sac fly. Outcome was exactly how we wanted it... With the win! 

So, you had two runners on and nobody out, you scored a total of one run, and that confirms that your strategy works? 

 

I say again- it's funny that defensive coaches harp on pitchers to throw strikes when a hitter is bunting because "they're giving you an out". Yet, those same coaches turn around and bunt on offense. Maybe it's one of those counter intuitive things that I just don't get.

Maybe it was late in the game and you were tied or down one. Those would be the mitigating factors. Otherwise by playing for one run you successfully ensured you wouldn't score any more than one. Just my opinion.

Maybe it was late in the game and you were tied or down one. Those would be the mitigating factors. Otherwise by playing for one run you successfully ensured you wouldn't score any more than one. Just my opinion.

EXACTLY! When you need one run, odds are great! Hitting into double plays... Not so much. I guess you also missed the part where a weaker hitter was up? He grounded to the pitcher and SS his first two at bats. He did his job beautifully his 3rd AB.

I've become a student of the Andy Lopez school of thought. A good inning is walk, sacrifice, ground out, squeeze.

Do you really think it's a good idea to risk lining into a DP or failing to hit behind the runner with 1 out? Plus, you're counting on drawing that initial walk.  I would think bunting for a hit would at least challenge the defense to make a play.

"Offense is not hitting, offense is the ability to score runs when your team is not hitting. How do you do that? First, focus your offense around your bunting game (sac, squeeze, drag, push bunting). I don't know how many times I looked at the box score after a game and it read my team 2 runs, 8 hits, 0 errors; other team 3 runs, 4 hits, 0 errors.It happens so often that you out-hit you opponent but still come up on the short end of the stick."

 

-Andy Lopez

What are the odds of lining into a double play with runners at 2nd and 3rd as opposed to hitting right side, sac fly or gapper? not as likely. Like I said earlier in the post, I will sac over runners any day to get a run or two in the process. Sitting them tight may or may not be beneficial.

MLB teams win roughly 20% of the time when getting fewer hits than their opponents.  Source, http://www.baseball-fever.com/...ex.php/t-100117.html

 

Humans are awesome at selectively remembering things, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

EDIT:  There's no particular reason to think that the percentage of teams winning with fewer hits should be substantially higher at sub-MLB levels.  If anything, the less power there is generally at a level, the more closely run scoring will likely correlate with batting average on a game-by-game basis.

If you literally think walk, sac bunt, ground out, squeeze (with 2 outs presumably) is a good plan, ever, you should really find some better hitters to play behind the guy drawing the walks.

Also, MLB teams have scored 2 or fewer runs while getting 8 or more hits 12.3% time in all games played since 1916.  They score 3 or more runs when getting 4 or fewer hits 11.8% of the time.

 

If all you had to go on was the number of hits in a game, you would clearly make a mint betting on the team with more hits to win.

And teams who score 7+ runs tend to win 95% of their games. Do hits have much to do with run production? Somewhat, but not completely.

Also, if it came down to hits per game, of course I would have them swing away every AB. I would also be a state champion every other year, because my teams know how to hit. They know how to bunt too. Some games you have hard shot right to the defense, and other games you have loopers fall all day. Slugfest mentality is overrated. Bunting is a skill and a beautiful thing when done correctly. It's a game of strategy, and execution, or lack there of. Why else would they have errors in the box score? 

jacjacatk- I've come to find over the years that I've been learning about this game that there is a large group of people that don't listen to factual information. If I am able to share that information with people, that's wonderful. If they don't use it, that's their loss. There's no use in beating a dead horse, my friend. Ignorance in other people is beneficial to you. 

 

pages.stern.nyu.edu/~jsimonof/classes/1305/projdoc/moneyball.doc

Based on data from the 1996-2003 AL (to eliminate pitcher bunting), successful SH are negatively correlated with run scoring.  In declining order of correlation, OBP, SLG, and AVG are substantively positively correlated with run scoring.

The reason for this is fairly obvious.  We use runs to measure games in baseball, but the real currency of baseball is OUTS.  Not making outs (or conversely, not giving them away) is more important than anything else in the effort to win.  The sac bunt as a primary offensive weapon, is demonstrably self-defeating.

FWIW, it's actually slightly less than 87% in MLB, 1916-2012.

I've already stated that I am not in favor of sacrifice bunts except in extreme late game one run situations. Once again this weekend we swept another team that used multiple sac bunts. In the one extra inning game we simply loaded the bases on hits with no outs  and blasted one over the draw in outfield to win the game. We didn't waste outs even in that situation.

 

The third win and our 19th in our last 20 games was a 7 to 4 lead entering the bottom of the 8th. We went to the bunt---but not the run inhibiting sac bunt. Our speedy eighth hitter drag bunted for a single. Our fast 9th batter turned three times showing sac bunt but took the pitches for a 2-1 count. The fourth time he squared, then swung away and hit a chopping single up the middle. Now with no one out and our leadoff guy up time for a sac bunt right? Oh no, he doesn't show sac bunt at all but drops a full all out for the hit bunt and the other team can do nothing but watch. Then the next guy hits a grandslam to break open the game.  Now that's how you use the bunt in my book!!

I should have clarified that particular stat was based on college outcomes in the 2000's

I have already expressed that the opposing coach bunted in the wrong situations imo. It was a close game, by one run. Maybe had he utilized the sac's appropriately, they would have won the game?

Until it directly effects the outcome of the game. I agree outs are precious. It drives me nuts when there is a runner on first and second with no outs and the batter hits into a double play. Kills the whole rally being built, as well as any momentum at that time. I have seen teams completely melt down due to a double play mid/late in the game. They are called intangibles. They are hard to measure, but visibly noticeable. Put it this way, sac bunts have been apart of more wins, in my coaching career, than losses.

 

Now, with all that being said, we go back to comparing apples to oranges. How many HR hitters are on a 25 man MLB roster? Assume 12 are position players, I would assume 8-10 will hit their fair share of HR's. Ask the same question to a HS team. I know we have had well over 500 AB's this season with 0 HR's. I teach driving the ball gap-to-gap line drives. Why? HR's can not be taught. They come with player physical development and bat speed. However, I have plenty of speed on the team. No HR hitters+ speed= PUT THE BALL IN PLAY! At times, that does call for bunting situations. I have won contest when sac bunting has been utilized. I have been beaten when they utilized sac bunts. 

Coach Mills, this was in this weekends games--whole new coach and team!

Sorry, I had to re-read. Yes, your son's win was directly related to utilizing the bunt. Give your son's coach a hand for doing so with such determination and the players for actually being able to execute when it was much needed.