Two Strategy questions

Not sure why a coach would have a batter take a strike in a possible bunting situation.  Unless a misread sign by the batter.

In the second scenario, maybe the 3B was playing back and not even or in front of the bag.  Might be thinking the batter can catch him out of position and lay a bunt for a single.

First situation - not sure but FoxDad may have got the answer in a missed sign.  Then again maybe it was a dumb call.

Second situation - lot of variables and good chance I wouldn't have called for a bunt there but I can see possibilities as to why you would.  Got a couple of questions though before I can give a good answer

1.  How many outs

2.  What part of the line up was the offensive team at

3.  How good was the pitcher on the mound - dominant, struggling, average, been in whole game, 

4.  Did the other team have someone up in the bullpen or already warm

Answer those best you can and let's see where we can go from there.

You never know what someone else is thinking, and a lot of times coaches seem to be missing something obvious when in fact they've analyzed the situation a couple levels deeper and have good reasons for what they're doing. 

I'm only speculating here because I don't know anything about the teams involved, but here are a couple possiblities:

Scenario #1: To make the pitcher who had just permitted the tying runs to reach base prove he could throw a strike in the pressure situation.  Coach might have planned to take the bunt off if the count reached 2-0 or 3-0. Or he might have wanted the hitter not to show any signs of the bunt in hopes of getting the defense to be a little less alert for the bunt and react a bit slower when the hitter squares around for the first time at 0-1, 1-1, or 2-1. Or maybe he has either a very high or very low level of confidence in the player's bunt skills and is either sure he needs only one try to get a bunt down or is only willing to invest one attempt in the effort.

Scenario #2: You don't have a lot of good options when down by three in the last inning. Perhaps it was a weak hitter or an unfavorable match up and the coach figured getting that batter to advance the runners and take away the DP was the best outcome he could get out of that plate appearance and he didn't have any better options coming off the bench.  Or perhaps the opposing team had shown spotty bunt defenses, and he wanted to put some pressure on them.

These are just guesses, but it's possible the coach had reasons, even if it's not these particular reasons.

Swampboy's answers cover a lot of plausible thoughts pretty well.

The simple answer is, without having all the info the coach has, there's just no telling.

+1..Swampboy nailed it, IMO:

Scenario #1: "To make the pitcher who had just permitted the tying runs to reach base prove he could throw a strike in the pressure situation.  Coach might have planned to take the bunt off if the count reached 2-0 or 3-0."

Scenario #2: Here again, I totally agree with Swampboy.

Only thing I can add to good posts considering #2...

With our team, our philosophy for a bunt is usually a bit different than a traditional sac.  It is first to bunt for a hit. So, if defense was sitting back playing for sure outs and a good bunter with good speed was up, we may call for the bunt making sure the hitter is aware of the favorable defensive alignment and assuring conviction to the attempt.

So, the signal is telling the hitter we don't want you just to consider the option, we want you to fully commit to the effort of bunting for a hit.  Which means if you miss, miss toward the line so, if foul, you still have life to your AB.

If he squared way early, I defer to other's posts.

I'm glad swamp and cabbage posted before I did.  They nailed it.

Not to complicate things but I think a lot depends on the broader scenario.  Did the first two batters reach on walks? Were they your leadoff and first hitters on base or was it 7 and 8 with 9 at the plate and the top of the order waiting?  Is the pitcher tiring?, do you know what they have in relief? 

For Scenario 1: I can see some very valid reasons that could lead to the call and Swamp boy and cabbage are dead on. 

For Scenario 2: from my perspective there is still not enough information to determine why the approach was taken but there are plenty of game scenarios where the approach makes sense.  In HS pressure does funny things to teams.  By moving both players into scoring position, you have eliminated the easy double play and placed the defense in a situation where when the ball is hit they have to remain disciplined.

Again didn't add anything of substance.  Odds, position in batting order, capability of the batter to execute, defensive ability, pitcher, gut feel, pressure shift, they all are in play in those type of scenarios. 

Thanks, everyone.  All the posts have helped me understand the situation may have been more complicated, at least in the coach's mind, than I thought it was.  I'll be straight:  I thought both calls were mistakes.  Now, I'm not so sure.

Further details for scenario one (and there are more than a few, so please be patient.)

Home team.  Down by two runs (2-0), bottom of 5th. No outs.  First two hitters sharply single. Change of pitchers. new pitcher is his team's main reliever.  Throws hard but not overwhelmingly so. 

My thought: runs were hard to come by this game so get the runners to second and third any way possible.  Therefore give the hitter every opportunity to get a good bunt down, which, to me, means letting him try to bunt the first good pitch he sees. Coach had him take, likely because the pitcher WAS new, and it's not uncommon to take a strike with a new pitcher in the game. 

I understand that better now, but I still think I would have given the hitter the green light because I think it would have allowed for more chances at getting the bunt down. 

(A complicating factor, which I think is worth mentioning because I've never seen it before:  the batter (#9 hitter) eventually called on to bunt was a starter that game but had been told he was going to be pinch hit for at this at bat, so he was sitting on the bench, helmet off, watching the game. 

The pinch hitter was more of a slugger type but not as good a bunter, so when the first two guys got on, the coach changed his mind (the pinch hitter was already walking to the plate) and put the original player back into the game for the bunting situation. The original batter had to scramble get ready to hit.  Turned into a disaster because the bunter hit a little pop up that froze both runners.  Ball hit the ground just out of reach of the pitcher, but the catcher was all over it and threw to third catching the lead runner, who had hesitated because of the little pop up.  Meanwhile, the runner at first inexplicably froze, and was out at second on a force throw from the third baseman. Agonizingly, utterly, painfully, torturously destroying the rally.  I have seen intended sac bunts result in players out at third, and even double plays from third to first with slow runners.  But I've never seen BOTH lead runners get out on force plays after an intended sac bunt.

Second scenario: The boy who bunted was the #7 hitter.  The other team's Ace was in in relief. One of the best pitchers in the league.  #5 hitter got on with an error, and the #6 hitter walked.  The bunter bunted with a 1 strike count. His previous at bats were well hit balls, one a single, and the other an error on SS, but the ABs were against a slightly weaker pitcher.  I did not see where the infielders were, so I don't know if the third baseman was in or not.  I also can't remember when he squared to bunt.  He may have been bunting for a hit, after all.  If that was the case, then my question is moot. I have to find out.

Thanks, again, everyone.  Learning a lot here.  Have three boys in the pipeline: 2017, 2019, and 2022, so imagine I'll be visiting often.

I think you coming on here to ask questions as to strategy is great.  We cannot give you THE answer because we are not the coach or even there but there is insight.  As for the first situation - I'm with you but that's my philosophy.  I want my guys swinging the bat and we don't bunt until we have to bunt.  IMO this will mainly be a swing away situation.  But what if he pops up on the first pitch?  Let's face it - new pitcher coming in, closer and you're in a pressure situation.  You have got to get strike one.  Odds of a good pitching coming over the plate are very high.  Stroke a line drive - genius move.  Pop up - you're a dumb coach who allows kids to do whatever they want.  Bunt on the first pitch and pops it up / hard back at pitchers / whatever - dumb move because you have to see if the guy is throwing strikes.  Lay the bunt down and move the runners - genius move.  Or in this case guy pops it up, both runners freeze AND brain farts so the unlikely of double plays occur - fire the coach immediately.  Same old same old - sometimes the moves work and the coach is a genius and sometimes they don't.

I was calling offense for football and I called for a sweep to the outside.  Needless to say the running back made one of the worst decisions of his life in trying to reverse field when the defense was there........three times.  If he would have tucked the ball and got what he could I believe he would have got 2 or 3 yards.  But by the dust had settled we were now facing 2nd and 33.  Steve Spurrier doesn't have too many plays that will overcome that.  After the game someone asked me why I called that play.  In one of my more mature moments after losing a game I replied (something to the effect of) "well we were doing such a great job in moving the ball that I wanted to game plan for the future and see if we could overcome a 2nd and long such as the 33 we had to get.  I now know that is probably unlikely and we will try to avoid that situation for the rest of the season.  What's good is I think I can come up with a single running back triple reverse.  Probably should pick up some good yards.  We are going to work on it this week." To this day I don't know if he realized how big of a smart a$$ I was trying to be.  He nodded his head and walked away.  Maybe he thought I was an even bigger idiot than he thought before.  Sometimes we call the right play and it works, sometimes it doesn't work because teenagers screw things up sometimes.  But nobody ever calls anything with the intent of it messing up.  

There was one time I tried to get a kid carrying a piano on his back from first to third on a single to RF.  Needless to say it wasn't close.  Props to my kid but he still slid into third and looked at me and asked "what were you thinking?" My only response was that I obviously wasn't and went brain dead.  Sometimes we make stupid decisions.

Smokeminside, 

"The Book," by which I mean the standard approach to baseball situations, should always be read with the phrase "all things being equal" in the back of your mind.

One of the most important jobs of a coach is to assess constantly what things about the game situation are not equal and when the inequality warrants deviating from the book. The effective coach--the one who puts his team in position to win at least as many games as their talent warrants--is always thinking about match ups, bullpens, benches, weather, positioning, skills, strengths, weaknesses, leadership, attitude, fatigue, umpiring, field dimensions, and anything else that might affect the competitive situation. As fans, we can tell when a coach ignores the book, but we often do not know what prompts him to do so. You can evaluate him only in the long run--do his decisions by and large tend to give the team a better chance to win?

Thanks for starting a good discussion.

This has been a good thread.  It's not roasting the 3B coach, it's just trying to analyze.

But I do want to bring up the fact that whenever a 3B coach is tempted to call a bunt or hit and run, the easier and more teflon-coated decision is to do nothing. Here's a quote that rang true for me-- it's from coach2079, referring to the suicide:

"Reason why people don't run these more is because it kicks the door wide open for criticism if it doesn't work. The "know it alls" will come with "I never would have done that" but if it does work then you're a genius. As absurd as this sounds there is more job security with the double play than the botched suicide squeeze."

Difficult to tell with the info provided.

Could be likely that in situation 1 he was supposed to take and pitch ended up a strike or may have missed sign.

I've had jv kids who can't hit so they only ever bunt especially with guys on base less than 2 outs.  Also advances runners with no do.

Its all speculation. In number one maybe the first two batters walked? Maybe one walked one HBP? Maybe coach wanted to see if the pitcher could throw a strike? 

In number two maybe the coach wanted to put pressure on the d? Maybe he thought it was a good move because of the way the line up played out? Maybe they looked bad on other bunt attempts? Maybe no dbl play, one out, good hitter coming up, good hitter behind him? Heck I don't know.

One of the best coaches I ever coached against would bunt with two strikes, hit and run in bunt situations, run and hit in first and third situations, drag his three four or five at any time. Who knows?