What Has Happened To The Sacrifice Bunt?

Last sac byunt for Bagwell, was in 1992. I will admit it was a shock to me to see him swinging away.

Arbitration and free agent contracts, probably.

It's a dirty shame, but these guys can't take sacs, hitting behind the runner, or aggressive baserunning to the table. So they don't hone or maintain those skills and when the skills are needed...there's no faith that they can accomplish anything.

It's all numbers and O now, which IMHO has diminished the game.

Because it isn't automatic. Even good bunters don't make a good sacrifice bunt every time. Why take away about a 35% chance of getting on base and replace it with trying to make an out at best? Sure if you've got a pitcher up go ahead and sacrifice, otherwise hit away.

In my humble opinion, the main reason why people aren't sacrificing well isn't because they CAN'T...it's because they don't WANT TO! I have seen it at every level - guys who give a half-hearted attempt because they truly want to swing away.
Bunting is not tough, especially SAC bunting. It requires good technique and the right understanding of what the player is doing...SACRIFICING himself for the good of the club.
Best way to test how easily kids can do it is to put them in a game situation and tell them that they run poles every time they don't get the bunt down. You probably wouldn't be amazed at how great they are at bunting when their butts are on the line!
Being a team player means giving of yourself for the sake of your brothers...this is an extension of that.

CADad..was this a trick question? Surely, you are not advocating only time for sac bunt is pitcher hitting!? To answer your question of why...because chances of scoring from second vastly improve (only one hit needed instead of two, etc). I am not backed up by any stats but I would venture to say that more runs are scored from second with one out than from first with no outs. You are correct that sacs are not automatic (becoming even less so because of "new thinking"), but they are successful a very high % of the time (especially from the two hole, right). That's the WINNING run you are hopefully trying to get into what everyone calls SCORING position. Do we do away with "average with runners in scoring position" (or just stretch it to include first base ). Manny and Ortiz are paid a little something extra to be in a position to drive 'em home. I just believe that was the definitive sac him over situation (at least in the past)...think about it, winning run leadoff hitter gets on, sac him over to get #3 and #4 chance to win it. It takes away other percentages also (double play, force out, etc.). I'm not being far fetched, am I?

I couldn't believe what I heard last night concerning the Red Sox. That they have only 12 sacrifice bunts this year? Holy Moly, that is horrible. You can't tell me that they were in sacrifice situations only 12 times over the past season, it is no wonder their best bunter, couldn't get it done last night, jeez. Get back to basics, hit and run once in awhile and stop stop having David Ortiz try to steal a base (even though he was safe). Are you trying to win, or trying not to lose? If you are fundamentally sound, and do the little things like play defense (hey manny), and base running, maybe just maybe you can get to game seven! Good luck tonigh Bosox, you are your own worst enemy. The Yankees aren't beating you, you are beating yourselves.

DaddyBo,
You've applied standard baseball logic but it isn't backed up by the facts. The decision as to whether a hitter should bunt or swing away with a runner on first should be based on slugging percentage and on base percentage. I couldn't tell you what the combination should be but it would have to be well under the major league average to justify a sacrifice bunt. Most likely that means that only pitchers and the very weakest hitters should be called on to sacrifice bunt.

Very detailed studies have shown that MLB teams score an average of .9769 runs when they start with a runner on first and no outs. When they have a runner on second and 1 out they score an average of .7545 runs. That means that if a MLB team could sacrifice bunt successfully every single time with a man on first they would score fewer runs.

However, teams don't sacrifice bunt successfully every time. What happens with an unsuccessful sac bunt? With 1 out and a man on first MLB teams score an average of .5987 runs an even further drop. How about if the bunter fouls off a couple pitches? Hitters are much less likely to reach base with two strikes on them than they are starting from a 0-0 count. All in all the sacrifice bunt with a runner on first and no outs is a very poor play unless you have a very weak hitter at the plate.

The situation changes slightly in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game or the bottom of the inning in extra innings as these statistics include multiple run innings and you are only trying for one run in the bottom of the 9th. Even so the sacrifice bunt with a runner on 1st is not generally a good strategy.

How about a runner on 2nd with no outs? MLB teams average 1.128 runs in that situation while they average 1.0623 runs with a runner on 3rd and 1 out. Once again not a good strategy with most hitters to sacrifice. In this particular situation in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game there may not be such a large bias against this move due to the need to only score one run.

quote:

---

...Very detailed studies have shown that MLB teams score an average of .9769 runs when they start with a runner on first and no outs. When they have a runner on second and 1 out they score an average of .7545 runs...

---

Do you know if the overlap has been eliminated from these stats???

Teach,
I doubt it. If by overlap you are referring to the fact that teams did bunt in those situations and the results became part of the data base then given the lack of success with sacrifice bunting that would imply that sacrifice bunting was an even poorer strategy.

I did find some additional research relative to the tie game, bottom of the 9th type of situation and it showed that the runner was 3% more likely to score due to a sacrifice bunt than swinging away. With the runner on second and no outs it was 7%. I'm not sure if this was only for successful sacrifice bunts or for all at bats where a sacrifice bunt was attempted. My guess is that it included both successful and unsuccessful bunt attempts but didn't include the situations where the count went to 2 strikes while attempting to bunt and the hitter then swung away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CADad:
Teach,
I doubt it. If by overlap you are referring to the fact that teams did bunt in those situations and the results became part of the data base then given the lack of success with sacrifice bunting that would imply that sacrifice bunting was an even poorer strategy.

---

Not necessarily. You need to cross-check situations where the bunt WAS attempted versus situations where it was not. You may find that you are looking at a statistical anomaly and it is really a better strategy.

The best method is to look at the statistics for bunting from 20-30 years ago versus the "swing-away at all cost, I'm in it for me" mentality of not bunting today. That may be the only way to find a valid comparison since is seems most players don't bother to truly learn the skill anymore.

I am a big fan of the Sacrifice Bunt! Let me score 1 run/inning in a game and I'm going to win the majority of games we play. I'm not the smartest person in the world, as I have often posted, but I like my chances of scoring from 2nd on a basehit as opposed to scoring from 1st. JMHO!

CoachB25,
And if you run into a coach with an equally talented, equally trained and equally motivated team you will lose more often than not if the other coach uses sound strategy. I went through the whole youth ball thing going against a coach who managed to come up with a little better talent than I did each year. He ran, he bunted, he got the kids up on their feet in the dugout. He had coaches who helped him run excellent practices. My teams didn't bunt much at all. My teams only ran when our chances were extremely good. I didn't come up with the rah-rah stuff and year in year out my teams won more games and beat his team simply because we didn't run ourselves out of games and our kids didn't get overly excited or overly down.

Most good coaches win despite their strategy. I consider Mike Scioscia a very good manager who uses poor strategy. However, he gets the most out of his players and that is more important than losing a few runs a season due to strategy mistakes.

The question becomes, could Scioscia motivate his players as well with a more sound, less risky strategy? I don't know the answer to that one.

H3-PhoenixDad,
There was another data base with similar results from much further back, the only difference being that the run totals were much lower across the board. The trends were all the same.

CADad...nice stats! I'm not sure if I "stand corrected" or not, but does give room for thought. This particular situation has #3 and #4 coming up (known for RBI's), so I would think (hope ) the stats would lean more to help out my side of the discussion (as opposed to # 8 or #9 bunting someone over to bring up #9, 1 or 2).

DaddyBo,
You are right. In that specific situation the bunt may have been in order. You'd have to run a simulation with that specific lineup configuration to see how the results came out since the stats only address the MLB hitters who bunted in those situations and the hitters who followed them. I don't remember who was up after Ortiz at that point in the game. In any case, you are more likely to get more big hitters up in that situation by letting Cabrera swing away than by having him bunt. I'd let him hit away personally, but I wouldn't fault the manager who had him bunt. Too close to call.

Bagwell swinging away I agree with even though he didn't come through in that particular instance.

The one thing I wouldn't have done was send Damon with no outs. Roberts had something on the order of a 90% succeess rate stealing. Makes sense to send Roberts. The success rate stealing with no outs has to be over 80% and Damon's success rate in 2004 was about 70%.

If they didn't bunt him over then the best bet would have been to wait for two outs and then try the steal. At that point if he hasn't been moved up by Cabrera or Ramirez then the risk to reward turns in favor of Damon stealing.

Johnny popped out on a bunt.

Thats about it IMO.

He did look cool though. LOL

its,
Have you noticed that Johnny keeps trimming his hair and trimming his beard? I'm guessing that he's hoping that will bring him luck. I think if he shaves the beard completely and cuts his hair short he'll get his swing back.

When players go into salary arbitration hearings, no one asks how many sac bunts they had. Most of the little things that baseball is or should be about typically don't translate into $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ at the professional level.