Why The Bunt Is The Most Lethal Play In Baseball...

I would rather have my guy on second with 1 out instead of on first with one out. The percentages turn into your favor with trying to score that guy with one hit from second instead of two hits from first.

 

This is not true.

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

 

The statistics say that the vast majority of the time, bunting is a bad idea.

 

 

 

 

I'm going to say that I support having a runner on second with one out versus on first with one out.  Who in their right mind wouldn't want this.  The key thing is how you get the runner to second.  My belief is that I'm not going to give up an at bat to get that runner to second.  The thing with the bunt is you're trying to get one run and when you play for one run then you tend to get just one run.

 

I believe in the bunt but not just early in the game.  If I'm down a run or tied in the last two innings and my lead off gets on then yes I'm probably going to bunt.  But then again you have to know your guys and their strengths.  If my guy who can crush is up I'm not taking the bat out of his hands.

 

Defensively, if I know you're going to bunt (you said you were going to bunt 9 out of 10 times if your lead off gets on) I'm going to park my 3B in your hitters back pocket.  I'm going to either force your lead runner out or I'm going to force you out of your comfort zone.  When a guy squares to bunt and lays it down you're making my job easier.  I only have to get two outs now.

coach- you and I are on the same page. I'm pretty sure Stu might have had a typo in his post, pertaining to the "man on first one out" thing. I would assume that was supposed to read "man on first nobody out," which would then mean a man would be on second with one out after a sacrifice bunt.

 

Your late-game example is one in which a bunt may be beneficial. When a team is "playing for one run," per se, is when it would be logical. But the majority of the game is not spent playing for one run. Bunts cause lower run expectancy.

 

Yeah I figured he meant runner on first with no out but still not giving up an out just to move him 90 feet.  Crooked numbers come from hitting the ball.  Single runs come from bunting.

I saw the name of this thread and asked, "Lethal for the offense or for the defense?"

Stu- I read your previously written article about the most important defensive positions. Why do you feel as though 3B/1B are more impactful/important/difficult defensive positions than SS/2B? I've never heard that before.

 

The post should be called:

 

"please drive traffic to my site and drive up my page viewsso HS kids who are being recruited will give me money"

I see to many HS coaches buy into this.  They bunt a kid hitting 400+ and give up the out then end up with 2 outs runner on third where a sac fly does you no good.  The sac bunt is not a good play 90% of the time.  Coaches however continue to do it because "it's what traditional baseball did", and they don't listen to any new school ideas.

I look at a bunt as an opportunity. While the Sabermetrician's say it's bad and the old-schoolers say it's good, I'm not debating. 

 

The fact is if you don't (or can't) bunt, then the D doesn't have to defend against the bunt. Which makes for a relaxed defense. "Easy to defend" is never a term you want applied to your team, no matter what the sport. 

 

All summer I've been to club tournament and American legion games and the art of bunting is pretty terrible. As a matter of fact, my 2016 was asked to bunt in a Legion game about 10 days ago and he was horrific. He worked on it a little over the week and this weekend he had two sac bunts in both ends of a DH. It was what he was asked to do. 

I missed any links to where the OP charges for anything. 

soulslam55- A sacrifice bunt is one of the easiest plays to defend.

I'm happy to see what seems like a near-consensus opinion thus far here. I've gotten backlash on this website before. Coaches - almost always - DON'T BUNT. It's not smart. It gives your team a better opportunity to lose. This isn't "sabermetrics vs. old school" (which, by the way, is a tired argument). This is smart vs. not smart.

Prime example of why I agree with Josh is my son's HS team this spring. Coach LOVED to bunt, Bunted all the time, leadoff hitter gets on, we were bunting no matter who was up.. 6 different times we go leadoff of game on, tried to sac but pitcher couldn't throw across plate or we failed at sac bunt and we ended up with runners 1st and 2nd. He then sac bunted our third hitter. We were a very good hitting team, hit .340 as team and top six hitters in lineup were over .370, (1-3 over .400). He looked like a "genius" most of year. we would score 1 or 2 runs consistently and score about 5-6 a game. lots of timely hitting by good hitters.His stratgey bit us in a tournament game when we faced a very good pitcher. 3 times we got lead off on, one of those 1st and 2nd (failed sac bunt, then a single to get 2nd runner on). He then sac bunted with a .400 hitter each time. Breaks didnt go our way that day and we didnt get that timely hit. Lost 1-0. Would those boys that sac bunted got the timely hit? Who knows? But I would have liked my chances, one was all state, 2 were all area and he sacrificed thier bats for 90 feet.

If you think about the design of the game, the only way to win is to record a specific number of outs.  It is impossible to simply outscore someone or have the last pocession and win.  The game has a mandated defensive requirement to achieve victory.  To my knowledge it is the only sport that has this feature.

 

Whenever the offense chooses to "sacrifice" the most precious asset for 90 feet on the bases from 1B to 2B it must be viewed as a gift to the defensive team.  In HS with 21 outs to work with if a coach chooses to Sac twice in a ballgame he has given up almost 10% of his outs. That is a big number.  Almost like taking 6 innings against 7 at the plate. 

 

Not to say that they are not circumstances that might warrant a bunt but as a routine option I think it is overrated and as the numbers state counterproductive to scoring runs. 

chefmike- That is what us "nerds" called regression. Good example.

luvbaseball- Good description. I always say outs are the clock in baseball. You explained it better.

Thanks guys.

Don't bunt!!!

To provide a bit of contrast, one of the very best coaching at the collegiate level today,

Mike Gillespie, uses this type of offense at UC Irvine. The CWS and the run to get there was  an illustration of how effective it can be. Oregon State uses it, but to a lesser extent.  Each team executes the offense with precision.

Fullerton is another example and UCLA certainly has been since Coach Peters took over the offense.

My impression is there must be another option for the classification of "smart vs not smart" when it comes to coaching the offense, executing that offense and the results which occur, especially over a 56 game schedule.

infielddad- This has been brought to my attention in the past and I have put a lot of thought into it. I've also seen research on NCAA scoring environments (specifically pertaining to the BBCOR era). Every piece of knowledge I have on the subject and every piece of research I've seen says that every single college coach that employs this method of offensive attack is not optimizing their team's ability to win. If they bunted less, they'd be in a higher scoring environment more often. These teams, from what I have found, win despite the bunting because they are talented, not because of it. The coaches you mentioned are most likely outstanding recruiters and some of the best teachers in the game. But they are wrong for bunting so much. It's very black and white. I would love to engage in conversation with any coach on the subject to help get a better understanding of each opinion. And I assume, given the obvious knowledge and aptitude such coaches have for the game, they'd be open to understanding and realizing that they are hurting their team's chances to win.


DON'T BUNT!!!

I didn't say it wasn't. My point was that if a team doesn't even have to deal with defending it that is ultimately the easier option. 

I'm not a fan of bunting runners to second unless a pitcher is overwhelming and it looks like a 2-1 kind of game. Bunting runners to second and third is another story. Now a hit drives in two. But I'm not bunting my middle of the order hitters to move runners.

RJM- agreed, I am not opposed to moving 2 runners into scoring position late in games with right bunter (not a good hiter in general), or if you are playing for a much needed run or 2.

 

Infield / JH- I would say Josh's explanation is what happened with my son's team. They ended up 23-5. but won on talent and most of the time we won 4-1, 6-1, 5-2 type scores when we could have won more like 8-1, 9-1, 10-2 but never gave the big inning a chance.

 

I love the bunt, a perfectly timed sac bunt or suicide is excellent. but I think it has to be in confines of when you need 1 or 2 runs to decide a game, which for the most part is late in games. I am not even opposed to suicide bunting a 3 or 4 hitter if that run means that much to outcome of game

JH,

I do not have enough knowledge to understand if the coaches I have mentioned from UCI, UCLA and Oregon State are wrong. I would include Coach Horton from UO in that group, also. 

One aspect which, for me, does provide some, admittedly inexact, reference points on the discussion is Stanford, which does not bunt, much at all, until this season.

In the BESR era, in a spacious stadium like sunken, Stanford could  mash teams into submission with guys like Maybery, Wilson, etc. With BBCOR, and especially with cooler weather or heavy air night games,  Stanford became a station to station team when playing in a big stadium like Sunken. All the balls which were HR's in a previous season were warning track outs.

With BBCOR, they have trouble with OSU, UCLA, and Oregon and now have largely become a middle of the pack team in the Pac12.  I don't think the Stanford talent is any less than it has been.

Going back to the OSU back to back NCAA championship seasons, I have watched how those teams pressure, pressure, pressure even really talented teams like Stanford into mistakes. Admittedly I have not studied this other than as a fan and certainly not even close to  the depth which exists on your side.

I guess I wonder whether  Gillespie, Casey, Horton, Peters/Savage can all be so wrong?

infielddad- They aren't *so* wrong that their team will suffer to extraordinary lengths due to excessive bunting. They're still very good teams with tons of talent. But anecdotal examples of successful bunting does not necessarily mean the act of bunting is optimal. Over a large enough sample of data to quantify results, it's evident that sacrifice bunting is not the appropriate method to optimize scoring the most runs possible. I'm not in a position to tell these coaches that they should change their method of approaching the game. But to me, the numbers (which were gleaned from evidential anecdotes over a huge sample of past results) very plainly show that they are not acting in an optimal manner. It's up to them to decide whether or not to run their game plans in such a manner.

JH,

Maybe one distinction which could be in play here is semantics and the choice of the description of "sacrifice" bunting. That is not the description I have for the offenses I have mentioned. Yes, of course, there are times they do sacrifice. 

What I see when the offense works well is a precision to bunting which either pressures the defense, maximally,  or is done for a base hit.  They don't play what I would view as the normal sacrifice, give yourself up to advance the runner.  Many times it is done to not only put the ball in play, but to do so with the precision which exposes where the defense is most vulnerable. Built into that approach also includes putting runners in motion to further pressure the defense and further expose where the weakness might exist. Finally, the offense almost always is executed with a better than average team speed.

Richy Pedroza of Fullerton, who is scuffling in Milb so far, was a classic example of a player who would thrive in that type of offense. At the opposite end of the spectrum  is Jacoby Ellsbury who was also great in that type of offense as  the lead-off guy in the OSU offense and probably even better in MLB.

infielddad- I would assume that a sacrifice bunt would always be laid down with an intention to put as much pressure on the defense as possible. I should also iterate that I'm not against bunting for a hit. Bunting for a hit is not giving up an out, it js a legitimate attempt to reach base.

This is going to come off sounding incredibly arrogant, and I don't mean for it to be so. But I absolutely couldn't care less what coaches do. The evidence that bunting does not optimize run scoring is black and white. If coaches want to employ bunting in their offensive scheme, that's completely fine. But I will continue to abide by the unarguable statistical evidence that it is not optimal. What some coaches do and don't do does not impact my view of bunting at all. It shouldn't happen remotely close to as much as it does. The evidence says so, and I find it impossible to argue with evidence.

If you believe the numbers don't lie then they tell you that teams will score more runs in a 1B no outs situation by swinging away than by laying it down and moving him up. 

 

It may mean you score in more innings (I don't know) but you are more likely to get 1 run than 2 or more.  So the issue becomes do you want 1 run twice a game or 3 runs once.

 

That is the choice effectively presented by bunting and swinging away.  Lot's of variables like whose at the plate, on base, pitching etc. but with a large enough sample that flattens out and the choice I am outlining above is what the numbers tell you is going on.

 

If you are the visiting team and your leadoff works a walk you have a choice as coach, play for 1-0 or play for a crooked number.  Before the other team steps to the plate you can put them down 2 or 3. 

 

I totally get the play from in front philosophy, but if the two teams are equal or especially if I think I have them covered, I going for the big inning and try to make it a rough day for them. 

 

Here's another consideration.  By bunting you have to hit at least .500 as a team after the sacrifice to score at least 1 run.  It is possible to hit .333 and get the same result by swinging away.  That is with no walks, errors, sb, pb or other moving up mechanisms.  A simple grounder through the 3 hole by the 2 hitter makes for a lot of 1st and 3rd situations.  Do a hit and run with a lefty No.2 hitter and you might open up the 5/6 hole too.

 

 

Josh, I still need more training   As I continue to gather info, I still contend that it depends largely on the make up of the team for the typical HS environment.  This past year, we were very young and our strength, clearly, was two pretty good P's.  The young position players were generally not good varsity hitters coming in.  A handful had some speed and some ability to bunt.  We also had a lot of LHP's in our league which reduced our opportunities to steal (BTW, I consider this is another big factor in the equation).  So, knowing we were likely to be in low-scoring games, we utilized the bunt quite often when a hitter reached 1b with no out.  The directives were usually (to the right players) to bunt but try to do so for a hit early in the count.  There was also clear instruction to pull back on a pitch out of the zone or up in the zone.  This often resulted in runner on 1st and 2nd, no out or runner on 2nd and 3rd, no out (rushed throw gets past 1b).  If the hitter squared but pulled back on ball 1, he now has a drawn in 3b and a bigger hole to hit thru as well as a favorable count on the next pitch if we remove the bunt, which we often did.  I do know that those hitters were generally on base more often than they would have been had we hit away and we avoided the double play, which is a big factor that doesn't get talked about a lot when we discuss precious outs here.  Bunts were part of so many scoring rallies for us, including some crooked numbers.  Sure enough, we ended up in a lot of low scoring games, usually on the right side.  Self-fulfilling prophecy?  I'm sure one could argue that.  But by all accounts, this team exceeded expectations with their success.  Another point that is debated frequently is bunting early in the game.  Scoring first/early is huge with a team like this.  Our record was REALLY good when we scored first and a bunt was often part of the equation.  I know, of course, just about every team will win more when they score first.  But I wouldn't discount the value of a bunt early to get on the board first, particularly with a team like this.  

 

This is not to say that we neglected working on improving these young bats.  In fact, I anticipate that we will use the bunt less next year with the same group because they will be more developed as good hitters.  The year before last, we had a senior group who hit well and we let them swing far more often.  Year before that, league was pitching-rich and we played more small ball.

 

This is obviously a very small sampling as compared to your larger more complex data base but I do think the correct approach is far more situationally driven at the HS level.

 

Now, watching the college game, I still don't understand why so many square so early with the intent to bunt.  I know you want to be early enough if your intent is true sacrifice but you don't need to give the defense that much advantage. 

Outside of the "need one run scenerio" I just don't bunt. However, there is something to be said for how bad bunt defenses have gotten. This past weekend in a wood bat HSJV league, my son's team got up 21-0. Next inning, it was "try to bunt it back to the pitcher with every pitch." We scored two runs that inning. Either the pitcher couldn't find the plate (twice found the batter's body, though) or threw it away.

cabbagedad- Great post and interesting thoughts. The run scoring environment your team finds itself in may very well be more conducive to bunting than those I'm discussing. While I'm not sure if it's possible, I'd be really interested in gathering some data and trying to run some analysis on it.

First there are admittedly tons of variables that play into what type of team you put out there as a coach.  One thing I think we all agree on but probably need to be spelled out is the difference between a sacrifice bunt versus a bunt for basehit.  IMO a sacrifice bunt is there to give up an out in order to move a runner 90 feet.  Bunting for a basehit is trying to place the ball 40 - 60 feet in a dead area so you can be safe.  Sacrifice bunts should be used sparingly late in the game (or facing great pitcher you're pretty sure you won't get a lot of crooked numbers) to get one run.  Bunts for basehits are to be used at any time if you have the skill to do it.

 

Guys who can mash around 1 - 6/7 of the line up - doubtful we will bunt much. Work counts to get pitches to drive gap to gap and accidentally hit line drives too far over the fence

 

Guys who have speed 1 - 6/7 - not a lot of sacrifice bunts but will bunt for basehits, steal, hit/run, run/hit, etc....

 

Guys who don't have speed but not lot of power 1 - 6/7 - work counts to try to get walks, then we will play small ball with sacrifice early 

 

Ability of team will determine how you play.  What I will say is if you want to be successful over the long haul using sacrifice bunt early in the game is you better have above average pitching and fielding.  Using the examples of UC Irvine, UCLA and Oregon I'm willing to bet that they have great pitching and defense (I'm sure someone can post some numbers - I don't have time to look them up now).  If you know you can limit how many runs the other team is going to get to around 1 - 2 runs per game then it's OK to sacrifice bunt more in order to get that 4 - 5 runs yourself.

 

I totally understand the concept of scoring first (top or bottom of first inning) through the lead off batter getting on and then moving him over to score later.  But let's say you have a very good number 2 hitter that can lay down a bunt and your number 3 and 4 hitters are really good.  I would try to negate that by walking the number 3 (not intentionally but pitching around).  Now we got runners on first and second with 1 out.  Granted you still have a very good hitter up but I'm also going to have faith my guy is going to pitch him well enough that more times than naught he will get a groundball or flyball out.  Is this a risky strategy - you betcha but if you have an average team then your odds become more favorable.  When we had our stud in the 3 hole this happened quite a bit.  Our leadoff got on and we bunted him over.  Now our stud in 3 hole came up and got intentionally walked.  The bat was taken out of his hands without even stepping foot into the box.  Now our number 4 had pressure to perform and usually he did because we were that good.

 

If our number 3 was at the plate there was a good chance he was going to blow up vehicles in the parking lot with homeruns.  But if you gave the other team an open base to put him they were and now you're hurting your chances.

 

Defensively speaking if I know you're going to sacrifice I'm not worried at all.  That's an out your giving me and I'm going to take it.  Pitchers should be comfortable pitching with runners on 2B because that's the name of the game.  Granted you want to stay out of this situation but it's not uncommon so they should be mentally prepared for it.  This is why if you want to give me an out I will thank you because my pitchers will not be phased by this.  They may get you out or they may give up a hit / walk or whatever - that's the nature of the game but I like my odds on my guys.  Now if you're bunting for a basehit and I have to play my corners more middle depth it becomes stressful.  Put runners on base and it does become a very effective tool to hurt a defense.  But in all honesty this is rare to find at the HS level.  Still you want your guys prepared by going over situations like pitcher covering first on a push bunt if they can't get it.  

 

Assumptions everyone has to avoid is that (1) you think by bunting over the runner is going to score.  While the odds may have that as favorable think back to how many times when you needed that run the bunt didn't get put down.  (2) you think that you're only going to get one or two innings of crooked numbers by not bunting.  All of this factors back into the variables of each situation and team make up.  You can't assume that you're going score after a bunt no more than you can assume you're only going to get a few crooked number innings.

 

I hope all this makes sense - I'm going to go cut grass now.

One thing before I cut grass - baseball is such an awesome game in that there is rarely any strategy that won't work.  You get a team of mashers and make them sac bunt all the time - it's still going to work as long as they can execute the bunt.  This is why I'll never look at a coach and say "you're wrong in doing that" because it can work.  I will think they are probably mismanaging their talent but it's still not wrong.

 

In other sports you can take a strategy and while it may be right you will fail completely.  If I have a small offensive line I am not going to line up two tight ends and I formation running leads and ISO's.  My guys are not going to create holes due to not having the talent in order to do it.  Will this offense work - yes if I have big bulldozers up front but if they are smaller then we are going spread to create space and angles.  I can take a team with limited speed and win like this in space but I won't be able to move people.  In basketball if my post guy is six feet tall we are not going to feed the middle in some sort of low post offense unless their post guy is same height or shorter.  It's not going to work.

 

But in baseball sac bunting will work no matter who you have.  But the question is - are you using your talent to the best of their ability?

For really weird definitions of "work" I guess.  If a strategy reduces your chances of winning, as bunting in poor spots does, successfully implementing that strategy isn't "working".

Well since we're discussing something that has so many variables it's hard to truly nail anything specific down I guess it's cool to nitpick something from my post.  I thought it was obvious from my posts that when discussing these strategies you wouldn't do something dumb like sac bunt in a two out situations.  Maybe I need to spell it out a little more.  My apologies.

When you're discussing strategy and you take the position that any strategy will work, it's not nitpicking to point out that that's just not true, whether it's about baseball or anything else.

 

There is always an optimal strategy, and knowingly taking a sub-optimal one is objectively wrong. And there are plenty of situations beyond bunting with two outs that are sub-optimal. And, in the context of MLB, making poor tactical decisions with regards to bunting costs teams, in the aggregate, millions of dollars.

Hi all,

I have read all of your replies. It seems as if there are opposing opinions on the bunt, which if fine. That is what makes baseball such a great game because as the saying goes, "there are many different ways to skin a cat." I still will stick to my original theory...if my leadoff guy gets on, there are more negative things that can happen (groundout, double play, line drive, pop up, caught stealing...) than positives in this situation. That is why, I am going to take the proactive approach and bunt him to second and lose the out. From the point, I will take my chances with a base hit. From a defensive standpoint, we all know that even something as small as a sacrifice bunt will put a bit of pressure on any defense as players are playing out of their usual position and the pitcher now will be pitching differently knowing that a runner will be in scoring position. As a coach, I am going to do whatever I can to put the pressure on the defense. Thanks for all of your replies.

 

www.StuCohenBaseball.com

Single

Double

Triple

HR

Walk

HBP

Error

Catcher's interference

SB

Advance on out

 

A sac bunt gets you an out and a base the vast majority of the time (we'll ignore errors and bunt double plays for the moment).

 

"Productive" outs occur almost as often as non-productive ones, so your runner will get moved over a substantial portion of the time anyway, and GIDP rates are in the neighborhood of 2% in MLB. The MLB HR rate is 2.5%, nevermind that the MLB OBP is over 30%.

 

The idea that reflexively bunting the leadoff hitter over is a losing proposition isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

You know what - I've been at coaches clinics where I would sit through all these college and MLB guys would get up on a stage and discuss all kinds of things baseball.  I truly would learn a lot at these things.  But you know when I actually learned the most at these clinics?  After the sessions were over and all these guys would sit in the hotel lobby with all of us sitting around drinking a few beverages.  It was a smaller, more intimate setting where we could talk to them and ask questions.  The one thing I would say is these guys who are way more knowledgeable than I ever will be would speak in generalities like I have in this thread.  Now since I have to spell out things out to not be misunderstood at no point am I saying I'm as smart as these guys.  I'm just saying they spoke in generalities and I assumed it was cool for me as well.

 

Now that I've actually had a chance to sit down and look back at what I posted I can safely say you totally missed what I was saying.  You booted in trying to make your point.  Go back and look and you'll see I said "baseball is such an awesome game in that there is rarely any strategy that won't work" This isn't me saying any strategy will work nor does this say that using a strategy in a wrong situation is optimum.  It's me saying that it's rare that a strategy will not work with the implied meaning that nobody in their right mind is going to employ a strategy illogically.  I hope this makes much more sense and is easier to understand since I truly believe you're the only one to not get what I was saying but thanks for nitpicking something that really wasn't there.  So to quote the warrior poet Ice Cube - "You better check yourself before you wreck yourself"

 

Stu - look dude if that's how you want to play the game them more power to you.  I disagree with it but if you win then it works.  I hope you're truly here to contribute and learn and not here to push your website.  This is a wonderful place (even when we go at one another because I still respect what jacjacatk contributes on here) where you can learn and even help others on here learn.

That really doesn't make any more sense, and maybe I am missing your point, but it seems quite clear that there are people who will employ strategies, like bunting, illogically, or this whole thread wouldn't exist.

 

Ok, I guess. Good luck.

 

So what you're saying is that you won't take your chances on a base hit with no out, but you will with one out? 

 

I do want to touch on the highlighted sentence, though, before dropping this one completely. "We all know" is laughable. YOU are the only one that "knows" this. Everyone else (math included) knows it to be the exact opposite of what you claim it to be. 

 

To everyone (except Stu, apparently): STOP BUNTING SO MUCH.

 

Over and out.