sacrifice bunts and why they suck.

[ukyah]

i'd just like to get this off my chest, so that i can move on. if at least just for today.

 

the reason why sacrifice bunts are bad strategically is because if after getting a leadoff runner on first and successfully sacrificing him over to 2nd, the following batter must get a hit for the strategy to have been effective or of any use whatsoever. it's a one true outcome situation. a walk makes it a negative sum event. an out gives you either a runner at 2nd or 3rd with two outs, which means the next hitter must get a hit for a run to score. sacrifice flies are right out. 

 

all of the pressure is on the hitter immediately following the sacrifice. if that one at bat doesn't end with a hit, the strategy costs you offense. any strategy that puts all of it's gravity on one at bat and one isolated outcome is a bad strategy.

 

to be fair, if the leadoff hitter is on 2nd or it's 1st and 2nd with nobody out, then i totally understand a possible sacrifice, but at that point there are several more positive potential outcomes for the strategy to succeed.

 

i could go on, but i just wanted to blurt that out.

[19HALO71]

I'm okay with small ball as long as the right personnel are being utilized. When Calhoun squared around to bunt, I lost it! I may be wrong, but I do not recall Calhoun sacrificing at all during the regular season. Then when he worked the count to 3-1, I thought for sure the bunt would be off being that he was now in a fastball count. That was the only call I questioned all night.

Edited October 3, 2014 by 19HALO71

[Jay]

They only suck when improperly executed.

[ukyah]

They only suck when improperly executed.

 

 

give me a counter argument, that explains how it's a good strategy.

[ABC]

Man on first, no outs. Calhoun bunts him over. What do you do with Trout? I'd walk him and set up the potential DP with Pujols. 

 

A bunt there is a poor decision especially with a guy who can hit and never bunts.

[Chimi]

I'm ok with sacrifice bunts. They had plenty of opportunities last night to get a hit and drive the runner in and they didn't. I don't blame the strategy, I blame the players for not being able to properly execute it.

I do think though if you can't pull off the bunt in the first two pitches then stop trying

The Calhoun situation when he was 3-1 is the one time I think it was a terrible idea.

[Jay]

So you would rather have a runner on first with no outs than the go-ahead run on second with one out.  I can see it both ways but I don't have a problem with having the potential winning run on second with one out and my 2-3-4 hitters coming up.  Now when you fail to execute as Calhoun did it's a bad play because now you have the runner on first with one out.

[laagamer]

I'm of the Moneyball school of thinking on this.

 

98% of the time it's simply making the pitchers job easier. 

[Angel Oracle]

It ONLY makes sense when the pitcher is hitting.   Unless said pitcher hits the ball like Drysdale did.

 

If a player has to bunt to contribute, he shouldn't be an every day player then.

 

Only those position players who have EXCELLENT bunting skills should do it!   And try to bunt for a hit while doing so!

Edited October 3, 2014 by Angel Oracle

[Adam]

They have their times and places, but those times and places are far fewer than MLB managers believe.

[shellback]

jmo, but giving up outs period sucks

[Taylor]

give me a counter argument, that explains how it's a good strategy.

 

If you're in the NL and the pitcher is batting.

 

Take THAT to the bank!

[Jay]

If you're in the NL and the pitcher is batting.

 

Take THAT to the bank!

 

yeah but only if your pitcher knows how to bunt

[ukyah]

If you're in the NL and the pitcher is batting.

 

Take THAT to the bank!

 

you've got me there. i have no argument against a fundamental difference in the rules changing the strategy. i would bunt with a pitcher who can't hit, it's true. 

 

nobody is making a compelling argument against the one outcome argument. they're only saying things like, "if it works, then...", which is exactly the kind of thinking that gets managers to call for the ridiculous and statistically foolish play in the first place.