More evidence that the sacrifice bunt is a waste

[Ken Krause]

So if your #2 hitter is quick, and can hit for power, why would you ever have her sac bunt? Why not bunt for a hit or hit away, depending on what the defense is doing? Seems to me with that #2 hitter you could score a lot more runs by letting her get on base.

This is the interesting thing with the sac bunt debate too. It's the perception of what works versus what the numbers say. If I had way more time on my hands I would love to go through NCAA records, look for every sac bunt (especially those with no outs) and see how many times it led to a run in that inning. I would also eliminate any runs that scored as a result of a home run, since they would've scored regardless. I think you'd be surprised to find out how little you gain for what you give up (runs). If not, if it was shown to really work, I'd change my view.

Maybe we can crowdsource this. For those reading the thread, keep tabs on every time a sac bunt is laid down with a runner on first and no outs. (Bunt for hit doesn't count, just pure sac bunt.) Then mark how many times the runner on first scores as a result of anything but a home run v. how many times three outs go by with the runner still on base. Could be interesting.

 

[NEF]

On the defensive end. This may have been mentioned in an earlier post, but with a runner on first and no outs. I've always had either the pitcher or third baseman cover third base whichever player did not field the ball(prefferably third if neither made the play on the ball) to prevent a first to third advance. Over the summer it seemed like most teams, including my oldest DDs team, sent the left fielder in to cover third. What defense does everyone prefer? Why? Not that it makes much difference, but this was in U12A ball.

 

[Cannonball]

Ken, we seldom disagree but on this we do. You are referencing charts of MLB versus what armature players are capable of. IMO, not even AA or AAA players in baseball can compare with the defensive abilities of MLB players. Also, you have to keep in mind that the sac bunt is seldom attempted by anyone other than a pitcher. Therefore, the leadoff hitter is then at bat for the attempt at an RBI. If unsuccessful, the #2 batter in the lineup. I can't remember the last time I saw a position player attempt a sac bunt in MLB. In softball, typically, you have numerous scenarios including the #2 bunting to set up the rbi for the #3 or #4. Also, I can't statistically prove it but I'd guess that somewhere around 30-40% of the time, the runer is safe at first. I seldom see the fielder throw to second in amature or high school softball. I like the sac bunt and in both baseball and softball used it with a high degree of success. Of couse I'd like to have 2nd base stolen instead of having to bunt a runner over and tried, for the most part, to do that option first. Still, at the amature and high school level, if you can get that runner on with your big guns coming up, I like my chances of scoring. Factor in the option to switch off by showing bunt and then slapping or swinging away and I think you can add a new dimension to the game. JMHO!

 

[CoogansBluff]

I can't statistically prove it but I'd guess that somewhere around 30-40% of the time, the runer is safe at first.

But then it's not a 'sacrifice' bunt, right? If you're bunting because you think you've got a 30-40% chance of beating out the bunt, while also taking consolation that the runner probably will advance even if you're out, then that's different than intentionally giving up an out to move a runner, IMO. It's not a bad play to bunt w/ a runner on first. But I think it's very often a bad play to concede an out w/ a runner at first.

 

[CoogansBluff]

On the defensive end. This may have been mentioned in an earlier post, but with a runner on first and no outs. I've always had either the pitcher or third baseman cover third base whichever player did not field the ball(prefferably third if neither made the play on the ball) to prevent a first to third advance. Over the summer it seemed like most teams, including my oldest DDs team, sent the left fielder in to cover third. What defense does everyone prefer? Why? Not that it makes much difference, but this was in U12A ball.

There are better stategists than I on this subject, but just fyi, I was watching a pro game (USSSA Pride) this summer, and the catcher covered third on this, and on this particular play, the catcher tagged the runner out at third. Not sure I'd recommend that, but thought it was pretty interesting. Pitcher covered home.

 

[NEF]

There are better stategists than I on this subject, but just fyi, I was watching a pro game (USSSA Pride) this summer, and the catcher covered third on this, and on this particular play, the catcher tagged the runner out at third. Not sure I'd recommend that, but thought it was pretty interesting. Pitcher covered home.

This does make some sense. If the catcher does not make the initial play, both the pitcher and third baseman are moving away from third while the catcher is moving towards the infield.

 

[glf0845]

Ken, you sound like Billy Bean.

 

[shockcoach]

So if your #2 hitter is quick, and can hit for power, why would you ever have her sac bunt? Why not bunt for a hit or hit away, depending on what the defense is doing? Seems to me with that #2 hitter you could score a lot more runs by letting her get on base.

This drove me absolutely crazy last year with DD's team. Lead off hitter gets on. She's as fast as greased lightening. So instead of a straight steal, they sac bunt our #2 hitter to get her over to 2nd base every time. Our #2 was both fast and could hit. As a matter of fact, the lead off hitter should have been standing on 3rd base after 2 pitches, but they rarely straight stole her.

Okay, rant off now. New season, new team.

 

[NEF]

But then it's not a 'sacrifice' bunt, right? If you're bunting because you think you've got a 30-40% chance of beating out the bunt, while also taking consolation that the runner probably will advance even if you're out, then that's different than intentionally giving up an out to move a runner, IMO. It's not a bad play to bunt w/ a runner on first. But I think it's very often a bad play to concede an out w/ a runner at first.

I dont totally disagree, but if the batter "squares" early and the first baseman overthrows 1st, I'm awarding the batter a sac. bunt E3. It should not count against the batter.

 

[Ken Krause]

Ken, you sound like Billy Bean.

Definitely was a big influence on my thinking. I never much cared for giving up an out, but Billy Beane/Moneyball really helped crystalize it. So did Cindy Bristow, who seems to not be a fan of giving up outs for little gain either.