Jump to content


Sacrifice Bunts


EricWiener
 Share

Recommended Posts

Every situation where a sacrifice bunt increases the chance to score 1 run in an inning with a hitter with a better OPS than .450

 

Man on 2nd, nobody out.

Man on 1st and 2nd, nobody out.

 

If you sacrifice with a man only on 1st you reduce your chance to score.

If you sacrifice in any situation with 1 out, you drastically reduce you chance to score.

 

It drives me batshit everytime I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Jack is the only manager to use sac bunts with a man on first...

 

Besides, I can't recall an overwhelming amount (except out of the pitcher's spot).

892381[/snapback]

 

I don't care what jackass moves some other manager may make. Hell, I welcome other managers to sacrifice inappropriately. Just want Jack to stop.

 

The Marlins have 32 non-pitcher sacrifice bunts that succeeded. That would be 3rd in the AL.

 

The Marlins are 3rd in the NL in SH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually its a general rule in baseball that if there ia a man on either 1st or 2nd and no outs the batter should sacrifice him over. and the same goes for if there is a man on 1st and 2nd with no outs. now obviosly if you have miggy or delgado up there youre not going to bunt. besides the fish are not a team that can rely on the 3 run jack they need to manufacture runs. imagine if everytime you get a guy on base with nobody out you can put the runner in scoring position with a sac bunt with only 1` out. that puts tremendo pressure on the defense and pitcher :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually its a general rule in baseball that if there ia a man on either 1st or 2nd and no outs the batter should sacrifice him over. and the same goes for if there is a man on 1st and 2nd with no outs. now obviosly if you have miggy or delgado up there youre not going to bunt. besides the fish are not a team that can rely on the 3 run jack they need to manufacture runs. imagine if everytime you get a guy on base with nobody out you can put the runner in scoring position with a sac bunt with only 1` out. that puts tremendo pressure on the defense and pitcher :thumbup

892460[/snapback]

 

If you sacrifice with a man only on 1st you reduce your chance to score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually its a general rule in baseball that if there ia a man on either 1st or 2nd and no outs the batter should sacrifice him over. and the same goes for if there is a man on 1st and 2nd with no outs. now obviosly if you have miggy or delgado up there youre not going to bunt. besides the fish are not a team that can rely on the 3 run jack they need to manufacture runs. imagine if everytime you get a guy on base with nobody out you can put the runner in scoring position with a sac bunt with only 1` out. that puts tremendo pressure on the defense and pitcher :thumbup

892460[/snapback]

 

If you sacrifice with a man only on 1st you reduce your chance to score.

892489[/snapback]

Sacrificing is a productive out. So you want him to strike out or popout? How do you reduce it? Sure you have one less out to play with but it takes away the double play in the infield and gives the following two batters a chance to drive the run in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually its a general rule in baseball that if there ia a man on either 1st or 2nd and no outs the batter should sacrifice him over. and the same goes for if there is a man on 1st and 2nd with no outs. now obviosly if you have miggy or delgado up there youre not going to bunt. besides the fish are not a team that can rely on the 3 run jack they need to manufacture runs. imagine if everytime you get a guy on base with nobody out you can put the runner in scoring position with a sac bunt with only 1` out. that puts tremendo pressure on the defense and pitcher :thumbup

892460[/snapback]

 

If you sacrifice with a man only on 1st you reduce your chance to score.

892489[/snapback]

Sacrificing is a productive out. So you want him to strike out or popout? How do you reduce it? Sure you have one less out to play with but it takes away the double play in the infield and gives the following two batters a chance to drive the run in.

892495[/snapback]

 

exactly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

Then if you need the run so bad, wouldn't you not sac bunt in late game situations with the odds being higher of the run coming across without it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

Then if you need the run so bad, wouldn't you not sac bunt in late game situations with the odds being higher of the run coming across without it?

892796[/snapback]

 

In the late inings you have to play the game differently because you are playing for only one or two runs.

 

You have to go against the odds and move the man up 90 feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

Then if you need the run so bad, wouldn't you not sac bunt in late game situations with the odds being higher of the run coming across without it?

892796[/snapback]

 

In the late inings you have to play the game differently because you are playing for only one or two runs.

 

You have to go against the odds and move the man up 90 feet.

892809[/snapback]

That logic still doesn't make sense. If you desperately need one run, wouldn't you take the approach with better odds?

892826[/snapback]

 

If you move the man up to play for only one run a bloop hit could score the run. If the guys on first you need a big hit for him to score.

 

You don't bunt when it's early in the game and want to score 4-5 runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

I like smallball, but I'm proving a point. :)

 

What point?The point is, by the SABR theory, you would always do what gives you the best odds of scoring in any particular situation. If you are bunting, you are according to your statistics making it more difficult for you to score runs. Why, knowing these stats, would you advocate switching philosophy to make it more difficult to score a run in the time of the game when you need it the most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

Then if you need the run so bad, wouldn't you not sac bunt in late game situations with the odds being higher of the run coming across without it?

892796[/snapback]

 

In the late inings you have to play the game differently because you are playing for only one or two runs.

 

You have to go against the odds and move the man up 90 feet.

892809[/snapback]

That logic still doesn't make sense. If you desperately need one run, wouldn't you take the approach with better odds?

892826[/snapback]

Moneyball's logic makes perfect sense. The stats take into account all innings in all ballparks and all pitchers. You need to look at each situation differently, which is something I wish Jack would do. I don't care about the other managers, I'm a fan of the Marlins and care about what Jack does.

.

.Moneyball is generally right about sac's only in late game situations.

.

.

A sac bunt in the first inning at Coors field against a meh pitcher.

.

.

A sac bunt in the ninth inning in a 2-2 game at Joe Robbie with Smoltz and AJ still in the game.

.

.

2 completely different situations. In the second you go against the odds and play for 1 run. In the first you don't give up an out for 1 run in a game where the odds say you're going to need 7 runs to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

Then if you need the run so bad, wouldn't you not sac bunt in late game situations with the odds being higher of the run coming across without it?

892796[/snapback]

 

In the late inings you have to play the game differently because you are playing for only one or two runs.

 

You have to go against the odds and move the man up 90 feet.

892809[/snapback]

That logic still doesn't make sense. If you desperately need one run, wouldn't you take the approach with better odds?

892826[/snapback]

 

If you move the man up to play for only one run a bloop hit could score the run. If the guys on first you need a big hit for him to score.

 

You don't bunt when it's early in the game and want to score 4-5 runs.

892837[/snapback]

That makes sense. However, why do the percentages indicate otherwise?

892851[/snapback]

 

Yes they do.

 

BUT you have to throw percentages out the windows in a close game in the late innings to try and get something going.

 

When you bunt and when you don't bunt all depends on the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

I'm sorry, but I'm still not buying what you guys or saying. I'm not a Moneyball or Beane fan by the way.

 

It does depend on the situation, I'll give you that.

 

But how does bunting get your offense going when you automatically give yourself one out?

 

But still, if you NEED the run, why wouldn't you execute in a manner in which the odds are in your favor?

 

And Coors isn't the typical ballpark either.

892871[/snapback]

 

But you have the risk of a double play. If a player hits into the double play you lose 2 very precious outs right there. If you sacrifice the runner over you reduce the chances of a double play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

Chances of scoring a run with a man on first no out: .81 runs.

 

After a successful bunt: .67.

 

So it does reduce your chances of scoring.

 

The sac bunt is only to be used in the late innings when you need a run.

Then if you need the run so bad, wouldn't you not sac bunt in late game situations with the odds being higher of the run coming across without it?

892796[/snapback]

 

In the late inings you have to play the game differently because you are playing for only one or two runs.

 

You have to go against the odds and move the man up 90 feet.

892809[/snapback]

That logic still doesn't make sense. If you desperately need one run, wouldn't you take the approach with better odds?

892826[/snapback]

Moneyball's logic makes perfect sense. The stats take into account all innings in all ballparks and all pitchers. You need to look at each situation differently, which is something I wish Jack would do. I don't care about the other managers, I'm a fan of the Marlins and care about what Jack does.

.

.Moneyball is generally right about sac's only in late game situations.

.

.

A sac bunt in the first inning at Coors field against a meh pitcher.

.

.

A sac bunt in the ninth inning in a 2-2 game at Joe Robbie with Smoltz and AJ still in the game.

.

.

2 completely different situations. In the second you go against the odds and play for 1 run. In the first you don't give up an out for 1 run in a game where the odds say you're going to need 7 runs to win.

892858[/snapback]

 

Thank you that's what I was trying to explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think both points of the argument can be heard and understood, both can agree to disagree. but why do you bunt with lets say a runner on first with no outs in late game situations????? cause if you get a man in scoring position you increase your chances to score by doing less. let us remember that baseball is a game of failures. getting a hit every 3 out of 10 at bats is considered very good. so even by giving up an out, leaving you only two more, you only need a single in most cases to drive the runner in from second base, whereas you would maybe need consecutive singles if he was still at first base, or another way to advance the runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...