August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 7, 200520 yr 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).
August 7, 200520 yr Author 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.
August 7, 200520 yr 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
August 7, 200520 yr Author 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.
August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 7, 200520 yr 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
August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 7, 200520 yr sac bunts are productive outs like sac flys...come on people...use your head...use our speed, put pressure on the defense...think think think
August 7, 200520 yr What do you all think about Castillo trying to drop down a bunt with Pierre on third and two outs? 892742[/snapback] Or one out Or no outs
August 7, 200520 yr 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?
August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 7, 200520 yr 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?
August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 7, 200520 yr The great thing about baseball is there is a stat or percentage for everything. To me the Sac Bunt is a productive out, at least its not a K or a doubleplay. While the percentages may show that it does or doesn't work if this skipper likes to do it they got to do it.
August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 7, 200520 yr 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.
August 8, 200520 yr I'm a big Jack supporter but I'll never understand taking the bat out of Castillo's hand to sac bunt over JP in the 1st inning. JP can steal for second for one and JP and Castillo are fast enough to prevent the double play. I'd rather just take a chance and have Castillo (an excellent hitter) swing away.
August 8, 200520 yr 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.
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.