Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Jack Curry of the New York Times examines bunting. (Registration is required). There are some interesting quotes from players and general managers, including our own.

"The biggest thing for me is I don't like giving up outs," Ricciardi said. "When you're in the American League, one run usually doesn't decide a game. You need to keep tacking on. And I'll be honest with you, who the heck can bunt today? We work on it and they still can't bunt. We don't want to be the ones wasting time on it."

The Blue Jays will probably set a record for fewest sacrifice bunts. The number is 16, by the 2000 Yankees and the 1998 Tigers.

"It's our goal to be under 10," Ricciardi said.



Derek Jeter has advised Alfonso Soriano to fake a bunt at least once in a while. This gets the infielders creeping in, which makes it easier to slap a base hit past them. That's one reason why everyone on my high school team practices bunting, though we rarely sacrifice. In many situations, it's automatic -- if you've got the take sign, show bunt. With the corner men leaning in, your chances of a clean single improve on the next pitch.

There's no better way than bunting drills to make a free-swinger (like Soriano) focus on watching the ball all the way in and meeting it in the desired contact zone, in front of the plate. Hitters soon learn that if the ball isn't in fair territory when you bunt it, it's almost certain to roll foul, and if you take your eye off it, you'll miss it. If you can't square around, hold your bat in the proper position and let the ball hit it, making solid contact on a full swing must require plenty of dumb luck. Just because you're a slugger who's unlikely to be asked to do it in a game doesn't mean you shouldn't know how. Bunting practice also improves pitch recognition, which has a positive impact on OBP and helps prevent slumps.

For those who work hard and master the art, as Reed Johnson has so capably demonstrated, bunting for a base hit is still an offensive weapon. Especially in the AL, I completely agree that the sacrifice bunt isn't sound strategy, but it's a shame that the skill to lay one down is becoming the exclusive domain of pitchers and leadoff men. To me, it's an essential fundamental of hitting.
Lost Art | 14 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
robertdudek - Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#94414) #
As I said before, I absolutely love the strategy of bunting for a basehit. I wouldn't do it with Scott Rolen or Eric Chavez playing third base, but almost everyone else. The push bunt, aiming for the second baseman should work particularly well against a lefthanded pitcher. In fact I think the push bunt is easier on articfical turf (easier to get the ball past the pitcher).

IMO, every fast player, including Vernon Wells, should practice both the push bunt and the bunt down the line.
_Lefty - Sunday, August 17 2003 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#94415) #
I can only say, think back to the Jays v Rays this year. On more than a few occasions Sweet Lou beat them single handedly by moving runners along. His philosophy has been very succesfully employed by the Rays this year, probably out of sheer necessity. While managing the Mariners though, teams with considerable pop he was very flexible in his approach. Sometimes the proverbial two bloops and blast and sometimes small ball. This keeps the opposition completely off balance never knowing exactly what the stratagy is. A successful team on limited budget needs to exploit the oppositions weakness not just play to its own strengths day in and out.
Pistol - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 12:31 AM EDT (#94416) #
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/sports/baseball/17MAIL.html?ex=1061697600&en=f4793018c4808a02&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
If you look at Clutch Hits at Baseball Primer (or click on my name above) there's a Keith Law letter to the NY Times about a William Rhoden article calling for a ban on in-season trades (I'm a little surprised that he responded to a moronic article, but I suspose the NY Times has a little higher standards).

I had to break out the dictionary for one of the words in there (calumny). K-Law also goes into economic models. Could you see Cam Bonifay talking about the economics of Yao and Lenin?

Back to bunting.....I like how they should the run expectancy for the different situations to for those small ball advocates. However, what that doesn't factor is who the pitcher and batter are. If you have a dominant pitcher and a bad batter it may be better to bunt.

Also, I believe if you are trying to score *only* 1 run, the sacrifice may be the better option. So if it's tied in the 9th and you need one run to win, I would think it's a good play to make. If the Jays had a good bullpen they could utilize that earlier in the game as well.
Pistol - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 12:36 AM EDT (#94417) #
Back to bunting.....I like how they should the run expectancy for the different situations to for those small ball advocates.

Whoa. Guess I'm tired and can't proofread.

It should be: I like how they show the run expectancy for the different situations for those small ball advocates.

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to listen to the broadcast team of the Jays' opponent on Extra Innings bash the lack of sacrificing. The White Sox are the worst and most obnoxious. But as JP points out, they are 2nd in scoring.
Gitz - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 02:20 AM EDT (#94418) #
Law's reference to Yao and Lenin is a high compliment to Law, but that does not mean we should -- or even could -- cavil Bonifay in the same sentence.

I'm not a Cam Bonifay fan, but I'm not going to suggest he's made some questionable moves because he hasn't been inculcated in abstract economic theory or concrete economic history. He may very well be an ignorant fool, but I won't pass judgement based on something we can't possibly know; ideally I'd like not to pass judgement at all, but, regrettably, that is difficult when you consider yourself a baseball "analyst."

It's possible Bonifay is more erudite than Law when it comes to the enduring debate of Marx vs. Smith, and to suggest otherwise without even rudimentary personal knowledge of Bonifay is, perhaps, a calumny in its own right.
_Jeff - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 08:23 AM EDT (#94419) #
http://www.hauserreport.com
Quick point: while I'm very anti-sacrifice bunting, it ought to be noted that the NYT did not show the argument for sacrificing in its best light. Namely, "expected runs" and "likelihood of scoring" are not perfectly correllated, as bunting is termed a "one-run strategy" with good reason. It is possible that there are scenarios where the odds of scoring once are enhanced, but total runs expected decreases, in which cases very late inning situations, or with a dominant pitcher on the mound, or etc. . . = it gets more complicated, at least, why bunting is not to be preferred.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 09:25 AM EDT (#94420) #
http://economics.about.com
I'm not a Cam Bonifay fan, but I'm not going to suggest he's made some questionable moves because he hasn't been inculcated in abstract economic theory

You can't understand anything if you don't understand abstract economic theory. No knowledge is possible without it!

Mike

P.S. I have an M.A. in probably the most abstract economic theory possible. :)
_Yao Ming - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 10:42 AM EDT (#94421) #
How did I get dragged into this?
_Greg Os Fan - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 10:48 AM EDT (#94422) #
Earl Weaver loved the suicide squeeze -- one of the most exciting plays in the game. Does a suicide squeeze count as a sacrifice bunt?
_Pfizer - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 11:05 AM EDT (#94423) #
I suppose I'm with Coach. Once you rule out the possibility of the bunt, you're giving the defense the advantage. There's something to be said about keeping defenses honest.

Just like batters who never swing at the first pitch, and become known for that. You give away an edge that you really don't have to.
Mike D - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 12:05 PM EDT (#94424) #
It's interesting that the Times article mentioned Tom Tippett. Last year, Rob Neyer quoted a Tippett "expected runs" matrix and crowed that bunting was conclusively proven to be offensively counterproductive unless a pitcher was batting -- "and a weak-hitting pitcher at that." Neyer published a correction the next day, though, since Tippett pointed out that his matrix didn't "prove" the inefficacy of bunting; after all, the matrix doesn't account for errors, fielders' choices and bunt singles.

I think the failure to consider the possibility of errors -- i.e., the "put pressure on the defence" factor -- is a potential flaw in many areas of modern baseball analysis. A good bunt is a very difficult play to field, so it's somewhat incomplete to assess the results of the play by simply adding an out and moving the runners up a base. Similarly, a stolen base attempt is an error-prone play, and the strikeout is the least error-prone play, thus calling into question the "strikeouts are no different than outs in play" argument.

J.P. might have been joking, but I wish he didn't talk about numerical caps on bunt attempts. For an AL club, it might be the case where only 5 situations present themselves where a bunt makes sense; but a smart bunting situation might also arise 25 times. I think that an AL club can win three games a season with a smart bunting play.

Given my overexposure to the Yankees, I can say that Mariano Rivera has probably yielded more runs this season with misplaying bunts into errors, singles and fielder's choices than he has through home runs (three solo shots).
robertdudek - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 01:00 PM EDT (#94425) #
There are also the times that a bunt fails to advance the runner, or puts the batter in the hole.
Mike D - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 01:05 PM EDT (#94426) #
No question, Robert. But that usually does get factored into the analysis leading to the "don't ever bunt" conclusion.

My point is only that the "best-case scenario" in analyzing possible outcomes -- the successful sacrifice -- is not really the best-case scenario. It's harder to find bunts bungled into hits, FC's and errors than it is to analyze what happens after teams record an official "sacrifice hit," so it usually isn't done with any methodical thoroughness.
Coach - Monday, August 18 2003 @ 09:38 PM EDT (#94427) #
In Tippett's just-published reply to the Curry article, he concludes than sacrifice bunts are not always bad:

In recent AL seasons, about 12% of all bunt attempts produced either a bunt single or a bunt error. In other words, a non-trivial number of successful bunts gained at least two bases WITHOUT giving up an out. These outcomes had very high run values and increased the probability of scoring at least one run by a meaningful amount.

Tom echoes what Pfizer said about keeping defenses honest, and my belief that bunting should be part of a well-rounded offensive arsenal. Counting the demoralizing, perfectly-placed (a la Sparky) base hits, the occasional squeeze (Hudson batting right-handed with one out and the bases loaded) and the odd sacrifice (vs. a tough pitcher, late in a tie game) it's a viable option maybe 2-3 times a week. I've never maintained that the bunt should be an everyday tactic, only that it improves the batting eye and should be part of a complete player's skill set.
Lost Art | 14 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.