0 outs, man on first, you bunt him over to 2nd.

[Stillriledup]

I just don't like giving up 33% of your allotted outs to move a guy up one base.
Do you?

Now, if the pitcher is batting, or a really weak hitter, i would say its probably the percentage play...but anyone else, you gotta swing away, no?

Doesnt the book say swing away and never bunt?

[TJDave]

Depends.

More info is needed.

What inning, score, who has last bats, could the runner score from second???

If I've got a reliable bat on deck I certainly wouldn't want to risk hitting into a DP. Especially if I needed the run to tie and force extra innings.

[Zydeco]

Nats had men on first and second with no outs last night down 2 with Harper at bat. Harper sacrificed bunt moving runners to second and third. Rendon can now not hit into a double play but he grounds out scoring one. Zimmerman then got an ifield single scoring another. Werth doubles scoring Zim to take the lead. You would think that Harper gets to swing away, but his bunting worked this time.

[Stillriledup]

Depends.

More info is needed.

What inning, score, who has last bats, could the runner score from second???

If I've got a reliable bat on deck I certainly wouldn't want to risk hitting into a DP. Especially if I needed the run to tie and force extra innings.

Lets say you're the road team, its the top of the 8th, you are down 1 run and your leadoff guy gets on.

[TJDave]

Lets say you're the road team, its the top of the 8th, you are down 1 run and your leadoff guy gets on.

Yeah, I'd seriously consider that option. You've got a closer on the mound. The runner's worth more on second with one out than all of the negative things that could happen if the hitter swings away. My other choice would have him steal, if he could run. If the hitter was a good slugger that might change my thought pattern a bit, though.

[Dave Schwartz]

Lets say you're the road team, its the top of the 8th, you are down 1 run and your leadoff guy gets on.

Down by 1 or a tie. Either way, he is a very important runner.

[PhantomOnTour]

Bunt or lose

[Stillriledup]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-sacrifice-bunt-the-real-rally-killer/

[cj's dad]

I will paraphrase Earl Weaver here:

there is only one thing that can be successful in a bunt; you succeed in moving the runner(s) up a base.

Now the negatives:


you are unsucessful in that you try twice and fail and are now behind in the count.
You bunt poorly and the lead runner is throw out or worse yet, the poor bunt turns into a double play.
You pop up the bunt and it is turned into a double play due to the infield fly rule not being in effect
You fail and the team has given up an out.

[cj]

I will paraphrase Earl Weaver here:

there is only one thing that can be successful in a bunt; you succeed in moving the runner(s) up a base.

Now the negatives:



you are unsucessful in that you try twice and fail and are now behind in the count.
You bunt poorly and the lead runner is throw out or worse yet, the poor bunt turns into a double play.
You pop up the bunt and it is turned into a double play due to the infield fly rule not being in effect
You fail and the team has given up an out.



I mostly agree, but there are other positives. We've all often seen defenses botch bunts and turn them into hits, throwing errors, etc. Occasionally the bunt is just an outright hit too. Pitcher tries to pitch inside and hits the batter is another one that isn't that rare.

[MutuelClerk]

I would never have Bryce Harper sacrifice bunt. I'm a Tiger fan and a couple times this year Leyland has had Torri hunter sac bunt. This takes the bat out of the best hitter in the games hands. Why would you do that? Especially when Hunter is having a solid season at the plate himself. Leyland frustrates me.

[rastajenk]

Having a solid season still means he's making an out two out of three times, at least.

[Johnny V]

Generally speaking I don't like the sacrifice bunt. I look at it this way, you have 27 outs allotted to you in the game and I dislike giving any away. Now if it is a low scoring game with very good pitching going against you in the late innings then okay, go for it to get the runner in scoring position when you get that runner on first. That might be your only chance. So the opposing pitcher, score, inning, the batters ability to bunt all determine it. Bunting the runners over with men on first and second is a different proposition and a much better situation for this type of play IMO.

[Robert Goren]

I prefer the "hit and run" play.

[Valuist]

In the AL, really not worth it to bunt. Just can't give outs away. Not always the case in the NL. I think it depends on the specifics involved; if a team is really struggling at the plate and the pitcher is lights out, it makes some sense.

I don't buy the sabermatricians argument that strikeouts don't matter and that walks are every bit as good as a hit. Strikeouts don't advance the runners, and in a number of cases, walks don't advance baserunners. Walks aren't bad, but lets not equate them with hits, because they aren't equal.

[Stillriledup]

In the AL, really not worth it to bunt. Just can't give outs away. Not always the case in the NL. I think it depends on the specifics involved; if a team is really struggling at the plate and the pitcher is lights out, it makes some sense.

I don't buy the sabermatricians argument that strikeouts don't matter and that walks are every bit as good as a hit. Strikeouts don't advance the runners, and in a number of cases, walks don't advance baserunners. Walks aren't bad, but lets not equate them with hits, because they aren't equal.

Walks help in the sense that the hitter saw at least 4 pitches in that AB. That runs a pitchers pitch count up, not always true with a hit, which can come on the first pitch. A walk on 4 pitches might be better than a hit at 1 pitch, depending on the pitcher and exact situation of course.

[Johnny V]

In the AL, really not worth it to bunt. Just can't give outs away. Not always the case in the NL. I think it depends on the specifics involved; if a team is really struggling at the plate and the pitcher is lights out, it makes some sense.

I don't buy the sabermatricians argument that strikeouts don't matter and that walks are every bit as good as a hit. Strikeouts don't advance the runners, and in a number of cases, walks don't advance baserunners. Walks aren't bad, but lets not equate them with hits, because they aren't equal.
I don't buy that either. The only way a strikeout can be a "productive out" if you will is maybe when the batter manages to run that 3-2 count to many many pitches continually fouling balls off running up the pitch count. Maybe, but that's about it. You have to put the ball in play to have a winning chance. Anything can happen if you put the ball in play to force a fielding action.
As far as walks go, I will take them anytime. A baserunner getting on whether by a hit, walk, error,or hit by pitch is a baserunner and all the same. It keeps the line moving and the next batter now has his shot.

[Valuist]

Walks help in the sense that the hitter saw at least 4 pitches in that AB. That runs a pitchers pitch count up, not always true with a hit, which can come on the first pitch. A walk on 4 pitches might be better than a hit at 1 pitch, depending on the pitcher and exact situation of course.

Yes, but pitch counts are really only relevant when its the starting pitcher.

The reason walks aren't as good as hits are the base runners don't move up. Sure when the bases are empty, a walk is as good as a hit. But a runner on second, good chance the runners scores on a single while if the hitter walks, now you have a double play situation.

[OTM Al]

Runner on second and no one out tied or down one late, otherwise no unless it is the pitcher batting. A runner on first with no one out scores more often than a runner on second with one out.