Bunting Works

[Ducksnort]

I know that a lot of people are as against bunting as strongly as some people are against the covid vaccine, but hear me out. I think bunting does something that can't be tracked by numbers...it forces the hand of the defense.

Let's look at the 8th inning of tonight's ballgame. You could argue that Seby just squaring his bat to bunt caused Cleveland's catcher, Perez, to commit the passed ball, which allowed the runner on 1st to make it to 2nd. You could argue Seby squaring to bunt on the next pitch (I believe) caused Perez to throw an errant ball to 2B, which ended up in CF and allowed the runner to go to 3B. Seby didn't even have to touch the bat with the ball to force the defense to think differently, just because they KNEW he was attempting to bunt. 

Then of course later in the inning, Cesar Hernandez put down a perfectly placed surprise bunt, Ramirez couldn't get off a good throw and the 1B couldn't handle the ball. Everyone safe.

I love small ball. It makes the game so much more interesting, and I think this game tonight was a great example of how to win without just using power. Bunting can be a very successful strategic play.

Edited July 31, 2021 by ScooterMcGee

[harkness99]

did you miss when cleveland bunted men to 2nd and 3rd and didnt score one run?

[poppysox]

7 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I know that a lot of people are as against bunting as strongly as some people are against the covid vaccine, but hear me out. I think bunting does something that can't be tracked by numbers...it forces the hand of the defense.

Let's look at the 8th inning of tonight's ballgame. You could argue that Seby just squaring his bat to bunt caused Cleveland's catcher, Perez, to commit the passed ball, which allowed the runner on 1st to make it to 2nd. You could argue Seby squaring to bunt on the next pitch (I believe) caused Perez to throw an errant ball to 2B, which ended up in CF and allowed the runner to go to 3B. Seby didn't even have to touch the bat with the ball to force the defense to think differently, just because they KNEW he was attempting to bunt. 

Then of course later in the inning, Cesar Hernandez put down a perfectly placed surprise bunt, Ramirez couldn't get off a good throw and the 1B couldn't handle the ball. Everyone safe.

I love small ball. It makes the game so much more interesting, and I think this game tonight was a great example of how to win without just using power. Bunting can be a very successful strategic play.

Cesar showed us he knows how to bunt.  Situational bunting is fine with me if the person doing it knows how.

[Texsox]

6 hours ago, harkness99 said:

did you miss when cleveland bunted men to 2nd and 3rd and didnt score one run?

Did you miss when the Sox had bases loaded and didn't score one run? 

We can find examples of how every strategy works and every strategy fails. Winning teams beat the market. They have more tools available and can effectively use them. 

[harkness99]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Did you miss when the Sox had bases loaded and didn't score one run? 

We can find examples of how every strategy works and every strategy fails. Winning teams beat the market. They have more tools available and can effectively use them. 

if anything bringing up not scoring with the bases loaded helps prove my point how bunting is usually worthless.

[Ducksnort]

55 minutes ago, harkness99 said:

if anything bringing up not scoring with the bases loaded helps prove my point how bunting is usually worthless.

But...they struck out 3 times with the bases loaded on non-bunt ABs ?

[Dick Allen]

10 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

I know that a lot of people are as against bunting as strongly as some people are against the covid vaccine, but hear me out. I think bunting does something that can't be tracked by numbers...it forces the hand of the defense.

Let's look at the 8th inning of tonight's ballgame. You could argue that Seby just squaring his bat to bunt caused Cleveland's catcher, Perez, to commit the passed ball, which allowed the runner on 1st to make it to 2nd. You could argue Seby squaring to bunt on the next pitch (I believe) caused Perez to throw an errant ball to 2B, which ended up in CF and allowed the runner to go to 3B. Seby didn't even have to touch the bat with the ball to force the defense to think differently, just because they KNEW he was attempting to bunt. 

Then of course later in the inning, Cesar Hernandez put down a perfectly placed surprise bunt, Ramirez couldn't get off a good throw and the 1B couldn't handle the ball. Everyone safe.

I love small ball. It makes the game so much more interesting, and I think this game tonight was a great example of how to win without just using power. Bunting can be a very successful strategic play.

It was the only way Seby might make contact, so it made perfect sense,  and as soon as the runner got to 3rd, Seby was benched. I think it is the first time I have ever seen a pinch hitter in the middle of an AB without a pitching change or injury.

[harkness99]

2 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

But...they struck out 3 times with the bases loaded on non-bunt ABs ?

the point is giving up outs to put runners in scoring position is bad math.

im not against bunting all together - but it should be done minimally.

Edited July 31, 2021 by harkness99

[chw42]

2 hours ago, ScooterMcGee said:

But...they struck out 3 times with the bases loaded on non-bunt ABs ?

Are you saying you want them to bunt with the bases loaded and nobody out?

[Balta1701]

6 minutes ago, chw42 said:

Are you saying you want them to bunt with the bases loaded and nobody out?

Unfortunately in that case the defense is likely playing in, so really good chance the runner is out at home and decent chance at a double play.

[kitekrazy]

4 hours ago, Texsox said:

Did you miss when the Sox had bases loaded and didn't score one run? 

We can find examples of how every strategy works and every strategy fails. Winning teams beat the market. They have more tools available and can effectively use them. 

Sox fans can't divorce themselves from station to station baseball.  Baseballs better hitters usually have a higher amount of DPs because they hit the ball much harder,  The better teams also know how to play old school baseball. 

 I thought it was interesting that a player on the team tied for HRs could lay down a great bunt. 

I think the reason you see it less is no one is really good at it to where it's a good chance of getting on base as much as a sacrifice.

[Eminor3rd]

I know that a lot of what I'm about to type is NOT what you're saying -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth. But some thoughts and reactions for the sake of the entire conversation:

- When people rail against the bunt, they are railing against the sacrifice bunt. The bunt-for-hit is an entirely different animal, and no significant group of people has an issue with it if it's used in a situation where it has a good chance to be successful.

- It's easy to say you love something when it works, and easy to ignore it in the much more frequent instances when it doesn't. Cesar was only safe because Jose Ramirez made a throwing error. Ramirez probably only makes that error because the pitcher almost ran him over. If you ran that same play ten times, Cesar is certainly out more often than he is safe, and probably by a large margin.

- People hate the sacrifice bunt because it leads to fewer runs in almost every situation. Very few people disagree that smallball is fun, but what's even more fun is winning games. Generally speaking, people want the team to do the thing that makes them most likely to win.

- Even ignoring the lowered run expectancy of a typical sacrifice bunt, there is a significant rate of failure in even making the bunt play. I watch a ton of Japanese baseball, and they bunt probably literally ten times more often than MLB. They are also WAY better at executing the bunt, and even they fail (pop-up, foul out, lead runner cut down, etc.) a shockingly high percentage of the time -- like probably 20% of the time. It is significantly more likely that the batter will fail to execute the bunt than it is that the defense will fail to record the out.

All of the above said, I didn't have any issue with Cesar's bunt. He did it because he thought it was the best way to get on base, he thought the defense wasn't ready, and he figured the sac bunt situation was the worst case result. I don't think it was a bad play all.

But it doesn't make any sense to take an instance where a bunt works and try to apply it to an argument about bunting in general, outside of context. All of the above stands despite Cesar's bunt being a good play; don't take a good bunt and use it to argue in support of bad bunts.

[Ducksnort]

19 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

I know that a lot of what I'm about to type is NOT what you're saying -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth. But some thoughts and reactions for the sake of the entire conversation:

- When people rail against the bunt, they are railing against the sacrifice bunt. The bunt-for-hit is an entirely different animal, and no significant group of people has an issue with it if it's used in a situation where it has a good chance to be successful.

- It's easy to say you love something when it works, and easy to ignore it in the much more frequent instances when it doesn't. Cesar was only safe because Jose Ramirez made a throwing error. Ramirez probably only makes that error because the pitcher almost ran him over. If you ran that same play ten times, Cesar is certainly out more often than he is safe, and probably by a large margin.

- People hate the sacrifice bunt because it leads to fewer runs in almost every situation. Very few people disagree that smallball is fun, but what's even more fun is winning games. Generally speaking, people want the team to do the thing that makes them most likely to win.

- Even ignoring the lowered run expectancy of a typical sacrifice bunt, there is a significant rate of failure in even making the bunt play. I watch a ton of Japanese baseball, and they bunt probably literally ten times more often than MLB. They are also WAY better at executing the bunt, and even they fail (pop-up, foul out, lead runner cut down, etc.) a shockingly high percentage of the time -- like probably 20% of the time. It is significantly more likely that the batter will fail to execute the bunt than it is that the defense will fail to record the out.

All of the above said, I didn't have any issue with Cesar's bunt. He did it because he thought it was the best way to get on base, he thought the defense wasn't ready, and he figured the sac bunt situation was the worst case result. I don't think it was a bad play all.

But it doesn't make any sense to take an instance where a bunt works and try to apply it to an argument about bunting in general, outside of context. All of the above stands despite Cesar's bunt being a good play; don't take a good bunt and use it to argue in support of bad bunts.

I agree with what you say and your reasoning behind it. I'm not trying to take a good bunt and use it to argue in support of bad bunts, it's just I hear a lot of people want to do away with it entirely, based purely on numbers, which shouldn't happen.

Maybe the title of the thread should be changed to "bunting works" to "bunting isn't as bad as what it's been made out to be."

[Texsox]

2 hours ago, harkness99 said:

the point is giving up outs to put runners in scoring position is bad math.

im not against bunting all together - but it should be done minimally.

Bad math? Without knowing who the runners are,  who is pitching, who is due up,  the inning, the score, and countless other facts it's impossible to say if it's bad math or not. 

We can sit here and come up with an endless list of scenarios when bunting is a horrible option. We can also come up with some where it's an excellent option. Winning teams know the difference and use every tool and strategy available. 

[Dick Allen]

2 hours ago, harkness99 said:

the point is giving up outs to put runners in scoring position is bad math.

im not against bunting all together - but it should be done minimally.

I agree, but Seby Zavala bunting vs. a guy throwing 96-97 really isn’t giving up an out. It is attempting to make the out productive. BTW I was at the game last night and after Collins walked, they had 1st and 3rd for TA. The infield was playing in and neither the 2B or SS were anywhere near second base. Collins could have stole 2nd without a play.

[harkness99]

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

I agree, but Seby Zavala bunting vs. a guy throwing 96-97 really isn’t giving up an out. It is attempting to make the out productive. BTW I was at the game last night and after Collins walked, they had 1st and 3rd for TA. The infield was playing in and neither the 2B or SS were anywhere near second base. Collins could have stole 2nd without a play.

ya thats why i said in most situations... sebby can bunt all day and ill be fine with it.