Why all of the bunting?

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

The debate about bunting has changed a bit recently due to the new rules that make it easier to turn a double play. I am surprised no one has brought that up. I think I would rather see a hit and run called than a bunt but not a hit and run ( run and hit ) with freaking Dionner Navarro on 1st base.

 

There is also 2 schools of though about bunting over an already fast guy like Anderson with one of our better hitters who just happens to be one of our best bunters. If you bunt a slow guy to 2nd it still might take 2 hits to get him home but a fast guy is more likely to score with 1 hit. Bunting for a sacrifice is just dependent on many things , who's the runner , who's the bunter, how many outs there are, who's coming up next, how is your team at scoring runs, what's the game situation and more.

[southsider2k5]

The debate about bunting has changed a bit recently due to the new rules that make it easier to turn a double play. I am surprised no one has brought that up. I think I would rather see a hit and run called than a bunt but not a hit and run ( run and hit ) with freaking Dionner Navarro on 1st base.

 

There is also 2 schools of though about bunting over an already fast guy like Anderson with one of our better hitters who just happens to be one of our best bunters. If you bunt a slow guy to 2nd it still might take 2 hits to get him home but a fast guy is more likely to score with 1 hit. Bunting for a sacrifice is just dependent on many things , who's the runner , who's the bunter, how many outs there are, who's coming up next, how is your team at scoring runs, what's the game situation and more.

 

That is a really interesting point I hadn't thought of before.

[ptatc]

The debate about bunting has changed a bit recently due to the new rules that make it easier to turn a double play. I am surprised no one has brought that up. I think I would rather see a hit and run called than a bunt but not a hit and run ( run and hit ) with freaking Dionner Navarro on 1st base.

 

There is also 2 schools of though about bunting over an already fast guy like Anderson with one of our better hitters who just happens to be one of our best bunters. If you bunt a slow guy to 2nd it still might take 2 hits to get him home but a fast guy is more likely to score with 1 hit. Bunting for a sacrifice is just dependent on many things , who's the runner , who's the bunter, how many outs there are, who's coming up next, how is your team at scoring runs, what's the game situation and more.

Isn't part of the rule to limit the "neighborhood play" making it more difficult to turn a double play?

[southsider2k5]

Isn't part of the rule to limit the "neighborhood play" making it more difficult to turn a double play?

 

The take out slides and neighborhood slides have also been eliminated.

[knightni]

They usually put it up for the 4th of July.

 

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/98316380-...hU7v04Kcw%3D%3D

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Isn't part of the rule to limit the "neighborhood play" making it more difficult to turn a double play?

 

Like ss2k5 said I'm talking more about the take out slides used to break up double plays which have always been an integral part of baseball. The neighborhood play or phantom touching of 2nd base by the infielder came into play because of takeout slides and the umps doing their part to safeguard the fielders from those slides. Now that those slides are no longer allowed fielders don't have to use the neighborhood play any more and can touch 2nd base much more easily without worry of injury. So yes it is still much easier now to turn a DP.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

They usually put it up for the 4th of July.

 

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/98316380-...hU7v04Kcw%3D%3D

 

Very sly

[Balta1701]

Is it worth noting again that the White Sox are only right now successful on 64% of their bunt attempts (which is right at the league average)?

 

1/3 of the times guys try to bunt, they fail to successfully sacrifice before there are 2 strikes on the batter, on average. Some guys are better than that, but some guys are also much worse. So about 1/3 of the time the bunt is called for, the out is given away without accomplishing anything.

 

For comparison, in the runner on first, 1 out or less case, the White Sox hit into a DP 11% of the time.

[chitownsportsfan]

Hard to believe it's 2016 and people are still defending bunts. There are very limited times the bunt is useful. Those times are in the 7th, 8th and 9th when you are tied or behind by one run and you have a mediocre hitter at the plate.

 

That RV is bunting in the 1st inning with the guy he puts 3rd is absolute insanity.

[Dick Allen]

Most of the bunts, Melky, Eaton, those are done on their own. Coats was for sure called for and made sense. He had no hits.

 

Guys go up knowing they have a job to do. They know at the very least they have to advance the runner, so for many, it cuts out half the field. They are more confident a bunt will advance the runners vs. swinging away. Since they are the ones hitting, they are probably correct.

 

That said, I am not a big bunt guy, and Robin through the years hasn't bunted that much. On the flipside, I don't think anyone has been too impressed with the White Sox making productive outs or stringing hits together the past few seasons.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Dick Allen

[chitownsportsfan]

Is it worth noting again that the White Sox are only right now successful on 64% of their bunt attempts (which is right at the league average)?

 

1/3 of the times guys try to bunt, they fail to successfully sacrifice before there are 2 strikes on the batter, on average. Some guys are better than that, but some guys are also much worse. So about 1/3 of the time the bunt is called for, the out is given away without accomplishing anything.

 

For comparison, in the runner on first, 1 out or less case, the White Sox hit into a DP 11% of the time.

 

exactly! Bunt defenders seem to treat the players like robots that will always get a good bunt down. Guess what, it's 2016 and most MLB players suck ass at bunting.

 

That is must mind blowing that 34% of the time the Sox are just saying "here, have this out".

 

f***ing s*** man. I'm glad I took a step back from this season I'm getting enraged again at the stupidity of this org.

Edited June 22, 2016 by chitownsportsfan

[Dick Allen]

Is it worth noting again that the White Sox are only right now successful on 64% of their bunt attempts (which is right at the league average)?

 

1/3 of the times guys try to bunt, they fail to successfully sacrifice before there are 2 strikes on the batter, on average. Some guys are better than that, but some guys are also much worse. So about 1/3 of the time the bunt is called for, the out is given away without accomplishing anything.

 

For comparison, in the runner on first, 1 out or less case, the White Sox hit into a DP 11% of the time.

What is the percentage of advancing runners when not bunting? I'm guessing nowhere near 64%. In a tight game, depending on the hitter, there is no reason to moan about a bunt.

[chitownsportsfan]

What is the percentage of advancing runners when not bunting? I'm guessing nowhere near 64%. In a tight game, depending on the hitter, there is no reason to moan about a bunt.

 

The vast majority of the time you play for one run, you score one run. With such a s***ty offense giving away outs is pouring gasoline on a tire fire.

[Dick Allen]

The vast majority of the time you play for one run, you score one run. With such a s***ty offense giving away outs is pouring gasoline on a tire fire.

Because this offense has shown it is more than capable of huge innings all of the time.

 

When the bunts have been called from the bench, they have been called at times where scoring a run could win the game. The only questionable one was when Melky bunted in NY. But second and third one out scores 1 run more often than first and second and no out. It scores more than 1 slightly less. But 1 would have been big there. All Frazier had to do was put the ball in play and not pop it up. The others people complain about were hitters doing it on their own.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Dick Allen

[OmarComing25]

Because this offense has shown it is more than capable of huge innings all of the time.

 

When the bunts have been called from the bench, they have been called at times where scoring a run could win the game. The only questionable one was when Melky bunted in NY. But second and third one out scores 1 run more often than first and second and no out. It scores more than 1 slightly less. But 1 would have been big there. All Frazier had to do was put the ball in play and not pop it up. The others people complain about were hitters doing it on their own.

Yes, but that assumes a successful bunt. Factor in the probability of the bunt failing to get down, and it's less, unless you have a hitter at the plate that can get the bunt down at a 90% success rate.

[Dick Allen]

Yes, but that assumes a successful bunt. Factor in the probability of the bunt failing to get down, and it's less, unless you have a hitter at the plate that can get the bunt down at a 90% success rate.

Melky is a pretty good bunter. I believe he has close to 50 sacs in his career, even the year he was roided up hitting .340 he sacd a couple of times. He tends to go rogue and do it on his own, but the one in NY was called from the bench. The second time Melky bunted it was on his own.

[Eminor3rd]

This is fine and dandy, but bunting in certain situations makes sense for a team like the White Sox that has trouble scoring runs consistently.

 

I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy either, but I'd rather play for one run than not score any at all.

 

Pretty much the only time it actually increases the likelihood to score is when you're bunting a runner from second to third with no outs.

 

That's also pretty much the only situation the Sox NEVER bunt in.

[Balta1701]

Melky is a pretty good bunter. I believe he has close to 50 sacs in his career, even the year he was roided up hitting .340 he sacd a couple of times. He tends to go rogue and do it on his own, but the one in NY was called from the bench. The second time Melky bunted it was on his own.

Melky is actually an above average bunter. He gets the bunt down 75% of the time he squares around during an at bat. That's significantly above the league average...and still not particularly good.

 

In his career, Cabrera is a .284 hitter and in situations where a productive out is possible, he gets a productive out 38% of the time. Therefore, Cabrera bunting will get a guy to 2nd base 75% of the time, whereas swinging away he'll at least get the guy to 2nd base 66% of the time, but in the 2nd case about 40% of those successful times he will get a hit that could get the guy to 3rd base or home. That also doesn't count walks, and if a guy is squaring around to give up the out I'm betting that influences the pitcher's walk rate as well.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Is it worth noting again that the White Sox are only right now successful on 64% of their bunt attempts (which is right at the league average)?

 

1/3 of the times guys try to bunt, they fail to successfully sacrifice before there are 2 strikes on the batter, on average. Some guys are better than that, but some guys are also much worse. So about 1/3 of the time the bunt is called for, the out is given away without accomplishing anything.

 

For comparison, in the runner on first, 1 out or less case, the White Sox hit into a DP 11% of the time.

 

Wait, maybe I don't understand. You said 1/3 of the time they fail to sacrifice before there are 2 strikes on the batter then said 1/3 of the time the out is given away without accomplishing anything. Ok so now there are 2 strikes on the batter and he doesn't bunt right ? So you are saying that every time the bunt is not successful every batter has made an out that doesn't advance the runner ? No one got a hit with 2 strikes ? No one hit into a DP with 2 strikes ?

[Balta1701]

Wait, maybe I don't understand. You said 1/3 of the time they fail to sacrifice before there are 2 strikes on the batter then said 1/3 of the time the out is given away without accomplishing anything. Ok so now there are 2 strikes on the batter and he doesn't bunt right ? So you are saying that every time the bunt is not successful every batter has made an out that doesn't advance the runner ? No one got a hit with 2 strikes ? No one hit into a DP with 2 strikes ?

You're right, a small percentage of the "failed to get the bunt down" at bats probably do turn into productive outs/hits, but those also include times when the bunt was unsuccessful and resulted in a popup/foulout/otherwise out without advancing the runner.

[Lemon_44]

Bunts are good in certain situations. With a base stealer on 1st, I'd much rather just have the guy try and steal 2nd. Let's say a guy has 75% success rate stealing, that's higher odds than a bunt. Then, you could always bunt him over to third where anything other than a strikeout or popout likely scores him.

[SCCWS]

Bunts are good in certain situations. With a base stealer on 1st, I'd much rather just have the guy try and steal 2nd. Let's say a guy has 75% success rate stealing, that's higher odds than a bunt. Then, you could always bunt him over to third where anything other than a strikeout or popout likely scores him.

 

So Adam Eaton who has been the White Sox steal leader the last few years has a 65% steal rate. So your theory wouldn't work for the White Sox.

Edited June 22, 2016 by SCCWS

[ptatc]

You're right, a small percentage of the "failed to get the bunt down" at bats probably do turn into productive outs/hits, but those also include times when the bunt was unsuccessful and resulted in a popup/foulout/otherwise out without advancing the runner.

Statistically the bunts don't make much sense in many cases. However, with how bad the offense has been I don't blame them for just trying something to change it up.

[CB2.0]

Fangraphs did a whole thing on this years ago. Your chances of scoring with a runner on 1st with no outs and bunting is LESS than if you swing away (and that includes NL pitchers).

 

Bunting is 98.9% stupid.

 

It's never good to give up an out (which is to say: a chance to score)

 

Exceptions:

 

Suicide bunt to win a game

Infield playing a shift (think: Jim Thome bunting around 3rd base)

 

Other than that: why would you give up chances to score?

Edited June 23, 2016 by CB2.0

[CB2.0]

Bunts are good in certain situations. With a base stealer on 1st, I'd much rather just have the guy try and steal 2nd. Let's say a guy has 75% success rate stealing, that's higher odds than a bunt. Then, you could always bunt him over to third where anything other than a strikeout or popout likely scores him.

 

A base stealer should just...steal bases.

 

What does bunting have to do with it?

 

And scoring from 3rd with outs is statisically harder than scoring from 1st or 2nd in EVERY SITUATION.

 

Fact.

Edited June 23, 2016 by CB2.0