Best of the Bunt
Basil over at Nationals Inquirer helpfully points to Dave Sheinin's piece in the Post analyzing the utility of the sac bunt. It is a good article, worth reading to get a summary of the various positions. Like most pieces in traditional media, it does not go far enough. Like other bloggers, we've been following this issue for a long time, and we've placed on reserve here some additional reading materials for those interested in studying the issue further.
For a response to Bill James's position, see here. For numbers to support my position, see the links here. I don't understand why people haven't called James on this position. It would be easy to do.
For a chart showing why the "one-run" strategy is not really advanced by the sac bunt, see here.
For a case study of Frank's view, see here.
Bottom line: You should bunt when you want to preserve your chance of scoring the lead runner for the next batter. So the decision rests on whether the current batter can advance the runner by swinging away and avoid a DP. I don't mind the bunt by most pitchers -- they will often squander the scoring chance if left to swing away. But if you can pinch hit for the pitcher, you should do that rather than bunt. And most position players should never bunt. But, as with all things, the circumstances might dictate a different decision.
Update: Sheinin's game story quotes Jose Guillen explaining his inexplicable bunt in the fourth inning yesterday this way: "I was just trying to make something happen." This is the real danger of Frank Robinson's approach to the bunt described in the Sheinin piece. It is based on the notion that the bunt "makes thing happen". This is a critically important point: THE SACRIFICE BUNT DOES NOT "MAKE THINGS HAPPEN." IT SIMPLY BIDES TIME UNTIL A BETTER HITTER COMES ALONG TO "MAKE THINGS HAPPEN" -- BY SWINGING THE BAT. Bunting for a hit can "make things happen", to be sure, but not with runners on first and second. The problem is that Frank's uninformed view that bunting is a proactive play filters down to guys like Guillen who abuse it even worse than Frank.
posted by DM @ 10:12 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I see the point about the "young third baseman" but the problem with it is that you are not really employing a sacrifice bunt in that situation -- you are bunt for a hit or error, really. In my earlier post I noted that James' points depends on the play going "wrong" in favor of the batting team. I don't think that's a case for the _sacrifice_ bunt, it's a case for the bunt.
I am all for batters who have the skill and judgment to use the bunt to put pressure on an infield, even in obvious sacrifice situations. Brett Butler was a master at that. Ideally, that would result in the infield/third baseman playing in more on that batter, who could then exploit the real tangible opportunity for damage that such a defense presents.
My point is simply that ain't why Frank or any of the other managers are using the bunt, and that ain't what the statistical analysis against the bunt is trying to address. So James' defense is misplaced at best. Plus, the Dan Agonistes's numbers linked to in my posts seem to quantify the "tangible but not tremendous" opportunity James' identifies as not very significant.
Basil, I think we agree on the point that inflexible rules are bad regardless of the way they are applied (bunt or no bunt). They way I would do it is use the research to develop criteria or questions you should ask yourself in making a decisions, like these I laid out in my post from May:
(1) Can I afford to limit this inning to one run?
(2) Is the batter likely to strike out or pop-up?
(3) Is the batter likely to ground into a DP?
(4) Is the third baseman a bad fielder, likely to throw the ball away or make a dumb play?
(5) Is the batter fast? Might he beat out the throw?
(6) Is the batter able to get the bunt down?
Note that these questions avoid the fallacy that trading the out for the base improves your chance of scoring. The focus is no longer on the base advance (where it shouldn't be) but on the characteristics of the batter and fielders, where it is best placed.
Hey, Studes, thanks for joining the discussion and for the links.
Basil, as I thought about your points some more this morning, it came to me that what needs to be done is pitchers (in the NL) are the prime candidates for the aggessive bunting instruction, beyond the pro forma bunt you describe. I've always thought more work could be done by pitchers to improve their hitting, and maybe the bunt is the place to start that more work.
Post a Comment
<< Home