I watch baseball everyday and I can't remember the last time I saw a sacrifice bunt trying to get a runner from first to second...
Also bunting a runner to third is smart because if he's on second he cannot score on a sacrifice fly or an infield ground ball... come on now.
For all sacrifice bunts done between 2000-2004 in the NL and AL, 48.6% resulted in the runnner ending up on second with 1 out. Or, in other words, they bunted with a runner on first and no outs. 26.1% resulted in the runner staying at first with one out. Or, they attempted to bunt him to second but the sacrificer failed. That is 64.7%. However, only .2% resulted in the runner on 3rd with 1 out. Or, they bunted with a runner on second no outs. Numbers don't lie. Comes from The Book, page 249.
If you have a man on second and no outs, you let the batter hit because most outcomes will result in the runner on second ending up on the third regardless.
Moving a guy from 2nd to 3rd means you can then sacrifice him home pretty easily. Sometimes this is the only way to score on some pitchers. Should this be done every game, every time? Fuck no lol.
There are many ways to move a guy from 2nd to 3rd without just giving up an out in sacrifice bunting. Usually the hitter will focus on hitting the ball to the right side. It is silly to give up an out with a runner already in scoring position even when you have the added benefit of getting a sac fly.
Originally Posted by Perfect Poster
There's lots of times managers will bunt a runner over to second with 0 outs. I've seen Leyland do it countless times this year. Most of the time I'm against it though - you're giving away an out in attempt to play for 1 run. In the 3rd, 4th, 5th innings, that's just dumb. You have a lot of outs to use, and unless it's the pitcher (where bunting is a preferred choice) I'd rather have my guy go up and swing. Maybe he hits a seeing eye single and the runner goes from first to third. Maybe the guy gets ahold of one and drives it off the wall. These guys are paid to hit. And if they can't, frankly, they deserve a spot on the bench.
Sacrifice bunts should really only be used in a handful of cases - 1) when the pitcher is up, 2) when you need one run and it's late in the game (7th on). I don't wanna see a 3rd inning bunt by the #2 hitter. I want to see him get up there and try to hit something the opposite way and try to find a hole, or possibly draw a walk.
I completely agree with you! Leyland is another old school manager, which is why he bunts so much.
WallofShame how can Ben Zobrist and Alexei Ramirez stop sucking?
As for bunting like LC mentioned is it still bad if there are not outs and a sac bunt moves a guy to 3rd? Also, what about guys at 1st and 2nd, no outs, and the batter is a low AVG type/susceptible to the ground ball double play? I guess you're saying bunting is bad as a general strategy, but has uses in situations. Or not?
I don't understand your comment on Zobrist and Ramirez. As for the other stuff, run expectancy (I'll call it RE now), with man on second and no outs is 1.148. RE with man on third with one out (resulting from the sac bunt) is .982. So the RE decreases, so general practice says don't do it, which is why it is never really done. RE for first and second no outs is 1.5, RE for third and second with one out is 1.401. So, again, RE decreases.
But the situation you presented with the low AVG/DP guy, yes you would probably sac bunt him. Bunting is a bad general strategy BUT
it does have its uses in situations, that is exactly what I am saying. I noted that in an earlier post