Crazy, I know, but....the case for bunting

[AlwaysinModeration]

So, I know the numbers. I have seen the tables. I know that outs are precious. I understand that sacrifice bunting reduces the odds of a big inning, and even reduces the likelihood of scoring a single run if you bunt with a man on first and no one out. I even realize that sacrifice bunting can certainly fail, with pop ups and strikeouts, and even the occasional double play.

 

But hear me out. Maybe there is a case for bunting, after all.

 

First of all, while the tables show that your team will score fewer overall runs in all three typical bunting situations (1st, 1st/2nd, 2nd with no one out), in the latter two situations, the tables show that you are, in fact, increasing your chance of scoring at all. Especially with a man on second and no one out, a sacrifice bunt increases the chances of cashing that runner at second. So there's that.

 

Second, major league hitting is mostly about failure. The large majority of the time, a hitter fails to get a hit, and almost as much of the time, he returns to the dugout without getting on base. In addition, most innings, a team heads back out into the field with their gloves not having scored.

 

Sacrifice bunting greatly increases the chances that a hitter will succeed--at the task he was assigned. Granted, the bar is lower, only being asked to advance the runner, but still, he returns to the dugout and gets a round of high fives. He feels positive and gains confidence, believing he helped move the team towards achieving its goal of scoring. Similarly, the next batter (especially the batter who comes up with a man on third and one out) has a much higher chance of success than he would in a normal at bat, because he can succeed in getting the run home with a mere fly out or grounder. And the team has, in at least two of the scenarios, increased their chance of success - defined as scoring in the inning.

 

With so much failure in baseball, the confidence that comes from increasing hitters' chance of success must count for something. What that is, or how to measure it, I am not sure.

 

Similarly, scoring a run is clearly better than not scoring a run. While scoring more runs is clearly better than scoring exactly one run, the choice between zero runs and (a small chance at) two or more runs is not so clear cut.

 

Finally, the playoffs are a time when there are better pitchers on the mound. Only the best teams are in, and only the top 3 or maybe four pitchers from the rotation pitch, and then the best relievers. Runs are at a premium. Manufacturing runs, getting leads, adding on...are all a part of successful October baseball. Sometimes you need Dave Roberts to steal a base and get "productive out"-ed around to home to have a chance against Mariano Rivera. The Twins have certainly been practicing National league smallball this year under Molitor, and they may have increased their chances of succeeding at it for having practiced it.

 

I know it's crazy. It's dumb to give away the few outs you have. I've long felt that, having spent years reading Baseball Prospectus, The Book, Tango, and Bill James. I understand the numbers.

 

But maybe, just maybe, there is more to the story...and Molitor is crazy like a fox?

[Oldgoat_MN]

The Twins are going to the Wild Card game, so I'm all for being optimistic.

Should there come a point in the post-season where a bunt is a good idea I'll allow that the Twins are better positioned to succeed than they would have been had they only bunted this year when it made sense.

Go Twins!

[diehardtwinsfan]

To me, it's all context:

 

• Bunts by fast hitters when the defense isn't playing for it = good.
• Bunts to force CC Sabathia to move off the mound = good.
• Bunts by very weak (or slumping) hitters when a good hitter is behind them and a runner is on = acceptable.
• Bunts by your 3 hitter with a runner on and no one out = very VERY bad.

[Blake]

Bunting is of very limited value. Generally, it is a waste of a very valuable resource: outs. 

 

There are some exceptions, though. For instance, a pitcher or similarly weak batter at the plate.

 

Asking one of the hottest hitters in the league, such as Jorge Polanco, to lay down a sacrifice bunt is ludicrous.

[Brandon Warne]

 

 

To me, it's all context:

 

• Bunts by very weak (or slumping) hitters when a good hitter is behind them and a runner is on = acceptable.

 

Then the good hitter is intentionally walked, and probably shouldn't be batting behind the guy who bunted.

[Blackjack]

 

I know it's crazy. It's dumb to give away the few outs you have. I've long felt that, having spent years reading Baseball Prospectus, The Book, Tango, and Bill James. I understand the numbers.

But maybe, just maybe, there is more to the story...and Molitor is crazy like a fox?

 

 

Several thoughts:

1) If the infield is playing back, why not bunt for a hit? It forces the defense to make a play, the possibility of an error, we saw what happened with Doziers bunt last week. And even if its only for one base, it keeps the line moving.

2) Don't expect a batter to execute a good bunt if they haven't done it for months in a game situation. Yes they can practice it every day in batting practice but thats not the same as facing a pitcher throwing 96, you're down by one run in the eighth, the pressure is on.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Then the good hitter is intentionally walked, and probably shouldn't be batting behind the guy who bunted.

 

so, the other team gives the Twins a free base runner is bad?

[dougd]

I think the best part of Molitor's bunting strategy is what irritates people the most: bunting for a base hit by a fast middle of the lineup hitter with a runner on first. It certainly isn't traditional. He has done it enough that teams are now moving in a step or two every time there is a runner on base, so that they can now swing away in those situations with an advantage. It is at least mildly disruptive to the pitchers and fielders, and might be the best way to score against Kluber et al.

[Doubles]

 

so, the other team gives the Twins a free base runner is bad?

If you essentially take the bat out of your own dangerous hitter's hands, then yes, that can be a bad thing.

[ashbury]

Second, major league hitting is mostly about failure. The large majority of the time, a hitter fails to get a hit, and almost as much of the time, he returns to the dugout without getting on base. In addition, most innings, a team heads back out into the field with their gloves not having scored.

I'm not quite sure if you covered this or not, but the table of situations and probabilities is based on the outcome of what the manager calls for. But the bunter does not always produce what was asked. Sometimes the bunter pops up, sometimes he fails twice and has to hit away with two strikes (at which point any batter is much poorer). If bunting was 100% effective, it would be a different story. That might be the disconnect.

[Doomtints]

The bunting 'problem' v. the conversations on this website about bunting. Look at that poor little bunt down there. :/

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think the best part of Molitor's bunting strategy is what irritates people the most: bunting for a base hit by a fast middle of the lineup hitter with a runner on first. It certainly isn't traditional. He has done it enough that teams are now moving in a step or two every time there is a runner on base, so that they can now swing away in those situations with an advantage. It is at least mildly disruptive to the pitchers and fielders, and might be the best way to score against Kluber et al.

 

no, what irritates people the most is sacrifice bunting. Can you point to anyone on these pages saying bunting for a hit is bad?

[Platoon]

What I don't like about Molitors bunting is the situations he often bunts in. I am not dead set against bunting, but he doesn't seem to have a filter for it. He bunts anyone, anytime,against any team, in any inning. There are a lot of variables to consider, but he seems to do it by simple reflex. And as I have mentioned before, he does the same with pulling the IF in. Late in a game I would consider a bunt with someone on second and no outs, depending on which two hitters are coming up next. But I wouldn't make that move in the second inning. He might, and has. While the percentages would be the same, the game result will not be.

[Doubles]

I hate bunting almost as much as anyone, but I admit it has it's time & place.  Can't just say "I hate bunting for bunting's sake" in a vacuum.  Gotta look at the entire big picture of the scenario.  There are pros & cons that go into every strategic decision.  Let's take a look at the 8th inning of the Twins' 10-4 win over Detroit on Saturday night.

 

Dozier
Mauer
Polanco
Rosario
Escobar
Buxton
Adrianza (inserted after Kepler left with injury)
Grossman
Castro

Twins came up in the top of the 8th, trailing 3-2.  Mauer led off with a single (breaking the pitcher's leg in the process), bringing up Polanco. We've seen Molitor ask Polanco to bunt multiple times in similar situations.  Let’s look at the decision of whether or not to bunt Polanco (switch hitter) vs lefty Stumpf here:

 

*Gets tying run into scoring position with one out. But now you’ve given away one of your 6 remaining outs to merely tie the game.  At the conclusion of the inning, the home team will have 6 remaining outs, you will have 3.
*A base hit by Rosario or Buxton has a great chance to tie the game. 
*Bunting here greatly reduces the chances of scoring multiple runs in a game you’re trailing by one.
*Polanco has 6 GIDP this season. One more here would be a killer.
*Polanco hitting .264 LH / .253 RH
*RH Jimenez warming –LH .226 against / RH .453 against (goodness, but that’s horrific vs same-side)
*Lefties (Rosario) hitting .241 vs Stumpf
*Righties (Escobar) hitting .297 vs Stumpf.   

That’s just a small example of things to be considered as the decision to bunt or not is contemplated.  There are several more that I was too lazy to list.  And this decision must be made in only a handful of seconds. 

 

I don’t buy the ‘never bunt your number 3 hitter’ argument as the Twins batting order is so non-conventional.  Dozier is not a typical leadoff batter.  Even as good as Polanco has been the last couple of months, he’s far from a conventional 3-hitter.  Come on, this is nowhere near like bunting The Big Hurt, George Brett, or even Sano.  It just isn’t nearly the same.

 

Polanco eventually swings away & singles to RF, advancing Mauer to 2nd.  Mauer is replaced by pinch-runner Granite.  Escobar comes up with runners on 1st & 2nd, and the cycle of decisions to factor in starts all over.  Esco fouled off a bunt attempt before eventually punching a single that scores Granite with the tying run, and sending Polanco to 3rd.  Twins go on to score a total of 8 runs in the inning, taking a 10-3 lead into the bottom of the 8th.  In this particular case, not playing for one run by bunting worked as the Twins went on to score 8, effectively putting the game out of reach.  It doesn’t always work this way, because baseball.  But Saturday night gave us a great example of what can happen when forsaking handing over one of your six remaining outs and playing for the ‘big inning’ works.

[jimbo92107]

 

So, I know the numbers. I have seen the tables. I know that outs are precious. I understand that sacrifice bunting reduces the odds of a big inning, and even reduces the likelihood of scoring a single run if you bunt with a man on first and no one out. I even realize that sacrifice bunting can certainly fail, with pop ups and strikeouts, and even the occasional double play.

But hear me out. Maybe there is a case for bunting, after all.

First of all, while the tables show that your team will score fewer overall runs in all three typical bunting situations (1st, 1st/2nd, 2nd with no one out), in the latter two situations, the tables show that you are, in fact, increasing your chance of scoring at all. Especially with a man on second and no one out, a sacrifice bunt increases the chances of cashing that runner at second. So there's that.

Second, major league hitting is mostly about failure. The large majority of the time, a hitter fails to get a hit, and almost as much of the time, he returns to the dugout without getting on base. In addition, most innings, a team heads back out into the field with their gloves not having scored.

Sacrifice bunting greatly increases the chances that a hitter will succeed--at the task he was assigned. Granted, the bar is lower, only being asked to advance the runner, but still, he returns to the dugout and gets a round of high fives. He feels positive and gains confidence, believing he helped move the team towards achieving its goal of scoring. Similarly, the next batter (especially the batter who comes up with a man on third and one out) has a much higher chance of success than he would in a normal at bat, because he can succeed in getting the run home with a mere fly out or grounder. And the team has, in at least two of the scenarios, increased their chance of success - defined as scoring in the inning.

With so much failure in baseball, the confidence that comes from increasing hitters' chance of success must count for something. What that is, or how to measure it, I am not sure.

Similarly, scoring a run is clearly better than not scoring a run. While scoring more runs is clearly better than scoring exactly one run, the choice between zero runs and (a small chance at) two or more runs is not so clear cut.

Finally, the playoffs are a time when there are better pitchers on the mound. Only the best teams are in, and only the top 3 or maybe four pitchers from the rotation pitch, and then the best relievers. Runs are at a premium. Manufacturing runs, getting leads, adding on...are all a part of successful October baseball. Sometimes you need Dave Roberts to steal a base and get "productive out"-ed around to home to have a chance against Mariano Rivera. The Twins have certainly been practicing National league smallball this year under Molitor, and they may have increased their chances of succeeding at it for having practiced it.

I know it's crazy. It's dumb to give away the few outs you have. I've long felt that, having spent years reading Baseball Prospectus, The Book, Tango, and Bill James. I understand the numbers.

But maybe, just maybe, there is more to the story...and Molitor is crazy like a fox?

Let's add a couple other factors into the equation. First, the quality of your team's skills determines the quantity of runs you score with any tactic, but especially with bunting.

 

Start with Buxton at the plate, no outs, first man up. He draws a walk because he has learned not to swing at so much junk. He steals second easily because he has studied the pitcher's moves and his technique is freakin' perfect. Man on second, no outs. 

 

Polanco lays down a perfect bunt because Rowson and Molitor have drilled all their butts off on bunting technique. Sacrifice bunt, one out, Buxton on THIRD. 

 

Mauer is up. He can easily bunt Buxton in, or get a hit. Your probabilities of success are high. In fact, most of the Twins hitters can now bunt at least pretty well. With Buxton on third and less than two outs, it's practically a gimme.

 

Notice the batting order: Buxton, Polanco, Mauer. That's not a bad first three. 

 

I'll agree that the bunt strategy usually isn't a great idea in the first three innings, but that depends, too. What if you're facing a pitcher that rarely gives up a run in the first thee innings? If bunting gets you a run in the first inning, then you just beat the odds. 

 

Don't know how many folks here remember, but the Twins used to bunt on Justin Verlander early in his career. Bugged the heck out of him, he took it as an insult. But it worked, it threw him off his game, and the Twins beat him by bunting early in games.

 

Baseball is a game where you apply pressure in multiple ways, including with great defense and small ball tactics. Add up enough pressure, and you win more games. Bunting is one of the little ways of applying pressure. It works. 

[yarnivek1972]

 

If you essentially take the bat out of your own dangerous hitter's hands, then yes, that can be a bad thing.

 

The most likely scenario that would be involves having the # 9 hitter bunt.  So, they walk Dozier to bring up Mauer.

 

1) Not too many teams are going to do that the way Mauer is hitting this year.

 

2) If they do, is it a bad thing?  Sure, you have a drastically increased chance for a GIDP, but you are letting a far more reliable contact hitter take his cuts.  

[Doubles]

 

Several thoughts:

1) If the infield is playing back, why not bunt for a hit? It forces the defense to make a play, the possibility of an error, we saw what happened with Doziers bunt last week. And even if its only for one base, it keeps the line moving.

2) Don't expect a batter to execute a good bunt if they haven't done it for months in a game situation. Yes they can practice it every day in batting practice but thats not the same as facing a pitcher throwing 96, you're down by one run in the eighth, the pressure is on.

Again, as in so many of these situations, 'depends'.  In a tie game or trailing by one, if I'm the other team, I'd probably prefer to see a guy with 32 dingers shorten up to bunt.  At least I know he's not leaving the yard.

 

[dougd]

 

no, what irritates people the most is sacrifice bunting. Can you point to anyone on these pages saying bunting for a hit is bad?

I can think of occasions where it appeared to me that the batter was bunting for a base hit, perhaps even on his own, but failed to get a hit, and was criticized for a sacrifice bunt.

[Brandon Warne]

 

so, the other team gives the Twins a free base runner is bad?

 

After you gave them an out after they let you get on?

 

Yes. 

 

Especially if it's late in the game and they have a GB-heavy reliever.

 

[Thrylos]

 

 

To me, it's all context:

 

• Bunts by fast hitters when the defense isn't playing for it = good.
• Bunts to force CC Sabathia to move off the mound = good.
• Bunts by very weak (or slumping) hitters when a good hitter is behind them and a runner is on = acceptable.
• Bunts by your 3 hitter with a runner on and no one out = very VERY bad.

 

 

So in other words:

 

Bunts are good, only if they give the hitter a better probability of reaching base than hitting.

 

Interestingly enough the batting average for bunters this season is .258, which is the highest it has been for a while (likely because of the shifts), and the batting average overall is .255 (this includes bunt hits),  which might make it seem a no-brainer.  

 

The problem is that the bunt takes away the possibility of an extra base hit, thus the main reason for wing probability drop.

 

 

[spinowner]

This can all be distilled down to this: If there is a high likelihood that the batter will make an out without advancing the runner it's probably better to sac bunt, and if scoring only one run is needed in an inning then a sac bunt is indicated even more strongly.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This can all be distilled down to this: If there is a high likelihood that the batter will make an out without advancing the runner it's probably better to sac bunt, and if scoring only one run is needed in an inning then a sac bunt is indicated even more strongly.

 

There's always a high likelihood of making an out and not advancing the runner. Unless your name is Votto.

[Doomtints]

As a group, we are bitching a lot about sacrifice hits (bunts) but not at all about sacrifice flies. Which one do the Twins do more? Hint, it's the other one.

 

What's up with the Twins giving the other team free outs with sacrifice flies? Terrible, I tell you. Fire them all! Stop it, Molly!

[old nurse]

 

no, what irritates people the most is sacrifice bunting. Can you point to anyone on these pages saying bunting for a hit is bad?

 

So in other words:

 

Bunts are good, only if they give the hitter a better probability of reaching base than hitting.

 

Interestingly enough the batting average for bunters this season is .258, which is the highest it has been for a while (likely because of the shifts), and the batting average overall is .255 (this includes bunt hits),  which might make it seem a no-brainer.  

 

The problem is that the bunt takes away the possibility of an extra base hit, thus the main reason for wing probability drop.

 

[Jham]

I really do not like bunting when run does not win it. Even if it's for a lead, you better have a lockdown pen.

 

When 1 run wins it, I think sacrificing is often a usable play. Compared to stealing? Got and run? My problem with the probabilities scale is that it is based on historical averages across all situations rather than like scenarios. The average net effect may show fewer runs and fewer wins, but that doesn't mean that it is never a good play. Doubling down with an ace 5 in black jack probably would have a negative won probability overall, but just like baseball, it can be great play depending on what your opponent is showing.

[Doubles]

 

As a group, we are bitching a lot about sacrifice hits (bunts) but not at all about sacrifice flies. Which one do the Twins do more? Hint, it's the other one.

 

What's up with the Twins giving the other team free outs with sacrifice flies? Terrible, I tell you. Fire them all! Stop it, Molly!

By definition, a sac fly has to score a run.  Plays that score runs are gonna generally be prone to less scorn that those that don't, I presume.

[AlwaysinModeration]

I'm not quite sure if you covered this or not, but the table of situations and probabilities is based on the outcome of what the manager calls for. But the bunter does not always produce what was asked. Sometimes the bunter pops up, sometimes he fails twice and has to hit away with two strikes (at which point any batter is much poorer). If bunting was 100% effective, it would be a different story. That might be the disconnect.

Also sometimes the sacrifice ends in a hit, error, or walk, too.

 

All of the permutations are covered in The Book pretty well, and the math almost definitively says don't do it. And I have been an adherent to that view forever, and vocal in my frustration by Molitor's bunt-happy ways.

 

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. Many the intangible "for the team" positivity associated with three or four players manufacturing a run through small ball, and the act of scoring at all....has psychological benefits to the team and individual players that somewhat offset the small loss of overall run scoring expectancy.