Sac bunt with Pierre on 2nd base.

[frostwyrm]

Dusty keeps doing this. Does anybody here think it's a good idea?

[SouthSideRyan]

Well, I like it more than bunting with Pierre on 1st. But no, I do not like it.

[soccer10k]

I would much rather have him bunt with Pierre on first than on second. Like somebody said during the game thread, when Pierre's on second, he's going to score on almost any ball hit to the outfield. There is no need to waste an out trying to get him to third. If there are no outs, you have three chances to drive him in with your 2-3-4 coming up. If he's on first then I could understand avoiding the DP, but there is no reason to bunt when he's on second.

[SouthSideRyan]

I would much rather have him bunt with Pierre on first than on second. Like somebody said during the game thread, when Pierre's on second, he's going to score on almost any ball hit to the outfield. There is no need to waste an out trying to get him to third. If there are no outs, you have three chances to drive him in with your 2-3-4 coming up. If he's on first then I could understand avoiding the DP, but there is no reason to bunt when he's on second.

 

Pierre's value to this team is tied solely to his speed. If you want him from first to second, he should be stealing. Moving him to third with a bunt isn't to get him on hits, it's to get him in on fly balls and grounders.

[CuseCubFan69]

I thought the whole idea of getting Pierre was to not have to bunt when he's on base.

[TB_11]

You only would do that if there's 0 outs...... and if there's 0 outs and Pierre's on base, that means we have Walker/Cedeno/maybe Murton up depending on the batting order. Unless there's a pitcher-hitter matchup at the plate that's clearly against the Cubs, I don't see why you'd do this.

[donobr]

What if he's trying to bunt for a hit?

[TheDude]

I'm so sure Dusty is calling for the bunt. There are several hitters on this team that occasionally drop bunts attempting to get hits.

 

I also think asking the question without surrounding it with proper scenario is misleading. What is the score, inning, and number of outs Dusty supposedly is calling for all these bunts with Pierre on 2nd?

[frostwyrm]

I'm so sure Dusty is calling for the bunt. There are several hitters on this team that occasionally drop bunts attempting to get hits.

 

I also think asking the question without surrounding it with proper scenario is misleading. What is the score, inning, and number of outs Dusty supposedly is calling for all these bunts with Pierre on 2nd?

 

0 outs, early in the game, like yesterday. It's becoming predictable. You'd think Cedeno would be happy for a juicy RBI opportunity and want to swing. I wish a reporter would ask Cedeno or Dusty whose idea these bunts are.

[Danny82]

Dusty is definitely directing Cedeno to bunt.

 

It's one of the things that Dusty does that absolutely infuriates me.

 

The absolute WORST is when he bunts with a left handed batter (not a pitcher) with nobody out and a runner on second. Mind-blowing.

[frostwyrm]

Yesterday was especially bad because the bunt came in the 1st inning, which is often the best chance in the whole game to have a big inning. If Ronny bunted on his own initiative then Dusty ought to have a little talk with him.

[Danny82]

I highly doubt he did that on his own for a sacrifice. Especially having attempted it twice.

[hardcorecubfan]

Dusty keeps doing this. Does anybody here think it's a good idea?

 

Have you not seen the movie "Major League" when Tom Barringer squeezed

Willy Mays Hays home from second base? Dusty must have.

[Magnetic Curses]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

[Danny82]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

[CubinNY]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

 

No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out.

 

Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

[Danny82]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

 

No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out.

 

Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

 

That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out?

[CubinNY]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

 

No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out.

 

Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

 

That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out?

 

I don't know. Hopefully Bob's Keeper comes across this thread. I am almost positive he will have an answer. But I would bet that runner on second and no outs beats a runner of thrid and one out.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

 

No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out.

 

Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

 

That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out?

 

I don't have the numbers offhand, but I'm pretty sure the same holds true.

 

Here's my problem with the expected runs calculations though. All the runner on second, no outs situations are going to include the runner on third, 1 out via sac bunt situations. I'd like to see what the "Runner on 2nd, 0 outs and no sac bunts afterwards" v. "runner on 3rd, 1 out" expectancy is, although I reckon it's nigh impossible to isolate.

[Sosa21MVP]

This phenomenon has to be Dusty's call because I don't think I've seen Cedeno swing the bat yet when Pierre is on base ahead of him. He lays down the bunt at least 8 times out of 10 from what I've seen.

 

Bunting with Pierre on 1st, I don't like that. As someone else said, half the point of signing a guy like Pierre is his ability to get to 2nd on his own. Why waste the out without giving him a chance to steal unless the pitcher/catcher combo is particularly difficult to steal on?

 

Bunting with Pierre on 2nd depends on the situation. Doing it in the 1st inning with nobody out? Dumb. Doing it in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game with nobody out? I could see it more then.

 

It's just interesting as much as Dusty seems to detest walks and prefers swinging the bat to generate runs that he is willing to give up an out so much rather than having people swing away. Especially when you have Cedeno hitting the ball so well.

[jjgman21]

I am not as anti-bunt as many, but with Cedeno's ability to line the ball to right field, there is no reason in the world to bunt him to third. unfortunately Ronny keeps reaching base when he bunts Pierre over, thus lending positive reinforcement to a bad managerial decision.

[cheapseats]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

 

No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out.

 

Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

 

That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out?

 

A team is likely to score more runs when a runner is on second with no outs than with a runner on third with one out:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

 

That's not hypothetical. The numbers come from actual games played between 1999-2002. In most situations a sac bunt is a dumb idea, and bunting Pierre to third is no exception.

[badger1679666666]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

 

No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out.

 

Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

 

That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out?

 

A team is likely to score more runs when a runner is on second with no outs than with a runner on third with one out:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

 

That's not hypothetical. The numbers come from actual games played between 1999-2002. In most situations a sac bunt is a dumb idea, and bunting Pierre to third is no exception.

 

Why doesn't our coaching staff look at those numbers?

[Danny82]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

 

No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out.

 

Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

 

That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out?

 

A team is likely to score more runs when a runner is on second with no outs than with a runner on third with one out:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

 

That's not hypothetical. The numbers come from actual games played between 1999-2002. In most situations a sac bunt is a dumb idea, and bunting Pierre to third is no exception.

Again, I'm not sure that is enough information. I am talking about the situation where you are trying to get one run. Like, a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. Which alternative is more likely to get that one run? I am fully aware that if you take an out away from the inning, you are less likely to score a bunch of runs.

[badger1679666666]

there is no statistical proof that sacrificing players over increases the chances of scoring 1 run, however, there is proof that it decreases the chances of scoring many runs.

 

I highly doubt there exists no evidence that supports the inference that getting a runner over to third from second with nobody out (one out after the bunt) increases a team's chance of scoring the runner that was on second.

 

No Sully is correct. I don't know the exact numbers but the chances of scoreing with a runner on first and no outs is higher than scoreing a run with a runner on second and one out.

 

Outs are precious and should be treated as such.

 

That wasn't my scenario though. What about a runner on second with nobody out vs. a runner on third with one out?

 

A team is likely to score more runs when a runner is on second with no outs than with a runner on third with one out:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

 

That's not hypothetical. The numbers come from actual games played between 1999-2002. In most situations a sac bunt is a dumb idea, and bunting Pierre to third is no exception.

Again, I'm not sure that is enough information. I am talking about the situation where you are trying to get one run. Like, a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. Which alternative is more likely to get that one run? I am fully aware that if you take an out away from the inning, you are less likely to score a bunch of runs.

 

I think the only acceptable time to use that bunt is in a close game when you're trying to push across ONE run.