Sac bunt with Pierre on 2nd base.

[Danny82]

On that point, I agree.

[Guest]

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.

A sac bunt in that situation increases your chance of scoring one run from about 35% to about 48%.

 

EDIT: Of course if you rephrase that to odds of scoring at least one run the difference is much smaller: 63% to 66%.

 

Run Expectancy by # of Runs.

[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.

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 can't copy and paste the article for copyright reasons, but there's a study on that here:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2869

 

The conclusion: "We can say that sacrificing is a good idea when pitchers are batting and, for most of the hitters in the league, when there is a man on second, no one out, and a single run is the goal."

 

If the Cubs are playing for one run in the bottom of the 9th and the opposing team's closer on the mound, bunting Pierre to third is probably not a bad idea. Doing it in the first or third inning, as Dusty so likes to do, is a bad idea.

[treebird]

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.

 

i used the phrase "nigh impossible" all the time and people always tell me that nigh isn't a word

 

i know im right though

[Danny82]

I definitely agree.

 

It's very frustrating to watch. ESPECIALLY when he does it with a left handed batter (which he did with Walker in the two hole sometimes last year).

[dalgreen]

I can't be too mad at Baker. Since Pierre rarely gets on base, I wouldn't know how to manage the situation either. :P