how many times does the sac bunt have to fail...

[abuck1220]

...before you decide it's a bad idea? i don't think i've ever, in my life, seen a team attempt to sac bunt a leadoff baserunner over THREE innings IN A ROW and have it fail EACH AND EVERY TIME. the evidence could not be made any plainer. it's as though the baseball gods were trying to make it as obvious as possible. THREE INNINGS IN A ROW!!!!

[Laura]

Odds of seeing it tomorrow?

 

Gotta keep bunting until you start scoring some runs, dude.

[CubinNY]

infinity

[Careless]

...before you decide it's a bad idea? i don't think i've ever, in my life, seen a team attempt to sac bunt a leadoff baserunner over THREE innings IN A ROW and have it fail EACH AND EVERY TIME. the evidence could not be made any plainer. it's as though the baseball gods were trying to make it as obvious as possible. THREE INNINGS IN A ROW!!!!

it could be clearer. There could be, like, 10000 innings recorded of situations like this with the results of sacs/non-sacs

wait, I meant to write that such a thing does exist. The manager of the cubs is simply a fool for not knowing/taking advantage of it.

[CubinNY]

Odds of seeing it tomorrow?

 

Gotta keep bunting until you start scoring some runs, dude.

 

Exactly. That is exactly the thought process, I bet.

 

Doesn't matter that it doesn't work.

 

Have said this before and it is hard describe, but seeing is a conditioned sense. You have to learn see.

[CubfaninCA]

cubs weren't going to score them regardless. they weren't going to string 3 hits in a row or get an extra base hit. this team's way too weak.

[David]

cubs weren't going to score them regardless. they weren't going to string 3 hits in a row or get an extra base hit. this team's way too weak.

 

Does that make it ok?

[cheapseats]

What I don't understand:

 

Why did Baker send Bynum out to pinch hit in the 9th if he was just going to have him sacrifice?

 

Why use a position player to do that? A lot of managers send a pitcher (Greg Maddux, for example) to pinch hit if they're going to bunt. Pitchers are often better at laying down sac bunts b/c it's what they're called on to do most often.

 

I still wouldn't like the strategy, but at least it would have been saving Bynum to use as a pinch runner or (shudder) substitution.

[ManCrushOnNomar]

What I don't understand:

 

Why did Baker send Bynum out to pinch hit in the 9th if he was just going to have him sacrifice?

 

Why use a position player to do that? A lot of managers send a pitcher (Greg Maddux, for example) to pinch hit if they're going to bunt. Pitchers are often better at laying down sac bunts b/c it's what they're called on to do most often.

 

I still wouldn't like the strategy, but at least it would have been saving Bynum to use as a pinch runner or (shudder) substitution.

That's exactly what I screamed at my TV. Maddux is the best sac bunter on the team.

[RegulusBlue]

*psssst*

 

 

Its because he is a bad manager.

 

Plus, Hairston is the worst ballplayer on the team, just because of failure to execute in any situation, plus having maybe the lowest baseball IQ of any player ever, save for CPat.

[abuck1220]

i just remembered the cubs stole, what, five bases last night too. wow, five stolen bases and four sac bunt attempts = one run (scored, of course, on a solo homer).

 

not exactly a ringing endorsement for small ball, eh?

[cheapseats]

i just remembered the cubs stole, what, five bases last night too. wow, five stolen bases and four sac bunt attempts = one run (scored, of course, on a solo homer).

 

not exactly a ringing endorsement for small ball, eh?

 

Sample size :)

 

What's especially frustrating is that it comes off as an attempt to emulate the southside, while conveniently ignoring the fact that the White Sox were 5th in MLB in homeruns last year - they hit more than the Cubs, in fact.

 

In the offseason, the Sox went out and got another big bat. Hendry went out and got a bunch of track stars.

[oldstyle81]

A lot of people say this honor validates my career, but I didn't work hard for validation. I didn't play the game right because I saw a reward at the end of the tunnel. I played it right because that's what you're supposed to do play it right and with respect. If this validates anything, it's that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light on the dugout camera.

[hardcorecubfan]

How does a manager with no outs tak the bat out of the best hitter this year (Walker) with a sac bunt?

[Electron Blue]

A lot of people say this honor validates my career, but I didn't work hard for validation. I didn't play the game right because I saw a reward at the end of the tunnel. I played it right because that's what you're supposed to do play it right and with respect. If this validates anything, it's that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light on the dugout camera.

 

nice

[CubinNY]

A lot of people say this honor validates my career, but I didn't work hard for validation. I didn't play the game right because I saw a reward at the end of the tunnel. I played it right because that's what you're supposed to do play it right and with respect. If this validates anything, it's that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light on the dugout camera.

 

nice

 

Just because Sandberg played, it doesn't make him a genius at baseball strategy (see also, Morgan, Joe).

[abuck1220]

A lot of people say this honor validates my career, but I didn't work hard for validation. I didn't play the game right because I saw a reward at the end of the tunnel. I played it right because that's what you're supposed to do play it right and with respect. If this validates anything, it's that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light on the dugout camera.

 

yeah, sandberg's in the hall because of his bunting prowess.

[cheapseats]

A lot of people say this honor validates my career, but I didn't work hard for validation. I didn't play the game right because I saw a reward at the end of the tunnel. I played it right because that's what you're supposed to do play it right and with respect. If this validates anything, it's that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light on the dugout camera.

 

yeah, sandberg's in the hall because of his bunting prowess.

 

31 total sacrifices in his career. If he were playing for Dusty, he'd hit that total in four or five months. Bunting is what second basemen do, dude.

[Soul]

A lot of people say this honor validates my career, but I didn't work hard for validation. I didn't play the game right because I saw a reward at the end of the tunnel. I played it right because that's what you're supposed to do play it right and with respect. If this validates anything, it's that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light on the dugout camera.

 

yeah, sandberg's in the hall because of his bunting prowess.

 

31 total sacrifices in his career. If he were playing for Dusty, he'd hit that total in four or five months. Bunting is what second basemen do, dude.

 

So then why can't Hairston or Bynum do it? Sandberg at least knew how. These guys obviously haven't put in the work on basic fundamentals. And Dusty isn't insisting that they do. That's poor, IMO.

[TheDude]

i just remembered the cubs stole, what, five bases last night too. wow, five stolen bases and four sac bunt attempts = one run (scored, of course, on a solo homer).

 

not exactly a ringing endorsement for small ball, eh?

 

Dusty may have been unnecessarily stubborn, but the majority of the managers in baseball (100% in the NL) will bunt late in a tie or one-run game to get a runner in scoring position.

 

Also, failure to execute doesn't disprove the value of the decision.The only thing the scenario is a ringing endorsement for is failed execution. It would like saying everytime Dunn strikes out, it disproves the value of power hitting.

[goonys evil twin]

 

Also, failure to execute doesn't disprove the value of the decision.The only thing the scenario is a ringing endorsement for is failed execution. It would like saying everytime Dunn strikes out, it disproves the value of power hitting.

 

 

Not really. The Cubs have had an execution issue for a long time. You have to factor that into your decision on whether or not you call for it. Sac bunts are dumb even when they work. Giving up an out for 90 feet doesn't help the team. But they don't always work, which just makes them even worse.

 

 

 

Also, just because most managers would sac bunt doesn't make it a smart move. Conventional wisdom in baseball has been shown to be wrong often enough that you can't simply defend a decision by saying a lot of others would make it as well.

[TheDude]

 

Also, failure to execute doesn't disprove the value of the decision.The only thing the scenario is a ringing endorsement for is failed execution. It would like saying everytime Dunn strikes out, it disproves the value of power hitting.

 

Not really. The Cubs have had an execution issue for a long time. You have to factor that into your decision on whether or not you call for it. Sac bunts are dumb even when they work. Giving up an out for 90 feet doesn't help the team. But they don't always work, which just makes them even worse.

 

Also, just because most managers would sac bunt doesn't make it a smart move. Conventional wisdom in baseball has been shown to be wrong often enough that you can't simply defend a decision by saying a lot of others would make it as well.

 

You have to be able to prove the conventional wisdom wrong for your claim to have any relevance. In one run games the numbers show an increased likelihood of scoring with conventional small ball approaches. In every other scoring situation, the numbers show conventional small ball doesn't increase run production.

 

Dusty had a one-run scenario late game to work with all three times, and the conventional wisdom was the correct approach if you believe in following the numbers.

 

However, there is a legitimate claim that Dusty doesn't have these guys game ready when it comes to execution. That he deserves to criticized for as a manager.

 

But the failure to execute doesn't disprove the value of the bunt in that situation. It just shows poor fundamentals and lack of coaching wisdom by the manager for not putting the best bunter on the bench out there to ensure successful execution.

[CubinNY]

 

Also, failure to execute doesn't disprove the value of the decision.The only thing the scenario is a ringing endorsement for is failed execution. It would like saying everytime Dunn strikes out, it disproves the value of power hitting.

 

Not really. The Cubs have had an execution issue for a long time. You have to factor that into your decision on whether or not you call for it. Sac bunts are dumb even when they work. Giving up an out for 90 feet doesn't help the team. But they don't always work, which just makes them even worse.

 

Also, just because most managers would sac bunt doesn't make it a smart move. Conventional wisdom in baseball has been shown to be wrong often enough that you can't simply defend a decision by saying a lot of others would make it as well.

 

You have to be able to prove the conventional wisdom wrong for your claim to have any relevance. In one run games the numbers show an increased likelihood of scoring with conventional small ball approaches. In every other scoring situation, the numbers show conventional small ball doesn't increase run production.

 

Dusty had a one-run scenario late game to work with all three times, and the conventional wisdom was the correct approach if you believe in following the numbers.

 

However, there is a legitimate claim that Dusty doesn't have these guys game ready when it comes to execution. That he deserves to criticized for as a manager.

 

But the failure to execute doesn't disprove the value of the bunt in that situation. It just shows poor fundamentals and lack of coaching wisdom by the manager for not putting the best bunter on the bench out there to ensure successful execution.

 

The 5th, 6th, and 7th innings are not late in the game.

[abuck1220]

In one run games the numbers show an increased likelihood of scoring with conventional small ball approaches.

 

?

 

so a sac bunt leads to a run more often in 7-6 games than it does in 7-5 games? are you kidding me? how does the sac bunt know if it's a one run game or not?

 

there's so much about baseball cosmos that i don't understand...

[cheapseats]

 

You have to be able to prove the conventional wisdom wrong for your claim to have any relevance. In one run games the numbers show an increased likelihood of scoring with conventional small ball approaches. In every other scoring situation, the numbers show conventional small ball doesn't increase run production.

 

That's not entirely true. The numbers show that a successful sac bunt does increase the chance of scoring one run when there's a runner on second and no outs or when the pitcher is at bat with one out (which should never happen late in a tie game, anyway).

 

Bunting with a runner on first and no outs actually decreases the odds of scoring one run, especially when the opposing manager walks the next batter to set up a double play situation.

 

If you have a BP subscription, here's the relevant portion of a three-part study:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2851

 

From the article: "There appear to be a few select game situations in which [a sac bunt] remains a better option than swinging away. However, those situations are almost entirely limited to when there is a runner on second and no outs. Even in such a situation, it is only beneficial to sacrifice in certain parts of the lineup or when the quest of a single run is more important than maximizing run scoring."

 

Click's research is applied to the 2004 Pirates in this article at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04146/321576.stm

 

I think it's an interesting read.