[CaliforniaRaisin]

I'll agree with you about the great rotation and the power, but I don't really think the Sox were built around a good closer. Hermanson started the season and had a Rod Beck-type first half as he was somehow getting save after save. Once his back flared up, they went to Jenks in around mid-late July.

 

I'd say Jenks was a relative unknown; especially seeing how he never saw a major league inning prior to his call-up. I don't think it's fair to say that they built their team around a good closer; unless you are talking about Hermanson, but he wasn't really available in the stretch run.

 

Agreed (though Hermanson had a ridiculous stretch early last season). My point was actually about Jenks in the postseason - though that makes little sense since the starting pitching and the HRs were related to the regular season.

[abuck1220]

so the phillies had the FEWEST sac bunts in the NL this year, yet they somehow scored the MOST runs in the league? unpossible!

 

the royals led the AL in sac bunts...i haven't looked at the standings recently, but i'm just going to assume that they were awesome this year.

[Chris]

so the phillies had the FEWEST sac bunts in the NL this year, yet they somehow scored the MOST runs in the league? unpossible!

 

the royals led the AL in sac bunts...i haven't looked at the standings recently, but i'm just going to assume that they were awesome this year.

 

Awesomely terrible

[RationalSoxFan]

Smallball doesn't exist.

[bhogg]

Giving up outs are only smart when the hitter at the plate is likely to make an out anyway. In most cases, it's not a smart move. A simple run expectancy chart can illustrate that.

 

 

 

the hitter is always likely to make an out.

 

 

I say the sac bunt has it's place, but many times is misused.

[Drew Doughty]

Sac bunts have limited use. Most of their use should come with guys like Neifi Perez or pitchers, and it should even be limited with the Neifi's of the world to close and late situations when you only need one run to tie or go ahead.

 

Outside of that, it's one of the most overused plays in the game.

 

Take our big man, Derrek Lee. Last year he hit 99 XBH. Assuming you have a speedy guy like Juan Pierre on first (and judging by the current crop of managers and GMs, that's likely), Lee is just as likely to hit an XBH as he is a single. Pretty much any extra base hit is going to score a run with Juan Pierre on any base. Pretty much any extra base hit has a good chance of scoring a run no matter the runner or his position on the basepaths. There are, of course, exceptions to that rule, but most of the time it works.

 

So, I'm assuming we have a Juan Pierre-type leadoff hitter next year, in that he's fast (not assuming on-base skills, that's yet to be determined). Wouldn't you rather have the oppurtunity for Derrek Lee's XBHs to drive in 2 runs instead of 1?

[CubColtPacer]

so the phillies had the FEWEST sac bunts in the NL this year, yet they somehow scored the MOST runs in the league? unpossible!

 

the royals led the AL in sac bunts...i haven't looked at the standings recently, but i'm just going to assume that they were awesome this year.

 

That's kind of a chicken and egg type of argument though. Part of the reason some of the terrible teams are high up on the list of sac bunts is that they have some absolutely terrible hitters in their order who it makes slightly mor e sense to sacrifice bunt with. For example, the Rockies are more likely to sacrifice in their order with Clint Barmes than any Phillies hitter would be likely to sacrifice, because Barmes is a terrible hitter who can put down a bunt. What I'm saying is that the worst offenses have some terrible hitters in their lineup-to compensate they have to play small ball and try to manufacture some runs.

The good to great offenses in the NL don't have that terrible hitter until the 7 or maybe 8 spot, where it makes little sense to ever sacrifice in front of the pitcher-therefore their number of sacrifice bunts are lower.

[Rerisen]

I'm not against the sac bunt on principal but I'm definately against this Cubs teams sac bunting. From what I have seen the last few years, might as well just start banging your head into the wall as soon as its called for.

[fromthestretch]

I thought you were done? Btw, the Whitesox had the best offense in MLB this year, and where did that get them?

 

I think the Yankees and Indians might have something to say about that.

[BigbadB]

There will be instances where advancing the runner via sacrifice bunt makes sense. Especially if the pitcher is at the plate.

 

Teams do it way too much. What is the typical batting average with runners on base? .300? More than that? Every 3 non-pitcher sac bunts "could" have been a base hit. It could have been an extra base hit. It could have been a run producing hit.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A situation with a runner on first and no one out gives you a run expectancy of .40. A situation with a runner on second and one gives a run expectancy of .41. So, really, what does sac bunting really accomplish?

[CubColtPacer]

A situation with a runner on first and no one out gives you a run expectancy of .40. A situation with a runner on second and one gives a run expectancy of .41. So, really, what does sac bunting really accomplish?

 

That's based on the average situation though. The run expectancies with a below average hitter at the plate would be different.

This is coming from somebody who thinks that sacrificing with your 2 hitter is crazy though. If you feel the need to sacrifice with your number 2 hitter, then the team is basically saying that the number 2 hitter is a significantly below average hitter-which begs the question of why are they batting them number 2 then?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A situation with a runner on first and no one out gives you a run expectancy of .40. A situation with a runner on second and one gives a run expectancy of .41. So, really, what does sac bunting really accomplish?

 

That's based on the average situation though. The run expectancies with a below average hitter at the plate would be different.

This is coming from somebody who thinks that sacrificing with your 2 hitter is crazy though. If you feel the need to sacrifice with your number 2 hitter, then the team is basically saying that the number 2 hitter is a significantly below average hitter-which begs the question of why are they batting them number 2 then?

 

I agree with what you are saying. Sacrificing with the pitcher is fine. Sacrificing with the number 2 hitter, not so much.

[fromthestretch]

A situation with a runner on first and no one out gives you a run expectancy of .40. A situation with a runner on second and one gives a run expectancy of .41. So, really, what does sac bunting really accomplish?

 

That's based on the average situation though. The run expectancies with a below average hitter at the plate would be different.

This is coming from somebody who thinks that sacrificing with your 2 hitter is crazy though. If you feel the need to sacrifice with your number 2 hitter, then the team is basically saying that the number 2 hitter is a significantly below average hitter-which begs the question of why are they batting them number 2 then?

 

I agree with what you are saying. Sacrificing with the pitcher is fine. Sacrificing with the number 2 hitter, not so much.

 

Remember when Baylor would have Gutierrez sacrifice Eric Young from second to third with nobody out in the first inning?

 

Good times. :x

[Lefty]

Has anybody here read The Book by Tangotiger? He found that the bunt attempt has actually matched run expectancty based on play-by-play data from 1999-2004. Basically managers are bunting with players who should bunt, i.e. pitchers, and in other cases defensive miscues or mispositioning lead to overall average results. Obviously with a position player, if the defense puts on a play or defense to counter the bunt, you've got to hit away.

[CubColtPacer]

A situation with a runner on first and no one out gives you a run expectancy of .40. A situation with a runner on second and one gives a run expectancy of .41. So, really, what does sac bunting really accomplish?

 

That's based on the average situation though. The run expectancies with a below average hitter at the plate would be different.

This is coming from somebody who thinks that sacrificing with your 2 hitter is crazy though. If you feel the need to sacrifice with your number 2 hitter, then the team is basically saying that the number 2 hitter is a significantly below average hitter-which begs the question of why are they batting them number 2 then?

 

I agree with what you are saying. Sacrificing with the pitcher is fine. Sacrificing with the number 2 hitter, not so much.

 

Remember when Baylor would have Gutierrez sacrifice Eric Young from second to third with nobody out in the first inning?

 

Good times. :x

 

Yeah, ugh. Sacrificing from 2nd to 3rd is definitely worse. At least sacrificing from 1st to 2nd one takes out the DP, and a runner does not usually advance from 1st to 2nd on an out (and they advance to third on a hit less than a runner from 2nd would come home). With a runner on 2nd and no outs, if you want to give up an out, at least have the hitter hit it to the right side-they should be able to have the bat control for that, and at least that has a greater chance of finding a hole.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Has anybody here read The Book by Tangotiger? He found that the bunt attempt has actually matched run expectancty based on play-by-play data from 1999-2004. Basically managers are bunting with players who should bunt, i.e. pitchers, and in other cases defensive miscues or mispositioning lead to overall average results. Obviously with a position player, if the defense puts on a play or defense to counter the bunt, you've got to hit away.

 

Every time this comes up I ask this, and I've never had anyone give an answer. Don't the run expectancies include the times when managers sacrifice bunt? Therefore, in order to prove the value/lack thereof with a "runner on 2nd, 1 out" and "runner on 1st, 0 out", wouldn't the second situation have to be modified to eliminate the sacrifice bunts, considering that as it is it includes all the sacrifice bunts that may or may not be useful?

[Lefty]

Has anybody here read The Book by Tangotiger? He found that the bunt attempt has actually matched run expectancty based on play-by-play data from 1999-2004. Basically managers are bunting with players who should bunt, i.e. pitchers, and in other cases defensive miscues or mispositioning lead to overall average results. Obviously with a position player, if the defense puts on a play or defense to counter the bunt, you've got to hit away.

 

Every time this comes up I ask this, and I've never had anyone give an answer. Don't the run expectancies include the times when managers sacrifice bunt? Therefore, in order to prove the value/lack thereof with a "runner on 2nd, 1 out" and "runner on 1st, 0 out", wouldn't the second situation have to be modified to eliminate the sacrifice bunts, considering that as it is it includes all the sacrifice bunts that may or may not be useful?

 

Your question is logical. But I would make two points. First of all, bunt attempts are only a fraction of these situations. Secondly, since post-attempt expectancies are the same, they must conform to the "clean" averages as well.

 

I was reading and believing Bill James when most of this board was in diapers. I am no apologist for baseball's inherited "wisdom." But the bunt can be a weapon if used properly. The problem is that bunting is a rare skill. How often do you see a position player go down 0-2 by flailing away twice? If I were manager I would insist that all my guys work on their bunting.

[David]

Reading the arguments of baseball7897 in this thread makes me want to rip out all my hair and bang my head against the wall.

[David]

I thought you were done? Btw, the Whitesox had the best offense in MLB this year, and where did that get them?

 

I think the Yankees and Indians might have something to say about that.

 

Not to mention the fact that the failure of the Sox had nothing at all to do with some absurd counterintuitive notion that a better offense hurt them and everything to do with the fact that their pitching just wasn't nearly as good.

[biittner77]

I hate the sac bunt

 

1. No one seems to know how to do it therefore there's no guarantee that it will be executed properly.

 

2. Even on the occassions when it works it usually still requires someone to get a hit.

 

3. If you have a player that can work the count in his favor he might draw a walk

 

4. It's defeatist and demoralizing. You're telling the player that he can't be trusted to get on base. You're also admitting that the opposing pitcher has some sort of power over you.

 

I can accept the close and late arguments. That shouldn't happen more than 20 times a year.

[baseball7897]

Reading the arguments of baseball7897 in this thread makes me want to rip out all my hair and bang my head against the wall.

 

Anger Management.

 

Let me guess, you probably would beat your wife/husband if you had one?

 

There are somethings you just keep to yourself. No need for you negative posts.

[treebird]

Reading the arguments of baseball7897 in this thread makes me want to rip out all my hair and bang my head against the wall.

 

Anger Management.

Let me guess, you probably would beat your wife/husband if you had one?

 

There are somethings you just keep to yourself. No need for you negative posts.

 

???

[baseball7897]

Reading the arguments of baseball7897 in this thread makes me want to rip out all my hair and bang my head against the wall.

 

Anger Management.

Let me guess, you probably would beat your wife/husband if you had one?

 

There are somethings you just keep to yourself. No need for you negative posts.

 

???

 

It deals with his anger problems.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Reading the arguments of baseball7897 in this thread makes me want to rip out all my hair and bang my head against the wall.

 

Anger Management.

Let me guess, you probably would beat your wife/husband if you had one?

 

There are somethings you just keep to yourself. No need for you negative posts.

 

???

 

It deals with his anger problems.

 

Start backing up your opinions with fact, and less might get angry.