Why don't MLB teams take a page from UT

[CollinEstes]

If you watched the CWS you saw that everytime Texas got a runner on first with 0 outs they bunted 99% of the time no matter who was at the plate. This is a stragety I think more MLB teams need to adopt. I don't understand the logic of station to station baseball like alot of the MLB teams play. Get a guy to second and give your hitters a chance to hit him in. Good pitching, defense, and good coaching won the CWS why is the MLB so different?

[tbach24]

I'm sure there are situations where it could be correct, but if you get Renteria on 1st and have 0 outs with Manny up, I'm nearly certain that it's +EV to let Manny swing.

[CollinEstes]

I agree to a point. Except if you are facing Johan Santana and it is 0-0 game and following Manny is David Ortiz and Varitek or someone. With only a man on first you need two hits most of the time, but get him to second you only need one.

But great players excluded. Like take a team like the Royals, give a guy a chance to get one hit and score a run.

[RacersEdge]

Becasue your EV for runs scored in the innning goes down from runner on first, 0 outs to runner on second and 1 out.

[CollinEstes]

I understand all that EV stuff but Texas showed me that it can be successful when used with great pitching and defense. I think teams like the Astros could use alot more bunting to help produce more run scoring opportunities throughout the game. Putting pressure on the other team is underrated in the big leagues.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Major leaguers can't even bunt any more. It's because bunting isn't sexy. Swinging for the fences is.

[JTrout]

and Texas can bunt.

I think they bunted everytime the leadoff batter got to first in the 3 game series against Ole Miss.
And they moved him every time.

[CollinEstes]

In close games with 1st & 2nd and no outs I would bunt 99% of time.

If Baylor could bunt they would have forced another game with Texas.

[pryor15]

b/c MLB players are better at defending the bunt?

oh, and b/c bunting a guy to second and giving up an out is not nearly as effective as a double in the gap.

[andyfox]

Teams do better with a man on first and nobody out than with a man on second and one out.

[lastsamurai]

I think you answered your own question.

Why would you bunt the ball when you have guys like arod griffey or jeff kent on the plate?

[mrbaseball]

Watch my White Sox play some time. They have a new attitude this year based on speed, defense and pitching. So far it seems to be working. The big boppers still bop but everyone is playing as a team and doing all they can to move along runners. Bunting and hitting behid the runners to advance them is commonplace in their strategy.

In the post steriod era I think this is a blueprint many teams will follow. Especially if Sox keep it going. Podsednik has been amazing and he takes control of the game just by getting on base. When Marlins won in 03 Pierre was basically the same way. A speedy leadoff man who can get on base will become possibly the most coveted asset in baseball if power number continue to drop post juice.

It's an anti-Moneyball strategy but how many World Series have the A's won lately? Any offensive strategy looks good when you have Mulder, Hudson and Zito in their prime firing on all cylinders /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jack of Arcades]

The reason the White Sox have won so many games is because they've had a crazy amount of games in which they've scored from 2-6 runs. That is, instead of having a bunch of games with 0 runs and 11 runs, etc, like they "should," they consistently score 2-6.

Does this have to do with "smart ball"? Absolutely not... there's no correlation between sacrifice hits and run scoring spread...

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
If you watched the CWS you saw that everytime Texas got a runner on first with 0 outs they bunted 99% of the time no matter who was at the plate. This is a stragety I think more MLB teams need to adopt. I don't understand the logic of station to station baseball like alot of the MLB teams play. Get a guy to second and give your hitters a chance to hit him in. Good pitching, defense, and good coaching won the CWS why is the MLB so different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's not a very smart move.

1) The more you bunt, the better it'll be defended.
2) It doesn't make sense to do so, since MLB defenders are much better at defense
3) Most players are so good at hitting that it'd make sense to bunt only for deception purposes. IE, it'd be nice to lay one down occasionally if you can get it down and have a good chance of getting a hit or forcing an error. It would make the defenders play up, which would allow you to get a few more hits over th 3Bs head.

The idea of a bunt is NOT to give up an out to move a runner over. If that was what you aimed for every time, you would lose out on runs. However, the idea is to force the defense to make a play and be on their toes, and if all else fails, you've probably at least moved the runner over... You don't do this by bunting overwhelmingly in any one situation.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of a bunt is NOT to give up an out to move a runner over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I presume you are referring to the situation referenced in the original post? Because for sure, when a pitcher or other light hitter is called upon to sacrifice, the team is giving up an out to move a runner over.

[Bulldog]

Google is your friend (http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/feda/datasets/expectedruns.html)

Expected Runs/Chance of Scoring Table
The following table was produced from play-by-play data from every Major League baseball game played between 1984 and 1994. Shortened innings and extra innings are not included. The table gives the expected number of runs (column headed "Expected") that will score given a particular state in the inning, given by the number of outs ("Outs") and the runners on base ("Runners"). Numbers under the "Runners" column tell which bases are occupied. The column headed "Prob > 0" gives the probability that a team will score at least one run in that inning. Raw data used to produce the expected values are given in the final three columns.

Outs Runners Expected Prob > 0 Count Total Runs Shutout
0 --- 0.49 0.275 377390 186702 273565
0 1-- 0.88 0.435 97684 85966 55235
0 -2- 1.13 0.633 29342 33131 10768
0 12- 1.50 0.636 21978 32895 7994
0 --3 1.37 0.837 5360 7333 871
0 1-3 1.75 0.870 9845 17210 1284
0 -23 1.98 0.860 5571 11011 781
0 123 2.37 0.882 5233 12419 617
1 --- 0.26 0.159 270279 70996 227329
1 1-- 0.52 0.276 112521 58731 81420
1 -2- 0.69 0.414 52502 36227 30789
1 12- 0.92 0.425 39375 36031 22649
1 --3 0.96 0.667 18798 18020 6257
1 1-3 1.17 0.653 19988 23348 6942
1 -23 1.40 0.686 14152 19800 4443
1 123 1.57 0.678 13474 21175 4339
2 --- 0.10 0.067 215735 21306 201378
2 1-- 0.23 0.128 113013 25469 98497
2 -2- 0.33 0.224 64639 21275 50176
2 12- 0.44 0.231 50463 22358 38792
2 --3 0.38 0.275 27006 10272 19583
2 1-3 0.50 0.286 25826 13007 18447
2 -23 0.61 0.277 15357 9304 11100
2 123 0.76 0.321 16281 12332 11060

Data from Project Scoresheet/Baseball Workshop, courtesy David Nichols

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Google is your friend (http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/feda/datasets/expectedruns.html)

Expected Runs/Chance of Scoring Table
The following table was produced from play-by-play data from every Major League baseball game played between 1984 and 1994. Shortened innings and extra innings are not included. The table gives the expected number of runs (column headed "Expected") that will score given a particular state in the inning, given by the number of outs ("Outs") and the runners on base ("Runners"). Numbers under the "Runners" column tell which bases are occupied. The column headed "Prob > 0" gives the probability that a team will score at least one run in that inning. Raw data used to produce the expected values are given in the final three columns.

Outs Runners Expected Prob > 0 Count Total Runs Shutout
0 --- 0.49 0.275 377390 186702 273565
0 1-- 0.88 0.435 97684 85966 55235
0 -2- 1.13 0.633 29342 33131 10768
0 12- 1.50 0.636 21978 32895 7994
0 --3 1.37 0.837 5360 7333 871
0 1-3 1.75 0.870 9845 17210 1284
0 -23 1.98 0.860 5571 11011 781
0 123 2.37 0.882 5233 12419 617
1 --- 0.26 0.159 270279 70996 227329
1 1-- 0.52 0.276 112521 58731 81420
1 -2- 0.69 0.414 52502 36227 30789
1 12- 0.92 0.425 39375 36031 22649
1 --3 0.96 0.667 18798 18020 6257
1 1-3 1.17 0.653 19988 23348 6942
1 -23 1.40 0.686 14152 19800 4443
1 123 1.57 0.678 13474 21175 4339
2 --- 0.10 0.067 215735 21306 201378
2 1-- 0.23 0.128 113013 25469 98497
2 -2- 0.33 0.224 64639 21275 50176
2 12- 0.44 0.231 50463 22358 38792
2 --3 0.38 0.275 27006 10272 19583
2 1-3 0.50 0.286 25826 13007 18447
2 -23 0.61 0.277 15357 9304 11100
2 123 0.76 0.321 16281 12332 11060

Data from Project Scoresheet/Baseball Workshop, courtesy David Nichols

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a bit off-topic, but I just wanted to say that this is one of the great things about baseball.

[tolbiny]

I understand all that EV stuff but Texas showed me that it can be successful when used with great pitching and defense

Because most teams don't have great pitching and defense. If scoring 2 runs a game was enough this could be a viable strategy. But when you need to average 4.5 runs a game sacrificing to often early on will kill you.

[DougOzzzz]

Any BP premium suscribers can read why not here (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2844) here (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2851) and here. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2869)

Occasionally the sac bunt will be worthwhile - mainly when scoring at least 1 run is much more important than scoring many runs. The most extreme example would be the bottom of the 9th in a tie game with a man on 2nd and no outs.

For the most part however, bunting does not help. It's certainly useless early in the game, unless the pitcher is at bat.

[M2d]

Bunting is for the weak. We do not train to bunt here. A man face you, he is enemy. Enemy deserve no bunts.

http://adorocinema.cidadeinternet.com.br/filmes/karate-kid/karate-kid14.jpg

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand all that EV stuff but Texas showed me that it can be successful when used with great pitching and defense. I think teams like the Astros could use alot more bunting to help produce more run scoring opportunities throughout the game. Putting pressure on the other team is underrated in the big leagues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand all thet EV stuff, but Jimmy showed me that drawing for the gutshot without proper odds can be successful. Why doesn't everyone else do it? I think they should.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand all that EV stuff but Texas showed me that it can be successful when used with great pitching and defense

Because most teams don't have great pitching and defense. If scoring 2 runs a game was enough this could be a viable strategy. But when you need to average 4.5 runs a game sacrificing to often early on will kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, Texas' opponents scored 245 runs in 72 games this year, 3.4 runs per game.

If they had scored 2 runs in every game, their record would have been 22-40-10 instead of the 56-16 it was.

In MLB, the last time the average R/G was under 4.0 was 1972.

If your pitching and defense is good enough to hold opponents to <2 runs per game, you are going to win most of your games with any offensive strategy.

[mrbaseball]

What it has to do with is TEAM and attitude and it's proving successful. Give me a team rather than a collection of superstars any day. Angels in 02, FLA in 03, Twins for the last few years exemplify this approach.

Speed and steals are highly underated and seem to be making a comeback. Those burners getting on base and disrupting the defense is highly effective. They won't neccessarily score more runs but maybe more key runs and runs when you really need them.

The real key for White Sox so far though is 1 through 12 pitching depth. Couple this with the ability to manfacture runs and suddenly you are in each and every game.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea of a bunt is NOT to give up an out to move a runner over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I presume you are referring to the situation referenced in the original post? Because for sure, when a pitcher or other light hitter is called upon to sacrifice, the team is giving up an out to move a runner over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying it shouldn't be. Part of the reason sacrifice bunts are worthwhile is because there is the chance that the bunter reaches base. Pitchers and other light hitters are TERRIBLE at bunting because

a) for the most part, pitchers can't bunt worth [censored]
b) everyone expects it, so the corners play in

Think about baseball as a big poker game. Sometimes you have to do a -EV move for metagame considerations. Runner at first, no out, and you got a pretty good hitter with someone who can run faster than Corky Miller? Have him lay one down the third base line every once in a while. If he can get down any sort of decent bunt he's got a shot at getting to first. If he makes an out at first, or fouls off the first one, just the threat of a bunt will make the third baseman come in, making it much easier to get a double down the line or a single over his head, etc.

This is part of the reason why Braves pitchers tend to be good hitters. Sure, Maddux and Glavine are two of the active leaders in sac bunting (they were pretty damned good bunters), but they didn't ALWAYS go up there to bunt - but since they could, they were able to get hits that would normally be outs.

The point of bunting is that

a) it's a low risk play. A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run
b) it forces the defense to make a play

While bunting, a player should always be trying to reach base! Make it hard on the defense. Hitters of all kinds, except the top hitters (Bonds, essentially) should be well versed at bunting and it should be known that there's always a chance that they can drop one down.

It's like how Jason Giambi dropped a bunt down the third base line when they were playing the Teddy Ballgame shift on him. He's essentially saying "you can't play me 100% in any direction." You cannot let the defense cheat. You cannot let the infield play you in such an extreme shift, you cannot let the defense play in on a bunt and be right 100% of the time, you can't let the third baseman play you in the shallow outfield and be right 100% of the time. You HAVE to force the defense to respect that you can do anything, at any time, so you can play to your strengths.

If Jim Thome, who's scuffling, could force the defense to stop playing that shift on him, he'd increase his production a ton. Until then, he should be pushing bunts past the pitcher like crazy. Same with Giambi.

Anyway, bunting is a "lost art" but not due to hitters so much as due to managers. Most managers, especially with pitchers, are so willing to just concede an out to get the runner over. This is stupid and you'd be better off NEVER bunting than doing stupid [censored] like this.

It's a balance. There's probably never any time in which you should bunt more than 60% of the time. This forces the infielders to play "halfway" increasing both the success of the bunt and the success of swinging away.

Anyway, bunting is a lot more complicated than run expectancy charts like Tippett's state. It's all about forcing the defense to respect you.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
If your pitching and defense is good enough to hold opponents to <2 runs per game, you are going to win most of your games with any offensive strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

...unless you're the Marlins.

[CollinEstes]

Jake you said it pretty well. Look like I said EV doesn't mean anything for teams like the Astros right now. They have no problem losing 3-1 or something like that. All I am saying is you give some of the guys in the middle of the lineup a chance to come through with 1 or 2 outs and pick up a run for you.

Now I understand that big league teams are going to defend the bunt perfectly but a good bunt can't be defended if its purpose is to sacrifice. And besides I don't think I saw many or any of the Texas bunts thrown away, they were always sacs.

Now I don't think bunting should happen every time, I think alot of teams in the league don't use it enough.

So answer me this: Why is it that in extra innings or the bottom of the ninth when a team only needs one run they sac the guy from first over more times than not? I don't think you can crunch this game down into numbers like the A's do or like Poker it isn't the same.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. (see the stats post above)

[CollinEstes]

Then why do teams always bunt in extra innings.

I think it is because you give your major league hitters a chance to win you the game. I guess I was talking more about National League baseball (Pure Baseball) than American League where starters stay in the game until they roast.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand all that EV stuff

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you do not.

[CollinEstes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand all that EV stuff

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok you are right, it is a simple as that.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. (see the stats post above)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely true. Specifically, a man on 3rd with 1 out is more likely to score than a man on 2nd with 0 outs. The chart posted supports this (.667 vs. .633). This is really the only clear cut case where bunting increases your run scoring probability.

Looking at Bulldog's table 1+2 with 0 outs has a lower run scoring probability than 2+3 with 1 out. The difference is even greater than 2 with 1 out vs. 3 with 1 out, though that contradicts what I have read at baseball prospectus. The point though is that moving the runner from 2nd to 3rd has more value than moving the runner from 1st to 2nd, even though the latter is the more common bunting scenario. And it's almost never a good idea to bunt with at least 1 out, or scoring at least 1 run isn't MUCH more important than scoring many runs.

The other scenarios all depend on the right combination of batter and on deck guy (weak hitter sacrificing, ichiro type on deck would be best for the sac bunt).

[imported_The Vibesman]

I think it's the height of foolishness to bunt a guy from 1st to 2nd with all but the most mediocre of hitters. Why give up an out when a hit-and-run type play has a greater chance of leading to a hit than a bunt does, and a good chance of being successful and moving the runner over?

Honestly, the only time I like a sac bunt is in a one-run game (tied, down by one, ahead by one) when the leadoff hitter reaches 2nd, the man at the plate is an average or worse hitter with good bat control and some speed, and the on-deck hitter is someone who can at least get the ball out of the infield. In other words, in the rare situation.

Someone on the first page said something about Ramirez or Ortiz bunting. If I ever saw either of them asked to bunt in a game, in any circumstance, I would go crazy. That is a waste of bat. Renteria on the other hand...

[DougOzzzz]

Actually trailing by 1 run is usually a pretty bad time to bunt. The reason is that the 2nd run is exactly as valuable as the first run, and bunting severely decreases the odds of that 2nd run scoring.

I think the idea behind bunting on occasion with a guy like Manny Ramirez is that it would keep the 3rd basemen "honest." I'm not sure if it's worthwhile, but I know Bill James suggested that pull hitters might improve their effectiveness if they lay down the occasional bunt.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. (see the stats post above)

[/ QUOTE ]

check this table (http://www.phillies-fan.com/archives/2004/02/more_about_bunt.html)

Your run expectancy goes down. you score 2+ runs less often, but 1 run more often.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. (see the stats post above)

[/ QUOTE ]

check this table (http://www.phillies-fan.com/archives/2004/02/more_about_bunt.html)

Your run expectancy goes down. you score 2+ runs less often, but 1 run more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but who is stupid enough to argue that scoring 1 run more often, and AT LEAST 1 run LESS often is a good strategy?

That table just proves that the only time bunting with a runner on 1st and no outs increases your chances of scoring at least 1 run is when a pitcher is at bat.

[Jack of Arcades]

Well, in a tie game, especially if it's the winning run on base, I'm much more worried about just scoring one run.

Managers bunt because it's a safe play, the same reason coaches punt on fourth and one in midfield, etc.

Bunting has a time and a place. It's overrated in the general public, IMO, at least the mindset is mostly wrong. Bunts have a time and a place - run expectancy tables don't tell close to the whole story since it assumes 100% bunt success. It doesn't take into account how many times you bunt into a DP, fail to move the runner, strike out, or reach on a hit/error.

And you misread the table. They also had Bill Mueller and Placido Polanco on there, and your 1 run expectancy goes up...

[DougOzzzz]

The 0 run column is the one I'm looking at. Next to Mueller it says 54.8%, next to Bunting, 0 out, runner on 1st - 59.4%.

Failures and "overachievements" roughly cancel each other out. Bunts are successful about 60% of the time, they "fail" about 23% of the time, and they overachieve about 17%. The math's all been done and it's not a very big difference when the goal is to score 1 run. It does improve run expectation slightly when accounting for failures/overachievements though.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
The 0 run column is the one I'm looking at. Next to Mueller it says 54.8%, next to Bunting, 0 out, runner on 1st - 59.4%.

Failures and "overachievements" roughly cancel each other out. Bunts are successful about 60% of the time, they "fail" about 23% of the time, and they overachieve about 17%. The math's all been done and it's not a very big difference when the goal is to score 1 run. It does improve run expectation slightly when accounting for failures/overachievements though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously there are plenty of things to take into consideration when bunting (IE, bunter skill, speed, runner speed, base/out/inning situation, defender skill, viable options).

Bunting has its place in baseball as a viable strategy. It can't be the sole strategy, but it's a nice complement to an offense when used correctly.

I don't dispute that not using it is better than using it incorrectly (as most managers do).

Anyway, MGL has a book coming out and 30(!!!) pages are devoted to the sac bunt. It'll be interesting to read...

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually trailing by 1 run is usually a pretty bad time to bunt. The reason is that the 2nd run is exactly as valuable as the first run, and bunting severely decreases the odds of that 2nd run scoring.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in the situation I am talking about it is late in the game. In the ninth inning behind by a run you need two runs to win, but one will continue the game, at least giving the relievers a chance to hold the line and get you back to the plate.
I still don't like it, except with the weakest hitters.

[DougOzzzz]

Bottom of the 9th, down 1 run.

Score 0 runs: 0% chance of winning
Score 1 run: 50% chance of winning
Score 2 runs: 100% chance of winning

100-50 = 50 = 50-0

Thus, the 1st and 2nd runs are equally important.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually trailing by 1 run is usually a pretty bad time to bunt. The reason is that the 2nd run is exactly as valuable as the first run

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually trailing by 1 run is usually a pretty bad time to bunt. The reason is that the 2nd run is exactly as valuable as the first run

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this not completely logical?

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Score 1 run: 50% chance of winning

[/ QUOTE ]

and the whiff...

what team you play for matters. the better the team, the more value trying the game has. and who is coimming up to hit. and who will or won't be pitching.

[DougOzzzz]

Well, duh.

The whole thing is completely simplified, obviously. On average, it's 50%.

Edit:
I doubt there are any teams good enough where this changes things in favor of bunting. 1. No team would be expected to win more than 60% or so in extra innings. Maybe a little better if you have a super stud reliever and you're playing the Devil Rays or something. 2. You're really, really hurting your chances of scoring 2 runs when bunting. Much more than you're helping your chances of scoring 1 run.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. (see the stats post above)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely true. Specifically, a man on 3rd with 1 out is more likely to score than a man on 2nd with 0 outs. The chart posted supports this (.667 vs. .633). This is really the only clear cut case where bunting increases your run scoring probability.

Looking at Bulldog's table 1+2 with 0 outs has a lower run scoring probability than 2+3 with 1 out. The difference is even greater than 2 with 1 out vs. 3 with 1 out, though that contradicts what I have read at baseball prospectus. The point though is that moving the runner from 2nd to 3rd has more value than moving the runner from 1st to 2nd, even though the latter is the more common bunting scenario. And it's almost never a good idea to bunt with at least 1 out, or scoring at least 1 run isn't MUCH more important than scoring many runs.

The other scenarios all depend on the right combination of batter and on deck guy (weak hitter sacrificing, ichiro type on deck would be best for the sac bunt).

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread starting off talking about bunting every time the leadoff batter got on base. The stats posted previously showed that you score more runs and have fewer scoreless innings when you have a runner on first w/0 out, than a runner on 2nd w/1 out. That is what I am referring to.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. (see the stats post above)

[/ QUOTE ]

check this table (http://www.phillies-fan.com/archives/2004/02/more_about_bunt.html)

Your run expectancy goes down. you score 2+ runs less often, but 1 run more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you posted some stats regarding a specific team, and regarding pitchers hitting...

Look at the post above where the stats for all players in MLB were included - you'll see teams scored more runs and had fewer scoreless innings with a runner on first w/0 out, than with a runner on second w/1 out.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. (see the stats post above)

[/ QUOTE ]

check this table (http://www.phillies-fan.com/archives/2004/02/more_about_bunt.html)

Your run expectancy goes down. you score 2+ runs less often, but 1 run more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you posted some stats regarding a specific team, and regarding pitchers hitting...

Look at the post above where the stats for all players in MLB were included - you'll see teams scored more runs and had fewer scoreless innings with a runner on first w/0 out, than with a runner on second w/1 out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when do Placido Polanco and Bill Mueller pitch?

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A sacrifice, while lowering your overall run expectancy, increases the chance of scoring one run


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. (see the stats post above)

[/ QUOTE ]

check this table (http://www.phillies-fan.com/archives/2004/02/more_about_bunt.html)

Your run expectancy goes down. you score 2+ runs less often, but 1 run more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you posted some stats regarding a specific team, and regarding pitchers hitting...

Look at the post above where the stats for all players in MLB were included - you'll see teams scored more runs and had fewer scoreless innings with a runner on first w/0 out, than with a runner on second w/1 out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when do Placido Polanco and Bill Mueller pitch?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they did. I said it referred to a specific team (the Phillies) and to pitchers hitting (which it does in the last stat - all NL pitchers) (I missed that he included Mueller).

Looking more closely, I also fail to see how this backs up your argument. The tables clearly show that your team is more likely to score if you swing than if you bunt (except for pitchers, which is obvious).

[Jack of Arcades]

1 run

bunting: 24%
mueller: 15.4%

So your chance of scoring exactly one run goes up. I've never said anything different.

[Bill C]

[ QUOTE ]
Major leaguers can't even bunt any more. It's because bunting isn't sexy. Swinging for the fences is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It ain't about sex. It's about money. Ain't no money in bunting. The UT players want to WIN THE GAME. Many in MLB could care less; they want stats so they can score a new contract for more $$.

bc