Why don't MLB teams take a page from UT

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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

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

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 here and here.

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.