Why don't MLB teams take a page from UT

[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.