This team’s bunting

[bulldogcountry1]

We bunt down infrequently and are so terrible at it, why ever bother to try? 95% of the time, we pull back and take a strike, which makes no sense to me. There’s such a low chance of executing it properly, we are better taking our cuts.

That said, any team should be able to lay down a bunt when it’s absolutely necessary.

 

[Drebin]

We bunt down infrequently and are so terrible at it, why ever bother to try? 95% of the time, we pull back and take a strike, which makes no sense to me. There’s such a low chance of executing it properly, we are better taking our cuts.

That said, any team should be able to lay down a bunt when it’s absolutely necessary.

Pulling back on a strike with the bunt sign on should be a benchable offense. There's no excuse for it.

 

[Beerbully]

We bunt down infrequently and are so terrible at it, why ever bother to try? 95% of the time, we pull back and take a strike, which makes no sense to me. There’s such a low chance of executing it properly, we are better taking our cuts.

That said, any team should be able to lay down a bunt when it’s absolutely necessary.

I'm sure there are stats for comparison somewhere, but it seems like we bunt less now by far. It's almost like it's not part of our game anymore.

 

[Drebin]

I'm sure there are stats for comparison somewhere, but it seems like we bunt less now by far. It's almost like it's not part of our game anymore.

It depends on who is battling. But generally, Lemonis isn't a fan of bunting.

 

[1msucub]

Pulling back on a strike with the bunt sign on should be a benchable offense. There's no excuse for it.

None. Not one.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Here’s why you don’t bunt:

Man on first, nobody out…you can expect to score .86 runs.

Man on second, one out…you can expect to score .62 runs.

You actually decrease your likelihood of scoring a run by bunting a man over to 2nd.

 

[Bulldogg31]

However, if you steal second you’ve got a man on 2B with no outs, that gives you a run expectancy of 1.10.

Unfortunately if you get thrown out you’ve got nobody on and one out, giving a run expectancy of only .25

 

[Beerbully]

It depends on who is battling. But generally, Lemonis isn't a fan of bunting.

I see nine (9) sac bunts recorded in the season stats thus far this year, as compared to 25 total for the 2016 team that won 44 games. Definitely bunting at a much less frequent pace.

 

[Crazy Cotton]

Did you see that ugliness by KY just now, bottom of the 9th, no outs, runners 1& 2 tie game. Guy comes in and misses the bunt, fouls one back, fouls the third one off for a bunt out. 2nd time tonight they did that.

 

[Drebin]

Here’s why you don’t bunt:

Man on first, nobody out…you can expect to score .86 runs.

Man on second, one out…you can expect to score .62 runs.

You actually decrease your likelihood of scoring a run by bunting a man over to 2nd.

It's not that simple...it depends a lot on who's batting and who's up behind him. But generally, I agree.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Run expectancy went from 1.44 all
The way down to .82

 

[Bulldogg31]

No, it’s that simple. Those are the numbers derived from millions of independent tests.

Just like Vegas and the stock market, you can’t go against the odds. Over time, you will lose.

 

[1msucub]

Did you see that ugliness by KY just now, bottom of the 9th, no outs, runners 1& 2 tie game. Guy comes in and misses the bunt, fouls one back, fouls the third one off for a bunt out. 2nd time tonight they did that.

Was just about to post that. They didn’t get a single run out of it, and you KNOW Vandy’s going to walk it off.

 

[Drebin]

No, it’s that simple. Those are the numbers derived from millions of independent tests.

Just like Vegas and the stock market, you can’t go against the odds. Over time, you will lose.

It's not that simple. There are too many variables to consider. Score, inning, place in the order, whether a hitter is streaking or not, how good the pitcher is, etc. Those numbers you cite are just raw metrics from that situation and don't account for any of those variables.

There are times where the bunt is appropriate, like if it were a tie game late, you have someone like forsythe up with rowdey and tanner behind him....in that situation the bunt is a no brainer. By contrast, the situations tonight were a no brainer for swinging away. Not all first and second with no out situations are equal.

 

[Bulldogg31]

I can see that, but as far as I’m concerned I’m never giving up an out. I’d rather pinch hit late that just hand an out to the other guys.

Out of every ten tries I will score 2 more runs than you will. Not trying to be argumentative but the numbers do not lie.

 

[Drebin]

I can see that, but as far as I’m concerned I’m never giving up an out. I’d rather pinch hit late that just hand an out to the other guys.

Out of every ten tries I will score 2 more runs than you will. Not trying to be argumentative but the numbers do not lie.

Again, it depends on the situation but I generally agree with you. But letting leggett/hatcher/forsythe swing away in those situations is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Beerbully]

I can see that, but as far as I’m concerned I’m never giving up an out. I’d rather pinch hit late that just hand an out to the other guys.

We bunted 25 times in 2016 (44 wins) with hitters like Mangum and Rooker and Humphries in the lineup. We've bunted 9 times this year so far, and we may win 44 or more. It's not always the right call, but there are times when a sacrifice is needed.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Agree. Late in the game I’d pinch hit for them rather than try and lay down a bunt. The chances of popping it up or just missing it are great enough that I’d rather take my chances with a guy like Cumbest putting a ball in play.

 

[Drebin]

Agree. Late in the game I’d pinch hit for them rather than try and lay down a bunt. The chances of popping it up or just missing it are great enough that I’d rather take my chances with a guy like Cumbest putting a ball in play.

If it's forsythe up with the top of the order behind him you bunt 100/100 times there. You don't take your starting SS out to PH with a slugger when the double play is in order. That's a great way to kill a rally and weaken your defense. Like I said...,it's situational.

 

[Bulldogg31]

I could get down with that. Probably a good call there, but the situations where a bunt is the right call are VERY few, at least in my opinion.

 

[Drebin]

I could get down with that. Probably a good call there, but the situations where a bunt is the right call are VERY few, at least in my opinion.

Fair enough

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

Here’s why you don’t bunt:

Man on first, nobody out…you can expect to score .86 runs.

Man on second, one out…you can expect to score .62 runs.

You actually decrease your likelihood of scoring a run by bunting a man over to 2nd.

Your last statement isn’t entirely accurate. You reduce the expected number of runs scored. That’s not the same as reducing your likelihood of scoring a run (meaning you score at least one run).

In a given situation, you may want to score a bunch of runs. But you might only need one run. The two might call for different strategies.

Maybe the numbers are still in favor of no outs with runner on first, I don’t know. But I bet they’re tighter than what you have above.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Gotcha. Would you say that over the course of a season you’ll score less runs by bunting than you would by swinging away?