PDA

View Full Version : Sac Bunts - Strategic Moves or Rally Killers?


tony1972
09-08-2012, 10:16 AM
Does it seem more often that when a sac bunt is called it (1) helps towards a Sox win or (2) kills an offensively rally?

I had a feeling when Alexi laid down the sac bunt..we would not score any runs.

Tragg
09-08-2012, 10:33 AM
By definition, they are rally killers.
But, when you only need a run, and you have able hitters up who can drive in that one run, they are understandable.

FielderJones
09-08-2012, 10:34 AM
Bunting in front of Gordan Beckham is probably a tactically weak move.

Moses_Scurry
09-08-2012, 10:36 AM
In the AL, it's only useful when the go ahead or tying run is on 1st or 2nd with 0 outs in the 8th or 9th inning in my opinion. Plus you need a capable hitter on deck.

Dibbs
09-08-2012, 10:42 AM
They are used much too often. Rally killers no doubt.

Procol Harum
09-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Just having men on base is a rally-killer for the Sox of late... :mad:

kittle42
09-08-2012, 11:19 AM
I think it can be answered with this question - how often do we see AL teams do it against us?

SI1020
09-08-2012, 11:22 AM
By definition, they are rally killers.
But, when you only need a run, and you have able hitters up who can drive in that one run, they are understandable. Agreed. Also agree with Dibbs that they are used too often.

tony1972
09-08-2012, 11:33 AM
I was disappointed to see it called last night. I knew as soon as it was obvious Alexi was bunting..we were going to lose.

I thought the small (micro) ball approach had left with Guillen? :whiner:

WhiteSox5187
09-08-2012, 11:40 AM
Last night it was a bad move but it can be quite useful depending on the situation. Usually I am a fan of putting yourself in a position where you can score two runs on one single instead of trying to string hits together.

voodoochile
09-08-2012, 11:49 AM
Bunting in front of Gordan Beckham is probably a tactically weak move.

I'm still surprised Robin didn't PH for Beckham or Lopez after that bunt and walk last night.

I am not a fan of the sacrifice bunt in general, however I think there are right times to use it and last night was a classic example of one of those moments. Unfortunately after that bunt the execution by the manager (not pinch hitting) and the players was poor. I still can't fault the decision to have Alexei bunt.

The only caveat to that is that with the Royals putting on the wheel defense it's not a horrible decision to fake the bunt on the first pitch and then swing away trying to find a hole with the IF wide open.

JB98
09-08-2012, 11:51 AM
Bottom line: First and second with no outs and a red-hot Ramirez at the plate is a better offensive situation than second and third with one out and Beckham at the plate.

Ramirez is a far superior hitter to Beckham, especially in RBI situations, and that's why the bunt was a poor choice in that spot. It also allowed Kansas City to take the bat out of De Aza's hands and face Lopez.

So, Ramirez and De Aza didn't get a chance to give the Sox the lead. Beckham and Lopez did.

That's obviously advantage Royals. I look at every situation on a case-by-case basis. There are some occasions where a bunt makes sense. This wasn't one of them.

WhiteSox5187
09-08-2012, 11:54 AM
Bottom line: First and second with no outs and a red-hot Ramirez at the plate is a better offensive situation than second and third with one out and Beckham at the plate.

Ramirez is a far superior hitter to Beckham, especially in RBI situations, and that's why the bunt was a poor choice in that spot. It also allowed Kansas City to take the bat out of De Aza's hands and face Lopez.

So, Ramirez and De Aza didn't get a chance to give the Sox the lead. Beckham and Lopez did.

That's obviously advantage Royals. I look at every situation on a case-by-case basis. There are some occasions where a bunt makes sense. This wasn't one of them.

That's how I feel, now if you had runners at first and second and nobody out and Beckham coming to the plate it would make sense to have him bunt.

JB98
09-08-2012, 11:59 AM
That's how I feel, now if you had runners at first and second and nobody out and Beckham coming to the plate it would make sense to have him bunt.

Agree, especially against a guy who throws 99-100 mph. Of course, that still invites an intentional walk of De Aza. Part of the problem last night was Lopez in the No. 2 hole.

They probably don't walk De Aza if Youk is in the on-deck circle.

Mohoney
09-08-2012, 11:16 PM
Bunting in front of Gordan Beckham is probably a tactically weak move.

Only 7 AL regulars make outs more frequently than Gordon Beckham.

Alexei has a much better chance of catching up to that high 90s fastball than Beckham does.

Railsplitter
09-09-2012, 07:00 AM
A double play will kill a rally faster than any bunt will

34rancher
09-09-2012, 08:12 AM
A double play will kill a rally faster than any bunt will

A triple play even faster.

Sac bunts have their place, but are more effective with a contact hitting team, which we are not as of late. We've fallen in love with swing from the heels. So to bunt is not a great idea, unless no outs and a man on second, tie game bottom of the 9th.

TDog
09-09-2012, 10:02 AM
I'm still surprised Robin didn't PH for Beckham or Lopez after that bunt and walk last night.

I am not a fan of the sacrifice bunt in general, however I think there are right times to use it and last night was a classic example of one of those moments. Unfortunately after that bunt the execution by the manager (not pinch hitting) and the players was poor. I still can't fault the decision to have Alexei bunt.

The only caveat to that is that with the Royals putting on the wheel defense it's not a horrible decision to fake the bunt on the first pitch and then swing away trying to find a hole with the IF wide open.

I believe Ventura wanted Beckham to hit in that situation. He actually is a better hitter with runners in scoring position than he is overall. I don't know that there was anyone on the bench who matched up any better against the pitcher. I expected hie would hit for Lopez, but when Lopez came up, I reaslized that Johnson was the only first baseman on the bench (with Youkilis gone and Dunn hurt. With a tie game in the eighth, Ventura knew he wouldn't be able to run for Konerko in the ninth or extra innings.

I think Ventura would bunt again if he had the chance to do the inning over. The problem was the bullpen shut the Sox down. In that situation, Ventua appearently believed the lineup had a better chance of scratching across a run or scoring on a wild pitch with the inexperienced battery than getting another hit after the pitching change.

Maybe you pinch hit Hudson for Beckham or Lopez, but I didn't see any sure RBIs on the bench.

enurb
09-10-2012, 05:33 PM
No more bunts, save for a squeeze when 1 run is needed.

When you've only got a handful of outs left in the game, it just does not make sense to give one of them up.

Lip Man 1
09-10-2012, 10:26 PM
It depends on the situation and who is coming up to hit.

If I've got a few guys having years like Carew or Brett (hitting in the .330 range...) I sure as hell am going to bunt a guy into scoring position because that's about as good of odds as you can get that they will put wood on the ball.

If you've got someone hitting around the Mendoza line coming up (looking at you Adam Dunn...) there's no way.

Lip

Moses_Scurry
09-10-2012, 10:41 PM
I don't feel like Robin has really gone overboard with the bunting. The only bunts I really remember were late in games when the Sox were down by 1 or tied.

I feel like I remember a lot more Ozzie bunts even if the team was down by 2 or 3. I also remember more Ozzie bunts earlier in the game. Hell, Jerry Manuel used to have Jose Valentin bunt in the first inning if the leadoff hitter got on base. That used to drive me crazy!

hawkjt
09-11-2012, 11:44 AM
I would like to see more bunting with a man of third with less than two outs....we cannot get them in swinging away,so a bunt is a better option.
Especially with a guy like Miggy at third, we must employ this strategy.

tony1972
09-11-2012, 10:03 PM
Robins call for a sac bunt in the bottom of the 8th in Game 2 of a big series once again a big smashing success !!! down 2 runs with 6 outs to work with...here you go pitcher..here's some gift outs for you!

another rally stifled out! yes!

Groundhog Day...at least our managers learn from past mistakes...

I thought this rally killing small ball crap left with Ozzie? guess I was wrong...


Time for more itty bitty ball...!

White Sox baseball...scoring more than 1 or 2 runs in an inning not allowed! we'll put a cap on it with sac bunt calls! yes!

tony1972
09-11-2012, 10:20 PM
Tying Run on 1st..hopefully AJ is sac bunting with the Sox being down 2 runs!!

JB98
09-11-2012, 10:27 PM
For this team, it is a rally killer.

Extra-base power is this team's identity. Not bitty-ball.

They fail when they try to bunt. Robin needs to accept that and let this team be who they are.

WhiteSox5187
09-11-2012, 10:29 PM
Robins call for a sac bunt in the bottom of the 8th in Game 2 of a big series once again a big smashing success !!! down 2 runs with 6 outs to work with...here you go pitcher..here's some gift outs for you!

another rally stifled out! yes!

Groundhog Day...at least our managers learn from past mistakes...

I thought this rally killing small ball crap left with Ozzie? guess I was wrong...


Time for more itty bitty ball...!

White Sox baseball...scoring more than 1 or 2 runs in an inning not allowed! we'll put a cap on it with sac bunt calls! yes!

I don't mind showing bunt once in that case to see if maybe you can get Cabrera to move in a step but after that you let Youk swing away. I don't think he has ever had a sac bunt and while I like the idea of trying to bunt on Cabrera, Youk wasn't the guy who should be trying to do it.

And for all the talk of "itty bitty ball" it's better than the "sit around and hope and pray someone can hit a home run ball" that the Sox have relied on for years now.

EDIT: I should clarify, I mean that in the future the White Sox should go for a more balanced approach. The way this team is currently constructed it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep bunting plus there are only two guys who I think can consistently get a bunt down.

tony1972
09-11-2012, 10:40 PM
A double play will kill a rally faster than any bunt will


Guess what..you bunt...there's an extra out..all the pitcher has to do is walk the next guy. A double play opportunity is set up AGAIN. Only this time..there's an extra out...

SoxFanCPA
09-12-2012, 06:50 AM
Bunting is always, always, always a bad idea when trailing in a game. It decreases your expected run total for that inning every single time.

The only time when bunting might be a good idea is a tie game in the bottom of the 9th (or extra innings) when you have runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. IF the bunt is correctly executed, then the odds of scoring 1 run and winning the game increase by roughly 5%. Of course, the bunt is not always executed and therefore this is still possibly a bad idea.

kevingrt
09-12-2012, 07:07 AM
Bunting is always, always, always a bad idea when trailing in a game. It decreases your expected run total for that inning every single time.

The only time when bunting might be a good idea is a tie game in the bottom of the 9th (or extra innings) when you have runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. IF the bunt is correctly executed, then the odds of scoring 1 run and winning the game increase by roughly 5%. Of course, the bunt is not always executed and therefore this is still possibly a bad idea.

This guy.

This table: http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Case closed.

Frater Perdurabo
09-12-2012, 07:42 AM
Bunting is always, always, always a bad idea when trailing in a game. It decreases your expected run total for that inning every single time.

The only time when bunting might be a good idea is a tie game in the bottom of the 9th (or extra innings) when you have runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. IF the bunt is correctly executed, then the odds of scoring 1 run and winning the game increase by roughly 5%. Of course, the bunt is not always executed and therefore this is still possibly a bad idea.

Nitpick: Don't you mean sacrifice bunting?

What if a player is really good at bunting for hits, like Juan Pierre or Scott Podsednik? Shouldn't he be allowed to bunt for a hit to try to get on base and/or keep the line moving?

asindc
09-12-2012, 08:03 AM
Guess what..you bunt...there's an extra out..all the pitcher has to do is walk the next guy. A double play opportunity is set up AGAIN. Only this time..there's an extra out...

The rationale behind sacrifice bunting is not to get out of a double play situation, it is to get runner(s) in scoring position. Given that it is more likely than not that an out will be made regardless of the offensive strategy, the idea is that since it is likely an out will be made anyway, the likelihood of moving the runner(s) into scoring position should be increased with a properly-executed bunt. Of course, there is a chance that the bunt won't be executed properly, but it is even more likely that an out will be made without advancing the runner(s). That is why almost all managers employ this strategy at some point. The Sox didn't hire back-to-back the only two managers in MLB who do this.

By the way, Detroit successfully executed two bunts in this game that helped them score.

SoxFanCPA
09-12-2012, 09:25 AM
Nitpick: Don't you mean sacrifice bunting?

What if a player is really good at bunting for hits, like Juan Pierre or Scott Podsednik? Shouldn't he be allowed to bunt for a hit to try to get on base and/or keep the line moving?

What percent of bunts do you think Pierre and Podsednik turn into hits?

PalehosePlanet
09-12-2012, 10:10 AM
If a hitter is a good bunter and is struggling at the plate with a better hitter on deck (or a good pinch hitter available) then you bunt.

However, if the on deck hitter is struggling and there are no plans to pinch hit, it's pointless; you're just giving the other team an all-important out.

tony1972
09-13-2012, 07:55 PM
Youk had 2 homers last night in last night's loss...

Two bad the bat was taken out of his hands during the 2nd game of an all important series...:whiner:

TDog
09-13-2012, 11:14 PM
The rationale behind sacrifice bunting is not to get out of a double play situation, it is to get runner(s) in scoring position. Given that it is more likely than not that an out will be made regardless of the offensive strategy, the idea is that since it is likely an out will be made anyway, the likelihood of moving the runner(s) into scoring position should be increased with a properly-executed bunt. Of course, there is a chance that the bunt won't be executed properly, but it is even more likely that an out will be made without advancing the runner(s). That is why almost all managers employ this strategy at some point. The Sox didn't hire back-to-back the only two managers in MLB who do this.

By the way, Detroit successfully executed two bunts in this game that helped them score.

Really, I think it was the sacrifice Wednesday night that put the Tigers on track to win the game, even though it was still fairly early in the game. The No. 9 hitter grounded out to drive in a run. The leadoff man in the order drove in the second to give the Tigers the lead.

From there, the Tigers took advantage of the bullpen to add on to their lead. I thought the Sox were working Scherzer well, making him go deep in counts and making the Tigers vulnerable if the game turned into a battle between the starters. Everything fell apart once the Tigers got the lead.

The sacrifice that inspired this thread was the Ramirez sacrifice to put runners on second and third with one and the No. 9 hitter coming up with the score tied at home in the eighth. The scoreless inning wasn't a matter of the sacrifice, but with the players failing to execute after the sacrifice. That sacrifice should have put White Sox in a position to go into the top of the ninth with a one-run lead, essentially in a position to win the game, not just pull away as the Tigers did.

If you going simply by percentages, Ventura would have seen the percentages were in favor of Ramirez being retired. He called for the sacrifice, which should have put the Sox in a position to win. If Ramirez was going to make an out, putting the go-ahead run at third base with one out turned the percentages into favor of the Sox, compared with having one out and runners on first and second or first and third or two outs and a man on third.