Why does Roenicke love the sac bunt so much?

[adambr2]

I guess for some reason, I just find the general old school attitude towards bunting to be really annoying.

 

I don't mean that towards people that think it can be a good thing. I think that it's more of a matter of opinion than anything else. What I mean is the fact that after a successful sac bunt, you are guaranteed to see cameras panning toward the dugout and the player receiving more high 5's than if he had just went yard. Congratulations, you just did something that accomplishes very little (besides a squeeze) and is successfully done 7 out of 10 times.

 

I think it's against the unwritten rules to not high 5 a player after he does something that qualifies under the old school definition of "fundamentals".

[monty57]

I guess for some reason, I just find the general old school attitude towards bunting to be really annoying.

 

I don't mean that towards people that think it can be a good thing. I think that it's more of a matter of opinion than anything else. What I mean is the fact that after a successful sac bunt, you are guaranteed to see cameras panning toward the dugout and the player receiving more high 5's than if he had just went yard. Congratulations, you just did something that accomplishes very little (besides a squeeze) and is successfully done 7 out of 10 times.

 

I think it's against the unwritten rules to not high 5 a player after he does something that qualifies under the old school definition of "fundamentals".

 

Maybe it's more: "Thanks for doing something unselfish. In today's world of playing for yourself more than the team, swinging for the fences in every situation, striking out when contact is needed, etc., all done in hopes of landing that nine figure contract, it's nice of you to do something that doesn't give you glory, but was done to help the team win. Even though the box score won't show it, we'll recognize your sacrifice in a small way by giving you a quiet high five."

[Thurston Fluff]

I addressed this in the original post. I also disagree with the strategy of lowering your expected runs in that situation to increase your odds of scoring one run by a mere 3.7%.

 

My bad I meant to cut out the first part because it was taken care of in the second part but must have done it the other way around. Here is what I should have posted in the first place.

With a runner on 2nd and 0 out, the chance of scoring is 63.7%. With a runner on 3rd and 1 out, it's 67.4%. So you have increased your chances, albeit by only 3.7%, but this STILL doesn't take into account the chance of failure on the sac (which obviously is what happened).

 

That stat shows the likelihood of scoring a single run given the base they are on and the number of outs. Why would you assume the success rate of sacrifices are not included?

I'm also not sure how you can argue on one hand that a 3.7% greater chance of scoring a run isn't all that significant while simultaneously arguing that the extra .181 runs you get not sacrificing is somehow significant. Especially when you add in the odds of winning between one run and two late are not all that far apart anyway. Essentially you are playing for runs that are not as important to winning as the first one is. I don't see how the slight advantage of scoring an extra run that is less significant is more helpful to win a game than increasing the odds of scoring that very important first run.

[young guns]

That stat shows the likelihood of scoring a single run given the base they are on and the number of outs. Why would you assume the success rate of sacrifices are not included?

Those stats only show what happens after you got to that point. It doesn't factor in getting to that point. So it can only include successful sac attempts, and the rare fail where the guy still gets to third via stolen base, wild pitch, etc. A study focusing on sac vs no sac would be very interesting.

[Thurston Fluff]

Ahh gotcha, for some reason I was thinking about a successful sacrifice after he was on third to score. Makes way more sense now.

[chewy522]

Well said Monty. While I both like/dislike the bunt at times, it says a lot for creating a culture of team ball which can be vastly underestimated in the realm of sabermetrics. I remember the days of Sexson, Jenkins, and Hernandez all swinging for the fences every at bat. They got their homers, but usually while up or down 3 runs and it did not even matter. Sacrificing personal stats and personal glory for the team ultimately leads to better chemistry and more wins...at least that's what I think.

[jerichoholicninja]

Ron and most managers love to bunt because it's gritty and veterany and shows how much their players love to battle and grind.

[1992casey]

You're actually increasing your chances by 3.7 percentage points rather than 3.7 percent. In this case, the chance of scoring increases by 5.8 percent (still not much), which means that the general point being made remains essentially the same.

 

If you're working with much smaller percentages, the difference between percentage point increase and percent increase becomes greater and could be significant.

[MJLiverock]

The biggest problem I have with using the stats to compute gains/losses in expected runs scored in a situation is the complete disregard of the actual player and situation they rely on to come up with these expected results. I would expect a wide variation from the mean in expected runs scored if the next two batters are the 7 and 8 or 8/9 hitters putting up .240 batting averages vs. the next two hitters being the 3/4 hitters. Unless the player at the plate is an average hitter I would expect the expected runs to vary up or down based on how far that player is away from being an average player. In other words those expected runs in that formula may well be inflated if the players due up are well below average hitters.

 

If RR starts bunting with Braun and Ramirez I can see getting upset and thinking it is foolish but if a struggling Segura or Bianchi, Schaefer, Herrera, etc. are asked to bunt I don't have much of a problem with it.