Sac Bunts: Love or hate?

[KLSnow]

I was watching this afternoon's Mets/Cardinals game, and off the top of my head I can't remember who it was, but the second hitter for the Mets today laid down a sac bunt to move a runner over to second.

Think about that for a second. Top of the 1st, no one out. The Mets, who gave up 13 runs in games one and two of the series, got a man on with no one out and decided maybe one run could swing the game in their favor and tried to give up an out to move him over. The runner (Cedeno, come to think of it) later scored on a Cliff Floyd double, and probably would have scored from first.

So here's my argument. I hate the sacrifice bunt. The strategy in it is simply flawed. If you have a man who's hitting .300, or even .250, the odds are 1 in 4 that he will move that man from first to second without giving up an out. By making him bunt you remove any chance. I realize it may cost you a run here or there, but if you get a man on with no outs, and the second man gets on as well, then you've got a potential for a big inning (unless Mo Vaughn is due up, but that's a story for another time).

Here's a stat I dug up a couple of weeks ago, with the intent of eventually writing about it. Out of 14 teams in the American League, the 5 best teams (Anaheim, Minnesota, New York, Boston and Oakland) ranked 1st, 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th in sac bunts, respectively. Anaheim built a good team out of being able to get runners into scoring position, but the next 7 teams all failed to make the playoffs.

What do you guys think? Anyone else out there hate the sac bunt as much as me? Anyone want to step up and support it?

[mathmajors]

I like anything in baseball that can be used to catch the defense off-guard. If your second hitter is supposed to always get a hit, why not throw in a sac. bunt to keep the defense honest?

It wasn't a sacrifice, but I loved it last year when the Giants (?) broke up Curt Schilling's perfect game with a successful bunt. It was funny to hear the Diamondbacks bitch about it the rest of the year.

[KLSnow]

That's just it though....a sac bunt isn't a surprise. It's a throwaway. It's like having a lottery ticket in your hand and throwing it away before you know if it's worth anything.

I have nothing against trying to bunt for a base hit. If you can lay down a bunt and beat it out, more power to you. I'm just against giving up outs to advance runners in non-critical situations.

And if I remember right, it was Ben Davis of the Padres that broke up the no hitter by popping up a bunt.

[Puttingood]

I'm just against giving up outs to advance runners in non-critical situations.

It's possible that the situation could become critical in the later innings of the game. I don't follow baseball like I use to but I remember plenty of players that beat out bunts for hits and a squeeze bunt was a piece of artwork.
I would think that advancing runners would be the name of the game.

[UNCfever]

I hate Sac bunts, now a bunt for a hit is a different thing.

[RSgal]

I have mixed feelings on sac bunts. Early in the game (say the first inning) I find them rather annoying. At least give the guy a chance to hit the runner over. But at the same time, small ball is a vital part of baseball, and the sac bunt is very useful when you've got a pitcher at bat and want to keep him from hitting into a double play.

There's a time and a place for everything...and that Padres bunt against Schills last year was not the right time nor the right place dammit!! :mad:

[KLSnow]

I agree for the most part with what you said: there's a time and a place for smallball. If it's the bottom of the 9th and you need to score one run to win, then I understand that you're going to focus on just getting one run. But I think sac bunting in the first inning with your #2 hitter is just using smallball as an excuse for having....well, small balls.

I agree, for the most part, with the concept of bunting with a pitcher to avoid the double play. If you make it to the big legues as a pitcher, you probably spent at least 3 years between the low A-ball leagues (Midwest League and/or NY/Penn League) and the big leagues...and from A-ball up most of those leagues use a DH. Meaning a pitcher in all likelihood may not have picked up a bat for years before making it to the big leagues. But the concept of a position player in the big leagues who can't be trusted to handle a bat is ludicrous.

[Village Idiot]

I agree in part with most of your take KLS. The only time that I wouldagree with an early game sac bunt is when your #2 batter (or whoever) was in a real bad slump and you did'nt have anyone else to put into the lineup. I saw Clemson get knocked outta the college world series a few years back on a bunt when they threw the ball into right field. Of course it was the last inning.

[Puttingood]

Has it dawned on anyone that the man who is bunting is doing it because his Coach tells him to. That Coach gets paid the big bucks to make that decision. You don't have to agree with that Coaches decision but you certainly can't second guess it. Thats why he is the Coach and we post on a Internet Board.;)

[KLSnow]

I don't think that being a manager automatically makes you always right. Second guessing a manager is part of what baseball is all about. As a matter of fact, I think near the end of his reign with the Mets, ripping on Bobby Valentine was more popular than actually attending the Mets games. Ask a Red Sox fan if Jimy Williams was always right in his moves.

[mattarific]

who was pitching for the mets that day.......if im the manager and lets say al lieter is pitching against matt morris, that could easily be a one run ballgame. i still say in the first is too early, but you could justify it anyway.

sac bunts dont bother me for the most part....only when someone on my team fails to get one down

[KLSnow]

I see your point there, but regardless of who's pitching, I still think you're better off looking for the big inning than getting a man on first and settling for a 50/50 chance of scoring one run. Especially in the first inning.

And if there's a pitcher on this year's Mets team that's capable day-in and day-out of standing up to the best pitchers in baseball, I'd like to meet him. Maybe he can introduce me to the Easter Bunny.

[mattarific]

Tommy Glavine, but I think he and the Easter bunny had fallin out this past off season

[BudMan]

Bunting is the most important lost art in baseball. I bet no one on here can name who led the major leagues in sac bunts last year, but everyone knows who led MLB in homeruns. My point is, like it or not its a part of the game and often the most important part that is overlooked. In the situation in the first inning you were referring to, it could have been an attempt at a bunt for a hit. In that situation, even if the number 2 hitter fails, he still moves a runner into scoring position which isn't a bad deal. So I guess to answer the question, yes i love the sac bunt.

[Puttingood]

it could have been an attempt at a bunt for a hit.

or an attempt to rattle the pitcher or to show the other team that anything could happen at any time.
The coaches that make these calls are paid the big bucks and if the team owners aren't happy then the coaches have to go. I could not imagine any coach making all the fans happy all the time but thats why he is the coach and the other poeople are fans. ;)

[HeadCase]

well, if it was the Mets they were probably gonna lose regardless so wtf cares?

[bigdan]

This debate is the reason why I like the National League leaps and bounds above the American League. Too many teams try to play for the big inning (American League style ball/DH), when you can score an early run in the first, and put the pressure on the other team to respond. And if that means the sac bunt, then by all means do it.