Toggle sidebar

Blue Jays GDT: 2022 v3 | Next: Sun, May 1 | vs HOU | 1:30pm ET/10:30am PT | Valdez vs Gausman

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
lebdafor norris said:
Maybe the Jays just haven't had any good bunters but 95% is far to optimistic, more often than not I see either the bunter getting to 2 strikes or giving away an easy out. I'm not against bunting as the successful mid 2010s Royals teams have proved to us that bunting could still be a valuable weapon in today's game, but the Jays just haven't had much success in this department.
Click to expand...
95% is the approximate outcome of bunting, so as I mentioned below that, it completely ignores the at-bats that get destroyed by the hitter getting to 2 strikes. Basically, if you put a bunt in play when you are attempting to sacrifice, approximately 95% of the time, it will result in a sacrifice and you being out. This is the number that the pro-sac bunt crowd likes to justify their bunt (even though it completely ignores all of the outcomes where the bunt got taken off).
 
Bjindaho said:
95% is the approximate outcome of bunting, so as I mentioned below that, it completely ignores the at-bats that get destroyed by the hitter getting to 2 strikes. Basically, if you put a bunt in play when you are attempting to sacrifice, approximately 95% of the time, it will result in a sacrifice and you being out. This is the number that the pro-sac bunt crowd likes to justify their bunt (even though it completely ignores all of the outcomes where the bunt got taken off).
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "the approximate outcome of bunting"? That the batter gets out 95% of the time or that the runner moves up 95% of the time?
 
Discoverer said:
What do you mean by "the approximate outcome of bunting"? That the batter gets out 95% of the time or that the runner moves up 95% of the time?
Click to expand...
When a sac bunt is put in play, it should lead to the batter out and the runner moved up 95% of the time. 5% other stuff happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Discoverer
Bjindaho said:
When a sac bunt is put in play, it should lead to the batter out and the runner moved up 95% of the time. 5% other stuff happens.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, I guess that makes sense. Sometimes it goes well and the runner gets on or it goes extra poorly and they get the lead runner or turn a double play out of it, but 95% of the time it achieves the end goal.

I still don't understand how so many people support sac bunts, but I guess the biggest thing is probably "this is how the game used to be played" component. We fear change. But, assuming the 95% numbers is accurate, it's kind of crazy.

- A sac bunt often increases your chance of scoring one run while significantly reducing your chance of scoring multiple runs. So, except in situations where that run is literally all you need (to walk it off, for example), a successful bunt puts your team in an objectively worse situation.
- I know this study is from almost 10 years ago, but it shows that bunt attempts are put into play roughly 50% of the time. So even when players are trying to do something that makes the situation worse, they frequently fail to even move the runner up.

There are some very rare situations where it makes sense, but they don't come up nearly as often as some people seem to think they do.
 
Yeah if we're talking about bad bunts, Boston doing on the road down two runs was a baffling move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom