I searched some stats on bunting. Interesting. To no ones surprise on here, the Reds lead the league in sacrifices. But there doesn't seem to be any correlation in either direction between the teams with a lot of sacrifices and the runs scored. The Cards lead the league in runs and are 11th in sacrifices. Colorado is 3rd in runs and 6th in sacrifices. Three of the 4 lowest teams in sacrifices are also the lowest in runs. I looked quickly at 2012 and the numbers looked similar. Milwaukee led the league in runs in 2012 and was second in sacrifices.

 

I think it is more about the situation than it is about the sacrifice. The way I would approach sacrifices is what we generally see in baseball - you don't sacrifice with your good hitters batting. Here is the breakdown of sac bunts by Reds hitters (no pitchers):

 

12 - Cozart

5 - Derrick Robinson

4- Heisey, Phillips

3 - Choo, Izturis

2 - Frazier, Hanigan

 

I look at those numbers and it is hard to fault Dusty for any of them except Phillips and Choo, and my guess is Phillips bunted once or twice on his own and not by Dusty calling for it. Cozart's high number is perfectly understandable - he was hitting terribly, batting second, he had a high OBP guy in front of him.

Let's ignore that bunt from Phillips where he made the base running mistake even though the 9 pitches prior to the bunt were balls and they were willingly taking the bat out of the hand of their best hitter. Let's also ignore that in that same situation if the 3rd baseman charged to field the "bunt" they had almost no chance to throw out Hamilton at 3rd if he stole. That wasn't the only attempted bunt late. How many times can you keep supporting a decision to reduce your chances of scoring a run by 23%?

 

Bunting a guy to 3rd with 0 outs reduces your chances of scoring by 23%?

 

And the pitches don't matter because that guy still got their best two hitters out. And, you only bunt strikes so if he would've walked him he would've walked him whether the bunt was on or not.

 

And the 3rd baseman was charging and Hamilton didn't steal 3rd. You rarely give a straight steal to 3rd because so much of it has to do with getting a good lead and good jump. If they decide to hold or pick you are likely out from the pick or out at 3rd from the hold.

 

Again, your numbers don't take any of that into account.

I searched some stats on bunting. Interesting. To no ones surprise on here, the Reds lead the league in sacrifices. But there doesn't seem to be any correlation in either direction between the teams with a lot of sacrifices and the runs scored. The Cards lead the league in runs and are 11th in sacrifices. Colorado is 3rd in runs and 6th in sacrifices. Three of the 4 lowest teams in sacrifices are also the lowest in runs. I looked quickly at 2012 and the numbers looked similar. Milwaukee led the league in runs in 2012 and was second in sacrifices.

 

I think it is more about the situation than it is about the sacrifice. The way I would approach sacrifices is what we generally see in baseball - you don't sacrifice with your good hitters batting. Here is the breakdown of sac bunts by Reds hitters (no pitchers):

 

12 - Cozart

5 - Derrick Robinson

4- Heisey, Phillips

3 - Choo, Izturis

2 - Frazier, Hanigan

 

I look at those numbers and it is hard to fault Dusty for any of them except Phillips and Choo, and my guess is Phillips bunted once or twice on his own and not by Dusty calling for it. Cozart's high number is perfectly understandable - he was hitting terribly, batting second, he had a high OBP guy in front of him.

 

It's not hard to fault Dusty when situations don't matter, only the numbers from the last 100 years. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of sac bunts have been by pitchers over the last 20 years, leaving your lead guy (who is a run scoring guy, not run producing guy) needing to drive that run in. Apparently, situations don't matter, just numbers.

Simple question for everyone - on this team, should Brandon Phillips ever sacrifice bunt?

Simple question for everyone - on this team, should Brandon Phillips ever sacrifice bunt?

 

Yes.

 

The only guys that should not sacrifice bunt are Votto, Bruce, Ludwick and whoever is hitting in front of Hanigan. Some guys should only bunt rarely but most of your lineup has to be able to at some point in a 162 game season.

The vast majority of teams bunt in that situation...yet BGP disagrees.

 

The vast majority of teams probably would've had Choo bunting too. And again, if it had been ANYBODY other than Hamilton on base, I would probably agree to the philosophy (based upon who was coming up). But, you've got someone that's a freak on the base paths. Why wouldn't you have him steal 3rd...and save an out?

The vast majority of teams probably would've had Choo bunting too. And again, if it had been ANYBODY other than Hamilton on base, I would probably agree to the philosophy (based upon who was coming up). But, you've got someone that's a freak on the base paths. Why wouldn't you have him steal 3rd...and save an out?

 

I don't disagree with that but, again, a straight steal of 3rd rarely happens. It was on Hamilton to steal 3rd. Dusty said he had the green light but he clearly didn't feel comfortable stealing at that time, for whatever reason. You could say Dusty could put a straight double steal so you still have a guy in scoring position if Hamilton is thrown out but that's just like a sac bunt with 0 outs and a runner on 1st, which has been stated many times reduces your chances of scoring 23%.

 

If both are safe there's no doubt in my mind that they win the game that inning.

Bunting a guy to 3rd with 0 outs reduces your chances of scoring by 23%?

 

And the pitches don't matter because that guy still got their best two hitters out. And, you only bunt strikes so if he would've walked him he would've walked him whether the bunt was on or not.

 

And the 3rd baseman was charging and Hamilton didn't steal 3rd. You rarely give a straight steal to 3rd because so much of it has to do with getting a good lead and good jump. If they decide to hold or pick you are likely out from the pick or out at 3rd from the hold.

 

Again, your numbers don't take any of that into account.

 

I said ignoring that situation.

 

And you need to get off of these are my numbers. These aren't my numbers. They are factual though.

I don't disagree with that but, again, a straight steal of 3rd rarely happens. It was on Hamilton to steal 3rd. Dusty said he had the green light but he clearly didn't feel comfortable stealing at that time, for whatever reason. You could say Dusty could put a straight double steal so you still have a guy in scoring position if Hamilton is thrown out but that's just like a sac bunt with 0 outs and a runner on 1st, which has been stated many times reduces your chances of scoring 23%.

 

If both are safe there's no doubt in my mind that they win the game that inning.

 

And I would say most managers avoid the straight steal of 3rd, because they feel like their guy at 2nd is already in scoring position (on a base hit). And if it were left at that, I'd agree.

 

However, it just seemed to me that Dusty seemed all too willing to give up an out to get him on 3rd. (And, yes, I know it was probably in part to keep Phillips out of a DP situation). And if he truly left it up to Hamilton, then I have absolutely no problem with Votto swinging away at the first pitch. I mean, he's just stood in the on-deck circle and watched Hamilton not going during the entire Phillips AB. So, why should he assume that he's suddenly going to be going with him at the plate? (It's a better situation for the catcher, with no right-handed batter in the box to get in the way.)

I said ignoring that situation.

 

And you need to get off of these are my numbers. These aren't my numbers. They are factual though.

 

So are you asking if I bunt Phillips with a runner on 1st and 0 outs? Because that has ZERO to do with what we are talking about.

 

And in case you are, there are quite a few things that would go into the decision to bunt him or not with a runner on 1st. Number of quality at bats that day. Number of quality at bats against the pitcher in the game. Number of ground balls he hits. And so on.

 

They are your numbers regardless who compiled them. You keep reverting back to them so you own them.

And I would say most managers avoid the straight steal of 3rd, because they feel like their guy at 2nd is already in scoring position (on a base hit). And if it were left at that, I'd agree.

 

However, it just seemed to me that Dusty seemed all too willing to give up an out to get him on 3rd. (And, yes, I know it was probably in part to keep Phillips out of a DP situation). And if he truly left it up to Hamilton, then I have absolutely no problem with Votto swinging away at the first pitch. I mean, he's just stood in the on-deck circle and watched Hamilton not going during the entire Phillips AB. So, why should he assume that he's suddenly going to be going with him at the plate? (It's a better situation for the catcher, with no right-handed batter in the box to get in the way.)

 

Votto went into the box with the right mindset. However, very few good hitters would swing at pitch #1 after they see their best base stealer get a running start into 3rd. Which is what kills me about Votto. Pure hitting, he's one of the best. After that...I sometimes worry. He has to be able to see that.

 

And of course you give up an out to get him to 3rd with 0 outs. There are a ton of ways to score from 3rd with a drawn in infield and only 1 out. TON!

I said ignoring that situation.

 

And you need to get off of these are my numbers. These aren't my numbers. They are factual though.

 

Runner on 1st with 0 outs is stupid to bunt which is the 23% run difference you keep noting. 2 and 3rd with 0 outs in the 9th bunt every single time unless the aforementioned hitters are up.

It's not hard to fault Dusty when situations don't matter, only the numbers from the last 100 years. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of sac bunts have been by pitchers over the last 20 years, leaving your lead guy (who is a run scoring guy, not run producing guy) needing to drive that run in. Apparently, situations don't matter, just numbers.

 

You clearly didn't read the article that you're ripping. Keep at it though. First it wasn't 100 years of data. 2nd from what I can tell it states the 23% is the difference in chances to score with a guy on 1st no outs compared to a guy on 2nd 1 out. It doesn't say that the only way that guy got on 2nd was because of a bunt. It also says this:

 

All things being equal, discounting the skill of the hitter at the plate, the odds say the only time a bunt makes sense is when you need one run and have a runner on second — or runners on first and second — with nobody out. In those situations, a successful bunt slightly increases a team's odds of scoring in the inning.

 

So I know you would have used it if you read the article. Keep on ripping the math though all the while not checking it out.

Votto went into the box with the right mindset. However, very few good hitters would swing at pitch #1 after they see their best base stealer get a running start into 3rd. Which is what kills me about Votto. Pure hitting, he's one of the best. After that...I sometimes worry. He has to be able to see that.

 

And of course you give up an out to get him to 3rd with 0 outs. There are a ton of ways to score from 3rd with a drawn in infield and only 1 out. TON!

 

And on the pitch he swung at he hit a deep fly ball. Phillips doesn't screw up, then the game wouldn't have gone 13.

You clearly didn't read the article that you're ripping. Keep at it though. First it wasn't 100 years of data. 2nd from what I can tell it states the 23% is the difference in chances to score with a guy on 1st no outs compared to a guy on 2nd 1 out. It doesn't say that the only way that guy got on 2nd was because of a bunt. It also says this:

 

All things being equal, discounting the skill of the hitter at the plate, the odds say the only time a bunt makes sense is when you need one run and have a runner on second — or runners on first and second — with nobody out. In those situations, a successful bunt slightly increases a team's odds of scoring in the inning.

 

So I know you would have used it if you read the article. Keep on ripping the math though all the while not checking it out.

 

The runners were on 1st and 2nd so the 23% means crap. Keep referencing it, though. Make this easier.