Lookout Landing - The evolution of the sacrifice buntMariners baseball support group meets here, Tuesdays and all the other days too.https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/50775/ll-fav.png2013-08-21T09:00:12-07:00http://www.lookoutlanding.com/rss/stream/43666292013-08-21T09:00:12-07:002013-08-21T09:00:12-07:00Your Sacrifice Bunt Career Leaderboards
<figure>
<img alt="i miss you so much" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JUVVvPfZAXTlsxXTkJEBO31GZJ0=/1x0:998x665/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/18083053/201200504_pjc_ab9_332.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>i miss you so much | Steven Bisig-US PRESSWIRE</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>You’re curious about which players are the best and worst bunters, aren’t you? It’s okay, admit it.</p> <p>Earlier in the series: <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1" target="_blank">Part 1</a> / <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2" target="new">Part 2</a> / <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3/" target="new">Part 3</a> / <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/12/4613158/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-4" target="new">Part 4</a> / <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/14/4619614/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-5-should-teams-just-stop-bunting" target="_blank">Part 5</a> / <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/19/4634526/the-squeeze-play-how-to-feel-about-it-spoiler-alert-not-good" target="_blank">Part 6</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Sacrifice Bunt Series reaches its thrilling conclusion. Let no one say that we've cut corners; let no one say that there haven't been enough Excel-based line graphs. We have gotten here together, you and I.</p>
<p>Today's post will go a little light on the analysis, and instead present the individual career leaderboards for the sacrifice bunt. Think of it as an appendix. Some of the names will be expected, and others will shock you, if you're the sort of person who can be shocked. We're talking about bunting, of course, not the mating habits of the <a href="http://look.it.up.yourself" target="_blank">paper nautilus octopus</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Successful Bunt %, Career (minimum 30 sac attempts)</h4>
<p>(times all runners advance / sacrifice bunts attempted)</p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="442" style="border-collapse: collapse;width:332pt">
<colgroup>
<col width="132" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4827;width:99pt">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
<col width="35" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:1280;width:26pt">
<col width="18" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:658;width:14pt">
<col width="129" style="mso-width-source:userset;mso-width-alt:4717;width:97pt">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" width="132" style="height: 10.5pt; width: 99pt;">Carlos Beltran</td>
<td class="xl68" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">50.0%</td>
<td class="xl66" width="35" style="width: 26pt;"></td>
<td class="xl67" width="18" style="width: 14pt;"></td>
<td class="xl65" width="129" style="width: 97pt;">Mike Tyson</td>
<td class="xl68" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Angel Pagan</span></td>
<td class="xl68">48.7%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Mark Wagner</span></td>
<td class="xl68">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Kirby Puckett</td>
<td class="xl68">48.4%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Rod Barajas</span></td>
<td class="xl68">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Gregor Blanco</span></td>
<td class="xl68">48.4%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Henry Blanco</span></td>
<td class="xl68">2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Luis Polonia</td>
<td class="xl68">46.3%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Fred Lynn</td>
<td class="xl68">2.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Ichiro Suzuki</span></td>
<td class="xl68">44.7%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Dave Valle</td>
<td class="xl68">2.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Hal Morris</td>
<td class="xl68">44.2%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Bill Stein</td>
<td class="xl68">2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Kenny Lofton</span></td>
<td class="xl68">43.7%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Larry Parrish</td>
<td class="xl68">2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>J.D. Drew</span></td>
<td class="xl68">43.2%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>So Taguchi</span></td>
<td class="xl68">2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Paul Molitor</td>
<td class="xl68">40.8%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Rich Gedman</td>
<td class="xl68">3.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Damon Buford</td>
<td class="xl68">40.0%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Rafael Landestoy</td>
<td class="xl68">3.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Ben Zobrist</span></td>
<td class="xl68">40.0%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Lenny Dykstra</td>
<td class="xl68">3.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Rafael Furcal</span></td>
<td class="xl68">39.6%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Alan Ashby</td>
<td class="xl68">3.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">John Stearns</td>
<td class="xl68">39.4%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65">Rob Andrews</td>
<td class="xl68">3.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Alex Cole</td>
<td class="xl68">38.9%</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Jose Molina</span></td>
<td class="xl68">3.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Most of these guys make a lot of sense to be great bunters. They're quick out of the box. They're strong enough hitters to keep the infielders back. They've got the speed to beat out the barehanded throw. Carlos Beltran is one of those guys where you could expect him to be halfway down the line before the pitcher could accept the bunt as real.</p>
<p>Then there's Hal Morris. The first baseman. The guy who stole 45 bases in twelve seasons. The guy who was basically a prototype for <span>Sean Casey</span>. And it's no fluke: 18 of the 23 times he reached, they were solid base hits. You're going to have to admit to yourself that you've underappreciated Hal Morris.</p>
<p>On the minus side, first of all, that's <a href="https://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Cubs</a> utility infielder Mike Tyson we're talking about. Lots of catchers on this list, including our friend Dave Valle. It's surprising to see two athletic outfielders there, however, in the form of Fred Lynn and Lenny Dykstra. Dykstra reached once in thirty-two sac bunts: it was on an error.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Successful Bunt %, <a href="https://www.lookoutlanding.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Mariners</a> (minimum 10 sac attempts)</h4>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="442" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 332pt;">
<colgroup>
<col width="132" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4827; width: 99pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
<col width="35" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280; width: 26pt;">
<col width="18" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 658; width: 14pt;">
<col width="129" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4717; width: 97pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" width="132" style="height: 10.5pt; width: 99pt;">Ichiro Suzuki</td>
<td class="xl67" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">47.6%</td>
<td class="xl68" width="35" style="width: 26pt;"></td>
<td class="xl65" width="18" style="width: 14pt;"></td>
<td class="xl66" width="129" style="width: 97pt;">Felix Fermin</td>
<td class="xl67" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">John Moses</td>
<td class="xl67">35.0%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Bill Stein</td>
<td class="xl67">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Stan Javier</td>
<td class="xl67">33.3%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Bob Stinson</td>
<td class="xl67">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Ken Griffey</td>
<td class="xl67">31.3%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Jay Buhner</td>
<td class="xl67">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Jeremy Reed</span></td>
<td class="xl67">30.4%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Todd Cruz</td>
<td class="xl67">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Trayvon Robinson</span></td>
<td class="xl67">30.0%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Jose Baez</td>
<td class="xl67">0.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Phil Bradley</td>
<td class="xl67">29.6%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Dave Valle</td>
<td class="xl67">2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Endy Chavez</span></td>
<td class="xl67">28.6%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Dan Wilson</td>
<td class="xl67">4.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Edgar Martinez</span></td>
<td class="xl67">28.6%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Bruce Bochte</td>
<td class="xl67">5.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Mickey Brantley</td>
<td class="xl67">27.3%</td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Larry Cox</td>
<td class="xl67">5.6%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Not too many surprises on this list, unless you count Edgar Martinez, Athletic Third Baseman. But it's valuable just to have a new way to understand how awesome Ichiro is. And it's nice to see that Johnny Moses was good at something. On the negative side, the depressing one is Dan Wilson, not because we expect him to beat out base hits, but because... well, you'll see.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Acceptable Bunt %, Career</h4>
<p>(times at least lead runner advances / sacrifice bunts attempted)</p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="442" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 332pt;">
<colgroup>
<col width="132" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4827; width: 99pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
<col width="35" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280; width: 26pt;">
<col width="18" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 658; width: 14pt;">
<col width="129" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4717; width: 97pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" width="132" style="height: 10.5pt; width: 99pt;">Bob Bailor</td>
<td class="xl67" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68" width="35" style="width: 26pt;">43</td>
<td class="xl66" width="18" style="width: 14pt;"></td>
<td class="xl65" width="129" style="width: 97pt;">Jerome Walton</td>
<td class="xl67" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">60.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Dave Anderson</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">40</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Fred Lynn</td>
<td class="xl67">66.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Ken Reitz</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">36</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Drew Stubbs</span></td>
<td class="xl67">67.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Peter Bourjos</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">35</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Tom Foley</td>
<td class="xl67">67.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Ron Jackson</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">35</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Quilvio Veras</td>
<td class="xl67">67.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Enos Cabell</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">35</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Joey Gathright</span></td>
<td class="xl67">68.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Dale Berra</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">33</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Damian Jackson</span></td>
<td class="xl67">69.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Jim Anderson</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">32</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Curtis Goodwin</td>
<td class="xl67">69.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Todd Cruz</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">30</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Tim Bogar</td>
<td class="xl67">70.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Rob Wilfong</td>
<td class="xl67">99.1%</td>
<td class="xl68">117</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Jose Hernandez</span></td>
<td class="xl67">71.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Johnnie LeMaster</td>
<td class="xl67">98.3%</td>
<td class="xl68">60</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Mike Kingery</td>
<td class="xl67">71.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Bob Randall</td>
<td class="xl67">98.3%</td>
<td class="xl68">59</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Cecil Espy</td>
<td class="xl67">71.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Damion Easley</span></td>
<td class="xl67">98.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">49</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Damon Buford</td>
<td class="xl67">71.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Rich Dauer</td>
<td class="xl67">97.8%</td>
<td class="xl68">45</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Benji Gil</span></td>
<td class="xl67">72.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Amos Otis</td>
<td class="xl67">97.7%</td>
<td class="xl68">44</td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Orlando Hudson</span></td>
<td class="xl67">72.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>You'll notice that most of these guys are seventies and early 80s guys, no surprise given how the bunt has fared recently. That makes <span>Peter Bourjos's</span> achievement that much more impressive. He's due back from injury, and he only needs nine more successful sacrifices to have the most while remaining perfect since 1973. Rob Wilfong's career 116/117 line is perhaps equally impressive.</p>
<p>The worst-of list looks like a sampler of toolsy, reputedly undisciplined guys. Former rookie of the year Jerome Walton stands alone, though it should be noted that if the 30-bunt minimum were reduced to 29, Deion Sanders would check in at second place with 62.1%.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Acceptable Bunt %, Mariners</h4>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="442" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 332pt;">
<colgroup>
<col width="132" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4827; width: 99pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
<col width="35" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280; width: 26pt;">
<col width="18" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 658; width: 14pt;">
<col width="129" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4717; width: 97pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" width="132" style="height: 10.5pt; width: 99pt;">Spike Owen</td>
<td class="xl67" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68" width="35" style="width: 26pt;">29</td>
<td class="xl65" width="18" style="width: 14pt;"></td>
<td class="xl66" width="129" style="width: 97pt;"><span>Charles Gipson</span></td>
<td class="xl67" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">60.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Bruce Bochte</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">20</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66"><span>Michael Saunders</span></td>
<td class="xl67">66.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">John Moses</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">20</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Jeremy Reed</td>
<td class="xl67">69.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Mike Cameron</span></td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">15</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Trayvon Robinson</td>
<td class="xl67">70.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Edgar Martinez</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">14</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Jay Buhner</td>
<td class="xl67">70.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Todd Cruz</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">13</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Rey Quinones</td>
<td class="xl67">72.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Stan Javier</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">12</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Mike Blowers</td>
<td class="xl67">72.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Tino Martinez</td>
<td class="xl67">100.0%</td>
<td class="xl68">12</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Jeff Schaefer</td>
<td class="xl67">75.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Craig Reynolds</td>
<td class="xl67">96.8%</td>
<td class="xl68">31</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Ken Griffey</td>
<td class="xl67">75.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Mario Mendoza</td>
<td class="xl67">96.2%</td>
<td class="xl68">26</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Lenny Randle</td>
<td class="xl67">75.0%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Edgar makes another list, and Tino joins him for this one. It's sad to see Michael Saunders second-worst, however. Worse still, four of his seven failures have been force outs, so it's clearly something he needs to practice, especially for the seasons when he's hitting .220. "You bunt worse than Rey Quinones" is actually a statement that officially binds people into duels in some nations.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Total Bunts, Career and Mariners</h4>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="442" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 332pt;">
<colgroup>
<col width="132" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4827; width: 99pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
<col width="35" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280; width: 26pt;">
<col width="18" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 658; width: 14pt;">
<col width="129" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4717; width: 97pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" width="132" style="height: 10.5pt; width: 99pt;">Omar Vizquel</td>
<td class="xl69" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">352</td>
<td class="xl69" width="35" style="width: 26pt;"></td>
<td class="xl66" width="18" style="width: 14pt;"></td>
<td class="xl67" width="129" style="width: 97pt;">Dan Wilson</td>
<td class="xl70" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">102</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Ozzie Smith</td>
<td class="xl69">271</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"><span>Omar Vizquel</span></td>
<td class="xl70">84</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Roberto Alomar</td>
<td class="xl69">263</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67">Harold Reynolds</td>
<td class="xl70">82</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Juan Pierre</span></td>
<td class="xl69">249</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67">Julio Cruz</td>
<td class="xl70">65</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Brett Butler</td>
<td class="xl69">230</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67">Ichiro Suzuki</td>
<td class="xl70">63</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Ozzie Guillen</td>
<td class="xl69">209</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67">Joey Cora</td>
<td class="xl70">45</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Alfredo Griffin</td>
<td class="xl69">195</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67">Larry Milbourne</td>
<td class="xl70">42</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Jay Bell</td>
<td class="xl69">182</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67">Rich Amaral</td>
<td class="xl70">40</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Bert Campaneris</td>
<td class="xl69">178</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"><span>Chone Figgins</span></td>
<td class="xl70">37</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Kenny Lofton</td>
<td class="xl69">174</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl67"><span>Jose Lopez</span></td>
<td class="xl70">37</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Scott Fletcher</td>
<td class="xl69">170</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Larry Bowa</td>
<td class="xl69">168</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Bob Boone</td>
<td class="xl69">167</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Tim Foli</td>
<td class="xl69">167</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl67" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Royce Clayton</span></td>
<td class="xl70">163</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl68"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Perhaps the only thing surprising about the career leaderboards is that Juan Pierre is so low, although Omar had a dozen years on him. The only player on that list to have more home runs than sacrifice bunts: Jay Bell, with 195 dingers. Meanwhile, for the Mariners... Dan Wilson has laid down more sacrifice bunts than any other Mariner. For those inclined to look back on the Pinella Years as blissful, unblemished times, keep Dan Wilson in mind. Then draw a picture of Gil Meche's shoulder, scan it, and set it as your desktop background.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Win Percentage Added through Sacrifice Bunting, Career</h4>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="442" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 332pt;">
<colgroup>
<col width="132" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4827; width: 99pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
<col width="35" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280; width: 26pt;">
<col width="18" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 658; width: 14pt;">
<col width="129" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4717; width: 97pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" width="132" style="height: 10.5pt; width: 99pt;">Kenny Lofton</td>
<td class="xl69" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">3.53</td>
<td class="xl69" width="35" style="width: 26pt;"></td>
<td class="xl66" width="18" style="width: 14pt;"></td>
<td class="xl65" width="129" style="width: 97pt;">Omar Vizquel</td>
<td class="xl70" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">-1.87</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Robby Thompson</td>
<td class="xl69">2.44</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Jamey Carroll</span></td>
<td class="xl70">-1.65</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Derek Jeter</span></td>
<td class="xl69">2.38</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Greg Gagne</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.57</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Roberto Alomar</td>
<td class="xl69">2.18</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Felix Fermin</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.55</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Ichiro Suzuki</td>
<td class="xl69">2.08</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Alcides Escobar</span></td>
<td class="xl70">-1.38</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Larry Bowa</td>
<td class="xl69">2.06</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Alvaro Espinoza</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.34</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Mickey Rivers</td>
<td class="xl69">1.71</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Gary Disarcina</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.32</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Rafael Furcal</td>
<td class="xl69">1.64</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Jay Bell</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.31</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Rod Carew</td>
<td class="xl69">1.6</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Walt Weiss</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.28</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Luis Polonia</td>
<td class="xl69">1.53</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Manuel Lee</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.26</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Corey Patterson</span></td>
<td class="xl69">1.43</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Abraham Nunez</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.25</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Brett Butler</td>
<td class="xl69">1.41</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Orlando Hudson</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.23</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Hal Morris</td>
<td class="xl69">1.37</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Placido Polanco</span></td>
<td class="xl70">-1.21</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;">Ozzie Smith</td>
<td class="xl69">1.26</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65">Jose Molina</td>
<td class="xl70">-1.19</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl65" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Jose Reyes</span></td>
<td class="xl69">1.22</td>
<td class="xl69"></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
<td class="xl65"><span>Neifi Perez</span></td>
<td class="xl70">-1.16</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Kenny Lofton stands alone as the most productive bunter of his time. Easy to understand. But second place isn't a stereotypical speedster, but our very own Robby Thompson. His stolen base totals in his first six seasons: 12, 16, 14, 12, 14, 14. Thompson had one of those great underrated careers, playing in the shadow of Clark and Mitchell, and his back basically finished him by 31, but his 28.3 WAR is better than the totals that <span>Ian Kinsler</span>, <span>Michael Young</span> and <span>Nick Swisher</span> have amassed so far in their (equally lengthy) careers.</p>
<p>And at the bottom, there's Little O. This is a career achievement; Omar's 18.8%/90.9% rate is far better than the rest of the guys on this list. But he gave up so many outs at -0.02 WPA a pop that he "wins" regardless. Remember, kids: a successful sacrifice is not successful.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Win Percentage Added through Sacrifice Bunting, Mariners</h4>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="455" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 342pt;">
<colgroup>
<col width="145" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 5302; width: 109pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
<col width="35" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1280; width: 26pt;">
<col width="18" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 658; width: 14pt;">
<col width="129" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 4717; width: 97pt;">
<col width="64" style="width: 48pt;">
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" width="145" style="height: 10.5pt; width: 109pt;">Ichiro Suzuki</td>
<td class="xl67" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">1.65</td>
<td class="xl65" width="35" style="width: 26pt;"></td>
<td class="xl65" width="18" style="width: 14pt;"></td>
<td class="xl66" width="129" style="width: 97pt;">Dan Wilson</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right" width="64" style="width: 48pt;">-0.91</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Chone Figgins</td>
<td class="xl67">0.63</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Omar Vizquel</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.8</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">John Moses</td>
<td class="xl67">0.4</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Harold Reynolds</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.76</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Phil Bradley</td>
<td class="xl67">0.35</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Dave Valle</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.69</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>David Bell</span></td>
<td class="xl67">0.28</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Felix Fermin</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.57</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Yuniesky Betancourt</span></td>
<td class="xl67">0.23</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Jay Buhner</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.57</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;">Jeremy Reed</td>
<td class="xl67">0.18</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Michael Saunders</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.55</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Alex Rodriguez</span></td>
<td class="xl67">0.15</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Bill Stein</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.52</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Jeff Cirillo</span></td>
<td class="xl67">0.14</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66"><span>Randy Winn</span></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.45</td>
</tr>
<tr height="14" style="height: 10.5pt;">
<td height="14" class="xl66" style="height: 10.5pt;"><span>Brendan Ryan</span></td>
<td class="xl67">0.13</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl66">Joey Cora</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.42</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Ichiro is pretty amazing. Chone Figgins... well, let's just say that there are lots of pictures of Chone Figgins bunting in the SBN photo archive. But hey, he did something well! Let's put it this way: Chone Figgins was worth 0.63 WPA sacrificing over three seasons, and -4.29 WPA swinging the bat.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This series is going to end on the subject of Chone Figgins.</p>
https://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/21/4635432/your-sacrifice-bunt-career-leaderboardsPatrick Dubuque2013-08-19T09:00:10-07:002013-08-19T09:00:10-07:00The Squeeze Play: How to Feel About It
<figure>
<img alt="something we'll never see again" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/C7JFjLG6UVKV3ZoOL_6eEVlkpL4=/0x0:3999x2666/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/18076367/167683682.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>something we'll never see again | Otto Greule Jr</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The sacrifice bunt series marches inexorably on with part six, this time looking at how the squeeze play has fared over the years.</p> <p>Earlier in the series: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1">Part 1</a> / <a target="new" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2">Part 2</a> / <a target="new" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3/">Part 3</a> / <a target="new" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/12/4613158/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-4">Part 4</a> / <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/14/4619614/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-5-should-teams-just-stop-bunting">Part 5</a></p>
<p>There are few plays more exciting, more surprising, more audacious than the squeeze bunt. Swinging away and hitting extra-base hits is a demonstration of talent, and talent is nice. But the squeeze play is an imposition of will, a punch in a team's gut after telling them you intend to punch them in the gut.</p>
<p>Mariners fans saw a perfect example of this in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_LGEeT9ZxY" target="_blank">Game 3 of the 2000 NLDS</a>. The game is tied in the bottom of hte ninth; Rickey Henderson stands on third, and the tuberculosis-potentially-incubating Carlos Guillen is at the plate. Pinella calls for the bunt, but Guillen sees the infield well in on the grass, crowding him like the skinny kid on a Little League team. He swings away at the first pitch, fouls it off, sees Pinella's face in the dugout. The next pitch he squares on and drags it toward Frank Thomas, maybe stepping a little on the plate in the process, and leaps it into the air as the ball finds its way under the first baseman. Henderson scores. Dave can't believe it. It's only the second walkoff bunt in the playoffs in the past forty years.</p>
<p>So how has the squeeze play been working out the past forty years? About as well as you'd expect.</p>
<p><img alt="Z1" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3076997/z1.png"><br id="1376866232328"></p>
<p>This graph encapsulates all bunts laid down with at least a runner on third and less than two outs. Keep in mind that for this post, I can make no distinction between suicide squeezes and safety squeezes, though the growing disparity between "acceptable" sacrifices and run-scoring sacrifices would lead me to believe that a greater number of trailing runners are being moved up on a bunt, signifying an aborted safety squeeze.</p>
<p>Run-scoring on squeeze plays is at a modern low, nearly half the rate from its peak in the mid-eighties. The cause appears to be very similar to the decline in overall sacrifice bunts: a drop in the acceptable rate of sacrifices, fed by <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3077053/z2.png" target="_blank">a growing strikeout rate and an increase in the number of force outs</a>. Acceptable bunt ratio and squeeze run ratio correlate at an <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3077109/z3.png" target="_blank">r-squared of 0.545</a>, meaning that it's likely (although hardly certain) that the two factors are significantly connected to each other.</p>
<p>Sometimes, the numbers work against you. I don't know how many times I've written up an explanation for a chapter, even in this series, only to be reminded to look for one more detail that messes everything up. Yes, the acceptable ratio has been trending downward for all sacrifice bunts. But the biggest change we've seen in bunting, beyond that, is the increase in pitcher bunting over time. Surely that wouldn't have anything to do with it, right? Managers would never be so stupid as to try the squeeze with their worst hitters, in the most obvious bunt situations.</p>
<p><img alt="Z4" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3077125/z4.png"><br id="1376870127800"></p>
<p>WHY</p>
<p>I mean, to hell with this graph. Not only are pitchers performing twice as many of the squeeze bunts in 2013 than they were in 1973, we're not even seeing a corresponding rise in pinch-hit bunting, which is weird but at least makes sense in these crucial situation. So now we have to dig deeper: is the squeeze bunt actually failing, or is it just those stupid pitchers with their stupid required plate appearances ruining everything?</p>
<p>I split the data into pitcher and position-player segments, and this time added a new category to go with successful and acceptable bunts. Named "disastrous bunts", this percentage sums all sacrifices where the game state is worse than even just adding an extra out. In other words, it sums the forceouts and double/triple plays: those situations where it would be even worse than just sending the player up there without a bat. The results are surprising.</p>
<p><img alt="Z5" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3077189/z5.png"><br id="1376870532046"></p>
<p><img alt="Z6" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3077197/z6.png"><br id="1376870551037"></p>
<p>The acceptable rate of pitchers in squeeze situations is exactly in line with their performance <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3025107/y4.png" target="_blank">in all bunts</a>, whereas position players have dropped to a full 20% lower than their overall rates. Meanwhile, ignoring the messiness around 2001 (where, as I mentioned before, I'm skeptical of B-R's data), and the rate of disastrous bunts is rising steadily over time, though the effect is more pronounced among position players. Perhaps most dramatic of all is the recent spike in squeeze plays throughout baseball.</p>
<p><img alt="Z7" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3077277/z7.png"><br id="1376871857692"></p>
<p>Compare this graph with the first one. Every time we see a spike in squeeze bunt usage, we see a corresponding fall in its success rates as defenses catch on. When offenses become too predictable, defense gets the upper hand, just as the opposite. We're in the midst of one of those readjustments right now: managers are over-relying on the squeeze bunt, ignoring their optimal rate of mixed strategies. Pitchers aren't doing worse because the infield is already expecting it with them, but with position players, the element of surprise so necessary for the bunt is gone.</p>
<p>Sometimes the aesthetics of an act in baseball fails to correspond with its value toward winning games. And this is a shame: the game is better off, more enjoyable, if its most beautiful facets are also its most useful ones. But what we're seeing is that managers have fallen in love with the beauty of the squeeze, and in so doing they've begun to ruin it. It's like hearing a good joke too many times.</p>
<h4>More from this series:</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3/in/4366629">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 3</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/12/4613158/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-4">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 4</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/14/4619614/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-5-should-teams-just-stop-bunting">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 5</a></li>
</ul>
https://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/19/4634526/the-squeeze-play-how-to-feel-about-it-spoiler-alert-not-goodPatrick Dubuque2013-08-14T07:00:13-07:002013-08-14T07:00:13-07:00Should Baseball Teams Stop Bunting?
<figure>
<img alt="theoretically, the game, the right way" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/v5yh2RrzjdpOA99kfOOWedXNbVs=/0x0:1000x667/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/17837351/142011479.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>theoretically, the game, the right way | Koji Watanabe</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now that all the research has been presented, it’s time to draw some conclusions. Everyone hates the sacrifice and it's costing runs and wins. Should teams stop altogether?</p> <p>Earlier in the series: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1">Part 1</a> / <a target="new" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2">Part 2</a> / <a target="new" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3/">Part 3</a> / <a target="new" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/12/4613158/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-4">Part 4</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Over the past week and a half, we've looked at trends in sacrifice bunting and returned a few inconvertible truths:</p>
<ul class="unIndentedList">
<li> Teams are sac bunting as often as they used to.</li>
<li> If used properly, it only hurts a team a little in the long run.</li>
<li> They're not using it properly.</li>
<li> No fan has ever said, "Gee, I wish my team bunted more." </li>
<li> Unless their guy just hit into a double play. </li>
</ul>
<p>So we've known for years that bunting is bad, that everyone hates it, that managers do it because that's how the game was played on their antique transistor radios. And we have Twitter now, so the masses obviously have the means for revolution. Should fans lead a crusade to end the bunt? Should we all wear "No Bunting" shirts to the ballpark and protest with our ten dollar beers?</p>
<p>No. It's just not that simple.</p>
<p>You can't use a simple catchphrase and encapsulate a complicated strategic situation. The sacrifice bunt is about more than just a single play; it's one of the rallying points for the saber/anti-saber battle. The pro-bunting side makes similarly canned statements like "playing the right way" and "valuing fundamentals". But you can't just make the blanket declaration that bunting is bad. Decreasing your team's chance of winning the game is bad.</p>
<p>Admittedly, as managers and players employ the bunt at present, they're doing just that. But I'm going to argue that it's possible, and even desirable, to lay down the sacrifice once in a while, in the correct context. All it takes is a little bit of patience, and a little bit of game theory.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For those who aren't familiar with game theory, a quick introduction. Game theory is a popular tool in the realm of political scientists, because it helps model how two different and often opposing actors seek to maximize their own gain. It's based on the economic principle of rationality, which states that everyone seeks the result of an action that is best for themselves. This ordinarily an extremely messy concept, because you have relativists and sadists and addicts and all sorts of people who don't act in a traditionally self-motivated fashion. But in baseball, we don't have to worry about that. The goal is to win, and every player in every situation (again, generally) seeks to do whatever maximizes his team's chance of winning.</p>
<p>All you have to do is set up a grid with one person's choices on one axis and the other's on the other axis. Then you map out the results, in terms of value or specific outcomes, which happen to each side. Usually, both actors make their decisions, then you go to that box on the grid and find out what happens. Enjoy the light and tragic example of Tom Wilhelmsen's 2013, oversimplified:</p>
<p><img alt="G1" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3053707/g1.png"><br id="1376455586038"></p>
<p>If the batter guesses the right pitch, he has a good chance of hitting it cleanly. If Tom throws a fastball and the batter thinks off-speed, he's way behind and it's probably a strike. If the batter thinks fastball and sees curve, he gets fooled... and, in 2013, that ball drops into the dirt for a ball.</p>
<p>If these results are known to both players, they can decide before the pitch which way they'd like to go. It's not a tough choice. The batter has a dominant strategy: if he picks one way, he's better off no matter what Tom chooses. So he has no choice, and sits on the fastball. Our hero knows what the batter is going to do, so he picks the best option left remaining to him. The result: Tom Wilhelmsen, Tacoma Rainier pseudo-starting pitcher. Pretty cut and dry.</p>
<p>We all face strategic decisions like that in life, but they're so simple we don't even think of them as strategic: do I wear a seat belt? Do I touch this dead animal in the road? But most of the actual strategic decisions we face don't have dominant strategies, especially ones we repeat over and over. In these cases, the best method is to implement a mixed strategy, where we act differently each time, with enough randomness to avoid being predictable. This is how children approach rock-paper-scissors. In that game, your choices are truly random, but in baseball, they aren't. For example, Hisahi Iwakuma has a lovely splitter, but if he threw it every pitch it wouldn't be effective. Therefore he has to mix it up, throwing more split-fingers than other types of pitches because it's stronger, but never enough that the batter sees it coming.</p>
<p>Now that we've established some game theory, let's turn back to the sacrifice bunt, and particularly the plight of the maligned pitcher. I've often noted their continual and growing incompetence.</p>
<p><img alt="G2" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3053715/g2.png"><br id="1376455674223"></p>
<p>But have pitchers suddenly grown that much more incompetent laying down a bunt? Certainly, you read old baseball diaries of pitchers, and hear tales of pitchers lounging in the outfield, playing leisurely games of pepper and hitting fungoes, and compare to the relatively intense training regimen of the modern pitcher. Pitchers were men back then, men who could hit upwards of five home runs a year and never wore batting gloves or warmup jackets. Now, you're lucky to see one take the bat off their shoulder except to make an ineffectual wave at a center-of-the-plate fastball.</p>
<p>You look at that line and the temptation is to start counting the years until it reaches zero. Given their horrific performance, you'd be tempted to ask your pitcher to bunt in every sacrifice situation, right? At least you'd move a runner. Except instead of being the solution, that's actually the problem.</p>
<p>As Tango, Lichtman and Dolphin note in The Book (seriously, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Playing-Percentages-Baseball/dp/1597971294?tag=sbnation-20" target="_blank" rel="sponsored nofollow noopener">go buy it now</a>), the sacrifice bunt situation is another example of game theory. The batter decides whether to bunt or not; the defense decides to position itself based on whether they think the batter will bunt. It's not a clear choice; with the infield in, it's more likely to get the batter or even force the lead runner. But because of their proximity, the infielders have less time to react to a sharp ground ball, leading to more base hits.</p>
<p>This is why in the original element in the series, I mentioned why it was tragic that we (I) don't have data on the locations of the fielders with each sacrifice bunt. This, more than any other factor, including the batter's speed or even their bunting ability, determines the likelihood that a bunt will be successful. What's more, unlike the usual game theory setup, the defense basically has to show its hand first by aligning its infielders before the pitch, giving the batter even more information. The batter acts, the results get tallied, the game repeats itself in the next situation, and the actors adjust their strategies accordingly.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="pullquote">"Baseball is a pastime that reflects on ourselves; we want it to have principles and truisms that we can rely on."</div>
<p><br id="1376457511784"> If everyone were wise and rational, then, you would expect to see a situation where the sacrifice bunt averaged 0 WPA: both sides would juggle their tendencies and revert to an equilibrium where bunting and hitting away were equally advantageous. Of course, this ratio would be different for each player: excellent hitters would bunt very rarely, in fact just enough to keep the defense on its toes. A pitcher would bunt more often, because the bar for breaking even with his hitting would be so much lower.</p>
<p>For all players, however, there is a cutoff point. This cutoff is a nebulous, hovering thing, and therefore it is unpleasant. Baseball is a pastime that reflects on ourselves we want it to have principles and truisms that we can rely on. "Don't make the first or third out at third base." "Don't hack at a 3-0 pitch." "Don't start Chone Figgins on three consecutive Opening Days." These are all rules to live by, comforting absolutes. And they're all, when devoid of context, misleading or just plain wrong. We use them anyway, because they're simple, memorable, and persuasive. They're sound bites.</p>
<p>So is "Kill the Bunt." It's an oversimplification, and a well-meaning one, because teams do bunt too much. But they shouldn't kill it. They should step on its neck and let it thrash around a bit.</p>
<p>The less catchy answer, but the more accurate one, is "Bunt as little as possible while still maintaining it as a possibility." It doesn't fit on a T-shirt.</p>
<p>The bunt is not wrong in and of itself. Like everything else, our judgment relies on context. Take the following ridiculous situation: what if Kyle Seager is swinging a really hot bat, and the other team decides to shift six guys into the outfield. Only the pitcher, catcher and first baseman remain. Is the bunt still wrong?</p>
<p>Of course not. Seager would happily bunt past the pitcher on the left-hand side and stroll into first base, and take that 1.000/1.000/2.000 triple slash that went with it.</p>
<p>So it is with the shift. As <a href="http://www.ussmariner.com/2013/08/02/smart-baseball/" target="_blank">Jeff noted</a> over at USSM, Seager faced a similar if slightly less cartoonish situation last week, with the shift on and a runner at third. With the left side wide open and the defense stacked, the outcomes of Seager's strategy changed, and it became wise to roll the ball down the third base line for the single. That single wasn't a given, but his odds of success were significantly higher than they usually were, and it made the gamble acceptable. Seager's bunt was a success not because it worked, but because a) it had a very good chance of working, based on the defense and b) it will affect future defensive alignments by showing his willingness to bunt.</p>
<p><img alt="S5" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013697/s5.png"><br id="1376457428736"></p>
<p>Coming back to the pitcher: by bunting too often, and by telegraphing their intentions, teams have actually made the sacrifice bunt less effective. Metaphorically speaking, they're picking scissors every single time, and the opponent has caught on. Even if pitchers can't hit, they need to try it more often if for no other reason than to keep the third baseman from inching closer and closer to the plate. History has proven that even as hitters diminish offensively, their bunting has diminished at an even more rapid rate.</p>
<p>It decreases a team's chance of winning by bunting too little and too often; either situation allows the defense to position itself advantageously. That baseball has historically tended toward the latter, and not only helped defensive alignment but sacrificed too many potential extra-base hits, is understandably frustrating to the progressive fan. But swinging away is not a dominant strategy; used sparingly, the bunt can provide a useful, surprise weapon in a batter's arsenal, to be used only as often as necessary to improve his odds in the long run.</p>
<p>But in baseball, as in politics, as in pageviews, hyperbole reigns. So cry foul if you feel it's the only solution for the game's weird, unhealthy love affair with the bunt; do what you must. But when a decent hitter bunts straight back to the pitcher and forces the lead runner, don't swear right away. Because every baseball player, no matter how great, should bunt once in a while. Once they overdo it, feel free to cup your hands and boo.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>More from this series:</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3/in/4366629">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 3</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/12/4613158/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-4">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 4</a></li>
</ul>
https://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/14/4619614/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-5-should-teams-just-stop-buntingPatrick Dubuque2013-08-12T07:00:16-07:002013-08-12T07:00:16-07:00The Sacrifice Bunt, Part 4: Unanswered Questions
<figure>
<img alt="bunting: not necessarily graceful" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/NcZBlzSS-umL1_n_dLNjHnsK1WQ=/4x0:3995x2661/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/17740381/20120813_gav_ab9_297.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>bunting: not necessarily graceful | Steven Bisig-US PRESSWIRE</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Breaking down the sacrifice by position, field surface, and inning, while establishing a new area of Mariner incompetence.</p> <p>Previous Entries: <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1" target="_blank">Part 1</a> / <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2/in/4366629" target="_blank">Part 2</a> / <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3#_=_" target="_blank">Part 3</a></p>
<p><a href="#bottom">A quick summary for the impatient</a></p>
<p>The Sacrifice Bunt Miniseries Event last left off with the rather glum conclusion that the sacrifice bunt isn't providing the sort of returns it used to. Those bunts are rolling for hits as often as ever, but instead of proper sacrifices, an increasing number are becoming strikeouts and forceouts.</p>
<p>There were a few small matters I had to leave out of the last article, so I'll include them here along with some of the miscellaneous topics promised later. So before moving on to asking why the sacrifice bunt is so broken and yet so common, I'll ask and answer a few lingering questions.</p>
<h4>Okay, pitchers suck at bunting. But which other positions are better at it?</h4>
<p>Rather than drown the article in graphs, I'll provide a simple chart of averages for successful and acceptable bunt for each position. The graphs, as it turns out, are unnecessary, because they'd all look quite similar. Remarkably, most of these figures stay fairly constant for each position over the past 40 years, the only exception being the designated hitter. Given the DH's popularity as a repository for the old and enfeebled, their successful bunt rate has actually <i>increased</i> by about ten percent over the past four decades.</p>
<p>The results might surprise you:</p>
<table style="text-align: center;" width="192" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>Position</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>Successful</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>Acceptable</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>P</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">5.8%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">73.6%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>C</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">12.7%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">85.7%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>1B</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">16.8%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">87.3%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>2B</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">18.8%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">88.0%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>3B</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">17.0%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">86.8%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>SS</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">17.9%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">87.3%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>LF</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">20.1%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">85.8%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>CF</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">23.6%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">85.2%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>RF</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">20.0%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">85.5%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>DH</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">18.0%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">85.7%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>PH</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">14.1%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">81.5%</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p> </p>
<p><i>For a refresher on what types of bunts get categorized as successful and acceptable, please reference </i><a target="_blank" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3">Part 3</a><i>.</i></p>
<p>If you're sacrificing for the sake of sacrificing, it turns out that it doesn't much matter what position you play; everyone at the major league level is capable of facing a bat forward. Everyone, that is, except pitchers; but we'll hold off on them until next article. What's interesting among the acceptable ratios is that the pinch hitting penalty (batters tend to hit dramatically worse when they're called up cold off the bench) extends to their bunting ability.</p>
<p>The successful rates also bear some shockers. Those balky-kneed, circular catchers get up the line fairly well compared to their comrades. But the fact that first basemen, as a whole, have reached only one percent less than the fleet-footed shortstops is not something you would expect. And the performance of the outfielders are no fluke: we think of the right fielder as a position that's transformed somewhat from the seventies, but even in 2012 right fielders reached on sac bunts about as often as shortstops (21.3% to 21.4%, respectively).</p>
<h4>Is it easier or harder to lay a sacrifice bunt down on artificial turf?</h4>
<p>There are only two teams left that use a variant of the old Astroturf in their home stadium: Toronto and Tampa Bay. But in its peak, there were as many as a third of all teams using the stuff, even in outdoor stadiums. Those who remember the old Bill Veeck stories of pouring a dozen gallons of water on the grass when a quick, bunt-happy team came to town might understandably think that the artificial green might have an effect on the sacrifice bunt.</p>
<p>And one could see that argument going either way. The fast turf, one might claim, keeps that ball from dying in front of the third baseman, turning bunts into easy grounders. The opposition has a few of their own volleys: those fast grounders just force the infielders further back, don't they? And an even, pebble-free grass would help keep a good bunt in fair territory. So which is it to be?</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3043033/d1.jpg" class="photo" alt="D1"><br id="1376287995089"></p>
<p>Grass, as it turns out, holds a slim advantage in both categories... until 2004, where everything goes out of whack. At that point turf suddenly becomes a huge advantage for the would-be martyr. Advances in technology? FieldTurf, an advanced version of the original emerald carpet, had already begun appearing in ballparks: Tampa installed it in 2000, Toronto in 2005. Minnesota used an alternate surface called AstroPlay in 2004. It's difficult to examine the results on a team-by-team basis, because the sample sizes are so small, and even combining all three to four teams (poor Montreal played its final season in 2004) doesn't give a lot to work with. But here's a graph for comparison purposes:</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3043041/d2.jpg" class="photo" alt="D2"><br id="1376288021845"></p>
<p>Both home and road teams performed slightly better on turf than the American League at large, with the locals slightly exceeding the visitors in average successful (20.9% to 17.4%) and acceptable (83.2% to 82.6%) sacrifices. Did the switch to FieldTurf benefit the bunt? It's possible; perhaps the more realistic field slowed the rolling ball, but infielders were still aligning themselves based on the old patterns. But it's more likely that the turf-based teams were better at bunting over that time, and even likelier still that it's just noise.</p>
<h4>Is sacrifice bunting more difficult against relievers?</h4>
<p>We've already established that managers do not discriminate as to the timing of their sacrifices, and lay them down in the first inning just as happily in the ninth. This is unwise, because bunting reduces the number of runs you're likely to score in an inning, and that's sort of a goal. So it's easy to mock those first-inning bunts as short-sighted and routine.</p>
<p>But before we do, there's more we should consider. In the comments of the last section, Nathaniel Dawson rightly pointed out that inning states carry different varieties of pitchers, with tough relievers more prevalent in the late, close innings. Since relievers as a whole have an advantage in run prevention compared to starters, we would expect to see some dropoff in success in these crucial situations.</p>
<p>Instead, what we see is this:</p>
<table width="256" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>Inning</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>WPA/B</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>Successful %</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p>Acceptable %</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>1</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">0.001</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">24.3%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">90.0%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>2</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">0.002</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">23.5%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">85.8%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>3</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">0.001</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">24.2%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">87.7%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>4</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">0.002</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">22.3%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">88.1%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>5</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">0.000</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">21.4%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">87.4%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>6</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">-0.001</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">18.7%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">87.3%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>7</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">-0.004</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">16.3%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">86.2%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>8</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">-0.007</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">14.8%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">85.4%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>9</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">-0.009</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">13.5%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">83.4%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right"><b>10+</b></p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">-0.006</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">12.3%</p>
</td>
<td valign="bottom" width="64">
<p align="right">84.8%</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><a name="_GoBack"></a></p>
<p>That's not a dropoff so much as a plummet. Hitters have significantly better results with the sacrifice bunt the earlier they do it. It's almost as if there's another factor here besides the quality of the pitcher. But that's for next time.</p>
<h4>Yes, but this is a Mariners website. How have the Mariners performed at the sacrifice?</h4>
<p>Well, they've performed like Mariners. The following graphs compare the team to the American League average. As with the quantity-based graphs, the Mariners graphs are a little less aesthetically pleasing due to their small sample size.</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3043057/d3.jpg" class="photo" alt="D3"><br id="1376288250161"></p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3043065/d4.jpg" class="photo" alt="D4"><br id="1376288269412"></p>
<p>Those seeking trends in these first two graphs will have to look hard: the numbers are very volatile, and don't seem to match any nice preconceived compartments like managerial tenures, as our previous numbers did. The bunt worked well in 2001 because everything did in 2001; the reasons for 1984-5 and 2011 are anyone's guess. It is a little strange to see the team largely underperforming with the sacrifice bunt throughout the aughts, despite the presence of one Ichiro Suzuki atop the lineup. But we'll examine individual performance in a later article.</p>
<p>If we can't blame the manager, is there something we can blame? I ran scatterplots correlating the average WPA per bunt in a given year with various team statistics, and calculated the R-squared value for each. For those uninitiated in the use of trendlines and R-squared values, they range from 0 to 1 and basically tell us whether one stat has anything to do with the other. If one goes up when the other goes up, to the point where all the data creates a single line on a graph, that's a strong correlation. If the plots make a big cloud and you can't see a trend, the correlation is weak. I've included a table correlating some of the more intuitive statistics.</p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="222" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 167pt;">
<colgroup>
<col width="137" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 5010; width: 103pt;">
<col width="85" style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 3108; width: 64pt;">
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" width="137" style="height: 15.0pt; width: 103pt;">Statistic</td>
<td class="xl64" align="right" width="85" style="width: 64pt;">R-squared</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">WAR, Baserunning</td>
<td class="xl64" align="right">0.099</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Steals / Game</td>
<td class="xl64" align="right">0.069</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">Speed Rating</td>
<td class="xl64" align="right">0.063</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">BABIP</td>
<td class="xl64" align="right">0.027</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">WAR, Total</td>
<td class="xl64" align="right">0.011</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">OPS</td>
<td class="xl64" align="right">0.002</td>
</tr>
<tr height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">
<td height="20" style="height: 15.0pt;">WAR, Fielding</td>
<td class="xl64" align="right">0.000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Baserunning WAR tops the list, but 0.1 is still extremely weak as far as correlation goes. There are three explanations:</p>
<p>1. There's a different statistic I didn't think of that correlates more strongly.</p>
<p>2. The skills that determine success in laying down bunts aren't reflected by any other statistic.</p>
<p>3. There is no measurable skill in laying down sacrifice bunts.</p>
<p>I'll devote a separate article to this question, which requires drilling down further into individual performances. But not yet having done so, I'm inclined to believe that there's some truth to both 2 and 3 (while admitting the possibility of 1).</p>
<p>Finally, not because it has any analytic purpose, but just because it's fun to look, here's a full breakdown of Mariners sacrifice bunts by result. Keep in mind that no Mariner has ever sacrificed his way to a double nor bunted into a triple play in franchise history. (To compare with the American League, open <a target="_blank" href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3043121/d6.jpg">this graph</a> in a new tab.)</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3043089/d5.jpg" class="photo" alt="D5"></p>
<p><a name="bottom">Bullet points:</a></p>
<ul>
<li><span>Pitchers: really awful at bunting. </span></li>
<li><span>Position Players: the fast ones get one base more often. But everyone, from Mike LaValliere types to Jacoby Ellsbury types, seems to sacrifice with about the same success.</span></li>
<li><span>Pinch hitters bunt more poorly than players who have played the whole game.</span></li>
<li><span>Grass has been better for bunting than turf from 1973-2004, and then it suddenly switches.</span></li>
<li><span>It might be FieldTurf, or it might just be that the few teams still playing on it were just good. Or it might be sample size.</span></li>
<li><span>Every inning that passes in a game, the harder it is to bunt both successfully and acceptably. </span></li>
<li><span>The Mariners have not been historically good at bunting.</span></li>
<li><span>Unlike bunting rates, bunt results don't correlate well with any other statistic.</span></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p>Having expended all of the whimsical numbers in my arsenal, the next article will begin to delve into real analysis. Using pitchers as a foundation, I'll attempt to answer once and for all the question of whether the sacrifice bunt is bad, and just why it seems to be getting worse and worse. The answer is that there is no one answer.</p>
<p><br id="1376291107060"></p>
<h4>More from this series:</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 2</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3/in/4366629">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 3</a></li>
</ul>
https://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/12/4613158/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-4Patrick Dubuque2013-08-08T07:00:09-07:002013-08-08T07:00:09-07:00The Sacrifice Bunt, Part 3: Diminishing Returns
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/sZH-Fz5hWBmLlK-UMeMNOJS5XNU=/0x120:3747x2618/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/17551329/166107284.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Otto Greule Jr</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now that we’ve looked out how teams bunt, it’s time to look at how well they bunt.</p> <p><i>Previous entries: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1">Part 1</a> / <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1" target="_blank">Part 2</a></i></p>
<p><a href="#bottom">A quick summary for the impatient</a></p>
<p>After laying down some of the groundwork, it's time for the good stuff. After all, it's fairly common knowledge among the educated fanbase that the sacrifice is a poor play, but it's harder to establish just how poor, and whether it's getting worse. Perhaps the only thing more frustrating than watching a decent hitter pull the bat down is to see that hitter, rusty through years of swinging away, pop the ball straight up into the air or straight to the pitcher. The traditional fan in turn bemoans a lack of fundamentals. Either way, the rally is killed.</p>
<p>So how do we measure the value of a bunt? There are two methods, neither perfect. The first is to consider the run expectancy of both game states, using a statistic called RE24. What this does is averages the number of runs possibly scored in the inning by the chance of that outcome. That way we come out with a result where, if you were to reenact the same game situation over and over, RE24 would tell you the mean runs scored per iteration.</p>
<p>This is something that many fans do consciously or unconsciously in football, especially during a fourth-quarter drill. We watch the other team march up the field and near that 35-yard line, and calculate: "If they had to kick from here, their chances of making it are 70%. But then there's a sack! Now it's down to 55%."</p>
<p>So what is the average change in run expectancy after a sacrifice bunt?</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3024891/y1.png" class="photo" alt="Y1"><br id="1375941845302"></p>
<p>They're bad. Only one season, and only for position players, has the sac bunt not damaged the team's ability to maximize runs scored (on average). But this doesn't tell the whole story; it only gives us the average runs scored. We can do better, thanks to Tom Tango, who published run expectancy for each given number based on the game state and the run environment (average runs scored per game). In 2013, teams are averaging 4.19 runs. Here are the RE24 calculations per prospective run scored:</p>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 480pt; border-spacing: 0px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="636">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 1938; width: 40pt;" span="12" width="53"></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" height="21" width="53">RPG</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">base</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">outs</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">freq</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">RE</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">R0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">R1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">R2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">R3</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">R4</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl68" width="53">R5</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl69" width="53">R6plus</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl67" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">Empty</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.239</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.467</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.739</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.145</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.065</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.029</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.013</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.006</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.004</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">Empty</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.174</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.245</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.849</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.092</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.036</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.014</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.005</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.002</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">Empty</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.141</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.096</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.934</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.045</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.015</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.004</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.001</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.058</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.84</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.59</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.176</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.123</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.06</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.029</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.013</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.008</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.068</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.495</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.741</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.119</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.082</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.034</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.014</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.006</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.004</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.069</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.216</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.878</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.058</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.044</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.013</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.005</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.001</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st_2nd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.014</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">1.44</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.38</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.226</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.162</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.121</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.062</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.029</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.02</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st_2nd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.025</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.874</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.595</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.162</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.109</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.079</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.033</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.014</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.008</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st_2nd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.031</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.417</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.784</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.103</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.054</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.039</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.013</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.004</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.002</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st_3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.006</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">1.807</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.13</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.434</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.17</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.138</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.07</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.033</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.026</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st_3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.012</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">1.15</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.359</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.38</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.114</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.085</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.036</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.015</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">1st_3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.015</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.477</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.734</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.146</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.056</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.043</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.014</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.004</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.002</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">2nd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.018</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">1.079</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.39</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.357</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.133</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.066</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.03</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.014</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">2nd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.03</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.651</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.614</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.229</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.091</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.04</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.015</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.007</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.004</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">2nd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.038</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.308</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.792</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.142</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.044</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.015</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.005</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.002</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">2nd_3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.003</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">1.936</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.153</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.264</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.309</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.142</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.073</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.038</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.021</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">2nd_3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.009</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">1.364</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.321</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.296</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.213</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.091</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.047</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.019</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.013</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">2nd_3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.01</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.577</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.738</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.056</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.136</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.043</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.017</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.008</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.002</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.003</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">1.382</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.138</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.57</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.159</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.081</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.026</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.018</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.009</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.01</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.915</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.353</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.487</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.095</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.04</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.014</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.007</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.004</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">3rd</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.015</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.346</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.754</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.181</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.042</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.016</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.005</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.002</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">Loaded</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.004</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">2.293</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.129</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.27</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.215</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.152</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.121</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.06</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.052</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">Loaded</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">1</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.009</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">1.531</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.34</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.265</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.153</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.103</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.083</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.037</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.022</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15.75pt;" height="21">
<td style="height: 15.75pt; width: 40pt;" class="xl63" height="21" width="53">4.2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" dir="LTR" class="xl64" width="53">Loaded</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">2</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.011</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl66" width="53">0.744</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.691</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.091</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.102</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.05</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.044</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.014</td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" class="xl65" width="53">0.008</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>You're (hopefully) not bunting to score six runs. But let's say it's the bottom of the ninth and the game is tied. You have a runner on first and no outs. Sacrificing that runner lowers the average run expectancy from 0.84 to 0.651. But your chance of scoring one run goes up from 17.6% to 22.9%. (On average. Obviously, you're not guaranteed that 22.9%; that's just how it plays out over time. See the game theory section.) Moving a runner from second to third at the cost of an out increases the odds of scoring a single run from 35.7% to 48.7%. That's an even bigger improvement, and it makes sense why the second-to-third sacrifice is growing in popularity.</p>
<p>But remember, only in the bottom of the ninth does scoring one run guarantee a win. In all other innings, a manager can never be certain exactly how many runs they'll need to win. As a cautionary tale, think of Jack Brohamer of the 1977 Chicago White Sox. With his team up 6-0 in the bottom of the seventh, Brohamer laid down a sacrifice looking for an insurance run. They got it. The Rangers came back and won, 9-8.</p>
<p>RE24 tells us how the sacrifice performs in terms of runs scored. In order to know how it performs in terms of wins, we turn to our old friend, Win Probability Added (WPA).</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3024899/y2.png" class="photo" alt="Y2"><br id="1375941946713"></p>
<p>WPA isn't quite as unkind to the sacrifice, especially for position players, but with rare exceptions it, too, shows the sacrifice bunt to be a net loss. (That's because it ignores all those dumb, low-leverage early-game bunts.) And like RE24, there's a definite downward trend. Keep in mind, however, that we shouldn't be looking at the play without context: a 0 WPA isn't exactly a great thing, but it's not as terrible as it sounds. It means that the team is no better or worse off than it was before; essentially, it's a pass. If the team's worst hitter is stepping to the plate and afterward the team is no worse off, they're probably pretty happy with that result.</p>
<p>It's graphs like these that can make a fan tired of the sacrifice. Basically, the average bunt is worth -0.01 to -0.02 WPA even if it's successful. But as Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin point out in The Book, just because managers treat sacrifices as automatic doesn't mean that we should. Giving up an out for a base is a pretty terrible trade, but that's not the trade that the batter has to make. As it so happens, the sacrifice bunt can look a lot like a bunt for a base hit, and base hits are good.</p>
<p>In fact, there are ten possible results stemming from a sacrifice bunt:</p>
<ul class="unIndentedList">
<li> double</li>
<li> single</li>
<li> fielder's choice, all runners safe</li>
<li> error, all runners safe</li>
<li> sacrifice (runners advance, batter out)</li>
<li> failed sacrifice (runners do not advance, batter out)</li>
<li> strikeout (runners do not advance, batter out)</li>
<li> force (lead runner out, batter safe)</li>
<li> ground into double play</li>
<li> ground into triple play (don't laugh, it's happened)</li>
</ul>
<p>The first four of these outcomes I've dubbed "successful" attempts: all runners are safe, team is more likely to win. Add in the sacrifice, and we have "acceptable" attempts, basically what the manager was going for. Any of the final five results are failures. Note that this categorization is based on result, and not intent. We are not penalizing the batter for errors, any more than we reward him for an errant throw. All we care about is the resulting game state. Especially with errors, this can feel counter-intuitive; batting average has taught us to treat errors like players. From a team standpoint, however, they're the natural consequence for putting the ball in play and forcing the defense to do their part. Anyone who recalls an Ichiro groundout from 2001-2 will know how much pressure can be put on a fielder on even the most routine of plays.</p>
<p><img alt="Y3" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3025099/y3.png"><br id="1375948137206"></p>
<p>A look at "acceptable" bunts should tell us whether batters are putting the ball in play the way they're supposed to, regardless of how it helps the team. The numbers are surprising and not-surprising:</p>
<p><img alt="Y4" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3025107/y4.png"><br id="1375948190060"></p>
<p>We see the same random peaks in the early eighties and the early aughts. But what's noticeable is that all batters, no matter what position, are getting desired results less often than they used to. In order to figure out what's happening, we need to break things down even further, into each result:</p>
<p><img alt="Y5" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3025219/y5.png"></p>
<p><img alt="Y6" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3025227/y6.png"></p>
<p><img alt="Y7" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3025235/y7.png"><br id="1375951270898"></p>
<p>It's hard to ignore the bizarre blip that takes place between 2000 and 2002, where all results were pretty much in line with the usual rates, except that suddenly fielders stopped trying to get the lead runner. I have no idea why this would be. I've combed through the B-R Play Index data, and I just don't see it. But at the same time, I have a hard time believing what I do see. So for now, take that section with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>The big takeaway between the three graphs is that both hits and fielder's choices have dwindled for pitchers, while for position players the rate of bunt singles has been rising year after year. On the negative side of things, pitchers strike out dramatically more than position players, but there's a good reason for this: pitchers have less incentive to swing away when they reach a two strike count. Pitchers also ground into three times as many double plays as position players.</p>
<p>But lest we lay this all at the feet of pitchers, note that position players are declining as well. They don't strike out more, but that doesn't mean they're not reaching two-strike counts. What they are doing is producing more failed and force-out sacrifices than they used to, from around 10% in the seventies to closer to 18% currently. What's causing this drop in productivity will require another section.</p>
<p>There's more to say here, including a breakdown of different positions as well as looking at the Mariners as a team, but I'm running on the fumes of my fumes. So to the bullet points:</p>
<p><a name="bottom"> </a></p>
<li>The sacrifice bunt significantly lowers a team's chances of scoring multiple runs. However, if successful, it often raises a team's chance of scoring one run.</li>
<li>Forgotten by managers, however, is the fact that you rarely know exactly how many runs you're going to need.</li>
<li>Even though most managers would happily take an automatic sacrifice from a bunting situation, they shouldn't. It's the chance that the batter reaches safely, through hit or error, that makes the sacrifice bunt close to being worthwhile.</li>
<li>Position players are just as successful as they used to be at getting on base with their sacrifice bunts. Pitchers aren't.</li>
<li>Neither position players nor pitchers are as good at getting at least an acceptable sacrifice down. Pitchers are striking out more, position players are putting the ball in play but failing to advance the runner.</li>
<p>Next article, we'll examine different positions and how they've held up over time. Are first baseman too slow to bunt well? Also, we'll look at the Mariners' performance as a team, comparing their results to the American League. Eventually, we'll also stop talking about averages and start talking particulars, like Kyle Seager's bunt against the shift last week. That was enjoyable.</p>
<h4>More from this series:</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 1</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 2</a></li>
</ul>
https://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/8/4601034/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-3Patrick Dubuque2013-08-06T07:00:12-07:002013-08-06T07:00:12-07:00The Sacrifice Bunt, Part 2: Same As It Ever Was
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gY6XAW1Cvy5gxA5CznHtBWhAp_c=/0x39:933x661/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/17438639/143697527.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Al Messerschmidt</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With this chapter we examine how teams have used the sacrifice bunt over the past forty years, and how things have(n't) changed.</p> <p>In this edition of the series, we'll be examining when and how often teams lay down the sacrifice bunt. If you missed the introduction yesterday, you can take a quick glance at it <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1" target="new">here</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2#bottom">A quick summary for the impatient</a></p>
<h4>Do teams use the sacrifice bunt as much as they used to?</h4>
<p>No. Barely.</p>
<p><img alt="S1a" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3014333/s1a.png"><br id="1375770543796"></p>
<p>(Note: this graph includes all batters, including pitchers. Yes, I know, that's deceptive. Stay with me.)</p>
<p>At their modern peak in 1975, we were seeing a .63 sacrifice attempts a game per team, or two every three games. In 2013, that number has fallen to .42 attempts per game. Note, however, that this is not the lowest rate we've seen: in 1984, managers called for the sacrifice even less than they do now, before quickly reverting to previous levels. <i>(edit: I used bunts per game, but you could also use bunts per plate appearance. When I compared the two numbers, they were so similar as to be basically identical.)</i></p>
<p>That early-eighties era cost me hours of research, because I was certain I had done my calculations wrong. But after triple-checking, they stand: teams just stopped bunting for a while. We'll return to 1984 as our studies go on, and after looking at other factors in following episodes, I'll try to explain this strange little aberration.</p>
<p>"But what about the different leagues?" you may find yourself asking. "Surely you're not going to lump the American League and the National League together, just because you took out pitchers! The AL has 9-hole hitters too!" And I answer warily, fine. There are distinct differences between the AL and NL. But if I showed those now, it would ruin the ending, and even giant research-driven articles need to have some sort of narrative to keep them going. If you insist on ruining the plot for yourself, you can look at them <a target="new" href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3014285/s8.png">here</a> and <a target="new" href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3014301/s9.png">here</a>. I'll get to them, I promise.</p>
<p>In the meantime, it's not enough to just count the number of bunts people are laying down. Let's examining the various game states under which these bunts occur.</p>
<h4>Leverage</h4>
<p>Moneyball is more than a decade old, and Earl Weaver was getting quoted long before that. It's common knowledge that the sacrifice, by trading extra base hits and outs for advanced baserunners, seeks to increase the chance of scoring one run at the cost of chances at a crooked number. So managers throughout baseball must have a better grip on the key moment when it becomes desirable to play for a single run, correct?</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013665/s3.png" class="photo" alt="S3"><br id="1375758955847"></p>
<p>Not really. There has been a slight increase in leverage per bunt since 2010, bringing it more in line with pre-1993 numbers. But these numbers alone should give pause, given that they align almost perfectly with the boom of the steroid era, and its impact on offensive numbers. With higher-scoring games, the leverage of a single plate appearance decreases proportionally, meaning that what little movement we see in the graph likely shares a stronger correlation with runs/game than it does with managerial wisdom.</p>
<h4>The Inning State</h4>
<p>If the average leverage index of the sacrifice bunt isn't changing, we can't hold up much hope for better timing, can we?</p>
<p><img alt="S6" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013721/s6.png"><br id="1375759599368"></p>
<p>This graph provides more evidence for our earlier theory about managerial misuse of the sacrifice. Though they do show some inclination to use the sacrifice more sparingly in the second inning (where, on average, the heavy hitters are more likely to come to the plate), teams were still just as likely to attempt a sacrifice in the first inning as they were in the ninth. In fact, they were more likely to do so in the 2000s, despite the inflated run environment.</p>
<p>It's only been three-fifths of a season so far in 2013, but it appears that the pendulum has finally swung away from early bunting. A full ten percent more attempts this year have come in the later innings. The last time baseball approached this level of sanity was... 1984.</p>
<h4>The Run State</h4>
<p>If you're playing for one run, you'd want that run to be the difference, right?</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013689/s4.png" class="photo" alt="S4"><br id="1375759100597"></p>
<p>This graph represents the score of the game before the bunt is laid down; we'll talk about what happens afterward next time. And although it's not much movement, there is a noticeable shift toward teams employing the sacrifice while behind in the score, and tied, while teams are less likely to use it for insurance runs. This seems counter-intuitive: why would teams be bunting more when they're down multiple runs? This is the trouble with looking for causation when all we have is correlation. The simplest explanation: teams that tend to be behind are more likely to have hitters who can't hit.</p>
<h4>The Base State</h4>
<p><img alt="S7" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013745/s7.png"></p>
<p>The popular conception of the sacrifice is in automatic terms: the first batter of the inning reaches on a walk or a can of corn, then the second batter gamely bunts him into scoring position to wait for his chance at another squib hit to score on. Instead, teams are slowly moving away from the man-on-first sacrifice and the version with the runner on second is becoming more common.</p>
<h4>The Out State</h4>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013649/s2.png" class="photo" alt="S2"><br id="1375759008093"></p>
<p>Since only bunts with zero or one out qualify as being sacrifice attempts, this average also acts as a ration between the two states. Over time, what we find is that More and more bunts have been taking place with an out already on the board, rising from 20% to 30% over the past forty years. And yet neither pitchers nor position players reflect this rise. There's a reason for this.</p>
<h4>The Position</h4>
<p>I know, the last couple of graphs have been boring. Here's some actual insight.</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013697/s5.png" class="photo" alt="S5"><br id="1375759167407"></p>
<p>The clearest single trend in all of sacrifice bunting is the dramatic shift towards pitchers laying down the sacrifice bunt. More than 40% of all sacrifices are made by pitchers now, in comparison to the quarter or so of the seventies. There are other trends as well: shifts in the demographics of first baseman and designated hitters have reduced their odds of sac bunting to negligible levels, and third baseman are getting beefier as well. Instead, there's a slowly growing contingent of pinch-hit sacrifices (noted on the far right of the graph), perhaps admitting that the bunt is something that only certain ballplayers can handle.</p>
<p>This graph represents the greatest progression in managerial thought.</p>
<h4>So do teams use the sacrifice bunt as much as they used to?</h4>
<p>No. But pitchers do, and then some.</p>
<p><img src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013657/s1.png" class="photo" alt="S1"><br id="1375758985421"></p>
<p>Position players, meanwhile, are bunting almost a third of the time less than they did forty years ago, with the heavy hitters avoiding it nearly altogether. This is why the AL has seen its sacrifice rates descend, while the NL with its purity keeps slapping the ball into the ground. Managers do seem to have caught onto this single point: why have good hitters bunt when you can have bad hitters bunt? It seems to make perfect sense. It's not like pitchers are going to do anything with the bat anyway.</p>
<p>As we'll see in the next couple of chapters, it actually doesn't work out that way.</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>The Mariners versus the American League</h4>
<p>As a postscript, please find attached the data for your Seattle Mariners, aligned next to the American League average. These graphs are somewhat uglier and less fulfilling than those above, because a single team makes for a much smaller sample size and thus much greater variance.</p>
<p><img alt="M1" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013777/m1.png"></p>
<p>I meant to talk about managers later on, and I will, in more detail. But it's hard to examine the graph above without noticing some pretty significant patterns:</p>
<p><img alt="M1a" class="photo" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3014105/m1a.jpg"><br id="1375764970970"></p>
<p>The rest of the Mariners graphs are less conclusive, and this post is already plenty long, so I'm attaching them as links. Peruse.</p>
<p><a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013801/m3.png">by leverage</a></p>
<p><a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013841/m4.png">by inning</a></p>
<p><a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013833/m5.png">by run state</a></p>
<p><a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013793/m2.png">by out state</a></p>
<p><a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3013849/m6.png">by position</a></p>
<p>In general, the Mariners have been a slightly sacrifice-prone ballclub, particularly in the nineties. Beyond that, it's difficult to glean much of a conclusion with the data so far. Perhaps it's a little surprising that the franchise has tended to sacrifice more with the lead than the average AL team, particularly give how uncommon a lead could be in Seattle for its first fifteen years. But distribution by position only really tells us when certain stars played for the club (note the absence of CF bunting in the 90s) and the leverage index only really shows when interleague play got introduced.</p>
<p>Next time, when the conversation turns to how <i>well</i> teams bunt as opposed to how often, the numbers start getting a little more interesting, especially for the M's.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a name="bottom"> </a></p>
<h4><a name="bottom">In review:</a></h4>
<p><a name="bottom"> </a></p>
<p> </p>
<ul class="unIndentedList">
<li> Teams are sacrifice bunting a little less than they used to.</li>
<li> Position players are sacrificing a lot less, particularly power positions.</li>
<li> Instead, pitchers are doing it more often than before.</li>
<li> Managers are still prone to using the sacrifice early in games and in low-leverage situations.</li>
<li> It's like we haven't really learned that much in forty years.</li>
<li> 2013 might be an indication that things are turning around. Or it might just be noise.</li>
</ul>
<p>Looking at the results of these numbers, the reader might find him or herself underwhelmed. It seems as though Earl Weaver, Billy Beane, and Juan Pierre have had little effect on how the sacrifice bunt gets used in ballgames. There are really two possible explanations for this, and I leave it to the reader to come to their own conclusion.</p>
<p>The charitable response, and the one we'll consider when we get to game theory, is that things haven't changed because there's no mathematical incentive for them to; both offense and defense have already settled into optimal strategies given their opponents. This doesn't, however, take into account 1984, when the environment changes rather suddenly, and teams are slow to react. Also, as we'll see on Thursday, it doesn't really explain why bunting continues to provide consistent negative returns, year after year.</p>
<p>The more cynical response would be that baseball managers and players have economic incentives to lean toward conservatism: people don't get fired as often for doing the same thing everyone else is doing. Breaking away from conventional wisdom can make a manager the next Joe Maddon; it can also give you the next Maury Wills.</p>
<h4>More from this series:</h4>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1">The evolution of the sacrifice bunt: Part 1</a></li>
</ul>
https://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/6/4592908/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-2Patrick Dubuque2013-08-05T11:30:07-07:002013-08-05T11:30:07-07:00The Evolution of the Sacrifice Bunt
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1sVzTRx3qx6lgcohJQ6NuQKKtzo=/0x13:926x630/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/17386723/gyi0064169652.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Justin Sullivan</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Or: everything you wanted to know about bunting but were afraid someone might write a series of lengthy articles about it.</p> <p>Few strategies are as galvanizing to the modern baseball fan as the sacrifice bunt. In days of yore, the sacrifice once symbolized the nobility of the team game, the advancement of victory over individual performance. Modern fans have come to see it as a tool for managers that need to be seen managing, and as fodder for post-game interviews. It's somehow simultaneously an indication of the overpaid and pampered athlete, and the desperate nostalgia of a dwindling circle of baseball luddites.</p>
<p>And yet it lives on, despite all predictions of its life expectancy.</p>
<p>I touched on the subject of the sacrifice bunt <a href="http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/7/16/4527294/the-state-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-in-seattle" target="_blank">a few weeks ago</a>, noting briefly that our current skipper, Mr. Wedge, shows more restraint with the tactic than some of his predecessors. However, the article bent toward simplification, born out of ignorance and necessity. And bunting is a subject which is already all too often simplified, reduced to statements like "You have to move the runners over" to "You only get 27 outs and they're too precious to give away." I want to cut through these statements and, to the best of our ability, look at exactly how the sacrifice is being used over time, and what teams are gaining from it.</p>
<p>What will follow is a thorough examination of as many elements of the sacrifice as I could think of, a topic too massive for a single post. Instead they'll be presented in a series throughout the week, with each article focusing on a single element.</p>
<p>At the heart of the study is a series of questions: is the sacrifice bunt in decline? And if so, is it because it's become exposed as a strategy, or is it because the modern baseball player is less fundamentally sound than his mustachioed forefathers?</p>
<p> </p>
<h4>Part 1 (Today):</h4>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Introduction</li>
<li>A humble appeal</li>
</ul>
<h4>Part 2 (Tuesday):</h4>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>The various game states in the sacrifice situation</li>
<li>How these game states have changed over time</li>
<li>How the Mariners compare historically in terms of using the bunt</li>
</ul>
<h4>Part 3 (Thursday):</h4>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Means for measuring the value of the sacrifice bunt</li>
<li>How the results of the bunt have changed over time</li>
<li>Measuring the Mariners against the league over time</li>
</ul>
<h4>Part 4 (Next week):</h4>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Pitchers and bunting</li>
<li>Historical use of pitchers and sacrifice bunting</li>
<li>Comparing pitcher bunting in the AL and NL</li>
</ul>
<h4>Part 5:</h4>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Miscellaneous bunting questions</li>
<li>Is bunting harder or easier on turf?</li>
<li>Is the squeeze play effective, currently and historically?</li>
<li>Do teams bunt more because of the managers or the players?</li>
</ul>
<h4>Part 6:</h4>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Individual performances and leaderboards</li>
<li>Conclusion</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<h4>What won't be covered:</h4>
<p>The data presented in this study has been collected and categorized from Baseball Reference's Play Index, which provides an incredible amount of detail about each of the 61,666 sacrifice bunt attempts over the past 40.6 years. However, there are certain details that even B-R is unequipped to supply.</p>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li>Rescinded sacrifice attempts, such as a batter putting himself into an 0-2 hole and being forced to swing away.</li>
<li>Where on the infield bunts are laid down. Some people have access to this information (I've seen Beyond the Boxscore do <a href="http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/5/21/4349530/bunting-skill-juan-pierre-speed-stolen-base" target="new">pretty neat stuff</a> with it) but sadly, not I.</li>
<li>The alignment of the fielders on a given play. As will be discussed in detail on Wednesday, this is really vital information for evaluating the success of a bunt, and we simply don't have it. Someday we'll stick GPS trackers into everyone's Phiten necklaces.</li>
</ul>
<h4>My humble request to you:</h4>
<p>My goal with this series is to create the most comprehensive guide to the sacrifice bunt that I possibly can. As any teacher knows, it can be difficult to present a single subject to a wide readership. So if you're an experienced statistician already well aware of game theory, please be patient. And if you're the anti-quantitative sort, please at least scan down to the graphs. And if there's something you don't understand or don't agree with, don't hesitate to comment.</p>
<p>On another note, I've tried to include everything I can possibly think of, but it's likely that I've neglected an interesting avenue for research and discussion. If there's an aspect to the sacrifice bunt that you don't see included in the schedule above, please include it in the contents.</p>
https://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/8/5/4589844/the-evolution-of-the-sacrifice-bunt-part-1Patrick Dubuque