What is the benefit of the sacrifice bunt with a man on first?

Question

When you have a runner on first and nobody out, your chances of scoring that run are about 41%. When you move him over to second with one out, that drops to about 40%, meaning you've hurt your chances by giving up that out.

My question is, why do managers continue to do this so often? I understand doing it with a pitcher hitting, because they're unlikely in most cases to move that runner over via a walk or hit, but why give up an out with an average or better hitter?

Is it just so ingrained in the baseball culture that it's done without thinking? Or is there some other benefit that doesn't show up in the percentages?

Answer 1

Another factor could be the success of that particular hitter against the pitching he might be facing. If the hitter does not have a great deal of success against that pitcher it would be beneficial to move the base runner but the sacrifice bunt.



However if the hitter "owns" the pitcher, it would make little sense to bunt. I can see giving up an out for a run but not so much in moving a base runner into a potential scoring position.

Answer 2

If you were to ask most managers with those statistics what they would do...80% would say that they will sacrifice an out and 1% to get the runner 90' closer to home. Mainly because you are ussually talking about a 8 or 9 hitter dropping one down to get the runner over so it is the bottom feeders in your line-up not too many teams would have the clean-up guy drop one down. It is all about getting the guy into position to score with anything hit to the outfield,I guess the best way to say it is they look at as a calculated gamble...do you want to bank 1% better chance from a further distance.

Answer 3

In key situations and late innings, the double play is the biggest rally killer in the game. The sacrifice bunt basically takes the double play option away, unless the opposing manager then intentionally walks. This is the logic I have come up with.



Another reason is this. Most runners don't have ligitimate steal potential, however with a bigger lead at second base, a simple single scores them. For these same runners, depending on the location of the single, they may not even get to third from first.



It's taking a gamble, but the reason why the runners are moved up at the cost of an out is so that the lead runner gets in scoring position, and the manager has faith that one of his next batters will deliver with a single to drive him in.

Answer 4

I think when it's a really close tough game and you've stranded runners on base all game and the pitcher you're facing is just throwing a gem, it makes a lot of sense to sacrifice. A lot of times I think it's good late in the innings and you'll see pinch runners come in at first after one of the slower members of the team has walked or hit a single. Then, someone who isn't a run producer (i.e. NOT Pujols, A-Rod, Berkman, etc. Think more Eckstein, Aaron Miles, Adam Kennedy) who's likely to hit it on the ground and be a double play threat is more likely to bunt in these spots. It depends on the game situation. Sometimes, I like it in the first especially if you have a lot of speed at the top of the lineup. Say the leadoff guy gets on for the Dodgers (Juan Pierre?) and then Furcal comes up and lays a bunt down, that could be sacrificial or you'll have guys on first and second with no outs and Jeff Kent, Matt Kemp or Blake DeWitt coming up. The percentages just don't do the game justice all the time. It's like that saying: There's lies, there's damn lies and then there's stats. Certainly you keep the stats in mind and let them be a factor but you also have to assess where the game is at and how the other team is performing. It's like the hit-and-run...it's used a lot to get guys out of slumps but there's also that risk that you'll run into an easy double play. There's always risk but you have to decide on the decision that will help you sleep better at night.

Answer 5

Can these odds be further broken down to the situation. I don't see much of a reason to try it in the early innings. A team only has 27 outs to "waste?" and there is no incentive at all to sacrifice a man to second base early. In the middle innings when a run maybe desperately needed: for example a pitchers duel against your opponents ace and you are tied or one run behind and with a decent contact hitter due up after the sacrifice and your sacrificer is a good bat handler, plus the possible element of surprise, I think might move the odds a percentage point or two in your favor. Anyway I feel that every situation is different and needs to be carefully weighed by the manager in order to maybe move the odds to a more positive outcome. In general though, the sacrifice bunt has a limited value in the general scheme of today's power baseball.

Answer 6

I've always wondered the same thing. I would be FAR more inclined to put on the hit and run to open up a hole for the batter and attempt to move the runner to third. I think there is a misguided logic behind moves of that nature, mainly, that giving up an out to get a runner to second is more beneficial than keeping that out. By putting the runner in motion, a manager is putting pressure on the defense from multiple angles rather than one. You have the catcher up on his toes ready to throw out the runner, the appropriate middle infielder is sprinting to 2nd, the other fielders likely are adjusting to the notion that the runner is stealing, and suddendly the hitter puts the bat on the ball. So much can happen...

Answer 7

My guess is that there afraid that the hitter would hit into the double play....and after a double play you've got 2 outs and no one on....with a good bunt at least there will only be out out and a runner on second...you rarely ever see a bunt turn into a double play and pretty much the worst case scenario would be they get the lead runner out at second....so I guess my opinion is it is basically to stay out of the double play...

Answer 8

Overall 41% sounds about right with a runner on first and no one out, but that average can go way up or down depending on the hitter coming up and the hitter that follows him. For example, if the pitcher is coming up the chances he will strike out or hit into a double play increase dramatically which could take the team out of the inning. However, If the pitcher gets the bunt down that 40% average with one out and a runner on second base could go way up with the number one and two hitters coming up. Just like my statistics professer told our graduate class, "if you believe in statistical averages than the average American has one breast and one testicle". Craig, notice I didn't say the average Canadian.

Answer 9

It's conservative but safer because now you have a runner in scoring position.



The probability to score is only 1% higher if you keep him of 1st, but now you don't have the risk of a double play or a high fly ball that will keep your runner on 1st.



What is the probability if you have 2 outs with no runners on base (after a double play) or 1 out with your runner still on 1st. I'm sure it's way lower than the 40% you mentioned.

Answer 10

1. It prevents the typical double play

2. It puts the runner in scoring position. An average base runner will score from second on a single.

3. A passed ball or wild pitch puts the runner 90 feet from scoring.

Answer 11

The move does take the possibility of a double play out of the picture, and it moves the runner into scoring position where he can score on a base hit.

Answer 12

I think that it is so ingrained in the head that it is "good strategy" that most managers feel safer doing it then having it second guessed. A manager follows the book and is wrong, not many people complain. When he goes against the book, and it works, he's a genius - if he fails, he's an idiot.

Isn't it funny that this stat isn't real well known, but most managers could find out what their catcher is hitting against left handed starting pitchers born in the third week of July on Friday nights when the temperature is between 60 and 70 degrees? And would actually use that info ?

Funny game, ain't it?



Edit - could use your help on one of my questions Craig.



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20080616080316AAxh8n3

Answer 13

Takes the most common form of a double play out of the picture. Plus, if your runner on 2nd is even marginally quick, he can possibly score on a hit to the OF, whereas, a runner from 1st could only score if it was hit into a gap somewhere.

Answer 14

You move the runner over to 2nd and also u take away the double play if theres no outs or 1 out.

Answer 15

with only 1 out or no outs it puts the runner in scoring position with only a base hit and in a close game 1 run might win that game

Answer 16

Simple moves the runner over to second and takes the doubleplay away.

Answer 17

i dont like the sac bunt either

in baseball you should try everything to avoid an out because when you avoid outs you score more runs

moving a man over to second isnt worth an out

Answer 18

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. God did not sacrifice his son like a barbaric man. He sacrificed Jesus because he loves us(humans, people) so much. Besides, you should remember that a part of God suffered the pain of the crusifiction, because the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus are seperate, but one. Jesus was not like you are to your dad, Jesus is an actual part of God.

Answer 19

I didn't realize those percentages but my guess would be maybe if the player has a high tendency of grounding into DPs?

Answer 20

fear of the innning killing double play. thats my guess