EdMonix11
All-Star
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 5,029
- Reaction score
- 5,777
- Points
- 113
You assume like an idiot, and your entire post is antiquated garbage that's been proven as such.
The play lowers your run expectancy. Period.
Try doing just the minimal amount of research or have a basic understanding of the game before coming in here with a shit take.
If you want to defend the bunt call, I think your only option is to say that Tito wants them to execute it in the regular season just in case it's ever needed in the playoffs. I can't think of another argument.
I wouldn't call bunting antiquated. I actually think it's underused..... It's a very interesting debate because the analytics community are going back and forth on the issue these days.
FWIW, Bill James actually said this a few years ago, "I've had second thoughts, and I've done some additional research. I am no longer convinced that the sacrifice bunt is a poor percentage play."
So the idea Bill James has is that teams don't bunt their middle-of-the-order hitters and that's a very important detail. With teams no longer bunting all that much anymore, the opportunity cost has never been lower for a lesser hitter to lay one down. The success rate of a bunt is slightly over .300 so the chance of a hit is quite high. A failed bunt SHOULD mean you advance the runner anyways.
Basically, Bill James thinks the advantage of the bunt resides less in the inherent situation and more in the identity of the hitter.... akin to the intentional walk.
So in this case tonight, 1st and 2nd, no out, Naquin (L) facing a LHP and the opportunity to have 2nd and 3rd w/ one out for your best hitter (Lindor).... I think that's as good of a time to call the sacrifice bunt.