Bunting Ain't That Tough

[bmfc1]

After Wednesday's loss, we heard that David Wright had only one sacrific bunt in his career so it was not reasonable to ask him to bunt at that time. I'm not saying that he should have bunted, but is it such a diffcult task that he couldn't have bunted?

This was in today's [u:3hxntpv7]Miami Herald[/u:3hxntpv7] about Wednesday's game:

With runners on first and second and no outs in the eighth inning, Paulino moved the tying and go-ahead runs into scoring position for Ross by laying down what Gonzalez called a textbook bunt. Not bad for a guy who had just one other sacrifice bunt in 314 games during his five-year career.

''Paulino has only been with us a month,'' Gonzalez said. 'Sometimes you ask those guys to bunt, and they say, `Well, I don't know.' Maybe he's just never been asked. But . . . the way he laid it down, turned, it looked like he'd always done it.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/baseball/florida-marlins/story/1026580.html

For what it's worth, at fantasy camp, I laid down a successful bunt to move the runners... and I had never done that before, or even practiced to do so, in my entire life.

At BP, hitters are supposed to "bunt the first two" so David certainly has bunted before. My point is, if Jerry wanted to sacrifice, the fact that David hadn't done so in a long time, if ever, should have been irrelevant to his decision.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The last thing the Mets need to be doing is bunting more, even if it gets them the result they want. I will take my chances with DW whiffing from time to time. It's a shame he did.

I ask this question a lot, but it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the success rate of all sacrifice attempts. I don't think I could guess how successful they are given how many outcomes are possible. It seems though that people just assume success at sacrifices is as simple as calling for one.

The Mets have been burned several times this year by failing to get the result they wanted on sacrifice attempts. John Maine failed to do it twice in that game vs. San Diego and it was very costly.

[metirish]

I want him swinging the bat too , if Wright is asked to bunt there and fails then it raises a bunch of other questions , most of them silly in nature. I would never want or expect Piazza in his pomp to bunt or be asked too , I feel the same about Wright.

[Bunt the First Two]

From the earliest days
Ya bunt the first two
Ruth, Williams, and Mays
Ya bunt the first two
Salty old coach is dealing the slop
You slide your hand down and perhaps your hips drop
A cool satisfaction as ball takes a flop
You return to your stance and you're ready to pop
Ya bunt 'em, ya bunt 'em, ya bunt the first two

Veterans and the rookies
Ya bunt the first two
Kingmans and Mookies
Ya bunt the first two
The great equalizer from times immemorial
For all kings and peasants, they need that tutorial
"Be prepared!' comes the cry, at times dictatorial
For e'en Earl Weaver would tell every Oriole
Ya bunt 'em, ya bunt 'em, ya bunt the first two

The serious player
Must bunt the first two
The slugger, the sprayer
Must bunt the first two
It's one part dis'pline, one part preparation
'Cuz ya gotta be ready for each sitchyation
Some think it won't come, they lack 'magination
You start with the basics, and lay the foundation
Ya bunt 'em, ya bunt 'em, ya bunt the first two

[Ceetar]

I was already annoyed that the Mets bunted 4 times in the game. That's FOUR free outs.

And they gave the Marlins two free runners. Amezega is now Babe Ruth? (He's actually never even faced Santana before that game!)

Granted twice bunting was with Santana, but the chances are very slim that Santana's going to ground into a double play, and It's almost definitely less than his OBP. Even if he does make out, Reyes still has the same shot to drive in a run, and actually does have some power that he can get the second run in, even if it's still on first.

This type of small ball, playing for one run, having no confidence in the players to get hits just bugs me.

[Frayed Knot]

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":6ea5az97]I ask this question a lot, but it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the success rate of all sacrifice attempts. I don't think I could guess how successful they are given how many outcomes are possible. It seems though that people just assume success at sacrifices is as simple as calling for one.[/quote:6ea5az97] That's long been one of my anti-Sac arguments: that the SB [u:6ea5az97]pro[/u:6ea5az97]ponents assume virtual 100% success in their what/if scenarios. Of course that argument is secondary to the one about even the successful bunts not really being all that successful - but that's a whole 'nother argument. Overall it'll probably be tough to get a definitive answer seeing as how some bunt attempts are screwed up on the first or second try until the play is taken off and the batter swings away. That brings up the question as to whether that gets counted as a sac attempt or a swing away since it's essentially both? And then the kicker is that the swing away in that case is probably less successful than had the batter not been asked to try a Sac in the first place since he's almost certainly in an 0-1 or 0-2 count.

Edgy DC May 01 2009 12:21 PM

On the other hand, what are the odds that Maine swinging away would have less costly? David Wright, also to be fair, would have the advantage over pitchers of not bunting in against a drawn-in infield.

[Guest Edgy DC]

On the other hand, what are the odds that Maine swinging away would have less costly?

David Wright, also to be fair, would have the advantage over pitchers of not bunting in against a drawn-in infield.