To bunt, or not to bunt? That is the question.

[USAFChief]

It's certainly easier than hitting those same pitches for a line drive.

[jimmer]

 

It's certainly easier than hitting those same pitches for a line drive.

And that theory is based on what? All the successful bunts that get put down? All the hitters who proclaim it to be easier? If it was easier to bunt for hits than take full swings for hits, there would be way more bunting.

 

During batting practice, and during most at bats in games, hitters take full swings.  Their timing techniques are based on taking full swings at pitches a huge majority of time.  But you think it's easier for them to completely change that timing up so they can turn their bodies to face the pitchers more, adjust their feet and just put the bat out there and not swing?

 

I don't think your theory is based on any reality. Bunting goes completely against what is practiced and then applied in almost every at bat that counts.  It might, MIGHT, be easier to get ball on bat, but not easier to actually do it well enough to put it in play AND get on base with any regularity for most if not all players. Most practiced bunts are likely for sacrificing.  And if you aren't worried about actually getting on base when laying one down most of the time, I imagine that makes trying to bunt for an actual hit even harder.

[jimmer]

I want to elaborate on the info provided below:

 

'It won’t surprise you to learn there haven’t been all that many bunt attempts against the shift. This is the very reason certain people have been complaining. I came up with just over 200 attempts over two years. Of those attempts, 38% were bunted fair, and 25% of the bunts resulted in the batter reaching base, either on a hit or an error. In other words, one of four attempted bunts put the batter on, but two of three bunts in play worked out, which isn’t a shock. Thing about the overshift is there’s not really anyone in the vicinity to do the fielding.'

 

So based on what is written above, there was only 200 or so PAs over 2 seasons where a batter was asked to try to beat beat the shift by bunting. They got on base 25% of the time (and that's not the batting average cause that includes errors).  So that's below a .250 average for the batters who tried.  Think about all the batters who were never asked to try because they are so bad (or slow) it wasn't even worth the attempt? If it was easier to bunt than to hit, certainly way more would have been asked to try and bunt while a shift is on. Again, only 200 PAs over the course of about 4900 MLB games did a player attempt to bunt against the shift. And for those even comfortable enough to try, the BA was below .250. Imagine if all the batters tried how low that number might be?

 

Now, over the course of a whole season, overall league batting averages range between .255 and .260 right? This doesn't include those who gets on base due to errors.  And all batters contribute to this, to include some pitchers, right? Not just the ones comfortable enough to try, but everyone.  The average is still quite a bit higher.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's certainly easier than hitting those same pitches for a line drive.

This might be true, but hitting it for a line drive has the potential to reward the hitter with multiple bases, or even a home run.

[Thrylos]

One does not have to bunt against the shift.  Getting a hit the opposite way, will work better for his team than a bunt.  And, unlike bunts, not too many teams are practicing hitting the opposite way.  It will take pulling the trigger a bit later than usual.

 

Just some food for thought.

[Nine of twelve]

Don't want people to bunt when you shift, don't shift.  Don't want people to watch their home run or flip a bat when they hit a HR, don't give up the home run.

Two different things. The former is employing strategy within the context of the game. The latter is poor sportsmanship with the sole intent of belittling your opponent.

[Mr. Brooks]

Two different things. The former is employing strategy within the context of the game. The latter is poor sportsmanship with the sole intent of belittling your opponent.

Not sure how you could know their intent, without ever having met them.

[USAFChief]

I want to elaborate on the info provided below:

 

'It won’t surprise you to learn there haven’t been all that many bunt attempts against the shift. This is the very reason certain people have been complaining. I came up with just over 200 attempts over two years. Of those attempts, 38% were bunted fair, and 25% of the bunts resulted in the batter reaching base, either on a hit or an error. In other words, one of four attempted bunts put the batter on, but two of three bunts in play worked out, which isn’t a shock. Thing about the overshift is there’s not really anyone in the vicinity to do the fielding.'

 

So based on what is written above, there was only 200 or so PAs over 2 seasons where a batter was asked to try to beat beat the shift by bunting. They got on base 25% of the time (and that's not the batting average cause that includes errors). So that's below a .250 average for the batters who tried. Think about all the batters who were never asked to try because they are so bad (or slow) it wasn't even worth the attempt? If it was easier to bunt than to hit, certainly way more would have been asked to try and bunt while a shift is on. Again, only 200 PAs over the course of about 4900 MLB games did a player attempt to bunt against the shift. And for those even comfortable enough to try, the BA was below .250. Imagine if all the batters tried how low that number might be?

 

Now, over the course of a whole season, overall league batting averages range between .255 and .260 right? This doesn't include those who gets on base due to errors. And all batters contribute to this, to include some pitchers, right? Not just the ones comfortable enough to try, but everyone. The average is still quite a bit higher.

I think you’re misreading your own research.

 

First, the article is from 2014, so the amount of shifting has certainly changed.

 

But more importantly, the very data you referenced shows hitters who bunted fair against a shift reached base 2/3 of the time.

 

That’s remarkable. The “failed”bunts include fouls, which shouldn’t be included as a failure, any more than a foul ball counts as a failure in any other PA.

[jimmer]

The 25 percent that reached base includes only the

I think you’re misreading your own research.

 

First, the article is from 2014, so the amount of shifting has certainly changed.

 

But more importantly, the very data you referenced shows hitters who bunted fair against a shift reached base 2/3 of the time.

 

That’s remarkable. The “failed”bunts include fouls, which shouldn’t be included as a failure, any more than a foul ball counts as a failure in any other PA.

No. It says 2/3 of the bunts put in play worked, not 2/3 of bunts attempted. Only 38% of bunts were put in play and two thirds of those worked (so it is still only 25% of all bunts laid down). So below a .250 BA on bunt attempts.

 

And that's a small sample size. Imagine if there was an average of only 3 shifts per game. Almost 5k games, that's about 15K PAs and only 200 attempts. And only for batters that the manager was comfortable enough with to even try.

[Platoon]

Well a .666 BABIP isn't bad either, but I am not sure it's that simple. Does it delineate if it's one foul or missed bunt attempt, and then a ground ball to the pocket man? As for the amount of attempts? From listening to active players and former players it seems there is a definite lack of enthusiasm for the tactic. I get the impression that it's almost viewed as not only disrespectful of the game, but also not playing fair. I don't agree and I do think if it becomes a more regular weapon it will grow in acceptance.

[RegularJoe62]

Sorry, I just don't get this notion that putting on a shift is good strategy, but bunting against it disrespects the game.

[Nine of twelve]

Not sure how you could know their intent, without ever having met them.

Just going with the odds. Like 99.99% odds.

[Mr. Brooks]

Just going with the odds. Like 99.99% odds.

Do you have any basis for that number, or are you just making it up?

It's common for people to celebrate their accomplishments. It doesn't mean they are always intending to ONLY disrespect someone.

[USAFChief]

No. It says 2/3 of the bunts put in play worked, not 2/3 of bunts attempted. Only 38% of bunts were put in play and two thirds of those worked (so it is still only 25% of all bunts laid down). So below a .250 BA on bunt attempts.

And that's a small sample size. Imagine if there was an average of only 3 shifts per game. Almost 5k games, that's about 15K PAs and only 200 attempts. And only for batters that the manager was comfortable enough with to even try.

I know.

 

2/3 of bunts put in play.

 

2/3 of fair bunts.

 

We don’t know what ended up happening on the 62 percent of bunt attempts that were not put in play. The PA didn’t end there. The hitter might have walked, might have K’d, might have grounded out, might have hit a HR. But he didn’t get the bunt attempt in play, so unless he tried with two strikes, he’s still hitting.

 

A bunt against a shift, if put in play, worked two of every three times.

 

Again...you’re misreading your own data.

[jimmer]

No, I am not, but I am not going to continue to explain it.

[Kelly Vance]

"Unwritten rules ain't worth the piece of paper they ain't written on."

 

--Kelly Vance 2018

[Kelly Vance]

 

Sorry, I just don't get this notion that putting on a shift is good strategy, but bunting against it disrespects the game.

I agree. You take what they give you

[Kelly Vance]

 

It's all about adjusting to the adjustments in sports.  Bunting will become a more more common thing methinks.

I agree. Its Spy v Spy, for all you Mad Magazine fans. But hey, the bunt was in the game before the shift. At least I think. Anyway, I say the bunt against the shift is the only way to get rid of that silly shift strategy. I mean.... come on.... 5 infielders? Where is Connie Mack or John McGraw when you need em? 

[Kelly Vance]

They are out drinking with the ghost of Earl Weaver. 

[nicksaviking]

 

This might be true, but hitting it for a line drive has the potential to reward the hitter with multiple bases, or even a home run.

 

It does, but getting on base might not even be the biggest benefit of bunting against a shift. The larger prize may be to get teams to stop shifting.

 

[Vanimal46]

Here's data from last season in a Joe Posnanski article on MLB.com

 

 

 

Last year, based on Statcast™ numbers, players who got a bunt down against the shift hit .568. This is more complicated than simple batting average numbers because, among other things, it doesn't include those who fail to get the bunt down, but the point is: Major League players can beat the shift time after time after time if they so choose.

But they don't because the shift is more than a defensive strategy. The shift is a psychological game, and has been since the days of Ted Williams. It is meant to convince hitters that they don't really have the option to bunt or chop the ball the other way. To do that, the shift suggests, is to hurt yourself and the team.

 

[ashbury]

Here's data from last season in a Joe Posnanski article on MLB.com

As Platoon said earlier, the numbers we are looking at represent BABIP. Since league-average BABIP is normally around .300, you have to sit up and take notice at what look like sustainable BABIPs above .500. Yes, you're trading away SLG for OBP. And not every bunt attempt is put in play - the plate appearance goes on, in that case, and if two strikes are reached then probably the batter swings away. Like any skill, it's hard, and the pitcher has at least a little recourse - four-seamers thrown for high inside strikes would be my first guess what to try^*. But basically, moar bunting, plz!

 

^{* _{Though, if I guess wrong, and a batter like Dozier isn't bunting, the ball could end up in the stands.}}

[Craig Arko]

 

It does, but getting on base might not even be the biggest benefit of bunting against a shift. The larger prize may be to get teams to stop shifting.

The chess game within the game.

[Vanimal46]

 

The chess game within the game.

 

And really, that's the beauty of everything we've been discussing on this thread. Analytics aren't going away, and teams will continue to mine thousands of batted balls to determine where you're most likely going to hit the ball in play. This is just the next move players can do to rebut the data. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

And really, that's the beauty of everything we've been discussing on this thread. Analytics aren't going away, and teams will continue to mine thousands of batted balls to determine where you're most likely going to hit the ball in play. This is just the next move players can do to rebut the data. 

 

Also, putting runners on greatly reduces the ability to shift.  You might free some players from facing the shift by way of getting on base and putting the opponent back in a more normal infield alignment.  

[Platoon]

From Joe P. "But they don't because the shift is more than a defensive strategy. The shift is a psychological game, and has been since the days of Ted Williams. It is meant to convince hitters that they don't really have the option to bunt or chop the ball the other way. To do that, the shift suggests, is to hurt yourself and the team.". This is most likely why more players don't bunt. And I think you can add one or two others. Certain players have been, since they started playing, known for their hitting more than any other part of their game. I have no doubt that many view bunting as beneath their status as an offensive threat, and............... The money is in home runs, not in bunting. This could or could not be what Joe P. meant by "hurt yourself", but it is how I would interpret some players insistence on hitting against the shift.

[USAFChief]

 

From Joe P. "But they don't because the shift is more than a defensive strategy. The shift is a psychological game, and has been since the days of Ted Williams. It is meant to convince hitters that they don't really have the option to bunt or chop the ball the other way. To do that, the shift suggests, is to hurt yourself and the team.". This is most likely why more players don't bunt. And I think you can add one or two others. Certain players have been, since they started playing, known for their hitting more than any other part of their game. I have no doubt that many view bunting as beneath their status as an offensive threat, and............... The money is in home runs, not in bunting. This could or could not be what Joe P. meant by "hurt yourself", but it is how I would interpret some players insistence on hitting against the shift.

I have no doubt that players will need to swallow a little pride to bunt.

 

It's not manly. It's too easy. It's what pitchers are asked to do, ferpetesakes.  

[snap4birds]

I saw that article on ESPN claiming Dozier was 'playing the long game'.  But the funny thing is, you could just as easily claim that Sisco was playing it, too.  His team was down 6 runs with one out in the ninth.  If he gets on base, how much does that raise his team's win probability?  How much more does it rise if he hits a solo home run?  Not much, in either case.  But him putting down a successful bunt in that situation just might make teams re-consider that shift against him the next time around.  And it's a good opportunity to practice it so he will be better at it, too.  

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

I spent a decade complaining that Ortiz didn't bunt to break the shift with a bunt on a regular basis so it's pretty clear where I stand on this topic.

 

Go ahead and shift but be warned that a smart player will hurt you for it.

[ashbury]

I saw that article on ESPN claiming Dozier was 'playing the long game'.  But the funny thing is, you could just as easily claim that Sisco was playing it, too.  His team was down 6 runs with one out in the ninth.  If he gets on base, how much does that raise his team's win probability? 

The WPA stat kept by baseball-reference.com doesn't get down into the decimals, so by their computation it's approximately zero. But, if you look at the graph just above the play-by-play, you do see just the tiniest wiggle, when Machado singled Sisco over and our chances plummeted to 99%.