Furball
Evil Scotsman
Haha yeah I'm a big fan of Moneyball, hence the question. There was one play in the Arizona-Phillies game last night where it worked, but it relied on the pitcher making an arse of his attempt to get the runner out at home plate. When you only get three outs per inning, to me it just makes no sense to sacrifice one of those outs in order to advance a guy to second base when you could get a base hit anyway and have two men on base with no outs.It's one of those baseball strategies that has been followed since the beginning of time, but now more and more is getting criticized as counterproductive. Unless a speedy hitter is genuinely trying to bunt for a hit (which happens, but is very rare), the point is to advance the runner(s) into scoring position. The thought process is that if you have a runner on 1st with zero out, you lay down a bunt and advance said runner to 2nd. Now a base hit can bring him home (whereas before he would probably only make it to 3rd on a base hit). You wouldn't normally bunt with your "power" hitter though. Since they can hit a home run at any given time, they will not be asked to sacrifice bunt. You would normally bunt with either the top or bottom of your batting order.
Of course, you have sacrificed an out to advance the runner. If you have read or seen "Moneyball", you may know that some of the teams now believe bunting is counterproductive. They believe you should never give up an out just to advance a runner one base. This new view is still a minority one though. The vast majority of teams will still lay down a "sacrifice" bunt to advance the runner.
Btw, give me a good reason to support the Texas Rangers.