Apologies if this has been hashed over before in depth, but if I remember correctly, there was still debate on this board recentlythat the sacrifice can frequently be a good move, particularly in certain situations. After seeing DiCaprio, our #1 hitter, asked to sacrifice in game 1 vs. UTSA last night... I'll try to offer up some quick data.
Skipping the
very integral fact that we recently (ok, more than recently) don't seem to be able to actually execute a sacrifice, let’s assume we could. The numbers would still say "don't do it,"
especially in college where pitchers don't bat.
Even with a successful execution, based on MLB data, there's a 20+ percent increase in run production with a runner on first and no outs vs. a runner at second and one out. With runners at first and second and no outs, there's a 10+ percent increase vs. runners at second and third and one out.
Here's the run expectancy data:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortab...id=2021095 or for a longer timeline....
http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html
An argument for the sacrifice can correctly be made for weak hitting players e.g. most pitchers. Since we don’t have pitchers batting, we should never have batters with that low an average in lineup. While we are not a strong hitting team this year, we're not weak compared to the stats used to calculate the data. While our OBP for 2017 YTD is an NCAA anemic .345 vs. an average NCAA OBP of about .360 (we're #205 out of 295 teams in Div 1), even our low 2017 OBP is STILL about
20 points higher than the average MLB OBP from which all the statistics are compiled, meaning that the sacrifice makes even less sense for us - or most any college team. For perspective, DiCaprio, who was called upon to sacrifice last night, has an OBP of .437.
Furthermore, the comparison assumes a
successful sacrifice so the stats undercall the downside. The Run Expectancy numbers are based on the statistical starting situation (e.g. runner on 1st and no outs vs. runner on 2nd and one out), not the successful execution of the play. They don't account for the common sacrifice miscues that plague us and result in the runner not being moved over - e.g. lead runner thrown out, double plays, pop-outs, strike-outs, etc. The positive 'overachieving' outcomes - exceptionally well-placed bunt-for-hit, or the much rarer infield error - are rarer than the miscues.
The only data I've found encouraging the sacrifice is that depending on the batter (and the following batter), it can make sense to sacrifice with a) runners on second - or first and second, b) no outs, c) when we need one run and only one run. It still isn't a positive with top tier hitters.
Net, with the exception of one circumstance with average or below batters, calling for a sacrifice is calling for a statistical gift to the opposition.
For anyone with an eye towards reading more....
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sab...decisions/ - Key notes - Pitchouts only make sense if you're psychic, which most managers and catchers are not.
https://www.byforex.com/entry/427096 WSJ article - key stat - MLB manages got the memo. Non-pitcher bunting is down almost 50% since 2004.
Historical MLB OBPs
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?po...0&sort=0,d
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/articl...cleid=2844
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/articl...cleid=2851
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/articl...cleid=2869
A solid 13-year-old dive into the numbers - showing that the one and only case where sacrificing makes sense is where 1 run
and only 1 run is needed, and when you have a runner on 2nd or runners on 1st and 2nd with nobody out, it makes sense for most players in MLB to sacrifice. With the higher BA and OBP in college, it’s less true, but still a relevant circumstance.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/16396...todays-mlb
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/were-the-...g-correct/
Treatise on two bunting situations in one Yankee game argues that bunting can sometimes make sense in theory. From 2009. No actual numbers, so not really relevant. However, it’s game theory based on what the defense expects/does and conversely, what the offense does based on what the defense would do based upon what they think the offense would do. Theoretically, the article would also argue that batters would hit to take advantage of a shift against them… So, yeah, that.
