EDIT: if you don't know anything about baseball this headline will be unfortunately incomprehensible.
Pride is not an adequate answer for me, because the more bunts you drop against the shift, the better your stats are and the more money you make. This should be clear.
I suspect the deeper reason is that a lot of sluggers simply can't bunt well enough to make this work, and don't want to spend time over the offseason trying to learn. When would someone like David Ortiz learn to bunt? From 8 years old he could hit the ball over whatever fence he was presented with.
Firstly, let me say that I agree with the assessment of the author that sacrifice bunting is stupid, and the only thing stupider is the way it's scored. You get an out recorded against you for hitting a flyball to right field that can advance a runner to third, but you get a free pass for doing the same thing on a bunt. There is no logical explanation for it. Second, I'm not sure that his analysis is completely correct about why power hitters don't bunt against the shift. I think it has more to do with the fact that they don't practice bunting, and aren't confident in their ability to lay one down and then run to the bag (as many--obviously not Josh Hamilton--are the slowest players on the team). But that brings up the point of why don't power hitters practice bunting. I have no idea, but I suspect they just don't consider it ever. However, both Papi and Prince Fielder have taken to learning to poke singles into left field in the last year or so, and it's showing up in their batting average (both players have above career batting averages the last three years). I don't think that bunting against the shift would get a player as much ribbing as throwing free throws underhand, mainly because bunting is already part of baseball, while underhand free throws are almost exclusively thought of as something little kids do. Anyway, the long and short of it is that bunting for a base hit = good (no matter who you are), and sac bunting sucks (no matter who you are).
Yeah. Posnanski (and Bill James, first) has written some really entertaining bits on the math behind sacrificing. But it's worth noting that they hate the intentional walk, when I've always held that there are some few rare situations in which the IBB is worth using. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are one or two situations where sac bunting is helpful. But the slavish mindset of most managers to it drives me nuts.
I've seen analyses that say that overall, sac bunts don't increase your odds of winning. However, I've never seen an analysis of just the ninth inning and later in a tie game. I would like to see it, because intuitively, it seems like when manufacturing one run will win the ballgame, it might make sense to trade an out. I'm sure something that obvious has been controlled for in all the data, however.
Exactly. That intuition certainly battles against the prevailing math. I think James basically makes the point that outs are worth x and moving a runner from first to second etc is worth y, and that it's across the board not worth it. But what about when the out supposedly worth 'x' is the pitcher? His out is worth a lot less, right? What about the 9th inning? I'm not convinced.
Do you follow AL or NL teams? I'm willing to guess if you follow an AL team, you probably think bunting is ridiculous because everyone in the lineup should be able to hit. There is an expectation in baseball that pitchers can't hit, so they should at least be able to advance a runner, and they do it by bunting. I see more NL than AL baseball, so I disagree on the anti-sac bunt stance. If you can advance a runner in the same way you would with a sac fly, why is that so horrid? Just get the runner in scoring position. I am willing to guess speed does play a role in sluggers not bunting, but I also don't see why it can't be part of their toolkit. I'm a (semi-disgruntled) Marlins fan and witnessed a lot of Juan Pierre bunts during his stints with the team. The guy is masterful at bunting. He studies the field before games, rolling balls down the baselines to see how they veer. Then he works on pinpointing his bunts toward the sweet spot on the infield. I bet the efforts have gotten him a number of base hits and advanced runners. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't expect a slugger to do the same level of research, but it sure doesn't hurt to at least practice. Maybe sluggers bunting against the shift is one of those unwritten rules. If I am managing a team in a typical regular season game, I wouldn't call for my slugger to bunt. In a crucial game though, say, to keep a series alive, I'd call for a bunt, even if it is just to keep the other team honest. Maybe the odds are against me, but crazy antics are what make sports interesting, right?
I don't think anyone is arguing that bunting is bad, rather that giving yourself up intentionally to advance a runner doesn't (mathematically) increase the chance that the runner will score and that your team will win. It's a pretty well studied sabrmetric topic, actually. A bunt single on the other hand is a thing of beauty and finesse, and is just as good as any other single (at least in situations where one would try to bunt for a base hit). The bigger issue with AL vs. NL is that the NL is stupid and should get with the times ;) It's incredibly not fun to watch pitchers hit (unless you're Carlos Zambrano [or Dontrell Willis for you Marlins fans], what are you even doing in a batter's box). It's a hole in the lineup, and even worse, it forces managers to pull pitchers early. To me, this game management isn't interesting; it's just dull. Why wouldn't we want to watch the best athletes playing their best? Doesn't make sense. And it also Doesn't make sense for different teams to have different sets of rules. If pitchers are to hit, then pitchers should hit, or vice versa. The fact that AL teams have to go into NL parks and all of a sudden have their pitchers hit is one of the dumbest things is professional sports. But this is a digression that I could go on for way too long.
I'm pro-watching sports played to their highest and most exciting level. Pitchers hitting is anachronistic, and in this day and age pitchers hitting makes as much sense (given where they spend all their time training and practicing) as position players pitching. (I'm all for arguing about the merits of the DH, but by all means, please don't respond with anything about "purism". If purists had their way, there would be no such thing as the baseball glove.)
Position players pitching always makes the news and is one of my favorite things to see in a baseball game, but I know what you mean. My primary argument is that I learned baseball from Tony La Russa, and he used the pitcher's spot in the lineup to great effect. Having a DH does allow pitchers to go deeper into games, I guess -- but forcing managers to weigh batting the pitcher in an important spot versus having to go to the bullpen early creates avenues of strategy simply not seen in the AL. I also will use the purist argument, by god, if nine men are going to take the field then all nine of them should bat, and having another guy who mucks around in the dugout during the home half is just weird.
I think the guys in the AL need to stop being wusses and make pitchers hit! :) All I can say is that sometimes you do end up with a pitcher who surprises you with a hit. Or, dare I say, executes a fine sac bunt. It's a fun element of the game. The last Marlins game I went to, Jose Fernandez hit a home run (his first!) and it sparked a brawl. I'll take that any day over AL pitchers who sit in the dugout getting manicures between innings. :) Also, having pitchers in the lineup requires more strategy on the part of NL managers to maintain the strongest lineup as they go to the bullpen. How many double-shifts do you see in the AL? I used to cover baseball, and I love scoring games. It's a great challenge to keep up with all the moves. And having done a ton of NL baseball, my mind will never be changed! :) Oh, and by the way, Carlos Zambrano played for the Marlins, too. :)The bigger issue with AL vs. NL is that the NL is stupid and should get with the times ;)
It was a fantastic game. It was Fernandez's last start of the season since the Marlins wanted to shut him down at 170 innings. I covered him in Single-A Jupiter last season and he was never expected to be in the majors this season. Even he did not expect it. I think Fernandez wen 7 IP with 8K and gave up one HR. He was angry about that... so he made up for it. Then all hell broke loose, which was fun, too. I'll have to see if I can post one of the photos from the fracas.
Sports journalism. The NHL is the sport I predominantly cover, although I get to do baseball every now and then. I covered a lot of baseball for ESPN's wire service during summers in college. Lots of fun. Jupiter tops Mother Nature, St. Lucie Though innings limit near, Jose Fernandez is Marlins big draw
Cool. I read of few of your pieces for the Panthers. The recent piece on Thomas was a great read. Hopefully, there will be more good news for you to report this year after last year's giant step back (but I kind of doubt it). I think that both FL teams added can't miss type players in the draft, but that both teams still have some major issues defensively (that's why I was kind of taken aback that both passed on Jones, who I think will be a stud). Anyway, I'll get to see them a lot more than in the past now that Detroit (my home town) is in their division, although I definitely feel bad for both teams with the new alignment. The new Atlantic is a beast, and the FL teams may get beat up on quite a bit. But still, it's always fun to get to watch Stamkos, which I have missed out on quite a bit.
I think that you and erin are both right. You are right in that it is stupid that both leagues abide by different rules regarding pitchers hitting. erin is right, in my opinion, in that it adds a really interesting dynamic to the game. Watching two pitchers have to literally square off against one another, one on the mound and the other at the plate is fascinating stuff from a psychological standpoint. I love it.