An Al Yellon article on BBTF. That's a surprise

These two strategies are just about gone. The Sac bunt will go first. Even if a situation might call for it, no one knows how to do it. Most of the time the hitter looks like he deliberately screws up on the first pitch in order to get the manager to take the sign off

IBBs. I'd like to see a graph by inning. I could see IBBs being useful in situations in the 7th-9th but I don't understand why it ever gets used before that. The early inning IBB is a firing offense imo.

IBBs. I'd like to see a graph by inning. I could see IBBs being useful in situations in the 7th-9th but I don't understand why it ever gets used before that. The early inning IBB is a firing offense imo.

It's not a graph, but bb-ref's batting splits pages break them down by inning. This year there were 23 in innings 1-3, 103 in 4-6, 208 in 7-9, and 141 in extra innings.

Excellent - thanks. So that's 125 that should definitely go away. The ghost runner is creating a new need for sac bunts I guess

I'm sure I read this article in 2001. Bill James fans probbly read it in 1983. Seriously the closest it gets to explanation is the run expectancy table which of course, at best, shows the difference between a regular PA and a successful sacrifice.

Even if a situation might call for it, no one knows how to do it.

To the extent this is true, it's also true that defenses are no good at defending it anymore either.

I thought we might see a bump in IBB with the 3-batter rule but that's not the case.

There will be times in early innings when an IBB still makes sense, at least from a WPA angle. You're already down 3-0, men on -23 with 2 outs, tough batter coming to the plate with an easier batter up next against whom you also have the platoon advantage. Going down 5-0 vs 6-0 or 7-0 doesn't really matter so IBB the tougher batter. The WPA impact of the IBB there has to be close to nil, your goal is to maximize the probability of getting the 3rd out which is to get the better match-up. It might even make sense to IBB with one out to set up forces but I wouldn't count on that.

(Note, we're talking about 126 times before the 7th out of 4,860 team-game so, sure, we all know it almost never makes sense.)

The fireballing bullpens of innings 7-9 might lead to an uptick in sac bunts. It would be interesting to see what the numbers say. To the extent small ball makes sense, it's just in close games/low-scoring environments. Those relievers don't give up a lot of BIP, I don't know if they give up a lower BABIP too, you're not going to string many singles together. At least with the pickoff attempt limit rule, maybe we'll see them tilt towards steals not sac bunts.

I wouldn't have minded if Marsh had tried to drop one in the 8th last night.

2022 - 390 SH 475 IBB
2012 - 1223 SH 1055 IBB
2002 -1339 SH 1452 IBB
1992 (26 teams) - 1665 SH 1315 IBB
1982 - 1740 SH 1319 IBB

Three NL players had more than 7 sac bunts in 2022:

1. Mets C Thomas Nido (12) - 72 OPS+, career 61 OPS+
1. Diamondbacks SS Geraldo Perdomo (12) - 58 OPS+, career 62 OPS+
3. Nationals OF Victor Robles (11) - 70 OPS+, career 80 OPS+

AL version (more than 6):
1. Guardians C Austin Hedges (10) - 42 OPS+, career 58 OPS+
1. Royals 2B-SS Nicky Lopez (10) - 58 OPS+, career 73 OPS+

2002 -1339 SH 1452 IBB

5% of these IBB were to Barry Bonds alone. I don't even want to think about 2004.

Guardians C Austin Hedges (10) - 42 OPS+, career 58 OPS+

I guess the real question here is how does a dude this bad get enough AB for a team trying to compete to lay down 10 sac bunts in today's game.

I'm sure I read this article in 2001. Bill James fans probbly read it in 1983. Seriously the closest it gets to explanation is the run expectancy table which of course, at best, shows the difference between a regular PA and a successful sacrifice.

exactly--when the piece started out "even prior to 2022" ??? Where has this guy been?
in the immortal words of Earl Weaver from the early 1980's "why don't you take the sacrifice bunt and shove it up someone's ass
and leave it there"

I don't even want to think about 2004.

Barry Bonds had 120 IBB in 2004, 78% of all of the Giants 153 IBB (which easily lead MLB) and 8.7% (more than 1 in 12) of the 1,381 in MLB that year.

Bonds' IBB rate was 26.55 times that of the entire MLB (19.44% vs 0.73%). If everyone in MLB had IBB'd at the same rate as Bonds did in 2004, teams would've scored approximately 9,000 extra runs, increasing the runs per game average from 4.81 to 6.69, highest since the unbridled madness of the 1890s.

So, yeah. It's a lot.

I did an informal study of BB's 2004 campaign a number of years ago.

The performance of the players hitting after him was utterly abysmal-IIRC barely batting over .200 with virtually no power.

I guess the real question here is how does a dude this bad get enough AB for a team trying to compete to lay down 10 sac bunts in today's game.

The tools of ignorance run both ways.

Hedges has bits of 8 seasons. This is the 5th time he's passed 300 PAs. He also led the NL in sacs in 2020 with 5. I'll let one of you framing nerds tell us about that but even b-r puts him at +25 fielding so I assume his defense is valued. Also Cle's other catcher is Luke "Lukey Barrels" Maile** who has a career 61 OPS+ although he did kill it this year at 82.

** Egads, a web search suggests this is a semi-legit nickname or at least it made its way briefly through the Blue Jays fan-o-sphere and possibly Marcus Stroman's twitter.

the cleveland baseball franchise has developed an unhealthy obsession with rostering the worst-hitting catchers it can possibly find.

it's a dangerous outgrowth, nay, perversion, of the tired maxim "anything you get offensively is a bonus" that gets trotted out ad nauseam around these parts. (see also "straw, myles.")

hedges IS a great bunter, though.

I wouldn't have minded if Marsh had tried to drop one in the 8th last night.

Exactly. I doubt the sacrifice bunt has a place in the game anymore for advancing runners, but it certainly has its place for trying to drive them in.

Against a generic pump-it-up at 99 relief pitcher (many of whom finish their pitching motions in terrible fielding positions) push bunts would often be better than swinging away. As a Tigers fan I have flashbacks to the Cardinals bunting on Joel Zumaya in 2006.

This is a good place to make (once again, sorry for those for whom this is a repetition) my proposal for my 2nd favorite rule change:

"Pitchers may not field bunts"

That does a couple of things:
1) It naturally tends to get rid of the shift, because 3B and 1B naturally have to be able to charge bunts when < 2 strikes.
2) It rewards hitters who swing early, because with 2 strikes the defense will have much greater freedom in positioning.

It also makes for some interesting strategy - do you play in to guard against the bunt, or do you play deep? It would probably also make speed a bigger part of the game, as a Billy Hamilton type could have a better chance of making a living, presuming they learned how to bunt. It's also a natural evolution of the rules - in 1900 or whatever they made a foul bunt with 2 strikes a strikeout because the bunt had become too potent a weapon, now in 2023? they are leveling the playing field on bunts once more and bringing it back into play.

As a postscript - Brandon Belt is an excellent bunter and has used this skill quite regularly to fight the shift. This year his various injuries (as per usual) held that skill back some, but Brandon Belt, along with some of the other Giants who aren't half bad themselves, are a nice feature of Giants baseball.

"Pitchers may not field bunts"

I like this, but I think it should be all ground balls off the mound, not just bunts.

I think that's an interesting idea too, at least in theory. You could go so far as "pitcher can't leave the mound until the ball leaves the infield" which would also make balls hit to 1B more interesting. (I'd still want some way to allow them to back up at bases.) But I can't imagine we'll ever see that rule.

I also wish there was some way to provide them with protection against 110 MPH liners.

I also wish there was some way to provide them with protection against 110 MPH liners.

This is my 8yo daughter's first year in softball, and the facemasks they wear in the field seem quite unobtrusive. I was pleasantly surprised by that.

#19 No Reason they can't learn to pitch wearing lacrosse goalie gear.