Baseball situation question - 2nd base nobody out vs 3rd base one out?

[Homer]

It depends on whether I'm trying to maximize the probability of getting at least one run or trying to maximize the average number of runs scored. This completely depends on the exact situation. Tied up, bottom 9, bunting the runner to 3rd is better. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure not sacrificing is best.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
well jeter bunts runners over to third all the time and he wouldn't ever do anything that hurts his team's chances of winning, regardless of what nerds on the internet say.

[/ QUOTE ] Right; Jeter is a winning player winner who wins winningly win night long, win. Even his errors and GIDPs help his team win, he wouldn't make an error if it hurt his team.

Seriously, this reminds me of a good point; sometimes the runner beats out the bunt attempt or an error allows him to reach base. When the probability of these two things are high, and the probability of the bunt failing miserably (e.g. doesn't advance runner, runner thrown out at third) is low, the bunt can have a positive expectation in terms of expected runs scored. Extremely rare situation.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

this exact scenerio is outlined in BP's book.

it completely depends on what you are hoping to accomplish. trying to maximize your runs or maximize your chances of scoring one run.

bottom of a the 9th in a tie game, depending on who the batter is and who would be the next batter(s), bunting is a little better.

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
this exact scenerio is outlined in BP's book.

it completely depends on what you are hoping to accomplish. trying to maximize your runs or maximize your chances of scoring one run.

bottom of a the 9th in a tie game, depending on who the batter is and who would be the next batter(s), bunting is a little better.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, of course, that sacrifice bunting is never 100% successful.

I think you could never bunt ever, and it not be a mistake.

[Justin A]

I'm a big fan of the try for a base hit bunt with a runner on second and nobody out. Provided Cecil Fielder isn't the batter of course.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you could never bunt ever, and it not be a mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

I remember a playoff game a few years back. The Red Sox were up two in the bottom of the eight and got runners on first and second with nobody out. I think Bellhorn was the batter, but it might have been Mueller. Of course they didn't bunt, and I was pulling my hair out. It was very clearly wrong not to bunt in that situation. If they had a one run lead, it would have been even more wrong. If they were tied, the manager should be fired for not bunting.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
It was very clearly wrong not to bunt in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't seem "very clearly wrong" to me.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have bunted, but I don't think it's a super-obvious bunt situation.

[Force1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was very clearly wrong not to bunt in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't seem "very clearly wrong" to me.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't have bunted, but I don't think it's a super-obvious bunt situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is an example of a obvious bunt situation? are there a lot or is bunting not as useful as it seems?

[punkass]

It's 100% B. When teams have a man on 2nd and no outs, they will 100% accept a sacrifice, either through bunt or fly, to get the runner to 3rd. Since teams would always take this sacrifice, B is clearly better for the hitting team.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
It's 100% B. When teams have a man on 2nd and no outs, they will 100% accept a sacrifice, either through bunt or fly, to get the runner to 3rd. Since teams would always take this sacrifice, B is clearly better for the hitting team.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're taking the word of a group of people which includes dusty baker?

if you asked a manager during the 1920s who the best player in baseball was, he absolutely would have said ty cobb. he would have been wrong. managers are not the smartest people in the world.