As relatively meaningless September games go, this one was pretty eventful. The Pirates fell behind 3-0 early on when Jeff Karstens got in trouble in the second inning, then fell behind 4-2 when Karstens ran out of gas in the fifth. Danny Moskos did a great job limiting the damage to keep the game at 4-2, though, and Andrew McCutchen absolutely crushed a homer to right center to tie things up in the seventh.
Things did not go so well from there. Joel Hanrahan continued his recent struggles in the ninth and gave the Cardinals a 6-4 lead with some “help” from his defense (Pedro Ciriaco was particularly bad), then Clint Hurdle Jeff Banister (Ed. note: Hurdle was, of course, ejected early in the game after the ridiculously bad call by the third base umpire that resulted in Pedro Ciriaco being called out for not tagging up at third base when he should’ve scored to tie the game at three. So maybe I should replace the rant that’s about to follow about bunting with my stock rant about instant replay. THIS THING HAPPENED BUT BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE INSTANT REPLAY WE HAVE TO PRETEND THIS OTHER THING THAT DIDN’T REALLY HAPPEN HAPPENED! SERIOUSLY, HOW STUPID IS THAT! IT’S VERY STUPID!) took over in the bottom of the ninth and kept the bunt sign on with Ciriaco up and two strikes, which resulted in a force out a third base. I’m so tired of getting upset about bunting that I hardly feel like it’s worth it, but I’ll do it one more time.
In terms of run expectancy, sacrifice bunting runners from first and second to second and third is basically treading water. In context neutral situations (meaning, not considering the batter or the pitcher or the ballpark, etc.) the lead runner is slightly more likely to score from third with one out than from second with no outs but the trailing (and more important) runner is a little less likely to score from second with one out than he is from first with no outs. This is not an opinion, it is a fact of baseball.
If you were to say that Neil Walker is more likely to hit a single and drive in the tying run from second than Ciriaco is to hit a double and score both runs, that wouldn’t really be an opinion, either, but it would be woefully underrepresenting the potential outcomes of the situation. Ciriaco doesn’t need to hit a double for his at-bat to be worthwhile. If Ciriaco swings away, something very good could happen (extra base hit, tie game), something good could happen (single, one run scores, rally continues with the go-ahead run on base for Walker), something neutral could happen (an out that moves both runners up), something bad could happen (an out that leaves a runner on first base), or something awful could happen (double play). Remember, though, that Ciriaco is speedy and so the double play is pretty unlikely. When Ciriaco squares around, though, you’ve limited yourself to the following options: something neutral could happen (successful sac, both runners move up), something bad could happen (play ends with an out recorded and a runner on first), or something disastrous could happen (double play).
Now, you might be right if you argued that the chances are pretty good that if Ciriaco is allowed to swing away that the at-bat will end in what we’ve termed a “bad” outcome, whereas the chances are also pretty good that when asked to bunt he’d get the bunt down and shift the burden to Walker. BUT, in a non-zero number of at-bats Ciriaco (who, I should add, had the game-winning hit last night and two hits before the ninth inning tonight) will also get a hit, which is a result that is much, much better than a successful sac bunt can ever offer, whereas no hitters have a 100% sac bunt rate, either, and in situations like the one we saw tonight, the Pirates gave up the chance for a good result and didn’t even end up with a neutral one.
Essentially, bunting in the situation that the Pirates did tonight is based on a false assumption (that runners on second and third with one out is much better than runners on first and second with no outs) and it absolutely SLAYS me that managers don’t bother with the critical thinking necessary to get past this fallacy. Why do we insist on hiring men to manage baseball teams that can’t be bothered to think their way out of paper bags? I’ll never understand this. (Ed. note again: Of course, this is awfully unfair because Banister made the call and he’s not really the manager, but hey, it’s not like Hurdle hasn’t bunted in super-dumb situations this year. Yes, I’m equivocating because I screwed up. But seriously, bunting is stupid and managers/acting managers/whoever that do it often are also stupid. And I’m sticking with the paper bag comment. Why can’t managers think critically about bunting, just because it’s been part of the game for so long?)
