Why do teams continue to sacrifice, even when statistics and SABR proves it to be "wasted" outs?

Question

If a run is STATISTICALLY more likely to score from 1st base with none out versus 2nd base with 1 out, then why do teams continue to sacrifice precious outs? I can see this strategy being used with the pitchers spot in the NL, but the numbers bear out that sacrificing is not the preferred strategy.

Answer 1

It is not "wasted" in all situations. The sabermetric numbers are averages - they don't say "in any situation, no matter how bad the hitter, it's better to have him try and hit." Say there's an N.L. pitcher who has never gotten a hit in his entire storied career - while the charts might tell you that it's better to hit with a guy on first and no outs than a guy on 2nd with one out, any fool could see that it's better to take the likely advancement of the runner against the almost certainty of ending up with a man on first and one out. There is some level of hitting average below which the costs of trying to hit outweight the benefits.

Also, consider that teams are not always trying to maximize runs. Sometimes, they're playing for only one run. A team that is tied with its opponent in the bottom of the 9th inning is more concerned with maximizing the possibility of getting one run than what the statistics say is most likely to score the maximum number of runs. Given that (and taking into account the hitting ability of the next few players in the batting order), it sometimes makes sense to try for that lone run than worrying about whether the charts show that more runs tend to score in an inning in a 1st-and-no-outs situations.

Answer 2

There are other factors involved. Say you are facing a good sinkerball guy. You might be inclided to bunt to stay out of a double play...especially if you have a slow runner at the plate and average speed on the bases.

You may be playing for a tie late in a game....just get the thing tied up while you can.

Despite what turtle says, bunting is sometimes the right move even if you don't have runners on first and second.

All things being equal, you don't want to give away an out. However, in baseball, things are rarely cut and dried.

Answer 3

It's a case by case basis. It depends on the batter and the speed of the runner...

Suppose that it's late in the game, and you have someone on first base and the batter isn't the greatest hitter in the world... if that batter lays down a sacrifice, that'll move the runner to second and in scoring position.

If you don't sacrifice, there's that chance of hitting into a double play.

Answer 4

All of the answers so far are good, but they forget one thing...a lot of managers are anti-sabermetric, anti-statistical, and just plain stupid.

Look at the number of foolish decisions made because it's "the way we've always done it." Look at Joe Morgan's hatred of "Moneyball." Or just think of how long it took for relief pitching to not be looked on as a weakness--even a moral weakness--in the starting pitcher.

Answer 5

One reason only - OLD SCHOOL TRADITION

I coach a team and I never sac bunt a runner on first to second. The stats don't back up that move. I am more likely to do a hit and run, or just a plain steal.

Answer 6

Because if you have a bad line up. And you trust the guy behind the bunter more than the bunter. Let the better hitter have a better hit situation. In a good hitting line up, then you don't.

Answer 7

Good point but I think it depends on the individual teams & the individula hitters that follow. Teams that win seem to take advantage of these situations better.