Bunting: Why Square Up So Early?

[bulldogcountry1]

When I was in little league, I was taught to square up early for sacrifice bunt. That continued on through high school. About all I can remember, as far as the reasoning, is that it somehow helps you get into the best position for the bunt.

Even now, when I see guys square up well before the pitcher comes set, I wonder what possible advantage that gives the offense. The main purpose of the sacrifice is the give away an out ot advance a runner, but why make it too easy? It only gives the first basemen and third basemen several extra seconds to charge in, increasing their chances to catch a pop-up or throw out the lead runner. It seems like an opportunity to put more pressure on the defense by waiting and not being so obvious, especially when you have a competent bunter at the plate.

[ShotgunDawg]

Great question, because I haven't the slightest clue. And if someone on this board wants to act like they do know why, they better have a very very good answer or I will challenge you on it. ULL was very good at this. When sacrifice bunting, there is no reason why you have to be an automatic out. Practice laying down drags and push bunts in those situations to put more pressure on the defense.

[Bubb Rubb]

When I was in little league, I was taught to square up early for sacrifice bunt. That continued on through high school. About all I can remember, as far as the reasoning, is that it somehow helps you get into the best position for the bunt.

Even now, when I see guys square up well before the pitcher comes set, I wonder what possible advantage that gives the offense. The main purpose of the sacrifice is the give away an out ot advance a runner, but why make it too easy? It only gives the first basemen and third basemen several extra seconds to charge in, increasing their chances to catch a pop-up or throw out the lead runner. It seems like an opportunity to put more pressure on the defense by waiting and not being so obvious, especially when you have a competent bunter at the plate.


So, here's a hypothetical situation for you: you want to bunt, but you don't want to square early. As the pitcher is releasing the ball, you go to square, but the pitch is high and tight. Your body is still moving forward to square and you don't have time to change your momentum and hit the deck, and you get beaned in the head.

This is why you're taught to square early at a young age, so that you are set and have time to react to the ball. I suspect it's less of an issue as you get up in age because pitchers have better control. But that's the fundamental answer, anyway.

[Pioneer Dawg]

Great question, because I haven't the slightest clue. And if someone on this board wants to act like they do know why, they better have a very very good answer or I will challenge you on it. ULL was very good at this. When sacrifice bunting, there is no reason why you have to be an automatic out. Practice laying down drags and push bunts in those situations to put more pressure on the defense.

It's all in the name. SACRIFICE means totally giving yourself up "for the team". It's why the announcers live it and players celebrate it more than an actual positive action. If they were called idiot bunts an not sacrifice bunts you wouldn't see it as much.

The goal ACTUALLY IS to get out because that fulfills the great moral teachings and people think that should be honored.

[Covercorner2]

Squaring up early allows for the slash?

[State82]

Great question, because I haven't the slightest clue. And if someone on this board wants to act like they do know why, they better have a very very good answer or I will challenge you on it. ULL was very good at this. When sacrifice bunting, there is no reason why you have to be an automatic out. Practice laying down drags and push bunts in those situations to put more pressure on the defense.

I'm with you on this. I could see it for younger players but at the D1 level you should have enough talent to disguise it better.

[engie]

I'm with you on this. I could see it for younger players but at the D1 level you should have enough talent to disguise it better.

If you are trying to hide it, you are drag bunting

[ShotgunDawg]

So, here's a hypothetical situation for you: you want to bunt, but you don't want to square early. As the pitcher is releasing the ball, you go to square, but the pitch is high and tight. Your body is still moving forward to square and you don't have time to change your momentum and hit the deck, and you get beaned in the head.

This is why you're taught to square early at a young age, so that you are set and have time to react to the ball. I suspect it's less of an issue as you get up in age because pitchers have better control. But that's the fundamental answer, anyway.

There is some timing to it. You don't square around when the pitchers arm in coming forward, you are taught to square around when the pitcher breaks his hands. This gives you enough time to control your body while also giving the defense little time to react. The term sacrifice bunt is dumb. You should be able to accomplish the same thing without having to completely sacrifice yourself.

[I seen it dawg]

It's all in the name. SACRIFICE means totally giving yourself up "for the team". It's why the announcers live it and players celebrate it more than an actual positive action. If they were called idiot bunts an not sacrifice bunts you wouldn't see it as much.

The goal ACTUALLY IS to get out because that fulfills the great moral teachings and people think that should be honored.

As usual you are wrong. It has it's place in the game.

[State82]

If you are trying to hide it, you are drag bunting

Yeah I know. But I thought the question was why would you not attempt to disguise your intent every time.

[engie]

Ok, here is an answer.

First, the way MSU sac bunts most of the time is unconventional, and I'd love an in-depth explanation for why we do it that way from our coaching staff. Cohen and Mingione both give truthful, in-depth and insightful answers when hit with the "difficult questions". We just don't have many writers who will ask them.

General baseball consensus is that you show bunt as the pitcher begins his movement to the plate on your normal sacrifice. Now, almost every team has a "show early" sign -- which can be given in conjunction with a take sign(to mess with a pitcher having trouble throwing strikes) -- or can stand alone when you are actually supposed to bunt. A call to show "show early/take" on the first pitch and then "show early/bunt" on the second one is pretty common with guys that can get them down.

Reasons to show early:
1) To see what the defense is setting up and doing prior to trying to put the bunt down. It's not as simple as "first and third basemen charge". There are a multitude of bunt defenses there depending on a ton of circumstances that can influence what you want to try to accomplish as a bunter.
- It can involve a crash play(what you seem to assume in your post) where the 1/3b charge hard and the general goal is to gun the guy at second. Showing early allows this to be seen early. On some hitters that are dead pull or handle the bat really well, this situation can turn to automatic slash. Other times, it's an automatic take. Or, if the bunter is good, you can still go ahead and put it down and just trust them to deaden it right, allowing the runner to get to second. It can also be "auto take" and then the option to slash on the next pitch, depending.
- It can involve the 3B staying home. This call is fairly regular with lefties that fall off to the 3B side and/or athletic pitchers that field the position well. One of the reasons to keep him home is when you've got an excellent runner on first, crashing the 3b leaves 3rd open for the swiping for that runner, unless you rotate the SS over to cover, which means the 2B has to cover 2nd, and leaves you totally wide open to the push bunt. In general, this is still a "read" play for the 3B because a hard bunt their way still has to be fielded by them.
- There are about 20 more defensive calls with everything from crashes, crash pickoffs, etc..but these are the two most common.

2) To mess with a pitcher or catcher. On a straight steal, you can show bunt about a foot above the ball, and pull the bat back at the last second. The idea being to get in the eyeline of the catcher. Does it work? Never had it screw me up as a catcher -- but never had any other teams execute it correctly either. They were all showing "at the ball", which defeats the purpose and is outside of the catcher's eyeline. Also can show early with no intention of bunting for a pitcher having trouble throwing strikes or otherwise appearing to be mental.

3) After faking it a couple of times like this, it becomes a scouting report that you fake early constantly. The first time you lay one down in this situation will surprise a team almost like a drag the first time you lay it down. Once you show both, that can add a bit of mental to it.

4) As a sacrifice, in theory it doesn't matter when you show it as long as you execute your end...

There are more reasons and examples, and I can go more in depth, but my brain isn't working too good at the moment...

[Todd4State]

There is some timing to it. You don't square around when the pitchers arm in coming forward, you are taught to square around when the pitcher breaks his hands. This gives you enough time to control your body while also giving the defense little time to react. The term sacrifice bunt is dumb. You should be able to accomplish the same thing without having to completely sacrifice yourself.

It's a scoring technicality. A sac bunt and a drag bunt that both result in outs are both scored as a SAC even though one is not the same as the other. And it's a scoring technicality that should be changed.

I think that if you are going to bunt- 90% of the time at least you should be bunting for a hit even if it's a traditional "sacrifice" situation- because why not? Why limit yourself to just giving up an out? You might as well bunt for a hit because if you get the bunt down and are out, you just accomplished the same thing as a traditional sacrifice and you open up the possibility that you might get on base.

What I don't understand is why teams don't try to bunt where there is a higher percentage of getting a hit? Some areas of the infield- if you bunt the ball there, you have over a 40% chance of getting a hit. And of course, other areas the chance of getting a hit is very low- like back to the pitcher.

I do think that one thing that gets lost in this is people assuming that bunting is easy. It is easier than actually trying to get a hit- no question about that. But it's something that has to be worked on to be done correctly and effectively.

[Bear@Work]

It's a scoring technicality. A sac bunt and a drag bunt that both result in outs are both scored as a SAC even though one is not the same as the other. And it's a scoring technicality that should be changed.

I think that if you are going to bunt- 90% of the time at least you should be bunting for a hit even if it's a traditional "sacrifice" situation- because why not? Why limit yourself to just giving up an out? You might as well bunt for a hit because if you get the bunt down and are out, you just accomplished the same thing as a traditional sacrifice and you open up the possibility that you might get on base.

What I don't understand is why teams don't try to bunt where there is a higher percentage of getting a hit? Some areas of the infield- if you bunt the ball there, you have over a 40% chance of getting a hit. And of course, other areas the chance of getting a hit is very low- like back to the pitcher.

I do think that one thing that gets lost in this is people assuming that bunting is easy. It is easier than actually trying to get a hit- no question about that. But it's something that has to be worked on to be done correctly and effectively.


Not meaning to threadjack, but Todd, were you threatened by a lawsuit by the Bears or something? We haven't seen much more on the juiced bats thing lately and that's all you were on about earlier in the week. The argument was so compelling I as pretty convinced. Hell, you probably had the bears convinced their own bats were juiced even if they werent!!

[Sienfield]

Our Compliance Department requires us to square up or the player will be suspended.***

[engie]

I think that if you are going to bunt- 90% of the time at least you should be bunting for a hit even if it's a traditional "sacrifice" situation- because why not? Why limit yourself to just giving up an out? You might as well bunt for a hit because if you get the bunt down and are out, you just accomplished the same thing as a traditional sacrifice and you open up the possibility that you might get on base.

What I don't understand is why teams don't try to bunt where there is a higher percentage of getting a hit? Some areas of the infield- if you bunt the ball there, you have over a 40% chance of getting a hit. And of course, other areas the chance of getting a hit is very low- like back to the pitcher.
I agree with you here. To me, there is still a sight difference between a "drag" and "bunting for a hit in a sac situation". I hate the true form of the SAC bunt play most of the time, but if you are going to be forced to do it, you ought to be peppering the 3B line -- and Cohen should be caking on the paint to help it stay fair. There is certainly nothing saying you can't "try to be perfect" in a SAC situation, thus getting a hit. My guess is, the percentage of having that ball go foul, and thus a "failed attempt" are why you see guys ease it more toward the center of the field, at the 6 and 4 hole in a "sac" situation...


I do think that one thing that gets lost in this is people assuming that bunting is easy. It is easier than actually trying to get a hit- no question about that. But it's something that has to be worked on to be done correctly and effectively.
Depending on how hard you practice it, it can be just as hard as trying to get a hit IMO. In order to be truly successful with it like ULL was, you've got to totally "buy in" to the philosophy and guys that are quick enough to have "hitting success" within the philosophy. Another thing that goes unnoticed about ULL's success is that literally every single one of them could hit with power. This opens up the bunt to them FAR MORE than it does guys that get 98% of their hits as singles like a number of our starters last year. The ULL guy just gets so many more opportunities.

Also, our hitters don't seem to trust the "sacrifice" philosophy we use any more than our fans do. Sometimes they look like they would rather foul 2 off and get a chance to hit than laying one down to get that guy to second with no outs. That was one of the problems with this year's team as well. They never "bought in" -- and in this case, I'm not totally sure I blame them.

Now, that said, "sac" bunting is easier as a hitter than "drag" bunting because the bat is already in position and it's easy to deaden the ball. Or, maybe the right terminology, is that "drag bunting is easier to screw up". Easy to mess that up and line out to someone. To me, pushing was easier than the 3b drag, but you'd still see alot of guys push it too much at the pitcher for a textbook double play...

[RougeDawg]

Squaring up early is ridiculous and shows that the players does not possess the capabilities to drop one down at the drop of a hat. Bunting is not some foreign act. Every baseball player should he able to bunt a bee bee with a drink straw, but they can't. They don't work on it. Even on a sac bunt, a player should be able to square up during a pitchers throw to the plate. Not really that difficult, IF YOU PRACTICE. Coaches no longer make players practice bunting. Used to be mandatory to bunt, before you got to hit.

[Pioneer Dawg]

Squaring up early is ridiculous and shows that the players does not possess the capabilities to drop one down at the drop of a hat. Bunting is not some foreign act. Every baseball player should he able to bunt a bee bee with a drink straw, but they can't. They don't work on it. Even on a sac bunt, a player should be able to square up during a pitchers throw to the plate. Not really that difficult, IF YOU PRACTICE. Coaches no longer make players practice bunting. Used to be mandatory to bunt, before you got to hit.

Exactly it's the cool thing now to just call it, watch it fail, cross your arms in the 3rd base coaching box and act pissed off, and use that as the excuse to promote the "team concept"... Rinse.. Repeat..

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Someone should tell texas to stop leading the country in it. That way, they may have a shot at winning it all.

[Todd4State]

Not meaning to threadjack, but Todd, were you threatened by a lawsuit by the Bears or something? We haven't seen much more on the juiced bats thing lately and that's all you were on about earlier in the week. The argument was so compelling I as pretty convinced. Hell, you probably had the bears convinced their own bats were juiced even if they werent!!

No, I wasn't threatened by a lawsuit or anything like that.

My stance on that has never changed, it's just that like anything else- it becomes an "old story". If I posted on it every single day, I think people would have eventually told me to just drop it.

Based on their performance in the CWS, I would say it is very suspicious that they used illegal bats throughout the season. Even the game against TCU which "proved" that their bats were legal- or that's what they tried to spin- one of their doubles was a ball that should have been caught and in all honesty ruled an error, and then Orvis's double was about as close to foul territory as you can get without it being foul. All that game really proved was if you make errors and leave the ball up, it's going to get hit.

Now, Ole Miss will and has pointed to the TCU game, but that's a little bit funny to me since they were all playing the sample size card earlier after the UVA and Texas Tech game. But the fact of the matter is even bad hitting teams have good games every now and then- heck, we were not all that great and lit up Beede for 10, put up double digits on Auburn, and scored 8 on Ole Miss in the Governor's Cup. One game where you hit well doesn't make you a "good hitting" team or prove that your bats were legal the whole time at all.

Especially when there is much more evidence that is pointing to suspicion. The fact of the matter remains- Ole Miss had bats confiscated, no one else has ever confirmed that other schools had bats taken up outside of Ole Miss reporters, and they spent a hell of a lot of time doing damage control over something that was in their words "routine". Why?