Sac bunts going the way of the dinosaur

These stats are AL only.

1906: 1.14/game

1916: 1.23

1926: 1.39

1936: 0.53

1946: 0.58

1956: 0.49

1966: 0.44

1976: 0.42

1986: 0.28

1996: 0.25

2006: 0.20

2016: 0.15

I think we've reached the point where players are asked to execute a sac bunt so rarely, they no longer are competent at doing it. Yesterday the Chisox had the bases loaded in the 10th, nobody out, tie game, and a hitter with a sub-.500 OPS at the plate. Did they sac bunt? No, and the batter popped out to the SS. Then the leadoff hitter came up, a shortstop who you'd think knew how to bunt. Strikeout. These are exactly the types of hitters, and types of situations, where a bunt might have made sense.

Look, I get all the reasons why bunting rarely makes sense. But as a fan of the art of the game, it saddens me that players can no longer even do it.

P.S. -- it's amazing how dramatically bunts decreased between 1926 (1.39/game) and 1936 (0.53/game). Most of that drop occurred in one year, between 1930 (1.05/game) and 1931 (0.52/game).

These stats are AL only.

1906: 1.14/game

1916: 1.23

1926: 1.39

1936: 0.53

1946: 0.58

1956: 0.49

1966: 0.44

1976: 0.42

1986: 0.28

1996: 0.25

2006: 0.20

2016: 0.15

I think we've reached the point where players are asked to execute a sac bunt so rarely, they no longer are competent at doing it. Yesterday the Chisox had the bases loaded in the 10th, nobody out, tie game, and a hitter with a sub-.500 OPS at the plate. Did they sac bunt? No, and the batter popped out to the SS. Then the leadoff hitter came up, a shortstop who you'd think knew how to bunt. Strikeout. These are exactly the types of hitters, and types of situations, where a bunt might have made sense.

Look, I get all the reasons why bunting rarely makes sense. But as a fan of the art of the game, it saddens me that players can no longer even do it.

P.S. -- it's amazing how dramatically bunts decreased between 1926 (1.39/game) and 1936 (0.53/game). Most of that drop occurred in one year, between 1930 (1.05/game) and 1931 (0.52/game).

There is really no reason for them. They are not statistically a good thing.

There is really no reason for them. They are not statistically a good thing.

No, there are times when a sac bunt still makes sense. It depends on the score/inning, the regular hitting ability of the batter, the bunting ability of the batter, and the hitting ability of the batters that follow.

For the Orioles, it almost never makes sense. The good news: they've attempted the fewest sac bunts in the league (6). The bad news: they've only been successful 2 out of 6 times (league average is 62% success rate).

The Royals have the most sac bunt attempts in the AL, with 29 (62% successful). The Angels have attempted 25 sac bunts and succeeded 23 times (92%). We are scoring .60 R/G more than the Angels and .84 more than the Royals, so I am not inclined to emulate them.