Talk:Sacrifice bunt

Moneyball

How does this fit under "Moneyball" when this has been a part of the game for a long, long time, and the ability to lay down a good bunt is something that's been looked for in a player for at least a hundred years now? --UsaSatsui 19:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of the moneyball/Sabermatic aprroach to baseball strategy relies on less sacrafice bunting, and more on run creation. Bunting is actually overrated in terms of scoring runs and winning games. --Nick Dillinger 03:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This part isn't true:

"The manager will usually signal the runners to advance as soon as the pitcher winds up."

Rather, most of the time runners wait until the ball is put in play before advancing. Rarely do you see a pitch-out foil a sacrifice bunt. The only time runners advance at windup is on the squeeze play. -- ejc3, 10/7/05

Also, this part contradicts the plate appearance page, which says Sacrifice Hits (which this article properly equates to Sacrifice Bunts) are counted as a plate appearance. It's possible this is confusion resulting from the fact where Sac Hits (unlike Sac Flies) are not included in the denominator of On Base Percentage even though they are a plate appearance.

"A successful sacrifice bunt does not count as an at bat and, unlike a sacrifice fly, also does not count as a plate appearance," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.147.130 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

Does anyone else have a problem with the opening sentence? Aren't there other sacrifice hits (I'm not talking sacrifice flies ... those are different) that are not bunts? For example, if there is a runner on second with no outs ...... a grounder to second which gives the second baseman only a play at first could be classified as a sacrifice, yes? No?TeganX7 03:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the goal is to move the runner over by "sacrificing" yourself, but if the batter swings and grounds out, it is not an official sacrifice by rule.Neonblak (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was unanimous support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Sacrifice hit → Sacrifice bunt — "Sacrifice bunt" is:

more common (over 1.5 million hits on google to less than 500,000 for "sacrifice hit", and in my experience as a baseball fan I have never heard the term "sacrifice hit" used—not that that counts for anything by itself :)),
more accurate (a sacrifice, by nature, cannot be a hit, and for the purposes of this article the only kind of hit ball that can be a sacrifice is a bunt), and
more official (rule 10 of the official ML rules regarding scorekeeping uses the term "sacrifice bunt" in all but one incidence describing this play).

I can see no reason for this article to be under the title "sacrifice hit" instead of "sacrifice bunt". — Pmr2011 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as proposer. Pmr2011 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Alaney2k (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was the proposer...;) Pmr2011 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support reasons are pretty obvious. Black ngold29 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Official MLB rule book says "sacrifice bunt". — X96lee15 (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, comment left below. Neonblak (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, comment below Ex nihil (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I have heard of plenty of hits, but I did not know what a bunt is. (Presumably it means a bunt (baseball).) Many Wikipedia readers are British and know very little about baseball. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an English Brit. and I don't know what a bunt is either but I would hate to see the language dumbed down just to suit the baseball incognoscenti. Keep it as bunt please it make Wikipefdia more informative and interesting, otherwise we are going to have knock the language in the cricket article for six. Ex nihil (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could name it Sacrifice bunt (baseball), but since there is no other Sacrifice bunt, the (baseball) is unnecessary. Alaney2k (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does refer to bunt (baseball), and as Alaney said, "Sacrifice bunt" is a baseball-only term (much like "batsman" or "wicket-keeper in cricket), so the (baseball) qualifier is unnecessary, but I'd have no problem adding it if most people think it would be clearer.

One other comment/reason for move: "Sacrifice bunt" is less likely to be confused with "Sacrifice fly," which could also be a type of "sacrifice hit." Pmr2011 (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN.com's stats call sac bunts, sac hits, then have sac fly as a separate category. Presumably (this is just my guess), that the SH for sacrifice hit is used instead of SB for sac bunt to avoid confusion with the SB for stolen bases. So, this move seems natural to me.Neonblak (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.