Bunting ... Another cog in the wheel of our offense

So, I figure since TWCA executed two squeeze bunts on us in one inning in our opener Friday -- yes, two squeeze bunts in one inning -- it is time for me to expound upon my expertise in the area of bunting.  Yes, my tongue is firmly in cheek ... not about the two squeezes, but about the rest of it.  

It's interesting because we have made bunting a point of emphasis in the off-season, but TWCA was the team who used the bunt to make a real difference in the game the other night. So, hats off to them. Side note: If we executed our defense in those situations, we would have defended both.  Actually, we would have stopped the first one, and there would have likely been no second attempt.  But we will learn and move forward.  

Still, the squeezes and watching teams in general utilize the bunt has made me think more about our own philosophy and how and when we bunt.  As I have stated before, I believe in the general premise of "Moneyball," that is, that it is unwise to give up precious outs.  Our goal offensively, stated simply, is to have a quality at-bat each time up to the plate -- either by working the count (six or more pitches), hitting the ball hard, or getting on base.  It is simple.  We look for our pitch to hit, and then when we get to two strikes we make our two-strike adjustment. I can understand this approach, and the players can, too.  Plus, this philosophy works at all levels of baseball, too, when a team buys in and executes it up and down the lineup.  

So where/how does bunting fit into our offense?  My view is that every hitter in our lineup is a hitter.  In other words, we are more akin to an AL team in MLB than a NL team.  There are no automatic outs that you may want to use to sacrifice.  On our team, if a player is batting, he can hit.  So, when (if ever) do we sacrifice?  Let's put it this way:  We have a bunt sign.  Unless we have a squeeze on (which we rarely do), we are almost always trying to both move the runner and get the bunter on base.  Make sense?  That is, we want our bunter to square around not quite so early -- probably when the pitcher is delivering the ball -- but we also want him to resist the urge to get in a hurry, too. In high school (really, in college, too), a good bunt -- as opposed to a perfect bunt -- is adequate to get the job done. A bunt placed where at least two fielders can reasonably make the play places pressure on the defense to make the play.  

In addition, we will certainly utilize the bunt to get a base hit.  We will do this with some frequency.  But when we do so, again, we want to try to work to show it only during the delivery and slow down a bit with the emphasis on laying down a good bunt. We want it away from the plate and the mound, where two fielders could arguably field it. 

As for squeezes, my own view is that (absent having the ideal personnel at the plate and on third base) a squeeze in high school is usually too high of a risk for the potential reward.  Why?  I accidentally discovered a few years ago that a safety squeeze is just about as effective in terms of scoring. And we have on many occasions executed a safety squeeze without risking the runner breaking from third.  Again, a good bunt puts pressure on a high school defense, especially those who are changing bunt coverages often and moving a lot of players when the ball is put in play.  

So, essentially, we are working on utilizing the bunt to both generate base hits and move runners.  We are rarely only trying to sacrifice -- although we might do (and have done) this very thing in a specific situation -- and we doing the foregoing within the context of trying to rack up quality at-bats and get on base.  

See you on the field,