Yes, I’ve noticed awhile ago that someone with a lot of real life bunts will get a lot more in the sim than someone who doesn’t, even if they are both cranked up to 5 and have the similar amounts of opportunities. So, they do factor into the magical sim equation somehow.
But……here is the important question in both sim and real life - are they an effective strategy or not???
That year Chapman led the league by 131 sacrifices, he was batting behind 1899 John McGraw who had a .500obp for most of the season. So, in effect, McGraw was on second base more than half his at bats. And yet, he didn’t lead the league in runs and my team finished out of the playoffs.

In real life, at least, I've never thought it made sense to bunt your #2 hitter in the 1st inning. Who knows, you may bat around and score 7 runs in the 1st! But that's very unlikely if you give away an out so early in the inning.

Posted by ronthegenius on 6/30/2025 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I’ve noticed awhile ago that someone with a lot of real life bunts will get a lot more in the sim than someone who doesn’t, even if they are both cranked up to 5 and have the similar amounts of opportunities. So, they do factor into the magical sim equation somehow.
But……here is the important question in both sim and real life - are they an effective strategy or not???
That year Chapman led the league by 131 sacrifices, he was batting behind 1899 John McGraw who had a .500obp for most of the season. So, in effect, McGraw was on second base more than half his at bats. And yet, he didn’t lead the league in runs and my team finished out of the playoffs.

Well...it's been studied a lot of different ways over the years. I am not up to date on the latest sabermetric research, BUT here is what I recall:

-- In general, the sacrifice bunt reduces the number of runs you can expect to score in an inning, even when the bunt is successful. This can be established both theoretically (by looking at run expectancy tables) and empirically (by looking at large samples of roughly equivalent situations in which bunts were used versus when they weren't).
-- In high offense environments (think Coors Field, or 140M cap leagues), this disparity is even greater (i.e. the bunt is an even worse play on average)
-- However, the bunt MAY increase your likelihood of scoring ONE run, even while it reduces the total number of runs you are likely to score
-- If you have a truly inept hitter at the plate, that skews the numbers enough that the bunt may be a net-positive play. Someone - I don't think it was Bill James - once tried to establish the breakeven point; I don't recall what the answer was exactly, but the general idea was that if your typical modern major league pitcher was batting, it might be a good play. But for even the most inept position players, it's not.
-- There are some limitations in these analyses - and again I don't know if more modern studies have accounted for them. For example, does the potential threat of a bunt cause a defensive adjustment that can be exploited, like singling to left past a drawn-in third baseman.

On balance, in SLB, I almost never want anyone other than my pitcher to attempt to bunt.

"However, the bunt MAY increase your likelihood of scoring ONE run, even while it reduces the total number of runs you are likely to score"

This makes sense — feels like human managers intuitively figured this out over the years, which is why sacrifice bunts and flies are less common outside of late inning situations in close games.

I'm pretty sure that Bill James addressed this in one of those early Baseball Abstracts. It;'s a bad strategy unless it's tied in bottom of 9th or extras since one run is more important than a big inning. I never bunt with position players and always bunt with pitchers (unless it's somebody like '25 Walter Johnson).

The Baseball Prospectus folks did a deep dive into the correct situations for bunting in "Baseball Between the Numbers" (Published in 2006). The article discusses the importance of the hitter's ability in determining whether or not to bunt, along with the game score and inning. The better a hitter is, the less likely is it to be a good idea to bunt. The article also discusses relevant game situations and has a table providing thresholds for batters "established" AVG, OBP and SLUG.

Basically, it shows that it's only good to bunt if it's late in the game, your team only needs one run, and there is a weak hitter coming up to bat. Even under those circumstances, it is really only preferable to bunt when there is a man on second base and no outs.

This is my first attempt at documenting my thought process in constructing these teams. Let me first say that it is SO enjoyable to compete against those you know are the best at this game! I have learned a lot from participating the last 2 (3?) years.

My general philosophy in SLB is to maximize OBP while minimizing the walks my pitchers allow, i.e., more traffic = more runs. This approach brought me success in the basic open leagues but I learned quickly that, to compete with the upper crust, I had to hit for more power and have pitchers with more Ks. While this is more expensive, I have managed to retool my approach and up my game. I am much more a fan in real life baseball of the 3-2 game than the 9-7 game, but I learned that approach will not lead to wins in WISC, or in pretty much any theme league against top players. So I now aim for a 55/45 salary split, going heavier on hitting than pitching, while seeking to maximize my defense (esp. range). With these premises in mind, here goes:

$70m The Boys of Summer 1985

I had never played a $70m league before competing in WISC but found a couple of theme seasons since last year and have come to really enjoy the lower cap challenge. I enjoy trying to find "enough" of everything with no wasted PAs/IPs. I figure there isn't as much power at this cap level, so I went closer to 50/50 between arms and bats. We'll see if that ends up being a regret.

I managed to find a decent number of steals without a lot of speed; we'll see if that will help with runs per game. One of the things I like the most about drafting any roster is identifying players I've never used before (or never even HEARD OF before). This was especially fun with the 1985 season, as these are players I grew up watching (Class of '85 HS grad!). I have a rookie Sid Bream and a cagey veteran Davey Lopes. And I discovered Stew Cliburn of Jackson, MS and Floyd Rayford from Memphis, TN, who gave me extra catching and plays a mean 3B with 128 SLG+.

$80m Diaspora of '34 Yankees

I knew I wanted at least 1 Yankees team, but it's always tough to find enough pitching in that franchise. This team had enough variety and, to my surprise, included several folks who had nice careers away from the Yankees (e.g., Dixie Walker, Burleigh Grimes). Upon reading that anyone who advanced to the 2nd round would use this same team but build a $120m roster, I knew I'd get the benefit of maxing out Gehrig and Ruth, et.al., should I be so fortunate.

Due to the weaker pitching, I knew this team would need to win 9-7, so I just went for bulk innings and OBP guys in front of the big boppers. Babe had a reduced role on the '34 team, but that made him fit with the $80m cap. I'm a little thin on PAs for so much offense, so I may have to get creative to keep a fresh lineup on the field every day.

My hidden gems on this team are Grimes, who slashed 286/316/385 for the '29 Pirates, and a pitcher named Vito Tamulis. Is that not a perfect name for a Yankee (and Brooklyn Dodger)? ; )

$100m All in with the '41-'43 Cards

I think this was the first team I put together. I tried multiple times to replace it with another, but could never make anything else work that I thought was better. Thought I'd found a winner with the 1906-08 Cubs until I got to the end and realized they only had 24 unique qualified players. DANG!

I was intrigued to find a couple of 42-44 Cards teams in the mix for this theme. I thought that '44 pitching was even weaker than what I found in 1941, so will be interested to see how those teams do. This is another one that will need to win 9-7, but it certainly has the sticks to do that. With one of Stan the Man's best seasons, alongside "Country" Slaughter, Mize, Walker Cooper, and others, we're going to score. My biggest issue is that Marty Marion was literally the only qualified SS in this 3-year range (why others went with 42-44?). I'm going to try to sneak someone in for him in mop-up situations and see if he holds up over 162 games.

My favorite find here was 1941 Estel Crabtree. He knocked the cover off the ball that season, and makes a great addition to my All Name Team!

$110m The Phenomenal Silver Lady Sadie

The team name says it all! Pre-1900 was a very different game. I didn't worry about errors, but did look for as much quality range as I could get. Also, knowing this would be yet another high-scoring theme, I made sure to have plenty of PAs. This is the only level where I didn't worry about players above 700 PAs. I usually love to platoon but I have mostly everyday players here. Last season's theme in this timeframe showed me the great pitchers I've cited in the team name. It's nice to know Silver King will be able to start (at least!) every other game all season!

My secret weapon here is 1899 Charlie Hickman. While his pitching numbers are little better than mop-up level, I won't hesitate to use him as his slash line that season was 397/433/651, with a 184 OPS+! This includes 7 triples in 68 PAs!

$120m The Studs, the Arms, & their Sycophants

I was fascinated when I read this theme. I decided right off that this team would need pitchers who could get out "the big 3" but who could also take getting knocked around some and still last. Spahn, '35 Cy Blanton, and Steroid Blue Jay Clemens should fill that bill. Also loaded up on quality RPs to handle that last trip through the lineup every day.

It didn't take long to realize that this approach meant I was going with straight scrubs to complete the roster, much moreso even than at the $70m cap. I focused on field/range and guys that could at least draw a walk to be on base when Hornsby, Mantle, Brett come to the plate or to steal a "get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in" run in the bottom half of the order. An occasional HR would just be an added benefit. I hope that Ed Herrmann, Shawn Wooten, and Bill Melton will run into one every now and then.

'22 Nicky Lopez is my defensive cornerstone on this team, along with a bunch of good gloves whose crowning achievement would be to get above the Mendoza line at the plate at any point during the season. My discovery on this team is 1963 Kansas City A, George Alusik.

Oh, I read someone's method that, if they were going to spend so much on 3 players, those guys better play every day. I took the opposite approach by going with Brett, trying to set aside enough funds to put some semblance of an offense together beyond the aces. We'll see how that plays out.

$140m Papito Pedro and the Headhunters

I warned myself against going with Pedro as my anchor, as his WIS performance never matches the numbers on the back of his baseball card, in my experience. However, as I looked at various options, I was pleased to find a truly stellar teammate in every one of his seasons. The only stretch was on the 2005 Mets, where I discovered Mike Jacobs, who hit 11 bombs in only 112 PAs that season. Other than that, I have everyone from '93 Piazza to '09 Utley, with Manny's and Nomar's best seasons in between.

Where I couldn't find great hitting seasons, I found a stellar bullpen that includes Wagner, Flash Gordon, Beck, and Mel Rojas, with '95 Kirk Reuter as a lefty specialist. Pedro even has an injury-shortened 2001 season (shoulder) with 118 innings, so he can be his own closer.

I believe this team will score more than enough to overcome the slight that Pedro receives in performance, and we have a bunch of big boys who can handle any trouble when hit batsmen charge the mound!

Fun facts about Pedro being traded: The Dodgers, normally an astute organization, traded Pedro straight up to the Expos for Delino Deshields (yikes!). Then the Expos, knowing they couldn't afford him as a free agent, sent him to the Red Sox for Carl Pavano and Tony Armas (wow!).

I expect the $70m team to be fairly competitive, the $100m and $140m, also. The $80m, $110m, and $120m are fun for me and they may or may not do well

After 11 games, the three I thought would be competitive are a combined 22-11 (.667) and the three I was less sure of have been 14-19 (.424), but they also haven’t been fun yet.

The $120m crazy offense isn’t hitting, the all FLD% $110m is making errors at barely better than league average rate, and the $80m has been inconsistent so far. Hopefully the first two settle into their designs to at least up the fun factor.

First of all, thank you, tridentric, for your post. FYI, I will be doing my lineup adjustments on 8/1 (Jerry's birthday) from Golden Gate Park. Let me know if you will be in the area,

Also, if just4me was referring to my writeup, much appreciated.