Never Bunt? Ever?

Bunting has been falling out of favor for a while now. This article detailing the bunt's near extinction is from 2013. In 2016, the Boston Red Sox averaged .05 sacrifice bunts per game. That's one every twenty games. They bunted the least, but the leader in 2016, the Atlanta Braves, only averaged .40 per game. In 2007, the Colorado Rockies averaged .50, while the Oakland Athletics bunted the least, at .11 per game. But Oakland was already knee deep in their Moneyball ways, and the team that bunted the second least was the Minnesota Twins, at .19 per game. That's a significant increase from Boston's .05 in 2016.

It's become conventional wisdom to not bunt. Outs are too valuable, and hitters are more likely to hit home runs when they swing now. It makes sense, and the data backs it up. But managers are still calling for sacrifice bunts. Why?

I personally still believe in bunting when the situation calls for it. If you are down by a run in a late inning situation, no outs with a runner on first, and a hitter capable of bunting at the plate, I see no reason not to lay one down. This is especially true if the next two hitters are high average, high on base percentage guys. Bunting in this situation gives you two at bats with a runner in scoring position.

Of course, there are exceptions. Maybe the batter at the plate has a high slugging percentage. You'd probably let him swing away. Or if the runner on first is a threat to steal a base, you might take your chances with letting him attempt a steal of second. It all depends on the ebb and flow of the game.

The point is that bunting should never go extinct. It's a tool a manager can use, and perhaps it should be used less than it has been in the past. But it's always good to have in the back pocket if the situation calls for it.