MLB Shifting and Rule Change Could Squeeze the Bunt Back Into the Game

Fans of the Milwaukee Brewers don’t pack American Family Field to see big, brawny Rowdy Tellez lay down a bunt. In fact, it’s a rare occurrence when a Brewer or any major leaguer drops a bunt into the mix.
  Tellez has emerged as the Brewers’ most dependable big bopper and RBI man. Bunt? Forget it! Swing for the fence, big man! A sacrifice bunt on the five-year, big-league resume of Tellez is more than rare, it is nonexistent.

Milwaukee used to bunt themselves to wins

It’s doubtful that Manager Craig Counsell will ever ask the 6-foot-4, 255-pound Tellez to sacrifice bunt. And that makes perfect sense. A Tellez bunt would be a wasted trip to the plate.But there was a time when a prodigious left-handed power hitter from Milwaukee was also an accomplished bunter. Was it Prince Fielder? Nope. Nor was it Cecil Cooper, nor switch-hitting Ted Simmons from the Brewers 1982 American League championship team.

It was Eddie Mathews of the Milwaukee Braves. Mathews was the only man to play for the Braves in all three of their home cities – Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta. Playing most of his games at Milwaukee County Stadium, Mathews slugged his way into the Hall of Fame with 512 home runs.

Matthews could do more than hit dingers

However, he could bunt, too.  Of the 28 big leaguers with 500 or more home runs, Mathews ranks fifth with 36 career sacrifice bunts. On the bunt list of power hitters, Mathews trails Ernie Banks (45), Jimmie Foxx (71), Mel Ott (109) and – unbelievably – Babe Ruth is No. 1 with 113 sacrifices.

Shockingly, two members of the 500-home run club – Harmon Killebrew of the Minnesota Twins and Frank Thomas of the Chicago White Sox never dropped down a single sacrifice bunt.

Ruth had a wild lifestyle and broke all the rules off the field. But between the lines, he played by the strategy and expectations of the day. If his manager – Miller Huggins or Joe McCarthy – said “bunt,” The Bambino bunted.

The analytics that controls today’s MLB would no doubt argue that those 113 bunts were wasted trips to the plate by Ruth. The Babe averaged a home run every 11.76 at-bats, so that means about 10 Ruthian blasts never happened.

To bunt or not to bunt, that is the question in today’s MLB. Or is it? And if it is, the answer appears to be a resounding, “Not.”

How much has the game actually changed?

The Eddie Mathews example is only useful to illustrate how much the game has changed. If Mathews played today, it’s doubtful he would ever be asked to bunt.

In “Godfather” movie terms, the bunt has become the “Fredo” of the big-league baseball family. It is not held in high regard. It does not play a major role. And it is in danger, like Fredo, of being taken on a one-way boat ride, never to return alive.

The bunt has been swept up by baseball’s recently discovered love for analytics and has been virtually thrown out. The computer never considers a manager’s gut feeling or a player’s ability to execute the perfect bunt.

But two recent changes – one a rule, the other strategy – have pumped in new hope for the sustained future of the foundering bunt.

1, Wholesale shifting of infielders, now practiced by most major-league teams:

The shift really is nothing new in baseball, just more prevalent in today’s game. Often, when Mathews came to the plate in the 195Os and ‘60s he found the infielders shifted to the right of second base. He took great joy in bunting or driving the ball to the left side.

They shifted on the great Ted Williams, too, but he stubbornly tried to line the ball between the fielders or hit it over their heads into the seats. And it often worked for Teddy Ballgame, perhaps the game’s greatest hitter.

If Hall of Famer Wee Willie Keeler played today, he might expand on his famous philosophy of, “Hit ‘em where they ain’t,” to include the bunt.

Today, with all the fielders stacked to the right of second base a speedy left-handed hitter could conceivably bunt to the left side for a double.

In the off season the lords of baseball might decide to put limits on the shift. And that would be a good thing for the game. The third baseman should not be allowed on the right side of the infield.

2, Placing a “free runner’’ at second base in each half inning that goes beyond the regulation nine:

Here’s another rule change, born in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, which needs to go away. But until it does, the bunt could be the perfect complement.

With that freebie runner on second base and no outs in the bottom of the inning, bunting the runner to third base makes sense.

From third base with one out, there are several ways to score the winning run: a base hit, a home run, a sacrifice fly, an error, a ground ball to the right side, a slow roller to third or short, a balk, a passed ball, a wild pitch, a safety- or suicide-squeeze bunt.

And if all this fails, there is one out left to try again.

In Conclusion:

If all this sounds like bunting is an easily executed offensive weapon, it’s not. Bunting, like hitting away, takes practice and repetition. Laying down a successful bunt against a 100-mph fastball that explodes in the strike zone is no small feat. And now that pitchers don’t bat in either league you have to wonder if anyone is practicing the bunt.

But MLB players are the best hitters in the world. If they wanted to be great bunters, they would be. It’s all about “want to.” Today, all big leaguers are home-run threats because they want to be and they make more money for power numbers. The long ball is sexy and exciting.

The bunt and small ball can be exciting but are seldom sexy. At contract time players are not given incentives for bunting. But maybe they should be.

The bunt will never return to the halcyon days of yesteryear, but it still could have an import place in the game.