Bunting

There is NO setting for "don't bunt" and never was. Only "don't sacrifice bunt". Big difference. I checked "don't sacrifice bunt" AND set bunting to extra conservative. And yet predominantly AA stealers with 17 speed bunted for a 281 on base average. So if the options are let HAL decide when to bunt for a base hit, or don't let HAL decide, they made the right choice.

That chart you show is a home made chart designed by an individual to be used with the dice and card game. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the online game here or the CDROM game!

Given that the only true statistics involve small sample sizes and our memory of past events that were never written down,
I can authoritatively state that bunting for a base hit seldom works.

I'm sorry it is gone because my opponents bunted away more good at bats than I did.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to have an option for "bunting against the shift". I wouldn't mind it so much if there was a setting to have Ted Williams occasionally bunt against the Boudreau shift.

Check out this fascinating article: "The Best Bunters of All Time:" https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2012/12/10/3748738/best-bunter-all-time-career-bunt-hits-bases-empty-mlb,
According to the research in this piece, a significant number of well-known hitters have had extraordinary success bunting for a base hit. The numbers I'm going to cite are all based on bases-empty bunts, since otherwise it's hard to sort out bunts for hits from sacrifices. The full story is in the linked article.

Mickey Mantle is tenth all time in total bunts for base hits at 80, with a .541 BA (reaching base, 54.7 %). Brett Butler is #1 in total bunts for hits with 188. Butler's BA as a bunter for hits was .488. For perspective, #5 on the total hits list for a bunter with the bases empty is Kenny Lofton, at 123 hits with a .537 BA.

Career-wise, Lee Mazzilli is tops for bunting BA at .875. Steve Garvey is #3 at .821 BA, Nellie Fox #4 at .814 BA. #10 for bunting BA was Pete Rose, at .699 (65 hits in 93 attempts).

So, maybe the real problem with SOM's "bunting for a hit" model is that it doesn't offer a high enough success rate for these premium bunters. If success rates like those were possible, I think that bunting for a hit (especially to lead of an inning), might have become an extremely popular strategy. I might be OK with having the Mick bat .541 in a leadoff role some of the time, and definitely .875 for Mazzilli.

I've never been a big fan of the bunt, so I found the above data eye-opening and surprising. Maybe today's hitters might try bunting against the shift sometimes if they could achieve results like this. (Note: the article also gives a "reached base" percent that's usually a little higher than BA, presumably because it includes errors, but I decided to cite BA since we all know what that means.)

Base hit bunts really should be factored into the cards as SI*

Base hit bunts really should be factored into the cards as SI*

Exactly! And they already are.

Base hit bunts really should be factored into the cards as SI*

Exactly! And they already are.

I figured they were. That might explain the low % success chance the "bunt for hit" option has. But still, if they are figured in, then it really needs to go away. The bunt option should be for sacrifice only.

Base hit bunts really should be factored into the cards as SI*

Exactly! And they already are.

I agree that this is the right way to think of it.

BTW, I found as I looked around the web that Mantle deliberately bunted for base hits a lot during his 1956 Triple Crown season. He had begun the season with the goal of winning the Triple Crown and his competition for the BA title was a guy named Ted Williams. So being able to bunt above .500 in the right situations helped the Mick beat Teddy Ballgame for the BA title .353 to .345. I watched a retired Mick on a youtube video giving drag bunt advice to young Yankee players and it was fascinating. He showed them how, batting lefty, he was already running toward first with his bat behind him over the plate as the bat hit the ball, so he could get down the line in 3 point something seconds. He really knew exactly what he was doing. At the end he said to the young Yankees, "And none of you are going to try this, right?" And they all laughed.

Anyway, yes, Mick's bunts for hits are already factored into his 1956 card, so I'm glad they turned off that function.

BTW, it seems that almost all the top bunters-for-hits in baseball history were either LHB or switch hitters (who probably mainly bunted when battling lefty). Pretty much all of them were quite fast, too, as Mick was early in his career. It seems like the key components for successful bunter-for-a-hit are to bat lefty (a few steps closer to first), be very fast, have a good sense of the right situations to use this weapon, and be able to get the bat on the ball with consistency. This seems to be a factor that has dropped out of the game and with the heavy use of the shift, maybe it should come back.