There should be a difference between Sac bunts and bunting for a hit

I just played a person who bunted in four straight at-bats with 99 Jackie Robinson. He went 3 for 4, and even when I placed bunt defense and only threw high sinkers, he managed to get 3 hits, which is absurd. There should be a higher rate of success of sacrifice bunts compared to bunting for a hit. It's infuriating not being able to do anything as I do everything I can to stop the bunt, but it doesn't work. I'm fine with how bunting works, but I feel like there should be a mechanic where if you show bunt before the pitcher throws, the game realizes its a sacrifice bunt, and will give a higher chance of the bunt being successful compared to showing bunt last second. Bunt hits aren't very common currently, and a good amount of them are to beat the shift, not so players like Billy Hamilton and Dee Gordon can buy themselves 20 extra hits. I'm not saying bunting for hits doesn't exist, but consider it more of a lost art where it isn't utilized as much, and I think that going 3 for 4 only bunting when I know its coming and try everything I can to stop it, but to no cigar. Thoughts?

Bunting is straight up bull [censored] this year. The success rate is absurd.

@Mickdrenalen said in There should be a difference between Sac bunts and bunting for a hit:

Bunting is straight up bull [censored] this year. The success rate is absurd.

I'm fine with people sac bunting, its just that when people only bunt for base hits gets on my nerves

I played an event game when someone was just bunting to give up so they could track more inning. He got 2 hits with slow runner because my fielders reacted like they were in quick sand, with defense pulled in... my pitcher insisted on tapping his glove before throwing to first, allowing him to reach, such a dumb animation!

Very similar to the short chopper 2 feet in front of home plate. Why do catchers take 15 second to get out of a crouch in this game?

i mean you are spamming high sinkers and complain about bunt cheese?