"More bunting"

[ThunderBolt]

Lose a lot of them that way too.

That's the game of baseball though. You can't win them all. The idea is to win a plurality of your games, we tend to do that by hitting a lot of home runs. Fleeing from that method is not a good idea.

[BaseballNick]

That station to station thing sure seems to win us a lot of games.

I think it had a lot more to do with the pitching. Obviously, you need a good offense and great pitching to win a division.

 

Clearly, there are flaws with having an offense that is one-dimensional. Thankfully, guys like Beckham, Getz, and Alexei (to a lesser degree) are making this offense a lot more well-rounded. That appears to be the kind of players Jordan Danks and Jared Mitchell will be as well. When a defense has to respect the bunt, the hit-and-run, etc. it opens up holes in the infield and makes an offense a lot more dangerous.

[Wanne]

Honestly, unless we manage to figure out how to get a runner in from third with less than two outs, it doesn't matter how the hell they got there.

 

That pretty much sums it up IMO...

[greg775]

To those of you who hate the bunt let me at least ask your take.

 

It's the 10th inning in tie game. We are at the Cell and AJ gets on base.

Do you want CQ to bunt him over? The answer should be yes. The odds of scoring him from second with one out are in theory pretty damn good at that point if you can bunt him over.

 

Now the answer is no if CQ can't bunt the damn ball like most big leaguers. Most can't bunt.

In a tie game in extras, why wouldn't you bunt? I just think Oz wants guys to be able to bunt the times we need a f***ing bunt. He's not going to bunt a lot in the AL. People are panicking.

With a power hitting team, he's not going to be giving up outs early. He knows baseball.

Edited September 18, 2009 by greg775

[almagest]

To those of you who hate the bunt let me at least ask your take.

 

It's the 10th inning in tie game. We are at the Cell and AJ gets on base.

Do you want CQ to bunt him over? The answer should be yes. The odds of scoring him from second with one out are in theory pretty damn good at that point if you can bunt him over.

 

Now the answer is no if CQ can't bunt the damn ball like most big leaguers. Most can't bunt.

In a tie game in extras, why wouldn't you bunt? I just think Oz wants guys to be able to bunt the times we need a f***ing bunt. He's not going to bunt a lot in the AL. People are panicking.

With a power hitting team, he's not going to be giving up outs early. He knows baseball.

Did you want Quentin bunting him over during his MVP 2008 season?

[greg775]

I think so only because it's the smart percentage play. Maybe not in the 10th inning, but certainly in the 13th inning when you can't score a run. I wouldn't have a problem with him bunting in the 10th, but I see your point. You wouldn't have Pujols bunt.

But it's all moot anyway cause I believe CQ is one of our guys who can't bunt. He'd foul two of 'em off then hit.

 

 

What if it's Pods getting on base in the 10th and Beckham next? Tie game. Gordon should also move him over. They walk the next hitter and now you have two outs to get a hit and win it at home. A winning team delivers that hit. A team like ours this year strands the runner and it doesn't matter anyhow.

But in tie games late, sometimes bunts are in order IMO. I trust Oz to have a feel for the game and know when to call for one.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's a question related... who on the current team is actually good at bunting? I remember Ozzie used to say that Thome was, but I only saw him try once (and I fervently believe that Jim Thome should try bunting once, and just once, every season).

 

Off hand, the ones that seem like they've done it well are Getz and Wise. Anyone else?

 

[almagest]

If it's late in the game, and it's tied or either team has a 1 run lead, the baserunner has good enough speed to score from second on a single (or is on second and can score on a sac fly/wild pitch from 3rd), the batter can bunt, and the batter has some speed to apply additional pressure on fielders, then yes. I agree. The bunt is the right call in those situations. Otherwise, I think it's a bad idea.

[Balta1701]

Here's a question related... who on the current team is actually good at bunting? I remember Ozzie used to say that Thome was, but I only saw him try once (and I fervently believe that Jim Thome should try bunting once, and just once, every season).

 

Off hand, the ones that seem like they've done it well are Getz and Wise. Anyone else?

Anyone who gets overshifted should, IMO, bunt down the 3rd base line at least 3-4 times a season. Esp. if there's a lefty you know you struggle against on the mound.

[qwerty]

With 0 outs and a man on first there is a 38% chance that man will come around to score.

 

With 1 out and a man on second there is a 41% chance that man will come around to score.

[Balta1701]

With 0 outs and a man on first there is a 38% chance that man will come around to score.

 

With 1 out and a man on second there is a 41% chance that man will come around to score.

But...the odds of scoring 2 go down in the 2nd case. So you better genuinely be playing for 1.

[qwerty]

The sole purpose of the bunt is to score nothing more than 1 run... and has been that way since the beginning of time. The bunt can be an absolutely excellent play depending on the who is at the plate, who is on deck, who is on base, who is pitching, who the fielders are that charging on the corners, etc. So in other words, many things have to add up. First off you do not make someone that cannot bunt, bunt. Bunting heavily relies on the speed of a player, even a sacrifice. Bunting is a rare skill set which not everyone possesses.

 

Not many posts back greg775 asked if it was the 10th innings of a tied game and pierzysnki was on first and quentin followed... would you have him bunt. Logically the answer is a no. First off pierzynski would have a greater chance of getting gunned down at second out of pretty much anyone on the roster. The reason being is everyone at this point would know quentin is bunting, they would know quentin is not qualified to lay down a good bunt consistently, hence the opposing team having the overall advantage, due to you playing right into their hand. One of a few things would happen, quentin strikes out miserably, he taps it back to the pitcher and they get the force out, if not a very realistic double play. Quentin could also get luckier than hell and make it find a hole, which is not likely in the slightest. When you have a thumper at the plate, you let them do just that, thump away.

[Goober]

The sole purpose of the bunt is to score nothing more than 1 run... and has been that way since the beginning of time.

 

Incorrect. In Triple Play 98 there was a secret player named Erik Kiss. Any contact he made with the ball, even a bunt, was a homerun. So if there were runners on base and you bunted with him, bam! More than 1 run.

[southsider2k5]

I gotta say, the suicide squeeze might be a good idea for this team the way they usually get runners in from third...