Why all of the bunting?

[Y2Jimmy0]

The amount of bunting is driving everyone insane and rightfully so. Every time I see a sacrifice bunt early in a game, I feel like Billy Beane throwing a chair in Moneyball. Does anyone think it's a Rick Renteria thing? Everyone blames Robin for this and as the manager it's his call. In past seasons though, the White Sox have not been giving away so many outs. IIRC, the Sox have been in the bottom 1/3 of the league in bunts under Ventura. Why this drastic change in philosophy?

[Condor13]

For the sox they are trying to manufacture a run like the NL does. It the right decision most of the time. Problem is, when the sox get a man on 3rd with less than 2 outs and all they need is a ball in play to score a run its an automatic K for our hitters. Our pitchers need confidence of pitching ahead and our offense needs as many opportunities to score especially if it means they don't have to get a hit to score.

 

The only time recently that I had a problem with the bunt was when Melky did it, but that was all on him and not RV. Most every other time it has been the right call.

[kev211]

For the sox they are trying to manufacture a run like the NL does. It the right decision most of the time. Problem is, when the sox get a man on 3rd with less than 2 outs and all they need is a ball in play to score a run its an automatic K for our hitters. Our pitchers need confidence of pitching ahead and our offense needs as many opportunities to score especially if it means they don't have to get a hit to score.

 

The only time recently that I had a problem with the bunt was when Melky did it, but that was all on him and not RV. Most every other time it has been the right call.

Bunting is usually always the wrong call.

[Y2Jimmy0]

For the sox they are trying to manufacture a run like the NL does. It the right decision most of the time. Problem is, when the sox get a man on 3rd with less than 2 outs and all they need is a ball in play to score a run its an automatic K for our hitters. Our pitchers need confidence of pitching ahead and our offense needs as many opportunities to score especially if it means they don't have to get a hit to score.

 

The only time recently that I had a problem with the bunt was when Melky did it, but that was all on him and not RV. Most every other time it has been the right call.

 

 

It's almost never the right decision. Giving away outs is stupid.

[elrockinMT]

It's almost never the right decision. Giving away outs is stupid.

 

 

No it's not. When you have an offense that's struggling you do things to spark a rally and get runners in scoring position. Many things positive for an offense can potentially happen with a well placed bunt

[chw42]

No it's not. When you have an offense that's struggling you do things to spark a rally and get runners in scoring position. Many things positive for an offense can potentially happen with a well placed bunt

 

When you have an offense that's struggling, you shouldn't be giving up outs and playing for 1 run all the time. It's one thing to do it when you only need 1 run to win in extras or in the 9th, but the Sox have had their #3 hitter bunt before in the 7th inning. If you don't let your best hitter swing the bat, then what's the point?

Edited June 21, 2016 by chw42

[Y2Jimmy0]

When you have an offense that's struggling, you shouldn't be giving up outs and playing for 1 run all the time. It's one thing to do it when you only need 1 run to win in extras or in the 9th, but the Sox have had their #3 hitter bunt before in the 7th inning. If you don't let your best hitter swing the bat, then what's the point?

 

 

They sac bunted in the 1st inning the other day. It's absolutely f***ing unacceptable and incredibly dumb. It actually increases the likelihood that you will lose.

[ScootsMcGoots]

With this offense, I would rather see a runner on 1st get bunted over and have one out rather than the hitter ground into a dp, which is likely what would happen. I like the bunt because it forces the defense to make the play, and oftentimes you see mistakes when trying to field a bunt. I would say most people on here don't mind the bunting, its just the ones that don't like it are the ones that are vocal about it.

[ScootsMcGoots]

When you have an offense that's struggling, you shouldn't be giving up outs and playing for 1 run all the time. It's one thing to do it when you only need 1 run to win in extras or in the 9th, but the Sox have had their #3 hitter bunt before in the 7th inning. If you don't let your best hitter swing the bat, then what's the point?

David Ortiz, the Red Sox number 3 hitter and possibly the best hitter in the league, bunted yesterday with TWO out and no one on (granted there was the shift), and nearly beat it out, and it was the first inning. The best offense in the league had their best hitter bunt. The White Sox are not the only team to have their 3 hitter bunt to try to spark something.

[elrockinMT]

When you have an offense that's struggling, you shouldn't be giving up outs and playing for 1 run all the time. It's one thing to do it when you only need 1 run to win in extras or in the 9th, but the Sox have had their #3 hitter bunt before in the 7th inning. If you don't let your best hitter swing the bat, then what's the point?

 

 

You anti-bunt guys are kind of contradicting yourselves. Plus what is the difference when a ground ball for an out is cheered that moves a runner over to scoring position? You must be waiting for he five run homer or something? LOL

[Y2Jimmy0]

You anti-bunt guys are kind of contradicting yourselves. Plus what is the difference when a ground ball for an out is cheered that moves a runner over to scoring position? You must be waiting for he five run homer or something? LOL

 

 

The difference is that when you bunt, you are giving away an out. When you try to hit a ball to the right side, a player may get a single or a double. That's why the argument is stupid. Runner on 1st and no outs. People say well at least the bunt moves the guy over. What if that guy hits a double instead of a bunt? Outs are baseball's currency. There is no clock. There are 27 outs and they are all valuable. Shouldn't be giving them away.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

The difference is that when you bunt, you are giving away an out. When you try to hit a ball to the right side, a player may get a single or a double. That's why the argument is stupid. Runner on 1st and no outs. People say well at least the bunt moves the guy over. What if that guy hits a double instead of a bunt? Outs are baseball's currency. There is no clock. There are 27 outs and they are all valuable. Shouldn't be giving them away.

This is fine and dandy, but bunting in certain situations makes sense for a team like the White Sox that has trouble scoring runs consistently.

 

I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy either, but I'd rather play for one run than not score any at all.

[Y2Jimmy0]

This is fine and dandy, but bunting in certain situations makes sense for a team like the White Sox that has trouble scoring runs consistently.

 

I don't necessarily agree with their philosophy either, but I'd rather play for one run than not score any at all.

 

 

It's not predetermined that they won't score one though. That's the problem. You can' just assume that the hitter would get out anyway so the bunt is fine. It doesn't work like that.

[Bob Sacamano]

I didn't like bunting with Eaton Sunday in the first inning with a really fast guy (Anderson) on second who can score on a possible hit to the outfield. Coats yesterday made sense though.

Edited June 21, 2016 by soxfan2014

[kitekrazy]

You anti-bunt guys are kind of contradicting yourselves. Plus what is the difference when a ground ball for an out is cheered that moves a runner over to scoring position? You must be waiting for he five run homer or something? LOL

 

People miss their steroid era baseball. Some were good at bunting that it was a way to get on base.

 

[he gone.]

They sac bunted in the 1st inning the other day. It's absolutely f***ing unacceptable and incredibly dumb. It actually increases the likelihood that you will lose.

 

Was it acceptable when Pods would lead off, get on base and then Tadahito would hit over to the right side to advance him to third? Essentially a bunt - except swinging?

 

I don't know, I feel that most of the time - as long as they can execute the bunt - that I prefer it.

 

Not with Melky -- but generally.

[Bob Sacamano]

Was it acceptable when Pods would lead off, get on base and then Tadahito would hit over to the right side to advance him to third? Essentially a bunt - except swinging?

 

I don't know, I feel that most of the time - as long as they can execute the bunt - that I prefer it.

 

Not with Melky -- but generally.

 

Fielder also needs to make a play. You get a better chance of the ball going through the hole, dropping into shallow right, or 1B/2B making an error.

[greg775]

It's a moral victory when one of our guys executes a bunt correctly. Of course like Pavlov that is a signal to our next hitter to strike out, usually on 3-4 pitches.

[OmarComing25]

Was it acceptable when Pods would lead off, get on base and then Tadahito would hit over to the right side to advance him to third? Essentially a bunt - except swinging?

 

I don't know, I feel that most of the time - as long as they can execute the bunt - that I prefer it.

 

Not with Melky -- but generally.

Hitting it to the right side isn't giving away an out, there's still a chance it goes for a hit, much better than the bunt anyway. Also using the 2005 offense as an example of good offense isn't necessarily a good idea, they were below-average and finished 9th in the AL in runs scored.

[GreenSox]

The amount of bunting is driving everyone insane and rightfully so. Every time I see a sacrifice bunt early in a game, I feel like Billy Beane throwing a chair in Moneyball. Does anyone think it's a Rick Renteria thing? Everyone blames Robin for this and as the manager it's his call. In past seasons though, the White Sox have not been giving away so many outs. IIRC, the Sox have been in the bottom 1/3 of the league in bunts under Ventura. Why this drastic change in philosophy?

When things tighten up, Ventura has always tightened up and resorted to more bunting. See last few weeks of 2012

[harfman77]

Its the difference between productive outs and non-productive outs. If a guy hits to the right side and gets double up, no one is happy. If be bunts down the line at least you still have a runner on and now in scoring position.

[elrockinMT]

Hitting it to the right side isn't giving away an out, there's still a chance it goes for a hit, much better than the bunt anyway. Also using the 2005 offense as an example of good offense isn't necessarily a good idea, they were below-average and finished 9th in the AL in runs scored.

 

 

That's just hypothetical

[chw42]

David Ortiz, the Red Sox number 3 hitter and possibly the best hitter in the league, bunted yesterday with TWO out and no one on (granted there was the shift), and nearly beat it out, and it was the first inning. The best offense in the league had their best hitter bunt. The White Sox are not the only team to have their 3 hitter bunt to try to spark something.

 

That's different since he's bunting for a hit and not bunting to give up the out. It's a legit strategy for someone who gets shifted on like Ortiz. But then again, if you're hitting like he is, there really is no reason for you to bunt on the shift.

[sammy esposito]

That's different since he's bunting for a hit and not bunting to give up the out. It's a legit strategy for someone who gets shifted on like Ortiz. But then again, if you're hitting like he is, there really is no reason for you to bunt on the shift.

Al lopez get em on, get them over and get them in. Aparicio was right handed, he lead off. Nellie Fox batted left handed who hit for average and was considered a great place hitter. He hit the ball where they weren't as someone described it. Sox hitters are trained to hit it the ball at fielders so as to make it easier for them to get them out..

[FT35]

It's not predetermined that they won't score one though. That's the problem. You can' just assume that the hitter would get out anyway so the bunt is fine. It doesn't work like that.

 

Actually with us...it's pretty close to predetermined...you're safe to assume the hitter will likely just get out!

 

In all seriousness...baseball is more about how you USE your outs to create runs. If a run is scored as a result of using an out productively, it's not "giving away outs..." in fact...if you don't USE your outs productively you are "giving away runs." HOF caliber players get out 70% of the time. White Sox players get out MUCH more frequently than this! From a pure statistical standpoint, in any given at bat, it's far more likely that the batter will get out than get a hit. If your team averages 7-8 hits a GAME...that's less than a hit per inning. If you have a pitcher who has good control and doesn't walk anyone, that's taking more runners off the bases--so a team is left with using their outs to do the work of hits/outs. Do you give a hitter the chance to get a hit or the chance to help his team? Many times, it's either or.

 

What I DO have a problem with is watching a team with low fundamental skills try to bunt unsuccessfully. THIS is giving away outs. If you can execute, it's not a bad thing to use that out you're probably going to get anyway to do something productive...especially with a struggling batter. It's all scenario based though. With Sale on the mound...you need to give him a couple runs and you'll probably win. Why play for the big inning and have a double play waste an opportunity to score, when all you need are a couple runs? Same with Quintana. Get your run first then swing freely for more. If you've got a shaky starter on the mound...it's different--you need all the runs you can get! But big innings are rare when you look at the bigger picture total of innings played. Most innings played in baseball are scoreless--there's less than a 50% chance a run will be scored in any given MLB inning. So I must conclude that the bunt and any other form of sacrifice is a very important part of a team's overall success.

Edited June 22, 2016 by FT35