The Bunt!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    Is that an actual picture of you? 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucbom. Show lucbom's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    Good posts "sports".  At 80 years of age and been following the Sox since early 40's, I also would rather "call it like I see it" whether its good or bad, as for examples....it was great to SEE our Sox get the win last night to stay with the Stankees.......our Sox had 10 hits and 7 walks for a total of 17 men on base last night and yet scored "only" 3 runs.  Clutch hitting for our Sox has been on vacation for the most part lately, but we're still in the hunt big time.  So keep posting as you see it "sports".  GO SOX!

    Smile


    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Sportsbozo, you obviously don't understand what a pink hat is-or was, actually.  You're confusing pink hat with pollyanna.  A pollyanna is a true fan who always looks on the bright side even if there is none.

     

    I'm a realist. I don't watch baseball to sing songs or to be a rah rah type! The purist in me is why I applaud the bunt by Middlebrooks, and whether he did it on his own or via a bunt sign is of little or no consequence to me. If the Sox or any team for that fact used every aspect of the game in the proper context they would excel. The little things are what define the ability of a player (s). The refusel to adhere the the rudiments is what seperates the good from the great,the great ballplayers excel in all aspects of the game! Whether it's on offense or defense, throwing the ball to the proper base for an outfielder on anything hit to them, to making a turn at first in an attempt to draw a throw which might go errant by an offensive player these are the tiny nuggets which make my eyes dance with joy. Watching the towering HR is nice,but watching an outfielder deke a runner into trying to extend a single into a double just for the purpose of throwing him out is just as picturesque to me.


     




     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Is that an actual picture of you? 

    If you are asking me, then yes it is an actual picture of me. I don't do avatars. I don't live in Boston so I'm not worried about being recognized.LMAO


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

    In response to ConanObrien's comment:

     

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    Wow it took a real power hitter to lay a bunt down in a situation where moving a runner into scoring position could provide the Sox with the run they needed too win the game! Not the guy with the wheels like Jake Smellsbury or even a pinch hitter like Pedro Ciriaco or Shane Victorino. With a chance to move em up Will Middlebrooks pushes a bunt up the first base line and advances both Pedey and Ciriaco. Later on a sac fly by Gomes the Sox would score the run to win the game! Would someone tell the lazy, no home run hitting, and lately just plain no hitting Ellsbury, that the bunt has taken better players than him out of prolonged slumps maybe he should call up Lou Brock for some advice or Maury Wills... Or at least stop listening to Scott Boras about all the money you will be paid after you leave Boston! Because you are not putting yourself in a position to ask for anything more than a plug nickel with your stats.

     




     

     

     

    Smellsbury?

    cute nickname

     

    what are u?

    10 years old?

     

    I'm probably older than you ! However it's not important how old I am. You obviously are a prepubescent. If you don't like my nicknames tell the Ellsbury to play baseball like a Major leaguer in good standing. I'll call him Smellsbury until that time.


     




    You might be able to call him, that, but doing so certainly does not much to the way of lending credibility  

     

    Which is a shame, because the point that Ellsbury does not bunt enough has some validity.   Jacoby really is not doing anything differently this year, besides hitting slightly fewer line drives and a few more groundballs.  That can be an issue for a power hitter, but a speedy leadoff guy like Ellsbury needs to benefit from the increased ground ball rate (and do so at the expense of fly ball rate).

     

    Also, way too many popups....

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to lucbom's comment:

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    Good posts "sports".  At 80 years of age and been following the Sox since early 40's, I also would rather "call it like I see it" whether its good or bad, as for examples....it was great to SEE our Sox get the win last night to stay with the Stankees.......our Sox had 10 hits and 7 walks for a total of 17 men on base last night and yet scored "only" 3 runs.  Clutch hitting for our Sox has been on vacation for the most part lately, but we're still in the hunt big time.  So keep posting as you see it "sports".  GO SOX!

    Smile

     

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Sportsbozo, you obviously don't understand what a pink hat is-or was, actually.  You're confusing pink hat with pollyanna.  A pollyanna is a true fan who always looks on the bright side even if there is none.

     

    I'm a realist. I don't watch baseball to sing songs or to be a rah rah type! The purist in me is why I applaud the bunt by Middlebrooks, and whether he did it on his own or via a bunt sign is of little or no consequence to me. If the Sox or any team for that fact used every aspect of the game in the proper context they would excel. The little things are what define the ability of a player (s). The refusel to adhere the the rudiments is what seperates the good from the great,the great ballplayers excel in all aspects of the game! Whether it's on offense or defense, throwing the ball to the proper base for an outfielder on anything hit to them, to making a turn at first in an attempt to draw a throw which might go errant by an offensive player these are the tiny nuggets which make my eyes dance with joy. Watching the towering HR is nice,but watching an outfielder deke a runner into trying to extend a single into a double just for the purpose of throwing him out is just as picturesque to me.


     

     




     

    Thank you sir! I have tried to maintain the same level of conversation since I started posting here, but evidently some would prefer I sugar coat it when talking about our own nine! I'll never hold back on my opinion of the players who play for the team I root for. I played with some pretty good ballplayers when I was a younger man, and to a man they played the game with pride in their abilities and not for the last buck! Knowledge is the key to any conversation hopefully I hold up my end of the bargain.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Sportsbozo, you obviously don't understand what a pink hat is-or was, actually.  You're confusing pink hat with pollyanna.  A pollyanna is a true fan who always looks on the bright side even if there is none.

     

    I'm a realist. I don't watch baseball to sing songs or to be a rah rah type! The purist in me is why I applaud the bunt by Middlebrooks, and whether he did it on his own or via a bunt sign is of little or no consequence to me. If the Sox or any team for that fact used every aspect of the game in the proper context they would excel. The little things are what define the ability of a player (s). The refusel to adhere the the rudiments is what seperates the good from the great,the great ballplayers excel in all aspects of the game! Whether it's on offense or defense, throwing the ball to the proper base for an outfielder on anything hit to them, to making a turn at first in an attempt to draw a throw which might go errant by an offensive player these are the tiny nuggets which make my eyes dance with joy. Watching the towering HR is nice,but watching an outfielder deke a runner into trying to extend a single into a double just for the purpose of throwing him out is just as picturesque to me.


     



    A purist maybe, but not a realist.  Funny you should attack a player who drove in the tying run in a 3-2 win which keeps the Sox 1 game out of first in the AL East and in the lead in the wild card race--a far cry from last season.  The Sox are among the top five teams in MLB in runs scored, so their avoidance of bunts can't be that bad. 

    As for Ellsbury, he is definitely in a slump, but it's entirely possible, even likely, he will come out of it.  He wasn't half bad in April.  There is zero evidence he is swinging for the fences.  What he is not doing is hitting the ball squarely with any consistency.  His most consistent attribute seems to be ground out to the secondbaseman.  Bunting might in fact help, except that bunting is a real skill and hardly an automatic hit especially when opposing teams will look for him to bunt after the first successful one.  You absolutely, positively cannot bunt your way out of a slump.  In fact, the best time to bunt is when the infield, especially 3B, plays back because you are hitting the ball hard in all directions. 

    Funny thing is, I like the bunt when it is successful as Middlebrooks' was.  The problem is Bill James has demonstrated that most times the sacrifice bunt is the wrong strategy because it gives up an out.  But in the 10th with a man on second and no one out, it was imperative Middlebrooks move Pedroia over to 3B.  As it was, it took a pretty good bunt to do so.  But suppose he had tried twice and failed and then struck out?  Would you then have started a thread saying the attempted bunt was the right strategy even though it failed?  I strongly doubt it because I don't think you are a purist at all.  You just want to go after Ellsbury, which is OK because any player is fair game. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    In response to ConanObrien's comment:

     

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    Wow it took a real power hitter to lay a bunt down in a situation where moving a runner into scoring position could provide the Sox with the run they needed too win the game! Not the guy with the wheels like Jake Smellsbury or even a pinch hitter like Pedro Ciriaco or Shane Victorino. With a chance to move em up Will Middlebrooks pushes a bunt up the first base line and advances both Pedey and Ciriaco. Later on a sac fly by Gomes the Sox would score the run to win the game! Would someone tell the lazy, no home run hitting, and lately just plain no hitting Ellsbury, that the bunt has taken better players than him out of prolonged slumps maybe he should call up Lou Brock for some advice or Maury Wills... Or at least stop listening to Scott Boras about all the money you will be paid after you leave Boston! Because you are not putting yourself in a position to ask for anything more than a plug nickel with your stats.

     




     

     

     

    Smellsbury?

    cute nickname

     

    what are u?

    10 years old?

     

    I'm probably older than you ! However it's not important how old I am. You obviously are a prepubescent. If you don't like my nicknames tell the Ellsbury to play baseball like a Major leaguer in good standing. I'll call him Smellsbury until that time.


     

     




    You might be able to call him, that, but doing so certainly does not much to the way of lending credibility  

     

     

    Which is a shame, because the point that Ellsbury does not bunt enough has some validity.   Jacoby really is not doing anything differently this year, besides hitting slightly fewer line drives and a few more groundballs.  That can be an issue for a power hitter, but a speedy leadoff guy like Ellsbury needs to benefit from the increased ground ball rate (and do so at the expense of fly ball rate).

     

    Also, way too many popups....

    Hey it's to bad that I have to use a nickname of the derogatory nature to describe a ballplayer or anyone for that fact. If I just called him by a name I'd prefer, the BDC.com wouldn't print it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also take credit for calling Terry Francona- Francoma,Tippy the turtle and several other names but these were just the cleaned up versions of the names I really called him. The worst part of this is I have to explain my calling him a nickname to grown ups who should already realize that when writing ina blog the language has to be tempered. however thnx for the comment.


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Sportsbozo, you obviously don't understand what a pink hat is-or was, actually.  You're confusing pink hat with pollyanna.  A pollyanna is a true fan who always looks on the bright side even if there is none.

     

    I'm a realist. I don't watch baseball to sing songs or to be a rah rah type! The purist in me is why I applaud the bunt by Middlebrooks, and whether he did it on his own or via a bunt sign is of little or no consequence to me. If the Sox or any team for that fact used every aspect of the game in the proper context they would excel. The little things are what define the ability of a player (s). The refusel to adhere the the rudiments is what seperates the good from the great,the great ballplayers excel in all aspects of the game! Whether it's on offense or defense, throwing the ball to the proper base for an outfielder on anything hit to them, to making a turn at first in an attempt to draw a throw which might go errant by an offensive player these are the tiny nuggets which make my eyes dance with joy. Watching the towering HR is nice,but watching an outfielder deke a runner into trying to extend a single into a double just for the purpose of throwing him out is just as picturesque to me.


     




    Great answer SB1...

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Sportsbozo, you obviously don't understand what a pink hat is-or was, actually.  You're confusing pink hat with pollyanna.  A pollyanna is a true fan who always looks on the bright side even if there is none.

     

    I'm a realist. I don't watch baseball to sing songs or to be a rah rah type! The purist in me is why I applaud the bunt by Middlebrooks, and whether he did it on his own or via a bunt sign is of little or no consequence to me. If the Sox or any team for that fact used every aspect of the game in the proper context they would excel. The little things are what define the ability of a player (s). The refusel to adhere the the rudiments is what seperates the good from the great,the great ballplayers excel in all aspects of the game! Whether it's on offense or defense, throwing the ball to the proper base for an outfielder on anything hit to them, to making a turn at first in an attempt to draw a throw which might go errant by an offensive player these are the tiny nuggets which make my eyes dance with joy. Watching the towering HR is nice,but watching an outfielder deke a runner into trying to extend a single into a double just for the purpose of throwing him out is just as picturesque to me.


     

     



    A purist maybe, but not a realist.  Funny you should attack a player who drove in the tying run in a 3-2 win which keeps the Sox 1 game out of first in the AL East and in the lead in the wild card race--a far cry from last season.  The Sox are among the top five teams in MLB in runs scored, so their avoidance of bunts can't be that bad. 

     

    As for Ellsbury, he is definitely in a slump, but it's entirely possible, even likely, he will come out of it.  He wasn't half bad in April.  There is zero evidence he is swinging for the fences.  What he is not doing is hitting the ball squarely with any consistency.  His most consistent attribute seems to be ground out to the secondbaseman.  Bunting might in fact help, except that bunting is a real skill and hardly an automatic hit especially when opposing teams will look for him to bunt after the first successful one.  You absolutely, positively cannot bunt your way out of a slump.  In fact, the best time to bunt is when the infield, especially 3B, plays back because you are hitting the ball hard in all directions. 

    Funny thing is, I like the bunt when it is successful as Middlebrooks' was.  The problem is Bill James has demonstrated that most times the sacrifice bunt is the wrong strategy because it gives up an out.  But in the 10th with a man on second and no one out, it was imperative Middlebrooks move Pedroia over to 3B.  As it was, it took a pretty good bunt to do so.  But suppose he had tried twice and failed and then struck out?  Would you then have started a thread saying the attempted bunt was the right strategy even though it failed?  I strongly doubt it because I don't think you are a purist at all.  You just want to go after Ellsbury, which is OK because any player is fair game. 

     

    No actually I would never cry foul on a bunt attempt because it is an intrical part of the game. I made reference to Jakes hit, he was like the blind squirrel,he found a nut! Look if you think he's coming out of his slump on a double deflection hit great! I think he's mired in a slump because he thinks the HR is the only way to the top, when in his particular case he's spitting on himself by not using the one thing that seperates him from other players in Major league baseball his unique speed! Oh by the way when was the last time Bill James played a game of baseball? He's a stats guy whoopie do! Also he's made a ton of money selling everyone on his tripe! So he's not going to tell everyone that all the stats are just a bunch of baloney,and that he made it all up,is he?LMAO


     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Actually the Twins were playing in for the bunt but only on the third base side. In any case the sox failure to utilize the bunt as a tool to advance runners is embarrassing!

    Sacrifice bunts are usually bad plays.  Last night's situation was actually the perfect situation.

    But that's not the important part, since that was the more obvious and straightforward call.

    How did you feel about the preceding AB?  What you are glossing over is the fact that Pedroia was only in scoring position because Farrell didn't call for the bunt.

    Do you feel Farrell made a bad call not having Papi sacrifice, or do you feel strongly both ways?



    I assume you would rather not comment on your inconsistency of liking the WMB bunt, and liking Papi NOT bunting?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Sportsbozo, you obviously don't understand what a pink hat is-or was, actually.  You're confusing pink hat with pollyanna.  A pollyanna is a true fan who always looks on the bright side even if there is none.

     

    I'm a realist. I don't watch baseball to sing songs or to be a rah rah type! The purist in me is why I applaud the bunt by Middlebrooks, and whether he did it on his own or via a bunt sign is of little or no consequence to me. If the Sox or any team for that fact used every aspect of the game in the proper context they would excel. The little things are what define the ability of a player (s). The refusel to adhere the the rudiments is what seperates the good from the great,the great ballplayers excel in all aspects of the game! Whether it's on offense or defense, throwing the ball to the proper base for an outfielder on anything hit to them, to making a turn at first in an attempt to draw a throw which might go errant by an offensive player these are the tiny nuggets which make my eyes dance with joy. Watching the towering HR is nice,but watching an outfielder deke a runner into trying to extend a single into a double just for the purpose of throwing him out is just as picturesque to me.


     

     



    A purist maybe, but not a realist.  Funny you should attack a player who drove in the tying run in a 3-2 win which keeps the Sox 1 game out of first in the AL East and in the lead in the wild card race--a far cry from last season.  The Sox are among the top five teams in MLB in runs scored, so their avoidance of bunts can't be that bad. 

     

    As for Ellsbury, he is definitely in a slump, but it's entirely possible, even likely, he will come out of it.  He wasn't half bad in April.  There is zero evidence he is swinging for the fences.  What he is not doing is hitting the ball squarely with any consistency.  His most consistent attribute seems to be ground out to the secondbaseman.  Bunting might in fact help, except that bunting is a real skill and hardly an automatic hit especially when opposing teams will look for him to bunt after the first successful one.  You absolutely, positively cannot bunt your way out of a slump.  In fact, the best time to bunt is when the infield, especially 3B, plays back because you are hitting the ball hard in all directions. 

    Funny thing is, I like the bunt when it is successful as Middlebrooks' was.  The problem is Bill James has demonstrated that most times the sacrifice bunt is the wrong strategy because it gives up an out.  But in the 10th with a man on second and no one out, it was imperative Middlebrooks move Pedroia over to 3B.  As it was, it took a pretty good bunt to do so.  But suppose he had tried twice and failed and then struck out?  Would you then have started a thread saying the attempted bunt was the right strategy even though it failed?  I strongly doubt it because I don't think you are a purist at all.  You just want to go after Ellsbury, which is OK because any player is fair game. 

     

    No actually I would never cry foul on a bunt attempt because it is an intrical part of the game. I made reference to Jakes hit, he was like the blind squirrel,he found a nut! Look if you think he's coming out of his slump on a double deflection hit great! I think he's mired in a slump because he thinks the HR is the only way to the top, when in his particular case he's spitting on himself by not using the one thing that seperates him from other players in Major league baseball his unique speed!


     




    absolutely agree 100%. He needs to be slapping the ball the other way. Hitting the ball into the gaps and legging out IF hits and doubles. Stealing bases and laying down some bunts.

    in 2011 he saw a heavy dose of inside FB, which most are able to turn on for power. Ells is strong so he can do that with that pitch. Now, with the shoulder injury last year and not getting those inside FB's, he needs to take what their giving him and take advantage of his other assets. But hey, power pays more $$.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    Sportsbozo, you obviously don't understand what a pink hat is-or was, actually.  You're confusing pink hat with pollyanna.  A pollyanna is a true fan who always looks on the bright side even if there is none.

     

    I'm a realist. I don't watch baseball to sing songs or to be a rah rah type! The purist in me is why I applaud the bunt by Middlebrooks, and whether he did it on his own or via a bunt sign is of little or no consequence to me. If the Sox or any team for that fact used every aspect of the game in the proper context they would excel. The little things are what define the ability of a player (s). The refusel to adhere the the rudiments is what seperates the good from the great,the great ballplayers excel in all aspects of the game! Whether it's on offense or defense, throwing the ball to the proper base for an outfielder on anything hit to them, to making a turn at first in an attempt to draw a throw which might go errant by an offensive player these are the tiny nuggets which make my eyes dance with joy. Watching the towering HR is nice,but watching an outfielder deke a runner into trying to extend a single into a double just for the purpose of throwing him out is just as picturesque to me.


     

     



    A purist maybe, but not a realist.  Funny you should attack a player who drove in the tying run in a 3-2 win which keeps the Sox 1 game out of first in the AL East and in the lead in the wild card race--a far cry from last season.  The Sox are among the top five teams in MLB in runs scored, so their avoidance of bunts can't be that bad. 

     

    As for Ellsbury, he is definitely in a slump, but it's entirely possible, even likely, he will come out of it.  He wasn't half bad in April.  There is zero evidence he is swinging for the fences.  What he is not doing is hitting the ball squarely with any consistency.  His most consistent attribute seems to be ground out to the secondbaseman.  Bunting might in fact help, except that bunting is a real skill and hardly an automatic hit especially when opposing teams will look for him to bunt after the first successful one.  You absolutely, positively cannot bunt your way out of a slump.  In fact, the best time to bunt is when the infield, especially 3B, plays back because you are hitting the ball hard in all directions. 

    Funny thing is, I like the bunt when it is successful as Middlebrooks' was.  The problem is Bill James has demonstrated that most times the sacrifice bunt is the wrong strategy because it gives up an out.  But in the 10th with a man on second and no one out, it was imperative Middlebrooks move Pedroia over to 3B.  As it was, it took a pretty good bunt to do so.  But suppose he had tried twice and failed and then struck out?  Would you then have started a thread saying the attempted bunt was the right strategy even though it failed?  I strongly doubt it because I don't think you are a purist at all.  You just want to go after Ellsbury, which is OK because any player is fair game. 

     

    No actually I would never cry foul on a bunt attempt because it is an intrical part of the game. I made reference to Jakes hit, he was like the blind squirrel,he found a nut! Look if you think he's coming out of his slump on a double deflection hit great! I think he's mired in a slump because he thinks the HR is the only way to the top, when in his particular case he's spitting on himself by not using the one thing that seperates him from other players in Major league baseball his unique speed!


     

     




    absolutely agree 100%. He needs to be slapping the ball the other way. Hitting the ball into the gaps and legging out IF hits and doubles. Stealing bases and laying down some bunts.

     

    in 2011 he saw a heavy dose of inside FB, which most are able to turn on for power. Ells is strong so he can do that with that pitch. Now, with the shoulder injury last year and not getting those inside FB's, he needs to take what their giving him and take advantage of his other assets. But hey, power pays more $$.

    The Lord giveth, and the Lord Taketh away! In his case by allowing his true talent to wane he will not get the money that was promised at the end of the rainbow by you know who!!


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

    Hey it's to bad that I have to use a nickname of the derogatory nature to describe a ballplayer or anyone for that fact. If I just called him by a name I'd prefer, the BDC.com wouldn't print it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also take credit for calling Terry Francona- Francoma,Tippy the turtle and several other names but these were just the cleaned up versions of the names I really called him. The worst part of this is I have to explain my calling him a nickname to grown ups who should already realize that when writing ina blog the language has to be tempered. however thnx for the comment.



    Wow, goody for you.  You made up a bunch of derogatory names for Francona and even ones that can't be printed here.  That's impressive stuff.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    For the morons who came here to argue the merits of my naming players with nicknames go waste someone elses time. I don't have to be specific you know who you are. I'm not writing a column for this paper so I simply put you on ignore!!!

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

    For the morons who came here to argue the merits of my naming players with nicknames go waste someone elses time. I don't have to be specific you know who you are. I'm not writing a column for this paper so I simply put you on ignore!!!



    For the moron castigating the RS for not bunting, when not bunting is what got the runner in scoring position to begin with, putting people ignore is probably the best policy.  No one likes to debate with their intellectual superiors.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    For the morons who came here to argue the merits of my naming players with nicknames go waste someone elses time. I don't have to be specific you know who you are. I'm not writing a column for this paper so I simply put you on ignore!!!

     



    For the moron castigating the RS for not bunting, when not bunting is what got the runner in scoring position to begin with, putting people ignore is probably the best policy.  No one likes to debate with their intellectual superiors.

     

     

    I know you can read, but I didn't castigate the RS for not bunting! If I had I would have implied that Papi should have bunted also,I didn't include Papi's walk in the equation. I simply said that the bunt by Middlebrooks was the the play that changed the game, and that the bunt is an intrical part of the game which has been ignored by those with the capacity too actually utilize it as a tool. Ellsbury is the biggest offender. As for Intellectual superiors, I haven't noticed any here. As for a debate,just shouting your right does not make it a debate.Also quoting Bill James illustrates you own inadequacies. Try debating whether the bunt was the turning point and not the walk. As for either being relevant it would require a whole different set of scenarios to take place to disprove them as relevant. When gomes hit the sac fly Pedey was at third and not at second,had he still been stuck at second base he wouldn't have scored the winning run, hence the bunt by middlebrooks becomes the catalyst for winning the game. Caio, by the way arguing ones point is not debating.


     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    I know you can read, but I didn't castigate the RS for not bunting!

    This is what you wrote.  I'll let you come to your own conclusion as to whether calling someone embarrassing is castigating or merely insulting.

    In any case the sox failure to utilize the bunt as a tool to advance runners is embarrassing! 

    Try debating whether the bunt was the turning point and not the walk.

    Getting a guy to 2nd with -0- outs is about equal to getting a guy to 3rd with one out irt to scoring one run, but a good bit worse for scoring more than one run.

    As for a debate,just shouting your right does not make it a debate.

    You're the one that used the word 'moron' first.  If you want to keep it civil, it starts with you.  I always respond in kind either way.

    Also quoting Bill James illustrates you own inadequacies.

    Do you want to show me where I referenced Bill James?  making stuff up shows your inadequacies.  Tom Tango did all the work on run expectancy.  You're welcome.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Actually the Twins were playing in for the bunt but only on the third base side. In any case the sox failure to utilize the bunt as a tool to advance runners is embarrassing!

    Sacrifice bunts are usually bad plays.  Last night's situation was actually the perfect situation.

    But that's not the important part, since that was the more obvious and straightforward call.

    How did you feel about the preceding AB?  What you are glossing over is the fact that Pedroia was only in scoring position because Farrell didn't call for the bunt.

    Do you feel Farrell made a bad call not having Papi sacrifice, or do you feel strongly both ways?




    I guess they rarely bunt/sacrifice in the national league?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    I know you can read, but I didn't castigate the RS for not bunting!

    This is what you wrote.  I'll let you come to your own conclusion as to whether calling someone embarrassing is castigating or merely insulting.

    In any case the sox failure to utilize the bunt as a tool to advance runners is embarrassing! 

    Try debating whether the bunt was the turning point and not the walk.

    Getting a guy to 2nd with -0- outs is about equal to getting a guy to 3rd with one out irt to scoring one run, but a good bit worse for scoring more than one run.

    As for a debate,just shouting your right does not make it a debate.

    You're the one that used the word 'moron' first.  If you want to keep it civil, it starts with you.  I always respond in kind either way.

    Also quoting Bill James illustrates you own inadequacies.

    Do you want to show me where I referenced Bill James?  making stuff up shows your inadequacies.  Tom Tango did all the work on run expectancy.  You're welcome.

    Actually Joe I don't really care who referenced whom at this point in time. As for Tom Tango I would rather watch Fandango! Good luck in your search for someone to argue with,try your wife or significant other, that's their job.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to ampoule's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Actually the Twins were playing in for the bunt but only on the third base side. In any case the sox failure to utilize the bunt as a tool to advance runners is embarrassing!

    Sacrifice bunts are usually bad plays.  Last night's situation was actually the perfect situation.

    But that's not the important part, since that was the more obvious and straightforward call.

    How did you feel about the preceding AB?  What you are glossing over is the fact that Pedroia was only in scoring position because Farrell didn't call for the bunt.

    Do you feel Farrell made a bad call not having Papi sacrifice, or do you feel strongly both ways?

     




     

    I guess they rarely bunt/sacrifice in the national league?

     



    You do know that the pitcher's bat in the N.L. That's where the majority of the bunts come from. For instance, the Reds lead the N.L. with 23 sacrifice hits, and 14 are from the pitchers, nine from position players. And the leader of the position players (five) is a guy who bats just. .208. So 19 of their 23 bunts are from players who can't hit.

     

    That's not an endorsement of the value of bunting as much as it is an indictment of what you have to do when you send guys to the plate who can't hit.

    AND ...

    The Reds are tied with the Giants for most sacrifice hits. Of the Giants' 23 sacrifices, only five are from position players and 18 are from pitchers.

    Again -- it's not strategy to have a pitcher bunt when a guy is on first base. It's basically surrendering to the fact that you have a batter at the plate who can't hit.

    The Red Sox have three sacrifice hits to they're really not far behind the Giants when you take pitchers out of the equation.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    In response to ampoule's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Actually the Twins were playing in for the bunt but only on the third base side. In any case the sox failure to utilize the bunt as a tool to advance runners is embarrassing!

    Sacrifice bunts are usually bad plays.  Last night's situation was actually the perfect situation.

    But that's not the important part, since that was the more obvious and straightforward call.

    How did you feel about the preceding AB?  What you are glossing over is the fact that Pedroia was only in scoring position because Farrell didn't call for the bunt.

    Do you feel Farrell made a bad call not having Papi sacrifice, or do you feel strongly both ways?

     




     

    I guess they rarely bunt/sacrifice in the national league?

     



    You do know that the pitcher's bat in the N.L. That's where the majority of the bunts come from. For instance, the Reds lead the N.L. with 23 sacrifice hits, and 14 are from the pitchers, nine from position players. And the leader of the position players (five) is a guy who bats just. .208. So 19 of their 23 bunts are from players who can't hit.

     

    That's not an endorsement of the value of bunting as much as it is an indictment of what you have to do when you send guys to the plate who can't hit.

    AND ...

    The Reds are tied with the Giants for most sacrifice hits. Of the Giants' 23 sacrifices, only five are from position players and 18 are from pitchers.

    Again -- it's not strategy to have a pitcher bunt when a guy is on first base. It's basically surrendering to the fact that you have a batter at the plate who can hit.

    The Red Sox have three sacrifice hits to they're really not far behind the Giants when you take pitchers out of the equation.

     




    Roy, of course I realize the pitcher bats in the NL.  I was being facetious..:).  I guess I'm just guilty of being a purist and making a personal statement about the game itself.  I like bunting.  It really should be used as part of a game instead of an exception.

     

    Also, I feel that the DH rule has diminished a part of the game.  Lost is much of the strategy..pitching changes, sacrifice, pitch hitting etc..  All the DH rule does is prolong careers of players who can't play anymore, really.  I wonder what the HR statistics would have been for Ruth or Williams is they didn't have to actually play the game everyday?

     

    I don't care what Bill James says, I'm just more of a romantic than statistician.   Smile

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to ampoule's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    Actually the Twins were playing in for the bunt but only on the third base side. In any case the sox failure to utilize the bunt as a tool to advance runners is embarrassing!

    Sacrifice bunts are usually bad plays.  Last night's situation was actually the perfect situation.

    But that's not the important part, since that was the more obvious and straightforward call.

    How did you feel about the preceding AB?  What you are glossing over is the fact that Pedroia was only in scoring position because Farrell didn't call for the bunt.

    Do you feel Farrell made a bad call not having Papi sacrifice, or do you feel strongly both ways?

     




     

    I guess they rarely bunt/sacrifice in the national league?

     



    You do know that the pitcher's bat in the N.L. That's where the majority of the bunts come from. For instance, the Reds lead the N.L. with 23 sacrifice hits, and 14 are from the pitchers, nine from position players. And the leader of the position players (five) is a guy who bats just. .208. So 19 of their 23 bunts are from players who can't hit.

     

    That's not an endorsement of the value of bunting as much as it is an indictment of what you have to do when you send guys to the plate who can't hit.

    AND ...

    The Reds are tied with the Giants for most sacrifice hits. Of the Giants' 23 sacrifices, only five are from position players and 18 are from pitchers.

    Again -- it's not strategy to have a pitcher bunt when a guy is on first base. It's basically surrendering to the fact that you have a batter at the plate who can't hit.

    The Red Sox have three sacrifice hits to they're really not far behind the Giants when you take pitchers out of the equation.



    The NL has 104, not including the pitchers.  The AL has 100.  That's about as close as it gets.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    I know you can read, but I didn't castigate the RS for not bunting!

    This is what you wrote.  I'll let you come to your own conclusion as to whether calling someone embarrassing is castigating or merely insulting.

    In any case the sox failure to utilize the bunt as a tool to advance runners is embarrassing! 

    Try debating whether the bunt was the turning point and not the walk.

    Getting a guy to 2nd with -0- outs is about equal to getting a guy to 3rd with one out irt to scoring one run, but a good bit worse for scoring more than one run.

    As for a debate,just shouting your right does not make it a debate.

    You're the one that used the word 'moron' first.  If you want to keep it civil, it starts with you.  I always respond in kind either way.

    Also quoting Bill James illustrates you own inadequacies.

    Do you want to show me where I referenced Bill James?  making stuff up shows your inadequacies.  Tom Tango did all the work on run expectancy.  You're welcome.

     

    Actually Joe I don't really care who referenced whom at this point in time. As for Tom Tango I would rather watch Fandango! Good luck in your search for someone to argue with,try your wife or significant other, that's their job.


     



    http://youtu.be/v5YnUxAgnog

    Do Do, Do Do Da Do DaDa Do Do Do DaDa Do DaDa....

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: The Bunt!

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    In response to ConanObrien's comment:

     

    In response to sportsbozo1's comment:

     

    Wow it took a real power hitter to lay a bunt down in a situation where moving a runner into scoring position could provide the Sox with the run they needed too win the game! Not the guy with the wheels like Jake Smellsbury or even a pinch hitter like Pedro Ciriaco or Shane Victorino. With a chance to move em up Will Middlebrooks pushes a bunt up the first base line and advances both Pedey and Ciriaco. Later on a sac fly by Gomes the Sox would score the run to win the game! Would someone tell the lazy, no home run hitting, and lately just plain no hitting Ellsbury, that the bunt has taken better players than him out of prolonged slumps maybe he should call up Lou Brock for some advice or Maury Wills... Or at least stop listening to Scott Boras about all the money you will be paid after you leave Boston! Because you are not putting yourself in a position to ask for anything more than a plug nickel with your stats.

     




     

     

     

    Smellsbury?

    cute nickname

     

    what are u?

    10 years old?

     

    I'm probably older than you ! However it's not important how old I am. You obviously are a prepubescent. If you don't like my nicknames tell the Ellsbury to play baseball like a Major leaguer in good standing. I'll call him Smellsbury until that time.


     

     




    You might be able to call him, that, but doing so certainly does not much to the way of lending credibility  

     

     

    Which is a shame, because the point that Ellsbury does not bunt enough has some validity.   Jacoby really is not doing anything differently this year, besides hitting slightly fewer line drives and a few more groundballs.  That can be an issue for a power hitter, but a speedy leadoff guy like Ellsbury needs to benefit from the increased ground ball rate (and do so at the expense of fly ball rate).

     

    Also, way too many popups....

     

    Hey it's to bad that I have to use a nickname of the derogatory nature to describe a ballplayer or anyone for that fact. If I just called him by a name I'd prefer, the BDC.com wouldn't print it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also take credit for calling Terry Francona- Francoma,Tippy the turtle and several other names but these were just the cleaned up versions of the names I really called him. The worst part of this is I have to explain my calling him a nickname to grown ups who should already realize that when writing ina blog the language has to be tempered. however thnx for the comment.


     




    THe irony is, it's not the use of a derogatory name that hurts the credibility, but rather the kindergarten-esque name you have chosen for Ellsbury. 

    "Francoma", while I disagreed with the use and liked him as a manager, at least has an air of cleverness about it.  Turning Ellsbury into "Smellsbury" might be easy and roll of the tongue, but lacks any creativity whatsover for anyone over the age of 7

    "Ellsburied"?  OK, some points awarded.  "Ellsfairy"?  A little too grade school, but it has a playful ring to it.   Not great, but a step up.  I'd hold off, too.  "The Ellsbury Doughboy"?   Now THAT one could rock, although it really does not get home the point your monikers are trying to convey.   Maybe its a good jumping off point?  Maybe in this case we could call him "The Ellsbury Don't Boy"?  Or "The Ellsbury Woe Boy"?   (Meh.)  I think there is potential somewhere.

    But "Smellsbury"?  Sorry, cannot support that one.   But I will issue a free pass if you can come up with a more clever one.  Give it a try.

     

     

     

    (Yes, this is how I encourage people.)

     

    And, back to baseball, like you said Ellsbury really should be using his best weapon in any fashion possible to break out of his slump.

     

Share