Re: The Bunt!
posted at 5/18/2013 2:24 PM EDT
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.
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.