The Bunt?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sox613. Show sox613's posts

    The Bunt?

    I have read the other thread containing the situation about the bunt, or the lack of the bunt....There is absolutely no reason not to bunt the ball or for Middlebrooks to at least go to the right side...Its insane not to...With Elsbury on deck it makes all that much more sense. He is a contact hitter and had a very good chance to get the run in from 3rd....If I was to bet on getting the run across that is the play that would have the best odds, a bunt, followed by a fly ball or a ball hit to the right side by Elsbury.

     The Sox are playing very well and have all year, but I still cannot understand why Napoli and Salty are put back to back, simply because they strikeout to much. With that being said, they are playing good ball, but that insurance run or the lack of it had me very very nervous.

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to sox613's comment:

    I have read the other thread containing the situation about the bunt, or the lack of the bunt....There is absolutely no reason not to bunt the ball or for Middlebrooks to at least go to the right side...Its insane not to...With Elsbury on deck it makes all that much more sense. He is a contact hitter and had a very good chance to get the run in from 3rd....If I was to bet on getting the run across that is the play that would have the best odds, a bunt, followed by a fly ball or a ball hit to the right side by Elsbury.

     The Sox are playing very well and have all year, but I still cannot understand why Napoli and Salty are put back to back, simply because they strikeout to much. With that being said, they are playing good ball, but that insurance run or the lack of it had me very very nervous.



    Nope.  Not a clear cut bunt situation.  Chances for success (a run) much greater to let Middlebrooks swing away there, because there was no outs.  And because Verlander is one of the more difficult pitchers to bunt against. 

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    I believe Middy did try to bunt on the first pitch but Verlander checked 2nd base kind of testing Middy to see if he was going to bunt.  

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    The Rays love the bunt and will do so in almost any circumstance, including a beauty against the Sox in the ALDS.  They bunt, I hasten to add, because they ain't so good at hitting.  The Sox don't bunt much, but can hit.  They took 3 our of 4 from the Rays in the ALDS.  The Sox now lead the Tigers 2-1 without benefit of bunts.  The unbelievable comeback in the 8th inning of game 2 was entirely without benefit of a bunt.  Ditto the winning run in the 9th inning. 

    I personally like the bunt because it is fun to watch--good ones, bad ones, and great ones.  But the Sox don't bunt much because Bill James sabermetrics say bunts waste outs. 

     

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    The Rays love the bunt and will do so in almost any circumstance, including a beauty against the Sox in the ALDS.  They bunt, I hasten to add, because they ain't so good at hitting.  The Sox don't bunt much, but can hit.  They took 3 our of 4 from the Rays in the ALDS.  The Sox now lead the Tigers 2-1 without benefit of bunts.  The unbelievable comeback in the 8th inning of game 2 was entirely without benefit of a bunt.  Ditto the winning run in the 9th inning. 

    I personally like the bunt because it is fun to watch--good ones, bad ones, and great ones.  But the Sox don't bunt much because Bill James sabermetrics say bunts waste outs.  



    The Rays don't bunt much either, Max.  They had 24 sacrifices this year, tied with the Red Sox.

    Houston led the AL with 46 sacrifices.

    Now put this into perspective: the league leader in sacrifices had 46 of them in 6,020 plate appearances.  That's one sacrifice per 131 plate appearances.

    So it might be more accurate to say nobody actually likes the bunt. 

     

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    The Rays love the bunt and will do so in almost any circumstance, including a beauty against the Sox in the ALDS.  They bunt, I hasten to add, because they ain't so good at hitting.  The Sox don't bunt much, but can hit.  They took 3 our of 4 from the Rays in the ALDS.  The Sox now lead the Tigers 2-1 without benefit of bunts.  The unbelievable comeback in the 8th inning of game 2 was entirely without benefit of a bunt.  Ditto the winning run in the 9th inning. 

    I personally like the bunt because it is fun to watch--good ones, bad ones, and great ones.  But the Sox don't bunt much because Bill James sabermetrics say bunts waste outs.  



    The Rays don't bunt much either, Max.  They had 24 sacrifices this year, tied with the Red Sox.

    Houston led the AL with 46 sacrifices.

    Now put this into perspective: the league leader in sacrifices had 46 of them in 6,020 plate appearances.  That's one sacrifice per 131 plate appearances.

    So it might be more accurate to say nobody actually likes the bunt. 

     



    You could also say that teams today do not care much for fundamentals either but does that make it right?

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    The Rays love the bunt and will do so in almost any circumstance, including a beauty against the Sox in the ALDS.  They bunt, I hasten to add, because they ain't so good at hitting.  The Sox don't bunt much, but can hit.  They took 3 our of 4 from the Rays in the ALDS.  The Sox now lead the Tigers 2-1 without benefit of bunts.  The unbelievable comeback in the 8th inning of game 2 was entirely without benefit of a bunt.  Ditto the winning run in the 9th inning. 

    I personally like the bunt because it is fun to watch--good ones, bad ones, and great ones.  But the Sox don't bunt much because Bill James sabermetrics say bunts waste outs.  



    The Rays don't bunt much either, Max.  They had 24 sacrifices this year, tied with the Red Sox.

    Houston led the AL with 46 sacrifices.

    Now put this into perspective: the league leader in sacrifices had 46 of them in 6,020 plate appearances.  That's one sacrifice per 131 plate appearances.

    So it might be more accurate to say nobody actually likes the bunt. 

     



    You could also say that teams today do not care much for fundamentals either but does that make it right?



    You could say that.  But, given the number he presented there, and given the league-wide acceptance, to more or less of a degree of Bill James' conclusions about bunting outcome probability, I would say that it is about 'nobody actually likes to bunt'.

    Now, you could be right.  There might be a lacking in teaching of the fundamentals.  If there is, it is because the bunt, for better or for worse, is not part of the modern game.  Not because of some failure to teach/learn.

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    Assuming someone was proficient, bunting for a hit is no different from an averge single to left field. 

    I was wondering why the top of the order didn't at least try on Cabrera given his physical limitations, however my friend who went to Sunday's game said he was playing way in on Ellsbury and Victorino, like he was playing only for a bunt.  Fox of course didn't mention a thing.

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    Happily it all worked out ok, but I too was screaming for the bunt. While I've posted the sabermetric stats which may agree with some posters here saying swinging away results in more runs scored for the inning, the fact is that this is all premised on the bunt resulting in a guaranteed out-a true sacrifice. This was different as Miggy's groin pull injury makes bunting in that situation a complete no brainer. It was a late inning 1 run or less game AND the 3rd baseman and best hitter in baseball was hobbled by injury. Forcing him to field a bunt could have resulted in a base hit or a reaggravation of the injury taking his bat out of their line-up. Bunting was the correct move there and Farrell should have called for it.   

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    The Rays love the bunt and will do so in almost any circumstance, including a beauty against the Sox in the ALDS.  They bunt, I hasten to add, because they ain't so good at hitting.  The Sox don't bunt much, but can hit.  They took 3 our of 4 from the Rays in the ALDS.  The Sox now lead the Tigers 2-1 without benefit of bunts.  The unbelievable comeback in the 8th inning of game 2 was entirely without benefit of a bunt.  Ditto the winning run in the 9th inning. 

    I personally like the bunt because it is fun to watch--good ones, bad ones, and great ones.  But the Sox don't bunt much because Bill James sabermetrics say bunts waste outs.  



    The Rays don't bunt much either, Max.  They had 24 sacrifices this year, tied with the Red Sox.

    Houston led the AL with 46 sacrifices.

    Now put this into perspective: the league leader in sacrifices had 46 of them in 6,020 plate appearances.  That's one sacrifice per 131 plate appearances.

    So it might be more accurate to say nobody actually likes the bunt. 

     



      Never liked giving an out especially to a great pitcher with a runner already in scoring position.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: The Bunt?

    it's the situation, not a "philosophy".  it's a postseason game.....not 1 of 162. 

    up by 1 in the 8th inning that runner has to get to 3rd base with the out. 

    3rd inning? no way.  but at this point of the game, with a hobbled 3bman, a pitcher avoiding contact, up by 1 run with 6 outs to go - you have to try and bunt him over and put your faith in your leadoff hitter to make contact.

    of course if he fails to bunt him over you are still left with the same 2 chances at a basehit to score the run. 

     

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    One thing brought up on the other thread was Verlander's fake to second.  Middlebrooks did not square around, but he did appear to shift his hands a little.  Once that happened, did Fielder come in?  Fox never showed the defensive alignment so I don't know, but I am assuming he came in even farther than normal.  That makes it even harder to put down a successful sacrifice by a player who has hardly ever bunted vs. a pitcher who is very difficult to bunt against.  The defensively alignment may have played a role in Farrell's thinkg; not saying it did, only that it might have.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: The Bunt?

    yup.  FOX is terrible at showing the defense positioning.  obviously you want to bunt to the 3b with a runner on 2nd so Fielder's positioning should not have swayed a green light to bunt.

     

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to slasher9's comment:

    yup.  FOX is terrible at showing the defense positioning.  obviously you want to bunt to the 3b with a runner on 2nd so Fielder's positioning should not have swayed a green light to bunt.

     



    I respectfully disagree Slash.  Man on 2nd, no outs, Verlander on the hill, I don't think it is obviously anything.  The New Testament (King Bill James Version) actually says the chances of success are better swinging away than giving up the out there.  Playoffs make it different?  Sure, maybe.  I am not sure.  But, I am sure there was nothing obvious about bunting there.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from soups. Show soups's posts

    Re: The Bunt?

    You also don't necessarily have to bunt when the pitcher has been throwing off speed stuff in the dirt.  

    Middlebrooks wasn't going to bunt.  Far more likely in that situation to see off-speed pitches; Gomes has little speed and was on first base.  Verlander could ostensibly waste some pitches going fishing on Middlebrooks, who is a great fastball hitter. Verlander was throwing him off speed.

    And to top it off, Peralta was pulled in at third base on that play.  Bunt or no bunt, what we needed was a straight steal or a passed ball. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to slasher9's comment:

    yup.  FOX is terrible at showing the defense positioning.  obviously you want to bunt to the 3b with a runner on 2nd so Fielder's positioning should not have swayed a green light to bunt.

     



    I respectfully disagree Slash.  Man on 2nd, no outs, Verlander on the hill, I don't think it is obviously anything.  The New Testament (King Bill James Version) actually says the chances of success are better swinging away than giving up the out there.  Playoffs make it different?  Sure, maybe.  I am not sure.  But, I am sure there was nothing obvious about bunting there.




    Hey Space.  i think there is a misunderstand.  My "obviously" was meant that if he were to be bunting he would (obviously) want to bunt to the third baseman.  not that he should have obviously been bunting.  i know that the bunt in that situation isn't obvious.  of course it is what i think should have been done and am debating as such but nothing is 100% absolute.

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to slasher9's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to slasher9's comment:

    yup.  FOX is terrible at showing the defense positioning.  obviously you want to bunt to the 3b with a runner on 2nd so Fielder's positioning should not have swayed a green light to bunt.

     



    I respectfully disagree Slash.  Man on 2nd, no outs, Verlander on the hill, I don't think it is obviously anything.  The New Testament (King Bill James Version) actually says the chances of success are better swinging away than giving up the out there.  Playoffs make it different?  Sure, maybe.  I am not sure.  But, I am sure there was nothing obvious about bunting there.




    Hey Space.  i think there is a misunderstand.  My "obviously" was meant that if he were to be bunting he would (obviously) want to bunt to the third baseman.  not that he should have obviously been bunting.  i know that the bunt in that situation isn't obvious.  of course it is what i think should have been done and am debating as such but nothing is 100% absolute.



    Gotcha Slash.  My apologies for my poor interpretive skills.

    FWIW, since I have somehow managed to make myself the defender of the non-bunt today:  I think the bunt is a great play.  However, an unsuccesful bunt, which happens significantly more than some seem to think it does, is utterly frustrating.  A pop-up or straight-to-the-mound bunt that fails to advance the runner is such an utter waste.  I would rather see a guy strike out.  With Verlander pitching, no outs, and Miggy looking up Will's nostrils, I thought that was a pretty clear swing-away at-bat.  But I understand the opposite notion.

     

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    they don't bother to teach/learn it because they don't appreciate the value

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    they don't bother to teach/learn it because they don't appreciate the value



    Or, perhaps they appreciate that it has been overvalued.

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    they don't bother to teach/learn it because they don't appreciate the value



    Or, perhaps they appreciate that it has been overvalued.




    it may had been over-valued but now it's under valued

    there is a time and place for it


    just like the steal

    MoneyBall has it flaws - no bunting, no stealing, OBP is KING and defense doesn't matter? Come on......

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    they don't bother to teach/learn it because they don't appreciate the value



    Or, perhaps they appreciate that it has been overvalued.




    it may had been over-valued but now it's under valued

    there is a time and place for it


    just like the steal

    MoneyBall has it flaws - no bunting, no stealing, OBP is KING and defense doesn't matter? Come on......



    I agree with this.  The bunt is a fantastic strategy in specific situations.  Totally agree that it is now underrated.  

    I just don't think that specific situation in yesterday's game was a great situation to bunt in.

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    they don't bother to teach/learn it because they don't appreciate the value



    Or, perhaps they appreciate that it has been overvalued.




    it may had been over-valued but now it's under valued

    there is a time and place for it


    just like the steal

    MoneyBall has it flaws - no bunting, no stealing, OBP is KING and defense doesn't matter? Come on......



    I agree with this.  The bunt is a fantastic strategy in specific situations.  Totally agree that it is now underrated.  

    I just don't think that specific situation in yesterday's game was a great situation to bunt in.




    it was a good time but not the only option given he was already in scoring position......but name a better situation? 

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    The best situation to bunt, generally speaking, is runners at first and second, no outs.

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    The best situation to bunt, generally speaking, is runners at first and second, no outs.




    what's the score?


    what inning?

    Who is pitching for them?

    Who is pitching for you?

    Who is on deck?

    Who is waiting in their bull pen?

    How important is this game?

    and who is up??

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

    Re: The Bunt?

    In response to andrewmitch's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    The best situation to bunt, generally speaking, is runners at first and second, no outs.




    what's the score?


    what inning?

    Who is pitching for them?

    Who is pitching for you?

    Who is on deck?

    Who is waiting in their bull pen?

    How important is this game?

    and who is up??



    I said 'generally speaking'.  What you're pointing out is that each situation is different. 

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share