And the Five O'Clock Lightning blog comes to life (kickstarted perhaps by Joe's questioning of my patriotism/Yankee-ness)! Thanks Joe. Now how about pulling the knife out of my back? :)
Meanwhile, here's a fun chat with Jeter in which he talks about his slump and says he has every intention of stealing stuff from Yankee Stadium before the season is over. And here's a moronic post at the NYTimes in which practically everyone scoffs at even the idea of bunting in almost any situation and insists bunting has been asinine for about 80 years now. They mock Jeter for bunting, act as if Girardi must have been crestfallen and fail to even mention his being hit on the wrist and going into an immediate slump and whether or not being weak at the plate might be a teensy factor when deciding whether to bunt. What say you? Is bunting statistically absurd or is manufacturing a run still the smart, small ball way to play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
It depends upon whether you want to score 1 run or score as many runs are possible. And, of course, position in the batting order is important.
In most cases I would prefer to take my chances at scoring as many runs as possible since outscoring your opponent is how games are won. But, a successful bunt by just about anyone other than your 4th and 5th hitters increases your probability of scoring at least one run while simultaneously decreasing your potential run average, so I'm not opposed to bunting a guy over in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game since you only need one run to win.
I could go either way with bunting to try and tie a game since you still need to score at least another run to win and you're likely better served by focusing on your total run potential.
And certain hitters in certain situations can increase the total run potential by successfully bunting (eg. 9th hitter with runners on 1st & 2nd with no outs), so I'm certainly not against bunting in all circumstances just when it doesn't make the most logical, statistical sense.
I agree with Pete.
I don't.
"I'm certainly not against bunting in all circumstances just when it doesn't make the most logical, statistical sense." And "I'm not opposed to bunting a guy over in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game since you only need one run to win."
Gee, well thanks for saying you're not opposed TO WINNING BASEBALL GAMES. And your caveats are so broad and generic (and fantasy baseball-ish) that I can only assume that in most cases you DO opose bunting. Which is absurd. If you oppose bunting because it "decreases your potential run average," I assume you're opposed to the batter trying to get the ball in the air for a sacifice fly that scores the runner on third base (say, for argument's sake, in the third inning). Nope, that wasnt a productive out. That was a "decrease in your potential run average." Obviously, with a runner on third in the bottom of the third with one out, the batter should have tried for a base hit rather than hitting a fly ball deep that could score the runner. Don't applaud that, Yankee fans. That was statistically foolish! More to come.
Where do I begin? It's called baseball. I thought we all agreed that small ball is the way we love to play the game, that the DH is a blot on the game, and that multi-skilled players like Jeter and A-Rod (see, I associated A-Rod w Jeter) are infinitely preferable to muscle-heads like Giambi who by their own admission do one thing and one thing only: try to hit home runs. Giambi is so incompetent that when there's a massive shift on and he could bunt or single down the third base line again and again and again and jus stroll to first base without the slightest danger of an out, he doesn't do so because he's a moron and thinks his only job is to slam homers. (I make a small caveat to the fact that he's such a doorstop that Giambi can barely move on the bases and his getting on base actually creates a traffic jam so that he's more of a hindrance than a plus as a base runner unlike 99% of decently fit ballplayers. More to come.
Bunting = automatic out? NO! No, no, no. Unless you're Posada or Giambi (or me), bunting does not mean an automatic out. Players can panic and throw away the ball, fast runners can beat out a throw, a funny bounce can mean no play and on and on. We'd see this more often if so many players weren't incompetent and unschooled and DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO LAY DOWN A BUNT IN THE FIRST PLACE. The bunt is a weapon in your arsenal. EVERY player should regularly practice the bunt because even your rare, game-winning scenario can come up often and a player should know how to execute one. And the better they execute it, the more often it will be a play that can move a runner over and NOT mean an out, or at the worst a productive out. More to come.
Small ball. The Yankees used to do it and still do sometimes. Other teams certainly do it to us and it is SO frustrating. They manufacture runs. A runner gets on base. The next batter bunts him over to second. (One out.) He steals third. The next runner lobs a pitch into the outfield and the guy on third strolls home and a run is scored. (Two outs) What is so frustrating about this is the feeling that you absolutely positively CANNOT stop that run from scoring. You are simply helpless when a good team executes basic plays. You can NOT stop it short of an ace pitcher pouring it on and being great. When your team does it, it's sweet and beautiful. When the oher team does it, it's nightmarish and demoralizing. Remember a week or two ago? Wasn't it Cano who got on base (it might even have been a walk) and then stole second and then stole third and then was sacrifice flied home? I saw it as gorgeous. You saw it as a wasted opportunity. (The batter should have tried for a "real" hit.) More to come.
Please, let's focus on the actual example given. Derek Jeter. He was hit on the wrist May 30 and has been in a pronounced slump ever since. He's probably injured, though Jeter could lose an arm in a woodchipper and still insist it was "no problem." When a batter is injured and in a pronounced slump, unable to bat effectively but an important part of your defense, doesn't it make a decision to bunt even more reasonable in more situations? Of course. And not just in the bottom of the ninth, one run needed to score scenario. Moving a runner over with a good bunt is a hell of a lot better than grounding out weakly to third. More to come.
Other reasons to bunt: Your team is n a scoring slump and the opposing pitcher is good. It's early in the game, but it's been days since your guys felt like they could score runs at will. Moving runners over by manufacturing a run a la bunting and the other tools gets your team on the board first and boosts everyone's spirits. Not only can you score runs, but you don't have to flail away hoping for a home run to do it.
Or your teams are locked in a pitching duel -- like Mondays' loss to the Rangers 1-2. I don't care what the inning is. Bunting when you're lucky to get any hits at all is a good move, especially when one run could loom large by the ninth. More to come.
Bunting is not a once in a blue moon tactic. It is an every day skill that EVERY player should practice regularly and be able to execute, just like practicing the sacrifice fly. Not every baserunner can steal for obvious reasons, but anyone holding a bat should be able to bunt. In tennis, my dad used to drop shot my sisters ALL THE TIME. Dad, they would squeal angrily, hit it for real. That is a real shot, he'd say winning points again and again until they learned to be on their toes and ready to rush the net. A la Giambi, do I think people should bunt all the time? Not philosophically, but when the other team is not expecting a bunt and you can likely get on base doing it, I would bunt again and again and again until they adjusted their playing appropriately. Why nt take advantage of any weakness? You got a problem with getting on first base? You thnk a single is more manly? I think winning is more manly. There are COUNTLESS scenarios in which bunting can be a good option and not just once in a blue moon ones. Not wanting to bunt is like not wanting to draw a walk or hit a sacrifice fly or doing a million other basic things that help win games. Anyone who thinks bunting is not an everyday part of the game is hereby guaranteed NOT to get a job on my minor league team that I'm gonna buy after winning the lottery. You have fun winning the Home Run Derby. I'm going to have fun winning the World Series.
Damn I'm good. That last line was good, don't you think?
Oh and tonight's game which the Yankees lost 3-2. Bottom of the ninth, runner on first, no out. Yankees down by 1. Melky Cabrera "INSTEAD OF LAYING DOWN THE BUNT AND MOVING THE RUNNER OVER" says the YES network announcer, grounds into a double play, two out and nobody on. Yes this was basically Pete's scenario, but since in Pete's scenario you only bunt once every two weeks (and each player only bunts maybe twice a season, at best), no one is gonna be able to execute it then anyway. Oh I know, Pete has no objection to practicing bunts, but that's not the same as doing it in a game and a bunt done properly CANNOT be denied. You will usually move the runner over automatically no matter how prepared the other team is for it.
Where to begin...
Your statement about Giambi bunting down third includes a HUGE assumption that hitting or bunting the ball down the third baseline is entirely up to Giambi. What moronic pitcher would throw the ball on the outside of the plate with that shift on? I'd like to see even the best bunters try and easily lay one down when the ball is thrown hard and inside.
As for your other assumption that just because Joe and I don't favor the bunt the same as you, we obviously don't like sac flies - that is simply not true. I love the sac fly because it does score a run and the batter has the chance of really connecting and hitting it out (scoring more than 1 run). It's hard to score more than 1 run with a bunt and the odds of said bunt clearing the outfield fence are extraordinarily small.
As for last night's game, with one on and none out, down one last night and the 9th place hitter up is exactly the sort of spot I would be all for Melky to bunt. A successful bunt in that circumstance changes your total run potential for the inning very little while increasing your probability of scoring at least 1 run. I was very disappointed that he didn't attempt to bunt and pissed that he GIDP.
And furthermore...
I believe that Tampa and Colorado are at opposite ends of the league leaderboard for sacrifice hits. Tampa with 12 and Colorado with 49. That means that so far this season Tampa has had an extra 37 outs to work with or 12 1/3 extra innings in which they have scored an additional 37 runs (390 vs. 353). Does that not in some small way explain why the Rays have the best record in baseball while the Rox have the third worst?
What's a sacrifice hit? A successful bunt where you're thrown out at first base? How do they score a bunt where you're not thrown out?
I wasn't implying you don't like sacrifice flies? I was wondering what the difference is between a sac fly and a successful bunt -- especially since a good bunt doesn't even necessarily mean an out.
I like sac flies as much as the next guy -- but acting like a sac fly is some altruistic/beautiful way to play the game is just plain naive -- for all we know the batter is trying to jack the ball out of the park and just didn't get enough of it. Contrast that with a batter that purposely hits the ball to the right side of the infield to move a runner from 2nd to 3rd with no outs -- yet there is no such thing as a sacrifice groundout. Just another dent to the batting average for that guy.
P.S. - A sacrifice by definition is a play in which you made an out. If its a hit of any sort it is not a sacrifice.
Post a Comment