Random Rule Book Question

[Centerfield]

Let's say it's late in the game and you have an important run on base. If you use Tom Glavine as a pinch hitter to try to bunt him over, is he obligated to finish the at-bat? Or can you pull him back after two strikes and send up Milledge to swing away?

[metirish]

I would guess that Tommy could not be pulled back....interesting concept though,I imagine the likes of LaRussa would burn his bench even quicker than he does now.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I think you can do it.

[Guest iramets]

No rule book handy, but I can't imagine that theree would be rule against pulling Glavine in the middle of the at-bat. No specific specific memories, but I think I've seen it done several times.

[Willets Point]

This looks like the relevant rule:

]3.03 A player, or players, may be substituted during a game at any time the ball is dead.

That seems vague enough for what CF proposes could be done since the ball is dead in-between pitches.

[Guest holychicken]

I was always under the impression that you could pull a player whenever the ball is dead. However, I would not have phrased it that way until i read the rule stated above.

[Centerfield]

If this is the case, I don't see why anyone but Tom Glavine should be called upon as a pinch hitter in a bunting situation (unless of course, he is pitching). There is no one better at laying down a sacrifice bunt. And should he be unsuccessful, send up a position player to swing away. You don't lose any more bodies than you would by using your position player in the first place. On the plus side, you utilize a better bunter, and you save a body if he is successful.

I guess a drawback would be that everyone one know that the bunt is coming...but in most of those situations, the opposition knows it anyway.

[Guest sharpie]

Sure you can. I haven't seen exactly that situation but I have seen a batter get hurt in the middle of an at-bat and have another player finish the at-bat.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Centerfield wrote: If this is the case, I don't see why anyone but Tom Glavine should be called upon as a pinch hitter in a bunting situation (unless of course, he is pitching).

Because Bunting Is for Losers.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

If Glavine goes to 0-2, and you let Milledge pinch hit for him, Milledge is entering the at bat with a decided disadvantage. Instead of the luxury of three strikes, he only has one to work with.

In another inning or two there might be another chance to use him as a pinch hitter, one where he'll get a full at bat.

So you could say that you are in fact burning a player by making this move.

[metirish]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: If Glavine goes to 0-2, and you let Milledge pinch hit for him, Milledge is entering the at bat with a decided disadvantage. Instead of the luxury of three strikes, he only has one to work with. In another inning or two there might be another chance to use him as a pinch hitter, one where he'll get a full at bat. So you could say that you are in fact burning a player by making this move.

Makes sense,which is probably why I have never seen it happen.

[metsmarathon]

Edgy DC wrote: ="Centerfield"]If this is the case, I don't see why anyone but Tom Glavine should be called upon as a pinch hitter in a bunting situation (unless of course, he is pitching). Because Bunting Is for Losers.

yes, but if you're bunting anyways, might as well have somebody proficient at it.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Who is at the plate should not, in my book, be determined by a "bunting stiuaton, but the defintiion of "bunting situation" rather should be determined by who is at the plate --- i.e., whether or not he is a loser.

[Frayed Knot]

Of course if you decide to bunt you wouldn't pull a hitter in favor of Glavine (or any pitcher) since your express purpose of "saving" a bat wouldn't work here since you're wasting one by PHing in the first place.

If a pitcher is at bat I suppose you could PH for him with Glavine if the situation called for a bunt and you were planning on replacing said pitcher anyway ... but I'm not sure you'd gain much of an advantage. That Glavine "is the most successful bunter in history" is as much a function of his longevity than it is to great skill at bunting. He handles the bat well but, unless the guy he's replacing is inept, the upgrade is probably marginal.

[Guest Edgy DC]

He's the most successful bunter in history?

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Among pitchers, he has more sacrifice hits than anyone in history.

[metsmarathon]

wow!

(i guess the Sac Fly was coined in 1954 or so, cos im using that as a marker here) but of all the players who have played since the early/mid 50's, only THREE have more sac hits than tom glavine -

omar vizquel - 219
ozzie smith - 214
nellie fox - 208
tom glavine - 204

wow.

[Gwreck]

We do have people on our bench -- specifically, Endy -- who are just as good as Glavine at getting bunts down, and can hit a little too.

Newhan is also a competent bunter I believe.