Ten Reasons the Bunt Was the Wrong Play

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

So... thanks, Terry?

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: So... thanks, Terry?

He's built a cohesive and unified[crossout]clubhouse[/crossout] fanbase.

[Benjamin Grimm]

[Guest Edgy DC]

The Second Spitter wrote: I wonder how much of this is attributable to AL managers believing you must bunt to be successful in the NL?

Let's consider this. Do you think that managers coming over from extended stints in the AL (including perhaps, but not limited to, Jerry and Terry and Torborg) tend to be prone to commit even more to small ball strategies out of some sort of insecurity to prove they cna handle the alleged greater sophisitcation of the National League game?

[Centerfield]

I don't know whether coming from the AL has anything to do with it, but I've just done some quick research and found that managers that tend commit to small ball have the fact that they are shitty managers in common.

[Guest Edgy DC]

There sure are exceptions though: Whitey Herzog and, to a lesser extent, Billy Martin.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I have always been a big advocate of the stolen base. I think it is an under utilized weapon in MLB of today. Where is Whitey Herzog and the St. Louis track team when you need them to shock the baseball establishment into realizing that BIFL? Bunting has it's place, but it is used far to extensively in today's game. What ever happened to the hit and run (or the run and hit)? I know that the players of today are, as a whole, more into swinging for the fences (contact be damned), but there has to be a place for the hit and run in today's game.*




*Now there is a sentence to drive an English professor mad.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Rockin' Doc wrote: What ever happened to the hit and run (or the run and hit)? I know that the players of today are, as a whole, more into swinging for the fences (contact be damned), but there has to be a place for the hit and run in today's game.* *Now there is a sentence to drive an English professor mad.

I hate the sac bunt and I've beaten that topic to death on this forum. I hate the hit and run even worse than I hate the sac bunt.

[nymr83]

why do you hate the hit and run more?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Herzog certainly was no enemy of the bunt. In fact, he continued to bunt against the Mets even as Hernandez made it look like a worse and worse play, almost as if it was personal between him and Keith.

[Ceetar]

More The Apple goodness

Despite the setback, the Mets feel the debut was successful. So successful in fact that the plan to install a similar light in the dugout for manager Terry Collins. Early reports say that the sign will say DON'T BUNT or NO SERIOUSLY, DON'T BUNT.

http://www.readtheapple.com/2011/04/new-baserunner-traffic-light-aids-mets.html#more

[metsmarathon]

Nymr83 wrote: why do you hate the hit and run more?

just guessing... the batter tries too hard, swinging at bad balls, while the running isn't trying hard enough, looking to the plate instead of simply stealing the base?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

metsmarathon wrote: Nymr83 wrote: why do you hate the hit and run more? just guessing... the batter tries too hard, swinging at bad balls, while the running isn't trying hard enough, looking to the plate instead of simply stealing the base?

Yep... with the end product being something akin to the first generation of "slash" products (pager/phone/calculator, e.g.)-- for a whole lot of cost, you got a little bit of the worst of each function in the multifunction item.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: why do you hate the hit and run more?

I'm glad you asked. Long answer.

Because hitting a baseball is the hardest thing in all of sports. I can trot out the cliches about hitting a round ball squarely, or that the best batters fail 70% of the time, but you've, no doubt, heard all of those. But here's how hard it is to hit a baseball: even at the major league level, where rosters are comprised of the best 300 or so hitters (non-pitchers) in the world, most of MLB's non-pitchers suck at hitting. Most hitters suck. Most Major League hitters suck. With the bat, they're liabilities to their teams. Half of all hitters suck and every single team's got 'em. And of the other half, a good percentage of those hitters struggle. In any given season, the number of ML hitters that can reliably and reasonably be counted on to hit well are probably less than 100, maybe even closer to 75. The pitch comes in too darn fast and the batter has no idea where the pitcher intends to throw it. To counter this seemingly insurmountable pitcher's advantage -- to even the odds, or at least make them less unfair -- the ball-strike count has developed over the course of baseball's history so that a pitcher needs to throw three strikes to retire the batter. Even Babe Ruth would be inept were in not for this rule that allowed him and every other hitter a measure of pitch selection and even failure before the at-bat is resolved one way or the other. David Wright is David Wright only because he doesn't have to swing at every pitch.

When a manager calls for the hit and run, he essentially eliminates the hitter's best tool -- the right not to swing at a pitch. The pitcher now has a tremendous advantage, while the batter is obligated to connect under the worst conditions possible. The batter has to swing at a pitch that might be unhittable in order to protect a less than ideal baserunner that's off and running. They don't publish hit and run stats, probably because one can't say for sure whether the hit and run play was even on, but to my eyes, the typical result is a foul ball that adds a strike to the count and tips the odds that much more in favor of the pitcher.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

(Beautiful work by "sparbz.")

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I think the hit and run can be a great weapon when utilized with the proper personnel. If the base runner runs reasonably well and the hitter is good at making contact then I think it can be highly effective. The runner breaking can open holes for ground balls as the defense has to move to cover him. Often times, the resulting ground out still succeeds at advancing the runner to second and thereby accomplishes the same as a sac bunt, but the ultimate hope is to put runners at the corners or possibly drive in a run. Ultimately, the upside for a successful hit and run is far greater than for a successful sacrifice bunt and the worst result can't be any worse than Thole's botched bunt attempt the other night. My personnel preference, is for the runner to steal the base and put themselves in scoring position when they believe there is a high likelihood of their being successful.

I believe the keys are to utilize the hit and run with when you have the appropriate people in place, for the runner to break like he's on a straight steal (if the ball is on the ground he has to go , if it's in the air he should have time to stop and retreat back to first, so only the dreaded line drive at a defender should result in getting doubled up), and look for a time when the hitter is likely to see a fastball (first pitch or ahead of the count). The hitter needs to try to put any reasonably close pitch in play, but if the ball is in the dirt or way inside, then he the runner should run with the understanding they are on their own. This may not be the hit and run in the purest sense, probably more of a cross-hybrid with the run and hit, but I would prefer this over bunting so often.

Regarding the game the other night, I would have preferred Reyes tried to get a jump and steal second. The Mets need to be more aggressive and force the issue a little more offensively. Over utilizing the sacrifice bunt is not being aggressive, but is more of a passive tactic in my opinion.