PDA

View Full Version : Why are we bunting?


chisoxfanatic
06-08-2009, 10:06 PM
While at this afternoon's game and seeing the continued poorness that is our bunting, I wanted to start a thread about this. We have very few guys who can bunt. I would much rather our guys try to advance runners by getting base hits instead of being forced to move out of their comfort zones.

Frater Perdurabo
06-08-2009, 10:18 PM
Pods, Alexei, BA and Getz are all decent bunters IMHO.

Brian26
06-08-2009, 10:21 PM
Pods, Alexei, BA and Getz are all decent bunters IMHO.

Fields has laid down some great bunts too. Opening Day comes to mind. That's 5/9 of the lineup. What's the problem? The other four guys should never be bunting.

JB98
06-08-2009, 10:23 PM
Ramirez's technique in sacrifice situations is awful. He's better at bunting for a hit.

I didn't like the decision to bunt with Getz in the eighth. Even if he executes, little chance Fields or Wise gets a base hit off Zumaya to knock in the run. Would have liked to have seen a hit-and-run there instead. Get the Detroit infield moving and see what happens.

Jim Shorts
06-08-2009, 10:32 PM
Ramirez's technique in sacrifice situations is awful. He's better at bunting for a hit.

I didn't like the decision to bunt with Getz in the eighth. Even if he executes, little chance Fields or Wise gets a base hit off Zumaya to knock in the run. Would have liked to have seen a hit-and-run there instead. Get the Detroit infield moving and see what happens.

Not one Sox player has shown to be able to consistently drop the bunt...even the players mentioned cannot drop the bunt within 50% of it being called.

It's disappointing.

chisoxfanatic
06-08-2009, 10:39 PM
Not one Sox player has shown to be able to consistently drop the bunt...even the players mentioned cannot drop the bunt within 50% of it being called.

It's disappointing.
That's what's been concerning me. Our bunting consistency has been very low (and has been for at least a few years), meanwhile Ozzie puts the bunt on more than my liking.

JB98
06-08-2009, 10:46 PM
That's what's been concerning me. Our bunting consistency has been very low (and has been for at least a few years), meanwhile Ozzie puts the bunt on more than my liking.

For me, it just depends on who is coming up after the bunt.

On Saturday, he had Anderson bunt Getz into scoring position to set up the top of order. Good managing. Anderson executed. Pods singled; Getz scored.

Today, he had Ramirez try to bunt Pods into scoring position to set up Dye and Thome. Good managing. Ramirez just screwed the pooch.

Today, he had Getz try to bunt AJ into scoring position to set up Fields and Wise. :scratch: Why on earth would you give up an out to set up an RBI situation for Fields and Wise?

rainbow6
06-08-2009, 10:50 PM
I had this same conversation with my brother after the first game. Even Hawk was disgusted at Ramierez's technique in game one.

I used to get pissed when we didn't bunt in a situation I thought was appropiate...I now accept this team for what it is.

Forget the bunt.

TDog
06-08-2009, 11:19 PM
For me, it just depends on who is coming up after the bunt.

On Saturday, he had Anderson bunt Getz into scoring position to set up the top of order. Good managing. Anderson executed. Pods singled; Getz scored.

Today, he had Ramirez try to bunt Pods into scoring position to set up Dye and Thome. Good managing. Ramirez just screwed the pooch.

Today, he had Getz try to bunt AJ into scoring position to set up Fields and Wise. :scratch: Why on earth would you give up an out to set up an RBI situation for Fields and Wise?


I generally agree, but with th lack of speed at the heart of the White Sox order and the frequency of strikeouts among the power hitters, I don't want to take the bat out of Ramirez' hands and concede an out.

Bunting to get a runner over from second to third is pointless because you can accomplish the same thing by hitting the ball to the right side, and you might even bring the run home.

Also, I don't want to concede an out when I am down a run. I was surprised with what the Astros did in Game 4 of the 2005 World Series. They only three outs left in their season and they gave one of them up to move the runner to second base. Two great plays by Juan Uribe, and their season was over.

JB98
06-08-2009, 11:25 PM
I generally agree, but with th lack of speed at the heart of the White Sox order and the frequency of strikeouts among the power hitters, I don't want to take the bat out of Ramirez' hands and concede an out.

Bunting to get a runner over from second to third is pointless because you can accomplish the same thing by hitting the ball to the right side, and you might even bring the run home.

Also, I don't want to concede an out when I am down a run. I was surprised with what the Astros did in Game 4 of the 2005 World Series. They only three outs left in their season and they gave one of them up to move the runner to second base. Two great plays by Juan Uribe, and their season was over.

On that point, I agree. I never like bunting a man from second to third. I'd much rather have the hitter take a shot to the right side. You might get the bonus and knock the run in.

I thought the bunt call with Ramirez at the plate was good for two reasons: 1) Pods was at first base, not second and 2) Dye was swinging a hot bat today.

Then again, the first bunt effort by Ramirez was so poor, maybe you take it off after that first strike. He just jabbed at an outside pitch. It was pathetic. If he had pulled the bat back there, the count would have been 2-0.

Lip Man 1
06-08-2009, 11:45 PM
I think it's basically 'pick your poison'.

They aren't great at advancing runners as well as bunting and they aren't hitting so I guess right now it doesn't matter what they try.

Ozzie is just trying to do what he can right now. I think he's basically out of answers.

Lip

TDog
06-08-2009, 11:57 PM
...

I thought the bunt call with Ramirez at the plate was good for two reasons: 1) Pods was at first base, not second and 2) Dye was swinging a hot bat today. ...

I still don't like playing for one run by giving up one of your three outs when you are down by one run.

Dibbs
06-09-2009, 12:11 AM
It seems that we have been the worst team in all of MLB for years in bunting.

chisoxfanatic
06-09-2009, 12:22 AM
It seems that we have been the worst team in all of MLB for years in bunting.
It's seemed to be very problematic, yes. It makes me wonder how much time is spent working on stuff like bunting in spring training.

Noneck
06-09-2009, 12:35 AM
I know this has been brought up many times before, That by the time you are in the majors you should know the fundamentals and its not the place of coaches to teach you those at that stage.

I keep watching Ramirez and think to myself, why can't Cora (who was a good bunter) just show him and work with him a little on technique? I am talking 10-15 minutes a day, it would mean so much to Ramirez who is now the 2 hitter and to the team. This is because Ramirez looks totally clueless regarding bunting technique.

Rohan
06-09-2009, 12:44 AM
On that point, I agree. I never like bunting a man from second to third. I'd much rather have the hitter take a shot to the right side. You might get the bonus and knock the run in.

I thought the bunt call with Ramirez at the plate was good for two reasons: 1) Pods was at first base, not second and 2) Dye was swinging a hot bat today.

Then again, the first bunt effort by Ramirez was so poor, maybe you take it off after that first strike. He just jabbed at an outside pitch. It was pathetic. If he had pulled the bat back there, the count would have been 2-0.

Which begs the question.. Why isn't Pods being aggressive AT ALL on the base pads?

Now some of you may already be saying but he had a couple stolen bases just the other day. That's all well and good, but during today's games he looked like a little league soccer player off on his own in the field kicking dandelions.

Galarraga has one of the slowest deliveries in the game, and he's also a righty. Podsednik had PLENTY of opportunities to go for it and turn the wheels on to prevent a double play and put himself in scoring position.

Normally a player waits until they can see the pitchers move to first, and one or two of the pitchers deliveries to the plate before they can know what they need to know to adequately steal a base. In today's game, it didn't matter what what Podsednik learned about the pitcher. All that mattered was whether or not it was a full count on the hitter.

Even on the 108th pitch by Armando Galarraga, Scott Podsednik STILL did not attempt to steal.

He's been doing a great job getting hits and drawing walks to put himself on base. But for a guy, who according to Hawk is FASTER then he was when he stole 70 bases, Scott Podsednik is still failing on the base pads.

Once again, i'm grateful for, and give kudos to Podsednik for getting on base. But he's still just not doing his job. Something is wrong.

Paulwny
06-09-2009, 01:52 PM
Then again, the first bunt effort by Ramirez was so poor, maybe you take it off after that first strike. He just jabbed at an outside pitch. It was pathetic. If he had pulled the bat back there, the count would have been 2-0.

Yep, and I don't get it. Many MLB players try sac bunting on pitches that are out of the strike zone. These are the same type of pitches they wouldn't swing at if they weren't bunting.

bigdommer
06-09-2009, 02:01 PM
Ramirez's technique in sacrifice situations is awful. He's better at bunting for a hit.

I didn't like the decision to bunt with Getz in the eighth. Even if he executes, little chance Fields or Wise gets a base hit off Zumaya to knock in the run. Would have liked to have seen a hit-and-run there instead. Get the Detroit infield moving and see what happens.

So, did Fields and Wise have a better chance of hitting a gapper to score AJ from first? I think they had a better chance of accidentally making contact and blooping one over the infield.

TDog
06-09-2009, 02:40 PM
So, did Fields and Wise have a better chance of hitting a gapper to score AJ from first? I think they had a better chance of accidentally making contact and blooping one over the infield.

When a player is sent up to sacrifice, the goal is to make an out. Surely, if something goes wrong on defense, the out can be avoided, but strategically, a sacrifice trades one of your precious outs to advance the runner.

If Getz isn't bunting, the goal is not to make an out, to get on base. As much as people deride Getz' hitting, he has averaged about one hit for every four at bats this season. Not so much since he came back from his injury, but there is no reason to concede an out from Getz as you would Buehrle coming to the plate.

If you put the hit-and-run on instead of a bunt and Getz pushes a ground ball through the right side with the second baseman covering, you have runners on first and third and none out. Small ball and manufacturing runs isn't all about bunting.

Percentage-wise, you have a better chance of scoring a runner from first with no outs than you do scoring a runner from second with one out. But your actual chances can vary depending on who is coming up to bat.

That's true for every situation. If you have the bases loaded an none out with the bottom third of the White Sox order coming up, your chances of scoring are not as good as they would be if you had the bases loaded and the top of the White Sox order coming up. If Fields and Wise are getting half your at bats with runners in scoring position, your chances of getting hits with runners in scoring position are not as good as it would be if Ramirez, Dye and Konerko were getting the at bats.

In short, I don't understand the blind reflex to bunt after a leadoff walk or single.

JB98
06-09-2009, 02:49 PM
So, did Fields and Wise have a better chance of hitting a gapper to score AJ from first? I think they had a better chance of accidentally making contact and blooping one over the infield.

Absolutely not. That's why I would have used a hit-and-run or had Getz swing away. If you get a base hit, that puts runners on the corners with no outs and creates a situation where you don't need a hit to score a run. It also increases the odds that you get back to the top of the order in that inning.

UChicagoHP
06-09-2009, 02:53 PM
The Sox must have missed the memo that says bunting is pretty much a poor call in the vast majority of situations. I love Ozzie, but his love of the bunt is just poor managing, imo...same thing applies when he gets SB happy(although this hasn't been much of an issue over the past year).

On the other hand, bunting isn't rocket science. In college, our coach would have the hitters bunt for the first 30 minutes of practice, every practice. Without question it was overkill, but after a month or two of it, every player on the team became a decent bunter, and it carried over to game situations. If Ozzie continues to insist on over-bunting, then practice this crap!

bigdommer
06-09-2009, 02:53 PM
When a player is sent up to sacrifice, the goal is to make an out. Surely, if something goes wrong on defense, the out can be avoided, but strategically, a sacrifice trades one of your precious outs to advance the runner.

If Getz isn't bunting, the goal is not to make an out, to get on base. As much as people deride Getz' hitting, he has averaged about one hit for every four at bats this season. Not so much since he came back from his injury, but there is no reason to concede an out from Getz as you would Buehrle coming to the plate.

If you put the hit-and-run on instead of a bunt and Getz pushes a ground ball through the right side with the second baseman covering, you have runners on first and third and none out. Small ball and manufacturing runs isn't all about bunting.

Percentage-wise, you have a better chance of scoring a runner from first with no outs than you do scoring a runner from second with one out. But your actual chances can vary depending on who is coming up to bat.

That's true for every situation. If you have the bases loaded an none out with the bottom third of the White Sox order coming up, your chances of scoring are not as good as they would be if you had the bases loaded and the top of the White Sox order coming up. If Fields and Wise are getting half your at bats with runners in scoring position, your chances of getting hits with runners in scoring position are not as good as it would be if Ramirez, Dye and Konerko were getting the at bats.

In short, I don't understand the blind reflex to bunt after a leadoff walk or single.

Understood, but the original post implied that we shouldn't bunt because Fields and Wise had no chance to make contact against Zumaya. If that's the case, they might as well crowd the plate and have a permanent take sign. Even if Getz executes a hit and run to first and third 'em, Fields and Wise still have make contact and lift the ball deep into the outfield to score AJ.

TDog
06-09-2009, 03:32 PM
Understood, but the original post implied that we shouldn't bunt because Fields and Wise had no chance to make contact against Zumaya. If that's the case, they might as well crowd the plate and have a permanent take sign. Even if Getz executes a hit and run to first and third 'em, Fields and Wise still have make contact and lift the ball deep into the outfield to score AJ.

If you have runners on the corners with no one out and Fields can't get the run home, you could squeeze with Wise. You could pinch-hit Anderson to squeeze. It might inspire flashbacks from past horrors, but Anderson is one of the hitters this year who has shown he can bunt.

If you're managing, it isn't at all good baseball to give up an out to advance a runner for hitters you have no confidence in.

You might get lucky, but luck is more often the residue of design, as Branch Rickey used to say. Your chances of getting lucky are better when you're doing things right.