PDA

View Full Version : Unwritten baseball rules


GoGoCrede
04-25-2010, 10:58 PM
After reading how pissed Dallas Braden got after A-Rod crossed over the pitcher's mound, I was watching BBTN and they talked about the "unwritten rules of baseball." These included: not bunting during a no-hitter, not stealing after a score reaches a certain point (ie, if you're up by 10), etc. What other unwritten rules are there? Or do you believe there are no unwritten rules in baseball?

twinsuck
04-25-2010, 11:19 PM
When there's a fight everyone's got the clear the dug outs and the bullpens for some odd reason.

johnnyg83
04-25-2010, 11:25 PM
Only the third baseman and catcher can give the ball to the pitcher.

DumpJerry
04-25-2010, 11:34 PM
The Cubs' bullpen must give up enough runs to cost them the game.

A. Cavatica
04-25-2010, 11:38 PM
The Cubs must lose.

y2j2785
04-25-2010, 11:44 PM
They were talking about something like this during the Braves-Mets game. They said that an unwritten baserunning rule is that the secondary runner should never get the lead runner run out. In saturday's game Yunel Escobar didn't tag up on a fly ball while he was on 2nd. He ran halfway and Martin Prado was at 3rd. He went back and tagged and started to run to 3rd and got caught in a rundown which forced Prado to run home and it resulted in a double play as Escobar was tagged out and Prado was thrown out at home. Bobby Cox had a closed door meeting after the game because of this and how poorly the Braves have been playing recently. But anyways secondary runner shouldn't get the lead runner run down or however they said it on TV.

MarkZ35
04-25-2010, 11:49 PM
Don't look back at the catcher signs when your batting. But it is ok for a runner to steal signs from 2nd base and off the 3rd base coach from the dugout.

WhiteSox5187
04-26-2010, 12:04 AM
After reading how pissed Dallas Braden got after A-Rod crossed over the pitcher's mound, I was watching BBTN and they talked about the "unwritten rules of baseball." These included: not bunting during a no-hitter, not stealing after a score reaches a certain point (ie, if you're up by 10), etc. What other unwritten rules are there? Or do you believe there are no unwritten rules in baseball?

I would argue that there is one exception to that rule, if you are fighting for a playoff spot and it is a close game, you can bunt to try to break one up. But that's just me.

johnnyg83
04-26-2010, 12:05 AM
What was that thing with Uribe and then ARod?

Tell a runner when the play's behind him that the play's dead when it's not ?

Daver
04-26-2010, 12:06 AM
If you are timing a pitcher in the on deck circle you should fully expect to get a pitch throw at your ear flap, be prepared to duck.

JermaineDye05
04-26-2010, 01:02 AM
Bunting to break up a no-hitter is the dumbest unwritten rule ever.

What's so bad about trying to get a hit?

If it's that terrible, then why even bother swinging the bat?

VMSNS
04-26-2010, 01:32 AM
Isn't it frowned upon for a batter to look back at the catcher right before the pitch to see whether he's setting up inside or away?

Also, I remember last season Hawk and Stoney talking about how Pods would always hop towards the pitch before he slapped at it. I thought they mentioned something about how pitchers absolutely hate that, and hitters consider it kind of cheap. Not sure if it's some kind of unwritten rule, though.

Edit: I also remember some Red Sox fans on another forum saying it was bush league to consistently bunt against Wakefield. :) Not really an unwritten rule, I just thought it was kinda funny.

WhiteSox5187
04-26-2010, 02:02 AM
If you are timing a pitcher in the on deck circle you should fully expect to get a pitch throw at your ear flap, be prepared to duck.

What if you look at the radar gun?

StillMissOzzie
04-26-2010, 02:12 AM
If you are timing a pitcher in the on deck circle you should fully expect to get a pitch throw at your ear flap, be prepared to duck.

I thought that this was only when the batter on deck tried to sneak up closer to the plate. Where else is the on deck batter supposed to be BUT in the on deck circle?

SMO
:scratch:

Nellie_Fox
04-26-2010, 02:18 AM
I thought that this was only when the batter on deck tried to sneak up closer to the plate. Where else is the on deck batter supposed to be BUT in the on deck circle?

SMO
:scratch:You missed his point. When the batter in the on-deck circle is taking swings in time to the pitcher's pitches, that's a no-no.

Boondock Saint
04-26-2010, 03:16 AM
Bunting to break up a no-hitter is the dumbest unwritten rule ever.

What's so bad about trying to get a hit?

If it's that terrible, then why even bother swinging the bat?

Bunting to break up a no-hitter is more about spoiling an achievement than it is about trying to win the game. It's cheap, and it's in poor taste.

JermaineDye05
04-26-2010, 03:22 AM
Bunting to break up a no-hitter is more about spoiling an achievement than it is about trying to win the game. It's cheap, and it's in poor taste.

Yeah, but if you're losing by just a couple runs, you want to break a guy out of his rhythm. If my team's in the 8th with a no-hitter going and the score is 2-0, I wouldn't mind seeing a guy put a bunt down.

doublem23
04-26-2010, 06:37 AM
Yeah, but if you're losing by just a couple runs, you want to break a guy out of his rhythm. If my team's in the 8th with a no-hitter going and the score is 2-0, I wouldn't mind seeing a guy put a bunt down.

I agree there's some leeway in a tight game, but if you're losing by like 10 runs and a guy's got a no-hitter going late into the game, I think it's pretty ****ty.

Johnny Mostil
04-26-2010, 07:48 AM
I agree there's some leeway in a tight game, but if you're losing by like 10 runs and a guy's got a no-hitter going late into the game, I think it's pretty ****ty.

Does this mean a team should never bunt for its first hit of the game? I've no opinion on the matter; just curious about the "unwritten rule." Does a drag bunt for a hit by a leadoff man in the 1st inning violate it? If not, when does the rule take effect?

C-Dawg
04-26-2010, 07:56 AM
I see no problem with bunting during a no-hitter, regardless of score. Isn't that what the batter is supposed to do, get a hit? Maybe each batter should just flail wildly at the ball and strike out. Obviously the offense is struggling so perhaps a bunt is in order to get something started.

g0g0
04-26-2010, 08:32 AM
Bunting to break up a no-hitter is the dumbest unwritten rule ever.

What's so bad about trying to get a hit?

If it's that terrible, then why even bother swinging the bat?

I agree. I don't ever feel bad when someone does that. Earn your no-no.

Boondock Saint
04-26-2010, 08:48 AM
I agree. I don't ever feel bad when someone does that. Earn your no-no.

The majority of people would say "Earn your hit". Bunting for a hit is more about catching the defense sleeping than it is about beating the pitcher.

C-Dawg
04-26-2010, 09:40 AM
Bunting for a hit is more about catching the defense sleeping than it is about beating the pitcher.

Sure.... If its Jim Thome. How about, say, Scott Podsednik? The defense should expect a bunt attempt.

g0g0
04-26-2010, 10:12 AM
The majority of people would say "Earn your hit". Bunting for a hit is more about catching the defense sleeping than it is about beating the pitcher.

You have to expect your fielders to be able to cover their part. It doesn't matter if you swing for the fences or bunt. If they can't then...

SOXPHILE
04-26-2010, 11:24 AM
Ask Tony LaRussa. He's the keeper of the Book of Unwritten Rules.



By the way, I have no problem with someone putting a bunt down late in the game during a no-hitter, even if it is a blow-out. If I'm on a team getting shut down, we're not there to be the personal highlight of the other team or pitcher. We don't want to be no-hit. The object is to get on base and score runs, no matter what the score or the situation is.

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-26-2010, 12:00 PM
The majority of people would say "Earn your hit". Bunting for a hit is more about catching the defense sleeping than it is about beating the pitcher.

IIRC Pods got on base a few times using this mechanism; is that to say the runs scored because of this don't count?

Oblong
04-26-2010, 01:43 PM
I agree there's some leeway in a tight game, but if you're losing by like 10 runs and a guy's got a no-hitter going late into the game, I think it's pretty ****ty.

My problem with this is that baseball has no clock. Nothing prevents you from scoring 15 runs with 2 outs in the 9th inning other than that 3rd out. A game is literally never over until it's over. Plus if a guy's throwing a no hitter then chances are his stuff's pretty good. In order to score you need guys on base. If a bunt is your best way to get on, then try. A team should never concede anything in baseball.

white sox bill
04-26-2010, 01:44 PM
I can see both sides of the no bunt/no hitter thing. But I also believe that it is up to the batter to do anything in his power to get on base. Regardless of the score. That's what batters do.

Just my 3 cents

doublem23
04-26-2010, 01:51 PM
My problem with this is that baseball has no clock. Nothing prevents you from scoring 15 runs with 2 outs in the 9th inning other than that 3rd out. A game is literally never over until it's over. Plus if a guy's throwing a no hitter then chances are his stuff's pretty good. In order to score you need guys on base. If a bunt is your best way to get on, then try. A team should never concede anything in baseball.

You don't HAVE to not bunt, it's just cheap if you do. If you're down several runs and getting no-hit, you shouldn't be laying down bunts. If you do, oh well, but I'd hope the next time you step to the plate you get a baseball to the back.

Oblong
04-26-2010, 01:58 PM
You "hope"?

I'd say it's cheap to throw at a hitter for trying to do his best to win a game for his team.

What is the cut off then? 2 runs? 3? What if you are the Twins and you are down 3-0 and you know Mauer and Mourneau are due up? Or the Cardinals with Pujols and Holliday?

Where is the line where it's no longer "cheap"?

I think it's cheap when players don't play to win the game for their team.

SephClone89
04-26-2010, 01:59 PM
You "hope"?

I'd say it's cheap to throw at a hitter for trying to do his best to win a game for his team.

What is the cut off then? 2 runs? 3? What if you are the Twins and you are down 3-0 and you know Mauer and Mourneau are due up? Or the Cardinals with Pujols and Holliday?

Where is the line where it's no longer "cheap"?

I think it's cheap when players don't play to win the game for their team.

"SephClone89 likes this"

doublem23
04-26-2010, 02:12 PM
You "hope"?

I'd say it's cheap to throw at a hitter for trying to do his best to win a game for his team.

What is the cut off then? 2 runs? 3? What if you are the Twins and you are down 3-0 and you know Mauer and Mourneau are due up? Or the Cardinals with Pujols and Holliday?

Where is the line where it's no longer "cheap"?

I think it's cheap when players don't play to win the game for their team.

:rolleyes:

Jesus, man. I think a no-hitter should be respected and broken up legitimately. This, like some many other things, is a gray, fuzzy area and not just black and white. I can't say that being down by 2 in the 8th is OK to bunt but being down by 3 in the 7th isn't. Frankly, I think a guy bunting late in a game, too, is being a jackass, as he knows one of his teammates is probably going to eat a fastball for him for being Bush League. Tell me that guy's being a good teammate right there.

Bunting to break up a no-hitter is one of those unwritten rules of the game you just don't break.

cws05champ
04-26-2010, 02:47 PM
Don't show up a pitcher after you hit a home run.

Don't show up the Ump on ball and strikes.

Never talk about a no-hitter in process (unless it's Buehrle :D:)

Don't go in spikes high to break up a double play.

Nellie_Fox
04-26-2010, 02:54 PM
Don't go in spikes high to break up a double play.
http://www.umass.edu/pubaffs/jackie/cobb.gif

Wait...what?

Oblong
04-26-2010, 03:00 PM
:rolleyes:

Jesus, man. I think a no-hitter should be respected and broken up legitimately. This, like some many other things, is a gray, fuzzy area and not just black and white. I can't say that being down by 2 in the 8th is OK to bunt but being down by 3 in the 7th isn't. Frankly, I think a guy bunting late in a game, too, is being a jackass, as he knows one of his teammates is probably going to eat a fastball for him for being Bush League. Tell me that guy's being a good teammate right there.

Bunting to break up a no-hitter is one of those unwritten rules of the game you just don't break.

What do you mean legitimately? Does a run scored from a bunt only count partial?

If you saw Kruk, Nomar, and Bobby V. on BBTN discussing this topic, they said the unwritten rules are mostly nonsense and a lot of guys pay no attention to them. The reason they are unwritten is that to write them would show how illogical they are.

asindc
04-26-2010, 03:07 PM
I would argue that there is one exception to that rule, if you are fighting for a playoff spot and it is a close game, you can bunt to try to break one up. But that's just me.

I don't think it has to be a playoff chase game. If the score is 0-1 and you have a player walk and steal 2nd with nobody out, I'm all is favor the next batter laying down a bunt to move the runner the 3rd with one out. If the other team doesn't like, **** 'em. I'm trying to win.

asindc
04-26-2010, 03:10 PM
The majority of people would say "Earn your hit". Bunting for a hit is more about catching the defense sleeping than it is about beating the pitcher.

Then the defense should wake the hell up.

Boondock Saint
04-26-2010, 04:27 PM
IIRC Pods got on base a few times using this mechanism; is that to say the runs scored because of this don't count?

This doesn't even come close to having anything to do with what I'm suggesting. Has Pods ever tried to break up a no-hitter with a bunt? I can almost guarantee he hasn't. Because it's cheap. You respect a pitcher throwing a no hitter, not start doing every cheap thing you can think of to ruin his moment.

white sox bill
04-26-2010, 04:34 PM
This doesn't even come close to having anything to do with what I'm suggesting. Has Pods ever tried to break up a no-hitter with a bunt? I can almost guarantee he hasn't. Because it's cheap. You respect a pitcher throwing a no hitter, not start doing every cheap thing you can think of to ruin his moment.

I see your point. But on the other hand, would the same pitcher throw you a brick if you had a chance to hit for the cycle? Or how about 4 HRS in 4 AB?

soltrain21
04-26-2010, 04:37 PM
This doesn't even come close to having anything to do with what I'm suggesting. Has Pods ever tried to break up a no-hitter with a bunt? I can almost guarantee he hasn't. Because it's cheap. You respect a pitcher throwing a no hitter, not start doing every cheap thing you can think of to ruin his moment.

I'm respecting my teammates and trying to win a ballgame. Also - when does this start? At what inning do you decide to roll over? If I'm supposed to respect him then do I just go up there and not swing?

cws05champ
04-26-2010, 04:40 PM
This doesn't even come close to having anything to do with what I'm suggesting. Has Pods ever tried to break up a no-hitter with a bunt? I can almost guarantee he hasn't. Because it's cheap. You respect a pitcher throwing a no hitter, not start doing every cheap thing you can think of to ruin his moment.

Last year the Rays could have had anyone of 4-5 guys that could have bunted to break up Buehrle's perfect game...but they didn't.

I think a good rule of thumb is, if it is past the 6th and your team is down by more than 3 in a no hitter...no bunting. If it's 2-0 in the 8th, I still think it's acceptable because if the bunter reaches the next hitter has a chance to tie it. I know everyone's form of acceptable will be different...but that's my rule of thumb.

gregoriop
04-26-2010, 04:46 PM
Wait...what?


Haha, I don't think you can really use him as guide on rules, unwritten or not.

asindc
04-26-2010, 04:48 PM
I see your point. But on the other hand, would the same pitcher throw you a brick if you had a chance to hit for the cycle? Or how about 4 HRS in 4 AB?

Excellent point, which is a good example of why I'm not crying tears over a pitcher not getting a no-hitter. A batter hitting 4 HRs in a game is a rarer feat, yet I've seen more than one occasion where a guy with 2 or 3 HRs in a game got drilled or at least pitched around the next time up. Why no similar outcry about that?

RedHeadPaleHoser
04-26-2010, 04:57 PM
This doesn't even come close to having anything to do with what I'm suggesting. Has Pods ever tried to break up a no-hitter with a bunt? I can almost guarantee he hasn't. Because it's cheap. You respect a pitcher throwing a no hitter, not start doing every cheap thing you can think of to ruin his moment.

Your post had to do with "earning a hit". Getting OB by bunting because the defense is playing back is smart baseball. If you do it with 2 out, top of the 9th to try and break up someone's no hitter, than I kind of agree with you. Doing it to lead off a game or the top of an inning is smart, aggressive baseball. You weren't suggesting anything about a no hitter when you say a batter has to "earn a hit".

Oblong
04-26-2010, 05:02 PM
Then the defense should wake the hell up.

But they have to play back to protect any base hits from getting through.

C-Dawg
04-26-2010, 05:05 PM
Are the odds really that much better to hit safely by bunting vs. swinging the bat normally? Oh sure I realize some guys were really good at it (Rod Carew for example, who bunted safely 151 times out of something like 190 attempts) but in the end they're all the same - bunts, infield hits, bloop singles, etc.... Suppose the batter makes contact on a check swing, and dribbles out an infield single.... Would a case be made that he didn't mean to go around, and thus preserve the no-hitter?

SephClone89
04-26-2010, 05:15 PM
But they have to play back to protect any base hits from getting through.

:tealtutor:

white sox bill
04-26-2010, 05:15 PM
I guess it may boil down to if you consider a bunt a cheap hit. Speaking for myself, I would like to think that I pitched a no-no knowing the opposing team did everything they could to get on base. But I mowed them down 27 up 27 down.

g0g0
04-26-2010, 06:35 PM
I guess it may boil down to if you consider a bunt a cheap hit. Speaking for myself, I would like to think that I pitched a no-no knowing the opposing team did everything they could to get on base. But I mowed them down 27 up 27 down.

Exactly. Dye had to make one helluva catch to preserve Buerhle's game late.

slavko
04-26-2010, 06:44 PM
Exactly. Dye had to make one helluva catch to preserve Buerhle's game late.


Better yet, he had Wise do it for him. Stealing signs from second base is OK. Indicating the catcher's setup from second base by some innocent gesture (look left, close your fist, etc.) is retaliation time. Bunting against The Big Unit = retaliation time.

Oblong
04-26-2010, 07:11 PM
:tealtutor:
Thanks! That always screws me up. I keep trying the 3 underneath it. I think I'm colorblind.

Rdy2PlayBall
04-26-2010, 07:18 PM
I don't know, I think it would be great to see Thome break up a no-no one a slap bunt down the 3rd base line with that shift. :tongue:

I think shifts like that should be in the written rule book, they annoy me.

TommyJohn
04-27-2010, 12:59 AM
You missed his point. When the batter in the on-deck circle is taking swings in time to the pitcher's pitches, that's a no-no.
The rule was so sacred to Ben Christianson (sp?) that he destroyed another player's eyesight, and possibly his life.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 07:01 AM
Your post had to do with "earning a hit". Getting OB by bunting because the defense is playing back is smart baseball. If you do it with 2 out, top of the 9th to try and break up someone's no hitter, than I kind of agree with you. Doing it to lead off a game or the top of an inning is smart, aggressive baseball. You weren't suggesting anything about a no hitter when you say a batter has to "earn a hit".

Yes, which is why, say you're down by a run or two, I wouldn't hvae a problem with this, but if it's the 8th inning, and the opposing pitcher is throwing a no-hitter, and you're losing by 10 runs, you better be swinging.

Oblong
04-27-2010, 08:20 AM
If you would do it if the score was the same but the guy had given up 3 hits in the game, then there's nothing cheap or undeserved about it. A player shouldn't modify his approach to the game based on the stats of an opponent. That's just ridiculous.

I would make one exception to that. If it were one of the Weaver brothers going for a no hitter I'd have the guy try to bunt just to mess with him. That would get him mad and they'd implode because those guys have a terrible time containing their emotions. You could get to them that way.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 08:28 AM
If you would do it if the score was the same but the guy had given up 3 hits in the game, then there's nothing cheap or undeserved about it. A player shouldn't modify his approach to the game based on the stats of an opponent. That's just ridiculous.

Well, no, I would never, ever really bunt because it's a pointless waste of an out. But yes, there is something different between a guy who has allowed 0 hits and a guy who has allowed 3. If you can't or don't want to admit that, then we're just never going to agree.

No-hitters are special and deserve respect. Three-hitters are not.

The irony of this discussion is that it is proven that bunting is almost never, ever, ever the "percentages play." Under almost any circumstance it's always better to have your guy swinging away. So you're essentially arguing why it's great strategy to play into the hands of a guy who is dominating you.

asindc
04-27-2010, 08:51 AM
Well, no, I would never, ever really bunt because it's a pointless waste of an out. But yes, there is something different between a guy who has allowed 0 hits and a guy who has allowed 3. If you can't or don't want to admit that, then we're just never going to agree.

No-hitters are special and deserve respect. Three-hitters are not.

The irony of this discussion is that it is proven that bunting is almost never, ever, ever the "percentages play." Under almost any circumstance it's always better to have your guy swinging away. So you're essentially arguing why it's great strategy to play into the hands of a guy who is dominating you.

Is a 4-HR game less special or deserving of respect?

Oblong
04-27-2010, 08:58 AM
Well, no, I would never, ever really bunt because it's a pointless waste of an out. But yes, there is something different between a guy who has allowed 0 hits and a guy who has allowed 3. If you can't or don't want to admit that, then we're just never going to agree.

No-hitters are special and deserve respect. Three-hitters are not.

The irony of this discussion is that it is proven that bunting is almost never, ever, ever the "percentages play." Under almost any circumstance it's always better to have your guy swinging away. So you're essentially arguing why it's great strategy to play into the hands of a guy who is dominating you.

If bunting is such a bad idea then why the fuss over someone doing it? THey should be thanked for doing it since they are providing an easy out.

The point is that it's not the responsibility of a player to worry about the stats of the guys on the other team. Why is bunting singled out as opposed to just trying for a hit? If a guy hits a ground ball to deep short and runs his tail off and beats the throw by a half step, is that cheap? In both situations you have a guy who is trying to get a hit. If bunting is cheap then surely running as fast as you can on a difficult play for the SS is cheap too.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 09:48 AM
Is a 4-HR game less special or deserving of respect?

I don't know what the hell that has to do with anything.

If bunting is such a bad idea then why the fuss over someone doing it? THey should be thanked for doing it since they are providing an easy out.

The point is that it's not the responsibility of a player to worry about the stats of the guys on the other team. Why is bunting singled out as opposed to just trying for a hit? If a guy hits a ground ball to deep short and runs his tail off and beats the throw by a half step, is that cheap? In both situations you have a guy who is trying to get a hit. If bunting is cheap then surely running as fast as you can on a difficult play for the SS is cheap too.

Because, on top of being a strategically moronic idea, it's cheap horse****. You're not "playing to win" when you bunt down by several runs in the middle of a no hitter. You're playing to be a dick.

If you're comparing running out an IF single to laying down a bunt during a no-hitter and expect me to actually find that a valid comparison, it's obvious you have no idea what my argument is. Seriously.

asindc
04-27-2010, 09:58 AM
I don't know what the hell that has to do with anything.



Because, on top of being a strategically moronic idea, it's cheap horse****. You're not "playing to win" when you bunt down by several runs in the middle of a no hitter. You're playing to be a dick.

If you're comparing running out an IF single to laying down a bunt during a no-hitter and expect me to actually find that a valid comparison, it's obvious you have no idea what my argument is. Seriously.

A 4-HR game is a rarer feat than a no-hitter, yet there is no outcry when a pitcher intentionally hits a batter, or at least pitches around him, when the batter has already hit 2 or 3 HRs in that game. Since you say a no-hitter is special and is deserving of respect, I'm just curious where you stand on pitchers not pitching to guys who are in line to hit 4 HRs in a game.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 10:04 AM
A 4-HR game is a rarer feat than a no-hitter, yet there is no outcry when a pitcher intentionally hits a batter, or at least pitches around him, when the batter has already hit 2 or 3 HRs in that game. Since you say a no-hitter is special and is deserving of respect, I'm just curious where you stand on pitchers not pitching to guys who are in line to hit 4 HRs in a game.

I really don't ****ing care.

Iwritecode
04-27-2010, 10:28 AM
The rule was so sacred to Ben Christianson (sp?) that he destroyed another player's eyesight, and possibly his life.

I always thought that was another one of those unwritten rules.

If you're going to throw at a batter, aim for his backside, not his head.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 10:37 AM
I always thought that was another one of those unwritten rules.

If you're going to throw at a batter, aim for his backside, not his head.

Also, wait until he's in the batter's box and the inning has started.

Oblong
04-27-2010, 10:39 AM
I don't know what the hell that has to do with anything.



Because, on top of being a strategically moronic idea, it's cheap horse****. You're not "playing to win" when you bunt down by several runs in the middle of a no hitter. You're playing to be a dick.

If you're comparing running out an IF single to laying down a bunt during a no-hitter and expect me to actually find that a valid comparison, it's obvious you have no idea what my argument is. Seriously.

Do you realize you are contradicting yourself? Why is it moronic? Because the success rate is so low? Ok. It's not a good idea to do it.

Yes, you are right. I do not know what your argument is. Actually, that's not true. Your argument is: "it's cheap because.... it's cheap. It just is."

Let me ask you this: If the score is 8-2 and it's the 9th inning and 2 outs and the hitter hits a GB to deep short, do you think he'll run as fast as he would if it were the 9th inning of a tie game with 2 outs and the go ahead run was on 3B? I bet he runs faster in the second scenario.

What you are describing is a situation where a hitter should not try to get on base. There's no denying that.

And I think you know what asindc's point was on the 4 homer thing. You just don't have an answer for it. Also consider.... A guy's got a 43 game hitting streak and he's up to bat in the 8th and sitting on an 0-4 night. Would it be cheap for the pitcher to not give him anythign to hit?

asindc
04-27-2010, 10:42 AM
I really don't ****ing care.

Which somewhat proves my point about "caring" about how a no-hitter is broken up. It's really just a matter of personal preference masquerading as "tradition," mainly promoted by pitchers. Until hitters get the same consideration for their feats, I remain unsympathetic to the plight of the would-be no-hitter-throwing pitcher. Aside from ignoring baseball history, a pitcher that intentionally hits a batter going for 4 HRs is breaking the rules. The bunter in a no-hitter is not.

VMSNS
04-27-2010, 10:46 AM
If bunting is such a bad idea then why the fuss over someone doing it? THey should be thanked for doing it since they are providing an easy out.

The point is that it's not the responsibility of a player to worry about the stats of the guys on the other team. Why is bunting singled out as opposed to just trying for a hit? If a guy hits a ground ball to deep short and runs his tail off and beats the throw by a half step, is that cheap? In both situations you have a guy who is trying to get a hit. If bunting is cheap then surely running as fast as you can on a difficult play for the SS is cheap too.

Ichiro did this last night to break up Davis' no-hitter against the Mariners. He hit a ball right into the ground which took a slow roll to the second baseman, who wasn't able to turn the play in time. It was 2-0 Royals in the 6th. I immediately thought of this thread. :smile:

If the Sox were being no-hit against the Twinkies, I would not even hesitate to bunt against them.

Iwritecode
04-27-2010, 11:14 AM
Also, wait until he's in the batter's box and the inning has started.

I think that's actually a written rule.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 11:21 AM
Do you realize you are contradicting yourself? Why is it moronic? Because the success rate is so low? Ok. It's not a good idea to do it.

Yes, you are right. I do not know what your argument is. Actually, that's not true. Your argument is: "it's cheap because.... it's cheap. It just is."


Yes, bunting to break up a no-hitter is cheap crap. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. But even on top of that, by bunting you're explicitly saying you DON'T care about winning, you're more interested in playing for that 1 hit. I'm sorry, I'd rather keep my pedal to the floor and try to score some runs than spoil some guys' night by being a ****ing *******. You're the one arguing he'd rather lose a game and get that 1 base hit than try to keep taking cuts at a guy.

Let me ask you this: If the score is 8-2 and it's the 9th inning and 2 outs and the hitter hits a GB to deep short, do you think he'll run as fast as he would if it were the 9th inning of a tie game with 2 outs and the go ahead run was on 3B? I bet he runs faster in the second scenario.

What you are describing is a situation where a hitter should not try to get on base. There's no denying that.

I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about or how, at all, this relates to no-hitters. Holy **** man, stay on topic.

And I think you know what asindc's point was on the 4 homer thing. You just don't have an answer for it. Also consider.... A guy's got a 43 game hitting streak and he's up to bat in the 8th and sitting on an 0-4 night. Would it be cheap for the pitcher to not give him anythign to hit?

No, I have no idea what 4 HR games bring to this conversation, but no, 4 HR are not No-Hitters, so the same unwritten rule really doesn't apply to them.

If you don't respect No-Hitters, than you don't respect the wonderful history and tradition of this beautiful game, and, quite frankly, I feel sorry for you. You're basically describing a view of baseball that never extends past box scores and spreadsheets. That's sad.

Which somewhat proves my point about "caring" about how a no-hitter is broken up. It's really just a matter of personal preference masquerading as "tradition," mainly promoted by pitchers. Until hitters get the same consideration for their feats, I remain unsympathetic to the plight of the would-be no-hitter-throwing pitcher. Aside from ignoring baseball history, a pitcher that intentionally hits a batter going for 4 HRs is breaking the rules. The bunter in a no-hitter is not.

No Hitter > 4 HR Game. I really don't know why I have the patience to continue arguing this point. I'll leave the insane rambling about sympathy and masquerading or whatever you're babbling about, but please let me know where its against the rules in baseball to intentionally hit someone?

doublem23
04-27-2010, 11:23 AM
Ichiro did this last night to break up Davis' no-hitter against the Mariners. He hit a ball right into the ground which took a slow roll to the second baseman, who wasn't able to turn the play in time. It was 2-0 Royals in the 6th. I immediately thought of this thread. :smile:

If the Sox were being no-hit against the Twinkies, I would not even hesitate to bunt against them.

I would, because that would basically be saying you're not interested in winning the game, you're more interested in playing for that 1 hit.

FarmerAndy
04-27-2010, 11:33 AM
A no-hitter is sacred and deserving of respect ONCE IT IS ACCOMPLISHED. It's not up to the opposing team to help the pitcher get his no-no. That's B.S.

Here's my take on it - If it is a game situation where you would consider a bunt, regardless of a no-no being thrown or not, then lay it down. But you shouldn't bunt in a situation that doesn't make sense just for the purpose of breaking up a no-no either.

Basically, there are two simple "unwritten rules" that should apply to this topic.

*Don't bunt for the sole purpose of breaking up a no-hitter.
*Don't not bunt for the sole purpose of preserving a no-hitter.

Your objective is to win. Do whatever gives you the best chance to do that, regardless of anybody else's own accomplishments. Ruining somebody else's accomplishment should never be your reason for doing something. But if ruining somebody else's accomplishment is a byproduct of trying to give your team a chance to win - So be it. Nothing is so sacred that you should not try your best to win.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 11:38 AM
A no-hitter is sacred and deserving of respect ONCE IT IS ACCOMPLISHED. It's not up to the opposing team to help the pitcher get his no-no. That's B.S.

Here's my take on it - If it is a game situation where you would consider a bunt, regardless of a no-no being thrown or not, then lay it down. But you shouldn't bunt in a situation that doesn't make sense just for the purpose of breaking up a no-no either.

Basically, there are two simple "unwritten rules" that should apply to this topic.

*Don't bunt for the sole purpose of breaking up a no-hitter.
*Don't not bunt for the sole purpose of preserving a no-hitter.

Your objective is to win. Do whatever gives you the best chance to do that, regardless of anybody else's own accomplishments. Ruining somebody else's accomplishment should never be your reason for doing something. But if ruining somebody else's accomplishment is a byproduct of trying to give your team a chance to win - So be it. Nothing is so sacred that you should not try your best to win.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thank you.

I pointed out several times that I'm OK with laying down a bunt in a tight game, or if you have a proficient bunter at the plate, etc. There are very few, select situations when a bunt is the right call. But laying down a bunt just to try and get a boner base hit is Bush League Nonsense.

The object of the game is to win. Not be a little bitch.

Thome25
04-27-2010, 11:51 AM
I would, because that would basically be saying you're not interested in winning the game, you're more interested in playing for that 1 hit.

This statement is about as asinine as it gets. Why the hell would a player who bunts just be playing for quote "that 1 hit"? When a team is down and getting no-hit a bunt single may just be what that team needs to get an inning going and score some runs.

A bunt single has gotten a team fired up and led to some runs plenty of times and if it is done in the middle of a no-hitter then, it absolutely isn't "cheap".

What's cheap is not earning a no-hitter by not letting ANYONE get a hit during a game......even the ones who try to get bunt hits.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 11:55 AM
This statement is about as asinine as it gets. Why the hell would a player who bunts just be playing for quote "that 1 hit"? When a team is down and getting no-hit a bunt single may just be what that team needs to get an inning going and score some runs.

A bunt single has gotten a team fired up and let tosome runs plent of times and if it is done in the middle of a no-hitter then, it absolutely isn't "cheap".

What's cheap is not earning a no-hitter by not letting ANYONE get a hit during a game......even the ones who try to get bunt hits.

Because bunting is extremely less successful than going up swinging. Why do you think guys don't go up and bunt ALL THE TIME? If bunting was this strategic masterplay, why aren't guys going up to the plate looking to bunt in every 1-run game? It's because bunting rarely ever works. So, yes, sending a guy to the plate looking to bunt is basically conceding the game. You're essentially saying that, despite overwhelming odds this will not work, we're really only interested in getting that 1 hit.

If you wouldn't bunt when you had 1 hit, why would you want to bunt when you had 0? It makes NO SENSE.

You know what fires up a team even more? Ripping a double down the line. Blasting a HR to dead center field. Blooping a single in between the IF and OF. Beating out an IF single to the hole.

Thome25
04-27-2010, 12:02 PM
Because bunting is extremely less successful than going up swinging. Why do you think guys don't go up and bunt ALL THE TIME? If bunting was this strategic masterplay, why aren't guys going up to the plate looking to bunt in every 1-run game? It's because bunting rarely ever works. So, yes, sending a guy to the plate looking to bunt is basically conceding the game. You're essentially saying that, despite overwhelming odds this will not work, we're really only interested in getting that 1 hit.

If you wouldn't bunt when you had 1 hit, why would you want to bunt when you had 0? It makes NO SENSE.

You know what fires up a team even more? Ripping a double down the line. Blasting a HR to dead center field. Blooping a single in between the IF and OF. Beating out an IF single to the hole.

Trust me, I understand what you're saying....I do. Big hits do mean more but, I'm talking about the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings of a 1-0, 2-0 no- hitter......nothing has been working all day for a team. Obviously, they're not racking up all of these doubles, triples, or home runs all game are they? Otherwise, you'd be up 10-1 by now right?

Why the hell wouldn't a team send one of their speedsters up there to try and get a bunt hit late in a close no-hitter to get something going? Nothing else has been working right? Might as well go out with all of you guns blazing, empty those clips, and let the pitcher earn his no hitter.

If a bunt hit is so unsuccessful then a pitcher should be ok with batters bunting during a no-no right? Besides if a pitcher cant stop someone from getting such a low percentage hit then they probably didnt deserve the no-hitter in the first place.

asindc
04-27-2010, 12:04 PM
Yes, bunting to break up a no-hitter is cheap crap. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. But even on top of that, by bunting you're explicitly saying you DON'T care about winning, you're more interested in playing for that 1 hit. I'm sorry, I'd rather keep my pedal to the floor and try to score some runs than spoil some guys' night by being a ****ing *******. You're the one arguing he'd rather lose a game and get that 1 base hit than try to keep taking cuts at a guy.



I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about or how, at all, this relates to no-hitters. Holy **** man, stay on topic.



No, I have no idea what 4 HR games bring to this conversation, but no, 4 HR are not No-Hitters, so the same unwritten rule really doesn't apply to them.

If you don't respect No-Hitters, than you don't respect the wonderful history and tradition of this beautiful game, and, quite frankly, I feel sorry for you. You're basically describing a view of baseball that never extends past box scores and spreadsheets. That's sad.



No Hitter > 4 HR Game. I really don't know why I have the patience to continue arguing this point. I'll leave the insane rambling about sympathy and masquerading or whatever you're babbling about, but please let me know where its against the rules in baseball to intentionally hit someone?

As you requested:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/08_the_pitcher.pdf

8.02 The pitcher shall not—

(d) Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.
If, in the umpire’s judgment, such a violation occurs, the umpire may elect either to:
1. Expel the pitcher, or the manager and the pitcher, from the game, or
2. may warn the pitcher and the manager of both teams that another such pitch will result in the immediate expulsion of that pitcher (or a replacement) and the manager.
If, in the umpire’s judgment, circumstances warrant, both teams may be officially "warned" prior to the game or at any time during the game.
(League Presidents may take additional action under authority provided in Rule 9.05)
Rule 8.02(d) Comment: To pitch at a batter’s head is unsportsmanlike and highly dangerous. It should be—and is—condemned by everybody. Umpires should act without hesitation in enforcement of this rule.


No need to feel sorry for me, as I respect the game well enough to know the rules. As a fan, I agree with the rules of MLB that intentionally throwing the baseball at a batter should be condemned by everyone, though I think if you polled all baseball fans, probably about 25% would tell you that it is not against the rules.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 12:11 PM
Trust me, I understand what you're saying....I do. Big hits do mean more but, I'm talking about the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings of a 1-0, 2-0 no- hitter......nothing has been working all day for a team. Obviously, they're not racking up all of these doubles, triples, or home runs all game are they? Otherwise, you'd be up 10-1 by now right?

Why the hell wouldn't a team send one of their speedsters up there to try and get a bunt hit late in a close no-hitter to get something going? Nothing else has been working right? Might as well go out with all of you guns blazing, empty those clips, and let the pitcher earn his no hitter.


Meh, if you would honestly send a guy up to bunt in a tight game in which you had say, at least 1 hit, then that's the way it is. The argument there is would you send a guy up to bunt with the bases empty in a close game? Its pretty clear a bunt is the wrong call, but if that's what your gut tells you there's really nothing that can be said that would change your mind. I think you cross the line into Bush League antics when you specifically change your strategy just to play for 1 hit.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 12:12 PM
As you requested:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/08_the_pitcher.pdf

8.02 The pitcher shall not—

(d) Intentionally Pitch at the Batter.
If, in the umpire’s judgment, such a violation occurs, the umpire may elect either to:
1. Expel the pitcher, or the manager and the pitcher, from the game, or
2. may warn the pitcher and the manager of both teams that another such pitch will result in the immediate expulsion of that pitcher (or a replacement) and the manager.
If, in the umpire’s judgment, circumstances warrant, both teams may be officially "warned" prior to the game or at any time during the game.
(League Presidents may take additional action under authority provided in Rule 9.05)
Rule 8.02(d) Comment: To pitch at a batter’s head is unsportsmanlike and highly dangerous. It should be—and is—condemned by everybody. Umpires should act without hesitation in enforcement of this rule.


No need to feel sorry for me, as I respect the game well enough to know the rules. As a fan, I agree with the rules of MLB that intentionally throwing the baseball at a batter should be condemned by everyone, though I think if you polled all baseball fans, probably about 25% would tell you that it is not against the rules.



I didn't know that was the letter of the law. :tiphat:

Oblong
04-27-2010, 12:51 PM
Yes, bunting to break up a no-hitter is cheap crap. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. But even on top of that, by bunting you're explicitly saying you DON'T care about winning, you're more interested in playing for that 1 hit. I'm sorry, I'd rather keep my pedal to the floor and try to score some runs (snip}



How do you score runs? By getting guys on base. Last time I checked, bunting successfully means you are on base.


No, I have no idea what 4 HR games bring to this conversation, but no, 4 HR are not No-Hitters, so the same unwritten rule really doesn't apply to them.

If you don't respect No-Hitters, than you don't respect the wonderful history and tradition of this beautiful game, and, quite frankly, I feel sorry for you. You're basically describing a view of baseball that never extends past box scores and spreadsheets. That's sad.



How can you respect a no hitter if a no hitter does not exist? He hasn't accomplished it yet. What you are describing is a situation where a hitter concedes defeat before the game is over. That's what is sad. Here's a lesson in history for you. Getting on base is good. Not getting on base is bad. I can guarantee you with 100% accuracy that if you do not get on base then you will not score a run. In order to win the game you must score more runs than the other team.


No Hitter > 4 HR Game.

A list of 4 Home Run Games in MLB history (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/rare_feats/index.jsp?feature=four_homer_game)

A list of no hitters in MLB history (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/rare_feats/index.jsp?feature=no_hitter)
One looks a lot bigger than the other. I'd say hitting 4 homers in a game is a better accomplishment.

Oblong
04-27-2010, 12:56 PM
I think you cross the line into Bush League antics when you specifically change your strategy just to play for 1 hit.

Why do you assume it's just for 1 hit? Is there a limit to how many runs you can score? There's no clock in baseball. And there is a strategic element to breaking up a no hitter late in the game because the pitcher's emotions could be all over the place. Adrenaline pumping, the big disappointment, the second guessing.

Thome25
04-27-2010, 12:56 PM
Meh, if you would honestly send a guy up to bunt in a tight game in which you had say, at least 1 hit, then that's the way it is. The argument there is would you send a guy up to bunt with the bases empty in a close game? Its pretty clear a bunt is the wrong call, but if that's what your gut tells you there's really nothing that can be said that would change your mind. I think you cross the line into Bush League antics when you specifically change your strategy just to play for 1 hit.


We're going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see why anyone would lay down and not try to do everything they could to win a ballgame. Even if it means getting a bunt hit to start off an inning to get runners on and get something going.

If I'm a player or manager on a team I'm going to stratch, claw, and kick my way to a victory and if I didn't win or if I got no-hit at least I can say that I left everything on the field and the pitcher had to earn it.

Let me play devils advocate here: Is it alright for a player to bunt during a no-hitter if there's a runner on? If the answer is yes then why couldn't they lay an honest bunt down with no one on and no one out in a close game no hitter or not?

Here's another hypothetical: Would it be alright for a pitcher to intentionally walk a hitter that he saw square up to bunt during a no-no?

doublem23
04-27-2010, 01:06 PM
How do you score runs? By getting guys on base. Last time I checked, bunting successfully means you are on base.

And what is statistically more likely to get you on base? The answer: Swinging away, not bunting.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 01:14 PM
How can you respect a no hitter if a no hitter does not exist? He hasn't accomplished it yet. What you are describing is a situation where a hitter concedes defeat before the game is over. That's what is sad. Here's a lesson in history for you. Getting on base is good. Not getting on base is bad. I can guarantee you with 100% accuracy that if you do not get on base then you will not score a run. In order to win the game you must score more runs than the other team.

Here's a lesson right back at you: Swinging the bat is much more likely to produce a hit than laying down a bunt. Why do you think guys ever swing the bat in the first place?

Bunting does not lend itself to getting guys on base. HOW MANY ****ING TIMES DOES THIS NEED TO BE POSTED? That's not even Baseball 101. Jeez. :dunce:

BTW, since you keep bringing up your 4 HR game crap, the difference is when is it ever in your favor to allow the other team to score MORE runs? Likewise, when is it ever in your interest TO WIN to significantly reduce your odds of actually getting guys on base. This seems to be the basic disagreement here. You apparently think bunting is some sort of magical baseball play that always results in a hit. It does not. In fact, by bunting you are willingly lowering your odds of winning.

As I've said, seemingly every other post in this thread, in a close game when you might actually bunt regardless of how many hits you have already, that is one thing. If you're down by 10 runs and you wouldn't ever bunt but you do so anyway to specifically break up a No-Hitter, that is pure Bush League ******* Garbage.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 01:16 PM
We're going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see why anyone would lay down and not try to do everything they could to win a ballgame. Even if it means getting a bunt hit to start off an inning to get runners on and get something going.

We're arguing the same thing, except I don't have any misguided beliefs that bunting is this magical answer to your problems. You guys realize this is not an opinion, right? Bunting lowers your odds of getting on base, scoring runs, and winning ball games. I can't say that enough. IT IS NOT THE SMART PLAY in almost every single situation.

g0g0
04-27-2010, 02:21 PM
You guys realize this is not an opinion, right? Bunting lowers your odds of getting on base, scoring runs, and winning ball games. I can't say that enough. IT IS NOT THE SMART PLAY in almost every single situation.

But it has happened, is happening right now somewhere, and will happen again. If it's so horrible then there's nothing to worry about. Except if the defense isn't expecting it and is playing back...

Nellie_Fox
04-27-2010, 02:30 PM
And what is statistically more likely to get you on base? The answer: Swinging away, not bunting.You consistently misuse aggregate data. In all situations, across all hitters, all pitchers, and all defenses, this is true. But when you particularize, say with the infield playing back and a very good bunter with very good speed at bat, the situation changes.

FarmerAndy
04-27-2010, 02:53 PM
you consistently misuse aggregate data. In all situations, across all hitters, all pitchers, and all defenses, this is true. But when you particularize, say with the infield playing back and a very good bunter with very good speed at bat, the situation changes.

this is truth.

Thank you!

doublem23
04-27-2010, 02:58 PM
You consistently misuse aggregate data. In all situations, across all hitters, all pitchers, and all defenses, this is true. But when you particularize, say with the infield playing back and a very good bunter with very good speed at bat, the situation changes.

No, actually, its not the 1920s; bunting for a base hit, unless you have an extraordinarily bad hitter at the plate, is almost always giving away the odds.

The only reason anyone ever comes to its defense is because it was already ingrained as "good strategy" before people bothered to check to see whether or not it was actually working.

And, additionally, no one in their right mind would ever start laying down bunts when you trailed by more than a few runs. That's absolutely preposterous. You're not going to bunt your way back into a blowout. Come on.

Oblong
04-27-2010, 03:18 PM
Here's a lesson right back at you: Swinging the bat is much more likely to produce a hit than laying down a bunt. Why do you think guys ever swing the bat in the first place?

Bunting does not lend itself to getting guys on base. HOW MANY ****ING TIMES DOES THIS NEED TO BE POSTED? That's not even Baseball 101. Jeez. :dunce:

BTW, since you keep bringing up your 4 HR game crap, the difference is when is it ever in your favor to allow the other team to score MORE runs? Likewise, when is it ever in your interest TO WIN to significantly reduce your odds of actually getting guys on base. This seems to be the basic disagreement here. You apparently think bunting is some sort of magical baseball play that always results in a hit. It does not. In fact, by bunting you are willingly lowering your odds of winning.

As I've said, seemingly every other post in this thread, in a close game when you might actually bunt regardless of how many hits you have already, that is one thing. If you're down by 10 runs and you wouldn't ever bunt but you do so anyway to specifically break up a No-Hitter, that is pure Bush League ******* Garbage.

So why should the other team care if you try to bunt? If it's such a bad thing and you have lower odds then in fact the other team should share the champagne with the guy who tried to bunt because you've just said they are making it easier for him to get 1 of the 27 outs required to end the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a fan of bunting unless it's a handful of special players doing it. I generally do not like the sacrifice bunt to move runners over. I think it wastes outs when you do have guys on base.

I'm merely defending the decision of players who I think are not trying to be jerks but are trying to win. Who cares why they do it? I honestly do not get that outrage. Why shouldn't he try to get on base? Sure bunting is not the best way but if a guy's throwing a no hitter then his stuff's good on that night. He's making guys miss the ball and keeping them off pace. So why not attempt it? The defense may be playing back to prevent a shot from getting through. Maybe you can get lucky. If they fail at the attempt, then the pitcher should be happy. He got an easy out. One step closer to 27. If he succeeds, then oh well, try it next time. That hitter helped improve his team's chances, however meager, of winning the game. Once you are on first base it doesn't matter whether you bunted or drove it off the wall for a long single. You are on base. The official scorer doesn't interview him to guage his intent for trying to get on base and then decide whether to count the run.

The most prominent example I can think of is Bob Brenly going nuts when Schilling had a no hitter going. It was a 2-0 game. His attitude is directly contradictory to the integrity of the game and an insult to the paying customers that night.

doublem23
04-27-2010, 03:32 PM
So why should the other team care if you try to bunt? If it's such a bad thing and you have lower odds then in fact the other team should share the champagne with the guy who tried to bunt because you've just said they are making it easier for him to get 1 of the 27 outs required to end the game.

Because it's such a cop out. Its essentially saying, we're willing to lower our own odds of winning in the vain hope we might catch one of your guys napping, or the statistical improbability that he may lay down a perfect bunt. You're admitting that you don't care about winning, you only care about breaking up the guy's no-no... Of course, this all relates to the score, etc. As I noted, situations are dramatically different in a 1-0 game than in a 10-0 game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a fan of bunting unless it's a handful of special players doing it. I generally do not like the sacrifice bunt to move runners over. I think it wastes outs when you do have guys on base.

I'm merely defending the decision of players who I think are not trying to be jerks but are trying to win. Who cares why they do it? I honestly do not get that outrage. Why shouldn't he try to get on base? Sure bunting is not the best way but if a guy's throwing a no hitter then his stuff's good on that night. He's making guys miss the ball and keeping them off pace. So why not attempt it? The defense may be playing back to prevent a shot from getting through. Maybe you can get lucky. If they fail at the attempt, then the pitcher should be happy. He got an easy out. One step closer to 27. If he succeeds, then oh well, try it next time. That hitter helped improve his team's chances, however meager, of winning the game. Once you are on first base it doesn't matter whether you bunted or drove it off the wall for a long single. You are on base. The official scorer doesn't interview him to guage his intent for trying to get on base and then decide whether to count the run.

The most prominent example I can think of is Bob Brenly going nuts when Schilling had a no hitter going. It was a 2-0 game. His attitude is directly contradictory to the integrity of the game and an insult to the paying customers that night.

Yeah, the Bob Brenly thing is crazy. For me personally, 2-0 is still fair game for anything.

asindc
04-27-2010, 03:33 PM
So why should the other team care if you try to bunt? If it's such a bad thing and you have lower odds then in fact the other team should share the champagne with the guy who tried to bunt because you've just said they are making it easier for him to get 1 of the 27 outs required to end the game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a fan of bunting unless it's a handful of special players doing it. I generally do not like the sacrifice bunt to move runners over. I think it wastes outs when you do have guys on base.

I'm merely defending the decision of players who I think are not trying to be jerks but are trying to win. Who cares why they do it? I honestly do not get that outrage. Why shouldn't he try to get on base? Sure bunting is not the best way but if a guy's throwing a no hitter then his stuff's good on that night. He's making guys miss the ball and keeping them off pace. So why not attempt it? The defense may be playing back to prevent a shot from getting through. Maybe you can get lucky. If they fail at the attempt, then the pitcher should be happy. He got an easy out. One step closer to 27. If he succeeds, then oh well, try it next time. That hitter helped improve his team's chances, however meager, of winning the game. Once you are on first base it doesn't matter whether you bunted or drove it off the wall for a long single. You are on base. The official scorer doesn't interview him to guage his intent for trying to get on base and then decide whether to count the run.

The most prominent example I can think of is Bob Brenly going nuts when Schilling had a no hitter going. It was a 2-0 game. His attitude is directly contradictory to the integrity of the game and an insult to the paying customers that night.

I lost some respect for Brenly after that. As if the other team should not try to win the game. His stance was an insult.

slavko
04-27-2010, 03:42 PM
I lost some respect for Brenly after that. As if the other team should not try to win the game. His stance was an insult.

The culprit was Ben Davis, IIRC, whom we gave $1M for the privilege of not playing him. Good play by Ben, brought up the tying run.

Nellie_Fox
04-27-2010, 04:25 PM
No, actually, its not the 1920s; bunting for a base hit, unless you have an extraordinarily bad hitter at the plate, is almost always giving away the odds.Show me actual, analyzed data that supports that. Not just the total success of all bunts compared to the total success of all other at bats, but analyzed data, controlled for the situation, the defense, the batter, the pitcher, etc.

Aggregate data is just the beginning of statistical analysis.

WhiteSoxFTW
04-27-2010, 05:05 PM
Show me actual, analyzed data that supports that. Not just the total success of all bunts compared to the total success of all other at bats, but analyzed data, controlled for the situation, the defense, the batter, the pitcher, etc.

Aggregate data is just the beginning of statistical analysis.

Does that even exist exactly how you want to measure it? I am not trying to argue against your point, I am just wondering out loud.

Now with the advent in some of the in game computerized monitoring software/camera systems, all of that tracking and analysis will become completely possible.

Edit: I just spent the last half hour searching my posts from last year because I remembered this thread, http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=113452, where we discussed it.

Here is the NYT link to the original news story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/sports/baseball/10cameras.html/?_r=2&scp=1&sq=With%20New%20System,%20Digital%20Eyes%20Will%20 Chart%20Baseball%27s%20Unseen%20Skills&st=cse.

Nellie_Fox
04-28-2010, 01:10 AM
Does that even exist exactly how you want to measure it? Most likely not, and that is my point. You can't take essentially un-analyzed raw aggregate data and generalize from that to any specific situation. It's a guide AT BEST. Accepting them as an absolute answer is a terrible misuse and misunderstanding of statistics.

WhiteSoxFTW
04-29-2010, 11:59 AM
Most likely not, and that is my point. You can't take essentially un-analyzed raw aggregate data and generalize from that to any specific situation. It's a guide AT BEST. Accepting them as an absolute answer is a terrible misuse and misunderstanding of statistics.
No, I understand your point. I was trying to make the point that soon we will be able to analyze and measure a lot of the previously immeasureable parts to this game. I think it is pretty neat, because baseball is already such a stats driven game.

Daver
04-29-2010, 09:18 PM
No, I understand your point. I was trying to make the point that soon we will be able to analyze and measure a lot of the previously immeasureable parts to this game. I think it is pretty neat, because baseball is already such a stats driven game.

The game is not driven by stats, the stats are driven by the game, the game itself is still basically the same game that was played a hundred years ago, the number of propellerheads trying to turn it into mathematical formulas that seldom have any basis in reality are the only thing that has changed.

g0g0
04-30-2010, 09:36 AM
I loved seeing this after this discussion. Fielders playing too deep got caught. You an call it a "low percentage" play or "bush league", but I call it well played.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Chris-Perez-thinks-Kendrick-s-walkoff-bunt-was-a?urn=mlb,237650

doublem23
04-30-2010, 09:45 AM
I loved seeing this after this discussion. Fielders playing too deep got caught. You an call it a "low percentage" play or "bush league", but I call it well played.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Chris-Perez-thinks-Kendrick-s-walkoff-bunt-was-a?urn=mlb,237650

:rolleyes:

No ****ing **** it's a brilliant play when it works.

g0g0
04-30-2010, 10:05 AM
Bunting does not lend itself to getting guys on base. HOW MANY ****ING TIMES DOES THIS NEED TO BE POSTED? That's not even Baseball 101. Jeez. :dunce:

:rolleyes:

No ****ing **** it's a brilliant play when it works.

:dtroll:I'm just saying there's a time and place for bunting. This was the time and place for it to be used as the defense was laying off. Great stuff.

doublem23
04-30-2010, 10:15 AM
:dtroll:I'm just saying there's a time and place for bunting. This was the time and place for it to be used as the defense was laying off. Great stuff.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Nice selective quoting, I like how you fail to note the (several) posts where I did note that bunting has its time and place (and most of those, like this one, revolve around 1-run scenarios).

Kendrick laid down a perfect bunt. Had it been 5 feet to shallow or 5 feet deeper it would have been a routine out and everyone would be screaming why he wasn't swinging the bat with the winning run on 3rd. It would be like a guy going up to the plate swinging from his heels for the fences every AB. Awesome idea when it works. Terrible idea the other 95% of the time.

Gavin
04-30-2010, 10:45 AM
I wish the propellerheads and those who antagonize the propellerheads would go at it last-man-standing style to end these types of fights.

WhiteSox5187
04-30-2010, 01:29 PM
I wish the propellerheads and those who antagonize the propellerheads would go at it last-man-standing style to end these types of fights.

It would be a short fight, the propeller heads would not last long...and if Daver is bringing his elephant gun, it would be even shorter.

mantis1212
05-10-2010, 12:53 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Braden-s-perfecto-could-ve-ended-on-an-unwritten;_ylt=Ao.6o42A6ZnhBg9O36EMc9g5nYcB?urn=ml b,239740

I thought of this thread obviously when I read this. The queston for WSI is- bush league play by Longoria or not?

I say not- he only retired 12 batters by this point for crying out loud. I'm curious what others think.

KenBerryGrab
05-10-2010, 01:18 PM
Not bush. Tight game, still fairly early, you want to get on base.

g0g0
05-10-2010, 02:19 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Braden-s-perfecto-could-ve-ended-on-an-unwritten;_ylt=Ao.6o42A6ZnhBg9O36EMc9g5nYcB?urn=ml b,239740

I thought of this thread obviously when I read this. The queston for WSI is- bush league play by Longoria or not?

I say not- he only retired 12 batters by this point for crying out loud. I'm curious what others think.

I saw something like this on ESPN and the overwhelming consensus (53% of nearly 84,000 responders) was it's "never out of line."

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/5177385/to-bunt-not-bunt-perfect-question

Longoria bunted in the 5th and they were down 4 runs. I think he's perfectly okay to bunt at any time as I've stated already in this thread. If he would have gotten safely to base then they could have potentially gotten a couple of runs.

downstairs
05-11-2010, 01:54 PM
I could see a situation where a bunt is much more likely for a hit. Take a .250 hitter. He gets a hit 1/4 of the time. If the defense is sleeping, and not anticipating a bunt, I could easily see that converting into a hit more than 25% of the time.

Secondly, breaking up a no hitter seems to rattle most pitchers. They're no longer "on"... they're frustrated (especially if you break one of these silly "rules").

I could see a surprise bunt hit during a no hitter leading to a big inning.

Its a stupid rule thought up by lazy players over the decades. When you're being no hit, you ought to be scratching and clawing at anything for that first hit.

Hitmen77
05-25-2010, 09:06 AM
Those "unwritten rules" are back in the news thanks to Ozzie.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100523&content_id=10361156&notebook_id=10383788&vkey=notebook_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

jonred
05-25-2010, 05:32 PM
So if Ozzie was pissed about the Fish stealing with a 7-0 lead, does that mean that he thought the game was essentially over in the fourth inning? I'd agree if it were the 8th, but doesn't it seem a bit early to call off the dogs that early in a game?

vinny
05-25-2010, 06:00 PM
So if Ozzie was pissed about the Fish stealing with a 7-0 lead, does that mean that he thought the game was essentially over in the fourth inning? I'd agree if it were the 8th, but doesn't it seem a bit early to call off the dogs that early in a game?
Agreed. That's not a bush-league play. What was bush league on Sunday was the ******* who jumped out of his front-row field level seat to catch a ball that one of the Sox was trying to flip to a little kid three rows behind said *******. When he finally figured out that a group of fans were about to beat his bush-league ass into the ground, he turned around and handed the ball off to the intended recipient, but complained loundly for a couple of minutes afterward.

Hitmen77
06-14-2010, 09:08 AM
Ozzie vs. Cubs fans on what's an "unwritten rule".
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0614-sox-bits--20100613,0,6108580.story

WizardsofOzzie
06-14-2010, 10:18 AM
Ozzie vs. Cubs fans on what's an "unwritten rule".
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0614-sox-bits--20100613,0,6108580.story
I see nothing wrong with bunting in a 1-0 game. They aren't trying to break up a no-hitter just because. They are trying to get the tying run on base. If it was 10-0, that's a different story

Huisj
06-14-2010, 10:47 AM
I see nothing wrong with bunting in a 1-0 game. They aren't trying to break up a no-hitter just because. They are trying to get the tying run on base. If it was 10-0, that's a different story

That's my thoughts exactly. A possible no-hitter doesn't trump the integrity of trying to win a close ballgame.

I think of it like this: say everything in the game was the same except that one guy had hit a single in one of the early innings. Would it be ok to bunt in that situation to get the potential tying run on? Absolutely.

jonred
06-14-2010, 10:53 AM
Ozzie vs. Cubs fans on what's an "unwritten rule".
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0614-sox-bits--20100613,0,6108580.story

As a Cubs fan, I had no problem with the bunt last night, but if the roles were reversed, I bet Ozzie would have gone off on the other team...

voodoochile
06-14-2010, 01:07 PM
I see nothing wrong with bunting in a 1-0 game. They aren't trying to break up a no-hitter just because. They are trying to get the tying run on base. If it was 10-0, that's a different story

:thumbsup:

I wouldn't be bitching if the reverse was true either...

C-Dawg
06-14-2010, 01:51 PM
...if the roles were reversed, I bet Ozzie would have gone off on the other team...

I doubt it. Its a one-run game; you do what you have to do to get a man on base. You think Ozzie doesn't understand that?

FielderJones
06-14-2010, 02:23 PM
I doubt it. Its a one-run game; you do what you have to do to get a man on base. You think Ozzie doesn't understand that?

Cubs fans don't understand much about baseball.

white sox bill
06-14-2010, 02:24 PM
I think we discussed this a while back. If I'm a batter I'm trying to get on thats what I do for a living. He's a pitcher doing what he can to get me out and we both are earning our paycheck.

So alls fair in love, war and baseball

TheVulture
06-14-2010, 04:52 PM
Ozzie vs. Cubs fans on what's an "unwritten rule".
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0614-sox-bits--20100613,0,6108580.story

One of the user comments:

"It was probably Sox fans booing as yet another Sox player cannot lay down a bunt."

I agree, it's probably just a simple misunderstanding.

TDog
06-15-2010, 07:21 PM
:thumbsup:

I wouldn't be bitching if the reverse was true either...

Neither would I.

But considering Lilly hit two White Sox hitters in the game, including the one who attempted a bunt to break up his no-hitter, I would have applauded Beckham getting a bunt hit there no matter the score. Hypothetically, a drag bunt up the first-base line ending with Beckham spiking Lilly would have been old-school retaliation, not that throw-at-their-guy-because-they-threw-at-ours garbage that some demand these days.

That might have shaken things up a bit. And Beckham would have become my new favorite player.

In any case, the White Sox hit a few balls well into the defense. A play at third especially stands out. The way to get the Cubs out of their comfort zone at pitcher and at third base is to bunt.