PDA

View Full Version : Do you like when the Sox bunt?


thomas35forever
08-15-2010, 11:11 PM
I'm generally fine with it. I did question Beckham bunting in the 6th today, but after we brought everyone home, I got off Ozzie's back. I don't know why others won't do the same.

Coops4Aces
08-15-2010, 11:20 PM
I'm generally fine with it. I did question Beckham bunting in the 6th today, but after we brought everyone home, I got off Ozzie's back. I don't know why others won't do the same.

Alexei's hit scores Jones from 2nd too.

Check this out:

http://www.fangraphs.com/liveplays.aspx?date=2010-08-15&team=White%20Sox&dh=0&season=2010

After Jones doubled, our win probability was 50.5%. After Beckham sacrificed, it fell to 48.1%.

After Beckham walked in the 8th, our win percentage was 40.9%. After Pierre bunted, it fell to 36.6%.

It's stupid. It doesn't increase your chances of scoring or winning.

LoveYourSuit
08-15-2010, 11:30 PM
I hate "small ball" period.

It's just an excuse to justify having players who are not that good on your roster.

hi im skot
08-15-2010, 11:31 PM
Do I like it when the Sox bunt?

What inning is it?
What's the score?
Who's up?
Who's on base?
Who's on deck?
Who's pitching?
Who's warming up in the bullpen?
Etc.

I don't know where to begin in answering this question.

thomas35forever
08-15-2010, 11:32 PM
I hate "small ball" period.

It's just an excuse to justify having players who are not that good on your roster.
Like it or not, it won us a WS in '05.

Sockinchisox
08-15-2010, 11:35 PM
Hate bunting in general unless you're doing it for a hit.

1989
08-15-2010, 11:37 PM
We should never give up outs for position. Ever. The only time I advocate bunting is if we suicide squeeze with the game tied in the 9th as the home team.

thomas35forever
08-15-2010, 11:40 PM
We should never give up outs for position. Ever. The only time I advocate bunting is if we suicide squeeze with the game tied in the 9th as the home team.
I do it in The Show if I have a speedy guy on first.:shrug:

Rdy2PlayBall
08-15-2010, 11:43 PM
It's perfectly fine. Everyone seemed to want it in the past, now it seems like everyone complains about it. Every team bunts, it's part of baseball.

bunty_doghunter
08-15-2010, 11:45 PM
Do I like it when the Sox bunt?

What inning is it?
What's the score?
Who's up?
Who's on base?
Who's on deck?
Who's pitching?
Who's warming up in the bullpen?
Etc.

I don't know where to begin in answering this question.
This.

VMSNS
08-15-2010, 11:54 PM
Depends on the situation.

twinsuck
08-16-2010, 12:01 AM
no, it's throwing away outs most of the time.

october23sp
08-16-2010, 12:09 AM
Do I like it when the Sox bunt?

What inning is it?
What's the score?
Who's up?
Who's on base?
Who's on deck?
Who's pitching?
Who's warming up in the bullpen?
Etc.

I don't know where to begin in answering this question.

Yep.

arKnaD7
08-16-2010, 12:20 AM
I don't like bunting in the 6th inning, down by 1, with one of the hottest hitters on the team due up.

I'm fine with bunting in the 8th with Pierre, the best bunter on the team, down by 1, with the top 3 RBI guys in the line-up due up (besides Beckham who was on base).

That's what I think. :shrug: Maybe that's why I don't get paid the big bucks to make those decisions.

LoveYourSuit
08-16-2010, 12:32 AM
Like it or not, it won us a WS in '05.


That's a myth.

The Sox hit a ton of HRs. People think that because Podsednik ran wild we sort of invented a new way of playing baseball.

Completely false.

One can argue Pierre is having a pretty similar year to what Pods did in 2005 too.

oeo
08-16-2010, 02:11 AM
I certainly don't like when they bunt and they're trying to make up a deficit, even one run. It's stupid. You don't give away an out when you still need runs. You're banking on someone executing afterwards, and even the best teams don't do it every time. They did that twice today, and we got the run in once thanks to a clutch hit by Ramirez after Pierre did not execute. Didn't understand that one at all. You've got Beckham up at the plate who can easily take it the other way and get Jones over, and maybe even get a base hit because of it.

kufram
08-16-2010, 06:05 AM
Do I like it when the Sox bunt?

What inning is it?
What's the score?
Who's up?
Who's on base?
Who's on deck?
Who's pitching?
Who's warming up in the bullpen?
Etc.

I don't know where to begin in answering this question.



There are many more factors to consider when answering the question which is indicated by the "etc.".

I am not a huge bunt fan but it is a skill I believe most hitters should be able to employ and use effectively. Otherwise might as well never bunt. Jim Thomes and Paul Konerkos of this world do not require that particular skill generally.

I have no real problem with the bunt(s) last night. There are times to give up an out to get the tying or winning run to within 90 feet of home. This was one of them especially considering our offense of late. Just the knowledge that a team is liable to bunt effects the opposition's positioning, for example.

I do think we show the bunt too much.

I wouldn't consider win percentages calculated by a computer as a big factor. Maybe for fantasy baseball but I don't play that. This version is played and managed by humans that can take many more intangible issues to the equation.

But it ain't important enough to argue about.

Frater Perdurabo
08-16-2010, 06:11 AM
depends on the situation.

qft

Madvora
08-16-2010, 06:55 AM
Like everyone would say, it depends on the situation. With the Sox lately, the situation remains the same at any point in the game. They can't afford to give away outs when so many hitters are not likely to produce.

With a guy on second base, I'd much rather have three chances for a base hit to bring the run home rather than sacrificing the guy to third and have one chance for a sac fly and one chance for a hit to bring the run home.

Lyle Mouton
08-16-2010, 07:53 AM
I'm very against bunting with a guy hitting .348/.402/.583 in his last 35 games.

MARTINMVP
08-16-2010, 08:00 AM
Do I like it when the Sox bunt?

What inning is it?
What's the score?
Who's up?
Who's on base?
Who's on deck?
Who's pitching?
Who's warming up in the bullpen?
Etc.

I don't know where to begin in answering this question.

I cringe when I see Juan Pierre attempting to bunt in a situation when it's early in the game and there is no one on base. What is the point?

LITTLE NELL
08-16-2010, 08:01 AM
I have never been a fan of bunting a guy over from 2nd to 3rd, why give up an out when a guy is already in scoring posistion.
No problem with laying down a bunt to get a guy from first to second but only in the late innings in a game that we are tied or losing by a run.

russ99
08-16-2010, 08:45 AM
Sorry, but I'm opposed to the idea that in the AL, all we do is wait around for the big three-run home run. Truth is, even if you have a team of sluggers, you could be waiting all game. Sometimes you need to play for the run.

Bunting runners over with no outs is perfectly acceptable and all big league managers do it. This isn't some dumb thing Ozzie dreams up.

My only gripe is I'd like to see guys bunting for hits more often in those situations. Don't just bunt an easy one back to the pitcher or set it on the ground for the catcher.

BringHomeDaBacon
08-16-2010, 09:37 AM
As an inept hitter himself, Ozzie often relied on bunting to contribute offensively. Consciously or not, I think the reason he calls for the bunt so damn much is to validate his own crappy style of baseball. This is also the reason he doesn't mind ill-advised aggressiveness on the bases and loves low OBP left handed hackers that can't hit the ball very far. All of these things are attributes that he possessed as a player.

eriqjaffe
08-16-2010, 09:39 AM
I cringe when I see Juan Pierre attempting to bunt in a situation when it's early in the game and there is no one on base. What is the point?Well, I'm pretty sure the point there is reaching first base. ;)

LITTLE NELL
08-16-2010, 10:02 AM
I cringe when I see Juan Pierre attempting to bunt in a situation when it's early in the game and there is no one on base. What is the point?

I have no problem with Pierre with his speed bunting for a basehit.

october23sp
08-16-2010, 10:09 AM
I have no problem with Pierre with his speed bunting for a basehit.

As long as he doesn't pop it straight up.

Dan H
08-16-2010, 10:29 AM
There are times when the bunt is necessary but not in the eighth inning of the game against Detroit. Playing small ball for the sake of playing small ball is not smart.

I heard a statistic that the White Sox lead the American League in caught stealing. Maybe that correlates with the number of attempts, and I like aggressiveness on the base paths. But how many innings have they run themselves out of of?

Being flexible with the DH position is something I support. I really don't like the idea of a player being a DH only. However, if you have .200 hitters like Jones and Kotsay moving in and out the DH hole, this strategy doesn't make sense. It would have been better to keep Thome or get another left handed bat.

The question should be this: Is Ozzie playing with the team he has, or the team he wants to have?

tony1972
08-16-2010, 10:38 AM
I'm generally fine with it. I did question Beckham bunting in the 6th today, but after we brought everyone home, I got off Ozzie's back. I don't know why others won't do the same.


Not really..when we are down say..5 to 4 and get the lead off guy on and there's no outs and I see the next guy bunting..I know 9 times out of 10..we just got the opposing pitcher out of an inning with no runs scoring.

Here's what happens

Lead off Single (down 1 run)

Bunt attempt (1 either fails (pop up) or 2 work but we just gave the pitcher a FREE OUT)

Next guy pops up, strikes out or walks to set up a Double Play..

3rd out easily..

I don't see how LETTING A PITCHER OFF THE HOOK BY GIVING HIM 2 or 3 FREE OUTS each game..helps a team win.

PorkChopExpress
08-16-2010, 10:52 AM
The way I see it, bunting can come in handy sometimes, but not when you do it all of the time. Teams know that in certain situations, if the Sox get a guy on first and no outs, they are probably going to bunt him over, so the pitcher can attack the hitter appropriately giving him poor pitches to bunt, and the fielders can be ready to make the plays. Now just because you know something is coming doesn't mean you can combat it everytime, but it sure as hell helps. The Sox , and Ozzie, are too predictable with their bunting in my opinion. You have to keep the opposition on their toes.

BringHomeDaBacon
08-16-2010, 11:18 AM
I heard a statistic that the White Sox lead the American League in caught stealing. Maybe that correlates with the number of attempts, and I like aggressiveness on the base paths. But how many innings have they run themselves out of of?


The White Sox lead all of baseball in caught stealing. They have been caught 16 times more than any other team. This number cannot be justified by the number of attempts as they are 26th in SB% at 66% (63% is the absolute worst). Of the five teams that have 100 or more steals, the Mets are the next worst and rank eighth in SB% (77%).

russ99
08-16-2010, 11:55 AM
The White Sox lead all of baseball in caught stealing. They have been caught 16 times more than any other team. This number cannot be justified by the number of attempts as they are 26th in SB% at 66% (63% is the absolute worst). Of the five teams that have 100 or more steals, the Mets are the next worst and rank eighth in SB% (77%).

Yes, but we're first in the league in steals by a wide margin. I like the aggressive baserunning, as it puts more pressure on pitchers and the opposing defense.

If we get caught 32% of the time, but a decent margin of the 66% that successfully steal leads to runs, so be it.

BringHomeDaBacon
08-16-2010, 12:13 PM
Yes, but we're first in the league in steals by a wide margin. I like the aggressive baserunning, as it puts more pressure on pitchers and the opposing defense.

If we get caught 32% of the time, but a decent margin of the 66% that successfully steal leads to runs, so be it.

Steals leaders and success rate:

Tampa 140 (80%)
Chisox 109 (66%)
Seattle 105 (78%)
NYM 101 (78%)
Oak 100 (80%)

So basically you are wrong and spewing misinformation.

JB98
08-16-2010, 12:18 PM
I never like bunting when the team is behind. Don't give up outs when trailing. The bunt by Beckham was particularly ridiculous yesterday. Why have Beckham give himself up to set up an RBI chance for Pierre? Senseless. Who is the better hitter of those two? In my mind, it is Beckham.

I know the Sox got three in that inning, but it was still a bad call. How do we know Beckham doesn't get a base hit in that situation? Then, the Sox would have scored four instead of three in that inning. And it isn't as if there was a chance of a GIDP in that spot. Jones was already on second base.

Just a terrible, brutal decision by Ozzie.

Bunting is OK when the game is tied, if you've got a certain type of hitter at the plate. But I'm always cursing whenever Ozzie calls for a bunt with the Sox trailing. I want to play to win, not to tie.

KempersRS
08-16-2010, 01:38 PM
I never like bunting when the team is behind. Don't give up outs when trailing. The bunt by Beckham was particularly ridiculous yesterday. Why have Beckham give himself up to set up an RBI chance for Pierre? Senseless. Who is the better hitter of those two? In my mind, it is Beckham.

I know the Sox got three in that inning, but it was still a bad call. How do we know Beckham doesn't get a base hit in that situation? Then, the Sox would have scored four instead of three in that inning. And it isn't as if there was a chance of a GIDP in that spot. Jones was already on second base.

Just a terrible, brutal decision by Ozzie.

Bunting is OK when the game is tied, if you've got a certain type of hitter at the plate. But I'm always cursing whenever Ozzie calls for a bunt with the Sox trailing. I want to play to win, not to tie.

You hit several reasons why it was such a terrible decision, but the sad thing is that there are even more.

Let's skip over the fact that we already had a runner in scoring position for the hottest hitter on the team (also one of the hottest in baseball). Let's skip over the fact that it was only the 6th inning of a 1 run game with nobody out. Giving up a free out with a chance to start a big inning is questionable AT BEST even if you had an average hitter at the plate with an average hitter coming up behind him.

So Ozzie completely fails to recognize that, and decides he would rather take the bat out of Beckham's hands and take 1 shot at a sac fly to get this run in. Now, with 1 out, and a man on 3rd, you need a ball to get hit hard through a drawn in infield or you need a deep fly ball. Could anyone think of a worse person than Pierre for this situation? Ozzie failed on so many counts here it was ridiculous, it makes no difference if Alexei bailed him out.

He failed just based on the situation alone: nobody out, man on 2nd, 6th inning, 1 run game.

He failed by not taking into account who was at the plate with nobody out.

He failed by not taking into account who was on deck after the bunt.

It was indefensible and proves Ozzie gets so caught up in "small ball" and "manufacturing runs" that he isn't even considering each unique set of circumstances involved in the situation.

thomas35forever
08-16-2010, 02:36 PM
You hit several reasons why it was such a terrible decision, but the sad thing is that there are even more.

Let's skip over the fact that we already had a runner in scoring position for the hottest hitter on the team (also one of the hottest in baseball). Let's skip over the fact that it was only the 6th inning of a 1 run game with nobody out. Giving up a free out with a chance to start a big inning is questionable AT BEST even if you had an average hitter at the plate with an average hitter coming up behind him.

So Ozzie completely fails to recognize that, and decides he would rather take the bat out of Beckham's hands and take 1 shot at a sac fly to get this run in. Now, with 1 out, and a man on 3rd, you need a ball to get hit hard through a drawn in infield or you need a deep fly ball. Could anyone think of a worse person than Pierre for this situation? Ozzie failed on so many counts here it was ridiculous, it makes no difference if Alexei bailed him out.

He failed just based on the situation alone: nobody out, man on 2nd, 6th inning, 1 run game.

He failed by not taking into account who was at the plate with nobody out.

He failed by not taking into account who was on deck after the bunt.

It was indefensible and proves Ozzie gets so caught up in "small ball" and "manufacturing runs" that he isn't even considering each unique set of circumstances involved in the situation.
Fire Ozzie?:scratch:

TDog
08-16-2010, 02:47 PM
It depends on the situation.

I prefer grounding out to second to move the runner over to third. If a hitter has a pitch he can drive to the right side, a deep fly out will work as well. And, of course, both have a chance of scoring the runner. In the Giants game Saturday, Juan Uribe blooped a ball over the second baseman's head to score the winning run from second, although if the Padres hadn't been looking for the bunt in the game-ending situation, with runners on first and second, the ball might not have fallen. I didn't really have a great angle.

Major league mangers increasingly call for the bunt. Tony LaRussa began bunting runners over from second in the first inning in the early 1980s. In August of 1983, he had Carlton Fisk bunt runners over to third in two games. The White Sox won them both, and in the second, it was Rudy Law advancing to third and scoring on a Ron Kittle groundout that was the deciding run in a 4-3 win.

The Rangers lead the American League in sacrifice bunts, and they are in first place. Among the top six in the league are also the Rays, Twins and White Sox. The Twins scored the deciding run in their one-run win Friday night with two sacrifice bunts, one to get the runner to third and the other a suicide squeeze. The Yankees don't totally disdain the bunt. Even with their lineup, they have just five fewer sacrifices than the Twins.

I have been told that some hitters are given the option to bunt if they feel they have a better chance of being successful in moving the runner over to third. And some choose that option because they don't want to lose points on their batting average. The numbers also only reflect successful sacrifice bunts. The Twins, for example, have had 32 bunts this year that were in play for balls that did not go as sacrifices. I can't tell how many of those were failed sacrifices or hitters bunting for hits. The White Sox have 50 such at bats, but 30 of those bats belong to Juan Pierre, who has 13 sacrifices and just seven bunt singles.

Winning teams bunt. It's less common in the American league than it was when the pitchers were hitting, but it seems more common in the American League among winning teams than at any time since the DH rule took effect.

WhiteSox5187
08-16-2010, 03:08 PM
There are many factors that contribute to whether or not I like a bunt, typically I do, but I don't quite understand the concept of bunting a guy over to second. It just doesn't make a lot of sense, I kind of understand it when Pierre does it because he's usually bunting for a hit, but otherwise, I don't get it.

Slappy
08-16-2010, 03:57 PM
There are many factors that contribute to whether or not I like a bunt, typically I do, but I don't quite understand the concept of bunting a guy over to second. It just doesn't make a lot of sense, I kind of understand it when Pierre does it because he's usually bunting for a hit, but otherwise, I don't get it.

Agreed.

Ranger
08-16-2010, 04:54 PM
Do I like it when the Sox bunt?

What inning is it?
What's the score?
Who's up?
Who's on base?
Who's on deck?
Who's pitching?
Who's warming up in the bullpen?
Etc.

I don't know where to begin in answering this question.

That's the correct answer. You may also want to add "Home or away?"

That said, I wasn't a fan of the Beckham bunting in that spot. Had it been the 9th, I would've felt differently.

Ranger
08-16-2010, 04:56 PM
There are many factors that contribute to whether or not I like a bunt, typically I do, but I don't quite understand the concept of bunting a guy over to second. It just doesn't make a lot of sense, I kind of understand it when Pierre does it because he's usually bunting for a hit, but otherwise, I don't get it.

The only reason you do it is that you've put yourself in position to score a run on a single and you've taken yourself out of a double play situation.

wassagstdu
08-16-2010, 05:26 PM
There are situations where it makes sense. Usually that is with the pitcher batting, but maybe with an overpowering pitcher or a hitter in a deep slump, or where there is low probability of putting the ball in play or high probability of a DP ground ball. Generally though, I tend to agree with the majority here.

But bunting is not synonymous with small ball, which I support enthusiastically -- in combination with large ball.

WhiteSox5187
08-16-2010, 05:27 PM
The only reason you do it is that you've put yourself in position to score a run on a single and you've taken yourself out of a double play situation.

Well I understand that logic, I should have said that I don't subscribe to it. Unless you have a pitcher coming up, I don't like bunting guys to second usually.

voodoochile
08-16-2010, 05:40 PM
Not a huge fan of giving away outs in general. I much prefer the hit and run, but it's less of a sure thing for advancing the runner and can lead to running into outs. Early in the game I prefer the H&R exclusively and have been happy to see the Sox do it more this year, though I would like to see it used even more than they do.

Late in the game - 7th inning and after - if the game is tied or the Sox trail by a run, I think the bunt is acceptable, but it also depends on who is coming up. I'd prefer not to see PK bunt ever for example and if it's to move up a slow runner with weaker bats due up thereafter, I'm not as keen on it. It's mostly a situational issue basically.

A. Cavatica
08-16-2010, 07:30 PM
Ability to play small ball = winning baseball.

Compulsion to play small ball = losing baseball.

Coops4Aces
08-16-2010, 07:38 PM
Ability to play small ball = winning baseball.

Compulsion to play small ball = losing baseball.

Well said. If this were facebook, I would like that comment :D:

Ranger
08-17-2010, 01:30 AM
Ability to play small ball = winning baseball.

Compulsion to play small ball = losing baseball.

That's absolutely a fair statement. However, I don't think this manager has a "compulsion" to play smallball. What he does have is a compulsion for them to have the ability to play smallball. There is nothing wrong with that.

If you recall, one of the fans' biggest criticisms of this team for 4 years (after the WS year) was that they couldn't do any of the little things to help them win. All they could do was hit home runs, remember? All they've tried to do is make sure they're better at the small stuff.

Of course they still want to be able to hit homers (and they are able to), but they also want to be able to score in other ways. They should want that.

A. Cavatica
08-17-2010, 07:07 AM
That's absolutely a fair statement. However, I don't think this manager has a "compulsion" to play smallball. What he does have is a compulsion for them to have the ability to play smallball. There is nothing wrong with that.

If you recall, one of the fans' biggest criticisms of this team for 4 years (after the WS year) was that they couldn't do any of the little things to help them win. All they could do was hit home runs, remember? All they've tried to do is make sure they're better at the small stuff.

Of course they still want to be able to hit homers (and they are able to), but they also want to be able to score in other ways. They should want that.

He fought hard to get players who could play smallball, which was good, except that he insisted that even his DH could play smallball. Or was it defense? Either way, he overlooked the requirement that the DH actually be able to mash.

And it may not quite be a compulsion, but when he has the #2 hitter sac-bunting with Pierre on first, it's dangerously close. The whole value of Pierre is that he can get to second without giving up that out.

I really think the poster who said Ozzie loves players in his own image was right. Problem is, Ozzie was one of the worst offensive players ever to hold down a regular job in the big leagues. No power. No strike zone judgment. Poor stolen base percentage. Fell for the hidden ball trick more than once. Just pathetic.

tstrike2000
08-17-2010, 09:07 AM
Like it or not, it won us a WS in '05.

Well, in August and September of '05 Jose Contreras almost single handedly kept the team in first place.

TDog
08-17-2010, 10:36 AM
...

And it may not quite be a compulsion, but when he has the #2 hitter sac-bunting with Pierre on first, it's dangerously close. The whole value of Pierre is that he can get to second without giving up that out.

I really think the poster who said Ozzie loves players in his own image was right. Problem is, Ozzie was one of the worst offensive players ever to hold down a regular job in the big leagues. No power. No strike zone judgment. Poor stolen base percentage. Fell for the hidden ball trick more than once. Just pathetic.

First of all, Guillen offensively wasn't nearly as bad an offensive player as you make him out to be. He wasn't even the worst offensive player on the White Sox teams he played on.

Second, the No. 2 position in the batting order tends to be a place where major league players are expected to be called upon to sacrifice. Even Carlton Fisk was asked to sacrifice when he was hitting second in the order. That's true for Crawford and Zobrist with the Rays, who have combined for nine sacrifice bunts this year. That's true for Young of the Rangers who has six sacrifices this year. That was true for Joey Cora who led the American league in sacrifices first hitting in front of Frank Thomas and then hitting in front of Ken Griffey Jr.

Bunting is part of baseball. The difference between the White Sox bunting this year and in recent years is that this year they are bunting with greater success.

russ99
08-17-2010, 12:00 PM
He fought hard to get players who could play smallball, which was good, except that he insisted that even his DH could play smallball. Or was it defense? Either way, he overlooked the requirement that the DH actually be able to mash.


Where in the rulebook does it say the Designated hitter has to "be able to mash"?

BTW - where are these guys?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/stats/byposition?pos=DH&conference=MLB&year=season_2010&qualified=1&sort=6

I see 4-6 guys on this list that fall within the "able to mash" specification. There's 15 American League teams.

Tragg
08-17-2010, 12:34 PM
Bunting is okay sometimes, like in a TIE game in the 9th inning or later.
But this business of giving away outs late in the game when yoiu are down is assinine. I did a dance when Phil Garner did it for us in 2005.
And playing for 1 run in a game that has 13 runs scored and 22 hits is equally silly.

Coops4Aces
08-17-2010, 12:47 PM
Where in the rulebook does it say the Designated hitter has to "be able to mash"?

BTW - where are these guys?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/stats/byposition?pos=DH&conference=MLB&year=season_2010&qualified=1&sort=6

I see 4-6 guys on this list that fall within the "able to mash" specification. There's 15 American League teams.

Jim Thome is in that list. Too bad he didn't want to play for us.

russ99
08-17-2010, 02:01 PM
Jim Thome is in that list. Too bad he didn't want to play for us.

Everything comes down to 40-year old Jim Thome, doesn't it... :rolleyes:

Ranger
08-17-2010, 02:02 PM
He fought hard to get players who could play smallball, which was good, except that he insisted that even his DH could play smallball. Or was it defense? Either way, he overlooked the requirement that the DH actually be able to mash.

And it may not quite be a compulsion, but when he has the #2 hitter sac-bunting with Pierre on first, it's dangerously close. The whole value of Pierre is that he can get to second without giving up that out.

I really think the poster who said Ozzie loves players in his own image was right. Problem is, Ozzie was one of the worst offensive players ever to hold down a regular job in the big leagues. No power. No strike zone judgment. Poor stolen base percentage. Fell for the hidden ball trick more than once. Just pathetic.

Where in the rulebook does it say the Designated hitter has to "be able to mash"?

BTW - where are these guys?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/stats/byposition?pos=DH&conference=MLB&year=season_2010&qualified=1&sort=6

I see 4-6 guys on this list that fall within the "able to mash" specification. There's 15 American League teams.

The DH just isn't what it used to be. I tried making this argument over the winter, but nobody would listen. The best offensive player on most teams is no longer the DH. Baseball has changed recently and the days of David Ortiz-types are currently over.

And by the way, what Ozzie Guillen was as a player has absolutely NOTHING to do with him as a manager.

eriqjaffe
08-17-2010, 02:06 PM
Jim Thome is in that list. Too bad he didn't want to play for us.But he did want to play for us. The Sox didn't want him to play for them.

kufram
08-17-2010, 02:27 PM
He fought hard to get players who could play smallball, which was good, except that he insisted that even his DH could play smallball. Or was it defense? Either way, he overlooked the requirement that the DH actually be able to mash.

And it may not quite be a compulsion, but when he has the #2 hitter sac-bunting with Pierre on first, it's dangerously close. The whole value of Pierre is that he can get to second without giving up that out.

I really think the poster who said Ozzie loves players in his own image was right. Problem is, Ozzie was one of the worst offensive players ever to hold down a regular job in the big leagues. No power. No strike zone judgment. Poor stolen base percentage. Fell for the hidden ball trick more than once. Just pathetic.

How many managers were great players? Irrelevant.

Coops4Aces
08-17-2010, 02:44 PM
Everything comes down to 40-year old Jim Thome, doesn't it... :rolleyes:


Dude, you're the one who posted the link and mentioned the 6 hitters, of which one is Thome.

But he did want to play for us. The Sox didn't want him to play for them.

The best sarcasm needs no teal. I must have failed :(:

voodoochile
08-17-2010, 03:55 PM
Dude, you're the one who posted the link and mentioned the 6 hitters, of which one is Thome.



The best sarcasm needs no teal. I must have failed :(:

Or maybe people are just tired of the constant whipping of this horse that's been dead for well over 4 months and is starting to rot.

But, hey, keep bringing it up... I'm sure we'll discover something new to talk about in regards to this topic...:rolleyes:

hi im skot
08-17-2010, 03:58 PM
Problem is, Ozzie was one of the worst offensive players ever to hold down a regular job in the big leagues. No power. No strike zone judgment. Poor stolen base percentage. Fell for the hidden ball trick more than once. Just pathetic.

:fireozzie

soxinem1
08-17-2010, 09:56 PM
Only when it is for a hit.

Frater Perdurabo
08-17-2010, 10:00 PM
The best offensive player on most teams is no longer the DH.

Yeah, Ozzie has made sure the WORST offensive player is the DH. But at least he can field!

Coops4Aces
08-17-2010, 10:29 PM
Or maybe people are just tired of the constant whipping of this horse that's been dead for well over 4 months and is starting to rot.

But, hey, keep bringing it up... I'm sure we'll discover something new to talk about in regards to this topic...:rolleyes:

Dead? Yeah I don't think so...thanks Ozzaroo

Tragg
08-17-2010, 10:35 PM
Guillen has a limited understanding of offense (if obp is important, why doesn't jim thome lead off, e.g.; DHs need to play defense) and can't evaluate offensive talent for ****.
But this is on Williams...he gave into Guillen's nonsense and he bears the responsibility of Jim Thome being a Twin.

tony1972
08-17-2010, 10:42 PM
Guillen has a limited understanding of offense (if obp is important, why doesn't jim thome lead off, e.g.; DHs need to play defense) and can't evaluate offensive talent for ****.
But this is on Williams...he gave into Guillen's nonsense and he bears the responsibility of Jim Thome being a Twin.

The Twins should be ASHAMED of the way they won.. a Walk Off Homer?!?! that is not SMALLBALL....!! why was Thome not Sac Bunting for a TIE?!?!?!?! I do not consider the Twins win a true win because it was (1) not smallball and (2) not grindery....:angry:

A. Cavatica
08-17-2010, 11:05 PM
First of all, Guillen offensively wasn't nearly as bad an offensive player as you make him out to be. He wasn't even the worst offensive player on the White Sox teams he played on.

You have to be frickin' amazing with the glove to stay in the lineup when you're as bad a hitter as Ozzie was. Who was worse, and still a regular? Name them.

In 1986 Ozzie played in 159 games and posted a .576 OPS. (By comparison, Tim Hulett got into 150 games, and posted a .639.)
In 1988 Ozzie played in 156 and posted a .608. (Steve Lyons, .686 over 146 games.)
In 1989 he played in 155 and posted a .588. (Dave Gallagher, .634 over 161.)

A career .626 OPS, over 16 seasons, is a whole lotta suck.

Second, the No. 2 position in the batting order tends to be a place where major league players are expected to be called upon to sacrifice. Even Carlton Fisk was asked to sacrifice when he was hitting second in the order. That's true for Crawford and Zobrist with the Rays, who have combined for nine sacrifice bunts this year. That's true for Young of the Rangers who has six sacrifices this year. That was true for Joey Cora who led the American league in sacrifices first hitting in front of Frank Thomas and then hitting in front of Ken Griffey Jr.

Bunting is part of baseball. The difference between the White Sox bunting this year and in recent years is that this year they are bunting with greater success.

Just because it's "part of baseball" doesn't mean it's a good percentage move. People used to think RBI was a good way to measure a hitter, too.

A. Cavatica
08-17-2010, 11:07 PM
The DH just isn't what it used to be. I tried making this argument over the winter, but nobody would listen. The best offensive player on most teams is no longer the DH. Baseball has changed recently and the days of David Ortiz-types are currently over.

And by the way, what Ozzie Guillen was as a player has absolutely NOTHING to do with him as a manager.

I missed your argument over the winter.

I never said the DH was always the best offensive player, but the DH is always a strong offensive player, because it's a lot easier to find a hitter who can't field than it is to find a hitter who can field.

Let's see how many teams are fighting over Kotsay this winter. Let's see if baseball has changed that much.

TDog
08-17-2010, 11:18 PM
... Just because it's "part of baseball" doesn't mean it's a good percentage move. People used to think RBI was a good way to measure a hitter, too.

I am not a fan of the sacrifice bunt, but it has its place. It depends on the situation. The White Sox might have won in regulation tonight if Ramirez had sacrificed Pierzynski to third earlier in the game (a groundout to second instead of short would have accomplished the same thing, and, really it was Ramirez's job in that at bat).

The Twins didn't have Thome sacrifice tonight at the end of the game because Thome isn't a bunter. If Delmon Young had been up with a runner on first and none out, he most certainly would have sacrificed. He has seven sacrifice bunts this year and he has sacrificed in that specific situation several times this season.

The reason major league managers of winning teams have their No. 2 hitters bunt is because bunting sometimes is part of winning baseball.

So is having late inning relief that can protect a lead at the end of the game, but that is irrelevant to this thread.

Nellie_Fox
08-17-2010, 11:37 PM
The Twins should be ASHAMED of the way they won.. a Walk Off Homer?!?! that is not SMALLBALL....!! why was Thome not Sac Bunting for a TIE?!?!?!?! I do not consider the Twins win a true win because it was (1) not smallball and (2) not grindery....:angry:Brilliant. Great straw-man post.

Harry Chappas
08-18-2010, 01:29 PM
Like it or not, it won us a WS in '05.

Not true. We had mashers on that team too.