PDA

View Full Version : Can you remember the last time a sac bunt helped the Sox win?


tony1972
04-20-2011, 12:38 PM
Last night the Sox were down 2 to 1 and Pierre gets a lead off single in the 9th. Beckham bunts him to second. A hit ties the game.

Sunday the Sox were down 4 to 2 ..the first 2 men reach and A.J. bunts them to 2nd and 3rd..a hit ties the game..

Friday..Beckham sacrificed Pierre from 1st to 2nd in the 8th with the Sox down 4 to 3..

Watching these games on ESPN Game Day..the Angels and Rays chances of winning actually increased after the sac bunts..

Why are we consistently seeming to give free outs away to opposing pitchers late in games?

Why are we trying to play for a tie (and possible extra innings)..when a double..or a hit..keeps the inning going and the Sox could actually take the lead?

Why does it seem every time we get something of an offensive rally going..after the sac bunt is called for...the rally seems to die and the Sox leave the inning without scoring?

Can anyone remember the last time Ozzie called for a sac bunt..that actually helped the Sox win the game?

Why give away free outs to opposing pitchers and take the bats out of hitters hands on a consistent basis?

I like Ozzie..but I it's harder for me to defend him when I see these sac bunts called almost each game..:angry:

WhiteSox5187
04-20-2011, 12:45 PM
Last night's bunt made no sense, but when the team is not hitting it is hard to string together hits, so the manager tries to make something happen. On Sunday if AJ doesn't bunt we were going to need two hits to tie the game, which would be three hits in that inning. We were unlikely to get four hits in an inning off of a guy who had given up two hits all year to that point. The bunt now means that one hit ties the game. You also had a great fastball hitter in Alexei coming up next and Walden is a fastball pitcher. It was the right baseball move. But bunting last night made no sense.

soxfanatlanta
04-20-2011, 12:46 PM
Can anyone remember the last time Ozzie called for a sac bunt..that actually helped the Sox win the game?

You mean, other than the one on October 26th, 2005?

Not really :(:

kufram
04-20-2011, 12:47 PM
So many bunts... so many low scoring games. that is when they happen. I think (could be wrong) there were a lot of sacrifice bunts in '05. Iguchi knew how to do it.

WhiteSox5187
04-20-2011, 12:49 PM
So many bunts... so many low scoring games. that is when they happen. I think (could be wrong) there were a lot of sacrifice bunts in '05. Iguchi knew how to do it.

I seem to recall the Sox using the hit and run a lot more with Iguchi in the two hole, I don't remember us doing that at all this year. I don't know why we don't.

kufram
04-20-2011, 12:59 PM
I seem to recall the Sox using the hit and run a lot more with Iguchi in the two hole, I don't remember us doing that at all this year. I don't know why we don't.

I think that team knew how to play baseball. Get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in. Pitching and defense won the games. I agree with the criticism of Ozzie's game management sometimes but he did manage that team too. Give the pitchers a run or two and it held up.

Chez
04-20-2011, 01:10 PM
April 9, 2011. The one on April 13, 2011 would have helped the Sox win a game too had the bullpen not imploded in the 9th.

aryzner
04-20-2011, 01:27 PM
The Chicago White Sox are an American League team. I don't think that much more needs to be said there.

flo-B-flo
04-20-2011, 01:46 PM
After the bunt............NO clutch hitting.......pitching, defense and clutch hitting........Currently they're not getting any of the holy trinity of winning consistently..........well SOME pitching..........

tstrike2000
04-20-2011, 01:51 PM
Perhaps the Sox should start scoring more runs than the other team during the first 24 outs of the game.

doublem23
04-20-2011, 01:53 PM
Perhaps the Sox should start scoring more runs than the other team during the first 24 outs of the game.

http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/mlb/players/full/5650.png&w=350&h=254
Yeah, then it's Matt's time to shine!!!

tstrike2000
04-20-2011, 01:55 PM
http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/mlb/players/full/5650.png&w=350&h=254
Yeah, then it's Matt's time to shine!!!

Whenever the next save opportunity is, I don't think we need to worry about Thornton being in there.

doublem23
04-20-2011, 02:03 PM
Whenever the next save opportunity is, I don't think we need to worry about Thornton being in there.

:ozzie
Haven't been paying attention to how I manage, huh?

BringHomeDaBacon
04-20-2011, 02:09 PM
Tie or die trying

Foulke You
04-20-2011, 02:25 PM
Last night the Sox were down 2 to 1 and Pierre gets a lead off single in the 9th. Beckham bunts him to second. A hit ties the game.

Sunday the Sox were down 4 to 2 ..the first 2 men reach and A.J. bunts them to 2nd and 3rd..a hit ties the game..

Friday..Beckham sacrificed Pierre from 1st to 2nd in the 8th with the Sox down 4 to 3..

Watching these games on ESPN Game Day..the Angels and Rays chances of winning actually increased after the sac bunts..

Why are we consistently seeming to give free outs away to opposing pitchers late in games?

Why are we trying to play for a tie (and possible extra innings)..when a double..or a hit..keeps the inning going and the Sox could actually take the lead?

Why does it seem every time we get something of an offensive rally going..after the sac bunt is called for...the rally seems to die and the Sox leave the inning without scoring?

Can anyone remember the last time Ozzie called for a sac bunt..that actually helped the Sox win the game?

Why give away free outs to opposing pitchers and take the bats out of hitters hands on a consistent basis?

I like Ozzie..but I it's harder for me to defend him when I see these sac bunts called almost each game..:angry:
The sac bunts worked like a charm in 2005 because it seemed like the team always executed them perfectly and the next guy would more often than not, drive them in. This was the only season in the Ozzie era that I can remember it working well. The term "Ozzieball/Smartball" was born. Sadly, it has failed miserably since then. The recent vintage Sox lineups simply aren't built to play that style but Ozzie stubbornly clings to it.

kufram
04-20-2011, 02:32 PM
the rest of this thread is painfully predictable

WhiteSox5187
04-20-2011, 02:33 PM
The sac bunts worked like a charm in 2005 because it seemed like the team always executed them perfectly and the next guy would more often than not, drive them in. This was the only season in the Ozzie era that I can remember it working well. The term "Ozzieball/Smartball" was born. Sadly, it has failed miserably since then. The recent vintage Sox lineups simply aren't built to play that style but Ozzie stubbornly clings to it.

It's not like he's asking guys like Konerko to bunt, the problem is that in 2005 they came through with the clutch hit, they aren't anywhere near as clutch now. Even with a good sac bunt you still need a base hit to bring in the guy you moved over and we can't do that right now and we haven't been able to do it for awhile.

tstrike2000
04-20-2011, 03:02 PM
:ozzie
Haven't been paying attention to how I manage, huh?

http://www.reelyredd.com/fikkle/ffo/ozzie-guillen1.jpg

"Hey, I use Will Ohman for closer next. Lefty specialist, my churro. He no choke like Thornton."

PatK
04-20-2011, 03:54 PM
I seem to recall the Sox using the hit and run a lot more with Iguchi in the two hole, I don't remember us doing that at all this year. I don't know why we don't.

Iguchi could handle the bat pretty well.

IIRC, he led the AL in productive outs in 2005

Tragg
04-20-2011, 04:03 PM
I'd much rather see some stealing efforts, even if it fails, than this bunting business. Do a hit and run, get Pierre running, mess with their D (and I know Tampa plays good D). Shake it up.

kufram
04-20-2011, 04:09 PM
Podsednik and Iguchi were great table setters. It seems so many times Pods would lead off with walk/hit, Iguchi would take a pitch or two for Pods to steal second then hit a grounder to the right side to get him to third and Paulie would drive him in. Actual baseball.

tony1972
04-20-2011, 04:18 PM
Whenever the next save opportunity is, I don't think we need to worry about Thornton being in there.

We'll only see 5 more blown saves before Santos is even considered to be the pitcher in the 9th...

But I dont think this is necessarily Ozzie's call..although he is the manager..I think a lot of times players are put into situations because of others in the organization?

tony1972
04-20-2011, 04:22 PM
Last night's bunt made no sense, but when the team is not hitting it is hard to string together hits, so the manager tries to make something happen. On Sunday if AJ doesn't bunt we were going to need two hits to tie the game, which would be three hits in that inning. We were unlikely to get four hits in an inning off of a guy who had given up two hits all year to that point. The bunt now means that one hit ties the game. You also had a great fastball hitter in Alexei coming up next and Walden is a fastball pitcher. It was the right baseball move. But bunting last night made no sense.

I agree that once in a while..the sac bunt wins a game..but more often than not..you (1) Give the opposing pitcher a free out (2) the opposing pitcher is now a bit more relaxed as he realizes he has one less out to get out of the inning (3) offensive rallies that start are snuffed out b/c you just took the bat our of a hitters hands and (4) 1 out of 10 times..the sac bunt wins the game..9 out of 10 times...the sac bunt kills the offensive rally..gives your team one less out to work with to overcome the lead and I think is just demoralizing to the hitters...

If sac bunts are an advantage..why do a teams chances of winning on Game Day always drop after a sac bunt is executed?

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2011, 04:27 PM
I agree that once in a while..the sac bunt wins a game..but more often than not..you (1) Give the opposing pitcher a free out (2) the opposing pitcher is now a bit more relaxed as he realizes he has one less out to get out of the inning (3) offensive rallies that start are snuffed out b/c you just took the bat our of a hitters hands and (4) 1 out of 10 times..the sac bunt wins the game..9 out of 10 times...the sac bunt kills the offensive rally..gives your team one less out to work with to overcome the lead and I think is just demoralizing to the hitters...And yet so many of you guys are just fine with high-strikeout guys, who "give the opposing pitcher a free out," and he "has one less out to get out of the inning," and "kills the offensive rally" while not doing anything at all productive, while the bunt at least advances the runner(s).

I'd be willing to bet that a team is more likely to score after a successful sacrifice bunt than they are after a strikeout, all other variables being the same.

Crestani
04-20-2011, 04:37 PM
And yet so many of you guys are just fine with high-strikeout guys, who "give the opposing pitcher a free out," and he "has one less out to get out of the inning," and "kills the offensive rally" while not doing anything at all productive, while the bunt at least advances the runner(s).

I'd be willing to bet that a team is more likely to score after a successful sacrifice bunt than they are after a strikeout, all other variables being the same.

Finally, words of reason...!!!

It was the right baseball move to sacrifice him over last night. The problem right now is Dunn in the 3 hole..!!

Gavin
04-20-2011, 04:39 PM
And yet so many of you guys are just fine with high-strikeout guys, who "give the opposing pitcher a free out," and he "has one less out to get out of the inning," and "kills the offensive rally" while not doing anything at all productive, while the bunt at least advances the runner(s).

Juan Pierre has been known to steal bases. Bunting a basestealer to second is not that type of sac bunt that helps much.

tony1972
04-20-2011, 05:12 PM
And yet so many of you guys are just fine with high-strikeout guys, who "give the opposing pitcher a free out," and he "has one less out to get out of the inning," and "kills the offensive rally" while not doing anything at all productive, while the bunt at least advances the runner(s).

I'd be willing to bet that a team is more likely to score after a successful sacrifice bunt than they are after a strikeout, all other variables being the same.

So does a single or a double or even a walk that doesn't result in an out...:smile:

Foulke You
04-20-2011, 05:13 PM
It's not like he's asking guys like Konerko to bunt, the problem is that in 2005 they came through with the clutch hit, they aren't anywhere near as clutch now. Even with a good sac bunt you still need a base hit to bring in the guy you moved over and we can't do that right now and we haven't been able to do it for awhile.
I agree that we aren't as clutch which is why we need as many outs as we can to try to get that run home with this offense. With all the power in the lineup, this offense constructed for the "big inning". This goes against Ozzie's constant strategy of playing for one run. When you sac bunt, you are playing for one run and this offense needs to play for the big HR or the bases clearing double.

Also, I realize Oz isn't having the sluggers bunt but we've all seen him have guys that shouldn't be bunting up there trying to sac bunt. Alexei Ramirez is a perfect example of this. I even remember watching Ramon Castro try to bunt last year on a sacrifice that he popped up to the catcher. Having guys who are poor at bunting only compounds the offensive issues because if he doesn't move the runner over (which we've seen many times) you LITERALLY wasted an out by having the sac bunt pop out or the lead runner thrown out at 2B because the ball dribbled in front of the catcher.

tony1972
04-20-2011, 05:15 PM
I agree that we aren't as clutch which is why we need as many outs as we can to try to get that run home with this offense. With all the power in the lineup, this offense constructed for the "big inning". This goes against Ozzie's constant strategy of playing for one run. When you sac bunt, you are playing for one run and this offense needs to play for the big HR or the bases clearing double.

Also, I realize Oz isn't having the sluggers bunt but we've all seen him have guys that shouldn't be bunting up there trying to sac bunt. Alexei Ramirez is a perfect example of this. I even remember watching Ramon Castro try to bunt last year on a sacrifice that he popped up to the catcher. Having guys who are poor at bunting only compounds the offensive issues because if he doesn't move the runner over (which we've seen many times) you LITERALLY wasted an out by having the sac bunt pop out or the lead runner thrown out at 2B because the ball dribbled in front of the catcher.

Shhh!!!...I think it's a violation of 'Small Ball' to score more than one run in an inning...

A 2 run homer..or a guy scoring from 1st on a double is not very Grinder Like...

WhiteSox5187
04-20-2011, 05:40 PM
I agree that we aren't as clutch which is why we need as many outs as we can to try to get that run home with this offense. With all the power in the lineup, this offense constructed for the "big inning". This goes against Ozzie's constant strategy of playing for one run. When you sac bunt, you are playing for one run and this offense needs to play for the big HR or the bases clearing double.

Also, I realize Oz isn't having the sluggers bunt but we've all seen him have guys that shouldn't be bunting up there trying to sac bunt. Alexei Ramirez is a perfect example of this. I even remember watching Ramon Castro try to bunt last year on a sacrifice that he popped up to the catcher. Having guys who are poor at bunting only compounds the offensive issues because if he doesn't move the runner over (which we've seen many times) you LITERALLY wasted an out by having the sac bunt pop out or the lead runner thrown out at 2B because the ball dribbled in front of the catcher.

I would argue that when you're bunting guys over to second and third you're actually playing for two runs. Yea, a sac fly gets you one, but a base hit gets you two. When you're bunting just one guy over to second or third, then you're playing for one run. Sometimes that makes sense though. We're bunting now because no one is hitting. When no one is hitting you either have to try and make something happen or sit back and wait for people to hit. What I don't get though is why we aren't trying to steal or hit and run more often.

WhiteSox5187
04-20-2011, 05:43 PM
And yet so many of you guys are just fine with high-strikeout guys, who "give the opposing pitcher a free out," and he "has one less out to get out of the inning," and "kills the offensive rally" while not doing anything at all productive, while the bunt at least advances the runner(s).

I'd be willing to bet that a team is more likely to score after a successful sacrifice bunt than they are after a strikeout, all other variables being the same.

I don't get this either, a guy swinging for the fences when a base hit will win or tie the game and he strikes out? That's okay. A guy lays down a sac bunt and moves two guys into scoring position? YOU'RE GIVING AWAY OUTS! AGGGH! The concept of productive outs is evidently dead.

BringHomeDaBacon
04-20-2011, 06:12 PM
I don't get this either, a guy swinging for the fences when a base hit will win or tie the game and he strikes out? That's okay. A guy lays down a sac bunt and moves two guys into scoring position? YOU'RE GIVING AWAY OUTS! AGGGH! The concept of productive outs is evidently dead.

And apparently you don't understand the difference between a "productive out" and a "sacrifice." In the former the hitter was originally attempting to actually get a hit and happens to move the runner along in the course of making an out whereby in the latter he is forgoing that opportunity to swing the bat and is content to take the out. How the **** is that difficult to understand?

WhiteSox5187
04-20-2011, 06:41 PM
And apparently you don't understand the difference between a "productive out" and a "sacrifice." In the former the hitter was originally attempting to actually get a hit and happens to move the runner along in the course of making an out whereby in the latter he is forgoing that opportunity to swing the bat and is content to take the out. How the **** is that difficult to understand?

A sacrifice bunt is a productive out.

russ99
04-20-2011, 06:48 PM
The Chicago White Sox are an American League team. I don't think that much more needs to be said there.

That's bunk. Doesn't matter what league your in, there are many ways to win.

Seems some prefer no bunts and the Sox scoring zero runs swinging for the fences, which was a flaw of more than a few Sox teams in recent years.

If bunting to manufacture runs is so bad, why don't we give that World Series trophy back?

Brian26
04-20-2011, 07:45 PM
A sacrifice bunt is a productive out.

In the 9th inning, on the road, when you are trailing in the game, outs are more important than bases.

WhiteSox5187
04-20-2011, 08:36 PM
In the 9th inning, on the road, when you are trailing in the game, outs are more important than bases.

I didn't like the call last night, but usually I would rather be in a position where one hit can tie or win the game rather than two. Especially when you have a team that is struggling to hit

A. Cavatica
04-20-2011, 09:51 PM
I thought "playing for one run" was about innings, but the Sox have apparently taken it to mean games.

Bobotty13
04-20-2011, 11:48 PM
I can't even remember the last time they won, with or without a sac bunt

pudge
04-21-2011, 12:16 AM
The concept of the sacrifice bunt as a productive out is such a load of garbage. Granted, it's all philosophical. But I absolutely hate the sac bunt in nearly every situation, especially in the AL. Still, I am willing to admit there are situations when it's okay. Yet Ozzie does it EVERY time without even thinking about the situation.

AJ's bunt in the 9th against the Angels (which was successful!) was a HORRIBLE decisions. You just took pressure off a pitcher who had allowed the first two runners on in the 9th. On top of all that, even after the sac bunt, the best you could do was tie the game. It's far better to go for the jugular when you have a pitcher on the ropes like that. Again, it's philosophical, I just hate it.

And this doesn't even begin to address all the times we've tried to sac bunt and FAILED!

Frankfan4life
04-21-2011, 12:22 AM
Last night's bunt made no sense, but when the team is not hitting it is hard to string together hits, so the manager tries to make something happen. On Sunday if AJ doesn't bunt we were going to need two hits to tie the game, which would be three hits in that inning. We were unlikely to get four hits in an inning off of a guy who had given up two hits all year to that point. The bunt now means that one hit ties the game. You also had a great fastball hitter in Alexei coming up next and Walden is a fastball pitcher. It was the right baseball move. But bunting last night made no sense.
And then what do we do? It's also unlikely we're going to score again even if we tie the game, so why not just try to win it?

Tie or die trying:kneeslap:Thanks for making me laugh. I needed that.

Hendu
04-21-2011, 09:37 AM
The concept of the sacrifice bunt as a productive out is such a load of garbage.

Agreed. I'm fine with an actual productive out because every time you swing the bat even if you're just trying to hit to the right side, there's a chance that the ball finds a hole, or good contact can be made. But if you fail, at least the runners were able to advance.

Sac bunts do have their place in the game, but Ozzie has been calling for them way too often. If Juan Pierre has to have someone sacrifice to get him from first to second, then what is the point of having him on the team? Bad defense in left field, no power, doesn't get on base and can't steal second?

Nellie_Fox
04-21-2011, 11:04 AM
Agreed. I'm fine with an actual productive out because every time you swing the bat even if you're just trying to hit to the right side, there's a chance that the ball finds a hole, or good contact can be made. But if you fail, at least the runners were able to advance.

Sac bunts do have their place in the game, but Ozzie has been calling for them way too often. If Juan Pierre has to have someone sacrifice to get him from first to second, then what is the point of having him on the team? Bad defense in left field, no power, doesn't get on base and can't steal second?Juan isn't bad defensively, he just has a bad arm.

BringHomeDaBacon
04-21-2011, 11:17 AM
Juan isn't bad defensively, he just has a bad arm.

His bad arm makes him a bad defender. Or at the very least, a defensive liability.

Dibbs
04-21-2011, 11:35 AM
If Juan Pierre has to have someone sacrifice to get him from first to second, then what is the point of having him on the team? Bad defense in left field, no power, doesn't get on base and can't steal second?

I couldn't agree more with this. Pierre is worthless offensively if it were not for the threat of stealing bases. If he can't even do that, he should be off the team.

I have been saying for years Ozzie needs to cool it with the sacrifice bunting. It has been time for a change for a while now. It just takes a much longer time for some people to see the light and admit they are wrong about Ozzie's capabilities, or lack thereof.

Chez
04-21-2011, 11:37 AM
His bad arm makes him a bad defender. Or at the very least, a defensive liability.

Over the years, there have been lots of noodle-armed outfielders who were above average defenders: Lance Johnson, Curtis Granderson, Grady Sizemore, Johnny Damon (in his prime) etc. I don't agree that bad arm = bad defender. Especially in left.

BringHomeDaBacon
04-21-2011, 11:44 AM
Over the years, there have been lots of noodle-armed outfielders who were above average defenders: Lance Johnson, Curtis Granderson, Grady Sizemore, Johnny Damon (in his prime) etc. I don't agree that bad arm = bad defender. Especially in left.

I agree with you but just because he has a noodle arm and is fast like the aforementioned doesn't mean that he can go and get it like they can. He's more Scott Podsednik than any of those guys.

Nellie_Fox
04-21-2011, 11:53 AM
I agree with you but just because he has a noodle arm and is fast like the aforementioned doesn't mean that he can go and get it like they can. He's more Scott Podsednik than any of those guys.I absolutely disagree. Pierre gets much better reads and jumps than Podsednik.

BringHomeDaBacon
04-21-2011, 11:57 AM
I absolutely disagree. Pierre gets much better reads and jumps than Podsednik.

I didn't assert whether I thought he was better, worse or the same as Pods. As far as I'm concerned they're both in the crappy defender category.

Nellie_Fox
04-21-2011, 01:08 PM
I didn't assert whether I thought he was better, worse or the same as Pods.
Yeah, actually, you did.

Tragg
04-21-2011, 04:45 PM
I don't get this either, a guy swinging for the fences when a base hit will win or tie the game and he strikes out? That's okay. A guy lays down a sac bunt and moves two guys into scoring position? YOU'RE GIVING AWAY OUTS! AGGGH! The concept of productive outs is evidently dead.
yes, because in most cases outs are not productive......including the 2 recent 9th inning guillen-ordered outs.