PDA

View Full Version : Bad Baseball BY JM and PK!


DirtySouthsider
05-29-2003, 11:41 AM
I believe it was in the 7th inning of Wed's game, the Sox were up 2-0, no outs and runners on 1st and 2nd, Paul Konerko up......and HE NOT BUNT THE RUNNERS OVER! This is just horrible baseball. I know Hawk and DJ touched on it to.....but they wouldn't actually take a stand on the issue.
I don't care who you are...you BUNT....it is one of the basic fundamentals of the game......ESPECIALLY the way Paul is swinging the bat! Of course......He hit into another Double Play!
If he can't bunt.....pinch it! Those insurance runs are huge against an offense like Toronto.
Even if Manuel doesn't make the call himself then Paul should take it upon himself to take one for the team!!!
I can go on and on forever.....but I think you get my point!

Dadawg_77
05-29-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
I believe it was in the 7th inning of Wed's game, the Sox were up 2-0, no outs and runners on 1st and 2nd, Paul Konerko up......and HE NOT BUNT THE RUNNERS OVER! This is just horrible baseball. I know Hawk and DJ touched on it to.....but they wouldn't actually take a stand on the issue.
I don't care who you are...you BUNT....it is one of the basic fundamentals of the game......ESPECIALLY the way Paul is swinging the bat! Of course......He hit into another Double Play!
If he can't bunt.....pinch it! Those insurance runs are huge against an offense like Toronto.
Even if Manuel doesn't make the call himself then Paul should take it upon himself to take one for the team!!!
I can go on and on forever.....but I think you bet my point!

You don't bunt. You never give up an out to move runners over, while that seems to be a good idea on the surface what you are doing is moving from a more valuable (probability of scoring runs) situation to a less valuable one. There is a higher probability that you will score runs with first and second and no outs then second and third one out.

A.T. Money
05-29-2003, 12:13 PM
Konerko is currently ranked #2 in the MLB in GIDP with 11 behind Jeff Bagwell (12).

DirtySouthsider
05-29-2003, 12:22 PM
I don't understand that way of thinking. I believe it is easier to hit a fly ball to the outfield to score the runner from 3rd than it is to get a base hit. Plus with runners on 2nd and 3rd there is no chance of a double play.
Granted if you don't sacrifice you have one more out to work with, which gives you an extra at bat. But you must get a base hit to score.
But with all things considered....in last nights game, given who was at bat I bunt or pinch hit for someone who can bunt.

ChiSoxBobette
05-29-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
You don't bunt. You never give up an out to move runners over, while that seems to be a good idea on the surface what you are doing is moving from a more valuable (probability of scoring runs) situation to a less valuable one. There is a higher probability that you will score runs with first and second and no outs then second and third one out.

You must be joking right, Right. Of course you bunt for one thing Paul Konerko is up and he's only running second to I think Bagwell in hitting into double plays, then you have to take into account the pathetic white sox hitting , how many times this year have we had men at 2nd or 3rd no outs and scored nobody because we are'nt aggressive & can't hit with men in scoring position. At least if we bunt them over to 2nd & 3rd theres a chance someone (god anyone) will hit a flyball, hit to the right side, GET A FRIGGIN HIT or in the case of the Sox hope the pitcher throws a wild one. All you have to do is watch the hated twinkies to see how baseball should be played, bunts runners over, hits fly balls with men at 3rd less than 2 outs, hits to the right side with either a man at 2nd so he gets over to 3rd or a man at 3rd so that runner scores. The White Sox whole offense is based on someone getting on and the next guy hitting a homerun and as we've seen the last 3 years its not the style of baseball that gets you into 1st place , the playoofs or the world series. So hell yeah you bunt I don't care who's up at bat!

Brian26
05-29-2003, 01:14 PM
Hawk and DJ touched on it in the sense that they were talking about how many major leaguers today, especially power hitters in the middle of the lineup, either can't bunt or refuse to bunt. Hawk brought up Mickey Mantle as an example of someone who could bunt. DJ touched on Dave Winfield as a bunter. This conversation took place during the first pitches of the at-bat. Finally, just before Konerko hit into the double play, Hawk said, "Go ahead and knock them in, Pauly". Not sure what Hawk's true feelings are on the subject, but the comment seemed a bit sarcastic underneath its optimistic tone.

Dadawg_77
05-29-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by ChiSoxBob
You must be joking right, Right. Of course you bunt for one thing Paul Konerko is up and he's only running second to I think Bagwell in hitting into double plays, then you have to take into account the pathetic white sox hitting , how many times this year have we had men at 2nd or 3rd no outs and scored nobody because we are'nt aggressive & can't hit with men in scoring position. At least if we bunt them over to 2nd & 3rd theres a chance someone (god anyone) will hit a flyball, hit to the right side, GET A FRIGGIN HIT or in the case of the Sox hope the pitcher throws a wild one. All you have to do is watch the hated twinkies to see how baseball should be played, bunts runners over, hits fly balls with men at 3rd less than 2 outs, hits to the right side with either a man at 2nd so he gets over to 3rd or a man at 3rd so that runner scores. The White Sox whole offense is based on someone getting on and the next guy hitting a homerun and as we've seen the last 3 years its not the style of baseball that gets you into 1st place , the playoofs or the world series. So hell yeah you bunt I don't care who's up at bat!

You points are wrong. Look at the historical data of baseball, using that you see that sacafice bunting only prevents you from scroing runs. While is seems to be the best strategy at its face, it isn't. There have been several studies on how to score, one was published in the Harvard Magazine, and every time the conclusion is sacafice bunting hurts you more then it helps you. The key to scoring runs is getting on base not getting out.

Actually the Sox tend to be to aggressive on the base paths and in the batters box. The need to wait for thier pitch instead of hacking away. In 2000 one of the things Von Jousha made key was knowing what a ball and what a strike was. Watch the Sox they are swinging at bad pitches trying to make something happen, and the only thing you make happen while doing that is outs.

Dadawg_77
05-29-2003, 01:20 PM
Here is the Harvard study

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050221.html

Kilroy
05-29-2003, 01:46 PM
The one and ONLY reason to bunt last night was that at the moment, Konerko can't hit:

a bull in the ass with a banjo,

water if he fell out of a boat,

the broad side of a barn,

ice if he was standing in an igloo....


That, and that alone was reason to bunt...

DirtySouthsider
05-29-2003, 01:53 PM
So according to this Harvard "geek" the sacrifice should NOT be apart of baseball !?! I still don't believe it. Mostly because he does not take into account who is pitching or who is batting. Baseball is all about situations and match ups not about some geek he added up a bunch of numbers.

Dadawg_77
05-29-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
The one and ONLY reason to bunt last night was that at the moment, Konerko can't hit:

a bull in the ass with a banjo,

water if he fell out of a boat,

the broad side of a barn,

ice if he was standing in an igloo....


That, and that alone was reason to bunt...

No that why Konerko shouldn't be in the lineup.

Dadawg_77
05-29-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
So according to this Harvard "geek" the sacrifice should NOT be apart of baseball !?! I still don't believe it. Mostly because he does not take into account who is pitching or who is batting. Baseball is all about situations and match ups not about some geek he added up a bunch of numbers.

That is a great menality to have there.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-29-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No that is why Konerko shouldn't be in the lineup.

LOL! Good one. :smile:

I'm guessing you think Konerko is vastly overpaid, too.

:gulp:

xil357
05-29-2003, 02:03 PM
Statistics are all well and good, and I'll have to read the Harvard study more, but stats can be misleading. A certain amount of "luck" is involved as well.

Furthermore, does the study account for differences between managerial styles according to personnel? For example, maybe teams that don't have a great deal of power and therfore don't produce runs in bunches are forced to rely on situational hitting, bunting, stealing bases to squeak out wins. (Think of the Cardinals under Whitey Herzog). A lot of the style of ball you play depends on the strenghts and abilities of your personnel, the stadium in which you play, the weather conditions, the opposing pitcher and team, etc.

The best managers know how to utilize the strengths of their personnel and adjust their strategy accordingly. Blame JM if you must, but he only can send out those players that are on the roster. With a roster that is full of slow-footed right-handed power-hitting two-toed sloths, there is only so much that the manager can do. You have to rely on the Earl Weaver strategy of waiting for the three-run homer. When your hitters don't hit, you are screwed.

Oakland has success with little bunting and finishing last in steals. But notice that they have plenty of left-handed bats, play better defense and have a better starting rotation.

With a Sox lineup that as a whole is batting well below their career averages and heretofore demonstrated capabilities, you have a recipe for disaster.

DirtySouthsider
05-29-2003, 02:06 PM
I am assuming you are refering to my use of the word geek.
But maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word. A geek is someone who is scietifically sound but socially inept. I believe that is what your Harvard guy appears to be.

DirtySouthsider
05-29-2003, 02:11 PM
Toronto is leading the AL in runs scored but last night was only the second time they had a sacrfice bunt. Does that mean that are playing baseball the way it is supposed to be played? NO. It just means that they have a line up full of guys who have been killing the ball.

Dadawg_77
05-29-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
LOL! Good one. :smile:

I'm guessing you think Konerko is vastly overpaid, too.

:gulp:

Yes but not because I foresaw what he is doing now but the Sox could have signed a quality replacement for a lot less. The Sox overpaid Paul cause on the baseball market conditions dictated he value was lower. If you are running team with a budget like the Sox you can't afford to overpay for players.

joecrede
05-29-2003, 02:16 PM
You can't bunt in that situation because #1 Konerko isn't a very good bunter, and more importantly #2 Konerko is 50 or so games into a 3 year, $24M contract, buting there is like telling anyone who would listen what a huge mistake that contract was.

doublem23
05-29-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
So according to this Harvard "geek" the sacrifice should NOT be apart of baseball !?! I still don't believe it. Mostly because he does not take into account who is pitching or who is batting. Baseball is all about situations and match ups not about some geek he added up a bunch of numbers.

Yeah, the Earth is flat, too (pun intended).

Kilroy
05-29-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
You can't bunt in that situation because #1 Konerko isn't a very good bunter, and more importantly #2 Konerko is 50 or so games into a 3 year, $24M contract, buting there is like telling anyone who would listen what a huge mistake that contract was.

Oh bull****.

1. Konerko is in the major ****ing leagues. He, along with every other player, should be able to get a bunt down when it's called for.

2. The fact that Konerko was a middle of the pack 1B when they signed the deal in the first place was evidence that it was a mistake. Him bunting last night would have just said "hey, I can't hit myself it the head with a hat right now, so I'm bunting."

DirtySouthsider
05-29-2003, 02:25 PM
So do you think you are hiding the fact that PK is only hitting .200 and is overpaid by telling him not to bunt???


The #1 reason the sox suck is......FUNDAMENTALS!

Dadawg_77
05-29-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by DirtySouthsider
The #1 reason the sox suck is......FUNDAMENTALS!

.318 OPB is the number one reason the Sox are not playing up to par.

soxrme
05-29-2003, 02:51 PM
Yes he should have bunted, he hasn't hit a lick all season. He has been hitting into double plays all year! If he can't bunt then they should have put in a pinch hitter for him, Rios or Graffinino. Paulie has got to get his head out of his ass and JM has got to start managing like a major league manager. :angry: :angry: :angry:

maurice
05-29-2003, 04:25 PM
The linked article does not go into much detail concerning this Harvard chap's methodology. In any event, I don't think this is something you can reduce to math. A proper analysis of sacrifice bunting would need to distinguish scores of situations. For example, it's clearly bad to sacrifice bunt with a 1.000 OPS hitter, a runner on first, in the ninth inning, down by five runs. OTOH, it's good to sacrifice bunt with a .220 hitter in a number of situations, including: (1) runners on first and second and no outs late in a tied ballgame; or (2) runner on third, one out, and the infield playing back.

Also, keep in mind that teams are not very good at defending the bunt, and it frequently results in an infield hit or an error.

DirtySouthsider
05-29-2003, 04:43 PM
If it's Barry Bonds at bat with 0 outs, runners on 1st and 2nd and facing Rick White......SWING AWAY!

If it's Paul Konerko in the same situation YOU HAVE TO BUNT or tell him to lean into one and take one for the team!

DirtySouthsider
05-29-2003, 10:07 PM
They did it again tonight!(Thurs.) This time with Crede. He was up with no outs,runners on 1st and 2nd and he was swinging away...........and of course he struck out!

GET THE GUYS OVER!