August 30, 200520 yr So Delgado doubles with no outs, and Inky follows up with a bad bunt which hangs Carlos out to dry at third. Jack has said time-and-again that the players do it on their own. This morning on QAM he said that Inky was trying to bunt for a hit, or at least move CD to third. This is unacceptable. Inky should be absolutely reamed for this bad decision. There's no way you allow you #3 RBI guy to bunt in that situation. Robinson should have been all over him - did anyone see the reaction in the dugout? No way we should let players decide when to bunt, especially against a guy like Cy Carpenter. They must be instructed NOT to bunt unless Coxie gives the signal (except for JP & Looie, who have the skills to make a smart play). Rant over.........
August 30, 200520 yr I loved the decision to bunt, but I hated the bunt. Conine's a good situational hitter, and having a runner at third with 1 out in a one run game is probably the best you can hope for against Carpenter. I have no problem with the bunt (hell, I was telling my brothers that I'd probably have Enc bunt before the AB even started), I just have a problem with how lazily he bunted and how he absolutely hung Delgado out to dry.
August 30, 200520 yr ENC was probably trying to bunt for a hit, not to simply move the runner over. He is quick you know, that knowledge is lost with Luiy and Pierre being on the team.
August 30, 200520 yr the situation was not bunt friendly. with that said, I blame the coaches. They should have reminded Enc that it was not a good bunting situation.
August 30, 200520 yr It was not a bad situation to bunt. Down 1 run to Cy Young pitcher. I would bunt as well
August 30, 200520 yr the situation was not bunt friendly. with that said, I blame the coaches. They should have reminded Enc that it was not a good bunting situation. 921652[/snapback] If you're saying it wasn't bunt friendly because the move was expected, I guess so, but to me, that situation had bunt written all over it. And before you say how Encarnacion doubled in his next at bat, he struck out in his third at bat against Carpenter. Enc is a crapshoot and the only reason he's #3 on this team in RBI is because of Lowell's suckiness and Conine not being an every-day player. I like Juan, I'd even be OK with the F.O. entertaining the idea of bringing him back, but he's not an RBI machine, he had to bunt.
August 30, 200520 yr look the idea is you bunt there for at worst moving hte runner over, but with his speed and often placing bunts well he should get a hit. Does it always work? No Does it work sometimes? Yes Does it 80% of the time move the runner over at least? Yes It is baseball folks, a game that if you get a hit 1/3 times over your career you are a HOF player. We cant nit pick this one sorry.
August 30, 200520 yr Bunting, early in a game, with a man on 2d and 0 outs, and anyone but the pitcher up, is stupid. With Enc at bat, one of our best hitters (sad to say) it is even worse. Delgado was in scoring position; andthe bunt for a base hit is a low % play unless your name is Ichiro. Early in the game you have to play for the big inning almost al of the time. Even against a pitcher having a career year, given that AJ already was struggling, and that the Cardinals can score runs in bunches anyway, you can't play for just one run that early. If you "would bunt as well" you'd be a lousy manager.
August 30, 200520 yr the situation was not bunt friendly. with that said, I blame the coaches. They should have reminded Enc that it was not a good bunting situation. 921652[/snapback] If you're saying it wasn't bunt friendly because the move was expected, I guess so, but to me, that situation had bunt written all over it. And before you say how Encarnacion doubled in his next at bat, he struck out in his third at bat against Carpenter. Enc is a crapshoot and the only reason he's #3 on this team in RBI is because of Lowell's suckiness and Conine not being an every-day player. I like Juan, I'd even be OK with the F.O. entertaining the idea of bringing him back, but he's not an RBI machine, he had to bunt. 921681[/snapback] we are bunting way too much this year. IMO, the situation was not bunt friendly because: - Very early in the game - AJ didn't have good stuff and was struggling. We would need more than one or two runs to win the game - 0 outs, we had 3 opportunities to drive the run - Like it or not, Enc is our #3 RBI producer and has been hitting well btw, any hitter is a crapshoot. that's why most of them fail 70% or more. No need to take a shot at Enc :thumbup
August 30, 200520 yr We had no need to bunt with one of our best RBI guys. If it were Seabass or something I understand, but with our inconsistent offense we needed Enc to swing the bat!!!!
August 30, 200520 yr the situation was not bunt friendly. with that said, I blame the coaches. They should have reminded Enc that it was not a good bunting situation. 921652[/snapback] If you're saying it wasn't bunt friendly because the move was expected, I guess so, but to me, that situation had bunt written all over it. And before you say how Encarnacion doubled in his next at bat, he struck out in his third at bat against Carpenter. Enc is a crapshoot and the only reason he's #3 on this team in RBI is because of Lowell's suckiness and Conine not being an every-day player. I like Juan, I'd even be OK with the F.O. entertaining the idea of bringing him back, but he's not an RBI machine, he had to bunt. 921681[/snapback] we are bunting way too much this year. IMO, the situation was not bunt friendly because: - Very early in the game - AJ didn't have good stuff and was struggling. We would need more than one or two runs to win the game - 0 outs, we had 3 opportunities to drive the run - Like it or not, Enc is our #3 RBI producer and has been hitting well 921691[/snapback] Conine (the on-deck batter) is a better situational hitter than Encarnacion (exemplified by the sac-fly that produced the only run of the game), I'm fine with Jeff being put in an AB to simply drive in the tying run. The reason I say "simply the tying run" is that Alex and Treanor were batting behind Conine. It was 'Niner or nothing for that inning, Alex and Treanor sure as hell weren't going to be roping singles off Carpenter, and Enc hitting off Carpenter was a coin-flip. There were only two batter that inning who had a realistic shot of driving in the run, Conine and Enc...I have no problem with Enc making it easier on Conine. That inning was simply aimed at tying the game. Besides, you've surely heard the old baseball axiom: "at home you play for the tie, on the road, you play for the lead."
August 30, 200520 yr the situation was not bunt friendly. with that said, I blame the coaches. They should have reminded Enc that it was not a good bunting situation. 921652[/snapback] If you're saying it wasn't bunt friendly because the move was expected, I guess so, but to me, that situation had bunt written all over it. And before you say how Encarnacion doubled in his next at bat, he struck out in his third at bat against Carpenter. Enc is a crapshoot and the only reason he's #3 on this team in RBI is because of Lowell's suckiness and Conine not being an every-day player. I like Juan, I'd even be OK with the F.O. entertaining the idea of bringing him back, but he's not an RBI machine, he had to bunt. 921681[/snapback] we are bunting way too much this year. IMO, the situation was not bunt friendly because: - Very early in the game - AJ didn't have good stuff and was struggling. We would need more than one or two runs to win the game - 0 outs, we had 3 opportunities to drive the run - Like it or not, Enc is our #3 RBI producer and has been hitting well 921691[/snapback] Conine (the on-deck batter) is a better situational hitter than Encarnacion (exemplified by the sac-fly that produced the only run of the game), I'm fine with Jeff being put in an AB to simply drive in the tying run. The reason I say "simply the tying run" is that Alex and Treanor were batting behind Conine. It was 'Niner or nothing for that inning, Alex and Treanor sure as hell weren't going to be roping singles off Carpenter, and Enc hitting off Carpenter was a coin-flip. There were only two batter that inning who had a realistic shot of driving in the run, Conine and Enc...I have no problem with Enc making it easier on Conine. That inning was simply aimed at tying the game. Besides, you've surely heard the old baseball axiom: "at home you play for the tie, on the road, you play for the lead." 921696[/snapback] that's an extra innings statement btw, both arguments have merit, but most baseball people will agree that you don't bunt in that situation. If it worked we wouldn't be even having this discussion.
August 30, 200520 yr the reason why you bunt with no outs is to avoid the double play (or late in a close game - 1 run or tied - to give yourself a better chance at scoring 1), with 1st base open there was no need for that. it was a bone head decision, and to top it off it was badly executed.
August 30, 200520 yr Yea, Encarnacion has good speed, and bunting in that situation is acceptable, but Delgado was already in scoring position to begin with. Let Juan swing the bat, see if he can get a hit. Even if he bloops one out to right field, Delgado might be able to score.
August 30, 200520 yr maybe it was a good bunting situation? juan could have seen the IF not placed well and gave it a shot. after all u got one of the best pitchers up there in the league, runs arent gona come easy. doesnt matter if there is 0 outs or not. and whoever said we ar e bunting way too much i dont think thats true. i think we are bunting way to o little. especially luis and juan. and especially juan. if juan would have those 30 bunt base hits like he always does his avg would be around .290-.300 its the biggest difference in his game.
August 30, 200520 yr Jack has done this a couple times in the past week or so. A runner is on second with no outs and he decides to bunt the runner over to third, usually in anticipation of a sac fly. It's unbelievable. I didn't realize there was something wrong with scoring more than one run in an inning.
August 30, 200520 yr Jack has done this a couple times in the past week or so. A runner is on second with no outs and he decides to bunt the runner over to third, usually in anticipation of a sac fly. It's unbelievable. I didn't realize there was something wrong with scoring more than one run in an inning. 921840[/snapback] oh come on. forget billy beane for once. for each player stats are different for your chances of a run being scored. chances are that bunting would have worked better in at least moving the runner over and possibly getting a hit out of it. chances are if he didnt bunt he was going to K. im sure if you do the math it would show you how great a risk he would be King then getting a hit. the hit would have been the last percentage in the list
August 30, 200520 yr Author Jack has done this a couple times in the past week or so.? A runner is on second with no outs and he decides to bunt the runner over to third, usually in anticipation of a sac fly. It's unbelievable.? I didn't realize there was something wrong with scoring more than one run in an inning. 921840[/snapback] Remember, Jack flatly denies ordering a sac bunt before "late&close". He says players do it on their own, which leads to my next point. A "bunt-over" is successful >80% of the time. A single w/ man on second is successful maybe 32% of the time (hit, or grounder to RHS). So, short term "feel good" success points to the sac bunt. But it also points to a player who is afraid to fail. That's poison for a club hoping to go far in the post-season.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.