MIAMI GARDENS ? Hanley Ramirez may someday come up with no outs and the tying run on second in the ninth inning and not see a bunt sign. For now, manager Joe Girardi insists it remains part of his game.

 

Wednesday, Girardi signaled for Ramirez to sacrifice off Billy Wagner. Ramirez could not get it down, even trying with two strikes.

 

"The thing about it is if he strikes out people say maybe he should have bunted," Girardi said. "If it's a World Series game I'm bunting. You have to get it down. ... It's a job I feel he has to be capable of doing. In a few years if he grows into a different hitter in our lineup he doesn't have to do it. Right now, it's something he has to do."

 

Girardi would like to see Ramirez bunt more for base hits. He certainly has the speed and ability to do it, but Ramirez would just as soon swing away.

 

"No," said Ramirez, when asked recently if he would try to bunt more. "I don't like to do it purposely."

 

Ramirez said he never learned to bunt for hits in the minors. He's also concerned about the potential for injury.

 

"I'm afraid the ball will hit my thumb," Ramirez said, demonstrating with a bat while sitting in front of his locker.

 

While Girardi is hesitant to ask Ramirez to step outside his comfort zone, he does expect him to execute sacrifices when called on.

 

"We have talked to him about bunting more, but that has to come from within," Girardi said recently. "As he matures he will get better at it. It may never come to that, but I think it will. ... It is like trying to make a pitcher throw a pitch he does not want to throw. His heart is not going to be in it."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/basebal...-sports-marlins

Girardi needs to pull him by the jersey into the corner and teach him how to bunt correctly, and he won't get hurt. If he gets a bunt down the other day, the tying run is a sac fly/wild pitch away. That's ridiculous of him to imply bunting is not important.

That's what I said in another thread. It looks like he's afraid of getting hit with the ball when he squares up, so he kind of bunts at an angle and it goes foul. Doesn't help that he probably flinches too.

I know this has been beaten to death, but it is Girardi's job to know his personnel and use their skills. Should Hanley know how to lay down a simple bunt? Sure. But, I bet Miggy isn't a whole lot better at laying down a bunt. Do you think Girardi would ask Miggy to do it? Of course not. Girardi actually knows who on his team can bunt and who can't. In fact, Girardi pinch hit Moehler for Tank a mere one batter earlier because Moehler was the "best bunting pitcher."

 

Girardi can spend all the time he wants in the off-season and spring training teaching Hanley to bunt, but it is now August. Let's save the on-the-field teaching lessons for next season and actually try to win a few games while we're in the wild-card hunt. Hopefully, the next time Hanley needs to lay down a bunt with two strikes on him, Girardi will let him swing away.

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

 

Do you agree with Girardi's move? First, I'm not so convinced Girardi was trying to teach a lesson, as much as just get down a bunt. But, I have to believe that he knows Hanley can't bunt. So, if it is really a "teaching lesson," I think that makes it worse. JMHO.

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

 

 

Interesting indeed. But how do you feel about that as a fan?

 

And I agree, Wes Welker's the man.

The Red Sox never taught him how to bunt and it's obvious the Marlins haven't spent the needed time with him on bunting so it shouldn't come as a surprise to Girardi or anyone else that Hanley can't bunt. This article makes the move even more of a head scratcher. Why would Girardi expect Hanley to be able to sacrifice bunt when it's obvious he can't do it? Send Reggie down, spend the valuable one-on-one time with Hanley on how to bunt, and then you can expect him to lay down a sacrifice bunt.

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

 

Do you agree with Girardi's move? First, I'm not so convinced Girardi was trying to teach a lesson, as much as just get down a bunt. But, I have to believe that he knows Hanley can't bunt. So, if it is really a "teaching lesson," I think that makes it worse. JMHO.

Well, perceptions change upon the discovery of motives.

 

I don't think a player of Hanley's ability, especially in that situation, should have been asked to bunt. But I can certainly see him needing to learn to bunt. It is possible that Girardi ignored Hanley's strengths and weaknesses and called for the bunt as needed and left the bunt sign on to teach Hanley a lesson.

Ramirez said he never learned to bunt for hits in the minors.

 

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

 

:omg

 

 

Surprise of the century!

 

 

 

 

 

:shifty

I'd be more upset at Hanley's lax reaction to bunting and his seeming indifference to improving in that area than Joe's decision to bunt with him.

Hanley needs to be a man and bunt. Real men are not afraid of getting hit. Oh and he also needs to learn how to run the bases.

I just got back from the stadium for Marlins/Dodgers.

 

Hanley now has another thing to work on aside from bunting:

 

BASERUNNING

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

 

 

Damn.

 

 

I could of sworn I said that the other night in that thread.

That's what I said in another thread. It looks like he's afraid of getting hit with the ball when he squares up, so he kind of bunts at an angle and it goes foul. Doesn't help that he probably flinches too.

 

 

No doubt he needs to learn to do it. But I'm not a big fan of anyone bunting with 2 strikes on them.

Well, perceptions change upon the discovery of motives.

 

I don't think a player of Hanley's ability, especially in that situation, should have been asked to bunt. But I can certainly see him needing to learn to bunt. It is possible that Girardi ignored Hanley's strengths and weaknesses and called for the bunt as needed and left the bunt sign on to teach Hanley a lesson.

 

Could also be a rookie mistake by Girardi. If you really want that bunt laid down and the hitter coming up just can't do it then pinch hit for him. Some are turning this into a "I hate Reggie" thread but at least he can lay down a nice bunt and has the speed to make things happen on the bases as he has shown in the past. It's certainly a better thought than thinking Reggie in New Mexico magically makes Hanley a better bunter or that he can get more coaching time. Now there's the real head scratcher.

I don't ever want one of our best hitters bunting in any situation, especially when you are down to your last 3 outs. How many great hitters are asked to bunt someone over? It's not like Hanley is A-Gon or Christian Guzman or anything.

 

Even my mom thought Giradi's move was bone-headed.

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

Damn.

I could of sworn I said that the other night in that thread.

I thought your point yesterday was that Girardi's decision had to do with winning and little to do with teaching.

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

 

Do you agree with Girardi's move? First, I'm not so convinced Girardi was trying to teach a lesson, as much as just get down a bunt. But, I have to believe that he knows Hanley can't bunt. So, if it is really a "teaching lesson," I think that makes it worse. JMHO.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? :mischief2

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

 

Do you agree with Girardi's move? First, I'm not so convinced Girardi was trying to teach a lesson, as much as just get down a bunt. But, I have to believe that he knows Hanley can't bunt. So, if it is really a "teaching lesson," I think that makes it worse. JMHO.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? :mischief2

Did we win?

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

 

Do you agree with Girardi's move? First, I'm not so convinced Girardi was trying to teach a lesson, as much as just get down a bunt. But, I have to believe that he knows Hanley can't bunt. So, if it is really a "teaching lesson," I think that makes it worse. JMHO.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? :mischief2

Did we win?

Why am I not surprised by your response? As usual.

Which is one reason why I found it so interesting. Girardi taught a lesson at the expense of winning.

Damn.

I could of sworn I said that the other night in that thread.

I thought your point yesterday was that Girardi's decision had to do with winning and little to do with teaching.

no if you actually read that, i said that could be an overriding factor also, kinda pointed out as a secondary motivation by joe to call for the bunt and that sometimes you take a loss if it wiill be benefical in the long run and lead to additional wins.

I just got back from the stadium for Marlins/Dodgers.

 

Hanley now has another thing to work on aside from bunting:

 

BASERUNNING

 

You forgot fielding too. :plain :thumbdown

"Hanley On Bunting" — Sounds like the title of the worst instructional video that would (ne)ever be produced.

I don't ever want one of our best hitters bunting in any situation, especially when you are down to your last 3 outs. How many great hitters are asked to bunt someone over? It's not like Hanley is A-Gon or Christian Guzman or anything.

 

Even my mom thought Giradi's move was bone-headed.

 

 

If he was hitting around .330 with 25 HRs right now I would agree with you. But he's not. And I thought Girardi said it right when he said in a few years he may be a different type hitter but right now he needs to be able to lay down a bunt. He does have the speed to pull it off. A speedster that can lay down a bunt is a very dangerous weapon. It causes the D to think and hurry their play which can lead to all kinds of bad things for them. When they are proficient bunters it also can fool the D into rushing in and then pull back and hit a chopper over them. But unless a player is an excellent bunter, and even then rarely, I never like to see anyone attempting a bunt with 2 strikes.