PDA

View Full Version : Reds need to bunt more often!!!!!!



WVPacman
05-15-2006, 01:27 AM
What is the deal with these players,are they afraid bunting might hurt their batting average?? The last two games we have been in a scoreless game or tied one to one,It would be a perfect time to drop down a bunt for a base hit to start off the inning.Now why they don't do it is beyond me but in those kind of games a bunt would be the perfect opertunity to drop a bunt down and start off an inning with a hit so the next guy could bunt you into scoring position.


This brings me to Griffey and Dunn!! these two guys had 2 or three chances to do the very same thing to start off an inning during the last two games.The infielders play both of them to pull the ball so why don't they drop a bunt down for a EASY basehit to start off the inning?? Is their ego way to big to do something like that b/c they are power hitters?? If so then the manager and coachs need to sit them down and tell them there might come a time that we need a base runner when the score is tied or we are losing by one run so that we can get you in scoring position and hopfully score.Don't get me wrong it just is'nt Griffey and Dunn its everybody.Freel and Lopez had just has many chances to do the very same thing and they did'nt even try.Those two I would exspect a bunt for a basehit try were they are so fast but they did'nt even try.Oh well hopfully they will start doing it!!!!

TeamBoone
05-15-2006, 01:32 AM
Chris Welsh has mentioned this during the past two games.

I've seen Jr bunt before, though not often... in fact, probably once.

I'm not against using this tactic with power hitters, but I sure as heck don't want them trying to do it just because it looks like a good situational ploy at a given point in time during the game.

Before they are asked to do this, I hope the manager is smart enough to make sure they know how to execute it or the team is just shooting itself in the foot.

Do you really think Griffey/Dunn/Kearns have received bunting instruction?

KronoRed
05-15-2006, 01:44 AM
If they were told to bunt they would.

WVPacman
05-15-2006, 01:44 AM
Yes thats what im talking about!! I don't want to see them bunt every other time they go up there.I just want to see them bunt like when the score is tied in the late innings or we are losing by a run or two.Thats when I think they should bunt!!!


I agree with you about the hitting coach should get these guys in the batting cage and practice them about how to lay a perfect bunt down.

No I don't think that JR,Dunn,Kearns have even recieved bunting instructions and IMO I think that batters even if you are a power hitter should be one of the first things that you should really practice and know how to do b/c you might be asked to lay down a bunt in a game.

Cedric
05-15-2006, 01:48 AM
I don't wanna ever see Jr, Dunn, Kearns, or Felipe bunt.

Just my opinion.

WVPacman
05-15-2006, 01:50 AM
If they were told to bunt they would.


True Krono, some of the blame should be put on the manager as well b/c a player does what the manager tells him to do and if he does'nt tell them to bunt then its mostly his fault.We are talking about MLB players here and they should'nt have to be told when to bunt and when not to.When these guys go up there to bat in the late innings with the score tied they should automaticly think we need a base runner so I should bunt an catch them off guard.Right??

RANDY IN INDY
05-15-2006, 08:02 AM
I would like to see Griffey and Dunn lay down the bunt and take the occasional "freebie" when the shift is put on.

RedsBaron
05-15-2006, 09:32 AM
I am very much a disciple of the Ted Williams school of hitting (not that I ever had the physical ability to follow Teddy Ballgame's instructions). For that reason, among others, I generally reject the non-stop criticism of Adam Dunn supposedly walking too much-Willams was criticized for the same supposed failing.
However, on the issue of bunting, Ted Williams himself, slumping in the 1946 World Series, bunted for a hit. If Ted could do it, I would have no problem at all with Dunn or Junior laying down a bunt on occassion.

Johnny Footstool
05-15-2006, 10:53 AM
A bunt would have *possibly* earned a baserunner. OTOH, a home run would have tied the game.

Dunn is the team's best HR hitter, so I'd rather have him swing away.

Puffy
05-15-2006, 12:18 PM
Yeah, bunting is hard. It isn't as easy as saying "the shift is on. I'm gonna lay one down the third base line far enough left so the pitcher can't field it but not far left so it goes foul, blah, blah"

Bunting is not easy. Thats why pitchers spend so much time working on it.

BRM
05-15-2006, 12:25 PM
I bunt would have *possibly* earned a baserunner. OTOH, a home run would have tied the game.

Dunn is the team's best HR hitter, so I'd rather have him swing away.

What he said.

Danny Serafini
05-15-2006, 12:35 PM
The last thing I want to see is a power hitter bunt. If the point is to get on base, then let them get on base the easiest way for them, instead of something more difficult. If Freel wants to try and beat out a bunt single, go for it. It makes no sense for Dunn to try it, because he's got other ways of getting on that he's much better at.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 12:37 PM
Dunn and Griffey have a better chance to get a walk in most instances than to lay one down.

RFS62
05-15-2006, 12:57 PM
Yeah, bunting is hard. It isn't as easy as saying "the shift is on. I'm gonna lay one down the third base line far enough left so the pitcher can't field it but not far left so it goes foul, blah, blah"

Bunting is not easy. Thats why pitchers spend so much time working on it.



Exactly.

Especially hard if you don't practice it.

RANDY IN INDY
05-15-2006, 12:58 PM
I'm not advocating that they make a habit of it, but I know if I were in the situation of having infields shift dramatically to the right, I would be working on having that bunt in my arsenal should the situation arise and the "team" need it. These guys are not chopped liver. They can get a bunt down if they work at it a little, and they have plenty of time to work at it. I think the real question is, "Do they want to work at it." Granted, they are not paid to be slap hitting bunt men, but having the ability to get a baserunner on in a situatiion when a game is on the line and they are flat out giving it to you should outweigh any perception that a player has of himself. I say be prepared to pull it off.

RFS62
05-15-2006, 01:01 PM
I think the real question is, "Do they want to work at it." Granted, they are not paid to be slap hitting bunt men, but having the ability to get a baserunner on in a situatiion when a game is on the line and they are flat out giving it to you should outweigh any perception that a player has of himself. I say be prepared to pull it off.


How funny that it's considered putting in extra work. It's part of the basic fundamentals of playing the game to know how to lay down a bunt. Sluggers throughout history have resisted it, but if they laid one down the line a time or two, maybe the shift would be on less often.

Roy Tucker
05-15-2006, 01:08 PM
I seem to recall Junior trying to lay a bunt down in the dim past.

Just wondering, when someone tries this, does the opposition take the shift off or do they say "OK, go ahead and bunt"? Against normal hitters, if a 3B is playing back and someone bunts foul, the 3B normally moves in a few steps.

RANDY IN INDY
05-15-2006, 01:10 PM
How funny that it's considered putting in extra work. It's part of the basic fundamentals of playing the game to know how to lay down a bunt. Sluggers throughout history have resisted it, but if they laid one down the line a time or two, maybe the shift would be on less often.

:beerme: Many of today's player's are totally one dimensional and are perfectly happy being just that. The dollars make it so. The term, "baseball player," is used very loosely these days.

westofyou
05-15-2006, 01:14 PM
Many of today's player's are totally one dimensional and are perfectly happy being just that.
No offense Randy, but that sounds like a big case of "back in my day"

Willie Mays had 13 Sacs in his career, Harmon Killebrew 0, McCovey 5, Frank Robinson 13...my guess is they weren't ask to bunt for a hit either.

smith288
05-15-2006, 01:17 PM
WVPacman, you are the master of repeated punctuation... Seriously!!! No lie!!!!

TOBTTReds
05-15-2006, 01:26 PM
Willie Mays had 13 Sacs in his career, Harmon Killebrew 0, McCovey 5, Frank Robinson 13...my guess is they weren't ask to bunt for a hit either.

I could be wrong, but I doubt there was such a shift on them either. This whole bunting this is only coming up because neither player (Jr. and Dunn) hit the ball near the left side of the infield. Kearns and whoever else (that isn't fast) shouldn't bunt, bc you better have very good speed to be safe if the 3B is playing in position.

I know Griffey can do it. Although it was a few years ago, he laid down a perfect bunt (with 2 outs non the less, which didn't make a whole lot of sense to me), but he was safe with out a throw, then Jose Guillen launched a bleacher shot to take a 2-run lead in the 1st inning. If those guys are leading off an inning, or have 1 man on first with 0 outs, I would love to see the bunt if there is a shift.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Dunn probably isn't a very good bunter, but it should be worth a try sometime, especially if he struggles against a certain pitcher.

RANDY IN INDY
05-15-2006, 01:27 PM
No offense Randy, but that sounds like a big case of "back in my day"

Willie Mays had 13 Sacs in his career, Harmon Killebrew 0, McCovey 5, Frank Robinson 13...my guess is they weren't ask to bunt for a hit either.

Who said anything about sacrifice bunts, or was that the only statistic about bunting that they kept records of back then? I believe that if they would have given Mays, Aaron, or Frank Robinson a free bunt hit, they would have taken it occasionally?

Big case of back in my day?:laugh: I guess whatever it takes.

gonelong
05-15-2006, 01:29 PM
I seem to recall Junior trying to lay a bunt down in the dim past.

Just wondering, when someone tries this, does the opposition take the shift off or do they say "OK, go ahead and bunt"? Against normal hitters, if a 3B is playing back and someone bunts foul, the 3B normally moves in a few steps.

Jr laid down a couple over the last few years and the same teams still employ a shift on him.

GL

westofyou
05-15-2006, 01:33 PM
Who said anything about sacrifice bunts, or was that the only statistic about bunting that they kept records of back then? I believe that if they would have given Mays, Aaron, or Frank Robinson a free bunt hit, they would have taken it occasionally?

Big case of back in my day?:laugh: I guess whatever it takes.

Well, bunting is a skill correct? If players bunted for hits you'd assume they'd get the sac call now and then.. you have to consider that many of the managers in the 50's and 60's came from an era that valued the bunt more than it is now correct?

I think that there can be a correlation between the number of sacs a player attempts in their career and the actual times he attempts to bunt for a hit.

"Whatever it takes?"

Just floating "my" opinion like your one dimensional quote was "your" opinion.

BTW the lamenting of now-a-days players are...... is one that is older than sun and sky

Here are two of my favorites.


Baseball today isn't what it should be.The players do not try and learn the fine points of the game like they used to, instead they are content to just get by.

Bill Joyce 1916


There are a "few" good players today-you can count em on the fingers of one hand. But generally they're just out there going through the motions, just playing for the money."

Joe Sewell - 1980

TOBTTReds
05-15-2006, 01:35 PM
Jr laid down a couple over the last few years and the same teams still employ a shift on him.

GL

Cool. I have no problem with a 1.000 slg average and a 1.000 obp, for a 2.000 ops. If there is nobody on base, I have no problem with him bunting. His odds of hitting a HR this year is about 1 in 13 AB's. I'll take the free base if no one is on and say there is 0 or 1 out.

TOBTTReds
05-15-2006, 01:37 PM
Well, bunting is a skill correct? If players bunted for hits you'd assume they'd get the sac call now and then.. you have to consider that many of the managers in the 50's and 60's came from an era that valued the bunt more than it is now correct?

I think that there can be a correlation between the number of sacs a player attempts in their career and the actual times he attempts to bunt for a hit.

"Whatever it takes?"

Just floating "my" opinion like your one dimensional quote was "your" opinion.



Babe Ruth could have been the best bunter of all-time, but we just don't know it.

SteelSD
05-15-2006, 01:43 PM
Jr laid down a couple over the last few years and the same teams still employ a shift on him.

GL

Exactly. Power hitters bunting for base hits sounds good in theory, but it's not going to remove the shift. Even if said power hitters were good at bunting, the only thing it does is prevent said hitters from doing something more destructive instead.

gonelong
05-15-2006, 01:45 PM
Cool. I have no problem with a 1.000 slg average and a 1.000 obp, for a 2.000 ops. If there is nobody on base, I have no problem with him bunting. His odds of hitting a HR this year is about 1 in 13 AB's. I'll take the free base if no one is on and say there is 0 or 1 out.

Its certainly not automatic that he would get a hit each time he attempted to lay down a bunt against the shift. Heck, many players can't get down a sacrafice bunt 2/3 the time much less putting one down well enough to get a hit. Plus, in Jr's case, you'd have a guy that would need to bolt out of the box and run hard down to first. Thats a recipe for disaster with that guys legs ... not to mention the risk/reward there is a slim at best IMO.

GL

RANDY IN INDY
05-15-2006, 03:49 PM
Exactly. Power hitters bunting for base hits sounds good in theory, but it's not going to remove the shift. Even if said power hitters were good at bunting, the only thing it does is prevent said hitters from doing something more destructive instead.

Could help said hitter who is hitting behind said hitter to do something more destructive.

I agree about the shift, Steel. It won't eliminate it, but every now I think you take it if they are giving it to you.

gonelong
05-15-2006, 03:58 PM
Could help said hitter who is hitting behind said hitter to do something more destructive.

I agree about the shift, Steel. It won't eliminate it, but every now I think you take it if they are giving it to you.

They still have to lay down a pretty decent bunt to be successful.

I'm not going to grouse if Dunn or Jr. drops down a bunt against the shift, but its no sure thing that they would be successful enough to warrent the strategy. Every bunt would come with the potential to pop-up, K, ground to the pitcher, etc. as well as giving up the possiblity of a 2B or HR.

With Freel thats a no-brainer as he doesn't hit many HRs anyway, or as many doubles, and he can steal 2nd if need be. With Griffey or Dunn that's not really the case.

KronoRed
05-15-2006, 04:52 PM
Exactly. Power hitters bunting for base hits sounds good in theory, but it's not going to remove the shift. Even if said power hitters were good at bunting, the only thing it does is prevent said hitters from doing something more destructive instead.
If anything the other team will be happy to give up the bunts and will shift even more, 4 if's near 1st ;)

4256 Hits
05-15-2006, 11:11 PM
Exactly. Power hitters bunting for base hits sounds good in theory, but it's not going to remove the shift. Even if said power hitters were good at bunting, the only thing it does is prevent said hitters from doing something more destructive instead.

If successful it prevents them from doing the worst thing a hitter can do and that is make an out.

I look at putting the bunt down on the shift as being the same as a walk. If (thats a big if) they could be successful 2/3rds of the time they should do it and I would be very happy just if they would walk 2/3rd of the time they go to the plate I would be very happy.

As for the other team being happy giving up a bunt single I don't buy that for a second because letting guy get on base is the 1st step in giving up (multiply) runs.

Two outs and nobody on would be one time I wouldn't really want to see them do it but most other times I say go for it.

StillFunkyB
05-15-2006, 11:45 PM
I would only do so if the player at bat is pretty good at bunting.

I doubt the players being discussed here can bunt well.

I would love to see Griffey lay down a bunt if they had the shift on late in the game with the Reds trailing, and Dunn on deck. Thing is, he probably has just as good a shot at getting OB some other way that he does with bunting.

WVPacman
05-16-2006, 12:17 AM
I'm not advocating that they make a habit of it, but I know if I were in the situation of having infields shift dramatically to the right, I would be working on having that bunt in my arsenal should the situation arise and the "team" need it. These guys are not chopped liver. They can get a bunt down if they work at it a little, and they have plenty of time to work at it. I think the real question is, "Do they want to work at it." Granted, they are not paid to be slap hitting bunt men, but having the ability to get a baserunner on in a situatiion when a game is on the line and they are flat out giving it to you should outweigh any perception that a player has of himself. I say be prepared to pull it off.


Exactly man

WVPacman
05-16-2006, 12:20 AM
WVPacman, you are the master of repeated punctuation... Seriously!!! No lie!!!!


Thank you for this award I would like to thank my mom and dad,all my family,to all my teachers,and exspecially to all my redzone buddys who posts and write better than I do.:beerme:

SteelSD
05-16-2006, 02:45 AM
Could help said hitter who is hitting behind said hitter to do something more destructive.

I agree about the shift, Steel. It won't eliminate it, but every now I think you take it if they are giving it to you.

Sounds like you're buying into this whole "OBP is good" thing, Randy.

That being said, if a bunt Single is available, it's because the opposing team would rather you do that than anything else. It's the bastard brother of the Intentional Walk. Yet, it's not all that attainable from those who don't bunt well.

And I'm still trying to figure out when it's all that productive from guys who aren't basestealing threats. It is, in fact, a potential BB replacement but without the additional pitches thrown. If it made teams re-think the shift, it might actually be valuable, but we both agree that it won't do that.

And in close games, I fail to see how a high OBP, high SLG hitter is better off to lay one down even if the defense it "giving" away the bunt. In that situation, the majority of pitchers are going to be LHP to maximize the matchup and those LHP fall off to the right side. That leaves the 1B side of the diamond and I really don't see how a non-proficient bunter will be able to place that bunt exactly where he wants it to go considering the situation.

Furthermore, there are better outcomes to be had. The reason teams "give away" anything (even IBB) are because that outcome is preferable to the potential outcome of the PA. If a bunt single isn't going to change how the players are defensed over the long haul and if those players aren't good bunters, I guess I see little upside (if any) to asking them to bunt when it's close and late while early in the count (because they can't do it late).

A bunt-for-hit attempt isn't going to happen with a 2-strike count; which means that hitters are either going to be bunting at the first pitch they see or they'll be bunting in a hitter's count. Do you really want high OBP/SLG hitters laying down bunts in a hitter's count? I sure don't.

If all we're asking is that high IsoD hitters who aren't good bunters replicate a BB late in games, then why don't we just allow them to see more pitches during that PA in order to increase the probability that they'll acquire more than one base?

penantboundreds
05-16-2006, 02:53 AM
This is a double-standard. I realize that it may not be that easy because I was an excellent bunter and still only managed to get a bunt down the third baseline maybe once out of 4 times. However this bunt doesnt have to be near perfect, just sticking your bat out there and tapping the ball down to the third base bag IS NOT a skill. However, you guys are saying if AD does this he is not being as productive as possible. There in lies the double standard. If he walks, he is the Reds best offensive weapon for it. If he gets on in this situation, he just clogs the bases?

+++Edit+++ which makes me say this one more time...AD needs to learn how to go the other way better. Because even with the shift on they still pitch him low and away which is the easiest possible pitch to go to left field in general with, and the easiest to bunt.

gonelong
05-16-2006, 10:10 AM
This is a double-standard. ... However, you guys are saying if AD does this he is not being as productive as possible. There in lies the double standard. If he walks, he is the Reds best offensive weapon for it. If he gets on in this situation, he just clogs the bases?

No double standard at all.

1. Don't make an out
2. Acquire as many bases as possible.

With a walk, you are trying to accomplish both. With a bunt, you are only accomplishing the first objective. While getting on base is great, acquiring multiple bases does more damage. When you have a hitter that is proficient at acquiring mutliple bases, teams will often give up a single base as insurance against the multiple bases. Thus, you get IBB and a shift against Griffey and/or Dunn.

While a walk is a nice outcome, waiting to pounce on a ball you can really drive for a 2b or HR is the reason to be selective. When you get a walk, its because you refused to swing at pitches outside the strikezone. However, the focus of the AB is to find a pitch you can drive to acquire as many bases as possible.

If Dunn is bunting, sure he gets on base and that is great, however, the real damage that HE can do is finding a pitch he can drive.

GL

PS - Love the moniker

Spitball
05-17-2006, 05:55 PM
Willie Mays had 13 Sacs in his career, Harmon Killebrew 0, McCovey 5, Frank Robinson 13...my guess is they weren't ask to bunt for a hit either.

Mickey Mantle was a bonifide slugger and one of the most gifted drag bunters I ever saw. I once saw him lay down a beauty on a 3-2 pitch.

I don't really agree that bunting is all that difficult, especially when faced with an empty infield on the left side. Now, if you have an infield defending against a bunt, that makes the job a bit more tricky because the placement has to be almost perfect. With Dunn following Griffey, teams might not be willing to concede him first base and defenses might just alter.

RANDY IN INDY
05-17-2006, 06:20 PM
Mickey Mantle was a bonifide slugger and one of the most gifted drag bunters I ever saw. I once saw him lay down a beauty on a 3-2 pitch.

I don't really agree that bunting is all that difficult, especially when faced with an empty infield on the left side. Now, if you have an infield defending against a bunt, that makes the job a bit more tricky because the placement has to be almost perfect. With Dunn following Griffey, teams might not be willing to concede him first base and defenses might just alter.

:beerme:

Spitball
05-17-2006, 08:30 PM
:beerme:

Further thoughts...

Say Griffey bunted to the left side once a week for a hit.

And he never bunted with runners on base or the Reds tied.

How many significant homeruns would he really be sacrificing?

And, over the course of a season, that would be twenty-five or more hits in front of Adam Dunn.

And, it would force teams to defend Griffey differently.

I don't really see the negatives.

KronoRed
05-17-2006, 09:27 PM
I don't think they would change the shift, they would WANT him to bunt.

Spitball
05-17-2006, 09:41 PM
I don't think they would change the shift, they would WANT him to bunt.

I believe they are confident he won't bunt. With Dunn, Kearns, and Encarnacion coming up, are Griffey's homeruns really that significant if the bases are empty?

If Griffey bunted into a vacant left side once or twice a week, he would definetly force teams to make adjustments, and his on base percentage would go through the roof with serious lumber coming to the plate behind him. I don't believe teams WANT that.

RANDY IN INDY
05-17-2006, 11:15 PM
And when a team is going bad, sometimes it is a small thing like taking advantage when a bunt is being given up to ignite a team.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2006, 11:12 AM
I believe they are confident he won't bunt. With Dunn, Kearns, and Encarnacion coming up, are Griffey's homeruns really that significant if the bases are empty?

If Griffey bunted into a vacant left side once or twice a week, he would definetly force teams to make adjustments, and his on base percentage would go through the roof with serious lumber coming to the plate behind him. I don't believe teams WANT that.

Home runs are the most valuable types of hits, whether the bases are empty or full.

By bunting, Griffey is limiting his opportunity to hit for power, which is his main skill.

I'm not opposed to the occasional bunt from Griffey when he's leading off an inning, just to keep the defense honest, but to have him try it more than once a week would be counterproductive.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2006, 11:12 AM
And when a team is going bad, sometimes it is a small thing like taking advantage when a bunt is being given up to ignite a team.

A home run can ignite the team, too. Even more than a bunt.

Spitball
05-18-2006, 12:41 PM
Home runs are the most valuable types of hits, whether the bases are empty or full.

By bunting, Griffey is limiting his opportunity to hit for power, which is his main skill.

I'm not opposed to the occasional bunt from Griffey when he's leading off an inning, just to keep the defense honest, but to have him try it more than once a week would be counterproductive.


I'm guessing that there must be a formula that would show high OBP in front of high homerun threat like Dunn, Kearns, and Encarnacion would be more productive than than stringing together solo homeruns. If Griffey can unstack the defenses he'd get on base more often and help the team. IMHO, your logic would be like telling a pitcher to only throw his fastball despite the fact his change-up makes his best pitch better.

I'm talking about bunting into the empty left side once or twice a week. I'm not talking about turning him into Juan Pierre. How many homeruns do you think that will cost Griffey??? I bet very few and probably none. If Griffey can't alter the outcome with one swing of the bat and Dunn is on deck, it would not hurt for him occassionally take the gift offered to him by the vacated infield. Earl Weaver advocated winning with the three run homer, not stringing together solo shots.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2006, 01:20 PM
If Griffey can unstack the defenses he'd get on base more often and help the team. IMHO, your logic would be like telling a pitcher to only throw his fastball despite the fact his change-up makes his best pitch better.

No, that's not my logic at all. You're making an apples-and-oranges comparison.

I didn't say Griffey shouldn't ever bunt. In fact, I advocated an occasional bunt when he's leading off an inning. My logic is that it's best for a player to utilize his main skill and not do things that downplay that skill.


I'm talking about bunting into the empty left side once or twice a week. I'm not talking about turning him into Juan Pierre. How many homeruns do you think that will cost Griffey??? I bet very few and probably none. If Griffey can't alter the outcome with one swing of the bat and Dunn is on deck, it would not hurt for him occassionally take the gift offered to him by the vacated infield. Earl Weaver advocated winning with the three run homer, not stringing together solo shots.

You'll have to show me some proof that simply getting on base provides more benefit to the team than a solo home run. I think you'll have a hard time finding any.

Spitball
05-18-2006, 02:21 PM
No, that's not my logic at all. You're making an apples-and-oranges comparison.

It's called an analogy. Change-up:Fastball :: Bunting:Griffey's OBP


I didn't say Griffey shouldn't ever bunt. In fact, I advocated an occasional bunt when he's leading off an inning. My logic is that it's best for a player to utilize his main skill and not do things that downplay that skill.

Once or twice a week = occassionally




You'll have to show me some proof that simply getting on base provides more benefit to the team than a solo home run. I think you'll have a hard time finding any.

Baseball is a team game that is made up of more than one dimension. Griffey is not limited to the homerun dimension. He scored 35 runs based on his homeruns last year, but he scored 50 other times that resulted in him being on base. Fifty is more than 35.

Note that I advocated him bunting with the bases empty so we don't need to compute runs driven in by his homeruns.

RedsManRick
05-18-2006, 04:13 PM
Trying to bunt to the unoccupied left side of the field and doing it successfully every time are 2 completely different things. It would be interesting to just see him show bunt and see how the defense reacts. If he can force the shift off with the threat of a bunt, but continue to swing away in actuality, that would be the best of both worlds.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2006, 04:14 PM
It's called an analogy. Change-up:Fastball :: Bunting:Griffey's OBP

Like I said, apples and oranges.


Baseball is a team game that is made up of more than one dimension. Griffey is not limited to the homerun dimension. He scored 35 runs based on his homeruns last year, but he scored 50 other times that resulted in him being on base. Fifty is more than 35.

He was able to score about 40% of his runs all by himself, thanks to his power. Getting on base via the bunt deprives him of that opportunity.

If the choice is A) Griffey trying to get on base via a bunt or B) Griffey trying to get on base using his normal skills (power and walks), I'll take B. More good stuff can happen with B.

RANDY IN INDY
05-18-2006, 04:14 PM
A home run can ignite the team, too. Even more than a bunt.

The bunt is being given. The homerun is far from being given. When a guy like Griffey makes a "team" type play, it sets a tone. Homeruns usually come in bunches and they haven't been coming on a regular basis from Griffey lately. I see nothing wrong in taking what the defense gives you from time to time, particularly when the offense and longball are struggling, in order to get a runner on and make something happen. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2006, 04:18 PM
The bunt is being given. The homerun is far from being given.

Like RedsManRick said, the opportunity to bunt is a given; doing it successfully is a different thing.

More good stuff can happen when Griffey swings the bat.

KronoRed
05-18-2006, 04:34 PM
I don't believe teams WANT that.
Maybe not, but if he wants to bunt on instead of trying for a homer I believe other teams would be happy to say go for it.

Spitball
05-18-2006, 05:07 PM
Like I said, apples and oranges.
:rolleyes:


He was able to score about 40% of his runs all by himself, thanks to his power. Getting on base via the bunt deprives him of that opportunity.

If the choice is A) Griffey trying to get on base via a bunt or B) Griffey trying to get on base using his normal skills (power and walks), I'll take B. More good stuff can happen with B.

Your slant, fine with me.


Like RedsManRick said, the opportunity to bunt is a given; doing it successfully is a different thing.

I've played and I've coached. Placing a bunt into a drawn in infield is tough. Placing a bunt into a vacant expanse is not at all difficult. If the infields coninued to shift as they have, Griffey would easily be successful 99% to 100% of the time.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2006, 05:09 PM
:rolleyes:

Back atcha.


I've played and I've coached. Placing a bunt into a drawn in infield is tough. Placing a bunt into a vacant expanse is not at all difficult. If the infields coninued to shift as they have, Griffey would easily be successful 99% to 100% of the time.

99% to 100%? Sorry, but that's a ridiculous assumption. Players can't even get a bunt down every time they attempt it, let alone place it where they want it to go.

RANDY IN INDY
05-18-2006, 05:30 PM
The way that the defense shifts against Griffey, it would not be that hard for an athlete the caliber of Ken Griffey Jr. to get a bunt down. This guy is not your average Redszone hack. The third baseman is playing where the shortstop normally plays. It doesn't have to be a perfect bunt. It just has to get past the pitcher. Baseball players can do these things.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Griffey turn into Brett Butler, but in key situations when you need baserunners, I think it is quite prudent to take it when it's given from time to time.

Spitball
05-18-2006, 05:39 PM
99% to 100%? Sorry, but that's a ridiculous assumption. Players can't even get a bunt down every time they attempt it, let alone place it where they want it to go.

Honestly, if executed properly, putting the bat on the ball with some give and angling it to the left is as easy as playing catch. It requires the same eye hand coordination. It makes it much harder if he has to lay it down into a bunt defense, but with the infield all on the other side of second, Griffey wouldn't have to worry about exact placement or hitting it too hard.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2006, 05:50 PM
Honestly, if executed properly, putting the bat on the ball with some give and angling it to the left is as easy as playing catch. It requires the same eye hand coordination. It makes it much harder if he has to lay it down into a bunt defense, but with the infield all on the other side of second, Griffey wouldn't have to worry about exact placement or hitting it too hard.

I've seen too many cases of batters popping bunts up, fouling them off, or tapping them right back to the mound to actually believe that bunting is as easy as playing catch. Regardless of the defensive alignment.

Roy Tucker
05-18-2006, 06:19 PM
The derivation of the word "bunt" seems strangely appropriate...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bunt&searchmode=none

bunt
1825, "to strike with the head or horns," perhaps an alteration of butt (as a goat), or from M.E. bounten "to return." Baseball term is from 1889.

Johnny Footstool
05-18-2006, 06:46 PM
The derivation of the word "bunt" seems strangely appropriate...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bunt&searchmode=none

bunt
1825, "to strike with the head or horns," perhaps an alteration of butt (as a goat), or from M.E. bounten "to return." Baseball term is from 1889.

Touche, sir.

OldRightHander
05-18-2006, 07:45 PM
I don't have a problem with him dropping one down on occasion, but it comes down to game situations and what not. For the most part, I would rather have him swing away. Also, there also seems to be a prevailing attitude among many fans that bunting well is somehow easier than other types of hitting. How many players just don't bunt well? It is a skill just like hitting line drives or hitting for power and it might be that with many hitters the chances of hitting a line drive base hit might be as good as dropping the bunt down in the right place to get a hit. Even with the shift on, he could still bunt it back at the pitcher or foul it off a couple times. It's the whole risk/reward thing and I would rather see players like him try for the greater reward.

WVPacman
05-19-2006, 01:06 AM
Griffey has proven before that he can bunt so im my mind theres no arguing that its tough for him to bunt b/c he has proven he can.Now with Dunn I hav'nt seen him bunt so he might have a problem bunting BUT thats what practice is fore and the coachs would be tickled to death if the power hitters would come and ask them to help them how to lay down a bunt.That imo would make these power hitters that much deadlier at the plate b/c they would have the defense guessing in a close game with runners on base that need to be bunted over in scoring position.The defense would'nt know how to play them b/c they would then know that these guys can also lay a bunt down.

Johnny Footstool
05-19-2006, 10:23 AM
According to Hal, Ted Williams faced "The Shift" all the time and didn't bunt.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sport...redsnotes.html


That shift was invented nearly 60 years ago by Cleveland player/manager Lou Boudreau against Ted Williams, who steadfastly refused to bunt up the third-base line.

Maybe he understood that bunting would be cheating himself out of the chance to do some real damage.

KronoRed
05-19-2006, 04:37 PM
Ted was a scrappy hitter.

membengal
05-21-2006, 04:39 PM
Today's bunt in the 9th defines "ill-advised".

KronoRed
05-21-2006, 04:56 PM
Today's bunt in the 9th defines "ill-advised".
But it was productive ;)

membengal
05-21-2006, 09:43 PM
Indeed. It quickly gave the Tigers a precious out while removing the bat from the most dangerous power hitter this team employs in a one-run game.

That may have been one of the most "productive" at-bats for Tigers pitchers all weekend.

WVPacman
05-22-2006, 12:28 AM
Today's bunt in the 9th defines "ill-advised".


The question is would you still say it was "ill-advised" if Valentin would have gotten a base hit and tied the game up??

They did'nt score the run but it showed me that Dunn IS a team player and will do what the manager asks.Again we did'nt score but I liked the bunt that Dunn did b/c we had no runs and we really needed a guy in scoring position.If Valentin would have scored him from second I garrentee you would be praising Dunn and Narrion on the play.You can't exspect them to score everytime they lay down a bunt like they did today BUT if they keep doing it when they really need to like today it will help us win or tie some games.JMO

TeamBoone
05-22-2006, 12:32 AM
I thought most everyone wanted him to bunt... now you don't?

Caveat Emperor
05-22-2006, 12:34 AM
The question is would you still say it was "ill-advised" if Valentin would have gotten a base hit and tied the game up??


No matter how you slice it, taking the bat out of the run producer and giving it to the backup catcher redefines "moronic."

The fact that the outcome could've lucked out into Jerry Narorn's favor doesn't negate the fact that he put more faith in a career backup than a guy with superior offensive firepower.


I thought most everyone wanted him to bunt... now you don't?

Bunting when the team is giving you a free base is one thing -- I'm actually of the mind that Adam ought to do it a few times just to see if teams stop putting the ridiculous shift on and/or if the Reds are seemingly in a funk and to see if it might induce some better pitches by forcing the opposing starter to go to the stretch.

Bunting n the top of the 9th, down a run, is just idiotic.

reds44
05-22-2006, 12:34 AM
I didn't think his bunt was a bad idea. He was inches away from having 1st and 2nd nobody out. Dunn was by no means bunting to get the runner to 2nd, he was trying to get a hit.

CTA513
05-22-2006, 12:41 AM
I didn't think his bunt was a bad idea. He was inches away from having 1st and 2nd nobody out. Dunn was by no means bunting to get the runner to 2nd, he was trying to get a hit.

just a little bit closer to the 3rd base line and he would have had a hit.

deltachi8
05-22-2006, 12:57 AM
Today's bunt in the 9th defines "ill-advised".

When Steve flippin Phillips is in disbelief on ESPN radio after Dunn bunts, that says something.

WVPacman
05-22-2006, 01:00 AM
I didn't think his bunt was a bad idea. He was inches away from having 1st and 2nd nobody out. Dunn was by no means bunting to get the runner to 2nd, he was trying to get a hit.


Exactly!!! I have no problem with it.

SteelSD
05-22-2006, 02:29 AM
I didn't think his bunt was a bad idea. He was inches away from having 1st and 2nd nobody out. Dunn was by no means bunting to get the runner to 2nd, he was trying to get a hit.

It was a ridiculous idea. Dunn isn't adept at bunting for base hits and one swing of the bat from him can turn a 1-0 game into a 2-1 game the good way. And on the first pitch of the PA.

If Narron called it= stupid. If Dunn did it on his own= stupid.

No way around that.

membengal
05-22-2006, 09:12 AM
For the record, not "everyone" is crying for more bunts on this team. I certainly am not. And, yes, even if Valentin had lucked into a hit, Dunn's bunt still would have been stupid, ill-advised, moronic (pick your own adjective).

If Dunn indeed did that on his own, it shows just how much the continual carping from the booth, the fans, wherever, has gotten into his head...

OnBaseMachine
05-22-2006, 09:16 AM
It was Adam Dunn's sacrifice bunt that surprised Narron as much as any of the 31,515 in Comerica Park.

The score was 0-0 and Austin Kearns was hit by a pitch with no outs. Dunn bunted, his second career sacrifice bunt and first since May 16, 2002.

In the dugout, Narron was dumbfounded, shocked, stunned. In the Detroit dugout, manager Jim Leyland was dancing and shouting, "Amen and hallelujah.

"I'm disappointed, really disappointed," said Narron. "If we were down two runs with nobody out, I can see Dunn trying to bunt for a hit. But he was the winning run and I would have loved to have seen him swing the bat. I was the most shocked person in the ball park.

"Do you think I'm going to have Adam Dunn bunt? For us to win, we can't do stupid things and that's what we did at the end of the game, as simple as that," Narron added.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/sports/content/sports/reds/daily/0522redsweb.html

smith288
05-22-2006, 09:41 AM
It was a ridiculous idea. Dunn isn't adept at bunting for base hits and one swing of the bat from him can turn a 1-0 game into a 2-1 game the good way. And on the first pitch of the PA.

If Narron called it= stupid. If Dunn did it on his own= stupid.

No way around that.
Dunn is making a new enemy with dumb moves like that... I defend him to death when my brother speaks of his K's but THATS when I start to turn on players when they do things so stupid that I couldn't even imagine they'd do it out of pure respect for the game.

Dunn....don't EVER do that again...EVER.

Johnny Footstool
05-22-2006, 10:37 AM
...we had no runs and we really needed a guy in scoring position.

A wise man once pointed out that Dunn is in scoring position every time he steps to the plate.


Dunn is making a new enemy with dumb moves like that... I defend him to death when my brother speaks of his K's but THATS when I start to turn on players when they do things so stupid that I couldn't even imagine they'd do it out of pure respect for the game.

Dunn....don't EVER do that again...EVER.

That tells me Dunn's recent slump has caused quite a few people to start whispering in his ear, telling him to be more of a "team player" and play baseball "The Right Way." Maybe he's reading the wrong threads on RedsZone. Whatever is it, he's listening to too many voices telling him to be something he's not.

oneupper
05-24-2006, 01:45 PM
I'm surprised the stat-heads here haven't turned this into an equation..

To me, it's real simple:
Dunn is a .900-1.000 OPS guy. Career wise about .900 with bases empty (shift).

Bunting takes away the opportunity of a BB and a HR alike. Basically, it's a single, an out that advances the runner or an out that doesn't. Probability wise, the out that advances the runner increases chances of winning by very little in most circumstances.

You are reducing the scope of outcomes (variance) to a more narrow (and conservative) band. Like betting red/black instead of on a single number on roulette...same win expectancy, different rate and probablity of payoff.

For it to be simiar OPS-wise, Dunn would have to be successfull about 50% of the time his bunts. I really don't know if that is possible for him (but it could be, I guess).

Assuming that is possible...WHEN should he bunt? I wouldn't say "Never", but certainly when a narrow scope of outcomes is more desirable...i.e when the team is tied or winning and when he is followed by able batsmen.

Down by 1, hitting out of the 5th or 6th spot...doesn't seem like a good bet.

GAC
05-24-2006, 08:54 PM
I read the other day in the DDN that Narron was really upset that Dunn laid down that sac bunt the other day and said he would not have Dunn bunting.

So who called it? Berry at 3B?

If so, he should still be doing laps around GAB. :lol: