Should Dusty have asked Edwin to bunt?

[RedsManRick]

I don't care if Edwin "can" bunt. You need two runs there and you only have 3 outs. A double play still leaves the tying run at the plate. You don't give outs away with one of your most productive players at the plate.

[knuckler]

I voted no, but I didn't care for the poll choices beyond "yes" and "no".

"Yes", every major league player SHOULD be able to bunt.

But "No", EdE should not have been called on to bunt in that situation.

The manager has to think more than one step ahead. IF the sacrifice is successful, the Dbacks surely would have walked the next batter (Votto IIRC) to set up the double play. You still need two runs just to tie, and with one out someone has to get a hit or a walk. Votto would have the bat taken out of his hands by the intentional walk, and there was nobody coming up in the lineup or left on the bench with a better chance of getting the RBI than EdE. So let him swing! Besides, the first two batters got hits, so Lyon clearly didn't have overwhelming stuff going for him.

[fearofpopvol1]

I can see logic on both sides, but as I said in the game thread, it's senseless to have EdE bunt because he is THE best played on the Reds with RISP. A lifetime .317 BA with RISP. It's better than anyone else on the team. Yes, he could hit into a DP, yes he could get an out that isn't productive. However, that's just not what he does.

I do think he should learn how to bunt though and be able to play small ball if necessary, but this is your run producer.

[Razor Shines]

Obviously no. He hit a home run. I'll take a home run over a bunt every time.

[Stormy]

I voted "no". But a wacky thought came to me. What if Dusty is in a way "calling out" the entire team by calling for that bunt? What if he's announcing that we're going to bunt any time I think we should, and you all had better improve your technique if you don't want to be humiliated.

I know that's a reach, but is it possible that there's any truth to it?

Not even a chance, in my opinion. Calling for the bunt in that situation is simply Dusty Baker Baseball 101, and there's reams of precedent to consult. The worst part is not even the fact that he asked one of our best RISP hitters, who has a well documented history of not being able to bunt, to bunt anyway, in a game where we were in a 2 run deficit. The worst part is that Dusty will learn nothing from seeing the diametric opposite of his strategy win the game for us, and will be calling for the same bunt again next go round.

I don't even care, because Dusty is going to be Dusty... I'm just thrilled for Edwin, and for the team.

[dougdirt]

Didn't vote because the options aren't ones I agree with.

No, Edwin shouldn't have been asked to bunt, not because he can't (which he can't), but because he is the Reds best hitter with runners on base.

What scares me is that our manager doesn't seem to know that.

[RedsManRick]

What scares me is that our manager doesn't seem to know that.

At least Dusty is new... I wonder what Cowboy's excuse is. I agree and sadly feel vindicated. Dusty is just not good at in game management. Had EE made an out, I'm sure Dusty would have told us about how in his day, every guy on the team was expected to know how to bunt and how a successful bunt would've meant the difference there.

[dougdirt]

At least Dusty is new... I wonder what Cowboy's excuse is. I agree and sadly feel vindicated. Dusty is just not good at in game management. Had EE made an out, I'm sure Dusty would have told us about how in his day, every guy on the team was expected to know how to bunt and how a successful bunt would've meant the difference there.

To be honest, Cowboy has more of an excuse. He isn't geting paid 3 million dollars a year to make decisions about players. Baker is and he doesn't seem to have a clue that Edwin is the best hitter on the team when runners are on the bags.

[RedsManRick]

To be honest, Cowboy has more of an excuse. He isn't geting paid 3 million dollars a year to make decisions about players. Baker is and he doesn't seem to have a clue that Edwin is the best hitter on the team when runners are on the bags.

I don't think that's a fair conclusion Doug. What Dusty's quotes thus far have shown me is that he's pretty conscious of all the facts, he just uses them to come to the wrong conclusions sometimes. No more excuse, perhaps less so. He probably was aware of EE's #s w/ RISP and still thought it was a small ball situation, so he asked him to bunt.

He's stuck in the era in which he played. It's evident in his quotes and in his actions.

[AtomicDumpling]

Bunting is for losers.

Only pitchers should bunt. Hitters should hit.

The goal is to produce runs, you don't do that by intentionally making outs. Purposely making an out just gives you one less chance of producing a run. It makes the pitcher's job easier. You need to make the pitcher earn all three outs. In addition there are many things that can go wrong on a bunt play - pop out, strikeout, bunt into force play, etc.

The manager should show confidence in his hitters and trust them to get the run home.

I think some managers like to run bunt plays, hit-and-runs and other trick plays just so everyone can see what a great manager they are. If the play works the manager is a genius, if it doesn't work then the players screwed up.

[Screwball]

Quote from Dusty:

"I told [bench coach] Chris [Speier], 'I hope he doesn't get the bunt down so he gets a three-run homer," Baker said.

Am I the only one to find the above hilarious?

"Yeah, anybody can hit a walk-off three run homer. But I wanted to see if he could do it with 2 strikes."

Ahhh, Dusty. Screwball still loves ya.

[dougdirt]

I don't think that's a fair conclusion Doug. What Dusty's quotes thus far have shown me is that he's pretty conscious of all the facts, he just uses them to come to the wrong conclusions sometimes. No more excuse, perhaps less so. He probably was aware of EE's #s w/ RISP and still thought it was a small ball situation, so he asked him to bunt.

He's stuck in the era in which he played. It's evident in his quotes and in his actions.

He noted in the spring that he hadn't really looked into his players that much.... I don't think that much has changed if he knew he had the job in October.

[Cedric]

You don't bunt your best pure hitter. You defanetely don't bunt when that hitter is hitting in front of a rookie, Hatteberg, and probably Valentin.

[mbgrayson]

No for all the reasons listed above, and one more:

Wonky sabermetric fact: Run expectancy with runners on 1st and 2nd, no outs=1.573. Run expectancy with runners on 2nd and 3rd, one out=1.467. This is from "The Book" by Tom Tango, page 17. In essence, you will, on average, score more runs with two on 1st and 2nd and no out.....

Of course this doesn't account for the particular players involved, it is generic likliehood of scoring runs based on historical analysis.

When you throw in EE's lack of skill in bunting, and his good RISP, it becomes even more clear.

Dusty still scares me.....

[redsmetz]

I don't like the choices so I didn't vote.

I'd have voted no, I don't think they should have bunted down by two runs, even though it would have put the tying run at 2nd.

OTOH, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to pursue that strategy.

It's easy to say it would have been stupid now, but what if Encarnacion had hit into a DP? men on second and third with one out would have looked pretty good then. Especially as the home team.

Finally, I think all major league players should be able to bunt.

I didn't like the choices either. I would have preferred a third "it depends on the situation", but I vote "yes" this morning after reading Baker's comment about not wanting EE up there pressing, which in fact, a young player wanting to redeem himself is apt to do. Given Baker's stated reason for calling for the bunt, I'm okay with it - as I said, it depends on the circumstances.