MLB World Series 2018: Eh. Dodgers/Boston. Eh.
- Thread starter Timby
- Start date
- Status
What team do you play for?
Batter's job is to get on base (or advance baserunners) regardless of the situation. I don't see a problem with the above.
A bald eagle tried to perch on James Paxton's shoulder during the national anthem before the Mariners/Twins game today.
I think this is confirmation that baseball is and always has been America's number one pastime.
I think this is confirmation that baseball is and always has been America's number one pastime.
Tim Tebow has homered in his Double-A debut. He’s coming, Mets fans.
I remember reading something a while back about when Ben Davis broke up a perfect game being pitched by Curt Schilling with one out in the eighth by bunting for a hit. It was 2-0 and he brought the tying run to the plate with one out. He said he didn't think twice about doing it and would do it again in a minute, especially because the next hitter had power. But he also said if it had been 10-0 he'd have thought twice about it.
That's the caveat. Bunting for a hit any time in a game where you still have a fair chance to win is good baseball. But if you're down 10-0, how many bunt singles spark multi-run rallies, let alone ten runs? So let's be fair, the reason for the bunt in that situation is different. It's really not about trying to win, but it's a last-minute effort to save your team from being no-hit. Fine. No team wants to be no-hit, but to trying to defend it as fighting to the end is a bit silly, too. Who would try to bunt for a hit in the eighth or ninth down 10-0 if their team already had a hit or two in the game?
I guess while I'd say the infield shouldn't be caught by surprise like that late in a no-no, I can see the other side, too when the game is not close. The pitcher has dominated all day, and at the last minute, in a move that means nothing other than sticking your thumb in the pitcher's eye, a batter bunts a meaningless and cheap hit. That would be maddening. I don't think it's the best sportsmanship in that situation, either.
That's the caveat. Bunting for a hit any time in a game where you still have a fair chance to win is good baseball. But if you're down 10-0, how many bunt singles spark multi-run rallies, let alone ten runs? So let's be fair, the reason for the bunt in that situation is different. It's really not about trying to win, but it's a last-minute effort to save your team from being no-hit. Fine. No team wants to be no-hit, but to trying to defend it as fighting to the end is a bit silly, too. Who would try to bunt for a hit in the eighth or ninth down 10-0 if their team already had a hit or two in the game?
I guess while I'd say the infield shouldn't be caught by surprise like that late in a no-no, I can see the other side, too when the game is not close. The pitcher has dominated all day, and at the last minute, in a move that means nothing other than sticking your thumb in the pitcher's eye, a batter bunts a meaningless and cheap hit. That would be maddening. I don't think it's the best sportsmanship in that situation, either.
If we expect players to quit playing down 10-0, then the pitcher really shouldn't get credit for the no-hitter.
If I'm a manager and one of my players won't do anything (legal) to get on base, no matter how many runs we are down, I'm benching that guy for at least a game.
Play hard, never quit.
Play hard, never quit.
I'm not saying shut down. What I'm saying is the motivation to bunt for a hit down 10-0 is purely to break up a no hitter. That's just cheap. The motivation to lay down a bunt down 10-0 with one out in the eighth inning of a game where you're being no-hit is not to start a rally. No team wants to be no hit. I just see it being done that way as poor sportsmanship. I guess that's one of the "unwritten rules" I can live by.
Here's another thing to consider. Suppose the game is close in the eighth (1-0 or 2-0) and the pitcher pitching the no-hitter is going over 100 pitches for the game in the inning. In ten or fifteen more pitches, he may be pitching on adrenaline. If he had given up a hit or two in prior innings, it would be a no brainer to go to your set-up man at this point and then have your closer pitch the ninth. If he gets through the eighth with no hits but is at 120 pitches, should your closer pitch the ninth? If he had already given up a hit somewhere along the line, this decision is also a no brainer. It's sound baseball. However, another unwritten rule is the manager should leave him in and give him his chance to pitch his no hitter. Isn't allowing him to go for the no hitter essentially reducing the probability of the team winning versus bringing in the strong and fresh closer to pitch the ninth? Should we expect managers to put a player's accomplishment above maximizing the chances of the team winning?
If this were the NFL with only sixteen games, I'd agree. But in a 162 game season, sometimes you're going to get spanked, and the best thing to do at that point is take it and go on. The stress created by the mental and physical energy needed to play that hard 100 percent of the time no matter the score would ruin a team over a long season. If I managed a team down ten in the seventh inning of a game in June, I may even pull some of my starters to rest them. However, I better see the bench players I put in hustling.
Of course, on both of the above opinions differ. Beauty of the game, I guess.
What's the motivation to even swing the bat? Why not just let the pitcher toss three straight strikes since the game is over?
Swinging for the fences would just be cheap as well. What is one run going to do for you down 10-0?
Everybody has a different view. I just hate to see my team give up.
I do see your point.
What I guess it boils down to to me is there comes a point when the game is a blowout that the motivation to lay down that bunt is less driven by competitiveness and the will to win as it is to just find a cheap way to not have the team embarrassed by not only being blown out 7-0 or something, but also being no hit.
Screw his no-hitter. If he wants it, he has to earn it.
And Ohtani now has a three-game home run streak.
Ohtani has been amazing so far! Small sample size/hot start/whatever, but nice to see him essentially as advertised (despite how over the top the advertising was). Maybe it's a fluke, but so far he's fun to watch, and good for the game.
Also, Red Sox off to hot start, haven't lost since opening day. Gotta like that. Price looks like he's got it going again, and there's several 'real' starters coming back soon too, so could be pretty serious there. Just gotta figure out the 8th inning, that's been a shitshow so far...
Also, Red Sox off to hot start, haven't lost since opening day. Gotta like that. Price looks like he's got it going again, and there's several 'real' starters coming back soon too, so could be pretty serious there. Just gotta figure out the 8th inning, that's been a shitshow so far...
Yeah, it has. It's cost Chris Sale wins on both his starts.Just gotta figure out the 8th inning, that's been a shitshow so far...
(Yeah, I only care about that because of fantasy...)
Watching the Yankees/Orioles game now. Announcer said that Manny Machado (who wears #13 to honor his idol, Alex Rodriguez) wanted to change to number 3, which is what A-Rod wore in Seattle, but decided against it because Manny would have had to personally buy up all the unsold O’s gear with his name and #13 on it.
Is this true? Players changing numbers is not unusual by any means, but I’ve never heard of a rule like that...
Is this true? Players changing numbers is not unusual by any means, but I’ve never heard of a rule like that...
Watching the Yankees/Orioles game now. Announcer said that Manny Machado (who wears #13 to honor his idol, Alex Rodriguez) wanted to change to number 3, which is what A-Rod wore in Seattle, but decided against it because Manny would have had to personally buy up all the unsold O’s gear with his name and #13 on it.
Is this true? Players changing numbers is not unusual by any means, but I’ve never heard of a rule like that...
It is not unthinkable for that to be a rule for a Peter Angelos team. He's up there with the old A's owner (Schott? whoever the guy was who had the rule that players had to pay for their own soda in the clubhouse) in terms of being a stingy piece of shit.
He's really killing it, isn't he?I’m looking forward to seeing what Ohtani can do against someone other than the A’s.
Damn....
- Status