Baez Bunt Blasphemy or Hum Baby?

[rog]

Those who blindly said that Javier Baez shouldn't have bunted with two strikes might want to consider that he won last night's Cubs/Nationals game with a 10th-inning bunt single.  So apparently he can bunt, although no doubt this one didn't come with two strikes.

Should he have bunted with two strikes back in the 2016 World Series?  As we said at the time, it probably came down to how good a bunter he was.  The evidence since that time has mounted that he is a pretty good bunter.  Despite improving his power in 2017, he sacrificed six times.  Thirty-one homers this season have kept his bunting down, but he's batting .400 the few times he bunts for a hit.

Bunting for a hit is much different than sacrificing -- especially sacrificing with two strikes.  So should Baez have attempted to sacrifice with two strikes?  Probably not -- except that most of the time with two strikes he was striking out anyway.

I still don't know if he should have bunted in that unusual situation for a bunt.  But I do know that those who say he shouldn't have done so simply because he had two strikes and it just isn't done with two strikes are wrong to have blinders on.

A person who doesn't understand baseball doesn't understand the implications of bunting with two strikes.

A person who thinks he understands baseball but may not understand it as well as he thinks may simply say it just isn't done.

A person who THINKS about baseball may say it usually shouldn't be done, but it is possible there could be a time for it.  Roger Craig is in the last group.  I'm virtually certain he did it, and I believe he did it more than once.

Hum Baby!

[sfgdood]

It is stupidity

[rog]

Yes, it is. Closing one's mind pretty much guarantees it.

[rog]

Let me ask you this, Randy. You've seen here how poorly Javier hit with two strikes in that World Series. How likely do you think it was that he would have driven home the run had he swung away?

[rog]

I think any analysis of the play begins with how likely Baez was to succeed if he hit away, and how good a bunter he was. Obviously if Javier had a good chance of driving the run home by swinging away, there would be no need to explore different strategies.

We might have discussed in passing if at all the possibility of pinch hitting with a better contact hitter. With two strikes already on the board, that would have been a REALLY difficult task for the pinch hitter. But even though we haven't explored it, it is a strategy that was available.

When you've got two pairs, you play the hand a little differently than if you've got jack high.

[sfgdood]

It only takes one pitch for a good hitter to break a slump. I've seen it happen a million times

[rog]

In one sense it ALWAYS takes only one pitch to break out of a slump. The question though is which pitch? Baez had seen an awful lot of them in the World Series, and he still hadn't broken out of what was one of the worst slumps we've seen. Ever.

Baez isn't the only good hitter to strike out on a foul two-strike bunt in World Series history. A reasonably good hitter named Mickey Mantle did so as well.

Apparently Mantle never played ball above the high school level, so we can excuse him.

Saying a bunt shouldn't even have been considered is ludicrous. You used the logic that a hitter can break out of a slump on one pitch. Isn't that kind of a like a pitcher who's in a horrible slump saying, why would I walk Barry Bonds? I can be out of my slump with just one out.

I'm not sure what it's called in a debate when a person makes an obvious statement that can't be argued with but is such a broad statement that it has little bearing on the discussion, and I won't rename it a "Randy-ism."

It would be kind of like Noah saying, "Forty days? It only takes one day of sunshine to break a 40-day rain streak."

[sfgdood]

Look, if bunting was something Baez had shown himself proficient at, your point MIGHT have had some merit. But his proven proficiency is swinging the bat. Yep, Mantle was equally stupid when he did it and I'm pretty sure Mickey would admit it. Only stats geeks who never played the game think it's a good idea to bunt with two strikes...because they are no good at swinging anything. To be ANY good at hitting a baseball thrown in your direction at speeds exceeding 90 mph, you have to have big brass cajones and a limitless supply of confidence, and that confidence can NEVER waver or your career will not be a long one.

[rog]

Look, if bunting was something Baez had shown himself proficient at, your point MIGHT have had some merit. But his proven proficiency is swinging the bat.


Rog -- Isn't that the whole issue? Apparently Javier IS pretty good as a bunter, and at that particular point in time, he had almost no proficiency in swinging away.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. If we could replicate the situation 100 times, how many times do you think Javier would have driven home the run by swinging away? How many times do you think Javier would have driven home the run by bunting?

Until you have some idea of the answer to that question, you have no way of knowing whether the strategy was good or bad. If Roger Craig and Mickey Mantle used the strategy, how you KNOW it might not have worked? And if it might have worked, how do you KNOW it would have worked less than hitting away?

It appears to me that rather than try to make an intelligent estimate of the success of each (admittedly a tough job), you're copping out.

Was the decision a good one or a bad one? I don't know. But I do know that it is wrong to dismiss the strategy out of hand.

[rog]

Only stats geeks who never played the game think it's a good idea to bunt with two strikes..


Rog -- You're being defensive again, Randy, rather than addressing the issue.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4819/baez-bunt-blasphemy-hum-baby?page=1#ixzz5R9YHEBi9

[rog]

You seem to fall back far too often on insult rather than analyzing the situation. You should stop running from these questions, Randy.