MLB Chatter Thread

[Genghis Khan]

I agree with Geng on this one. It is Bush League to try to bunt down 8 in the 8th or 9th. You wouldn't ever bunt in that situation if it wasn't a no-hitter, so why would you do it with a no-hitter on the line? That's cheap and kinda shitty to be honest.

Exactly.

 

[1bigfan13]

I agree with Geng on this one. It is Bush League to try to bunt down 8 in the 8th or 9th. You wouldn't ever bunt in that situation if it wasn't a no-hitter, so why would you do it with a no-hitter on the line? That's cheap and kinda shitty to be honest.

Quitters.

 

[Cotton]

Quitters.

Quitters don't bunt in the 8th down 8. They swing hard. They damn sure don't bunt.

 

[1bigfan13]

Quitters don't bunt in the 8th down 8. They swing hard. They damn sure don't bunt.

If they hadn't got a hit through 8 innings, clearly swinging hard isn't working. So go to plan B. Lay the bunt down. Get on base and make the pitcher pitch from the stretch to the following batters.

 

[Cotton]

If they hadn't got a hit through 8 innings, clearly swinging hard isn't working. So go to plan B. Lay the bunt down. Get on base and make the pitcher pitch from the stretch to the following batters.

Not one single manager in the MLB would agree with you here.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

If they hadn't got a hit through 8 innings, clearly swinging hard isn't working. So go to plan B. Lay the bunt down. Get on base and make the pitcher pitch from the stretch to the following batters.

I kind of agree. You need base runners down by a large margin. Home runs sound great but they get you very little if no one is on base. So if your best odds of getting base runners is by starting with a bunt then you have to do it.

 

[1bigfan13]

I kind of agree. You need base runners down by a large margin. Home runs sound great but they get you very little if no one is on base. So if your best odds of getting base runners is by starting with a bunt then you have to do it.

Thank you!

I don't know why it's considered taboo to do what's best for YOUR team. You're not doing anything illegal or taking a cheap shot.

I don't give a damn about the opponent and their no-hitter attempt. In my dugout we'd always make the decision that best benefits us. This ain't little league where you'd concede to a lot of these unwritten rules. These are professionals.

 

[Cotton]

I kind of agree. You need base runners down by a large margin. Home runs sound great but they get you very little if no one is on base. So if your best odds of getting base runners is by starting with a bunt then you have to do it.

There is not a single professional team on this planet that has ever bunted down by 8. It has never happened. Ever. If you wouldn't do it in a normal game situation, then it is a shitty thing to do in a no-hit situation.

 

[Cotton]

Thank you!

I don't know why it's considered taboo to do what's best for YOUR team. You're not doing anything illegal or taking a cheap shot.

I don't give a damn about the opponent and their no-hitter attempt. In my dugout we'd always make the decision that best benefits us. This ain't little league where you'd concede to a lot of these unwritten rules. These are professionals.

If you bunt down by 8, then you're a shitty manager. Not just because it's a shitty thing to do, but it's terrible game management. I'm just saying.

 

[NoDak]

This has the makin’s of a dandy little border war.

Carry on, gentlemen.



For the record, I’ll be taking up arms with the ‘you don’t do that’ crowd.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

There is not a single professional team on this planet that has ever bunted down by 8. It has never happened. Ever. If you wouldn't do it in a normal game situation, then it is a shitty thing to do in a no-hit situation.

Like I said, if it gives you the best chance to get a base runner that's the definition of what you need to come back in a game like that. Just depends on what you think of the guy whose bunting's ability to make it to first.

I don't agree with bunting to try and break up a no hitter but you aren't going to win without base runners. If bunting gives you the best chance to do that why wouldn't you? Or is it better to give up and hand out free no hitters?

 

[bbgun]

Right field, Target Field.

 

[Cotton]

Like I said, if it gives you the best chance to get a base runner that's the definition of what you need to come back in a game like that. Just depends on what you think of the guy whose bunting's ability to make it to first.

I don't agree with bunting to try and break up a no hitter but you aren't going to win without base runners. If bunting gives you the best chance to do that why wouldn't you? Or is it better to give up and hand out free no hitters?

Would I agree with my manager bunting down 8? No, I would not.

 

[NoDak]

God damn. My Twins are fucking stinking up the joint this year. Just dropped another extra inning game. I think that makes them 0-9 so far this year.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Would I agree with my manager bunting down 8? No, I would not.

If you got a 25% chance of getting a base runner by bunting and a 5% chance of getting a home run or base hit I'd say you aren't playing the odds and trying to win.

 

[Cotton]

If you got a 25% chance of getting a base runner by bunting and a 5% chance of getting a home run or base hit I'd say you aren't playing the odds and trying to win.

A good batter gets a hit 30% of the time. You do not get on base 25% of the time by bunting. Your odds are way better trying to get a hit. Otherwise, why wouldn't teams just bunt all the time instead of very rarely?

 

[1bigfan13]

A good batter gets a hit 30% of the time. You do not get on base 25% of the time by bunting. Your odds are way better trying to get a hit. Otherwise, why wouldn't teams just bunt all the time instead of very rarely?

I'll tell you who definitely should be bunting.......the Seattle Mariners. We're roughly 2 months into the season and they're only batting .198 as a team and have already been no-hit twice.

If you're managing the Mariners, would tell your guys to bunt if they've already been no-hit 4 or 5 times on the season? Which seems like a possibility for the Mariners. What's the threshold?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

A good batter gets a hit 30% of the time. You do not get on base 25% of the time by bunting. Your odds are way better trying to get a hit. Otherwise, why wouldn't teams just bunt all the time instead of very rarely?

You're talking about a game where your hitters are batting with a 0% chance against that pitcher though. Hell even you think bunting is a cheap attempt to break up the no hitter. Which tells us all you think bunting gives you a better chance of getting a base runner than swinging away.

So again, you want to win the game? You have to get base runners. What gives you the best shot of that in this situation?

 

[Cotton]

You're talking about a game where your hitters are batting with a 0% chance against that pitcher though. Hell even you think bunting is a cheap attempt to break up the no hitter. Which tells us all you think bunting gives you a better chance of getting a base runner than swinging away.

So again, you want to win the game? You have to get base runners. What gives you the best shot of that in this situation?

So, say you bunt and get on, then what? Do you bunt every batter? If not, why not? It's because swinging away gives you a better shot at scoring runs. You don't manufacture runs by bunting every batter. No team has ever done that. Ever.

 

[Cotton]

I'll tell you who definitely should be bunting.......the Seattle Mariners. We're roughly 2 months into the season and they're only batting .198 as a team and have already been no-hit twice.

If you're managing the Mariners, would tell your guys to bunt if they've already been no-hit 4 or 5 times on the season? Which seems like a possibility for the Mariners. What's the threshold?

Yeah, the Mariners bats are horrific. In their case maybe they should bunt every batter.