You are working for Company X. They are one of the smaller and less prestigious companies in the field. But you are happy there. Your obligation to your company (and why you deserve your paycheck) is to try to make your company as successful as possible, to make your company’s revenue and prestige grow as much as possible. Now you are offered a job with Company Y, whose revenue and prestige are far greater then your present employer’s. But, to accept it you have to relocate and disrupt your family. Do you have to take it? If you turn it down, does it imply that you are not interested in helping your present employer be more successful? That you are not committed to success?
Here’s the point where we disagree. Speedy leadoff hitters use bunts quite often, and I don’t see it as a fluke. I maintain that a hit is a hit. You seem to think (correct me if I’m wrong) that bunting takes no skill, and you are easy to dismiss it as a fluke or as the defense not expecting it. By that logic, you can dismiss any hit, except for a HR.
“We expected him to go deep, so we played deep.”
Player hits a little looper that lands of the outfielder.
“We weren’t expecting hit it that short.”
A good defensive setup (essential to aiding the pitcher in any no-hitter, IMO) should be ready for all possibilities.
[nitpick]I disagree. That might be the point of a perfect game, but in a no-hitter men can reach base on walks, errors, and after being hit by a pitch. A pitcher can (theoretically) lose a game in which he pitches a no-hitter. Furthermore, a great many no-hitters are as much the result of great defense as they are great pitching. One can argue that, without the pitcher throwing the right pitches, the defense can’t do their job, but it’s a not-insignificant point.
As it happens, in the game in which the Davis/Schilling debacle occurred, there were 9 strikeouts, 9 groundouts, and 9 fly outs. Hardly a case of the pitcher “overmatching” 27 batters. And the game was only in the 7th inning at the time, with a very close score. The outcome was not a foregone conclusion.[/nitpick]
[nitpick]I disagree. That might be the point of a perfect game, but in a no-hitter men can reach base on walks, errors, and after being hit by a pitch. In fact, just to name a few examples, Sam Jones walked 7 men in his 1955 no-hitter, Kent Mercker walked 4 in his 1994 no-hitter, and Nolan Ryan walked 11 (!) in his record-setting fifth no-hitter in 1981. A pitcher can (theoretically) lose a game in which he pitches a no-hitter.
Furthermore, a great many no-hitters are as much the result of great defense as they are great pitching. One can argue that, without the pitcher throwing the right pitches, the defense can’t do their job, but it’s a not-insignificant point.
As it happens, in the game in which the Davis/Schilling debacle occurred, there were 9 strikeouts, 9 groundouts, and 9 fly outs. Hardly a case of the pitcher “overmatching” 27 batters. And the game was only in the 7th inning at the time, with a very close score. The outcome was not a foregone conclusion.[/nitpick]
Interestingly, I once started a thread about this very subject (in reference to sacrifice bunts).
I’m not saying that there’s no skill at all involved in bunting for a hit. Obviously speed and bat-handling will improve your chances. But I do think that a greatly disproportionate percentage of successful bunt hits are indeed the result of defensive misalignment and flukes, as opposed to other types of hits.
pld
[response to nitpick] I actually chose my words carefully there. A no hitter is one in which the “pitcher overmatches 27 batter[s] without getting bested by any”. A perfect game is one in which those are the only 27 batters of the game.
I don’t know why you assume that a batter who flied out or grounds out is not overmatched.
Sure there’s a lot of luck and great defense that goes into a no hitter. As there is that goes into many sports accomplishments. Still, you have to have some standard, and a no hitter is an objective mark of a dominant game by the pitcher.
I’m not familiar with the details of the Davis/Schilling bunt hit. My comments were intended in a general sense.[/response to nitpick]
Can I ask you to clarify for me, because I think I’m a little confused. Do you mean “without getting bested by any of those 27” or “without getting bested by any, period”? I’d say if a pitcher walks 11 batters, he got bested several times, especially if he did so in the midst of a no-hitter.
I don’t, which is why I said, “One can argue that, without the pitcher throwing the right pitches, the defense can’t do their job, but it’s a not-insignificant point.”
I don’t disagree that a no-hitter is an important objective standard for pitching performance, but I think the entire line for a pitcher has to be taken into account rather than just the zero in the “H” column. A no-hitter with 15 Ks and 2 walks is a very different kind of game than a no-hitter with 8 Ks and 11 walks.
Now that this has descended into a rehash of “The Bunt” here’s my thought.
If the sole reason for bunting was to break up the no-hitter then I will agree that it is somewhat unsporting (but then I don’t think you can complain too much when unwritten rules are broken).
So, if you accept that bunting can be a legitimate strategy in baseball then you have to ask whether it was a legitimate strategy for this game, regardless of the no-hit status.
I think most people would agree that if Schilling had already given up a hit, then the bunt would have seemed completely normal.
The biggest argument is that McGriff wants to stay and help his team win. McGriff was traded, he didn’t leave to free agency. The G.M. feels that the trade will help the team in the long run. It is not McGriffs perogitive to decide that it is better with him on the team. This is not a matter of wanting to help his team but wanting to stay where he is.
I am calling a hit the hitter besting the pitcher, and an out the pitcher overmatching the hitter, and leaving non-hits and non-outs off the table. (Generally those are not an accomplishment of the hitter - though he may have some degree of input - but are gifts of the pitcher and defense). Sorry if my wording was confusing.
I was referring to your statement that
I don’t think that follows.
Agreed. But so many standards are like that - if you look at the diferent examples in enough depth and detail you can differentiate between one and the other. Nonetheless the common standard is still useful.
About McGriff:Let’s not forget there is no State Income tax in Florida. I’d have stayed if I was him too, not just because of the tax, but everything added up.
It is when he has a no-trade clause that Tampa agreed to.
Baseball is all about winning games. That means trying your damndest to win every game you play. It means not giving up until the last out of the game is recorded. It does not mean, however, fleeing your team to some other team because they are doing better. I want to wretch when some crybaby leaves via free agency to big market team because ‘he wants to be on a winning team’. It pains me to see that this type of selfishness is considered a trait of a ‘winner’.
Just an opinion.
First of all, I think its kind of weird that somehow a thread about Fred McGriff vetoing a trade became a thread about that, and about bunting in a no-hitter.
So, back to the McGriff topic, I can’t blame him at all for not wanting to go to Chicago. He is at the end of his career, and living and playing in his hometown. This is probably pretty close to his dream job I would suppose, and I can see no reason that he’d want to pick up and move across the country. He earned (or at least negotiated) the right to have a no-trade clause in his contract, and it is there for a reason. He got that clause so that he, and not some GM’s, get decide where he plays for the rest of his career.
As for the posts that suggest that winning should be McGriff’s main goal, even if it means switching teams, I don’t agree. Helping his team (Tampa) should be one of his main goals, not helping any team (Chicago) win. Baseball is a team sport, not an individual sport. I don’t agree with the “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em” philosophy. Plus, its not like the Cubs are guaranteed to go far, or even make the playoffs or anything (yes, I’d say they have the inside track right now to win the central, obviously).
I say, do what you want Fred McGriff. You have had a career that most players can only dream of, and you have won a WS ring since 1908 (some teams haven’t won one since then). If a deal that you like comes around, take it, otherwise stay in your hometown and finish your great career where you want to be.
My reaction to the first McGriff quote is, “I can respect that. Family should come first.”
My reaction to the secong McGriff quote is, “WTF! Is he saying that he wouldn’t mind being traded to a team other than the Cubs.”
If McGriff stays in Tampa, I won’t have a problem with it. If he accepts a trade to another team, I can only conclude that he is, indeed, a big poopyhead.
Now I don’t see McGriff saying that. He’s just saying he might change his mind. Maybe the Cubs offer him a deal too sweet to turn down.
Of course, maybe he’s waiting to hear from the Mairners…
As a Cardinal fan though, I’m glad to see him stay in Tampa. Right now, this team needs all the help they can get if they want to claw their way back into the pennant race.
