I’m surprised to hear this. I thought it was an “unwritten” rule to do everything one can to produce runs, get hits, and win the game.
If a bunt is the best method to get on base, I’d think it’d be an unwritten rule to not bunt. It’s like not trying to win.
Hell yes the picher has to earn it.
But ninth inning and you are losing by 10 runs a dozen games out from getting in the playoffs? Bunting is bush league and will get you one at the head next time you are at bat.
Bunting is within the rules and a fair and legimitate play, but sportsmanship and not being a jerk should come into play.
I’m trying to work out what you mean by this sentence.
The second half implies that bunting might be unsportsmanlike or jerkish, yet the first half says that it’s within the rules as a fair and legitimate play.
In this situation, it is my job to do the best I can, so I do the best I can.
Which will get the pitcher a busted nose when I get done charging the mound when he does. Earn that no-hitter, ya bastid! I give it up easy for nobody!
I was playing on words about the “rules” of this board about being a jerk as what I thought folks woud see.
Earn it as a hitter, take a swing and hit the ball that’s what you are there for. I don’t care if it’s a dribbler up the middle or a whopper over the wall.
Laying down a pansy little bunt in game like I said, ninth inning 10 runs down, late in the season with no chance of the playoffs is a cheesy move. Swing the damn bat!
I scratched my head a few moments on that one, too. I think what Mr. Goob trying to say is that, if you’re ten runs behind than a two-out bunt is pretty bush league, breaking up a no-hitter or not – 99.99% of the time you’re not going to get those ten runners over before the end of the inning (and game).
If you’re one or two (or no!) runs behind, bunt away – you’ve got a legitimate shot at changing the outcome of the game.
On preview: See? Told ya.
You say “Earn it as a hitter,” but you clearly don’t mean it. A hitter who bunts for a single earned just the same as if he hit a line drive single.
You say, “take a swing and hit the ball that’s what you are there for,” but that could apply equally when there isn’t a no-hitter on the line.
You said earlier that bunting is a “fair and legitimate play,” but now it’s “pansy” and “cheesy.” Either a bunt is a fair and legitimate play, or it’s pansy and cheesy, but whichever one it is doesn’t change if the pitcher happens to be throwing a no-hitter. Your argument makes no sense at all.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
It’s not an either/or. Fair and legitimate play can also be pansy and cheesy. Down ten runs in the ninth with two outs, an attempt to bunt single is both. Down only one run, and any attempt to get a runner on base is justified. Just like stealing bases and sacrificing runners into scoring position is frowned upon when a team is up 8 - 10 runs, but perfectly acceptable and expected in a 2 run game. Trying to justify cheesy tactics with the claim “but the rules said I could” will get a player plunked, possibly by his own team.
SO add me to the “he has to earn it” camp! I may strike out, but dammit I’m gonna give it all I’ve got.
Call me crazy, but i thought that getting on base was exactly what major league baseball players get paid to do. I wasn’t aware that it needed to be “justified” if you happened to be down by a lot of runs. In fact, one might argue that a large deficit is precisely when you need to do everything possible to get on base.
And people say cricket is hard to understand.
Individual records and accomplishments take a back seat to the integrity of the game. The proper action for the batter is to do whatever it is that maximizes his team’s chance for victory. If a two out bunt brings the tying run to the plate, I don’t question that one bit. If the pitcher doesn’t want a bunt, have the infielders play in closer.
Shit. Seven years of college down the drain!
Another vote for “Do your damnedest for your team; make him earn that no-hitter.”
In the 6th inning, yes. In the 9th with two outs, it is being an asshole. If the distinction is lost on you, you really need to pay much more attention to any baseball you might watch. I rephrase and reiterate - just because it is a fair, legal play does not make it ‘right’. It can still be assholish (or as previously stated, cheesy and pansy).
Missed my window, so:
ETA: Saturday’s no-hitter was a 10-0 game, so a 2 out - 9th inning bunt would have been a useless gesture who’s only goal would have been to attempt to break up the no-hitter. If the game were 1-0, I would be far less inclined to fault the team for doing whatever was necessary to get a baserunner. Around a 4-to-5 run deficit, it would be a gray area. 6 or more, then the player is an asshole who deserves the dusting he will get in his next at-bat.
(With the way Buckholtz (sp?) pitches were breaking, I don’t even know if a bunt would have worked).
What about the 7th inning? What about the 8th? What if there are no outs in the 9th? Or 1 out? And what run difference is required for bunting to be acceptable.
Perhaps you could put together a little table for us. It might look something like an Expected Runs Matrix, but instead of looking at outs and baserunners in order to determine expected runs, your table could look at innings and run deficits in order to determine the cheesiness or pansiness quotient of a bunt.
You might make a whole new contribution to the field of sabermetrics.
Baseball’s unwritten rules have allways made me think that baseball players have the thinnest skins and are th ebiggest prikma donna babies in sports…Don’t bunt to break up a no-hitter, don’t admire a home run, don’t steal a base late in the game with a big lead. TO me these are all garbage, just play the freaking game.
Wow. That’s extremely generous of you. I’ll let MLB know that you’re “less inclined to fault” a team for trying to win when down by 1 run in the ninth inning. Perhaps you’d be willing to also share your studied opinion on pitchers throwing nasty breaking balls when up by 6 or more runs. Acceptable? Pansy? Should they throw a few hanging sliders in there to allow some hits and keep the game close? Inquiring minds want to know.
And so the whole point of all this whining against bunting becomes moot.
If the pitcher and his defense are any good, they should be able to prevent a bunt base hit on the majority of occasions anyway. Just like they can prevent a regular swinging hit on the majority of occasions. Getting on base in baseball is hard. Even the very best players do it less than half the time,* including walks (which would not break up a no-hitter anyway).
What if the infielders stood back a few steps further than usual in order to increase their range and their chance for a ground ball out? Would that change your mind about bunting? If not, why is it acceptable for fielders to do something unusual in order to increase their chances for an out, but not OK for a hitter to take advantage of that adjustment by making one of his own, and laying down a bunt?