"Major League" and Taylor's bad strategy.

In “Major League” at the end…why does Taylor point to the bleachers?

PRO: It gets the 3B to back up a few feet. However, there are already two outs and Taylor isn’t known for his speed. The 3B is already going to be well back. He would be just as surprised if Taylor bunted without the point.

CON: Knowing the pitcher is going to throw at you (Hayes doesn’t take off the first time) messes up the timing of the play. The Duke could have thrown at Jake’s head on the second pitch also. Then (assuming he misses) you’ve got Hayes on 3B. Which doesn’t increase the win probability very much. And if he hits Taylor, Hayes has to go back to 2B and you’ve got men on first and second.

ALSO, Taylor has to wait until he’s sure the Duke isn’t going to throw at his head. Taylor actually does this weird kind of swinging bunt. That’s incredibly difficult. Taylor is very lucky it all worked.

The con you listed is the proper response, but it was handled a little inartfully in the picture.

The point was nothing but to irritate a bean-baller, setting up the ultimate confrontation of the movie. Of course, Willie Mays Hayes would have no idea that he needed to wait for the second pitch before breaking for third, but the movie isn’t a documentary. A little artistic license and suspension of disbelief is warranted here.

Of course. And for all intents, it’s pretty realistic. That ‘trick play’ has been done before IRL.

And the guy Charlie Sheen strikes out…they climb the ladder on him. For anyone who doesn’t know what that is, each successive pitch is a little higher so the last one almost eye-level and almost impossible to catch up to.

I DID laugh when Serrano kissed his bat and carried it around the base path. Today, that would start a riot.

… especially against the Braves :wink:

Try not to think too hard about the batting order though. As seen in the movie, it’s impossible without some crazy double switches in the 8th. And why is a broken down catcher who can’t run right after the speediest guy on the team?

And considering it was an American League game, the chances of a double switch are just about nil.

It’s been so long since I saw the movie can someone refresh my memory. I have always thought there was a flaw in the movie but I can only vaguely re eber what it was. It had something to do with wanting to sell the team, so they assembled a crap team so that attendance would be too low. But instead they won and attendance was high. Yet they focused on the final game, which if I recall it didn’t really matter in terms of keeping the team alive or something. Can someone clear this up for me.

…look, a decoy!

No, really, that part didn’t actually make sense. Hitting attendance figures to spite your boss is a lousy way to write an ending. It’s a baseball movie, so of course they needed to end it in a game.

If you want a fanwank, the manager (Brown?) was looking for some way to motivate his players, and the plot to move the team provided the necessary spark to spite the boss. From there, success built upon itself, and every professional player is going to want to make it to the playoffs, not least to spite the owner and provide job security if/when the owner fires the entire team and replace them with even lousier players.

Not a fanwank at all. Brown explicitly states that all he needs is something to bring them together, after which the general manager tells him of the owner’s scheme. Brown relays this to the team and they say the only way to respond is to win it all.

They got chili-dogs in France?

Yeah. But they don’t call it a chili dog.

They call it a Deluxe with chili.

What Antibob said. A player from a team that made the playoffs is worth a lot more than one that didn’t. Job security somewhere else was the goal, along with spiting the owner.