Damn, I posted this an hour ago, now its gone. Oh well, such is life…
Well anyway, I was watching SportsCenter this weekend, and saw highlights of Curt Shilling’s near perfect game. Apparently the person who broke it up did so on a bunt single. When they interviewed the Arizona manager (Shilling’s team), he said it was “chicken shit” to do so. He said that going for a bunt base hit in the bottom of the seventh is just chicken shit.
Now, I disagree. If the infield is playing deep (to protect the perfect game), I would want to use that to my advantage as much as possible. Anything I can do to get on base should be utilized. The infield is there not to protect the pitcher’s accomplishment, but to protect the pitcher’s win.
What’s the deelio? I’m sure there’s a straightforward answer regarding the ethics of bunting.
(Note to mods: I realize that “ethics” don’t typically result in a specific answer, and is different for everyone. But I didn’t put this in IMHO b/c I figured there would be one particular standard that baseball operates on, and that’s the answer I’m looking for. Any further discussion of the topic post OP-answer would of course be IMHO. We know the drill.)
Bunting to get on base, as opposed to moving someone over or a sacrifice, is a perfectly legitimate tactic when the infielders are playing back. Should the batter swing away since that’s what the defense is expecting/hoping? Bunting is a time honored part of the game and while spoiling a perfect game for the pitcher doesn’t sound sporting… the job of the batter is to do just that however he can.
The unwritten rule is to go down swinging. Mano a mano type stuff. The complication to this is that the game was still close (2-0) and his bunt single brought up the tying run. I will have to check the latest edition of Baseball’s Unwritten Rulebook.
Well, in my opinion, one of the appeals of baseball is the sort of mythical admiration of the game and its time honored traditions.
It’s long been UNDERSTOOD among baseball players that you don’t break up a perfect game with a bunt…so this player bunted KNOWING that, which means (in my mind) he’s a dick.
Of course, this is why baseball isn’t as popular as it used to be. Because everyone’s in it for money and personal fame rather than the fun traditions of the game. Of course your goal is always to win the baseball game, but winning it by being a prick isn’t nice. Swing away and try to hit the heat that he’s obviously been throwing past you all day.
The reaction of some people to that particular bunt puzzled and annoyed me. As dolphinboy said, the job of the batter is to do whatever he can to get on base. If the infield’s playing back and you’re a good bunter, then bunt. If Arizona thought the batter should have swung away, why would he do this if he felt he’d be better off bunting?
In addition, it was a very close game - 2-0. That’s when you bunt. One guy bunts, another guy could sacrifice him to second, and a third guy could single him home. That’s fundamental baseball. Now, if Arizona was ahead 11-0, I think it would have been a different story, because the bunt single probably wouldn’t have impacted the game as easily. If you’re down 11-0 and you bunt, you’re (at best) trying to start a rally - but it would have to be a strong rally.
I think the Arizona players - and others who agreed with them - were just upset that a perfect game was spoiled by such a “short” hit. After all, if the player had hit a home run, they wouldn’t have been so upset, would they? And if that had happened, not only would the perfect game and no-hitter have been gone, so would the shutout! So which is worse - giving up a bunt single or a home run?
the point is dan, if you were a lover and player of baseball, and you’d known since you were a kid playing in little league that “hey, we know this isn’t a hard set RULE, but it’s just TRADITION that you don’t break up a perfect game with a bunt. It’s part of how we play the game” and you disregarded that…it’s being dickish.
If I say “macbeth” backstage at a performance I’m also being dickish, because I KNOW that it just isn’t done.
Also, your scenario of a bunt followed by two consecutive singles is sort of far fetched seeing as NO ONE was able to swing and hit the ball for a single all night long. What makes you think that all of the sudden they’d start hitting his pitches?
I didn’t see the game in question, but according to the box score and Schilling’s line, he had nine strikeouts and gave up one walk. No batter in the SD lineup aside from Kotsay struck out more than once. Schilling, facing 31 batters, had 9 ground ball outs and 9 fly ball outs in addition to the 9 K’s. That hardly qualifies as Schilling “throwing heat past them all day.”
Hold on… There’s actually a real book called Baseball’s Unwritten Rulebook? Or were you just being sarcastic, plasticbryan? If you can come up with a relevant quote from such a book, then we can definitely keep this in GQ.
Tradition? I’m sorry, I thought the biggest tradition of them all was winning the game. Sorry. My mistake. You’re right, he should have struck out. And you know, I’d like to have been his teammates then, when he comes back to the dugout and they ask him why he didn’t bunt. “Oh,” he says sheepishly, “tradition dictates that you don’t break up a perfect game with a bunt.” At which point his teammates will beat the living crap out of him.
You see, there are two teams here, not one. Did the bunter break the rules? No. Did he bend a rule? No. He did his job.
You’re confusing tradition with superstition. (BTW, it’s not “macbeth” that’s bad to say but “the Scottish play”, IIRC.)
Maybe you haven’t seen many near-no hitters/perfect games, but what can and does happen is that once that first person gets a hit (late in the game), the pitcher is thrown off his game a little. If I’ve been pitching a gem the whole game and then give up a hit, my rhythm is a little off. In addition, the team that got that hit suddenly gets a big boost in morale - “Hey, we can beat this guy! We can get a hit!”
And, of course, as I said before - which would you prefer, if you were a Diamondback: a bunt single or a home run? And before you say again “Oh, but they weren’t hitting him up to that point”, do not forget that there have been countless games in which the pitcher went deep into the game with a no-no and then served up a home run. It might not be a strong probability, but yes, it CAN and has happened.
After further thought, jarbabyj, another “part of how we play the game” is to win ballgames and go to the postseason. Winning or losing a single game at any point in the season, especially with the expanded playoff system, can mean the difference between going to the postseason or not (cf. the 2000 Cleveland Indians, who missed going to the postseason for the first time since 1995 by a single game). Tradition is one thing, contending is another. You don’t purposefully give up an opportunity to get on base and score a run when your team is contending, perfect game or not.
BTW dan, I’m an actress, have been since I was 13. It’s Macbeth. You SAY the scottish play so you don’t say Macbeth.
Anyway, I’m out of this. Because I do get emotional about the history and tradition of baseball, it’s the literary and dramatic side of me. I understand the concept of baseball is to win games. I’m not an idiot.
I also know that I’m not alone on the issue of respecting no hitters. Ask a great deal of baseball players and you’ll get the same answers.
That’s a tough one - good question. According to the rule book, it’s technically not allowed, but you rarely see umps enforce this. I don’t think I’d call it ‘dickish’ behavior, because the batter does suffer, after all - it’s not like he’s being greedy or self-serving.
Even if he leans over the plate - or heck, stands on the thing - and gets hit, I don’t know if he’s done a rotten thing. On the other hand, if he went so far as to stand on the plate, I think it’s most likely he’d be called out by the ump.
It is high time that the George Wills of the world get down of the high horse about the history and tradition of baseball. The object of the game is to win within the rules. Should Cal Ripken have taken himself out so that Lou Gehrig’s record could remain unbroken (surely one of the most well respected records ever and part of the history and tradition of the game). Should Mark McGwire have stopped short of the home run record? Of course not. Play the game to win, or else don’t play.
I suppose it all comes down to a bit of sportsmanship. Winning is important. Both sides want to win. Nobody can argue that. And it would be very difficult to give up the chance to win just to help the opposing pitcher get a perfect game. But on the other hand…its a rough call. Compare it to the batter who is pushing a record. Say he is going for the most hits in a season…one more hit, and he is in the record books. The crowd knows this…they would love to see history made. He is up to bat. The other team chooses to intentionally walk him. You will hear boos like you have never heard before. Did the other team do something unethical? Of course not. A bit low? Definitely yes. But for some, winning is the important thing. There are different personalities out there. The personality that says “you want that perfect game? Then you better damn well prevent this bunt.” Then there is the personality that says, “No matter what I will play my best, but I dont want to purposely jeopardize this guys perfect game. He has worked hard for it.” Neither one is wrong. Its just 2 different way of looking at it.
If a batter leans into a pitch to break up a perfect game (late in the game), the umpire will almost certainly force the hitter back into the batter’s box, and not allow him to take 1st base. Umpires are very aware of what’s going on. Even if they’ve never called batter’s interference previously, they will not let one of these slip by in such a situation.
I’ve played baseball and have been a fan for 25 years, and have never heard of bunting your way on as being “cheap”. In fact, if you’re a good bunter and the 3rd baseman is playing too far back, my coaches would insist on bunting to break up the no-hitter. To be no-hit is one of the most embarrasing situations for a team to be in. You’re supposed to do anything in your power to protect the pride of your team and break up the no-no.
Now, there is a distinction between protecting the pride and reputation of your TEAM vs. your own personal reputation. Therefore, a pitcher intentionally walking a batter with a hitting streak going on is viewed as “cheap” and “selfish” because the team’s reputation was not at stake.
My question of this so-called tradition is, “at what point in the game is my bunting breaking the tradition?” The seventh? The fifth? Surely just because I bunt to get on base in the third inning of a so far hitless game I’m not bucking “tradition.” Even in the seventh, the pitcher has only gone 2/3 of the way there. There’s a lot of game to go.
In the OP, the player was trying to get on base, trying to spark the team. Christ, they were only down by two. If the other team wants to risk a bunt single by playing deep it’s their own fault (actually, it’s probably the manager who’s screaming chickens**t’s fault for being outwitted.)
In Tornado Siren’s scenario regarding the hitter, it depends on the purpose of the intentional walk. Was it because there were runners on and the pitcher has better success with the next batter, or just because they didn’t want him to break the record? I see no problem with the former, but the latter is just low.