said_aouita
Posts: 8,532
May 10, 2010 9:08am
The "unwritten" rule of not bunting during a no-hitter is dumb.
"You play to win the game!" - Herm Edwards. Too bad the idiot fanatics of baseball do not understand this.
"You play to win the game!" - Herm Edwards. Too bad the idiot fanatics of baseball do not understand this.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
May 10, 2010 9:13am
And bunting rather than trying to hit a home run isn't trying to win the game you dumbass.
D
Drums of War
Posts: 356
May 10, 2010 9:20am
I agree, but if you are down by 2 , getting on base allows the tying run to reach the plate. One swing can tie the game. I played for many years, and respect the game. I see both sides here, as a fierce competitor, and as a former pithcer.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
May 10, 2010 9:23am
In certain instances it can be.lhslep134 wrote: And bunting rather than trying to hit a home run isn't trying to win the game you dumbass.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
May 10, 2010 9:26am
Let's see here.
A bunt or a homerun in a game in which you're getting no-hit.
Home run EVERY TIME. Why? Because the pitcher you're going up against has stuff good enough to retire everyone, so what is a bunt going to accomplish? More than likely you'd get stranded, whereas the homerun will not only rattle the pitcher, but give your team a run as well.
Stupid OP.
A bunt or a homerun in a game in which you're getting no-hit.
Home run EVERY TIME. Why? Because the pitcher you're going up against has stuff good enough to retire everyone, so what is a bunt going to accomplish? More than likely you'd get stranded, whereas the homerun will not only rattle the pitcher, but give your team a run as well.
Stupid OP.
Rotinaj
Posts: 7,699
May 10, 2010 9:32am
because its just so damn easy to go up and hit a home run.Its just sounds dumb that your even saying that. A bunt hit accomplishes a base runner which they havent had all game. Hitting is contagious, who knows what would of happened. Also it was the 5th inning, not like it was the 9th.
Stupid LHS.
Stupid LHS.
D
dat dude
Posts: 1,564
May 10, 2010 9:32am
Wow, what a novel concept: A homerun is better than a bunt. Who woulda thunk it?lhslep134 wrote: Let's see here.
A bunt or a homerun in a game in which you're getting no-hit.
Home run EVERY TIME. Why? Because the pitcher you're going up against has stuff good enough to retire everyone, so what is a bunt going to accomplish? More than likely you'd get stranded, whereas the homerun will not only rattle the pitcher, but give your team a run as well.
Stupid OP.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
May 10, 2010 9:33am
lol, wow
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
May 10, 2010 9:44am
Well if a homerun is clearly better than a bunt, or for that matter so are a double and a triple, why would you not at least TRY for it, instead conceding that you can't get it and bunt instead? That's why you hardly ever see anyone try and break up a no hitter with a bunt, it's not an unwritten rule per se, it's an illogical decision.
Laley23
Posts: 29,506
May 10, 2010 9:49am
I think its retarded to bunt during a no hitter because I dont think a bunt is usually all that successful. You are more likely to reach with a clean base hit than a bunt.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
May 10, 2010 10:02am
depends on the score. 1-0 or 2-0, I dont see a problem with bunting in any inning.
mucalum49
Posts: 1,639
May 10, 2010 10:23am
Don't tell that to Chris PerezGlory Days wrote: depends on the score. 1-0 or 2-0, I dont see a problem with bunting in any inning.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/386176-howie-kendrick-embarrasses-indians-chris-perez-embarrasses-himself
2quik4u
Posts: 4,388
May 10, 2010 10:26am
baseball blows
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
May 10, 2010 10:34am
Rules in general in baseball are dumb. They should let the players roid up, maybe it'd be more exciting to watch....
Drunk.
Drunk.
D
Drums of War
Posts: 356
May 10, 2010 10:43am
A bunt is VERY effective when nobody expects it. You are looking at the effectiveness of bunting over all. 95% of cases are when the D is expecting it.Laley23 wrote: I think its retarded to bunt during a no hitter because I dont think a bunt is usually all that successful. You are more likely to reach with a clean base hit than a bunt.
Now that you have a runner on base it does several things. Taking a pitcher out of his wind can be a game changer. Similar to a good rush on a QB. It can throw off the timing entirely, take 3-4 mph off the fastball, or flatten out a curve or slider.
I know it is a bit of a punk move, but it can be good fundemental baseball.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
May 10, 2010 10:50am
And my response to that is this: if it is such a good fundamental baseball move, then why does no one do it? It's because it's not anywhere near as easy to get as a base hit. If it was so easy to get a bunt single, we'd see it a lot more often, but because it's a dumb baseball move, it's hardly ever used, relative to how many times a batter attempts to get a base hit.Drums of War wrote:A bunt is VERY effective when nobody expects it. You are looking at the effectiveness of bunting over all. 95% of cases are when the D is expecting it.Laley23 wrote: I think its retarded to bunt during a no hitter because I dont think a bunt is usually all that successful. You are more likely to reach with a clean base hit than a bunt.
Now that you have a runner on base it does several things. Taking a pitcher out of his wind can be a game changer. Similar to a good rush on a QB. It can throw off the timing entirely, take 3-4 mph off the fastball, or flatten out a curve or slider.
I know it is a bit of a punk move, but it can be good fundemental baseball.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
May 10, 2010 11:06am
I'll give you an instance where bunting in a no-hitter is "Bush league".
If you are down by 3 or more runs late in the game its Bush League.
If you are down by 2 or less, its "ok" in my book, and I'm a baseball "purist" that likes most of the unwritten rules.
If you are down by 3 or more runs late in the game its Bush League.
If you are down by 2 or less, its "ok" in my book, and I'm a baseball "purist" that likes most of the unwritten rules.
G
Gblock
May 10, 2010 11:20am
jmog wrote: I'll give you an instance where bunting in a no-hitter is "Bush league".
If you are down by 3 or more runs late in the game its Bush League.
If you are down by 2 or less, its "ok" in my book, and I'm a baseball "purist" that likes most of the unwritten rules.
i agree with this i dont think it's necessarily an unwritten rule that you cant bunt during a no-hitter....if the score is 2-0 its perfectly ok it has happened before without repercussions...
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
May 10, 2010 12:34pm
Agreed.Gblock wrote:jmog wrote: I'll give you an instance where bunting in a no-hitter is "Bush league".
If you are down by 3 or more runs late in the game its Bush League.
If you are down by 2 or less, its "ok" in my book, and I'm a baseball "purist" that likes most of the unwritten rules.
i agree with this i dont think it's necessarily an unwritten rule that you cant bunt during a no-hitter....if the score is 2-0 its perfectly ok it has happened before without repercussions...
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
May 10, 2010 1:08pm
Of course, IMO it is bush league for the defense and pitcher to sit back in assumption that there won't be a bunt, why should they have even more of an advantage? Don't want to lose a no hitter on a bunt? Field your position properly.jmog wrote: I'll give you an instance where bunting in a no-hitter is "Bush league".
If you are down by 3 or more runs late in the game its Bush League.
If you are down by 2 or less, its "ok" in my book, and I'm a baseball "purist" that likes most of the unwritten rules.
If the game is in question, this is the dumbest unwritten rule ever. It's like an NFL team pitching a shutout in the 4th quarter up 7-0 and griping that the other team kicks a field goal.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
May 10, 2010 1:13pm
Bunts are situational, almost everyone that has played baseball would rather swing away than bunt, but if the defense opens up for it and the coaches signal you to bunt, you take advantage of it.lhslep134 wrote:And my response to that is this: if it is such a good fundamental baseball move, then why does no one do it? It's because it's not anywhere near as easy to get as a base hit. If it was so easy to get a bunt single, we'd see it a lot more often, but because it's a dumb baseball move, it's hardly ever used, relative to how many times a batter attempts to get a base hit.Drums of War wrote:A bunt is VERY effective when nobody expects it. You are looking at the effectiveness of bunting over all. 95% of cases are when the D is expecting it.Laley23 wrote: I think its retarded to bunt during a no hitter because I dont think a bunt is usually all that successful. You are more likely to reach with a clean base hit than a bunt.
Now that you have a runner on base it does several things. Taking a pitcher out of his wind can be a game changer. Similar to a good rush on a QB. It can throw off the timing entirely, take 3-4 mph off the fastball, or flatten out a curve or slider.
I know it is a bit of a punk move, but it can be good fundemental baseball.
Typically the corners know when the batter has the speed and capabilities to successfully lay down a bunt and adjust their positions accordingly. That is why it is difficult to bunt for a hit. If for some half-assed reason a third baseman is playing out of position for a bunt due to some stupid unwritten rule that 'the batter isn't allowed to do it' - again IMO the bush league move is on the third baseman.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
May 10, 2010 1:15pm
Did you actually read what I typed?Manhattan Buckeye wrote:Of course, IMO it is bush league for the defense and pitcher to sit back in assumption that there won't be a bunt, why should they have even more of an advantage? Don't want to lose a no hitter on a bunt? Field your position properly.jmog wrote: I'll give you an instance where bunting in a no-hitter is "Bush league".
If you are down by 3 or more runs late in the game its Bush League.
If you are down by 2 or less, its "ok" in my book, and I'm a baseball "purist" that likes most of the unwritten rules.
If the game is in question, this is the dumbest unwritten rule ever. It's like an NFL team pitching a shutout in the 4th quarter up 7-0 and griping that the other team kicks a field goal.
Basically what I said is if the game is still in question (1 or 2 run lead) then bunting during a no-hitter is fine.
Its if you are down by a bunch and then bunting its obvious you are only doing it to screw up the no-hitter, not to win the game. That's Bush League and deserves a good bean ball to the back
.
hasbeen
Posts: 6,504
May 10, 2010 1:15pm
When was the last time you played a full season of baseball because I saw bunting for a base hit every game this spring in college ball.lhslep134 wrote:And my response to that is this: if it is such a good fundamental baseball move, then why does no one do it? It's because it's not anywhere near as easy to get as a base hit. If it was so easy to get a bunt single, we'd see it a lot more often, but because it's a dumb baseball move, it's hardly ever used, relative to how many times a batter attempts to get a base hit.Drums of War wrote:A bunt is VERY effective when nobody expects it. You are looking at the effectiveness of bunting over all. 95% of cases are when the D is expecting it.Laley23 wrote: I think its retarded to bunt during a no hitter because I dont think a bunt is usually all that successful. You are more likely to reach with a clean base hit than a bunt.
Now that you have a runner on base it does several things. Taking a pitcher out of his wind can be a game changer. Similar to a good rush on a QB. It can throw off the timing entirely, take 3-4 mph off the fastball, or flatten out a curve or slider.
I know it is a bit of a punk move, but it can be good fundemental baseball.
In the major leagues it's not as easy to get a successful bunt but if a team is sitting back it is a great baseball play.
Put pressure on defenses.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
May 10, 2010 1:17pm
"Did you actually read what I just read?"
Yes, that is why I agreed 100% with it. Did you read what I wrote?
Would it have helped instead of saying "Of course" I said "this"?
Yes, that is why I agreed 100% with it. Did you read what I wrote?
Would it have helped instead of saying "Of course" I said "this"?
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
May 10, 2010 1:20pm
My bad, I didn't see the "of course", it sounded like you were disagreeing with me.Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Did you actually read what I just read?"
Yes, that is why I agreed 100% with it. Did you read what I wrote?
Would it have helped instead of saying "Of course" I said "this"?
Honestly though, playing baseball through college, I don't think anyone adheres to the "rule" if the game is close/in question. Teams would only get mad if it was like 5 or 6 to 0 and someone pulled a bunt out to end a no-hitter.