No outs, man on 2nd. Bunt the darn ball!

[Beave]

Seriously, when will Leyland learn? We've had guys on 2nd with no outs a couple of times tonight and Leyland is to friggin proud or dumb to bunt. We'd have this game tied right now (we're down by 2) because of it too, and there have been other games this year we lost because of one run where he wouldn't put the bunt on.

[radiohead]

Statistics show that you are much better off NOT bunting. Statistically you have a better chance of producing a run with runners on 1st and 2nd and 0 outs then you do by giving up an out just to move them over to 2nd and 3rd. I've never understood why people want to give up an out just to move runners over. You only get 3 outs in an inning, so why give up 1/3 of your availability to drive the run in? 8 times out of 10 a single will score a runner from 2nd, so you leave yourself 3 chances to do that if you do not sacrifice the runner.
I can see it in the 9th when you are down to your last inning if you move a runner to 3rd base with no outs, and then needing just a sacrifice fly to tie or go ahead based on the situation.
But what sense does it make to bunt a runner to 3rd with 1 out. A runner on 3rd with 2 outs is less valuable than a runner on 2nd with 1 out in my opinion.


Seriously, when will Leyland learn? We've had guys on 2nd with no outs a couple of times tonight and Leyland is to friggin proud or dumb to bunt. We'd have this game tied right now (we're down by 2) because of it too, and there have been other games this year we lost because of one run where he wouldn't put the bunt on.

[theredmission]

it worked for the rays tonight and cost us the game:rolleyes:

[Brown duck]

I like the bunt, but I can understand letting them swing away when they're leading the majors in batting with runners in scoring position - just didn't get it done last night.

[radiohead]

a bunt did not cost us the game. our CF with his head up his rear cost us the game. nothing to gain by diving for that ball. with a 3 run lead you keep the ball in front of you and avoid the big inning.



it worked for the rays tonight and cost us the game:rolleyes:

[y2ba]

Statistics show that you are much better off NOT bunting. Statistically you have a better chance of producing a run with runners on 1st and 2nd and 0 outs then you do by giving up an out just to move them over to 2nd and 3rd. I've never understood why people want to give up an out just to move runners over. You only get 3 outs in an inning, so why give up 1/3 of your availability to drive the run in? 8 times out of 10 a single will score a runner from 2nd, so you leave yourself 3 chances to do that if you do not sacrifice the runner.
I can see it in the 9th when you are down to your last inning if you move a runner to 3rd base with no outs, and then needing just a sacrifice fly to tie or go ahead based on the situation.
But what sense does it make to bunt a runner to 3rd with 1 out. A runner on 3rd with 2 outs is less valuable than a runner on 2nd with 1 out in my opinion.


Bunting is a big part of the game. Leyland doesnt bunt, because most guys in the lineup cant bunt. I understand this is a slugging team and he likes to let his guys swing away. But im not buying the "statistics show" that bunting is the wrong move in that spot. Bunt the damn runner over and hit a flyball. Small ball is still alive and well..and it wins games ..period. This yr in the central division there might be 4- 90 games winners and i think it will be so tight that every games does mean something. If they cant move runners now...what makes you think they will be able to do it in sept-oct?
I like Leyland...but this is not the first time i thought he should have moved runners along and didnt..and it came back to bite his behind.

[greelhappy]

To me, these things should be considered when bunting. Is the bunter a dependable bunter? Who are the next batters? Big swingers like Monroe or Thames are more apt to strike out than make run scoring contact. Gullien or Polanco are better contact hitters. I remember a game awhile back where the Tigers, being down a run at the time, had a runner on first in the 8th. Inge was up and batting something like .070 something. I can't remember exactly who was on deck, but at that time he was our hottest hitter. If there ever was a time to call for a bunt, this was it. No outs at the time. Leyland had Inge swinging away and he did nothing to raise his average. How the next two batters went down is a mute point. But at that stage of the game a successful bunt would have at least put a man in scoring position and a possible extension to the game.