Nick bunted on his own

[DrungoHazewood]

Do you mean if he had successfully sacrificed? Or if he had beat it out for a single?

If it's the former, I wouldn't have been applauding his baseball smarts. I'd be lamenting giving up an out against a pitcher on the ropes who had yet to retire a batter in the inning.

If it's the latter...well, that wasn't gonna happen. When does Markakis ever beat out a bunt single? Perhaps it's happened at some point in his career, but I can't remember any.

Markakis's bunt was the turning point of the game. The O's were primed for a big rally against Buchholz, and they let him off the hook, never to score again. No excuse for giving up an at-bat in such a critical situation.

If he's intentionally sacrificing, I agree it was really stupid. But I have to assume he was bunting for a hit, which I think was defensible. Of all the possible outcomes of bunting for a hit, he just happened to end up with a really awful, low-probability one. I have to think the outcomes, in order of probability would have to be something like:

1) Bunts for a hit

1a) Ends up with a sacrifice

1b) Fouls it off

somewhat less likely is

5) pops it up

and then somewhere way down in the noise is:

43) bunts into bizarre 2-5-3 double play

I'd have everyone bunt a handful of times a year, especially in weird situations, to keep the defense guessing and in non-optimal alignments.

[Mondo Trasho]

These might be the 3 worst posts I have seen since joining this site. Holy cow talk about overreaction.

You make that "assessment" off of one at bat?

You both might want to read ALL of what I write before getting all worked up. I also said that when he walks into the batter's box today I'll be over it.

It's not like he's William A. Cundiff and I hold it against him for life.

[HokieOs]

Absolutely ridiculous to think he would throw Nick under the bus. Buck is pretty big on integrity, and he would own it.

Given the way Buck's mind works, I wonder if it's one of those things where Buck thought out loud about the possibility of a bunt without actually calling for it and Nick heard it and thought "gee, good idea".

Wasn't the best idea, but the logic is there. Just not the right play.... but that's easier to say now that it bit us.

[Trackmaster]

Yes, but... game theory also says that it can be productive to occasionally use plays that are unexpected, otherwise the defense will set up knowing that you will never use them. A surprise bunt can be a wonderful, positive play because the defense is caught unaware. And when they get burned, they start cheating a little just in case, and you get a small advantage in the future.

It's a small-scale version of game theory with the extreme shifts teams use now. If David Ortiz dropped a dozen bunts for singles against the shift, you quickly reach the point where his near-1.000 OBP makes the shift counter-productive and it forces teams to play him in a non-optimal way.

I'm fine with that, but I was specifically talking about bunting as a sacrifice. In this case, you're using the "threat of a bunt" with the assumption of beating it out for a single. What I find most rediculous about bunting is how people jump for joy when they bunt a guy over from 1st to 2nd, while exposing themselves to a risk of running the count up to 2 strikes, popping up, or the fielders making the out at second, with the slim possibility of legging it out, or forcing a throwing error.

However, bunting a guy over to second, or bunting from 2nd to 3rd is tangential to this situation. My observation with bunting with 1st and 2nd occupied is that it's not as simple as moving the guys over. Statistically, there is a greater run expectency with guys in 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, verses 1st and 2nd with 0 out, but pulling off such a bunt successfully is unlikely. Getting the force at 3rd is almost as easy as it would be to first (with the exception of the lead). Such a play might be challenging on the high school level (or little league where leading is allowed) but major leaguers are easily proficient enough to make the play. And there's always the chance that the bunt will be completely botched, and we'll see a scenario like this where the defensive gets a double play. Also see popping the bunt up or running the count up to 2 strikes.

[sevastras]

This was a great idea by Markakis and shows his great baseball knowledge. That is a textbook situation to bunt in, especially for a LEADOFF hitter. The reason you bunt in that situation is 1. you create a 2nd and 3rd with one out giving you the chance to score without getting a hit(sac fly) 2. it takes you out of the double play 3. you could catch them off guard and end up with the bases loaded no out. I applaud Nicks thinking here, it is selfless and very much a team/what ever it takes to win minded play. If he would have fouled it off, then they play in on him and he can swing away. The only two problems were he didnt do a very good job of executing, and he didnt run. I would have hoped that he was aware that any ball on top of the plate is fair. Over the course of your life you see that a couple of times, you would have thought he would know a run that out.

All in all, I chalk this one up to a good effort that resulted in bad luck. Blaming Nick is absurd, it isn't like the bases where loaded and one out and he caught a pop fly in the outfield then threw it in the stands to a fan. He just messed up on a good idea.

[BirdFlipper]

This was a train wreck. I am less of a person for having read all this.

Back in 2008, Google introduced a feature where you had to answer a few mental math questions before sending an email. It was intended to protect you from sending drunk emails (those that you'd most likely regret in the morning).

Is there any way we can institute something like this for posting after the Orioles lose?

[sevastras]

However, bunting a guy over to second, or bunting from 2nd to 3rd is tangential to this situation. My observation with bunting with 1st and 2nd occupied is that it's not as simple as moving the guys over. Statistically, there is a greater run expectency with guys in 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, verses 1st and 2nd with 0 out, but pulling off such a bunt successfully is unlikely. Getting the force at 3rd is almost as easy as it would be to first (with the exception of the lead). Such a play might be challenging on the high school level (or little league where leading is allowed) but major leaguers are easily proficient enough to make the play. And there's always the chance that the bunt will be completely botched, and we'll see a scenario like this where the defensive gets a double play. Also see popping the bunt up or running the count up to 2 strikes.

I disagree. I watch the NL on a regular basis(wife is from SF and that is her team) and they pull off this play all the time even with the corners pulled in. They just have to bunt in between the pitcher and the 3rd baseman making the 3B come in for the ball instead of covering the bag. Being in the AL East, we don't see this play almost ever but is pretty common practice and quite surprising if it is not executed in the NL.

[Mondo Trasho]

This was a train wreck. I am less of a person for having read all this.

Back in 2008, Google introduced a feature where you had to answer a few mental math questions before sending an email. It was intended to protect you from sending drunk emails (those that you'd most likely regret in the morning).

Is there any way we can institute something like this for posting after the Orioles lose?

I'm a teetotaler, so it wouldn't have helped me. I made every statement with a sober mind.

[Frobby]

I'm fine with that, but I was specifically talking about bunting as a sacrifice. In this case, you're using the "threat of a bunt" with the assumption of beating it out for a single. What I find most rediculous about bunting is how people jump for joy when they bunt a guy over from 1st to 2nd, while exposing themselves to a risk of running the count up to 2 strikes, popping up, or the fielders making the out at second, with the slim possibility of legging it out, or forcing a throwing error.

However, bunting a guy over to second, or bunting from 2nd to 3rd is tangential to this situation. My observation with bunting with 1st and 2nd occupied is that it's not as simple as moving the guys over. Statistically, there is a greater run expectency with guys in 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, verses 1st and 2nd with 0 out, but pulling off such a bunt successfully is unlikely. Getting the force at 3rd is almost as easy as it would be to first (with the exception of the lead). Such a play might be challenging on the high school level (or little league where leading is allowed) but major leaguers are easily proficient enough to make the play. And there's always the chance that the bunt will be completely botched, and we'll see a scenario like this where the defensive gets a double play. Also see popping the bunt up or running the count up to 2 strikes.

Any data to back up your belief that it is difficult to sacrifice bunt with a runner on 1st and 2nd and nobody out? I'm neither disputing your assertion nor agreeing with it. Just wondering if there is data on this.

[DrungoHazewood]

Any data to back up your belief that it is difficult to sacrifice bunt with a runner on 1st and 2nd and nobody out? I'm neither disputing your assertion nor agreeing with it. Just wondering if there is data on this.

I'm sure there's data, and I'm sure I don't know what it is. Might be in Tango's Book.

But there are really only two base/out situations where sacrificing makes any sense at all: man on first, nobody out, and men on 1st and 2nd nobody out. It can't be that hard to sacrifice in that situation, that's one of two situations you'd ever do it and it has to happen at some decent frequency.

Not counting suicide squeezes in the above, nor am I really considering what you'd do with a .088-hitting pitcher up.

[Guest rochester]

Your name kinda matches the quality of your posts. Nick tried to do something he doesnt do often. If it works you call him brilliant. If it doesnt its fair to say he didnt execute .... Your point is off in so many ways.

Thank you.

[Leitch]

I hated the move, but I don't think it's an indictment of Markakis's "baseball IQ." We've all heard the expression "just crazy enough to work."

Like Drungo said, if everybody's safe, it ends up on the 2012 Orioles World Series team retrospective DVD.

[El Gordo]

If it's Izturis or even McLouth hitting, it's not a bad idea to bunt there. They were probably in DP depth and a bunt down the 3B line moves the runners up and quite possibly goes for a hit as well. But Nick is one of our best hitters, rarely bunts, and with the lead should, not have the bat taken out oif his hands. That was dumb whoever did it.

[Trackmaster]

Any data to back up your belief that it is difficult to sacrifice bunt with a runner on 1st and 2nd and nobody out? I'm neither disputing your assertion nor agreeing with it. Just wondering if there is data on this.

Again, that was just based off of my personal observation. That's less of a mathematical argument, and more of it coming down to execution and ability. You can prove that bunting from 1st to 2nd lowers run expectancy by looking at the expected run matrix on Baseball Prospectus.

[DrungoHazewood]

Again, that was just based off of my personal observation. That's less of a mathematical argument, and more of it coming down to execution and ability. You can prove that bunting from 1st to 2nd lowers run expectancy by looking at the expected run matrix on Baseball Prospectus.

Yes, but remember that the run expectancy matrix is based on averages. Average players performing in average situations. If the third baseman is playing in medium-deep left because Nick hasn't bunted in two years, you might be better off laying one down the third base line. Bases loaded, nobody out, is a lot better than 1st and 2nd, nobody out by any run matrix. And even if it ends up as a sacrifice that's not the worst possible outcome. (And, yes, I'm going with the assumption he's not initially trying to sacrifice.)