Why Buck didn't pinch run for Hardy

[CheeryO]

The game was "Tied". The Orioles were NOT the visitor. Over the last 14 days the best starter (13 Games) for hitting and defense has been J J Hardy (.390/.457/.512/.969). So with no guarantees of scoring in that situation, posters are willing to second guess the decision to not Pinch Run for Hardy and taking your BEST player over the last two weeks totally out of the lineup. INTERESTING!!

Yep, I agree. It's not only that Hardy has a great glove but he's been the best hitter on the team of late.

[weams]

Not just to bunt.

Me either. But Kim was not playing in the field any longer.

[CheeryO]

NO, I would not have and wondered as to why. I could see using Bourn as a Pinch Runner for Kim IF he had gotten on base but I did not see the reason for the Pinch Hitting in that situation. Up to that point in the game, Kim had 4 plate appearances with 2 walks and a strikeout. There was no platoon advantage in using Bourn over Kim, there was only the fact that Bourn was batting .583/.583/1.167/1.750 in 12 plate appearances with 2 HR, 1 DBL and 5 RBI against Hudson so I do question the decision to have him BUNT unless he did it on his own.

The fact that Bourn has good career numbers against Hudson is a good point. I didn't realize that, and it does call into question why Bourn bunted. Still Bourn is probably the fastest player on the team by a good amount, and I'm thinking Showalter was thinking Bourn could have a good chance at beating the bunt to first base. On top of that Kim has been terrible at the plate lately. It may be that Bourn was not given the green light to bunt but chose to, but I doubt it.

[waroriole]

Apparently, because we're hunters now.

[geimans35]

I don't post often but anyways I was at the game last night and after Hardy singled I said to my 15 year old they will pinch run for him. Just couldn't believe they didn't. I would have pinch run Bourne and left Kim to bunt him over or have Bourne steal. I just don't get Buck sometimes, how he feels compelled to leave his core players in at all times such as Hardy, Jones, Davis and especially Schoop. But that is another matter with Schoop. It's no shame in taking Hardy out at that point. Yea the play at the plate he was safe but with Bourne running there wouldn't have been a doubt. Yanish also could have pinch run, why is he even on the roster? I was listening to the radio broadcast on the way home and even Manfra said why isn't there a pinch runner and he also said Yanish can play short or Flaherty even.

[scOtt]

Me either. But Kim was not playing in the field any longer.

Absolutely. Bourn was in LF next inning regardless. Why not pinch run him and let Kim bunt?

[scOtt]

I don't post often but anyways I was at the game last night and after Hardy singled I said to my 15 year old they will pinch run for him. Just couldn't believe they didn't. I would have pinch run Bourne and left Kim to bunt him over or have Bourne steal. I just don't get Buck sometimes, how he feels compelled to leave his core players in at all times such as Hardy, Jones, Davis and especially Schoop. But that is another matter with Schoop. It's no shame in taking Hardy out at that point. Yea the play at the plate he was safe but with Bourne running there wouldn't have been a doubt. Yanish also could have pinch run, why is he even on the roster? I was listening to the radio broadcast on the way home and even Manfra said why isn't there a pinch runner and he also said Yanish can play short or Flaherty even.

I thought that too. He's pretty fast runner isn't he? Then you have Bourn completely in reserve still.

[LA2]

I thought that too. He's pretty fast runner isn't he? Then you have Bourn completely in reserve still.

I remember Buck using Janish as a PR in the past.

[Aristotelian]

Absolutely. Bourn was in LF next inning regardless. Why not pinch run him and let Kim bunt?

I think Buck wanted the bunt there and had no idea whether Kim can bunt or not. (Does he have any bunt attempts this year?) The bigger question is why bunt. Runner on 1st, no outs. Even a successful bunt does not create a sac fly situation.

I can see why he didn't pinch run, the bunt is what makes no sense, although he tried it again in the 11th. Just seemed very out of character for Buck.

[Can_of_corn]

I think Buck wanted the bunt there and had no idea whether Kim can bunt or not. (Does he have any bunt attempts this year?) The bigger question is why bunt. Runner on 1st, no outs. Even a successful bunt does not create a sac fly situation.

I can see why he didn't pinch run, the bunt is what makes no sense, although he tried it again in the 11th. Just seemed very out of character for Buck.

I think it would be unconscionable for Buck to not know if Kim can lay down a bunt or not.

Buck even let Wieters try and sac bunt this week (he failed and instead hit a double).

[CheeryO]

I think Buck wanted the bunt there and had no idea whether Kim can bunt or not. (Does he have any bunt attempts this year?) The bigger question is why bunt. Runner on 1st, no outs. Even a successful bunt does not create a sac fly situation.

I can see why he didn't pinch run, the bunt is what makes no sense, although he tried it again in the 11th. Just seemed very out of character for Buck.

When else would you bunt? I realize it may not be done as much anymore, but bunting with a man on first and nobody out is a traditional bunting situation. It's not like teams only bunt with nobody out and a man on second or for a suicide squeeze. It didn't work. The O's won. Get over it.

[Aristotelian]

When else would you bunt? I realize it may not be done as much anymore, but bunting with a man on first and nobody out is a traditional bunting situation. It's not like teams only bunt with nobody out and a man on second or for a suicide squeeze. It didn't work. The O's won. Get over it.

I thought Bourn's second situation was a good bunt situation. 1st and 2nd with nobody out. Then a bunt gets a guy to third base in position to score on a sac fly, base hit, or non-double-play grounder. Your odds of scoring the run go up massively. If you just get the guy to second base with 1 out, you have to get a base hit (and a base hit is not a sure thing with JJ, a slow runner).

Do you want me to be over it or answer your question?

[Aristotelian]

I think it would be unconscionable for Buck to not know if Kim can lay down a bunt or not.

Buck even let Wieters try and sac bunt this week (he failed and instead hit a double).

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that Buck was being ignorant. Only that Kim doesn't have much MLB experience bunting, Buck wanted the bunt and had the most confidence in Bourn. Not that I agree with the decision.

[Ori-Al]

Bourn should have run for Hardy, and Kim should have been left in not to bunt, but to try to get a hit. He may be our most selective hitter, willing to use the whole field, or accept a walk if the pitcher doesn't throw strikes. Plus, it was his night - the baseball gods may have blessed him in a potential game winning at-bat.

I'm still perturbed that Buck didn't pinch-hit Kim for Trumbo in the ninth inning of the first Tampa Bay game. The O's had already failed in four sac fly opportunities, Trumbo was hitting below .200 in the second half with zero sac flies all season, whereas Kim was much more likely to have a quality AB there. Give your team its best chance to succeed.

[CheeryO]

I thought Bourn's second situation was a good bunt situation. 1st and 2nd with nobody out. Then a bunt gets a guy to third base in position to score on a sac fly, base hit, or non-double-play grounder. Your odds of scoring the run go up massively. If you just get the guy to second base with 1 out, you have to get a base hit (and a base hit is not a sure thing with JJ, a slow runner).

Do you want me to be over it or answer your question?

Both