Jump to content

The dumbest thing ever spoken by a professional baseball manager...


BaltimoreTerp

Recommended Posts

...and no, it is NOT from Dusty Baker.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/5810892.html

Even slugger Lance Berkman, one of the hottest hitters in baseball this season, resorted to dropping a bunt single in the eighth inning, with the Astros down by four. It was only the second bunt single of his career and first since 2002.

"That's a good play," Cooper said of Berkman's decision to bunt with the third baseman playing him deep. "That's a baseball player's play. It's a nice job. We need baserunners. If you hit a ball out of a ballpark, I call them rally-killers when you get down like that. We need to keep a rally going, and that was a nice play to me."

And yes, I did find it originally at you-know-where :P

Seriously, I don't care what philosophy you believe in when it comes to playing the game of baseball. Just the suggestion that you take the guy who is the best hitter on your team, and who is second in the majors in home runs, and you have him bunt (with a guy on) because "you need baserunners"...I mean...my head literally hurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and no, it is NOT from Dusty Baker.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/5810892.html

And yes, I did find it originally at you-know-where :P

Seriously, I don't care what philosophy you believe in when it comes to playing the game of baseball. Just the suggestion that you take the guy who is the best hitter on your team, and who is second in the majors in home runs, and you have him bunt (with a guy on) because "you need baserunners"...I mean...my head literally hurts.

Not to nitpick, but who is "you"? It's not, apparently, Cooper. As the quote reveals. Berkman did it on his own.

It's funny. This is something that's counterintuitive, in a sense. What's the value of a single run, which resets the table, versus an ongoing rally that keeps pitchers operating out of the stretch?

I'm pretty sure empirical research says that the value of a run must be greater than the value of a continued pitching out of the stretch. But, well, I think it's an interesting concept.

I've got no problem with the bunt (which you seem to) because, with the 3B playing back, it was a high percentage play. Swinging for the fences was probably low percentage. Down four late in the game, every out is precious. Every baserunner of increasing marginal value.

Question the rally-killer comment, I think. But not the bunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was a smart move by Berkman to do so.

Having a runner on first opens a hole on the right side b/c the first baseman is holding the runner (which has happened to us waaay to much the past week) and the second baseman is cheating towards second for the double play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what he's saying is that a run on the scoreboard followed by a bases-empty situation is less valuable than no runs and a man on first.

I call that crazy-talk.

I certainly don't disagree. That's why I said questioning the rally-killer part.

I wouldn't question the bunt, however - if it's a high percentage play, that first baserunner is far more valuable down four in the 9th inning than the small probability of a solo home run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't disagree. That's why I said questioning the rally-killer part.

I wouldn't question the bunt, however - if it's a high percentage play, that first baserunner is far more valuable down four in the 9th inning than the small probability of a solo home run.

Well I think it would have been a two run homer. What's stupid is that the manager said it was a good play and he would rather have had the bunt single than a homerun. It wasn't just about what the batter should try for it was about even if he had gotten a homer, that would have been a rally killer...well according to the manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the infield was playing so deep that Berkman was virtually guaranteed a single by successfully laying down a bunt, then it would have been incredibly dumb to NOT lay down a bunt. I think the same thing whenever I see a shift that leaves the 3rd base line completely undefended: LAY DOWN A BUNT.

What Cooper said is indisputably stupid, as far as a single being preferable to a home run. But a guaranteed single is certainly preferable to swinging for the fences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the infield was playing so deep that Berkman was virtually guaranteed a single by successfully laying down a bunt, then it would have been incredibly dumb to NOT lay down a bunt. I think the same thing whenever I see a shift that leaves the 3rd base line completely undefended: LAY DOWN A BUNT.

What Cooper said is indisputably stupid, as far as a single being preferable to a home run. But a guaranteed single is certainly preferable to swinging for the fences.

Correctamundo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a bad assumption - if the 3B is playing well behind the bag.

Maybe, but you're also counting on a guy who doesn't bunt to (a) get a bunt in play and (b) get it right where he wants it, down the third base line. It worked and it's the same as a hit, I think it would just be smarter to let the guy who's hitting almost 400 swing away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but you're also counting on a guy who doesn't bunt to (a) get a bunt in play and (b) get it right where he wants it, down the third base line. It worked and it's the same as a hit, I think it would just be smarter to let the guy who's hitting almost 400 swing away.

Exactly.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the bunt, just how it was rationalized by the manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...