Jump to content

Twins Upset with Sisco Bunting


Bahama O's Fan

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, interloper said:

Just another weird Orioles-related drama. There's always a couple per year, so why not get one going right out of the gate. What is it with teams starting beef with the Orioles? 

I think it's the Buck factor.  B|

Also, it doesn't take bifocals to see that Manny Machado ruffles feathers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply
27 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Take something you do every day without thinking, then do it a very different way with everyone watching. Like next time you give a presentation at work in front of a huge audience and your bosses, work the mouse and pointer and everything left-handed.

I have always felt it natural to have the fork in the left hand. Cut with the right, fork and eat with the left. How else would you eat without switching hands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t know about those guys, but I remember Frank Robinson bunted one time in the early seventies and it was reported in the paper as his first sac bunt in 12-13 years or so.

August 25, 1971.    His last previous sac bunt was in 1957.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Legend_Of_Joey said:

 

Really, who cares? So the Twins got upset about it. They still won the last two games by a combined 13-2. 

The Orioles should be more worried about being down 7-0 in the 9th (or 6-0 in the 3rd.)

 

o


Except that the Orioles didn't initiate this "controversy." A Twins player initiated it.

Instead of being content with the fact that his team thoroughly outplayed the Orioles over the final 2 games of the series, Dozier chose to rub salt into the wounds and/or act as though Sisco and the Orioles had a lot of nerve to not play the game in a manner that he thought to be appropriate.

 

Dozier acted liked an ass. Roch Kubatko chimed in on it, and he is not an Orioles apologist. OH posters are simply responding to that, they are not using it to camouflage the Orioles' anemic offense, or the putrid starting pitching that they got in the final 2 games of the series.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So I obviously need to be more minutely precise. In 1909 Honus Wagner was the best hitter and player in baseball and sacrificed 27 times. If Mike Trout sacrifice bunts 10 times this year I'll eat an Oriole pennant.

The players I mentioned are outliers. But they successfully incorporated bunting into their offensive attack. Others, conceivably, could do so, also.

What if Trout bunts for 10 base hits this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, NashLumber said:

Yeah, what’s the clubhouse rule of decorum for one-hitters. Inquiring minds want to know. Can’t be silence, as that’s reserved for no-hitters and perfect games. Only verbs? Adverbs? Onomatopia?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

The players I mentioned are outliers. But they successfully incorporated bunting into their offensive attack. Others, conceivably, could do so, also.

What if Trout bunts for 10 base hits this year?

It would be very surprising.   He has 4 bunt hits in his career, none since 2012.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

You don't even have to bunt, just hit the ball the other way.  I can't believe hitters are that stubborn and will hit the ball into the shift no matter what. 

There's a huge problem with this --  a lot of batters have a hard time hitting the ball to the opposite field. Imagine telling Austin Hays, "just hit the the ball the other way." The result is likely to be disappointing. You couldn't even have said that to David Lough and expect it to work. Most batters are better off trying to bunt against the shift rather than hit against the shift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bobmc said:

 

But it kind of annoys me that people keep including this as an "Unwritten Rule of Baseball".  Because this isn't even that.  If it were a no-hitter?  Sure, that would have some merit and could be debated.  But I literally have no idea what the Twins' beef was here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, glenn__davis said:

But it kind of annoys me that people keep including this as an "Unwritten Rule of Baseball".  Because this isn't even that.  If it were a no-hitter?  Sure, that would have some merit and could be debated.  But I literally have no idea what the Twins' beef was here.  

The best part of them not being written down is you can make them up as you go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • When Mateo is hitting well, he really makes you wonder why he can’t do it all the time.   He looks really balanced at the plate, he uses all fields, etc.  He doesn’t look like a bad hitter who happens to be on a heater.   But that’s what his track record shows he is, until proven otherwise.  I remember that Fangraphs article last year about how Mateo had changed his approach and the improvement seemed real.  Well, no it wasn’t.  But maybe his issues are more psychological than physical?   He’s just a guy who when he slumps, quickly loses confidence and starts pressing and makes it worse?   I don’t know.    As to your point about OBP: in 2024, a .299 OBP is below average but I might not say it blows.  The MLB average is back down to .312 after a spike last year after the rule changes.  Of 312 players with 80+ PA, Mateo’s .299 ranks 191st, or 39th percentile.   Honestly, in this environment, if Mateo could stay at .299 OBP he’d be a very credible player.   But he’s a .272 career OPS guy who’d been at .267 the last two years, so I’m not expecting he’ll be able to stay at .299.   I’ll enjoy it while he’s hot though.   And he is playing a mean 2B.   Took him a couple of weeks to settle in there, but he’s looked great for the last month.    
    • I broached the experiment of Holliday in CF some months ago.  It seems to be something that could make sense.  I still expect he'll be our 2B moving forward, but having such versatility is never a bad thing.  
    • Mateo does seem to be that “outsider” guy that a lot of the young guys seem to have good chemistry with. And by outsider I mean, player they didn’t play with in the minors.
    • Btw, this could also be nothing more than them trying him out there for versatility reasons..just shagging fly balls and what not..ala Westburg in the past. May not mean they envision him as a starter out there.
    • Mateo and Gunnar turned a show stopping double play yesterday. Love the finnese and confidence from them both.
    • I don’t think it’s desperate at all.   Having more options is always a good thing, and we know the O’s value defensive versatility.  I can think of many SS types who ended up in CF.   Jackson Merrill, who was a top 10-20 prospect as a SS coming into this season, is now the starting CF for the Padres and a good candidate for NL ROY.   Trea Turner played mostly CF for the Nats in 2016 after his call-up, despite having played SS almost exclusively in the minors.  Robin Yount was moved from SS to CF.  So, I see no harm in experimenting with this.  For now though, this is just a rumor so far as I’m concerned.  
    • I don't expect Mateo to continue to be this good but I'm going to enjoy him while he is. I can't really bring myself to complain about his offensive game when some of our regular hitters have yet to eclipse Mateo's OBP mark. I'll reserve my Mateo complaints for when he is no longer playing like one of our better position players.  I find much more to complain about with Mullins, Santander, Hays, McCann, and Urias. 
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...