Bunt!!!

[CrimsonTribe]

Because it's cheap.

Then the no-hitter itself is cheap. If they don't have to worry about a bunt because of some "understanding" then they can play back and get to more balls. I'm not talking about bunting to spite a no-hitter, but allowing the other team to play like the bunt doesn't exist is absurd. To pitch a no-hitter, the pitcher should have to throw 9 innings of no hit baseball, not 7-8 innings plus another 1-2 where there is some restricted form of gentleman's rules baseball.

[Jagwar]

Aren't we though? Don't we not want to get no-hit? Isn't that the point of trying to break up a no-hitter in the ninth?

Of course I don't want the O's to get no hit. But I certainly don't want to appear desperate either. Bunting when down by 2 runs makes perfect sense. Bunting when down by 10 runs makes no sense at all.

I find it hard to believe that you would take the same stance if it were an opponent breaking up a no-hitter for an O's pitcher in the same situation

[The Wedge]

no matter what the cost.

Obviously. No matter the cost.

[ElToro75]

Kindly refrain from telling me what I am, please. I am a fan of both.

And, I don't want to see our players targeted for retribution from multiple teams because they acted without class.

I'm with Wedge on this one. If one of our guys, established bunter or not, lays down a bunt in the 9th with a no-hitter going they are going to have a big bullseye on their back...both from the Red Sox pitchers (in this case) and pitchers from many other teams. There are a lot of pitchers out there who believe in and follow the unwritten rules of baseball.

[The Wedge]

Then the no-hitter itself is cheap. If they don't have to worry about a bunt because of some "understanding" then they can play back and get to more balls. I'm not talking about bunting to spite a no-hitter, but allowing the other team to play like the bunt doesn't exist is absurd. To pitch a no-hitter, the pitcher should have to throw 9 innings of no hit baseball, not 7-8 innings plus another 1-2 where there is some restricted form of gentleman's rules baseball.

It was 10-0! If it were 1-0 it'd be another thing. Because bunting in the 9th is strategically sound. Bunting in the 9th down 10-0 during a no-hitter has only ONE purpose. Breaking up the no-hitter. That's completely classless.

[JTrea81]

So, instead of doing it the right way, you'd want us to become the bad boys of baseball, the pariahs, the assholes who will do anything to screw with another team, even if it doesn't help us win games?

Great outlook.

I'd rather be that than a laughing stock and a doormat.

[Jagwar]

It was 10-0! If it were 1-0 it'd be another thing. Because bunting in the 9th is strategically sound. Bunting in the 9th down 10-0 during a no-hitter has only ONE purpose. Breaking up the no-hitter. That's completely classless.

exactly.... Patterson being on the base path means nothing there... unless Markakis could hit a 10-run home run.

(which he probably could do)

[JTrea81]

It was 10-0! If it were 1-0 it'd be another thing. Because bunting in the 9th is strategically sound. Bunting in the 9th down 10-0 during a no-hitter has only ONE purpose. Breaking up the no-hitter. That's completely classless.

Why we should let the guy no-hit us? Shouldn't we try to break it up using whatever means we have? Again isn't that the purpose of trying to break up a no-hitter?

[ElToro75]

I'd rather be that than a laughing stock and a doormat.

How is any team that gets no hit a laughing stock and a doormat?

[Jagwar]

I'd rather be that than a laughing stock and a doormat.

Now you are just being silly. The O's are arguably a "laughing stock and a doormat" already. If they had bunted to break up a no-hitter, they could add cheap bastages to that too.

[The Wedge]

I'd rather be that than a laughing stock and a doormat.

You are one of maybe a handful of people, none of which that have any impact, that think we're a laughing stock for the no-hitter.

[The Wedge]

Why we should let the guy no-hit us? Shouldn't we try to break it up using whatever means we have? Again isn't that the purpose of trying to break up a no-hitter?

Breaking it up is fine. Breaking it up by being completely cheap is another.

To go all grandiosely melodramatic, if we're gonna die, we die with honor.

[Jagwar]

Why we should let the guy no-hit us? Shouldn't we try to break it up using whatever means we have? Again isn't that the purpose of trying to break up a no-hitter?

Im assuming that they were trying to break up the no hitter, but not look like desperate fools in the process.

On a side note, I wonder if Trembley specifically told Roberts, Patterson and Markakis not to bunt.

[JTrea81]

You are one of maybe a handful of people, none of which that have any impact, that think we're a laughing stock for the no-hitter.

We already were a laughing stock, getting no-hit just proves it further. I'd rather see us go down fighting. And what's to say Lowell wouldn't have thrown out Roberts or Patterson? What's to say they wouldn't have bunted back to Buchholz? My point is they should have at least tried.

The hitters job is to get a hit, correct? If you aren't using all your tools to get that hit you are not doing your job.

As CrimsonTribe said, it cheapened the no-hitter.

[The Wedge]

We already were a laughing stock, getting no-hit just proves it further. I'd rather see us go down fighting. And what's to say Lowell wouldn't have thrown out Roberts or Patterson? What's to say they wouldn't have bunted back to Buchholz. My point is they should have at least tried.

The hitters job is to get a hit, correct? If you aren't using all your tools to get that hit you are not doing your job.

As CrimsonTribe said, it cheapened the no-hitter.

We'd be a laughing stock if we had acted like classless buffoons and cheaply broke up that no-hitter.

Basically, the collective fandom of MLB would say "well, I knew they were a bad team, but I didn't know they were a bunch of assholes."