I'm not really one to second guess the manager...

[Sports Guy]

At the time, I had no problem with Wiggy's bunt. Maybe I've changed my mind after talking about it in this thread. I was also ok with Wiggy hitting in the 10th because 1) the DP was no longer in order 2) the strategy didn't work the first time 3) asking Wiggy to get another bunt down against another hard thrower seemd like a bit much

The point about the DP not being there is valid...However, it is no more valid than the idea of asking a hot hitter to bunt...and then, on top of that, the hitter being someone that just never bunts to begin with.

Yes, Wiggy laid it down very well but what if he hadn't? What if he missed the pitches, fouled a few off, etc...Then, he gets down in the count...Maybe swings at something he shouldn't and is more likely to hit into a dp at that point?

What if Wiggy just pops up the bunt and its an out, with no advancement?

Then, you have taken the bat out of your hottest hitters hand.

Just a bad call.

[Sports Guy]

The odds of scoring a run from second with no outs are higher than those of scoring a run from third with one out.

If you're strictly going off a stats-based analysis and using a run expectancy matrix, Trembley made the right call in the 8th (bunting) and the right call in the 10th (not bunting).

But we had a runner on second with no outs when he bunted...What's your point?

[Lucky Jim]

The point about the DP not being there is valid...However, it is no more valid than the idea of asking a hot hitter to bunt...and then, on top of that, the hitter being someone that just never bunts to begin with.

Yes, Wiggy laid it down very well but what if he hadn't? What if he missed the pitches, fouled a few off, etc...Then, he gets down in the count...Maybe swings at something he shouldn't and is more likely to hit into a dp at that point?

What if Wiggy just pops up the bunt and its an out, with no advancement?

Then, you have taken the bat out of your hottest hitters hand.

Just a bad call.

As TGO pointed out, it's not "just" a bad call. I understand that there can be debate on the issue, and I think it's a close call, but both calls made intuitive sense to me, as well. And by intuitive, I mean probabilistic.

[Lucky Jim]

But we had a runner on second with no outs when he bunted...What's your point?

Because the end result of bunting there was second third with one out, not just third with one out. I think the point was that Trembley wasn't playing for one run there, he was playing for two.

[The Wedge]

As TGO pointed out, it's not "just" a bad call. I understand that there can be debate on the issue, and I think it's a close call, but both calls made intuitive sense to me, as well. And by intuitive, I mean probabilistic.

Heh, see, I would say it didn't make intuitive sense to me. Intuition told me that Scott would fail.

I do concede TGO's point about trusting players to do their job, that's a fair argument. BUT on the flipside of that, is it really the job of your 3 hole to lay down a sac bunt in that situation? That's almost like telling him you don't trust him to move the runners over conventionally. Then what's he doing in the 3 hole in the first place??

[Pedro Cerrano]

I guess I value the idea of having your hottest hitter actually hit over the idea of instilling a sense of confidence in guys who are slumping by asking them to "do their job."

I know the season is lost, but I want to win every game. If having Luke Scott come up there as the potential hero helps his psyche down the line, great. But I'd still rather have Wiggy swing the bat there. He's on a ridiculour tear right now, why not take advantage of it?

[bluedog]

Trembley made the right call, and here's why:

Long term, you have to show the players you trust them to do their jobs, and you have to show them you will ask them to do the little things when the situation calls for it, with no favoritism. Trembley asked his hottest hitter to lay down a bunt which then got one of his other hottest hitters walked. And yes, that brought up a guy in a terrible slump. But Scott already has one huge clutch homerun this year (PH too, IIRC) despite being in the same slump he's in now. And all he had to do was hit a fly ball. If you can't ask your DH to hit a fly ball, you're nowhere.

So you seem to be saying its better to lose and show support for your struggling players than to win by showing confidence in guys who are performing.

I don't buy this. You hold people accountable for their performance. And if your DH can't hit a fly ball, you don't just keep asking him to hit fly balls, you replace him.

Clutch situation, game on the line, I want my best hitter at the plate, not my worst. Trembley's move took the bat out of the hands of our best hitter and put it into the hands of our worst. That's the end result.

[TGO]

But we had a runner on second with no outs when he bunted...What's your point?

Sorry, I am looking at two different charts and misread. By the chart, bunting in the 10th would have been the right call.

I still don't have a problem with not bunting in the 10th, though. The main difference to me is there's no chance of a GIDP. Miggy is still on deck. You asked him to bunt once and he delivered. Reward: Swing away.

[Sports Guy]

Because the end result of bunting there was second third with one out, not just third with one out. I think the point was that Trembley wasn't playing for one run there, he was playing for two.

Ehh, I don't buy that...i think he is playing for one and hoping for 2...There is a big difference.

I heard his pregame interview on the radio and he talked about trying to get that one run early...Basically said that with the way offense has been, that he would play for 1 run early in the game if needs be.

I am sure he was thinking the same thing.

What DT did there was take the bat out of the hands of 2 of his hottest 3 hitters since he knew Miggy would walk...and then he put the game in the hand of one of his coldest hitters. I don't see that being great strategy in any way.

[glorydays]

This is a great thread... 5 pages and it hasn't been "hijacked" yet by posters who say that if we trade for a legit 4 we wouldn't have this problem! Must be a record.

Anyway, between Ohman, the sac bunt and other minor moves is really a change in the way that DT is managing this team. Whether you agree with the bunt or not - it was a sac bunt and we havn't seen one of those from an Oriole all year. And whether you agree with leaving Ohman out there to face Beltre - he was leaving his best bullpen pitcher out there in a situation where he normally would have brought in Alberts to lose the game.

And we keep saying that the sac didn't work but it did work... the runners did advanced. The sac didn't fail, Scott failed. Perhaps what we should be debating is whether we should have had Scott hitting in that situation?

[Sports Guy]

This is a great thread... 5 pages and it hasn't been "hijacked" yet by posters who say that if we trade for a legit 4 we wouldn't have this problem! Must be a record.

Anyway, between Ohman, the sac bunt and other minor moves is really a change in the way that DT is managing this team. Whether you agree with the bunt or not - it was a sac bunt and we havn't seen one of those from an Oriole all year. And whether you agree with leaving Ohman out there to face Beltre - he was leaving his best bullpen pitcher out there in a situation where he normally would have brought in Alberts to lose the game.

And we keep saying that the sac didn't work but it did work... the runners did advanced. The sac didn't fail, Scott failed. Perhaps what we should be debating is whether we should have had Scott hitting in that situation?

Also true...Should he have pinch hit Wieters there?

[glorydays]

Also true...Should he have pinch hit Wieters there?

That's what I was thinking. You also keep get to keep him in the game as a DH - and continue to give him a rest from having to catch - in case it did go extra innings.

[The Wedge]

That's what I was thinking. You also keep get to keep him in the game as a DH - and continue to give him a rest from having to catch - in case it did go extra innings.

I think Trembley had it in his head to reserve Wieters to PH for Tatum, but yes, I forgot to mention that part in my bewilderment. I would have been fine with the move had Scott been PH for with Wieters, though still a little irked by the fact that he took the bats out of the 3 and 4 hitters.

[square634]

That's what I was thinking. You also keep get to keep him in the game as a DH - and continue to give him a rest from having to catch - in case it did go extra innings.

If you pinch-hit for the DH, don't you then lose the DH slot for the rest of the game?

[PaulFolk]

Does anyone know the probability stats of how often a team scores with 1st & 2nd, no outs, as opposed to 2nd & 3rd, 1 out?

I would think you're more likely to have a multi-run inning in the first situation, but you're more likely to score 1 run in the second scenario.

Is that accurate? If so, I don't have a problem with Trembley increasing his odds of scoring 1 run, since it was a tie game in the 8th. Earlier in the game, I wouldn't have had Wigginton bunt, but in that situation it was defensible.