2009 MLB Regular Season Thread

[Karlifornia]

NO HITTER! I never thought I'd see one from a Giant in my lifetime. I'll elaborate more when I'm not drunk.


SANCHEZ!

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The trade makes absolutely no sense. At all. If you're going to trade away one of the best pitching prospects in the league, next time get someone who isn't just average or replacement level, but is a negative- he actually makes the team worse by being there than if we just had some stiff.

Fixed to remind myself of Kazmir-for-Zambrano.

[INDalltheway]

You don't try to break up a no hitter in the 9th down 8 runs unless you plan on dodging a pitch by your head the next day. A bunt in that situation is a bush league play, and if you think otherwise then I'd question your knowledge of the game.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

You don't try to break up a no hitter in the 9th down 8 runs unless you plan on dodging a pitch by your head the next day. A bunt in that situation is a bush league play, and if you think otherwise then I'd question your knowledge of the game.

That's a pretty silly thing to say. I have the knowledge that people think such a play would be bush league, and that someone would get thrown at next time the teams played. I just think it's fucking stupid.

I mean, if it's bush league to bunt for a hit, then is it not also bush league to cheat and bring your infield defense back since you know the bunt isn't coming?

Is it bush league to get a lucky bloop hit? That seems less "legitimate" to me than a bunt hit. I mean, if that happens, should the player just stop running to first?

[sterlingice]

Yeah, so to the couple of Royals fans here, JoePo shows again why he's one of the best to read. It's not great statistical analysis, tho he uses it. But he just writes a good story. The structure of the first half of this blog post is great and ends with a line that should send chills up any Royals fans spine. You'll know it when you get to it

Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Gimme a U! A Knee! An S! A Key!

SI

[Sun Tzu]

Yep, watched the Sanchez start from first pitch to final pitch. He pitched an absolutely fabulous game and deserved the perfect game line. Bummer on Uribe booting that bouncer. I'm pretty sure that Sandoval wouldn't have booted that one. I think they put Frandsen in at 2B (and moved Uribe to 3rd) in the 7th or 8th too.

[sterlingice]

I don't suppose MLB network or anyone is going to be replaying the game today or this weekend?

SI

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's a pretty silly thing to say. I have the knowledge that people think such a play would be bush league, and that someone would get thrown at next time the teams played. I just think it's fucking stupid.

I mean, if it's bush league to bunt for a hit, then is it not also bush league to cheat and bring your infield defense back since you know the bunt isn't coming?

Is it bush league to get a lucky bloop hit? That seems less "legitimate" to me than a bunt hit. I mean, if that happens, should the player just stop running to first?

Pretty much with you here. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of the unwritten rule bullshit.

"I mean, if it's bush league to bunt for a hit, then is it not also bush league to cheat and bring your infield defense back since you know the bunt isn't coming?"

Excellent point.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's a pretty silly thing to say. I have the knowledge that people think such a play would be bush league, and that someone would get thrown at next time the teams played. I just think it's fucking stupid.

I mean, if it's bush league to bunt for a hit, then is it not also bush league to cheat and bring your infield defense back since you know the bunt isn't coming?

Is it bush league to get a lucky bloop hit? That seems less "legitimate" to me than a bunt hit. I mean, if that happens, should the player just stop running to first?

+1

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

That's a pretty silly thing to say. I have the knowledge that people think such a play would be bush league, and that someone would get thrown at next time the teams played. I just think it's fucking stupid.

I mean, if it's bush league to bunt for a hit, then is it not also bush league to cheat and bring your infield defense back since you know the bunt isn't coming?

Is it bush league to get a lucky bloop hit? That seems less "legitimate" to me than a bunt hit. I mean, if that happens, should the player just stop running to first?

Look, I'm a Giants Fan. I think he had every right to bunt, and I thought Bob Brenly was an asshole when he bitched about the bunting in a 2 run game. I think its well within the letter of the law. But damn, it would have felt remarkably cheap to lose the game on a bunt with a 8 run deficit in the 9th inning with 2 outs.

[INDalltheway]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Look, I'm a Giants Fan. I think he had every right to bunt, and I thought Bob Brenly was an asshole when he bitched about the bunting in a 2 run game. I think its well within the letter of the law. But damn, it would have felt remarkably cheap to lose the game on a bunt with a 8 run deficit in the 9th inning with 2 outs.

This

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

This

Look - obviously an 8 run rally with 2 outs in the 9th is extremely unlikely. But does that mean a guy has to remove one of the tools from his arsenal in trying? Just because the guy on the hill hasn't allowed a hit yet?

I call bullshit on that. You try to win, from the first pitch to the last. No-hitters are hard, but I see no reason the opposing team should make it any easier on the guy trying.

[larrymcg421]

And I still think it's odd that people consider a bunt so cheap, especially since a bunt hit is one of the hardest things to do in baseball.

[sooner333]

I think if he was truly trying to win the game by doing the bunt in that situation, then that's cool...a little cheap due to the circumstances, but okay. If he was just trying to break up the no hitter, then that's pretty cold.

The defense is going to be back every time in that situation. To make it seem like the defense is missing out on making a real decision in that situation because the bunt is out of play is a ridiculous argument. It's an 8-0 game in the 9th with two outs and nobody on. I would almost say that never in that situation has the infield ever been in.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, so to the couple of Royals fans here, JoePo shows again why he's one of the best to read. It's not great statistical analysis, tho he uses it. But he just writes a good story. The structure of the first half of this blog post is great and ends with a line that should send chills up any Royals fans spine. You'll know it when you get to it

Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Gimme a U! A Knee! An S! A Key!

SI

I liked this part:

*The Royals have now acquired four — count them FOUR — players off the 2005 Seattle Mariners. They’ve got Meche, Bloomquist, Miguel Olivo and Betancourt. It’s like they are trying to rebuild that 69-93 team brick-by-brick. Call Richie Sexson’s agent!

[Crapshoot]

Joe Pos is the best sportswriter in America by some distance. How long before the Royals trade him for Bruce Jenkins?

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And I still think it's odd that people consider a bunt so cheap, especially since a bunt hit is one of the hardest things to do in baseball.

That's a great point.

Maybe when someone has a no-hitter from the 5th-inning on, every hitter should just bunt from then on. Maybe if someone hits a ground ball between third and short, they should slow up going to first, to avoid a "cheap hit". Because the goal of everyone, on both teams, should be to assure the pitcher gets a no-hitter, right?

This stuff drives me crazy.

[sterlingice]

Rany is up, too
Rany on the Royals: The Breaking Point.

"There are some trades that look lopsided at first glance, but then you look at it from different angles, you start talking to people inside the game, and you start to think, okay, it’s a bad deal, but I can understand the team’s rationale. This is not one of those trades. This is a trade that makes you more and more dumbfounded the more you contemplate it. It’s like a defective Magic Eye poster."

It's just flat out embarrassing today. There's no two ways about it.



SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Joe Pos is the best sportswriter in America by some distance. How long before the Royals trade him for Bruce Jenkins?

No! Nobody gets JoePo!

He's writing for SI now about other stuff, but he's ours for baseball! We stole him from Cleveland fair and square! We need something good and cheery to help get us through the miserable summers.

Hands off!



SI

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a great point.

Maybe when someone has a no-hitter from the 5th-inning on, every hitter should just bunt from then on. Maybe if someone hits a ground ball between third and short, they should slow up going to first, to avoid a "cheap hit". Because the goal of everyone, on both teams, should be to assure the pitcher gets a no-hitter, right?

This stuff drives me crazy.

If a guy leads off a game with a bunt single and then the pitcher goes on to not allow another hit then the hit isn't "bush league". Instead he's just playing baseball. However, if its the 9th inning then its bush league.

What it comes down to is people selfishly want to see a no hitter regardless of how it happens. They'd rather cheapen a no hitter by creating these unwritten rules that make it easier once the guy has a legit shot at a no hitter so that they can walk away happy that they saw one.

A bunt in that situation is a bush league play, and if you think otherwise then I'd question your knowledge of the game.

If someone believes a guy doing everything he can to get on base isn't trying to help his team then I'd question that person's common sense.

[stevew]

In Little League, our pitcher was 17 out of 17 in K's. Some little twat(who's gone on to become a con I believe), bunts as the last batter, and gets thrown out at first.

At 11 I thought it was bush league, and I didn't even know what that expression actually meant back then.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I think if he was truly trying to win the game by doing the bunt in that situation, then that's cool...a little cheap due to the circumstances, but okay. If he was just trying to break up the no hitter, then that's pretty cold.

The defense is going to be back every time in that situation. To make it seem like the defense is missing out on making a real decision in that situation because the bunt is out of play is a ridiculous argument. It's an 8-0 game in the 9th with two outs and nobody on. I would almost say that never in that situation has the infield ever been in.

I think this is along the lines of why I have a problem with the bunt in this particular situation. If his team was down 8-0 with 2 outs in the 9th, and Sanchez had scattered 4 hits, would he have bunted? If his team was down 8-2 with 2 outs in the 9th, would he have bunted?

My guess is in both situations, the answer is no, so the sole point of the bunt was to break up the no hitter and had nothing to do with "this will help my team start the process of coming back from a big deficit", which is where I have my (small) issue.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Logan

My guess is in both situations, the answer is no, so the sole point of the bunt was to break up the no hitter and had nothing to do with "this will help my team start the process of coming back from a big deficit", which is where I have my (small) issue.

Why even take a bat up there then? The entire point of going to plate in that situation is to break up the no hitter. He's not going to hit a 8 run homerun.

[BishopMVP]

It's too bad the Royals are such a small-market team they can't afford to keep guys like Mike Jacobs, Ryan Freel and Yuniesky Betancourt and have to keep trading them away for prospects.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by stevew

In Little League, our pitcher was 17 out of 17 in K's. Some little twat(who's gone on to become a con I believe), bunts as the last batter, and gets thrown out at first.

At 11 I thought it was bush league, and I didn't even know what that expression actually meant back then.

So he manages to be the only batter to put the ball in play, and forces the defense to make a play? Seems like he did better than all his teammates.

[BishopMVP]

Double-dola, can't the fake-outrage at the bunt attempt be mitigated by the monster strike zone on the last pitch? Either's he the only umpire in the league actually calling balls at the letters strikes, or that's high and outside.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think this is along the lines of why I have a problem with the bunt in this particular situation. If his team was down 8-0 with 2 outs in the 9th, and Sanchez had scattered 4 hits, would he have bunted? If his team was down 8-2 with 2 outs in the 9th, would he have bunted?

My guess is in both situations, the answer is no, so the sole point of the bunt was to break up the no hitter and had nothing to do with "this will help my team start the process of coming back from a big deficit", which is where I have my (small) issue.

As larry said, it's definitely possible that he used the bunt to bring the infield in more, making it easier to get a single on a hard hit through the infield.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think this is along the lines of why I have a problem with the bunt in this particular situation. If his team was down 8-0 with 2 outs in the 9th, and Sanchez had scattered 4 hits, would he have bunted? If his team was down 8-2 with 2 outs in the 9th, would he have bunted?

My guess is in both situations, the answer is no, so the sole point of the bunt was to break up the no hitter and had nothing to do with "this will help my team start the process of coming back from a big deficit", which is where I have my (small) issue.

+1

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It's too bad the Royals are such a small-market team they can't afford to keep guys like Mike Jacobs, Ryan Freel and Yuniesky Betancourt and have to keep trading them away for prospects.

Yeah, if only we could piss away $36M on a pile of crap SS instead

Not today.

SI

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Why even take a bat up there then? The entire point of going to plate in that situation is to break up the no hitter. He's not going to hit a 8 run homerun.

A great reason for why he shouldn't have been trying to bunt on a 2-0 count.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

As larry said, it's definitely possible that he used the bunt to bring the infield in more, making it easier to get a single on a hard hit through the infield.

Which also could have prevented him from getting an infield single on the next pitch.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think this is along the lines of why I have a problem with the bunt in this particular situation. If his team was down 8-0 with 2 outs in the 9th, and Sanchez had scattered 4 hits, would he have bunted? If his team was down 8-2 with 2 outs in the 9th, would he have bunted?

My guess is in both situations, the answer is no, so the sole point of the bunt was to break up the no hitter and had nothing to do with "this will help my team start the process of coming back from a big deficit", which is where I have my (small) issue.

I disagree. The guy wants to get on base no matter what, whether he's trying to start a rally, break up the no hitter, or help his batting average. He's not going to bunt unless he thinks it can work, because, as I'm sure everyone will agree, a bunt hit is very difficult to get. I don't see why he wouldn't do it in a 4 hitter if he thought the defense was far enough back.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Double-dola, can't the fake-outrage at the bunt attempt be mitigated by the monster strike zone on the last pitch? Either's he the only umpire in the league actually calling balls at the letters strikes, or that's high and outside.

Have a look at the Gameday pitchtrack - it was a strike.

[JetsIn06]

Just got last-minute tickets to the Phillies game tomorrow. Not a Phillies fan, but I'm super-excited to watch a game at Citizens Bank Park and love watching live baseball, regardless of who is playing.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, if only we could piss away $36M on a pile of crap SS instead

Not today.

SI

Instead you spent $36 million over 1 less year for a player with a worse OPS at a much easier fielding position. And traded prospects for your 5th separate SS with a worse OPS than Lugo, or his journeyman backup that we signed for minsal. And now we have our 2nd year SS just about ready to come up because we actually sent him to the DL instead of aggravating his injury and potentially ending his career Rany on the Royals: Release The Hounds.

[Big Fo]

from metsblog.com:

The crazy thing is, despite his struggles this season, Francoeur is now third on the Mets in home runs, and third on the team in RBI, which says more about the Mets than anything else.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I disagree. The guy wants to get on base no matter what, whether he's trying to start a rally, break up the no hitter, or help his batting average. He's not going to bunt unless he thinks it can work, because, as I'm sure everyone will agree, a bunt hit is very difficult to get. I don't see why he wouldn't do it in a 4 hitter if he thought the defense was far enough back.

Seriously, have you seen a bunt in the last inning of a semi-blowout? I can't recall it.

As for it being very difficult, I agree...which is why I think trying to work a walk or attempting to get a hit the old-fashioned way (even if it's a weak dribbler against an infield set back) is the better option. And again, that's why my opinion is that he bunted with the intention of trying to spoil the no hitter instead of trying to start the rally -- why else would you be employing the least likely to be successful scenario?

[k0ruptr]

I still don't understand why you wouldn't want to break up the no no. I can't imagine wanting my team to get no hit. that's ridiculous.

Is the Manager telling you "Hey this pitcher only has one out to get a no hitter, make sure you try not to get a hit!"

lol

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Logan

Seriously, have you seen a bunt in the last inning of a semi-blowout? I can't recall it.

As for it being very difficult, I agree...which is why I think trying to work a walk or attempting to get a hit the old-fashioned way (even if it's a weak dribbler against an infield set back) is the better option. And again, that's why my opinion is that he bunted with the intention of trying to spoil the no hitter instead of trying to start the rally -- why else would you be employing the least likely to be successful scenario?

Trying the most difficult method of getting on base = He's obviously only trying to break up the no hitter?

I don't follow that logic at all. As I noted earlier, whether he's trying to start the rally or break up the no hitter, getting to 1st base accomplishes both of those things. If the defense is far enough back, then he absolutely should bunt.

I guess what I really don't get is what makes the bunt "bush league" or "cheap"? Why is it okay to break up the no hitter with an standard single, or a blooper, or a line drive down the line? What makes these more okay than a bunt?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Trying the most difficult method of getting on base = He's obviously only trying to break up the no hitter?

I would hope so, otherwise it's just pretty fucking stupid of him.

I guess what I really don't get is what makes the bunt "bush league" or "cheap"? Why is it okay to break up the no hitter with an standard single, or a blooper, or a line drive down the line? What makes these more okay than a bunt?

I already told you why in this situation I feel that way (if you're not bunting in a typical last inning at bat down a bunch, don't know why you would in this one instance), which you disagree with and that's fine.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Trying the most difficult method of getting on base = He's obviously only trying to break up the no hitter?

I don't follow that logic at all. As I noted earlier, whether he's trying to start the rally or break up the no hitter, getting to 1st base accomplishes both of those things. If the defense is far enough back, then he absolutely should bunt.

I guess what I really don't get is what makes the bunt "bush league" or "cheap"? Why is it okay to break up the no hitter with an standard single, or a blooper, or a line drive down the line? What makes these more okay than a bunt?

It's the hardest way to get a hit when it is expected. Whenit is not expected and the defense is playing back it is one of the easier ways. It all depends on how the defense is playing. In an 8-0 blowout no matter what the situaion is thedefense is going to be playing back with 2 outs. It is never tried in that situation because it is not worth it.

Ryan Howard could be batting around 700 if he bunted every time out, the way they play him defensively. The opposition would also willingly allow that.

It I were pitching and someone tried that I would hope my firstbaseman would knock that guy on his ass as he got near the bag.

I love he extremes peope are trying to argue. So they aren't supposed to try... why take a bat up there... what about a bloop single... Can we reach any farther for an excuse?

It's a pussy play, plain and simple.

If it's a close game it is completely different, but at that point the defense should also be playing for it. If they are not than the pitcher should be mad at his manager for making that call.

[larrymcg421]

If the defense is going to be back in an 8-0 game whether it's a no hitter or not, then yes people should be bunting in that situation. You need baserunners however you can get them.

But I do love the idea that the only time it's okay to bunt is when the defense is expecting it. Ha!

Honestly, if a guy I was rooting for had a no hitter going, I'd rather see it broken up by someone laying down a bunt and hustling down the line than reaching out for a pitch and getting a lucky bloop hit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I guess what I really don't get is what makes the bunt "bush league" or "cheap"? Why is it okay to break up the no hitter with an standard single, or a blooper, or a line drive down the line? What makes these more okay than a bunt?

Because they don't screw up a SportsCenter highlight as much

[Logan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But I do love the idea that the only time it's okay to bunt is when the defense is expecting it. Ha!

Who said this?

[larrymcg421]

This is what I was referring to:

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If it's a close game it is completely different, but at that point the defense should also be playing for it.

So basically we've discovered:

1) It's stupid to bunt when trying to help your team win, because bunts are harder than other hits.

2) You should only bunt when trying to help your team win if its a close game, when bunts will be even harder because the defense won't be deep.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Logan

I would hope so, otherwise it's just pretty fucking stupid of him.

But under your logic, wouldn't it be fucking stupid of him whether he was trying to help his team or break up the no hitter. I'm simply disputing your notion that bunting obviously means he only wants to break up the no hitter. And as I stated (and you edited out of your reply), it's not stupid if the defense is far enough back.

I already told you why in this situation I feel that way (if you're not bunting in a typical last inning at bat down a bunch, don't know why you would in this one instance), which you disagree with and that's fine.

I wouldn't say I disagree with that. I just think that you should bunt in both situations if the alignment of the defense gives you a good chance for that to be successful.

[larrymcg421]

[Logan]

Two first inning runs contributed by Francoeur. Can't even remember the last time the Mets had a lead in the 1st.

[Atocep]

New unwritten rule regarding no hitters:

In the 9th inning of a no hitter the defense must allow any ball hit into foul territory to land without making a play on it to prevent a cheap out from being made.

If the team being no hit has to "earn" their hits then the team in the field should have to "earn" their outs.

[stevew]

How many times has the hitter in question bunted this year?