from Amazon
Friday, May 04, 2007
Sac Bunting Redux
This has been rehashed umpteen times, but while watching the Colorado/CIN game today, in the top of the 10th, the Rockies had two runners on base and no outs. Haupt was up, a good hitter, although he was facing a lefty. The announcers mentioned that he had not bunted since some time ago, and after watching him attempt a bunt, you could see why. Clearly the manager has to know that Haupt is either not a good bunter, has little bunt experience, or both.
Now, all managers I would think know that a sac bunt attempt is always a marginal strategy. By that I mean that they all know that bunting or not bunting in ANY situation is NEVER the clearly correct play. Given that, WHY would a manager elect to bunt someone who does not bunt well? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if bunting is probably around as good as not bunting in the first place, then if the batter is a bad bunter, it is ALWAYS a bad play to have him bunt?
Actually, I think I know the reason, especially after listening to the announcers after Haupt’s failed bunt attempt (and then K’ing). Rather than question the decision of the manager (why ask someone to do something that he is not capable of?), they said something like, “How can a major league athlete not be able to lay down a bunt?” So, the reason is…
If the manager does NOT bunt and nothing good happens, HE gets criticized. If he calls for a bunt and the bunt does not go well, the BATTER gets criticized. So the bottom line is that the manager is sacrificing his team’s chances of winning because he is a chickenshit!