is it wrong

[trademhigh]

So now you're telling me Drayton would fire him because of that?Because he did something to try to get a guy on base?Yeah...because the astros fans that pay all this outrageous money to watch the games love to see a no hitter thrown against them.Honestly man...you're digging a hole.All I can ask is...do you want a bigger shovel?

I'M digging a hole? You are the one questioning the way 150+ years of baseball is played, lol. Do you want to borrow my dump truck?

Nah...the dump truck only dumps the dirt.I need something to dig.Got a back hoe?


I am not questioning the way the game is played.You're questioning a batter trying to get on base which, if I recall, also has never been an object of debate.

No, we are discussing a question within a context and you are answering out of context to prove your "point". Obviously a guy is going to try and get a hit. It's the HOW in this PARTICULAR situation we are discussing. There is the right way, the way it has been done for 150+ years, and then there is your way.

For the last 150+ years, when there are two outs in the 9th, a player is going to try and get a hit using whatever means necessary. If the infield is really deep, and the guy has Ichiro speed, why not bunt? I think it's the same regardless of whether we're talking a perfect game or not. It's not like the other team should just give up and slap at the ball.

 

[sportscardtheory]

So now you're telling me Drayton would fire him because of that?Because he did something to try to get a guy on base?Yeah...because the astros fans that pay all this outrageous money to watch the games love to see a no hitter thrown against them.Honestly man...you're digging a hole.All I can ask is...do you want a bigger shovel?

I'M digging a hole? You are the one questioning the way 150+ years of baseball is played, lol. Do you want to borrow my dump truck?

Nah...the dump truck only dumps the dirt.I need something to dig.Got a back hoe?


I am not questioning the way the game is played.You're questioning a batter trying to get on base which, if I recall, also has never been an object of debate.

No, we are discussing a question within a context and you are answering out of context to prove your "point". Obviously a guy is going to try and get a hit. It's the HOW in this PARTICULAR situation we are discussing. There is the right way, the way it has been done for 150+ years, and then there is your way.

For the last 150+ years, when there are two outs in the 9th, a player is going to try and get a hit using whatever means necessary. If the infield is really deep, and the guy has Ichiro speed, why not bunt? I think it's the same regardless of whether we're talking a perfect game or not. It's not like the other team should just give up and slap at the ball.

Okay, show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team.

 

[trademhigh]

[quote="predatorkj":1l4qnoud]

So now you're telling me Drayton would fire him because of that?Because he did something to try to get a guy on base?Yeah...because the astros fans that pay all this outrageous money to watch the games love to see a no hitter thrown against them.Honestly man...you're digging a hole.All I can ask is...do you want a bigger shovel?

I'M digging a hole? You are the one questioning the way 150+ years of baseball is played, lol. Do you want to borrow my dump truck?

Nah...the dump truck only dumps the dirt.I need something to dig.Got a back hoe?


I am not questioning the way the game is played.You're questioning a batter trying to get on base which, if I recall, also has never been an object of debate.

No, we are discussing a question within a context and you are answering out of context to prove your "point". Obviously a guy is going to try and get a hit. It's the HOW in this PARTICULAR situation we are discussing. There is the right way, the way it has been done for 150+ years, and then there is your way.

For the last 150+ years, when there are two outs in the 9th, a player is going to try and get a hit using whatever means necessary. If the infield is really deep, and the guy has Ichiro speed, why not bunt? I think it's the same regardless of whether we're talking a perfect game or not. It's not like the other team should just give up and slap at the ball.

Okay, show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team.[/quote:1l4qnoud]
The situation hasn't arisen where the player batting has thought he could best get a hit that way. But if the infield was on the edge of the outfield grass (they probably wouldn't expect a bunt with 2 outs in the 9th, so maybe their manager told them to play really far back with the exception of the first baseman), why wouldn't a really speedy guy bunt? I don't care what the score is, the players get paid to win the game, so they (should) give their 100% effort at all times.

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="sportscardtheory":xa6ln9qo][quote="predatorkj":xa6ln9qo]

So now you're telling me Drayton would fire him because of that?Because he did something to try to get a guy on base?Yeah...because the astros fans that pay all this outrageous money to watch the games love to see a no hitter thrown against them.Honestly man...you're digging a hole.All I can ask is...do you want a bigger shovel?

I'M digging a hole? You are the one questioning the way 150+ years of baseball is played, lol. Do you want to borrow my dump truck?

Nah...the dump truck only dumps the dirt.I need something to dig.Got a back hoe?


I am not questioning the way the game is played.You're questioning a batter trying to get on base which, if I recall, also has never been an object of debate.

No, we are discussing a question within a context and you are answering out of context to prove your "point". Obviously a guy is going to try and get a hit. It's the HOW in this PARTICULAR situation we are discussing. There is the right way, the way it has been done for 150+ years, and then there is your way.

For the last 150+ years, when there are two outs in the 9th, a player is going to try and get a hit using whatever means necessary. If the infield is really deep, and the guy has Ichiro speed, why not bunt? I think it's the same regardless of whether we're talking a perfect game or not. It's not like the other team should just give up and slap at the ball.

Okay, show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team.[/quote:xa6ln9qo]
The situation hasn't arisen where the player batting has thought he could best get a hit that way. But if the infield was on the edge of the outfield grass (they probably wouldn't expect a bunt with 2 outs in the 9th, so maybe their manager told them to play really far back with the exception of the first baseman), why wouldn't a really speedy guy bunt? I don't care what the score is, the players get paid to win the game, so they (should) give their 100% effort at all times.[/quote:xa6ln9qo]

Your answer has nothing to do with the question I asked.

 

[trademhigh]

[quote="predatorkj":1s3tfap1][quote="sportscardtheory":1s3tfap1][quote="predatorkj":1s3tfap1]

So now you're telling me Drayton would fire him because of that?Because he did something to try to get a guy on base?Yeah...because the astros fans that pay all this outrageous money to watch the games love to see a no hitter thrown against them.Honestly man...you're digging a hole.All I can ask is...do you want a bigger shovel?

I'M digging a hole? You are the one questioning the way 150+ years of baseball is played, lol. Do you want to borrow my dump truck?

Nah...the dump truck only dumps the dirt.I need something to dig.Got a back hoe?


I am not questioning the way the game is played.You're questioning a batter trying to get on base which, if I recall, also has never been an object of debate.

No, we are discussing a question within a context and you are answering out of context to prove your "point". Obviously a guy is going to try and get a hit. It's the HOW in this PARTICULAR situation we are discussing. There is the right way, the way it has been done for 150+ years, and then there is your way.

For the last 150+ years, when there are two outs in the 9th, a player is going to try and get a hit using whatever means necessary. If the infield is really deep, and the guy has Ichiro speed, why not bunt? I think it's the same regardless of whether we're talking a perfect game or not. It's not like the other team should just give up and slap at the ball.

Okay, show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team.[/quote:1s3tfap1]
The situation hasn't arisen where the player batting has thought he could best get a hit that way. But if the infield was on the edge of the outfield grass (they probably wouldn't expect a bunt with 2 outs in the 9th, so maybe their manager told them to play really far back with the exception of the first baseman), why wouldn't a really speedy guy bunt? I don't care what the score is, the players get paid to win the game, so they (should) give their 100% effort at all times.[/quote:1s3tfap1]

Your answer has nothing to do with the question I asked.[/quote:1s3tfap1]
You never asked a question.

 

[sportscardtheory]

You never asked a question.

"show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team." ? - there, I added a question mark for you.

 

[trademhigh]

You never asked a question.

"show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team." ? - there, I added a question mark for you.

So, you turned a normal sentence into a question? :lol: It's still not a question. But, there's never been a situation in the bottom of the 9th with two outs during a perfect game where the best option for the hitter is to bunt, so the "question" is impossible to answer. Just because the opportunity has never arisen, doesn't mean it will never happen in the future. Let me ask you a question, then. When has it ever been frowned upon when a hitter attempts to bunt for a hit with two outs and no one left on base? Has anyone ever said, "That's a cheap way to get a hit."?

 

[aminors]

No way in hell that's wrong. A manager sees his team struggling at the plate and getting no hits the ENTIRE BALLGAME long, so he calls for something unexpected that will get his player a hit. Nothing wrong with that. Smart managing, in my humble opinion.


Anthony

 

[chisox3706]

I think that it is a chicken s*it thing to do, but depending on the score I guess it could be a little more understandable. It would be the number 9 hitter, so if they get on base, the top of the order would be coming up, so if it was only 1 or 2 runs it may be obtainable.

But this sounds familiar:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball ... illing.htm

lol yeah the ben davis bunt was the first thing that came to my mind when i read the OP

 

[sportscardtheory]

You never asked a question.

"show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team." ? - there, I added a question mark for you.

So, you turned a normal sentence into a question? :lol: It's still not a question. But, there's never been a situation in the bottom of the 9th with two outs during a perfect game where the best option for the hitter is to bunt, so the "question" is impossible to answer. ** Just because the opportunity has never arisen, doesn't mean it will never happen in the future. Let me ask you a question, then. When has it ever been frowned upon when a hitter attempts to bunt for a hit with two outs and no one left on base? Has anyone ever said, "That's a cheap way to get a hit."?

You really didn't comprehend that as a question? And if the answer is NO, like you stated, then you have answered the "impossible to answer" question. Thank you.

** You are saying there has never been a 2 out last at-bat in a no-hitter bid? Because seemingly, that would be the opportunity to bunt we have been discussing. Did you read the OP?

 

[trademhigh]

You never asked a question.

"show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team." ? - there, I added a question mark for you.

So, you turned a normal sentence into a question? :lol: It's still not a question. But, there's never been a situation in the bottom of the 9th with two outs during a perfect game where the best option for the hitter is to bunt, so the "question" is impossible to answer. ** Just because the opportunity has never arisen, doesn't mean it will never happen in the future. Let me ask you a question, then. When has it ever been frowned upon when a hitter attempts to bunt for a hit with two outs and no one left on base? Has anyone ever said, "That's a cheap way to get a hit."?

You really didn't comprehend that as a question? And if the answer is NO, like you stated, then you have answered the "impossible to answer question". Thank you.

** You are saying there has never been a 2 out last at-bat in a no-hitter bid? Because seemingly, that would be the opportunity to bunt we have been discussing. Did you read the OP?

I did read the OP, it said a perfect game, not a no hitter. I think 16 perfect games have been thrown in the history of baseball. I doubt many perfect games have been broken up in the 9th with two outs. So, at most (but I doubt this many) there have been 25 at bats during a perfect game with two outs in the 9th, in the history of MLB (that has been recorded). 25 ABs isn't exactly what I'd call a large sample. It's certainly not a big enough sample to call bunting during that AB "immoral" and "wrong." And it definitely would not cause a manager to be "most likely managing his last season, if he had him bunt."

 

[sportscardtheory]

You never asked a question.

"show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team." ? - there, I added a question mark for you.

So, you turned a normal sentence into a question? :lol: It's still not a question. But, there's never been a situation in the bottom of the 9th with two outs during a perfect game where the best option for the hitter is to bunt, so the "question" is impossible to answer. ** Just because the opportunity has never arisen, doesn't mean it will never happen in the future. Let me ask you a question, then. When has it ever been frowned upon when a hitter attempts to bunt for a hit with two outs and no one left on base? Has anyone ever said, "That's a cheap way to get a hit."?

You really didn't comprehend that as a question? And if the answer is NO, like you stated, then you have answered the "impossible to answer question". Thank you.

** You are saying there has never been a 2 out last at-bat in a no-hitter bid? Because seemingly, that would be the opportunity to bunt we have been discussing. Did you read the OP?

I did read the OP, it said a perfect game, not a no hitter. I think 16 perfect games have been thrown in the history of baseball. I doubt many perfect games have been broken up in the 9th with two outs. So, at most (but I doubt this many) there have been 25 at bats during a perfect game with two outs in the 9th, in the history of MLB (that has been recorded). 25 ABs isn't exactly what I'd call a large sample. It's certainly not a big enough sample to call bunting during that AB "immoral" and "wrong." And it definitely would not cause a manager to be "most likely managing his last season, if he had him bunt."

Then we will have to agree to disagree. It simply isn't done. If it was no big deal, it would have been done already.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Double Post

 

[RL24]

You never asked a question.

"show me where a player tried to bunt with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth when his team was down a bunch of runs during a no-hit bid by the other team." ? - there, I added a question mark for you.

So, you turned a normal sentence into a question? :lol: It's still not a question. But, there's never been a situation in the bottom of the 9th with two outs during a perfect game where the best option for the hitter is to bunt, so the "question" is impossible to answer. ** Just because the opportunity has never arisen, doesn't mean it will never happen in the future. Let me ask you a question, then. When has it ever been frowned upon when a hitter attempts to bunt for a hit with two outs and no one left on base? Has anyone ever said, "That's a cheap way to get a hit."?

You really didn't comprehend that as a question? And if the answer is NO, like you stated, then you have answered the "impossible to answer" question. Thank you.

** You are saying there has never been a 2 out last at-bat in a no-hitter bid? Because seemingly, that would be the opportunity to bunt we have been discussing. Did you read the OP?

I think the "the best option for the hitter is to bunt" is the key here. You have to be pretty quick to single on a bunt. In this thread it seems that people think that a bunt is just an automatic hit, but that's not the case.

 

[RL24]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. It simply isn't done. If it was no big deal, it would have been done already.

:lol: ::facepalm:: :lol:

So because it wasn't done in the 16 perfect games in the last 150 years, you're convinced that you're right? :?

 

[sportscardtheory]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. It simply isn't done. If it was no big deal, it would have been done already.

:lol: ::facepalm:: :lol:

So because it wasn't done in the 16 perfect games in the last 150 years, you're convinced that you're right? :?

Why discount no-hitters? It's basically the same situation. Anyway, I'm barely arguing that I'm right, I'm simply proving that it is frowned upon and DOESN'T happen. What else you got.

 

[RL24]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. It simply isn't done. If it was no big deal, it would have been done already.

:lol: ::facepalm:: :lol:

So because it wasn't done in the 16 perfect games in the last 150 years, you're convinced that you're right? :?

Why discount no-hitters? It's basically the same situation. Anyway, I'm barely arguing that I'm right, I'm simply proving that it is frowned upon and DOESN'T happen. What else you got.

Here's what else I got... Ben Davis would do it. He did it 4 outs away from the situation we're discussing, he said he would do it again. I don't see why he wouldn't do it 8 2/3 of the way through the game if he would do it 7 1/3 into a perfect game. So really, it has been done, just not on the very last out of a perfect game.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. It simply isn't done. If it was no big deal, it would have been done already.

:lol: ::facepalm:: :lol:

So because it wasn't done in the 16 perfect games in the last 150 years, you're convinced that you're right? :?

Why discount no-hitters? It's basically the same situation. Anyway, I'm barely arguing that I'm right, I'm simply proving that it is frowned upon and DOESN'T happen. What else you got.

Here's what else I got... Ben Davis would do it. He did it 4 outs away from the situation we're discussing, he said he would do it again. I don't see why he wouldn't do it 8 2/3 of the way through the game if he would do it 7 1/3 into a perfect game. So really, it has been done, just not on the very last out of a perfect game.

So it hasn't been done. Please stop comparing different situations. That was also a close game, NOT what this thread asked. Does anyone know what context is anymore??? Why do people insist on using oranges to prove apples make good pies? ::facepalm::

 

[predatorkj]

predatorkj, in essence what you are arguing is a matter of principal versus "doing what you set out to do". Imagine you are going to the bank to take out some money, so it is clear, your objective is to take out money. You get to the door at the same time as a little old lady. What you are implying, is that it is OKAY to not hold the door for her and let her go in line in front of you. Of course you don't HAVE to, but it's a matter of principals/values/morals. Some people would hold the door, and others wouldn't because their goal is more important. You will still get to go into the bank and get your money, just like the hitter will still swing at the pitches. I guess maybe you would let the door hit the lady in the face while you walk by her, because what you are doing is far more important..

Ok dude...I was trying to be cool and not be a ****** or anything but you're kind crossing that line here.Me going to the bank for whatever has nothing to do with a baseball game.There is no reward for getting there first ,therefore, I am in no hurry and would hold the door.Now you are reaching astronomically.

 

[trademhigh]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. It simply isn't done. If it was no big deal, it would have been done already.

:lol: ::facepalm:: :lol:

So because it wasn't done in the 16 perfect games in the last 150 years, you're convinced that you're right? :?

Why discount no-hitters? It's basically the same situation. Anyway, I'm barely arguing that I'm right, I'm simply proving that it is frowned upon and DOESN'T happen. What else you got.

Here's what else I got... Ben Davis would do it. He did it 4 outs away from the situation we're discussing, he said he would do it again. I don't see why he wouldn't do it 8 2/3 of the way through the game if he would do it 7 1/3 into a perfect game. So really, it has been done, just not on the very last out of a perfect game.

So it hasn't been done. Please stop comparing different situations. That was also a close game, NOT what this thread asked. Does anyone know what context is anymore??? Why do people insist on using oranges to prove apples make good pies? ::facepalm::

Just a thought...
Maybe you should take your own advice? The following has absolutely nothing to do with baseball, or the situation. RL24's Ben Davis example is a very similar situation. Sure it is different, but it's not like it has nothing to do with the situation. It does. It's attempting to break up a perfect game very late in the ball game by bunting.

predatorkj, in essence what you are arguing is a matter of principal versus "doing what you set out to do". Imagine you are going to the bank to take out some money, so it is clear, your objective is to take out money. You get to the door at the same time as a little old lady. What you are implying, is that it is OKAY to not hold the door for her and let her go in line in front of you. Of course you don't HAVE to, but it's a matter of principals/values/morals. Some people would hold the door, and others wouldn't because their goal is more important. You will still get to go into the bank and get your money, just like the hitter will still swing at the pitches. I guess maybe you would let the door hit the lady in the face while you walk by her, because what you are doing is far more important..