Bunting to break up a perfect game

[YeAuldBroade]

This is why it's annoying to post with people under 30 or pink hatters. No respect or understanding of the game they supposedly love. Many threads here annoy me but this one f***ing pisses me off. I have as much respect for many of the posters here as they do for the game of baseball. In 10 years baseball will be unwatchable because of the exact attitudes expressed here.

[TedWilliams101]

I think it's a dumb "unwritten" rule. The fact is a no-hitter is often just as much about luck as anything else. Anyways, who cares, you have to earn it. A team should do anything and everything possible to give them the best chance at winning games and that may very well be trying to break up a no-hitter. If the pitcher doesn't like it, too bad. Statistical anomalies get blown out of proportion in baseball.

[BoSox21]

I think any unwritten rules in sports, particularly the ones that affect the outcome of a game, should only apply to the team that's blowing the other team out. The definition of a "blow out" obviously is subjective but there's usually a point where the outcome of the game has been determined. In baseball, you stop trying to steal bases. In hockey, you don't put out your top guys if you have a powerplay. In football, you stop passing. Etc, etc, etc.

 

But considering the amount players are being paid today to do whatever they can to contribute to their team winning and the revenues that are at stake from fans expecting their team to do whatever it takes to win, hitters should do whatever it takes to get on base. The games today are different than they were back when the unwritten rules were "written".

[TedWilliams101]

No lead is insurmountable, but it is highly unlikely you'll mount a comeback if the lead is big enough late in a game - especially against a pitcher who is throwing a no-no.

 

When Lester threw his no-no against the Royals, the Sox were winning 7-0 going into the 9th inning. I find it hard to believe you and Dutchy wouldn't have been upset if Alberto Callaspo (who made the last out) had tried to bunt his way on and succeeded with 2 outs. That would have been a dick move on Callaspo's part.

 

Maybe it's hard for people to understand this unwritten rule if they never played baseball. I don't know. It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

If you're losing and you don't do EVERYTHING (and I mean everything) possible to get on base, you aren't 100% committed to winning. There's no if and or buts about it. If the pitcher doesn't like it, too bad. The batter's job is to get on base.

[TedWilliams101]

I think any unwritten rules in sports, particularly the ones that affect the outcome of a game, should only apply to the team that's blowing the other team out. The definition of a "blow out" obviously is subjective but there's usually a point where the outcome of the game has been determined. In baseball, you stop trying to steal bases. In hockey, you don't put out your top guys if you have a powerplay. In football, you stop passing. Etc, etc, etc.

 

But considering the amount players are being paid today to do whatever they can to contribute to their team winning and the revenues that are at stake from fans expecting their team to do whatever it takes to win, hitters should do whatever it takes to get on base. The games today are different than they were back when the unwritten rules were "written".

 

In baseball, if you are the team being blown out, you might stop stealing because you need a lot of runs to catch up, so taking the risk isn't worth it. If it's the other team, well, it might not be worth the injury concern.

 

As for football, the reason teams run when they have a lead is simple: kill the clock and ball protection. It has nothing to do with sportsmanship or anything else. It's a strategic move, nothing more.

[YeAuldBroade]

The games today are different than they were back when the unwritten rules were "written".

In a word --- Horseshit.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Has anyone mentioned yet that the only people whose opinions on unwritten rules really matter, the players, have almost never done this? Think about that.

[Emmz]

In a word --- Horseshit.

 

What the hell? You're going off on people you don't even know because their opinion differs. Its an argument that's completely based off of opinion.

[BoSox21]

In a word --- Horseshit.

 

Fine, try telling a father who spent $200 to take his entire family a ballgame that his team didn't try to bunt to get on base when the score was 3-0 in the 8th cause the other team's pitcher had a no-hitter going.

 

Try being the owner of a team and wondering why your prized free agent who you're paying $18 mil a year to win games refused to bunt to get on base in that game because there are "unwritten rules" that were determined by players decades ago who worked multiple jobs in addition to being ball players.

[Emmz]

Has anyone mentioned yet that the only people whose opinions on unwritten rules really matter' date=' the players, have almost never done this? Think about that.[/quote']

 

Not a lot of people are a threat to get on from a bunt though. Like I said its gonna be pretty divided.

[Emmz]

Fine, try telling a father who spent $200 to take his entire family a ballgame that his team didn't try to bunt to get on base when the score was 3-0 in the 8th cause the other team's pitcher had a no-hitter going.

 

Try being the owner of a team and wondering why your prized free agent who you're paying $18 mil a year to win games refused to bunt to get on base in that game because there are "unwritten rules" that were determined by players decades ago who worked multiple jobs in addition to being ball players.

 

This is what I mean. A game isn't over until its over.

[yankees228]

If you don't want a bunt to break up a no hitter/perfect game, play your corners in, and get the guy out.

 

If you don't want the other team running up the score against you, pitch better, and get the other batters out.

 

If you don't want the other team stealing on you when it's a lopsided score, hold the runner on, and pay attention to him.

 

Unfortunately, due to the direction this thread has taken, I feel the need to qualify all of this with, 'in my opinion', even though that should go without saying. But hey, I'm sitting at my computer, under the age of 30, with my pink hat pulled tightly over my head, so what do I know...

[jacksonianmarch]

Any player that bunted to break up a perfect game or a no-no would have a target on his helmet by every pitcher in MLB including those on his own team. It's just simply not friggin' done.

 

Ben Davis did it in 2001 against Schilling and succeeded, and he didnt have a target on his helmet.

 

If the game is close, you do whatever you can to get on base and WIN. That is the most important thing. It may be cheap, but if it starts a rally and you win the game, then everything is peachy. In a 10-0 game, you'd probably not want to do that, cause your buddy on deck is gonna get one in the ribs

[yankees228]

Ben Davis did it in 2001 against Schilling and succeeded, and he didnt have a target on his helmet.

 

If the game is close, you do whatever you can to get on base and WIN. That is the most important thing. It may be cheap, but if it starts a rally and you win the game, then everything is peachy. In a 10-0 game, you'd probably not want to do that, cause your buddy on deck is gonna get one in the ribs

 

Right, we know the next guy is probably going to get hit, but the debate centers around whether that guy should get hit (or, simply put, whether the other team should have a problem with the guy bunting).

[jacksonianmarch]

The pitcher will have a problem with it, absolutely. The other manager will probably defend his pitcher. But, let them whine and cry.

[a700hitter]

a700's dad is/was a wise man.

:lol:My point was not to convince anyone that my dad is a wise man, but only to illustrate that this unwritten rule has been around since he was a kid, back in the days of Ruth and Gehrig.

[a700hitter]

But considering the amount players are being paid today to do whatever they can to contribute to their team winning and the revenues that are at stake from fans expecting their team to do whatever it takes to win' date=' hitters should do whatever it takes to get on base. The games today are different than they were back when the unwritten rules were "written".[/quote']If you think winning today is more critical than in the past, I think you are 100% wrong about that.

[a700hitter]

Has anyone mentioned yet that the only people whose opinions on unwritten rules really matter' date=' the players, have almost never done this? Think about that.[/quote']Good point. These unwritten rules are the players rules. It's like the rule where if one of your hitter gets thrown at, your pitcher throws at one of their guys. It's a rule set by the players and coaches.

[a700hitter]

Fine, try telling a father who spent $200 to take his entire family a ballgame that his team didn't try to bunt to get on base when the score was 3-0 in the 8th cause the other team's pitcher had a no-hitter going.

I learned this unwritten rule from my father when Bob Moose no-hit the Mets in 1969. We were at that game. He told me that you are not "supposed to" bunt to break up a no-hitter. It's funny. I was rooting for the Mets, but because my Dad explained how rare it was to witness a no-hitter I was rooting for the no-hitter at the end. I wasn't the only one. I recall that the Met fans gave him a nice round of applause as many were rooting for him at the end. We weren't concerned that our guys didn't try to get on with a bunt. I've been to hundreds of games since then, but I have not seen a no-hitter since that day. I'm glad that no one bunted.

 

P.S The Mets won the World Series that year

[BoSox21]

I understand that these unwritten rules are a part of the game but I'll just always be of the opinion that players should do whatever it takes, within the official rules of course, to win a game even if it meant Brett Gardner bunting his way on in the 9th with Jon Lester working on a no-hitter.

[ORS]

I think one of the appeals of baseball, as "America's Pastime", is that winning AT ALL COSTS isn't the central ethos of the sport. Playing the game the "right way" and playing with honor are important, important enough that doing "whatever it takes" is frowned upon in instances like this. The unwritten rules of baseball are things that bring a certain degree of honor to the game, and I understand why so many baseball traditionalists get upset as subsequent generations foul the traditions of the past in the quest to achieve victory regardless of the path taken to get there. This is one of those unwritten rules that I hope never dies.

 

An extension of "whatever it takes" leads to the use of steroids before the league banned them. Is everyone that is OK with bunting to break up a perfecto also OK with what Bonds, McGuire, Canseco, et al did?

[redsoxrules]

I understand that these unwritten rules are a part of the game but I'll just always be of the opinion that players should do whatever it takes' date=' within the official rules of course, to win a game even if it meant Brett Gardner bunting his way on in the 9th with Jon Lester working on a no-hitter.[/quote']

 

OK , so Lester has a perfect game with 2 outs in the 9th and the Red Sox are up 10-0 on the Yankee's ... so you would be totally fine with Brett Gardner hitting a bunt single ?

 

I dont think so , you'd be bitching like the rest of us

[yankees228]

I think one of the appeals of baseball, as "America's Pastime", is that winning AT ALL COSTS isn't the central ethos of the sport. Playing the game the "right way" and playing with honor are important, important enough that doing "whatever it takes" is frowned upon in instances like this. The unwritten rules of baseball are things that bring a certain degree of honor to the game, and I understand why so many baseball traditionalists get upset as subsequent generations foul the traditions of the past in the quest to achieve victory regardless of the path taken to get there. This is one of those unwritten rules that I hope never dies.

 

An extension of "whatever it takes" leads to the use of steroids before the league banned them. Is everyone that is OK with bunting to break up a perfecto also OK with what Bonds, McGuire, Canseco, et al did?

 

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but I see the relevancy of the question, so I'll answer it. I've maintained a consistence stance on this board, and that stance is that steroid use does not bother me.

[VA Sox Fan]

I think one of the appeals of baseball, as "America's Pastime", is that winning AT ALL COSTS isn't the central ethos of the sport. Playing the game the "right way" and playing with honor are important, important enough that doing "whatever it takes" is frowned upon in instances like this. The unwritten rules of baseball are things that bring a certain degree of honor to the game, and I understand why so many baseball traditionalists get upset as subsequent generations foul the traditions of the past in the quest to achieve victory regardless of the path taken to get there. This is one of those unwritten rules that I hope never dies.

 

An extension of "whatever it takes" leads to the use of steroids before the league banned them. Is everyone that is OK with bunting to break up a perfecto also OK with what Bonds, McGuire, Canseco, et al did?

 

Excellent post.

 

IMO it is (to steal a word from YAZMAN) douchebaggery.

[italstallianion]

If you don't want a bunt to break up a no hitter/perfect game, play your corners in, and get the guy out.

 

If you don't want the other team running up the score against you, pitch better, and get the other batters out.

 

If you don't want the other team stealing on you when it's a lopsided score, hold the runner on, and pay attention to him.

Unfortunately, due to the direction this thread has taken, I feel the need to qualify all of this with, 'in my opinion', even though that should go without saying. But hey, I'm sitting at my computer, under the age of 30, with my pink hat pulled tightly over my head, so what do I know...

 

 

 

The same problems can be solved with a 95 mph fastball to the temple.

[Jasonbay44]

No lead is insurmountable, but it is highly unlikely you'll mount a comeback if the lead is big enough late in a game - especially against a pitcher who is throwing a no-no.

 

When Lester threw his no-no against the Royals, the Sox were winning 7-0 going into the 9th inning. I find it hard to believe you and Dutchy wouldn't have been upset if Alberto Callaspo (who made the last out) had tried to bunt his way on and succeeded with 2 outs. That would have been a dick move on Callaspo's part.

 

Maybe it's hard for people to understand this unwritten rule if they never played baseball. I don't know. It seems pretty obvious to me.

It may be a dick move to you, but it isn't to me, I wouldn't be pissed if Callaspo did it. I understand why he would do it, no team wants to get no hit and the game isn't over till the final out. There are ways to avoid a bunt hit, if you aren't willing to play your defense a proper way to avoid a bunt single, then that is the managers fault and not the man bunting for a hit. Its not showing up a team, its not risking an injury, its trying to get on base to give your team a shot at winning, even if your look like a dick, its part of the game. Do you think other teams appreciate it when Jose Valverde seriously dances on the mound after getting outs in the 9th? He doesn't care. Do you think pitchers appreciate it when Manny stands in the batters box for 10 seconds starring at homers? He doesn't care. I seriously doubt a player cares if he looks like a dick when he is trying to win a game.

 

 

 

This is why it's annoying to post with people under 30 or pink hatters. No respect or understanding of the game they supposedly love. Many threads here annoy me but this one f***ing pisses me off. I have as much respect for many of the posters here as they do for the game of baseball. In 10 years baseball will be unwatchable because of the exact attitudes expressed here.

Then don't post here, everyone has opinions.

 

 

If you don't want a bunt to break up a no hitter/perfect game, play your corners in, and get the guy out.

 

If you don't want the other team running up the score against you, pitch better, and get the other batters out.

 

If you don't want the other team stealing on you when it's a lopsided score, hold the runner on, and pay attention to him.

 

Unfortunately, due to the direction this thread has taken, I feel the need to qualify all of this with, 'in my opinion', even though that should go without saying. But hey, I'm sitting at my computer, under the age of 30, with my pink hat pulled tightly over my head, so what do I know...

This, I agree 100%.

[italstallianion]

It may be a dick move to you, but it isn't to me, I wouldn't be pissed if Callaspo did it. I understand why he would do it, no team wants to get no hit and the game isn't over till the final out. There are ways to avoid a bunt hit, if you aren't willing to play your defense a proper way to avoid a bunt single, then that is the managers fault and not the man bunting for a hit. Its not showing up a team, its not risking an injury, its trying to get on base to give your team a shot at winning, even if your look like a dick, its part of the game. Do you think other teams appreciate it when Jose Valverde seriously dances on the mound after getting outs in the 9th? He doesn't care. Do you think pitchers appreciate it when Manny stands in the batters box for 10 seconds starring at homers? He doesn't care. I seriously doubt a player cares if he looks like a dick when he is trying to win a game.

 

 

 

 

Then don't post here, everyone has opinions.

 

 

 

This, I agree 100%.

 

 

 

Then you and Yankees are the clear minorities here.

[Jasonbay44]

Then you and Yankees are the clear minorities here.

 

So, you expect a team to just lay down and let a team finish off the no hitter or perfect game?

[italstallianion]

So' date=' you expect a team to just lay down and let a team finish off the no hitter or perfect game?[/quote']

 

 

No, however, I, like most of the people here, think that it's cheap and dishonourable to try and bunt your way on base with the sole intention of breaking up a no-hitter/perfect game just because swinging normally didn't work and now you're trying to prevent yourself from being on the receiving end of history.

 

You're clearly outnumbered, so there's no use in acting like we are the weird ones.

[Jasonbay44]

No, however, I, like most of the people here, think that it's cheap and dishonourable to try and bunt your way on base with the sole intention of breaking up a no-hitter/perfect game just because swinging normally didn't work and now you're trying to prevent yourself from being on the receiving end of history.

 

You're clearly outnumbered, so there's no use in acting like we are the weird ones.

 

So, if for example, Brett Gardner is batting during a no hitter, he is supposed to lose one of his biggest advantages, just so he can be "classy". Bunting for a hit and hitting a line drive into center field both count as a single. Bunting is legal and is part of the game and is one of the reasons some speedsters are so valuable, they shouldn't lose one of their abilities to be "classy" or to respect the other team, they are trying to win a game. There is a way to defend against the bunt, if you don't expect the bunt that is the managers fault as I said before.

 

I don't care if I'm outnumbered, why would I change my opinion because a few other people don't agree with it? I never said anyone here is weird.