Bunting to break up a perfect game

[BoSox21]

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?

 

Comparing a bunt single attempt with steroid use? When's the congressional hearing with Jacoby Ellsbury, Carl Crawford and Juan Pierre gonna happen?

 

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

 

As a Red Sox fan, I'd be upset with Lester coming so close to a perfect game only to lose it with one out to go but, and this is the God's honest truth, I wouldn't be upset with him doing something within the rules to get on base.

[Keeper]

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 love this post. This is essentially what I was trying to say. He said it better.

 

There does seem to be a correlation between age and opinion on this matter. I myself am well under 30, but I guess I have an old school mentality. And strictly judging from the posts in this thread, I'd say members on this forum are split. I would say YeAuldBroade overreacted, but I confess I am disappointed by some of the posts here. Not that you should care if I'm disappointed. Just saying.

[italstallianion]

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.

 

 

 

While one definitely shouldn't bunt to break up a no hitter, you can do it all you want, as long as you don't get offended when you are in a stretcher because the pitcher accidentally decapitated you with a 95 mph heater while the fans lose respect for you for being a dirty and cheap bastard and then you're using the remainder of your salary to pay for hospital bills to dislodge a major league baseball from your brain stem.

 

Just because there isn't a de jure ruling against it, doesn't mean that de facto regulation is not in effect. Same applies to stealing and padding stats with a large lead.

[Jasonbay44]

While one definitely shouldn't bunt to break up a no hitter, you can do it all you want, as long as you don't get offended when you are in a stretcher because the pitcher accidentally decapitated you with a 95 mph heater while the fans lose respect for you for being a dirty and cheap bastard and then you're using the remainder of your salary to pay for hospital bills to dislodge a major league baseball from your brain stem.

 

Just because there isn't a de jure ruling against it, doesn't mean that de facto regulation is not in effect. Same applies to stealing and padding stats with a large lead.

So if someone bunts for a single to ruin a perfect game/no hitter, they deserve to be hit in the head, have their career ended and possibly die? Oh and if that did happen to me, I wouldn't be paying those medical bills, I'd be suing, while your defense is "HE BUNTED FOR A HIT TO BREAK UP MY NO HITTER SO I TRY AND KILL HIM!!!!". How will unwritten baseball rules help you there?

 

Breaking up a no hitter/perfect game doesn't hurt anyone and is within the rules. Hitting someone in the head can end their career and possible their life, itsis way worse and its not even debatable.

[italstallianion]

So if someone bunts for a single to ruin a perfect game/no hitter' date=' they deserve to be hit in the head, have their career ended and possibly die[/b']? Oh and if that did happen to me, I wouldn't be paying those medical bills, I'd be suing, while your defense is "HE BUNTED FOR A HIT TO BREAK UP MY NO HITTER SO I TRY AND KILL HIM!!!!". How will unwritten baseball rules help you there?

 

Breaking up a no hitter/perfect game doesn't hurt anyone and is within the rules. Hitting someone in the head can end their career and possible their life, itsis way worse and its not even debatable.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

Besides, intentionally hitting baseball players is within the rules as well. So if you're going to cite the rules in your support of bunting during a no hitter, then you'd also have to cite the rules to support hitting batters.

 

And breaking up a no hitter/perfect game may not be forbidden within the de jure rules, but it is not within the de facto rules. That's what you haven't been understanding this entire thread. It's a f***** unwritten rule. Meaning that bunting to break up a no hitter/perfect game is NOT within the f***** rules of the game. It's just an unwritten rule that forbids it.

 

Intentionally hitting a batter in the head may be worse than bunting to break up the no hitter, but it's still within the rules, so by your logic, you'd have to support it or else you'd be hypocritical in addition to being incorrect. Besides, if you don't want to be intentionally hit in the head, then simply don't cheat and try and get on base cheaply by bunting during a no hitter/perfect game.

 

And guess what. If you're too busy being injured and being a little b**** by suing me for punishing you for breaking an unwritten rule, then you wouldn't be playing again and you wouldn't be able to bunt again to break up a no hitter/perfect game. In other words, it effectively kept you from doing it again. Good enough for me.

[redsoxrules]

So' date=' 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[/b']". 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.

 

If you're winning 10-0 , then yes

[Emmz]

The more I think about it, the more I think if it were say 10-0, I think its probably not something that should be done. However if that score says 5-0, or somewhere in that ballpark, all bets are off. I'm sorry, I'm not gonna lose a winnable game because of honor, if it makes me a dirty player, then so be it. I understand that any game is winnable, but within 6 runs has happened many times before, and will happen many times again, 10 runs is probably time to say we got owned.

[italstallianion]

I think that we should make a poll out of this.

[Dipre]

You don't bunt on a guy throwing a no-hitter unless the difference is three runs or less.

[Jasonbay44]

Yes.

 

 

Besides, intentionally hitting baseball players is within the rules as well. So if you're going to cite the rules in your support of bunting during a no hitter, then you'd also have to cite the rules to support hitting batters.

 

And breaking up a no hitter/perfect game may not be forbidden within the de jure rules, but it is not within the de facto rules. That's what you haven't been understanding this entire thread. It's a f***** unwritten rule. Meaning that bunting to break up a no hitter/perfect game is NOT within the f***** rules of the game. It's just an unwritten rule that forbids it.

 

Intentionally hitting a batter in the head may be worse than bunting to break up the no hitter, but it's still within the rules, so by your logic, you'd have to support it or else you'd be hypocritical in addition to being incorrect. Besides, if you don't want to be intentionally hit in the head, then simply don't cheat and try and get on base cheaply by bunting during a no hitter/perfect game.

 

And guess what. If you're too busy being injured and being a little b**** by suing me for punishing you for breaking an unwritten rule, then you wouldn't be playing again and you wouldn't be able to bunt again to break up a no hitter/perfect game. In other words, it effectively kept you from doing it again. Good enough for me.

 

I was saying an unwritten rule is stupid as long as its not injuring or showing up another team, hitting a batter in the head is injuring him and possibly killing him. Its idiotic to attempt to seriously injure someone or kill them over a game that they played fairly.

 

I've stated this a million times, who the hell cares about unwritten rules as long as they aren't showing up a team or injuring a team. Bunting for a hit to break up a no hitter or perfect game is perfectly fine, trying to win a game is worth being "unclassy". Attempting to injure/kill someone is way different and much, much worse.

 

Um, no I wouldn't. I've stated numerous times: Unwritten rules are stupid unless they are preventing injury or preventing showing up a team when the game is clearly out of hand. Its not being a hypocrite, its stating the obvious. How is bunting any worse then hitting a bloop single or hitting a slow roller for an infield single? Oh, yeah its not! Its part of the game, if you are willing to injure/kill someone for playing the game fairly then there is something wrong with you.

 

So if someone injures you and ends your career and could possibly kill you, you are supposed to do nothing? LOL, damn right I'd be suing the s*** out of you and you would lose because the argument you have is weak. So what you are getting at, is you would kill someone if they ruined a no hitter in a GAME. They didn't hurt you, they didn't even show you up, they did something perfectly legal. Hitting someone is legal, but its an unwritten rule not to aim for peoples heads and attempt to end careers, this rule was made to prevent injury. Shouldn't you be following all the unwritten rules since you use this one so much in your argument?

[Emmz]

I think 5 or 6 is more than reasonable, and even more so in meaningful games.

[italstallianion]

I was saying an unwritten rule is stupid as long as its not injuring or showing up another team' date=' hitting a batter in the head is injuring him and possibly killing him. Its idiotic to attempt to seriously injure someone or kill them over a game that they played [b']fairly[/b]. (Bulls***)

 

I've stated this a million times, who the hell cares about unwritten rules as long as they aren't showing up a team or injuring a team. Bunting for a hit to break up a no hitter or perfect game is perfectly fine, trying to win a game is worth being "unclassy". Attempting to injure/kill someone is way different and much, much worse.

 

Um, no I wouldn't. I've stated numerous times: Unwritten rules are stupid unless they are preventing injury or preventing showing up a team when the game is clearly out of hand. Its not being a hypocrite, its stating the obvious. How is bunting any worse then hitting a bloop single or hitting a slow roller for an infield single? Oh, yeah its not!(Even more bulls***) Its part of the game, if you are willing to injure/kill someone for playing the game fairly then there is something wrong with you.

 

So if someone injures you and ends your career and could possibly kill you, you are supposed to do nothing? LOL, damn right I'd be suing the s*** out of you and you would lose because the argument you have is weak. So what you are getting at, is you would kill someone if they ruined a no hitter in a GAME. They didn't hurt you, they didn't even show you up, (yes they did, that's the definition of showing someone up by cheating to prevent their no hitter) they did something perfectly legal (More bulls***, it's not legal de facto if it's breaking an unwritten rule). Hitting someone is legal, but its an unwritten rule not to aim for peoples heads and attempt to end careers, this rule was made to prevent injury. Shouldn't you be following all the unwritten rules since you use this one so much in your argument?

 

 

 

It's an unwritten rule for a reason. Because enough people agree that it's a cheap and dirty thing to do. Just because you're cheap and dirty doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't acknowledge that it's something that you just don't do. It makes A-rod look classy.

 

And in response to the bolded: Bulls***. That's pretentious and misguided. You have no idea who'd win in the court of law.

 

You can cry all you want but it's an unwritten rule because most people disagree with you. Repeating yourself millions of times that it isn't hurting anyone isn't going to change the fact that most people think it's cheap and dirty and that you just don't do it.

 

And bunting is worse than a bloop single or infield hit because it's intentional. It's intentionally and deliberately trying to break up a no hitter by being cheap because conventional batting isn't working. You can include all of the exclamation points and all of the fluff that you like, but it doesn't change that you're nearly by yourself on an island with your thumb up your a** while the majority thinks you're f***** nuts.

 

 

So you're against hitting people in the head because it's against an unwritten rule but you're not against bunting to break up a no hitter or stealing bases with a large lead even though they are against unwritten rules? Make up your mind. It's one thing to be ignorant and incorrect, but it's another thing to be hypocritical on top of it.

[Dipre]

I don't see the need to get personal over this particular debate.

 

Side A: You should bunt.

 

Side B: You shouldn't bunt.

 

Side C: You should only bunt if the situation calls for it.

 

That's about the size of it.

[italstallianion]

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']

 

 

 

That might be the best post of the thread when you consider how succinct and straight to the point it is.

[yankees228]

Problem is, saying it's OK when you're down by X amount of runs, but it's not OK when you're down by X amount of runs, is all too arbitrary in my opinion. What if a team has an explosive offense, and is capable of putting up 6 runs or so in a heartbeat? Are they allowed to bunt, to maybe get a base runner and kick start their offense? How about in the fifth inning? Sure, it's not really late in the game, but you'd be breaking up a potential no hitter/perfect game.

 

This is the main issue with this rule, and most unwritten rules for that matter. They're entirely subjective, and what's OK to someone, isn't OK to someone else. With that being said, how you can hold some accountable for breaking a rule that isn't a rule to some, but is to others, isn't fair to the batter. This is entirely too inconsistent, subjective, and arbitrary for me.

 

Lastly, I wanted to address italstallianion's point about hitting the other batter in the head. Besides the obvious implications of what you're advocating, this is also very inconsistent because you're standing behind one unwritten rule (not bunting to break up a no hitter), but ignoring another one (not throwing at a batter's head or legs).

[Jasonbay44]

It's an unwritten rule for a reason. Because enough people agree that it's a cheap and dirty thing to do. Just because you're cheap and dirty doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't acknowledge that it's something that you just don't do. It makes A-rod look classy.

 

And in response to the bolded: Bulls***. That's pretentious and misguided. You have no idea who'd win in the court of law.

 

You can cry all you want but it's an unwritten rule because most people disagree with you. Repeating yourself millions of times that it isn't hurting anyone isn't going to change the fact that most people think it's cheap and dirty and that you just don't do it.

 

And bunting is worse than a bloop single or infield hit because it's intentional. It's intentionally and deliberately trying to break up a no hitter by being cheap because conventional batting isn't working. You can include all of the exclamation points and all of the fluff that you like, but it doesn't change that you're nearly by yourself on an island with your thumb up your a** while the majority thinks you're f***** nuts.

 

 

So you're against hitting people in the head because it's against an unwritten rule but you're not against bunting to break up a no hitter or stealing bases with a large lead even though they are against unwritten rules? Make up your mind. It's one thing to be ignorant and incorrect, but it's another thing to be hypocritical on top of it.

 

If its so an important rule, why is it unwritten? You can stop it, place a defense a certain way. You can stop bases from being stolen in blowouts, its another teams job to not do something because you cant stop it. If a 3rd basemen is playing back a player bunts down the third base line for a hit its the manager and/or 3rd basemens fault, they should of been positioned better.

 

You really think you'd win? The argument you have is weak, I broke an "unwritten rule" So its fine to seriously try and injure me? Hilarious.

 

How am I crying? You seem to be the one getting all emotional. Some people agree with it, some people don't. But why would I care? Its MY OPINION. If I have an opinion I'm not going to change it because other people disagree with it.

 

Okay and I care why? Its your opinion, I don't care that you think there is no way you are possibly wrong at all. How is it cheap, again you wont answer how it is cheap doing something thats perfectly legal, you are using your ability to get a hit and not breaking a rule in the process. So you are a majority of this board? lol okay.

 

Yeah, I am against hitting in the head, I've stated this how many times? Unwritten rules are stupid UNLESS they are preventing an injury, hitting someone in the head is an injury hazard and not just a minor injury, we are talking about seriously injuring and maybe even killing someone. Its not hypocritical at all, if it is then you are being hypocritical as well.

[WhiskeyBreath]

You don't bunt on a guy throwing a no-hitter unless the difference is three runs or less.

 

This is how I've always felt about those situations.

[italstallianion]

Problem is' date=' saying it's OK when you're down by X amount of runs, but it's not OK when you're down by X amount of runs, is all too arbitrary in my opinion.[/b'] What if a team has an explosive offense, and is capable of putting up 6 runs or so in a heartbeat? Are they allowed to bunt, to maybe get a base runner and kick start their offense? How about in the fifth inning? Sure, it's not really late in the game, but you'd be breaking up a potential no hitter/perfect game.

 

This is the main issue with this rule, and most unwritten rules for that matter. They're entirely subjective, and what's OK to someone, isn't OK to someone else. With that being said, how you can hold some accountable for breaking a rule that isn't a rule to some, but is to others, isn't fair to the batter. This is entirely too inconsistent, subjective, and arbitrary for me.

 

Lastly, I wanted to address italstallianion's point about hitting the other batter in the head. Besides the obvious implications of what you're advocating, this is also very inconsistent because you're standing behind one unwritten rule (not bunting to break up a no hitter), but ignoring another one (not throwing at a batter's head or legs).

 

 

I agree Yankees. I think that it is arbitrary and different people have different definitions of it. For example, a pitcher might think that it's not ok after 5 runs while the batter thinks that a problem only arises when it's done after 6 runs. The batter would think that he's fine when the pitcher does not. In my case, I don't think it's ok to bunt to break up a nohitter/perfect game period, regardless of the score.

 

And to defend my point, I never heard of not throwing at a batter's head as being an unwritten rule. I guess that explains why I was kicked out of little league.

[Dipre]

Problem is' date=' saying it's OK when you're down by X amount of runs, but it's not OK when you're down by X amount of runs, is all too arbitrary in my opinion. What if a team has an explosive offense, and is capable of putting up 6 runs or so in a heartbeat? Are they allowed to bunt, to maybe get a base runner and kick start their offense? How about in the fifth inning? Sure, it's not really late in the game, but you'd be breaking up a potential no hitter/perfect game.[/quote']

 

You expect a team to explode for five-six runs when they're being no-hit, and need a bunt to simply get a runner on base?

 

This is the main issue with this rule, and most unwritten rules for that matter. They're entirely subjective, and what's OK to someone, isn't OK to someone else. With that being said, how you can hold some accountable for breaking a rule that isn't a rule to some, but is to others, isn't fair to the batter. This is entirely too inconsistent, subjective, and arbitrary for me.

 

They're subjective because they're enforced not by the rulebook but by the people who actually matter, as in, the players, coaches and managers.

[italstallianion]

If its so an important rule' date=' why is it unwritten? [/b']You can stop it, place a defense a certain way. You can stop bases from being stolen in blowouts, its another teams job to not do something because you cant stop it. If a 3rd basemen is playing back a player bunts down the third base line for a hit its the manager and/or 3rd basemens fault, they should of been positioned better.

 

You really think you'd win? The argument you have is weak, I broke an "unwritten rule" So its fine to seriously try and injure me? Hilarious.

 

How am I crying? You seem to be the one getting all emotional. Some people agree with it, some people don't. But why would I care? Its MY OPINION. If I have an opinion I'm not going to change it because other people disagree with it.

 

Okay and I care why? Its your opinion, I don't care that you think there is no way you are possibly wrong at all. How is it cheap, again you wont answer how it is cheap doing something thats perfectly legal, you are using your ability to get a hit and not breaking a rule in the process. So you are a majority of this board? lol okay.

 

Yeah, I am against hitting in the head, I've stated this how many times? Unwritten rules are stupid UNLESS they are preventing an injury, hitting someone in the head is an injury hazard and not just a minor injury, we are talking about seriously injuring and maybe even killing someone. Its not hypocritical at all, if it is then you are being hypocritical as well.

 

 

 

If you keep asking stupid questions and repeating the same stupid garbage regardless of what has been addressed and refuted in the thread, then this is, and will continue to be, a waste of time. I'm done wasting my time on you.

[yankees228]

I agree Yankees. I think that it is arbitrary and different people have different definitions of it. For example, a pitcher might think that it's not ok after 5 runs while the batter thinks that a problem only arises when it's done after 6 runs. The batter would think that he's fine when the pitcher does not. In my case, I don't think it's ok to bunt to break up a nohitter/perfect game period, regardless of the score.

 

And to defend my point, I never heard of not throwing at a batter's head as being an unwritten rule. I guess that explains why I was kicked out of little league.

 

I disagree, but I prefer your stance over the common one that has been perpetuated in this thread, that the score should dictate whether the team should be allowed to bunt or not. It takes the subjectivity out of it, at the very least.

 

As for the final part, I'm surprised you've never heard of that, but yeah. There are few unwritten rules that I put any stock in, but that is one of them, because it's an unwritten rule due to the potential for injury. The safety of the players is first and foremost.

[yankees228]

Also, at Dipre, to address the first part, why not? If it's late in the game the pitch count is probably high, making the pitcher more vulnerable, not to mention that he might only still be in the game because he is throwing a no-hitter, and a hit would knock him out. Something can also be said for making him work out of the stretch, which he either hadn't done at all during the game, or had only done briefly (in all probability).

 

As for the second part, yeah, I understand why it's subjective, but that doesn't mean I have to be in favor of it.

[Dipre]

Also, at Dipre, to address the first part, why not? If it's late in the game the pitch count is probably high, making the pitcher more vulnerable, not to mention that he might only still be in the game because he is throwing a no-hitter, and a hit would knock him out. Something can also be said for making him work out of the stretch, which he either hadn't done at all during the game, or had only done briefly (in all probability).

 

As for the second part, yeah, I understand why it's subjective, but that doesn't mean I have to be in favor of it.

 

When a guy's on, you're not going to explode onto the scene with five-six runs after a bunt, but that's just my opinion.

 

At the second part, that's why i mentioned the fact that the players , coaches and managers enforce it. Whether we are or not in favor of it is inconsequential, since they're the ones who create and enforce these rules, not the fans, which is actually what i'm trying to get at.

[Jasonbay44]

If you keep asking stupid questions and repeating the same stupid garbage regardless of what has been addressed and refuted in the thread' date=' then this is, and will continue to be, a waste of time. I'm done wasting my time on you.[/quote']

 

You are hypocritical if I am

 

Its hilarious that you put so much stock in an unwritten rule, then you break another unwritten rule to get back at the player for breaking an unwritten rule. Tell me how I am a hypocrite and you are not, seriously, tell me.

[yankees228]

When a guy's on, you're not going to explode onto the scene with five-six runs after a bunt, but that's just my opinion.

 

At the second part, that's why i mentioned the fact that the players , coaches and managers enforce it. Whether we are or not in favor of it is inconsequential, since they're the ones who create and enforce these rules, not the fans, which is actually what i'm trying to get at.

 

We've all seen so many times when a pitcher is exceptional for seven inning, tires, and then gets hit a bit and eventually has to come out of the game. It happens frequently.

 

As for the second part, obviously it's inconsequential. It's inconsequential what we think about this topic, it's inconsequential what move we think a manager should make, and it's inconsequential what we think of a player. You get the point, all of this is inconsequential, so why does this board exist?

[Dipre]

We've all seen so many times when a pitcher is exceptional for seven inning' date=' tires, and then either gets hit a bit or has to come out of the game. It happens frequently.[/quote']

 

Never seen a guy throwing a no-hitter implode and give up five-six runs after a bunt. I'll stand by my logic until i've seen it happen.

 

As for the second part, obviously it's inconsequential. It's inconsequential what we think about this topic, it's inconsequential what move we think a manager should make, and it's inconsequential what we think of a player. You get the point, all of this is inconsequential, so why does this board exist?

 

Different situations. It's aimed directly at the "Unwritten rules" part of the argument. What i'm trying to say is that, unlike stats, or strategic appreciation, it's not something people who haven't played baseball can quantify, but didn't wanna sound elitist while saying it.

[yankees228]

I've never seen a guy pitching that well completely implode, and then give up a bunch of runs. But have you seen a guy pitching a great game (doesn't matter whether he's pitching a no-hitter, one hitter, two hitters, whatever) give up a couple of base runners, come out of the game with a high pitch count, only to see the bullpen implode? I have.

 

As for the second part, that's not really what you initially said, but OK, thanks for clarifying your stance. As for the actual point, obviously I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think my opinion is any less valid.

[Dipre]

I've seen seen a guy pitching that well either completely implode' date=' and then give up a bunch of runs. But have you seen a guy pitching a great game (doesn't matter whether he's pitching a no-hitter, one hitter, two hitters, whatever) give up a couple of base runners, come out of the game with a high pitch count, only to see the bullpen implode? I have.[/quote']

 

I mean literally seeing a guy with a no-hitter going give up a bunt base hit, then implode (not the bullpen, him) giving up five-six runs in the inning. That's the specific scenario i'm talking about.

[yankees228]

I mean literally seeing a guy with a no-hitter going give up a bunt base hit' date=' then implode (not the bullpen, him) giving up five-six runs in the inning. That's the specific scenario i'm talking about.[/quote']

 

It doesn't matter whether or not that has happened. We're talking about the potential for the bunt to help the other team win the game, and my scenario shows that it can.

[Dipre]

It doesn't matter whether or not that has happened. We're talking about the potential for the bunt to help the other team win the game' date=' and my scenario shows that it can.[/quote']

 

No it doesn't.

 

You haven't provided tangible proof of a guy winning by five-six runs with a no-hitter going and a single bunt signifying an offensive outburst against that specific guy. You named a conondrum of variables that would have to happen for the bunt to be the catalyst of the other team's rally, such as the guy being taken out afterwards and the other team scoring such a number of runs against the bullpen. In this case, the bunt is not directly responsible for the offensive outburst anyway, because there would have to be a number of other things involved for the amount of runs to be scored.