yankees228

I completely agree. Personally, I try to separate my emotions when I post on this board (and I try to do so in all intelligent conversation), and I think I do a good job of it. However, that isn't how some people approach these topics, while others can't help it. To each their own.

Ugh, bad call puts the tying run up for the Tigers.

Fair enough, I often don't read the GT's word for word unless the Sox are playing the Yankees. With that being said, I guess more emotional reactions are expected in the GTs.

I think 'everyone' is an overstatement. For the most part, this has been an intelligent and civil discussion.

And Cervelli reminds us that even good bunts do not automatically guarantee the batter a hit.

It seems like this thread has slowed down, but in retrospect, I'd like to make a couple quick points. First, it's too bad that the views of some people seemed to be offensive to others. I thought this was an interesting topic, and I enjoyed discussing it with everyone, whether they shared my opinion or not. Personally, I think this is the approach everyone should take on a message board, but to each their own. Second, I wanted to comment on the notion that a bunt single is some sort of illegitimate hit, or an easy way to get on base. If reaching via a bunt is as automatic as some are portraying it in this thread, then players would bunt much more frequently. In reality, reaching via a bunt is not an easy thing to do, and, in most case, it takes a very good bunt. The way I see it, it's a completely legitimate way to reach base.

Weren't steroids a banned substance in this country? In that case, the line isn't so arbitrary. EDIT: @ ORS EDIT 2: If they weren't, then I think it's a completely legitimate and relevant comparison.

Why would I put you on ignore? I view this as a civil discussion, between two people with different views on a topic. I don't see anything wrong with that. As a matter of fact, that's why I post here. As for the actual discussion, could you provide an example where someone either says, or clearly implies, that all the things you mentioned should be ignored?

What is considered a 'real hit' is entirely subjective. Any hit, whether it be a bunt, infield dribbler, line drive single, or home run is a 'real hit' in my opinion.

If you want to treat your stance as fact, that's your prerogative. I don't see it that way.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think I need to provide a specific example. I think teams should do what it takes to win, as long as it's within the rules. Getting on base, whether it's a line drive single, a bunt, or a walk, increases that team's chances of winning.

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.

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?

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.

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.

As Michael Kay mentioned on the broadcast, with Randy Winn and Ramiro Pena having the biggest ABs the last two games, the Yankees are starting to the weight on the injuries. The positive is obviously Vazquez, who pitched very well. Additionally, they suffered from a little bit of bad luck, as A-Rod's ball in the third was really knocked down by the wind, and Vazquez got hurt by a couple ground ball singles.

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).

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.

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).