Matt Carpenter gets a double off a bunt. The death of the shift?

[Gothamite]

Yeah.  This shouldn't be allowed on the field in any sport.

 

[dont care]

I don’t get the reason why the cards should be banned. It changes nothing about the game, in fact it makes it faster because guys can just read a card and change pulosition they don’t need a 15second sign from the dugout. 

[monkeypower]

I saw a little write-up with a player (I want to say J.D. Martinez, but I’m not sure) that when asked about bunting on a shift, said something to the effect of him not being up at the plate to bunt.

 

I think a lot of players think like that, and I do sort of agree with them taking the chance. They’d rather try to hit normally and put one past the shift or swing for the fences instead of trying to scratch out a single on a bunt that may not work out.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

He could've bunted it foul and blown his one shot to catch the defense by surprise and then we wouldn't be talking about this.

 

Carpenter announced his intention to bunt by squaring around on the previous pitch. So bunting foul would not have blown his chance to catch the defence by surprise.

 

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

On top of that, players don't practice bunting as much as they used to because BUNTING IS STUPID.

 

Phil Rizzuto will scratch your eyes out.

 

 

Apart from countering the shift, bunting is an important skill to know, not only for the sake of advancing a runner in a tie game or when down by one run, but also as a means of taking advantage of a poor fielder at third base or first base. Right now the popular strategy is not to give up an out for a base, because a runner on first base is perceived to be not so much less likely to score than a runner on second base.  But this fad could change, or a manager could decide to go against the prevailing trends based on his knowledge of his players' skills.   Also, a particularly speedy player could even use the drag bunt as a nearly unstoppable means of getting on base; this was employed by Rod Carew, Kenny Lofton, and Ichiro Suzuki. 

 

 

4 hours ago, McCarthy said:

The guy at the plate facing the shift is probably more likely to reach base with an opposite field hit than he is with a bunt

 

There is absolutely no way that this is true.  Putting a pitched ball in play with a swing is much harder than doing so with a bunt.

 

 

4 hours ago, McCarthy said:

What I think should be banned are those little cheat sheet notecards that players have in their pockets.

 

This makes no more sense than banning the shift.   Just as a manager should be free to position his fielder wherever he likes, a player should be free to do anything in between pitches, be it picking his nose or looking at a note card.

[logodawg]

8 hours ago, McCarthy said:

2. Also silly AF - "if more players could get over their egos and use some common sense we can finally kill this thing.". Why more guys don't bunt to beat the shift is not an ego thing. First of all, bunting is harder than it looks especially against major league pitching. This case it only worked because Carpenter laid down a perfect bunt for this situation, but he could've just as easily bunted it right back to the pitcher or the catcher and he would've been out. He could've bunted it foul and blown his one shot to catch the defense by surprise and then we wouldn't be talking about this. On top of that, players don't practice bunting as much as they used to because BUNTING IS STUPID. The guy at the plate facing the shift is probably more likely to reach base with an opposite field hit than he is with a bunt and when he's swinging it may also result in a home run. You can't hit a home run when you bunt, unless you butcher boy and there's been like 3 butcher boy home runs in the history baseball. 

 

 

Ok, I'll admit calling it the death of the shift is hyperbole, but I'll challenge your second item on a couple of points. First, you know what else it hard? Hitting a small object moving at 90+ by swing a giant stick, but these guys do on the regular. If you can master that, I don't see any reason why they can't master hitting that moving object by properly positioning said stick without the added variable of it moving at a high velocity as well. Second, if it's really that much harder, why is it that's what they send the pitchers out to do when they bat, especially when there are runners on base versus letting them swing freely?

 

Really, batters only need to try it enough times to make the opposing manager pause on if he wants to deploy the shift or not. Again, I realize the shift will never die, because even with the situation I just described, even the manager doesn't deploy it at first, once a guy gets two strikes, he'll deploy it then.

[Sport]

On 6/21/2019 at 12:48 PM, dont care said:

I don’t get the reason why the cards should be banned. It changes nothing about the game, in fact it makes it faster because guys can just read a card and change pulosition they don’t need a 15second sign from the dugout. 

 

Banning them demands the players be more studied and alert, which fits the spirit of the game. Would it be okay if a batter pulled a little cheat sheet out of his pocket after every pitch that told him what to look for on a certain count against a certain pitcher in a certain situation? Of course not. Holding all the information in one's head and being prepared mentally for whatever happens next is a big part of baseball. 

 

Also the signs happen while the next batter is walking to the plate so no time is saved or lost.

 

 

On 6/21/2019 at 3:10 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Carpenter announced his intention to bunt by squaring around on the previous pitch. So bunting foul would not have blown his chance to catch the defence by surprise.

 

 

Phil Rizzuto will scratch your eyes out.

 

 

Apart from countering the shift, bunting is an important skill to know, not only for the sake of advancing a runner in a tie game or when down by one run, but also as a means of taking advantage of a poor fielder at third base or first base. Right now the popular strategy is not to give up an out for a base, because a runner on first base is perceived to be not so much less likely to score than a runner on second base.  But this fad could change, or a manager could decide to go against the prevailing trends based on his knowledge of his players' skills. Also, a particularly speedy player could even use the drag bunt as a nearly unstoppable means of getting on base; this was employed by Rod Carew, Kenny Lofton, and Ichiro Suzuki. 

 

It's math, though. Run probability with a runner on first and nobody out is higher than a runner on second with one out. As long as that is true this "fad" won't be going away. Even if a bunt happens to work the probabilities still didn't favor the strategy. This also means that Phil Rizzuto and any other players/managers who called for a bunt were using a self-defeating tactic all along. I know that's tough to hear. 

 

If Billy Hamilton wants to try to drag bunt to reach first base because he can't :censored:ing hit then by all means go ahead, but it still doesn't have a high degree of success. 

 

 

On 6/21/2019 at 3:10 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

There is absolutely no way that this is true.  Putting a pitched ball in play with a swing is much harder than doing so with a bunt.

 

 

I'd need to see the probabilities, but the greater likelihood on a bunt like Carpenter used is an out, even without a player at third. I'm saying the bunt A. has zero chance of resulting in a home run while a swing might, especially in today's launch angle/exit velocity game, and B. the bunt is less successful than you're all making it out to be. 

 

 

On 6/21/2019 at 3:10 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This makes no more sense than banning the shift.   Just as a manager should be free to position his fielder wherever he likes, a player should be free to do anything in between pitches, be it picking his nose or looking at a note card.

 

I'm honestly surprised. I would've thought a man who literally stopped watching baseball because of interleague play would be opposed to such an expedience, especially because that's not how the Yankees did it in 1975. 

 

On 6/21/2019 at 7:27 PM, logodawg said:

 

Ok, I'll admit calling it the death of the shift is hyperbole, but I'll challenge your second item on a couple of points. First, you know what else it hard? Hitting a small object moving at 90+ by swing a giant stick, but these guys do on the regular. If you can master that, I don't see any reason why they can't master hitting that moving object by properly positioning said stick without the added variable of it moving at a high velocity as well.

 

not arguing that a bunt isn't easier than swinging. I'm saying the bunt A. has zero chance of resulting in a home run while a swing might, especially in today's launch angle/exit velocity game, and B. the bunt is less successful than you're all making it out to be. 

 

On 6/21/2019 at 7:27 PM, logodawg said:

Second, if it's really that much harder, why is it that's what they send the pitchers out to do when they bat, especially when there are runners on base versus letting them swing freely?

 

the pitcher is the one player on the field that due to their usual inadequacy at the plate that the run probability math for that inning favors the bunt if they come to the plate with nobody out and runner(s) on. Also you take away the possibility of a double play when you ask the pitcher to bunt. That's a concern for a regular hitter as well, but when they're more likely to achieve a hit than your average hitting pitcher you take that chance. 

 

 

[Sport]

On 6/21/2019 at 12:40 PM, Gothamite said:

Yeah.  This shouldn't be allowed on the field in any sport.

 

 

I don't know if you're joking or not, but I do think football would be more interesting if the QBs didn't have radios in their helmets or those wristbands and were forced to rely on their own smarts, signals like the old days/the MAC, and players running plays in from the sidelines. 

[Sec19Row53]

4 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

Banning them demands the players be more studied and alert, which fits the spirit of the game. Would it be okay if a batter pulled a little cheat sheet out of his pocket after every pitch that told him what to look for on a certain count against a certain pitcher in a certain situation? Of course not. Holding all the information in one's head and being prepared mentally for whatever happens next is a big part of baseball. 

Just for the sake of argument, I say why can't a batter pull out a card such as this? ASSUMING (there's the rub) that he can do it in the confines of the requirements to stay in the batter's box and be ready to bat. We accept signals in some cases, but not others. That's one of those unwritten rules that should either be a rule or not.

[Gothamite]

33 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I don't know if you're joking or not, but I do think football would be more interesting if the QBs didn't have radios in their helmets or those wristbands and were forced to rely on their own smarts, signals like the old days/the MAC, and players running plays in from the sidelines. 

 

Nope.  Not joking at all.   I think the game would be much improved by doing just as you suggest. 

[Sport]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Just for the sake of argument, I say why can't a batter pull out a card such as this? ASSUMING (there's the rub) that he can do it in the confines of the requirements to stay in the batter's box and be ready to bat. We accept signals in some cases, but not others. That's one of those unwritten rules that should either be a rule or not.

 

same reason I'm opposed to the cards in the field - because it would violate the spirit of how the sport's always been played. You're supposed to stand out there and process the chess match in your head in real time. Signals, like a runner at second base reading the catcher's fingers and flashing his hands to signal the batter is part of that chess match and acceptable because it requires strategic cunning and gamesmanship. Reading a pre-written card that tells you what to do does not. Also yeah no way you could do it in the allotted time. 

[Sec19Row53]

22 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

same reason I'm opposed to the cards in the field - because it would violate the spirit of how the sport's always been played. You're supposed to stand out there and process the chess match in your head in real time. Signals, like a runner at second base reading the catcher's fingers and flashing his hands to signal the batter is part of that chess match and acceptable because it requires strategic cunning and gamesmanship. Reading a pre-written card that tells you what to do does not. Also yeah no way you could do it in the allotted time. 

Yeah - I don't disagree with your answer. It's not that I'm really advocating for the cards being used in the batter's box (due to the bolded above), but I can't legitimately say you can't have them in the field. It is akin to being positioned by the bench coach from the dugout. Change being what it is, I guess I just see this as change from the past.

[BBTV]

Re: cards - Not sure how the pre-written cards are much different than signals coming in from the coaches, except that they just speed up the game since the catcher doesn’t need to see if the coach touches his belt buckle once, twice, or thrice. Also, shouldn’t the catcher - not the pitcher - have the card?

 

Re: QBs - I’m torn on the radio thing. On one hand, it could give offenses too much of an edge since they can run no-huddle quicker and without as much ad-libing by the QB. On the other hand, You can keep your best players out there without having to have a guy run in and out, or have signals that are overly complex and can be intercepted. 

 

Im a proponent of technology improving sports, as long as there’s not a safety issue (like metal bats would create in baseball). 

 

 

[Gothamite]

I guess I just don’t see that as “improving” either sport. 

[Quillz]

On 6/21/2019 at 4:27 PM, logodawg said:

Again, I realize the shift will never die

My question is: why does the shift *need* to die? As I mentioned in another post, I don't get the issues people have with it. A team doing anything it takes to get an out and prevent a run from scoring seems like a smart thing to do. So what if it looks weird or isn't "what I'm used to?" As long as it's within the rules of the game and it works, what's the issue?

[Sport]

I thought of another reason I actually like the shift - when a team has the shift on it's one of the few times the TV broadcast will show where the defense is positioned. Watching where the defense is is a much bigger part of watching a game when you're in the ballpark (at least that's what I do), but you almost never get to see that aspect of the game when you're watching it on TV. 

[BBTV]

My softball team tried the shift against left handed hitters last night. It didn’t work. I’m not sure why major league teams use it if it can’t even work in a recreational softball game. 

[OaklandIsBack]

Little leaguers should shift on every hitter 

 

*ducks for cover*