[Transmogrified Tiger]

BTW, sac bunts are part of the game. Its called team baseball.

 

In many situations, it's also called wasteful baseball.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

BTW, sac bunts are part of the game. Its called team baseball.

 

In many situations, it's also called wasteful baseball.

 

Not true at all.

 

No, it's right, but I'm not about to get into it about sac bunts, partially because every managerial prospect is going to be dumb with something like that, whether it be excessive sac bunts and hit & runs, lineup decisions, or decisions about playing time. Get a manager who understands that starting pitchers need not be pitched to failure every time out, that's the most important thing to me.

[baseball7897]

Girardi better be managing the Cubs in 07.

 

Why?

 

Are you kidding me? He managed a team with a $14 million dollar payroll, and had them in contention for the wild card untill the last 2 weeks in the season. Everyone predicted the marlins to lose over 100 games this year.

 

The team didn't have a winning season, had some of the best young talent in baseball and he was responsible for sending one of their best young pitchers out after a long rain delay. The pitcher then had a season ending arm injury in the same game.

 

He is infatuated with the sac bunt, made poor personnel decisions at the begining of the year and was told to make changes.

 

I don't see any reason why the cubs better pick him.

 

:shock:

 

The Marlins were the first team in major league baseball history to be 20 games under .500, and later whould go on to be over .500 in the same seaon. Girardi is a leader.

 

BTW, sac bunts are part of the game. Its called team baseball.

Who's to say the 20-games-under team wasn't caused by Girardi as opposed to the team that caught fire?*

 

* - I'm a proponent of Girardi as manager, just asking the tough questions.

 

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

[Andy]

Girardi better be managing the Cubs in 07.

 

Why?

 

Are you kidding me? He managed a team with a $14 million dollar payroll, and had them in contention for the wild card untill the last 2 weeks in the season. Everyone predicted the marlins to lose over 100 games this year.

 

The team didn't have a winning season, had some of the best young talent in baseball and he was responsible for sending one of their best young pitchers out after a long rain delay. The pitcher then had a season ending arm injury in the same game.

 

He is infatuated with the sac bunt, made poor personnel decisions at the begining of the year and was told to make changes.

 

I don't see any reason why the cubs better pick him.

 

:shock:

 

The Marlins were the first team in major league baseball history to be 20 games under .500, and later whould go on to be over .500 in the same seaon. Girardi is a leader.

 

BTW, sac bunts are part of the game. Its called team baseball.

Who's to say the 20-games-under team wasn't caused by Girardi as opposed to the team that caught fire?*

 

* - I'm a proponent of Girardi as manager, just asking the tough questions.

 

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

No. 200 home runs, fantastic pitching, lucky breaks and about 15 players having career years at once. They won in spite of that Ozzieball crap.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

[baseball7897]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Oh cripes, look it up for yourself. Link

 

9th in the AL, and middle of the pack in MLB with the benefit of the DH.

[baseball7897]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Oh cripes, look it up for yourself. Link

 

9th in the AL, and middle of the pack in MLB with the benefit of the DH.

 

I thought you were done? Btw, the Whitesox had the best offense in MLB this year, and where did that get them?

Edited October 4, 2006 by baseball7897

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Outside of his fact?

[baseball7897]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Outside of his fact?

 

Small ball works. Worked for the 05 Whitesox, and it works throughout baseball.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Oh cripes, look it up for yourself. Link

 

9th in the AL, and middle of the pack in MLB with the benefit of the DH.

 

I thought you were done? Btw, the Whitesox had the best offense in MLB this year, and where did that get them?

 

I'm done debating whether or not sac bunting is wasteful or not, but when you try to call me a liar, I'm going to prove you wrong.

 

And your second point doesn't make any sense. Did the difference between 9 sacrifice hits(53 in '05, 44 in '06) make the difference this year? What point are you making?

Edited October 4, 2006 by Transmogrified Tiger

[CubinNY]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Oh cripes, look it up for yourself. Link

 

9th in the AL, and middle of the pack in MLB with the benefit of the DH.

 

I thought you were done? Btw, the Whitesox had the best offense in MLB this year, and where did that get them?

 

Jim Thome banging homeruns and Dye having a career year.

[Andy]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Oh cripes, look it up for yourself. Link

 

9th in the AL, and middle of the pack in MLB with the benefit of the DH.

 

I thought you were done? Btw, the Whitesox had the best offense in MLB this year, and where did that get them?

With a mediocre staff that was worn down by pitching so many innings in 2005? Not to the playoffs, apparently.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Outside of his fact?

 

Small ball works. Worked for the 05 Whitesox, and it works throughout baseball.

 

It's often counterintuitive and hurts the team. I've seen it hurt the Twins and Tigers already once each today.

 

And the 05 White Sox was built around a fantastic starting rotation, a good closer and a team that hit 200 HRs (that made up for their other deficiencies on offense).

[Laura]

I would ask that the discussion of sac bunts and past White Sox teams take place in a separate thread, since it no longer has to do with Girardi managing.

 

I'll lock the thread and split off the discussion, which will only take a minute or so to do.

 

ETA: Maybe not the cleanest surgery, but it's done.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Giving up outs are only smart when the hitter at the plate is likely to make an out anyway. In most cases, it's not a smart move. A simple run expectancy chart can illustrate that.

[rocket]

Giving up outs are only smart when the hitter at the plate is likely to make an out anyway. In most cases, it's not a smart move. A simple run expectancy chart can illustrate that.

 

WHITE SOX 2005 VANCE

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Shouldn't it be up to the guy who states his thing as fact without backing it up to actually prove it?

 

HOW is sacrafice bunting doing anything productive? HOW does it work all around baseball?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Giving up outs are only smart when the hitter at the plate is likely to make an out anyway. In most cases, it's not a smart move. A simple run expectancy chart can illustrate that.

 

WHITE SOX 2005 VANCE

 

They won inspite of their small ballish ways not because of them!

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Giving up outs are only smart when the hitter at the plate is likely to make an out anyway. In most cases, it's not a smart move. A simple run expectancy chart can illustrate that.

 

WHITE SOX 2005 VANCE

 

They won inspite of their small ballish ways not because of them!

 

BS.

 

Other teams in baseball use it.

 

QED.

[Flames24Rulz]

Sac bunts are stupid baseball probably 90+ percent of the time they're made.

 

2005 Whitesox. Worked out pretty well for them .

 

The '05 White Sox were a below average offense.

 

Okay, now I'm done, I mean it.

 

Hopefully you're done.

 

Because everything you just said is not even close to being true.

 

Outside of his fact?

 

Small ball works. Worked for the 05 Whitesox, and it works throughout baseball.

 

It's often counterintuitive and hurts the team. I've seen it hurt the Twins and Tigers already once each today.

 

And the 05 White Sox was built around a fantastic starting rotation, a good closer and a team that hit 200 HRs (that made up for their other deficiencies on offense).

 

I'll agree with you about the great rotation and the power, but I don't really think the Sox were built around a good closer. Hermanson started the season and had a Rod Beck-type first half as he was somehow getting save after save. Once his back flared up, they went to Jenks in around mid-late July.

 

I'd say Jenks was a relative unknown; especially seeing how he never saw a major league inning prior to his call-up. I don't think it's fair to say that they built their team around a good closer; unless you are talking about Hermanson, but he wasn't really available in the stretch run.

[rocket]

Giving up outs are only smart when the hitter at the plate is likely to make an out anyway. In most cases, it's not a smart move. A simple run expectancy chart can illustrate that.

 

WHITE SOX 2005 VANCE

 

They won inspite of their small ballish ways not because of them!

 

they won because of ozzie's fiery latin temper

[CubinNY]

Pick the playoff teams from 2006 and see where they fall in the sac bunt situation:

 1  Colorado        119
2  Houston         100
3  Chicago Cubs     84
4  San Francisco    80
5  Atlanta          78
6  NY Mets          77
7  Washington       76
8  Florida          76
9  St. Louis        71
10  Cincinnati       66
11  LA Dodgers       66
12  Pittsburgh       62
13  Arizona          61
14  San Diego        59
15  Milwaukee        58
16  Philadelphia     57

 

Edit: Thanks Fred, you are the man

 

Here are the stats for the AL and show a similar trend

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=7&seasonType=2&type=type2&sort=sacHits&split=0&season=2006

I'd be willing to be we could go back a number of years and see the same trend.

 

Lot's of teams sac bunt, but more than not the ones that use it the least win the most.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Pick the playoff teams from 2006 and see where they fall in the sac bunt situation:

 1  Colorado        119
2  Houston         100
3  Chicago Cubs     84
4  San Francisco    80
5  Atlanta          78
6  NY Mets          77
7  Washington       76
8  Florida          76
9  St. Louis        71
10  Cincinnati       66
11  LA Dodgers       66
12  Pittsburgh       62
13  Arizona          61
14  San Diego        59
15  Milwaukee        58
16  Philadelphia     57

 

The playoff teams averaged 68.25 sac bunts compared to the Marlins 76, and the league average of 74.4. I stand by what I said, I think you overstated your case.

[CubinNY]

Pick the playoff teams from 2006 and see where they fall in the sac bunt situation:

 1  Colorado        119
2  Houston         100
3  Chicago Cubs     84
4  San Francisco    80
5  Atlanta          78
6  NY Mets          77
7  Washington       76
8  Florida          76
9  St. Louis        71
10  Cincinnati       66
11  LA Dodgers       66
12  Pittsburgh       62
13  Arizona          61
14  San Diego        59
15  Milwaukee        58
16  Philadelphia     57

 

The playoff teams averaged 68.25 sac bunts compared to the Marlins 76, and the league average of 74.4. I stand by what I said, I think you overstated your case.

 

Point conceded.