Is Bob Brenly going to be our next manager?

[Sammy Sofa]

Also, just because they did it doesn't mean they should have. I mean, we are talking about two of the greatest hitters ever.

 

MOST OF THOSE WEREN'T BUNTS.

[bcl412]

Also, just because they did it doesn't mean they should have. I mean, we are talking about two of the greatest hitters ever.

 

MOST OF THOSE WEREN'T BUNTS.

 

Also a good point. But do you have a link to prove that because you didn't know Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig personally.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hah! Nice.

[JimSorgi]

I really hope Babe Ruth told his manager to [expletive] off whenever he was asked to bunt. Christ, that's such a dumb idea.

[Benchwarmer]

Sacrifice flies and sacrifice bunts were a combined stat until 1954, so if you think most of those "sacrifice hits" for guys like Ruth and Gehrig were bunts then I've got a LOT of things I want to sell to you.

 

This is not true. There is a difference between a 'sacrifice fly', a 'sacrifice bunt' and a 'sacrifice hit'. Two are outs and one is a hit.

 

In 1926, the sacrifice fly rule was changed and in 1931, the individual sacrifice fly stat was wiped out until 1954. So a 'sacrifice hit' was a hit when 'The Babe and 'The Iron Horse' played.

[MSG T]

Also, just because they did it doesn't mean they should have. I mean, we are talking about two of the greatest hitters ever.

 

MOST OF THOSE WEREN'T BUNTS.

 

Also a good point. But do you have a link to prove that because you didn't know Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig personally.

 

Outside of common sense, there's no way to "prove" that either player did or didn't have any sac bunts.

 

But, using 1927 as an example, Gehrig had 21 Sacs. As the #4 hitter. Even back then do you really think Miller Huggins had Lou lay down 21 bunts? In a year where he hit .373 with 117 xtra base hits (47 HRs)? Or is it much more likely that he layed down 1-2 and had 19-20 sac flies?

[bcl412]

Also, just because they did it doesn't mean they should have. I mean, we are talking about two of the greatest hitters ever.

 

MOST OF THOSE WEREN'T BUNTS.

 

Also a good point. But do you have a link to prove that because you didn't know Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig personally.

 

Outside of common sense, there's no way to "prove" that either player did or didn't have any sac bunts.

 

But, using 1927 as an example, Gehrig had 21 Sacs. As the #4 hitter. Even back then do you really think Miller Huggins had Lou lay down 21 bunts? In a year where he hit .373 with 117 xtra base hits (47 HRs)? Or is it much more likely that he layed down 1-2 and had 19-20 sac flies?

 

Maybe they were just like "[expletive] it, we're so good we'll just free outs to the other team with our best hitter and still kick their ass".

[Sammy Sofa]

Sacrifice flies and sacrifice bunts were a combined stat until 1954, so if you think most of those "sacrifice hits" for guys like Ruth and Gehrig were bunts then I've got a LOT of things I want to sell to you.

 

This is not true. There is a difference between a 'sacrifice fly', a 'sacrifice bunt' and a 'sacrifice hit'. Two are outs and one is a hit.

 

In 1926, the sacrifice fly rule was changed and in 1931, the individual sacrifice fly stat was wiped out until 1954. So a 'sacrifice hit' was a hit when 'The Babe and 'The Iron Horse' played.

 

No. They both fell under the same category until 1954. You're wrong, and common sense makes that abundantly clear. The sac fly/hit has a really weird history, but the numbers you're desperately hoping show that Ruth and Gehrig bunted a lot simply don't do that.

 

http://research.sabr.org/journals/sacrifice-fly

Edited July 13, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[MSG T]

Sacrifice flies and sacrifice bunts were a combined stat until 1954, so if you think most of those "sacrifice hits" for guys like Ruth and Gehrig were bunts then I've got a LOT of things I want to sell to you.

 

This is not true. There is a difference between a 'sacrifice fly', a 'sacrifice bunt' and a 'sacrifice hit'. Two are outs and one is a hit.

 

In 1926, the sacrifice fly rule was changed and in 1931, the individual sacrifice fly stat was wiped out until 1954. So a 'sacrifice hit' was a hit when 'The Babe and 'The Iron Horse' played.

 

Wrong. At that time (1926) a sacrifice hit combined every time a batter moved runners over and got out. It was not counted as a hit, it wasn't even counted as an AB. In 1931 they eliminated the sac fly from the sac hit catagory, so all they counted was bunts or a situation such as a runner moving from 2B to 3B on a groundout to the 2B. Which explains why Gehrig ranged from 12 to 20+ sacs prior to 1932 and 1-2 each year from 1932 on.

[MSG T]

Sacrifice flies and sacrifice bunts were a combined stat until 1954, so if you think most of those "sacrifice hits" for guys like Ruth and Gehrig were bunts then I've got a LOT of things I want to sell to you.

 

This is not true. There is a difference between a 'sacrifice fly', a 'sacrifice bunt' and a 'sacrifice hit'. Two are outs and one is a hit.

 

In 1926, the sacrifice fly rule was changed and in 1931, the individual sacrifice fly stat was wiped out until 1954. So a 'sacrifice hit' was a hit when 'The Babe and 'The Iron Horse' played.

 

No. They both fell under the same category until 1954. You're wrong, and common sense makes that abundantly clear. The sac fly/hit has a really weird history, but the numbers you're desperately hoping show that Ruth and Gehrig bunted a lot simply don't do that.

 

http://research.sabr.org/journals/sacrifice-fly

 

 

That's the same link I looked at.

 

 

 

Oh, BW, run scoring sac flies were reinstated in 1939.

[soapy]

But they knew how to bunt and totally would have in the right situation (which for them, was never).

[dew1679666265]

Sure, if you suck like Campana you have to bunt. But we're talking about actual major league caliber hitters.

 

That's why I qualified it by saying certain players. Great hitters pretty much should never bunt, but there are benefits to the very occasional drag bunt for players whose speed is part of their game - and those types of players may become more prevalent if the recent power outage remains.

[dew1679666265]

Bunting is a fundamental of the game and EVERYONE needs to know how to do it.

Bunting is for people who can't hit.

 

Sac bunting is. There's definite merit in bunting for a hit, for certain players.

 

How true. All the great players know how to bunt. According to STATS, Babe Ruth had 113 sacrifice hits and Lou Gehrig had 106 sacrifice hits. They knew the fundamentals and when asked by their manager to lay one down, they did it.

 

I was talking about bunting for a hit, not sac bunting. Sac bunting is very rarely a good idea for anybody, short of the pitcher.

[bcl412]

The way I see it is there is a way to argue the relevancy of bunting (dew and Rob are doing a good job of this) and there's a way to not do it. Saying that the best hitter in the game knew how to bunt, when there was no reason that he would ever need to use it, just isn't the best way.

[MSG T]

Bunting is a fundamental of the game and EVERYONE needs to know how to do it.

Bunting is for people who can't hit.

 

Sac bunting is. There's definite merit in bunting for a hit, for certain players.

 

How true. All the great players know how to bunt. According to STATS, Babe Ruth had 113 sacrifice hits and Lou Gehrig had 106 sacrifice hits. They knew the fundamentals and when asked by their manager to lay one down, they did it.

 

I was talking about bunting for a hit, not sac bunting. Sac bunting is very rarely a good idea for anybody, short of the pitcher.

 

 

I'd bet money that if the 3B coach gave Babe Ruth the sac sign he'd either laugh at the guy or flip him off and swing away. Probably after telling the catcher " hey judge, can you believe that, that idiot wants me to bunt".

[Elwood]

A+ thread, would read again.

[sneakypower]

fwiw, Brenly's teams underperformed their Pythag. by one game, just as Quade's Cubs have this year

 

unless you assume Brenly motivated them to score more runs and allow fewer runs (which wouldn't have been done with bunts) then the difference between these two guys is likely too negligible to care about

 

my biggest problem with Quade is that he talks like Hawk Harrelson

[jersey cubs fan]

my biggest problem with Quade is that he talks like Hawk Harrelson

 

He looked directly into the camera in a recent interview and it was very unpleasant.

[MSG T]

my biggest problem with Quade is that he talks like Hawk Harrelson

 

He looked directly into the camera in a recent interview and it was very unpleasant.

 

 

He was just trying to get you off your game, gooney. You know, the little things count.

[SouthSideRyan]

Ruth would've fractured Miller Huggins's skull with a baseball bat if he asked him to bunt. And he would've been justified.

[DiamondMind]

I feel like people are just being overly negative at this point... there's no perfect manager out there. I'd rather have Brenly than Sandberg, and I don't even have to think about that one. FWIW bunting is a part of baseball, it's contextual, you can't be anti or pro bunting. I mean ffs casey stengel would bunt in the first inning to get the early lead, while now a days some players literally do not know how to bunt. Like most things in life, the best way is probably somewhere in the middle.

[sneakypower]

soooo, how do the two managers compare in terms of ordering the lineup?

 

using this age-old tool, here is how many runs each manager cost their teams with lineup mismanagement (you can see i've got too much free time at work today):

 

Brenly

2001 5.089 vs. 5.323 (-38 runs)

2002 5.011 vs. 5.165 (-25 runs)

2003 4.649 vs. 4.794 (-24 runs)

2004 partial season

 

Quade

2010 partial season

2011 4.274 vs. 4.484 (-34 runs - extrapolating for a full season)

 

and for good measure...

 

Dusty

2003 4.538 vs. 4.642 (-17 runs)

2004 5.012 vs. 5.206 (-31 runs)

2005 4.752 vs. 4.946 (-31 runs)

2006 4.497 vs. 4.685 (-30 runs)

 

Brenly cost his teams only 29 runs/season on average, whereas in an admittedly smaller sample Quade costs the team 34 runs, and amazingly enough Dusty cost his teams only 27 runs/season

 

fwiw, the most optimal lineup for us shows as:

 

fuku

pena

soto

byrd

ramirez

castro

soriano

P

barney

 

*exclaimer: i do realize the possible flaws in using this as an absolute; it's meant for entertainment purposes only

[Sammy Sofa]

I feel like people are just being overly negative at this point... there's no perfect manager out there. I'd rather have Brenly than Sandberg, and I don't even have to think about that one. FWIW bunting is a part of baseball, it's contextual, you can't be anti or pro bunting. I mean ffs casey stengel would bunt in the first inning to get the early lead, while now a days some players literally do not know how to bunt. Like most things in life, the best way is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

There are plenty of players where if they "don't know how to bunt" it doesn't matter at all.

[Sammy Sofa]

my biggest problem with Quade is that he talks like Hawk Harrelson

 

He looked directly into the camera in a recent interview and it was very unpleasant.

 

Quade on film is always unpleasant.

[DiamondMind]

 

There are plenty of players where if they "don't know how to bunt" it doesn't matter at all.

 

Oh I agree, I'm just saying there's plenty of examples of players that would benefit their game by learning how to lay down a damn bunt when asked to.