Joe Torre Isn't Stupid
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 21, 2009 12:38 AM PDT
in News
Email
PrintOr at least not stupid enough to have asked his #3 hitter to lay down a sacrifice bunt in the 9th inning with a man on base and nobody out. When Orlando Hudson put down a bunt in this exact situation last night it angered many a Dodger fan, including myself. It's pretty reasonable to question laying down a sacrifice bunt in any situation, let alone when of of the best hitters on the team is up and the numbers show that even a successful sacrifice hurts your chances of winning. Thankfully, Torre seems to realize trying to bunt was a mistake:
"Torre said he spoke to Orlando Hudson about his sacrifice bunt in the ninth inning Friday that moved Rafael Furcal into scoring position with one out. Furcal was stranded there when Casey Blake and Matt Kemp struck out. 'I told [Hudson] I'd rather have him swinging in that situation'."
Hudson laid down the bunt on his own, not because Torre called for it. Torre should have told Hudson before the inning that he didn't want him to bunt if Furcal reached base, but at least Torre didn't think the bunt was the right decision.
Hat tip to Tripon for the link.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh man ...
now I can stop lighting into Torre over this. HT to Brendan for writing this – now I have proof when I tell my in-laws that BUNTING IN THIS SITUATION IS A BAD IDEA.
Satisfied
but only because my standards for mangers are so low. I don’t think any of them do a good job, so its just a matter of how little they hurt a team.
I agree.
It’s not so much that Torre is a great strategist, but when you compare him to the rest of the MLB managers he is fairly good.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 21, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
BTW, Clayton Kershaw currently has a 102 ERA+.
A bit better than League average, but he’s pitching within expectations this year.
Yep
I don’t understand the talk that his spot in the rotation is in jeopardy at all.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 21, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Holy shit, it took Murray Chass to point out JP's failing in the mass media: Okay, well, a former journalist.
In his first 20 games as Manny Ramirez’s suspension replacement in left field for the Dodgers, Juan Pierre was on fire as a hitter. He amassed 37 hits in 87 at-bats for a .425 average. In his last 19 games, however, before Saturday, Pierre had 17 hits in 83 at-bats, a .210 average.
In Pierre’s period of hitting, the Dodgers had a 13-7 record and increased their division lead from 6 ½ games to nine games. In his non-hitting period they have had a 10-9 record and lost a game from their lead.
Hmm
I wouldn’t expect him to point out something like that. I’d think he’d point to his Grittiness Quotient™ or something.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 21, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah he's at .250.
But his OPS for June is below .600. The point is he’s not been the superhero Manny replaceement that the media is making him out to be.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 21, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, FWIW
The sacrifice bunt attempt was probably fine. Of course it is frustrating to watch it, but in reality the WE of that situation with a bunt attempt or with a hit-away is very close – this is especially true in a low-run environment (whether Fuentes created such an environment I leave to you to decide) . Anyway, sometimes you have to bunt. That Torre doesn’t see it, is a sign of another failing of his (and all other managers). The answer Torre should have given was “Sometimes you have to bunt. If you don’t, then the defense can always play you not to bunt, and your RE/WE is reduced when hitting away. So sometimes we are going to bunt.” Go check out “The Book” for a more complete explanation, but when it comes down to it, the decision to bunt or not bunt there were equally valid.
You make a lot of good points
But I disagree that the bunt was equally valid. When a fairly poor hitter is up maybe (or a lefty against Fuentes), but not with Orlando Hudson up there. Also, we were on the road and tying the game would still leave the odds against us to pull out the win.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 21, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the answer
can’t come in one PA. So, if we find out over the course of the year that Hudson gets into this situation, say ten times (man on first, no out, after the seventh inning in a close game) and we find him bunting more than a couple of those ten times, then there is a problem. But likewise, if we find him never bunting, then there is also a problem. If he ends up actually adopting a “never bunt” in that situation, people will play him back and his wOBA will drop.
But your not taking into account
That Hudson can read the defense before each pitch. If they play back, he can lay down a bunt and beat it out. But as long as they are playing bunt defense, he should swing away. That’s how I would approach the situation.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 21, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Also
just so I am clear. I am not suggesting that in that game bunt and not-bunt were equally probable to improve the team’s chances of winning. They aren’t and of the two, bunting is a lower-win strategy. What I am saying is that, for the season, the strategy of “always bunt” is the worst choice, the second worst choice is “never bunt” and the right choice is “bunt sometimes, but not often.”
Doing the right thing (bunt sometimes, but not often) means that when you do bunt you are accepting a lower probability of winning that game in exchange for an overall better situation. the truth is, there is too little bunting going on and most good hitters with some speed should try an put down a bunt 10-15% of their PAs.
So again, bunting there was a tactical mistake for that game, but should probably be looked at as a reasonable choice as part of a strategic play.
As I said above
If the corner infielders were playing in, then I don’t think that was the right call. If they were playing back then I can see why you’d bunt but I’d still try a drag rather than a sacrifice.
by Brendan Scolari on Jun 21, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Torre is a great dude and coach, he seems to get the most out of his players.
Basically it is just baseball and one game, moment is unlike any other, yah you can second guess anything after it’s done but it’s over so start over.
Look 45-24 looks pretty dam good, would you rather see us 35-34 not.
Paul D. Kelley
by so.cal.native1952 on Jun 21, 2009 1:41 PM PDT reply actions
The numbers actually don't show . . .
Tonight: Horrific. Ethier leads off the bottom of the ninth with a double and you don’t sacrifice him to third. My two year old already knows this fundamental of baseball. I don’t care what the cyberneomatrix says (and Brendan is actually wrong because the chances are always higher that the next batter will get make an out as opposed to getting a hit [unless he’s batting over .500]; therefore, it’s better to have someone on third base or second base with one out than it is for him to be on the base he started on with one out), that’s just old-fashioned fundamental baseball. You get the guy on third with one out and you give the next two batters a chance to win it. Horrible. The problem, well, one of the problems, is that players don’t practice bunting anymore. Kemp was up. He’s probably not capable of putting down a good bunt. Fundamentals. Base running, first to third, sacrifices, moving runners over . . . oh yeah, there is a manager who preaches those things . . .
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
