July 26, 200620 yr If Lamb gives a longer look, he keeps moving with Huff. He didn't break until Lamb turned his back... That's my point. If Lamb looks longer it does two things, it makes BP stop and it allows Huff a little longer to get back to third or the SS to cover the bag. BP was looking for Lamb to commit to first and when he did, took the plate. I'm mainly wondering what BP was thinking when the bunt was laid down.
July 26, 200620 yr Actually, perfect baserunning would've been to go when the bunt was laid down considering it was a safety squeeze. No way they try to throw him out at the plate. I disagree, a safety squeeze, the bunt is supposed to be down the 3rd base line so the 3rdbaseman has to field and allows the runner to follow at the same distance. If the 3rd baseman throws you go, if he eats it you retreat and batter is safe at first. I actually remember in the College WS several years ago Stanford brought the left fielder in and he covered third and made the putout from the 3rd baseman.
July 26, 200620 yr I disagree, a safety squeeze, the bunt is supposed to be down the 3rd base line so the 3rdbaseman has to field and allows the runner to follow at the same distance. If the 3rd baseman throws you go, if he eats it you retreat and batter is safe at first. I actually remember in the College WS several years ago Stanford brought the left fielder in and he covered third and made the putout from the 3rd baseman. On a safety squeeze, the runner doesn't follow the third baseman all the way down. That's part of the "safety" aspect of it. The baserunner is looking for the ball to do two things, make contact with the bat and make contact with the ground. As soon as that happens, he's gone. Regardless of where it's bunted. The batter is bunting like a sacrifice so he's only bunting strikes, another reason the guy on third can't go as far as the third baseman. They will be able to sneak the SS in behind him if he's 45 ft down the line. Anyway, if the batter sees the first baseman sitting and the third baseman charging he naturally goes to the right side to give the guy on third more time to score. He's just trying to mainly keep the bunt out of the middle. In MLB, how many times do you see a third baseman eat a bunt, especially coming from a pitcher.
July 26, 200620 yr It wasn't a called play, it was an instinct play IMO. BP took a chance and it paid off...
July 26, 200620 yr It wasn't a called play, it was an instinct play IMO. BP took a chance and it paid off... Possibly...I'll take it either way. Just pointing out that it was unconventional...
July 26, 200620 yr On a safety squeeze, the runner doesn't follow the third baseman all the way down. That's part of the "safety" aspect of it. The baserunner is looking for the ball to do two things, make contact with the bat and make contact with the ground. As soon as that happens, he's gone. Regardless of where it's bunted. The batter is bunting like a sacrifice so he's only bunting strikes, another reason the guy on third can't go as far as the third baseman. They will be able to sneak the SS in behind him if he's 45 ft down the line. Anyway, if the batter sees the first baseman sitting and the third baseman charging he naturally goes to the right side to give the guy on third more time to score. He's just trying to mainly keep the bunt out of the middle. In MLB, how many times do you see a third baseman eat a bunt, especially coming from a pitcher. Look, we can argue the finer points of bunting because believe it or not there is a difference if there is a runner on 1st and 3rd versus only a guy on 3rd, but bottom line, BP IMO played it perfectly and made it an entirely different game.
July 26, 200620 yr With Hatte resigned, I guess the E-5 to E-3 experiment will not happen...It may also mean a trade involving Votto or Gutierrez...
July 26, 200620 yr Look, we can argue the finer points of bunting because believe it or not there is a difference if there is a runner on 1st and 3rd versus only a guy on 3rd, but bottom line, BP IMO played it perfectly and made it an entirely different game. Of course there is but there is no difference in this situation. Like GT stated, if it wasn't a designed play he took a chance. If it as a safety squeeze, he got away with one. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, that's a fact. No matter how the run scored, it made it an entirely different game. I'm just a purist that likes to see things done fundamentally sound...
July 26, 200620 yr And Ross is still expected back to catch Bronson tonight... Apparently my "consipracy theory" was hogwash. :irked:
July 26, 200620 yr With Hatte resigned, I guess the E-5 to E-3 experiment will not happen... Seems odd to do that now unless they have a trade brewing, perhaps with E-5 in the package.:confused:
July 26, 200620 yr It wasn't a called play, it was an instinct play IMO. BP took a chance and it paid off... It looked like a called safety squeeze, but BP looked like he wasn't quite sure what a safety squeeze was.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.