(05-15-2014 09:05 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our execution is horrendous (and its because the technique deployed by 90% of our guys is incorrect), but bunting is a very teachable and learned skill. Our guys simply do not fully square around and sacrifice themselves. That's a fact, and it's poor technique. We simply don't spend the time at it that most of the other teams do.

Given this apparent unskilfulness, perhaps the key question is not "Is it better to bunt than to hit?", but rather "Is it better to bunt poorly than to hit?"

It is common to debate whether good hitters should bunt, but the related question of whether bad bunters should bunt seems at least as valid.

Consider the extreme case: if, for a particular hitter, the primary effect of having him attempt to bunt is just to increase the chance of him getting to an 0-2 or 1-2 count, then perhaps that hitter should never bunt at all. And purely anecdotally, this doesn't seem like an implausible case.

I haven't seen any simulations run for the college game since the dead bats, but in major league simulations the bunt improves your chance of scoring ONE run in some situations, but decreases the expected number of runs in all cases. I would expect the results to be different in the college game with the new dead bats, but probably marginally so and not sufficient to reverse any of those trends.

So you bunt when one run matters and you don't bunt when you are trying to score as many as possible. Bill James ran a bunch of simulations leading him to conclude that you bunt at home but not on the road, kind of going hand in hand with the old idea that you play for a tie at home but never on the road. Of course the bigger impact that James found is who is at the plate--you bunt with Bob Buhl, never with Babe Ruth. With that in mind, I don't know that I want our 3 and 4 hitters bunting, unless maybe if it's tied in the bottom of the ninth, but our 6-7-8-9 guys need to know how to get a bunt down. And I'd propose a corollary, you don't bunt with a guy who can't bunt.

One other point about the college players are worse fielders comment. Per RiceOwls.com, Rice is fielding at a .980 clip and opponents at a .967 clip this year. The average for all of MLB is .983. So the difference is something like one play out of every 60 or more being made. Admittedly, that doesn't consider range factors, but there's no indication of a huge variation either way, particularly on bunt plays. So defensive prowess might be a reason to justify different strategies in some few cases, but the differences are going to be pretty thin.

One thing that surprises me a bit about major leaguers. All these new shifts are pretty much giving away a hit if you can get a bunt down. If I were seeing shifts, I'd bunt for a single until they went back to playing me straight up. I was listening to a game the other night, team is down by 1 in the bottom of the ninth, first two guys up go single and walk, so 2 on with nobody out. Next hitter is a left-handed pull hitter, they put the shift on, he hits into it for a double play and they strike the next guy out to end it. Why in the world he doesn't put the bunt down to load the bases is inexplicable. I would think teams should be having everyone take bunting practice just to take advantage of these situations.

Much different feel to the game when comparing what was read here versus the feel inside Reckling. This was a really fun game on a beautiful night.

(05-15-2014 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...
So you bunt when one run matters and you don't bunt when you are trying to score as many as possible.
...
And I'd propose a corollary, you don't bunt with a guy who can't bunt.

Makes perfect sense!

What I can't quite reconcile is Walt's arguments that (a) Rice is bad at bunting and (b) Rice should bunt anyway.

(05-15-2014 11:14 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Much different feel to the game when comparing what was read here versus the feel inside Reckling. This was a really fun game on a beautiful night.

as predicted.... :)

(05-15-2014 11:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...
So you bunt when one run matters and you don't bunt when you are trying to score as many as possible.
...
And I'd propose a corollary, you don't bunt with a guy who can't bunt.

Makes perfect sense!

What I can't quite reconcile is Walt's arguments that (a) Rice is bad at bunting and (b) Rice should bunt anyway.

I think Walt's argument is (a) Rice is bad at bunting, therefore (b) Rice should learn how to bunt, and then © Rice should bunt.

It's not a perfect analogy, but maybe bunting is a bit like free throws in basketball. It's something that is relatively simple to do but must be practiced because the technique is different than a swing for a hit (or an in-game jumper). And many players may not like to practice it or many coaches may not want to spend time practicing it. And many of the best players (especially when they are Little League stars) feel they don't need to practice bunting because they're never asked to do it, since they're more likely to get a base hit.

I think everyone on any baseball team should know how to bunt ... just as any basketball player should shoot free throws well. But in reality, many don't ... and I don't understand why they don't. It's just such a basic skill.

I'd rather see a single than a sac bunt, of course. But I'd rather see a sac bunt than a strike out or hitting into a double play. Coach should make the call based on the percentages for the player and the situation. If he asks you to bunt, you should be successful at it ... because he expects you to be successful. (Otherwise he'd say, "swing away!" ... right?)

(05-15-2014 11:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...
So you bunt when one run matters and you don't bunt when you are trying to score as many as possible.
...
And I'd propose a corollary, you don't bunt with a guy who can't bunt.

Makes perfect sense!

What I can't quite reconcile is Walt's arguments that (a) Rice is bad at bunting and (b) Rice should bunt anyway.

When did I ever argue that? What I said is that at the college level, if we aspire to be an elite team, you teach your players-- particularly your non-power hitters and those with low AVGs and OBPs-- how to bunt properly so they can, in fact, execute at a 75% or better clip. Proper bunting technique is not a difficult skill to learn, but you do need to practice it so it becomes second nature. Only 3-4 of our players (Ewing, Hoelscher, Kopycinski come top of mind) actually square around fully when in obvious bunting situations. If you don't square around, and you try to get into a bunting stance after the pitcher has thrown the ball, (1) you have a difficult time seeing if it's a strike or out of the strikezone, (2) you're not going to get into a balanced position to lay the ball down properly...and that's precisely why guys so often foul bunts off or miss completely. Furthermore, many of our guys try to lay down the perfect bunt right down the 3B line, which way too frequently ends up a foul ball. Such perfection may be necessary to get a bunt single, but it's not required to advance the runner to 2B or 3B. We are one of the worst bunting teams-- if not THE worst-- amongst the elite college teams, and that's a very poor reflection on our fundamentals.

(05-15-2014 11:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...
So you bunt when one run matters and you don't bunt when you are trying to score as many as possible.
...
And I'd propose a corollary, you don't bunt with a guy who can't bunt.

Makes perfect sense!

What I can't quite reconcile is Walt's arguments that (a) Rice is bad at bunting and (b) Rice should bunt anyway.

I think Walt's argument is (a) Rice is bad at bunting, therefore (b) Rice should learn how to bunt, and then © Rice should bunt.

Thank you.

(05-15-2014 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I haven't seen any simulations run for the college game since the dead bats, but in major league simulations the bunt improves your chance of scoring ONE run in some situations, but decreases the expected number of runs in all cases. I would expect the results to be different in the college game with the new dead bats, but probably marginally so and not sufficient to reverse any of those trends.

So you bunt when one run matters and you don't bunt when you are trying to score as many as possible. Bill James ran a bunch of simulations leading him to conclude that you bunt at home but not on the road, kind of going hand in hand with the old idea that you play for a tie at home but never on the road. Of course the bigger impact that James found is who is at the plate--you bunt with Bob Buhl, never with Babe Ruth. With that in mind, I don't know that I want our 3 and 4 hitters bunting, unless maybe if it's tied in the bottom of the ninth, but our 6-7-8-9 guys need to know how to get a bunt down. And I'd propose a corollary, you don't bunt with a guy who can't bunt.

One other point about the college players are worse fielders comment. Per RiceOwls.com, Rice is fielding at a .980 clip and opponents at a .967 clip this year. The average for all of MLB is .983. So the difference is something like one play out of every 60 or more being made. Admittedly, that doesn't consider range factors, but there's no indication of a huge variation either way, particularly on bunt plays. So defensive prowess might be a reason to justify different strategies in some few cases, but the differences are going to be pretty thin.

One thing that surprises me a bit about major leaguers. All these new shifts are pretty much giving away a hit if you can get a bunt down. If I were seeing shifts, I'd bunt for a single until they went back to playing me straight up. I was listening to a game the other night, team is down by 1 in the bottom of the ninth, first two guys up go single and walk, so 2 on with nobody out. Next hitter is a left-handed pull hitter, they put the shift on, he hits into it for a double play and they strike the next guy out to end it. Why in the world he doesn't put the bunt down to load the bases is inexplicable. I would think teams should be having everyone take bunting practice just to take advantage of these situations.

Please tell me you're kidding in comparing field percentages in MLB vs. college? Aside from the very significant range differential in MLB, half the errors in the college game (particularly those of the non-throwing variety) are ruled "hits" by the favorable home-field official scorer. Last night was a perfect example-- as Stainback and Byrd were given back-to-back singles on very obvious errors by the LaTech defense. On bunts, especially, many college defenses are vulnerable, as very few 3B can regularly make the charging scoop and throw over to 1B that Hoelscher and Rendon made routinely.

Tinight's (Friday) starter is a true Freshman making his fifth start of the season...

Fr RHP Braden Bristo: 18 app, 4 starts, 1-1, 30.0 IP, 3.30 ERA, .250 BAA, 17 BBs, 14 Ks

...he has slightly better stats than last night's starter (fewer extrabase hits, slightly lower BAA), but is a bit wilder and has averaged less than 0.5 strikeouts per IP. Again, the guy does not go deep, and will likely be replaced by the fourth or fifth inning, at the very latest.

(05-16-2014 06:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Please tell me you're kidding in comparing field percentages in MLB vs. college? Aside from the very significant range differential in MLB, half the errors in the college game (particularly those of the non-throwing variety) are ruled "hits" by the favorable home-field official scorer. Last night was a perfect example-- as Stainback and Byrd were given back-to-back singles on very obvious errors by the LaTech defense. On bunts, especially, many college defenses are vulnerable, as very few 3B can regularly make the charging scoop and throw over to 1B that Hoelscher and Rendon made routinely.

Of course I'm not kidding. I'm not saying there are not differences. I noted there are differences, but I doubt they alter the odds as much as you want us to believe. You're talking eyeballs, I'm talking numbers here. But when you talk odds, that is numbers and not eyeballs. Even glaring differences are things that come up one time in ten, or maybe one time in twenty (for some perspective, consider that a .900 fielding percentage is absolutely brutal, at any level, and that's booting one play out of ten). And while I noted that I have not seen any simulations based on the college game, I would not anticipate many situations where the equities shift that drastically.

One, have you seen MLB scoring these days? Half the errors in MLB (particularly of the non-throwing variety) are ruled "hits" there, too. Two, agree on the ranige, but I think that's going to be more of a factor on a batted ball than a bunt, particularly an expected bunt for which the defenders were properly deployed. Agree that the charging Rendon/Hoelscher scoop and throw play is hard for college players to make. It's also hard for major leaguers to make and at both levels not necessary for probably 90% of runners on probably 90% of bunt placements.

I'm not saying never bunt. I am saying you don't bunt in a lot of situations where you seem to call for it. In the third inning with a runner on first and nobody out, if I'm bunting with my 3 hitter then he shouldn't be hitting third. Bottom of the ninth and that's the winning run, different story.

The place where I think the odds differ greatly between the college and MLB games, and where that difference probably calls for the bunt more, is with batters, not fielders. Particularly at the bottom of the order, you get a lot more hitters in the college game who are simply overmatched. The difference between your 3 hitter and your 8 hitter (or 9 hitter if we are comparing to AL) is probably greater, and that accentuates the situational angle. With runners on base, if a guy is so overmatched that he's going to strike out, you're almost certainly better off bunting, particularly if he can actually bunt effectively. Put the ball in play and make the defense do something with it. In that regard, I'm definitely with you that our bottom of the order hitters need to become better bunters. With a runner on first base and less than two outs, bunting is better than striking out, and striking out is better than hitting into a double play.

The other advantage of bunting is that if you do it unpredictably then you give the defense one more variable to handle, and that often overwhelms them. You might call it the Walter Alston advantage, because he probably used the bunt to keep the defense guessing more than any other manager that I recall. That advantage is lost somewhat if the batter squares and gives himself up early, but if that's what he has to do to get it down, then getting it down is more important than surprise. And if it's totally unexpected until he squares, that's often enough surprise in the college game.

So I'm not saying there aren't differences, I'm saying the differences are bigger to the eyeball that they are in the numbers. And I'm not saying never bunt, like some on here seem to be saying, but I am saying it's a lot more situational than you appear to call for. There are times you bunt and times you don't, and who the batter is and what his capabilities are should probably be the key variables.

Babe Ruth was probably a terrible bunter. That's okay, I wouldn't want him bunting, and I wouldn't want him practicing it. But Joe Dugan and Mark Koenig better be able to get them down.

(05-16-2014 05:08 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...
So you bunt when one run matters and you don't bunt when you are trying to score as many as possible.
...
And I'd propose a corollary, you don't bunt with a guy who can't bunt.

Makes perfect sense!

What I can't quite reconcile is Walt's arguments that (a) Rice is bad at bunting and (b) Rice should bunt anyway.

When did I ever argue that? What I said is that at the college level, if we aspire to be an elite team, you teach your players-- particularly your non-power hitters and those with low AVGs and OBPs-- how to bunt properly so they can, in fact, execute at a 75% or better clip. Proper bunting technique is not a difficult skill to learn, but you do need to practice it so it becomes second nature. Only 3-4 of our players (Ewing, Hoelscher, Kopycinski come top of mind) actually square around fully when in obvious bunting situations. If you don't square around, and you try to get into a bunting stance after the pitcher has thrown the ball, (1) you have a difficult time seeing if it's a strike or out of the strikezone, (2) you're not going to get into a balanced position to lay the ball down properly...and that's precisely why guys so often foul bunts off or miss completely. Furthermore, many of our guys try to lay down the perfect bunt right down the 3B line, which way too frequently ends up a foul ball. Such perfection may be necessary to get a bunt single, but it's not required to advance the runner to 2B or 3B. We are one of the worst bunting teams-- if not THE worst-- amongst the elite college teams, and that's a very poor reflection on our fundamentals.

I know this is a serious discussion of things this Rice can/cannot or should/should not do, but I keep hearing in my head the old gentleman on the corner who kindly reminds us to "Get off his lawn".

(05-16-2014 03:24 AM)Almadenmike Wrote:  It's not a perfect analogy, but maybe bunting is a bit like free throws in basketball. It's something that is relatively simple to do but must be practiced because the technique is different than a swing for a hit (or an in-game jumper). And many players may not like to practice it or many coaches may not want to spend time practicing it. And many of the best players (especially when they are Little League stars) feel they don't need to practice bunting because they're never asked to do it, since they're more likely to get a base hit.

I think everyone on any baseball team should know how to bunt ... just as any basketball player should shoot free throws well. But in reality, many don't ... and I don't understand why they don't. It's just such a basic skill.

I'd rather see a single than a sac bunt, of course. But I'd rather see a sac bunt than a strike out or hitting into a double play. Coach should make the call based on the percentages for the player and the situation. If he asks you to bunt, you should be successful at it ... because he expects you to be successful. (Otherwise he'd say, "swing away!" ... right?)

Maybe this also works on another level as we all could do these things as kids? We all played pick up games and chose sides by shooting from the free throw line or top of the key. Likewise we all placed bunt after bunt while taking BP or just horsing around (especially after we started hitting the ball hard enough to break windows).

Good analogy.

Now get off my lawn...

I will admit I am too lazy this morning to look up who already explained why Rice has four games versus 200+ RPI teams. I was scratching my head this morning when I remembered some said Purdue had slid past 200. Thanks for the heads up someone (Walt?). Nothing like some coffe and the Nitty Gritty Report in the morning.

(05-16-2014 07:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 06:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Please tell me you're kidding in comparing field percentages in MLB vs. college? Aside from the very significant range differential in MLB, half the errors in the college game (particularly those of the non-throwing variety) are ruled "hits" by the favorable home-field official scorer. Last night was a perfect example-- as Stainback and Byrd were given back-to-back singles on very obvious errors by the LaTech defense. On bunts, especially, many college defenses are vulnerable, as very few 3B can regularly make the charging scoop and throw over to 1B that Hoelscher and Rendon made routinely.

Of course I'm not kidding. I'm not saying there are not differences. I noted there are differences, but I doubt they alter the odds as much as you want us to believe. You're talking eyeballs, I'm talking numbers here. But when you talk odds, that is numbers and not eyeballs. Even glaring differences are things that come up one time in ten, or maybe one time in twenty (for some perspective, consider that a .900 fielding percentage is absolutely brutal, at any level, and that's booting one play out of ten). And while I noted that I have not seen any simulations based on the college game, I would not anticipate many situations where the equities shift that drastically.

One, have you seen MLB scoring these days? Half the errors in MLB (particularly of the non-throwing variety) are ruled "hits" there, too. Two, agree on the ranige, but I think that's going to be more of a factor on a batted ball than a bunt, particularly an expected bunt for which the defenders were properly deployed. Agree that the charging Rendon/Hoelscher scoop and throw play is hard for college players to make. It's also hard for major leaguers to make and at both levels not necessary for probably 90% of runners on probably 90% of bunt placements.

I'm not saying never bunt. I am saying you don't bunt in a lot of situations where you seem to call for it. In the third inning with a runner on first and nobody out, if I'm bunting with my 3 hitter then he shouldn't be hitting third. Bottom of the ninth and that's the winning run, different story.

The place where I think the odds differ greatly between the college and MLB games, and where that difference probably calls for the bunt more, is with batters, not fielders. Particularly at the bottom of the order, you get a lot more hitters in the college game who are simply overmatched. The difference between your 3 hitter and your 8 hitter (or 9 hitter if we are comparing to AL) is probably greater, and that accentuates the situational angle. With runners on base, if a guy is so overmatched that he's going to strike out, you're almost certainly better off bunting, particularly if he can actually bunt effectively. Put the ball in play and make the defense do something with it. In that regard, I'm definitely with you that our bottom of the order hitters need to become better bunters. With a runner on first base and less than two outs, bunting is better than striking out, and striking out is better than hitting into a double play.

The other advantage of bunting is that if you do it unpredictably then you give the defense one more variable to handle, and that often overwhelms them. You might call it the Walter Alston advantage, because he probably used the bunt to keep the defense guessing more than any other manager that I recall. That advantage is lost somewhat if the batter squares and gives himself up early, but if that's what he has to do to get it down, then getting it down is more important than surprise. And if it's totally unexpected until he squares, that's often enough surprise in the college game.

So I'm not saying there aren't differences, I'm saying the differences are bigger to the eyeball that they are in the numbers. And I'm not saying never bunt, like some on here seem to be saying, but I am saying it's a lot more situational than you appear to call for. There are times you bunt and times you don't, and who the batter is and what his capabilities are should probably be the key variables.

Babe Ruth was probably a terrible bunter. That's okay, I wouldn't want him bunting, and I wouldn't want him practicing it. But Joe Dugan and Mark Koenig better be able to get them down.

Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER. However, given that Rice has been a pitching and defensive team first and foremost, I'm a big believer in taking a bit of pressure off the pitcher and staking him to a one or two run lead (as it gives him some margin for error to work with). Consequently, I'm a big proponent of bunting when the game is within two runs either way with the leadoff hitter getting on 1B, and with anybody but your 2 - 3 best hitters come to the plate (or even with your 3rd best hitter if your two best follow you in the lineup). And given we're not very good at situational hitting (e.g., hitting to the right side with a runner on 2B) and less than two outs, I'd even advocate have your weaker hitters bunting when the leadoff man is on 2b, putting him in position to score on just about any ball put in play...or on a wild pitch/passed ball (which occurs MUCH more frequently at the college level).


Contrary to popular belief, I HATE our tendency to bunt with a runner on 3B, and less than two outs; especially with one of our better hitters (Shane, Skyler, JC or Michael) coming to the plate. I like the odds much better for a sac fly, hit, error or hard hit ground ball.

I agree sacrifice bunting is a situational thing, but for me, a close (within a couple runs) game and with anyone but your best hitters coming to the plate is the "appropriate" situation. Tell me-- how many times have we had the leadoff man on base and fail to even advance to 2B because of a strikeout, doubleplay, fly out or force out? I'd bet it's over 85% this year. Heck, just in the past 5 games we've probably done it over a dozen times. There is absolutely no excuse for your weakest hitters in the lineup, as well as your purely singles hitters, not to learn the very basic skills and techniques of bunting. It REALLY is NOT that difficult to learn and execute, but you've got to be tought the proper techniques and be forced to practice it. Because of our very sloppy technique deployed by the majority of our players, we're frequently bunting at pitches well out of the strikezone (because we're not squaring around until the pitch is throw, which doesn't give enough time for the batter to locate the pitch).

(05-16-2014 07:09 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 05:08 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ...
So you bunt when one run matters and you don't bunt when you are trying to score as many as possible.
...
And I'd propose a corollary, you don't bunt with a guy who can't bunt.

Makes perfect sense!

What I can't quite reconcile is Walt's arguments that (a) Rice is bad at bunting and (b) Rice should bunt anyway.

When did I ever argue that? What I said is that at the college level, if we aspire to be an elite team, you teach your players-- particularly your non-power hitters and those with low AVGs and OBPs-- how to bunt properly so they can, in fact, execute at a 75% or better clip. Proper bunting technique is not a difficult skill to learn, but you do need to practice it so it becomes second nature. Only 3-4 of our players (Ewing, Hoelscher, Kopycinski come top of mind) actually square around fully when in obvious bunting situations. If you don't square around, and you try to get into a bunting stance after the pitcher has thrown the ball, (1) you have a difficult time seeing if it's a strike or out of the strikezone, (2) you're not going to get into a balanced position to lay the ball down properly...and that's precisely why guys so often foul bunts off or miss completely. Furthermore, many of our guys try to lay down the perfect bunt right down the 3B line, which way too frequently ends up a foul ball. Such perfection may be necessary to get a bunt single, but it's not required to advance the runner to 2B or 3B. We are one of the worst bunting teams-- if not THE worst-- amongst the elite college teams, and that's a very poor reflection on our fundamentals.

I know this is a serious discussion of things this Rice can/cannot or should/should not do, but I keep hearing in my head the old gentleman on the corner who kindly reminds us to "Get off his lawn".

Same here.

I think I'll just enjoy a 9 run win...regardless of how "ugly" it may be for some people.

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

Totally agree. When you are down two runs or less, no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, a bunt puts two runners in scoring position and takes out the double play. Bunting seems like a solid move to me.

(05-16-2014 11:25 AM)West U Rice Fan Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

Totally agree. When you are down two runs or less, no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, a bunt puts two runners in scoring position and takes out the double play. Bunting seems like a solid move to me.

Yeah, but this situation was in the 1st inning with arguably our best hitter up. Not a bunting situation.