1. He didn't have Bonds in the lineup 2. He still had 97 RBI's in just 130 games. That kind of pace would have given him around 120 RBI's had ne not been injured.
The problem I have with Jimy is that he has called several bunts when it's still early in the game, and we could use a big multi-run inning. Cases which clearly would not support small ball. But this assumes you're trying to maximize total runs over the course of the season, which isn't necessarily the case. For one, sometimes it's helpful for pitchers to get that early lead - it helps them settle down, etc. If you bunt everytime, you'll score more total runs. However, I'd bet you'd score in fewer innings. So, for example, if you did it in the 1st inning over 10 games, here's what I see: Runs scored with bunting: 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Runs scored without bunting: 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 Something like that. With our pitching staff, our past problems with a feast or famine offense, and the apparent mental benefits to an early lead, I'd rather have the first scenario even though the total runs scored is fewer. I think we win more games that way.
Major is right. If we draw first blood, it forces the opposing pitcher to try to be "perfect", knowing that the Stros' pitcher could shut down the other team. And when the opposign pitcher tries to be perfect, it usually opens the door to more runs. Everett must bunt all year long.
It would be a sacrifice, but generally teams are aware of the suicide situation, which makes it more risky. Most teams only have a couple of players adept at bunting, especially in a suicide situation. The Astros would never squeeze with their 3-7 hitters. More than likely, they would not squeeze with Biggio. That leaves Everett, Ausmus and the pitcher. Right now, Ausmus is hitting well enough that I'd rather see him swing away, Biggio's hitting well enough that I'd rather see the pitcher swing away. The unfortunate part of the squeeze, is usually when it does NOT work, it involves the batter bunting through a pitch and the runner being caught at home. Not only do you lose the out, you lose a runner. Instead of 1 out runner on third, You have 2 outs, nobody on.
Does anyone remember the Bell to Ward days (with Bagg/Bigs leading the way)? You know, pre-Berkman/Kent/Doggy days? Anyone remember how we would have a good home-run game early and go up say, 6-1 in the first 5 innings? So, 6th inning comes around and we sit on the lead. Later we'd end up going down 9-7....After losing the lead we try to get the lead back by trying to homer every time up to the plate. And what was working in the first 5 innings, didn't work in the late innings. Well, a few problems that I saw was that our pitching staff would fade. So, the opposition would never feel challenged about facing us in late innings. We'd always provide pitching that could be hit off of late in games (single here, double there...). Two, our hitters were "all or nothing." They seem to tighten up the later the game and wanted to "save the day" by hiting the long ball. Three, on defense we'd have a few opportunities to get double-plays but error the throw. Heck, that's even if we had a SS that could get to the grounder in the first place. We'd get soooooo tight and give the opposition so many chances to score on us we'd end up losing the game 9-7. So, all those early inning homers were worthless because we didn't know how to hit a few singles/doubles in late in the game. That's how the opposition would win it. Does anyone remember that? I seem to remember tons of game like that were we would essentially hang ourselves. It was "feast or famine" "non-selective hitting," "bad defense" and "pitching that faded." Yikes!
Like I said again, analysis has been done to show that bunting, for the most part, won't even give you a better chance of scoring ONE run. Because giving up 1 out decreases your chances of scoring much more so than the difference between 1st and 2nd base. Especially considering our hitter behind Everett are power hitters. And on the subject of pitching with leads and such... do you really have concrete proof that's the case? We had a 4 run lead in the first against the Cards a few games back, and they scored 5 runs in the next two innings against us. We had a 4-1 lead when Bonds belted his 3 run shot in the first game. I just don't see evidence that pitchers pitcher better when teams have leads, period, much less a small lead like 1-0.
Like I said again, analysis has been done to show that bunting, for the most part, won't even give you a better chance of scoring ONE run. Because giving up 1 out decreases your chances of scoring much more so than the difference between 1st and 2nd base. Especially considering our hitter behind Everett are power hitters. That may be the case, but I disagree. I think we have power hitters that focus on hitting with power too much, and it causes us to have a feast or famine offense. If there's a guy on 2nd, our "power hitter" is more likely to just try to get a hit than if the guy is on first and our guy swings for the fence and strikes out. Do I have any evidence of it? No. Just gut feeling. How have our bunts gone so far this season? Have we scored on them? And on the subject of pitching with leads and such... do you really have concrete proof that's the case? We had a 4 run lead in the first against the Cards a few games back, and they scored 5 runs in the next two innings against us. We had a 4-1 lead when Bonds belted his 3 run shot in the first game. I just don't see evidence that pitchers pitcher better when teams have leads, period, much less a small lead like 1-0. Of course having a lead doesn't mean we're never going to give it up. I'm just going on what pitchers always say - I figure they know better than me, and they consistently say that they love the early lead and it lets them relax and pitch their game.
Pitchers...coaches...position players...but hey, I'd take the advice of a bunch of guys with spreadsheets, a basic understanding of H.S. algebra, and an allergy to dirt over the guys who have spent their whole lives in the game. There are things in baseball, as in all sports, which are not quantifiable. 99% of the "new breed" of sabrboys - the Neyers, Bball Prospectus/Primer guys, et al - refuse to acknowledge that.
What about guys who can knock over beer bottles with a frisbee from 20 feet away? Just kidding, I completely agree. Take a look at the first inning the other day. Lane gets a lead off double with Everett coming up. Our entire row was yelling for the bunt. Instead, he pops up and Lane ends up stranded. I'd rather have that runner on third with one out than on second with one out, especially when there's at least a 70% chance of Everett getting an out anyway.
I demand a rematch. Anyhoo, since I'm bored, I did a little research: 10 times this season the batter in front of AE has led off an inning with a hit. 4 times AE has sac'd the guy over, 2 of those runners scored. 1 time AE got a bunt single. Of the remaining 5 non-bunting at-bat thingys, only once did the Astros score in the inning in question, and it was a "big inning" (4 runs). Of course, none of this means much because it's only 10 ABs. But like I said, I'm bored.
Bring it on. Let's watch the game tonight and we can set up the playing field in the back yard. Plus, you can see the destruction I unleashed on the house during the 4th quarter last night!
Badass. I'm hoping Drewdog joins. Perhaps a game of two on two? You know, this could turn into our Baseketball!
So you're basing your argument on a *gut feeling*? I can see how this might be true if Bagwell or Berkman specifically talks about trying to hit the HR too much. But I've heard of such things. The Astros runs this year have not been mainly products of the big swing. They connect singles and doubles plenty of times. Take a look at what lots of people consider to be the situation with the most pressure, the "save situtation". Although I personally don't adhere to such a thing, pitchers all certainly talk about the pressure of pitching in save situations. And the last time I checked, save situations when you're LEADING. Specifically, leading by a very small margin. Which is what small ball will get you. Pitching with BIG leads, on the other hand, is quite relaxing for pitchers. It's also the product of not going for 1 run innings, but rather big run innings.
