They obviously didn't include the unwritten rules in this game...

[ckarlic]

Re: They obviously didn't include the unwritten rules in this game...

That's my thought exactly! If it's a 2-0 game and Brett Gardner is up to the plate in the 9th inning being no-hit by Josh Beckett and he decides to lay down a bunt to bring the tying run up to the plate, that isn't "cheap" or "unsportsmanlike". Bunting to get on is a part of his game and as a speed guy it's an expected part of his arsenal.

Turn it around so that Boston is up 8-0 in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and a perfect game going by Josh Beckett, if Jorge Posada decides to lay down a bunt I would be all for Posada being drilled HARD each and every time he comes up to bat. With the team down 8-0 and Posada never using a bunt as a method of getting on base, the ONLY reason he would be bunting there would be to break up a perfect game and nothing else. There is no intent to win the game there, and as a result, I find that to be very cheap and very dirty.

Yup. I agree wholeheartedly with your points here. It all depends on the situation.

[ill23matic]

Re: They obviously didn't include the unwritten rules in this game...

well, lofton was a speed demon with the bunt as part of his offensive arsenal, in a 4-0 game, it was still looked at as breaking those rules. Yes, baseball, the bunt, and all that is a sacred thing where certain things should not get in the way of winning. But a no no or a perfect game is just about as sacred as it gets really. If you are down 2-0 in a REGULAR SEASON game and the guy on the hill has a no no going in the 9th inning, you just gotta tip your cap and hope you break up the no no swinging the bat. That win at all cost in the regular season is mumbo jumbo, there are 162 games in a season and if that one game cost you the playoffs, you have 161 others to do better in, including the current game where your team could have gotten at least one hit before to where you wouldnt be in that predicament. A no no is one thing you DO NOT mess with. Just my take.

[dickey1331]

Re: They obviously didn't include the unwritten rules in this game...

That's my thought exactly! If it's a 2-0 game and Brett Gardner is up to the plate in the 9th inning being no-hit by Josh Beckett and he decides to lay down a bunt to bring the tying run up to the plate, that isn't "cheap" or "unsportsmanlike". Bunting to get on is a part of his game and as a speed guy it's an expected part of his arsenal.

Turn it around so that Boston is up 8-0 in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and a perfect game going by Josh Beckett, if Jorge Posada decides to lay down a bunt I would be all for Posada being drilled HARD each and every time he comes up to bat. With the team down 8-0 and Posada never using a bunt as a method of getting on base, the ONLY reason he would be bunting there would be to break up a perfect game and nothing else. There is no intent to win the game there, and as a result, I find that to be very cheap and very dirty.

100% agreed.

[gubunko]

Re: They obviously didn't include the unwritten rules in this game...

well, lofton was a speed demon with the bunt as part of his offensive arsenal, in a 4-0 game, it was still looked at as breaking those rules. Yes, baseball, the bunt, and all that is a sacred thing where certain things should not get in the way of winning. But a no no or a perfect game is just about as sacred as it gets really. If you are down 2-0 in a REGULAR SEASON game and the guy on the hill has a no no going in the 9th inning, you just gotta tip your cap and hope you break up the no no swinging the bat. That win at all cost in the regular season is mumbo jumbo, there are 162 games in a season and if that one game cost you the playoffs, you have 161 others to do better in, including the current game where your team could have gotten at least one hit before to where you wouldnt be in that predicament. A no no is one thing you DO NOT mess with. Just my take.

Very interesting post. For the Lofton part, I would think the problem with him trying to bunt (when it was a major part of his game) was the score: 4-0. In that situation, a bunt to get on is not going to score 4 runs, so there is no need to bunt there (and I'm assuming it was a regular bunt and not something like a Baltimore Chop, which I would classify as a "hit" and not a "bunt").