Should Kendrick have bunted?

by The Navigator on May 14, 2008 11:12 AM EDT Comment 8 comments

Tues. night, bottom of the sixth, Phils up 4-3 at the time. Kendrick has made it out of the top of the sixth with the lead and he's due up second. Carlos Ruiz manages to reach base. Now what do you do? Kendrick's probably done no matter what happens, because it's after an off day and the bullpen is all set to go JC, Flash, Lidge.

We could save a bench player for later, in what looks to stay a close game, and have Kendrick bunt Ruiz over. But here's the thing: Kendrick is, like all Phillies pitchers younger than 45, a terrible bunter. And it's only a one-run lead and we need to increase it, with nine outs to go and the bullpen not likely to be perfect forever. And a pinch hitter is more likely to be able to swing away if that becomes necessary.

But here's another thing: we're confident we don't need to change up plans and have the hitter swing away. Even if Ruiz moves up to second on a PB or something, there's still none out and the best move with the nine hole is to bunt him to third. With a strong bullpen due up, stretching a one-run lead to two by playing for one run is a pretty good move with your nine-hole hitter, and as long as you're going to bunt for sure, why not use the pitcher?

Because he's a terrible bunter. We can't be taking gambles with the thinnest possible lead and a long way to go in the game - we need someone we're confident can get the bunt down.

But here's one other thing: Kendrick's not going to get better at bunting unless he practices bunting. He's got to get up there in game situations and work at it, so that maybe when it really, really counts in late September he'll be competent at it. And no, this isn't a safe time like a ten-run lead, but bunting with a ten-run lead is bad baseball manners anyway. Saving the pinch hitter for later, letting Kendrick give it a try when there's none out and you're leading with your bullpen set up might be the right move.

Is it? I can't quite decide. I think the answer is, no, you can't gamble with a one-run lead; if Kendrick's not pitching the seventh, you need a sure bunter up there. You don't save bench players - at least, not when you've still got a full bench - for later when you'e got a clear use for them now. But I'm not sure about this. Because the Phils pitchers have to, have to, have to get better at bunting somehow, just like Utley had to hit lefties poorly for a while to figure them out.

As it happens, we sent up Taguchi and he laid down an acceptable, albeit not great, bunt. But I have a thought: maybe we don't burn Taguchi there. Maybe we send up someone else to bunt, someone who's shown he's good at it. Someone who's old enough to be Kendrick's daddy. Yeah, that's right: pinch hitter Jamie Moyer.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I disagree

I don’t disagree that Kendrick is a terrible bunter, I have no opinion on the matter at the moment…can’t recall.

I disagree that a game situation where you are only up by one run is when Kyle Kendrick should practiice bunting.

He should practice bunting when it’s appropriate, during batting practice.

by jemagee on May 14, 2008 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You’d think that would be the time to do it, yet they’ve had plenty of time, all the time they could want, to work on it in batting practice, and still, to my untrained eye (and I freely concede I haven’t researched this), it sure as hell doesn’t look like they’ve learned a damn thing about bunting.

I’m glad to learn that I was somewhat underestimating Kendrick, if it’s true that the numbers show he got a number of sac bunts down last year. But just going by what I’ve seen – and I think performance at a task like bunting is more readily gauged by eyewitness experience than many baseball activities where success is more appropriately revealed through stats over time – he doesn’t seem to be very good.

"I am the Walrus?..... I am the Walrus." - Donny Kerabatsos

by The Navigator on May 14, 2008 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, so to your untrained eye he hasn’t learned a thing about bunting…and your solution is that he should be put into an ‘important’ situation thus putting more pressure on him to successfully bunt as a learning process? Like i said, i wasn’t disagreeing (or agreeing) that kendrick was a bad/good bunter, i was disagreeing with your premise (which seems lost) that they should have left him in to bunt cause ‘he needed the practice’...THAT would have been bad managing by manuel.

by jemagee on May 14, 2008 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure I’d call it a premise – more like a ponderable, something I was throwing out for purposes of discussion.

But I’m not sure why you’re so dismissive of the idea of learning by doing. Yes, of course you can, and obviously should, work on this in batting practice. But there’s a reason that bench players talk about getting in a rhythm and needing to get some live at-bats: it just isn’t the same in practice. Just like assistant district attorneys are not sent to do trial workshops for nine months – they’re thrown right into actual trial work, albeit second seating where possible – bunting in a real game is by far the best practice for actually bunting in a game.

Managers do this all the time – Manuel deliberately does not field his absolute optimum lineup at every moment in every game, because sometimes you need to give the bench guys a chance to stay fresh, and batting practice is no substitute, so you find places to work them into the lineup even if they’re not necessarily the best option in each situation.

And I think you’re slightly misreading my point if you took me to be arguing that we should have Kendrick up there because it was a really critical spot. I thought my point was, rather, that the bottom of the 6th Tuesday night was not an especially critical spot, since we had the lead and all three outs and a primed bullpen, and that therefore it might (emphasize might) have been a good spot to get Kendrick some actual game practice, all so that, further down the road, when it actually was a critical spot, he would be better prepared

"I am the Walrus?..... I am the Walrus." - Donny Kerabatsos

by The Navigator on May 15, 2008 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My take on this is that if the additional run-scoring potential of a 2B/1out is not sufficiently greater than 1B/1out to justify wasting a bench player. In other words, if you’re going to run a low-value play like a sac bunt, you might as well use Kendrick, since failing to get the bunt down doesn’t actually hurt you that much. On the other hand, using Moyer in that spot makes sense if you’re planning to pull Kendrick anyway.

Incidentally, I don’t think Kendrick is a terrible bunter.

by phatj on May 14, 2008 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Some one out there in the world of baseball analysis has to track ‘pitcher sacrafice success rate’...right?

by jemagee on May 14, 2008 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For what it’s worth, he has as many successful sac bunts as Moyer this year, and had more sac bunts per game than Moyer last year. I realize that doesn’t necessarily close the book on the question.

by taco pal on May 14, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I sort of like the idea of substituting Moyer to lay down the bunt.

But I also liked that they used Taguchi there. He’s better at it, and he’s got some chance to reach base if he drops it perfectly or the fielder mishandles it. Manuel realized that he had Bruntlett to come in for Burrell if things got to that point, as they did.

In any event, I don’t think leaving in Kendrick to attempt the sac would have been a wise way to go.

by dajafi on May 14, 2008 2:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs