Monday, August 1, 2011

An Unwritten Baseball "Rule" - No Bunting to Break Up a Potential No-Hitter

So Collin Moore got me to thinking about other unwritten baseball rules, and it occurred to me that there was another example of one in Sunday's Tigers/Angels game in Detroit. Justin Verlander had a no-hitter going to start the 8th inning and Erick Aybar lead off with a bunt attempt, which would go against an unwritten rule - if a pitcher is throwing a potential no-hitter you should "earn" your way on base. Now this is one that, to me, is CLEARLY situational.

To one extreme, let's say you were a last place team (or any team, really), down 10-0 in the 9th. And, just for kicks, let's say there were two outs. If you were to bunt then, successful or not, I would not only expect pitchers around the league to declare open season on you, but your own batting practice pitchers and pitching machines as well.

To the other extreme, it's the bottom of the 9th, game 7 of the world series, and you are trailing 1-0, and the other guy is throwing a no-hitter. Rickey Henderson is at the plate. Am I supposed to believe that Rickey would not consider and/or attempt to bunt in this situation (I know, I know - Rickey would just walk or homer, but let's pretend, okay)? He reaches first, he steals second, a couple of outs and he scores and we're going to extras. I don't believe anybody the next day would be bitching about baseball's unwritten rules then.

But where do these extremes meet in the middle, that's the thing. And I'm not saying I know absolutely. But I will say this - the Angels are in a playoff race with the Rangers, they had six outs left and were down only 3-0: plenty of time to get something started off Verlander. So why wouldn't you have a speedy guy bunt and try and get on base? It makes sense to me (Tigers manager Jim Leyland said the same thing, in essence, after the game). And what did happen? Aybar reached at second due to a Verlander error and came around to score; the Angels added another run later in the inning and suddenly it was 3-2. Seems like a smart play to me.

If it were 5-0 or 6-0 then would it have been a "violation"? Again, I don't know, I just think there are always more variables in play than any hard and fast unwritten rule can satisfy. (With the exception, in my opinion, of throwing at or around a batter's head.)

13 comments:

  1. I agree with you on this one. There cannot be a bright line rule on this. There are many different factors that come into play. One could argue that the rule should be similar to that which determines whether a relief pitcher is eligible for a save: something along the lines of it is ok to bunt for a hit if the tying run is on deck. This doesn't take into account things like whether or not the potential bunter's team is in contention, whether the particular hitter includes the bunt single in his standard bag of tricks (Brett Butler, anyone?), etc.

    The fact that Aybar advanced to second on Verlander's own error somewhat mitigates the offense to the baseball sensibilities.

    It seems that many of these unwritten rules tend to be interpreted through the lens of whether the outcome is favorable to the team you are pulling for or not. I do like the fact that there is a sort of "code" and that the players are active in policing themselves. A big part of the allure of baseball is its tradition and the "code" is a significant aspect of that tradition. Like hockey, there needs to be a commonly held notion of what is appropriate conduct beyond the official rules because baseball and hockey are both sports played with potentially lethal equipment. I'm not a big NASCAR aficionado, but I imagine there is a similar set of "unwritten" rules in that sport as well. (Although, from a casual viewer's perspective it appears as though the main rule is "drive like hell and turn left.")

    At the end of the day, I would be less upset by having a no-hitter blown by a bunt than I would be by a first base umpire blowing a call to blow a perfect game, but that is a whole different story . . .

    ReplyDelete
  2. An umpire blowing a call to blow a perfect game? Why that could never happen, and CERTAINLY not to the aforementioned Tigers!

    ReplyDelete
  3. A couple of random notes on these two situations.

    The first is that unfortunately Verlander's behavior was very suspect with regards to the bunt. Aybar claims that Verlander pointed at the dugout and said, 'I'm gonna get you next year," which Aybar says was directed at him. This is believable because in the same post-game interview in which Verlander said he could see both sides of the bunt/no-bunt argument, he also said "These things have a way of working themselves out." When he said it I was quite sure that meant he planned to retaliate against Aybar. To me that's pretty freaking lame.

    Secondly, I'd like to add idiot and possibly even coward to the list phrases that I think of regarding Weaver's behavior. Idiot - because it certainly seemed that Mags was only late off the plate because he was making sure the ball was fair before he started his home run trot. The ball didn't miss the foul-pole by much. Coward - because he could have confronted eith Mags or Guillen directly, but he instead he waited and threw in the direction of Avila's head when he was not within punching distance of Avila. Then he heads to the dugout and has one of those "hold me back; hold me back moments" when it is obvious that he is in no danger of actually having to confront the people he is supposedly trying to get at. Pathetic. - Lopkhan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Robert - I read the Verlander quote and have to say I was disappointed and, as you probably guessed, disagree with him.

    With regard to Weaver and Mags, the latter specifically stated he was waiting on fair or foul. Mags, at least in the press, sure didn't seem all that mad at Weaver. I guess he doesn't let these things bother him. I did not see the "hold me back" moment, but let's lead from that into one last comment here - AL PITCHERS SHOULD HAVE TO BAT. Verlander was up to 100 on the gun that day at times. Of course Weaver was tossed, but he'd still have to start against the Tigers at some point in the future and take his hacks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with both of you in regards to Mags. He did not appear to be showing Weaver up. He did actually look as though he wanted to make sure the ball stayed fair. I also want to make clear that I am not saying that Weaver is not "Kind of a Dick" just that I think Guillen's behavior was equally Dickish, especially since he knows that he is setting his teammate up to take the retribution.

    I think a big flaw (at least in the AL) with respect to players enforcing the "code" is exactly what Michael pointed out - AL pitchers don't bat. Pitchers are the ones issuing the "payback" for violations of the code, yet they never bat so are never subject to the same punishment. It's like saying, "You better not drive drunk or we will put your friend in jail."

    The only direct recourse a batter has against a pitcher in the "Junior Circuit" is to charge the mound, which causes even bigger problems and I can't believe Bud Selig wants to encourage that behavior. Plus, it didn't work out so well for Robin Ventura . . .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Addendum. Weaver gets 6 game suspension - Scioscia 1. Seems fair. The best part of the espn article I read that reported this was this line from Mags:

    "I don't hit many homers anymore, and I wanted to make sure that it stayed fair," Ordonez said after the game. "After that, he was yelling at me to run faster, and I told him that I'm old -- that's as fast as I run. I'm not going to show anyone up. That's not me."

    "I'm old -- that's as fast as I run" - love that.*

    And Collin, I did not read your post as condoning Weaver at all. And sure Guillen deserves some of the blame. But I would only respond that at least Guillen made himself fully available if Weaver wanted to go after him personally. Weaver chose the less than honorable route by going after Avila.

    *Baseball Prospectus has a feature where they time home run trots. Mags has hit 4 (only 3 of which were recorded) this year. This one timed at 25.16 seconds. The other two were 23.87 and 21.37 seconds. It took about 3 seconds for the ball to clear the wall - so he trotted at about a 22 second pace once he got going, which is about normal. - Lopkhan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Collin and Robert - Responding in one place, in sequence, to each of your last comments...

    Re: Ryan giving Ventura a smack-down, i can still see it now; re: Weaver, like Robert, I did not read this as you condoning Weaver and, yes, Guillen deserves some blame.

    Re: Guillen making himself available, he sure did. He took his damn time going up that line and was ready, willing and able, it appeared. Does anybody remember, maybe it was Al Cowens, charging the mound in the late 70s or early 80s? There was a pitch, ground ball to short, i think it was, but Cowens took off for the mound, didn't even head to first. I can picture the shortstop and how puzzled he looked, like "should i still throw to first?" I can recall Cowens on the Angels and Tigers but not sure whom he was with then. i may try and look that up.

    And, finally, regarding the timing of home trots - we have truly arrived as a civilization! A stat i didn't even know they were keeping and it was completely useful to draw on it for our conversation...

    ReplyDelete
  8. And a link to an article which discusses Al Cowens stay in Detroit, and mentions his charging the mound and the reasons behind it (pitcher? Ed Farmer).

    www.dailyfungo.com/2008/03/11/the-failed-al-cowens-experience/

    ReplyDelete
  9. I doubt that Guillen would have gone into his song and dance home run routine if Nolan Ryan were on the mound as opposed to Weaver. I too am extremely glad that the home run trot stat exists. I would count that as one of the more useful stats you could possibly have for our current discussion.

    Just saw this article: http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/14480/verlander-weaver-and-the-2004-draft

    Apparently both Weaver and Verlander were available in the 2004 draft. San Diego had the top pick and took . . . Matt Bush (Shortstop). How did that work out for them?

    "So the Padres, who had just moved into their new ballpark in 2004, drafted Bush to save a little money and avoid the headache of dealing with Scott Boras. Bush ended up getting suspended before he played his first professional game after being involved in a fight outside an Arizona nightclub. He hit .192 in 29 games and made 17 errors. He never did hit, was switched to pitcher and blew out his arm. He's currently in Double-A with Tampa Bay, where he has a 5.67 ERA, but does have 63 strikeouts in 39.2 innings."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually the home run trot stat is just kept by one author for fun. He gives a mostly daily update with his comments on the best, fastest and slowest trots of the day. He calls it "tater trot tracker".

    And thanks for the UT link! I was actually just thinking about The Long Cut this eve. Great stuff - though sad to think it was on the eve of their demise. - Lopkhan

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tater Tot Tracker - always good to have that in one's arsenal.

    As for the Padres not drafting Verlander or Weaver - you know, I wouldn't want to deal with Scott Boras either. I believe him to be bad for baseball, and if it's bad for baseball, I don't like it. HOWEVER i am happy, of course, Verlander is on the Tigers. How could I not be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just a quick plug for a book I've thoroughly enjoyed: Paul Dickson, THE UNWRITTEN RULES OF BASEBALL: The Etiquette, Conventional Wisdom, and Axiomatic Codes of Our National Pastime (Collins; 2009). $14.99 hardcover.

    Among people thanked for interviews:
    Larry Bowa
    George Brett
    Reggie Jackson
    Rick Dempsey
    Don Zimmer

    The crowd seem to love this.

    (No Don Drysdale, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal or Johnny Roseboro, regrettably).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for that recommendation, Paulie...

    ReplyDelete

Civility.