Shoulda bunted.

Now more than ever it is clear that Torre's strength as manager of the Yankees was sitting on his ass.

The victory music blaring in the Dodgers' clubhouse Sunday: "Play that Funky Music," the 1976 hit single by Wild Cherry. None of the players in Sunday's starting lineup had been born in 1976.

The Dodgers are paying $11.4 million this season to those nine starters. Juan Pierre accounted for $8 million of that total.


Who the heck picked the victory music? Nothing against Wild Cherry - it's a pretty good song, all things considered - but even the oldest players were under 10 when that was a hit. And somehow I doubt Joe Torre picked it out.

In terms of the lineup - Pierre actually scored the first run, AND had three hits, so I guess he contributed. I'd still rather have Delwyn Young in left though. That would have made the starting lineup have a salary of under $4 million, and likely to be much better in the long run.

I don't see this as such a bad idea.
Kemp is a promising talent, and does have power, but hes also got a sub-800 OPS this year so it isn't like you are making a stud hitter take and out and if you're ever going to bunt two-on, none-out is the time to do it

I don't know how many GDPs Kemp has hit into this season, but he's now K'd 75 times and he was batting in the second hole with a hot hitter in Loney to follow.

Torre's real mistake was to bat Kemp second.

No one's a real big fan of the sac bunt in this situation, but they didn't score without the bunt, either.

The Dodgers just aren't fielding a team right now that's going to score a lot of runs.

I agree Kemp shouldn't be batting #2 - I would have had him fifth in today's lineup. But he has been hitting very well the past few games, with good power. And it's silly to have a guy who is hitting well and who has no real experience bunting basically give up a strike trying to bunt.

Now, I have no idea if they have been working with him in batting practice on bunting - if they have, then it's Kemp's fault for being so unprepared. If they haven't, then it was Torre's mistake.

Who the heck picked the victory music? Nothing against Wild Cherry - it's a pretty good song, all things considered - but even the oldest players were under 10 when that was a hit. And somehow I doubt Joe Torre picked it out.

What, we're limited to music made after we were born now? That's really gonna #### up my music collection.

It's the 5th inning part I particularly don't like -- way too early to be playing for an insurance run.

But Kemp's not much of a power hitter (at least not yet). He's got a 159 ISO this year, good for about a 104 SLG+ so it's not even impressive for Dodger stadium. He's on track for only about 17 or so HR. And before anybody chimes in with last season's 521 SLG, that was still just a 179 ISO.

Loney at the moment is very much a Mark Grace type hitter (singles, doubles, low K rate) so it makes reasonable sense to move runners along for him.

So 7th, 8th or 9th inning and I wouldn't object to this much if at all. 5th inning is too early.

One big caveat though -- I assume the Indians weren't expecting a bunt here either and the 3B was playing back. That greatly improves the percentages of this play. And all it cost was a strike.

And, oh yeah, Kemp has a SH earlier this year.

1st & 2nd w/ no outs and 2nd & 3rd w/ one out are virtually equal in terms of expected runs. I'm not defending it, but just sayin'.

#2 Yes Sir.

Not all players need to know how to bunt, but with Kemp's speed, he should.

As well as learn how to hit with two strikes.

1st & 2nd w/ no outs and 2nd & 3rd w/ one out are virtually equal in terms of expected runs. I'm not defending it, but just sayin'.

But expected runs aren't the same as likelihood of scoring (at least) one run. Torre's comments seemed to imply that he knew a sacrifice would reduce the chances of a big inning, but would increase the chance of the Dodgers scoring at least one. I'm not sure I believe that it's true in this particular case (if it's ever true), but it's a different argument at least.

You know what's cool, though? That a young power hitter was told to bunt by his manager, and a mainstream paper is reporting it like it's a story. I mean... we've come a long way, haven't we?

Not all players need to know how to bunt, but with Kemp's speed, he should.

He's been praised for his raw power since he's been in the system.

But I agree, it would be desirable if he could lay down the occasional bunt for a hit - just to mess with the minds of the defensive players. Just making the third baseman play a few steps in should be worth a few extra extra base hits a year.

But expected runs aren't the same as likelihood of scoring (at least) one run. Torre's comments seemed to imply that he knew a sacrifice would reduce the chances of a big inning, but would increase the chance of the Dodgers scoring at least one. I'm not sure I believe that it's true in this particular case (if it's ever true), but it's a different argument at least.

Well, Torre also seemed to be hoping that the bunt would lead to a base hit, which suggests the defense was playing back. If so, then I think it's certainly a defensible move, particularly since he didn't keep the bunt on after strike one.

At least Torre was smart enough to call off the bunt after the first strike. Most managers would have left it on in order to teach the young punk a lesson.

Well, as I said earlier - it depends on whether the Dodgers' hitting coach (Mike Easler) has been working with him on his bunting. If they haven't been - well, it's stupid to even waste a strike in that situation. If they have, and Kemp hasn't picked it up (and Kemp has a rep for not being the best at picking up knowledge from his coaches) then it's Kemp's fault. I certainly would like Kemp to have as many skills as possible, even if some should be rarely used.

I mean... we've come a long way, haven't we?

A few years back, Torre's move would have been universally condemned here. That there's no longer as big a divide between MSM and this sphere is definitely a good thing in both directions.

Well, as I said earlier - it depends on whether the Dodgers' hitting coach (Mike Easler) has been working with him on his bunting. If they haven't been - well, it's stupid to even waste a strike in that situation. If they have, and Kemp hasn't picked it up (and Kemp has a rep for not being the best at picking up knowledge from his coaches) then it's Kemp's fault.

Or, y'know, they've been working with him, he's been listening, he's an OK bunter and he just missed one. I assume some huge percentage of bunt attempts don't result in fair bunts (much less successful ones).

How often do bunts get removed from decent bunters after one missed bunt? Not snark, a legitimate question. My impression is that bunt signs normally get removed after two strikes, not one.

I suspect that for whatever reason, Torre decided that Kemp looked bad enough on the first bunt attempt to not ask for a second one.

Now, I would agree that it makes sense to remove the bunt sign after one strike - I just doubt that it is the normal case.

But expected runs aren't the same as likelihood of scoring (at least) one run. Torre's comments seemed to imply that he knew a sacrifice would reduce the chances of a big inning, but would increase the chance of the Dodgers scoring at least one. I'm not sure I believe that it's true in this particular case (if it's ever true), but it's a different argument at least.

Well, let's look at Tango's RE chart.

1st & 2nd with no outs, RE of 1.498, 0.224 chance of scoring one run.

2nd & 34d with one out, RE of 1.399, 0.273 chance of scoring one run.

So, yeah, you (slightly) increase your odds of scoring one run. That early in the game, I don't see how that's worth it.

How often do bunts get removed from decent bunters after one missed bunt? Not snark, a legitimate question. My impression is that bunt signs normally get removed after two strikes, not one.

Depends on if he was showing bunt or not. If he was showing bunt, it sounds odd. If he tried to catch the defense off-guard, then it's pretty common; now the defense knows you're trying to bunt and the surprise element is off. The way the article describes it, it doesn't sound like they were trying for a straight sacrifice.

I dunno. You might well be right. But most guys asked to bunt aren't as good a hitter as Kemp. You certainly see it called off after one decent attempt often enough that, not having seen it, I draw no conclusion. And maybe the 3B moved in after the first attempt. And as I noted, he does have one earlier this year.

By the way, wasn't trying to snark on you. Just that failed bunt attempts happen all the time.

MGL says (in "The Book"):

With a runner on first or first and second, and no outs, .... Early in the game, if the infield is expecting a bunt, only the weakest hitters should bunt; if the infield is not expecting a bunt, any batter can bunt. The speed and bunting proficiency of the batter should be considered. Slow/poor bunters should rarely bunt and fast/good bunters can bunt more often.

He also notes that all else being equal, a batter more likely to GIDP should bunt more often. Of course, usually a batter is more likely to GIDP because he is a slow runner, so all else is not equal. But in the case of Kemp, that is an argument in favor of bunting.

Bottom line, I agree with akrasian that it all depends on whether Kemp has been working on the bunt in practice. (Assuming that the infield was playing back.) And once the infield moves in, taking off the bunt sign is clearly the right move.

Yeah, I don't get the big deal here. It's a reasonable play. For me, it's too early in the game to play for one run, but I can see the strategy. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

What, we're limited to music made after we were born now? That's really gonna #### up my music collection.
Roll over Beethoven, tell Tchaikovsky the news. You too, Berry. Lennon, McCartney, Coltrane and Davis, Armstrong and Bechet, heck, Glass, Reich and Reilly, outta here.

Honestly, the way the Indians and Dodgers hit this weekend, a two-run lead was looking mighty insurmountable.

Honestly, the way the Indians and Dodgers hit this weekend, a two-run lead was looking mighty insurmountable.

CC was the best hitter for the Indians. Dude hit a bomb on saturday.

By the way, wasn't trying to snark on you. Just that failed bunt attempts happen all the time.

Right. I think the bigger story here is that neither Torre or his coaches hung Kemp out to dry for failing to execute, or made it seem like a moral failing. On some other teams, the opposite would have happened. Is Kemp considered a villain anymore by the veteran-loving LA press?

So, yeah, you (slightly) increase your odds of scoring one run.

And you decrease your total run expectancy by 0.1, which doesn't seem like a big deal. Plus, the RE chart doesn't account for such things as where the Cleveland third baseman was playing, how likely Kemp was to get a hit off this particular pitcher, who was coming up later in the inning for the Dodgers...

When you're reduced to talking about less than a quarter of a run, I think there are other factors that just swamp anything in the run expectancy chart.

When you're reduced to talking about less than a quarter of a run, I think there are other factors that just swamp anything in the run expectancy chart.

Oh sure. Two relevant factors though were that Kemp has little bunting experience and had been hot for a couple of days before hand. Both seeming to favor letting him swing away.

I'm not saying that it was the worst decision ever - especially since it was given up after one failed bunt - but the only real argument I can think of in favor of it is a game theory one - that defenses should have to fear the bunt at any time, to affect positioning. From what I've seen of Torre's managing, I doubt that this was the reason though, although I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise.