I wandered in here expecting anything but baseball talk. My first guess was going to be the Nobel Peace "Prize". I guess that's what I get for assuming things.

Back to Jay Bell, I remember his bunt totals as the #2 hitter for the Pirates, he had 39 sacs in 1990 and 30 the next (the second year, he also hit 16 homers). Retrosheet, for 1990-1994, has 123 bunts by Bell. He was safe on 14 through singles, fielders choice, or error. That should be enough, combined with the benefit of forcing the 3B to play in, to make it a reasonable play, though Leyland seems to have overdone it. I say that because that many bunts for a #2 hitter is an outlier, nobody has done so many since. 53 of those bunt attempts came in the first inning.

And I thought Don Baylor was bad when Ricky G had 16 and 17 in 2000/2001. I am pretty sure the Baylor cubs led the league in position player sac bunts each of his years at the helm.

Essentially, yes, Ray, everyone but pitchers is expected to bust it down the line on a sac. Even when it is clear - they may cut their speed once they see it fielded, but everyone tries to place it where teh sac is effective and it maximizes their chance for a hit (while "assuring" teh sac).

So, I came across a thread I posted back in May, 25 Athletes Who Went Broke. Someone linked something that had a link, and then I found this. I don't remember it being posted back early in the thread, but that was 4 weeks ago. (!) Take the 60 Minutes piece and multiply:

The World According to Lenny - Dykstra's Auto-biopic

"Oh, and who lost that fight? It wasn't Lenny." - From the piece about his fight with Dempsey at home plate. What place the story has in anything, I have no idea.

Ohmigod ohmigod ohmigod. The end of that is the greatest, most satisfying schadenfreude I think I have ever experienced:

Narrator: And for those who still doubt him, who question where 'The World According to Lenny' is going, simply put -
Dykstra: #### them. (mumbles) We'll see who's laughing. Yeah...when you want a loan, ############.

You missed this one:

There will be a day where players won't have to sell rings or beg coaches for jobs...

Oooh....

The World According to Lenny - Dykstra's Auto-biopic

What I found interesting is the whole instigation for Lenny learning investments was that some broker lost his nest egg. He gave the broker $2 million which he turned into $400k.

Lenny made over $36 million in his career. That is sad that he only had that much.

Look at the way he spent once he actually knew a little more about money. I'm surprised he had $2 million left (though, nothing said that was all he had.)

I take it Jackie Robinson killed Lenny Dykstra, threadwise.

3835. The Most Interesting Annoying Man Thread-Recaller In The World Posted: October 17, 2009 at 07:57 PM (#3355379)

I take it Jackie Robinson killed Lenny Dykstra, threadwise.

You could have done all of us a favor by actually posting this in the Jackie Robinson thread.

Just An Update for anyone still following the case

So let me get this straight--the Lenny Dykstra thread has morphed into a Lenny Dykstra thread?! How the heck did that happen? Jim and Dan are not going to be happy about this....

I still think that Ray is as stubborn as the old school guys he rails against. It's like he is stuck in a USENET 1999 mentality. And you can take that to the bank! You guys can complain about other parts of his worldview. I'll complain about how he views baseball.

I mentioned this in the Robinson thread, but I'm not sure if he saw it. I'm not sure if he even knows I exist. I'm not a noted longerthreader like most of the folks he converses or argues with are.

You're wrong, GGC.

I stand by what I say, Chief. You have to bunt every once in a while in less than optimal situations to keep the opposition on its toes. Too, if there's no such thing as a closer's make up, then ####### explain LaTroy Hawkins, Ray. Sure, some folks might overstate it, but it does exist.

Too, if there's no such thing as a closer's make up, then ####### explain LaTroy Hawkins, Ray.

In Toronto, Mike Timlin still has the reputation as a guy who just didn't have that closer mentality. I don't know whether or not it's true, but I do know that I hated that stretch when Timlin was the primary closer.

So let me get this straight--the Lenny Dykstra thread has morphed into a Lenny Dykstra thread?! How the heck did that happen? Jim and Dan are not going to be happy about this....

I disagree, it is a underhanded attempt to catch up to the NBA thread.

I still think that Ray is as stubborn as the old school guys he rails against. It's like he is stuck in a USENET 1999 mentality. And you can take that to the bank! You guys can complain about other parts of his worldview. I'll complain about how he views baseball.

I simply don't think squaring around for a straight sacrifice in the second inning is a rational move. If the hitter is a good bunter and is trying to bunt for a hit, that's fine. I got into this thinking "Man on first, nobody out, second inning, Derek Jeter squares around to give himself up." It later turned into something else, but that's what I was arguing.

As for late 1999 usenet mentality, if you've followed my comments on pitch counts, I've gone the other way. I argued in 1999 that pitchers were being abused. A decade later, after witnessing a sea change in the way teams handle their starters -- particularly young ones -- and after noting that this doesn't seem to have reduced injuries, I've stopped beating that drum. I don't think we know much of anything about what kind of workload (in game or in season) results in more injuries. Except perhaps at the extremes. That's what makes the Yankees' treatment of Chamberlain down the stretch this year asinine. (Unless they have internal studies that suggest otherwise, which I doubt.)

I mentioned this in the Robinson thread, but I'm not sure if he saw it. I'm not sure if he even knows I exist. I'm not a noted longerthreader like most of the folks he converses or argues with are.

I saw it, though I'm not sure now what there was for me to respond to. That LaTroy Hawkins doesn't have the mental makeup to close? No, I don't believe that.