Can we discuss Molitor and his bizarre obession with bunting?

[DaveW]

Hunter is sitting on the bench, down two runs, no outs, two guys on and yet again Molitor decides "hell what a great time to bunt"

 

Whether it's the 2nd inning or 9th, Molitor seems to be obssesed with trying to play 1980's small ball by giving away important outs.

 

Can Molitor change? Or are we doomed with this crap for the next 8-10 years?

[Intramural Legend]

Agree. Was hoping Molitor would be different. He's not.

[Seth Stohs]

I don't like bunting, but it totally made sense in that situation. On the road, you play for the tie and keep the game going. I have zero problem with it in that case.

[DaveW]

I don't like bunting, but it totally made sense in that situation. On the road, you play for the tie and keep the game going. I have zero problem with it in that case.

it actually didn't make sense at all. By every statistical measure and the fact you had Hunter on the bench. The only time it's not a terrible decision is if it's tied at the time.

 

It has nothing to do with home/road, that is an old and outdated football (college football) strategy that doesn't make sense anyways.

 

You have two runners on, hunter on the bench, no outs, a shaky as hell bullpen, and the top of the order up next, you try to get as many freaking runs you possibly can. Your don't give away free outs.

[DaveW]

Gardy won a division title in his first season and won another 5. Molitor has a long ways to go before anyone can say molitor = gardy.

 

It may have been time for a change after 10+ years of Gardy, but hell, he had a really nice run. I have next to zero faith in Molitor at this point that he will be able to pull anything close to that off.

[twinsnorth49]

No outs and facing a pitcher who had just given up two sharply hit singles, and nobody warming, why give up an out?

 

Also, a left handed bat in Robinson's place would have been nice, but I digress.

[DaveW]

No outs and facing a pitcher who had just given up two sharply hit singles, and nobody warming, why give up an out?

 

Also, a left handed bat in Robinson's place would have been nice, but I digress.

Any bat in Robinsons place would have been nice

[Kwak]

The bunt was awful and indefensible.  I still support the selection of Molitor as manager--but the bunt is anti-percentage.  A one-run inning is useless, two doesn't even take the lead.  In short, as the visiting team in the 9th inning, it is unknown how many  runs will be needed to win--the home team gets its turn to bat.  Worse, Toronto is known to be a high-scoring team (especially at home).  Even a one-run lead is "on very thin ice".  Worse, "The Hawk" has been known to implode--in fact it was almost 14 years ago to the day, that Hawkins blew a three-run lead in the 9th--with two outs and the bases empty!  Sorry, I can't excuse this decision it was awful.

 

ETA:  ...and Hunter was on-the-bench--PINCH HIT!!   

[twinsnorth49]

Any bat in Robinsons place would have been nice

But especially one that can hit righty pitches where nobody can catch them.

[mickeymental]

 

I think we have beaten that topic to death. The left hand bat we all reference is on double secret probation and the naughty principles list.

he's also two for his last 27 in double a.

[nicksaviking]

Hunter vs Hawkins would have been some pretty awesome drama. In 2003.

[DaveW]

But especially one that can hit righty pitches where nobody can catch them.

i hear ya 100% re: Arcia, but that hopefully isn't Molitors call. What is his call is letting Hunter not PH.

 

Speaking of which, if you weren't gonna PH for Robinson, why didn't you PH for Fryer with Hunter instead of Nunez. I know Nunez got a single and all...but I have to think Hunter would have had better odds not only to hit a single, but perhaps a double or HR as well....

[USAFChief]

Whether you bunt, or don't bunt, you realistically need one more hit that inning.

 

Bunting gives you two shots at it instead of three.

 

I prefer three.

[DaveW]

he's also two for his last 27 in double a.

and Shane Robinson he a career .611 OPS....

[mickeymental]

 

and Shane Robinson he a career .611 OPS....

... says the guy who wants hunter's pinch hit to win the game a few days after saying "hunter is worthless, time to put his old ass on waivers ..."‏

[DaveW]

... says the guy who wants hunter's pinch hit to win the game a few days after saying "hunter is worthless, time to put his old ass on waivers ..."‏

I'm not saying he should PH for dozier, I'm saying he should PH for Robinson who really has no business being on this roster in the first place.

 

And yes, hunter should be put through waivers, along with pretty much every player not named Dozier, Gibson, Rosario, Hicks and Sano at this point. It's August and the Twins are sliding, might as see if you can strike a deal. You can always pull anyone back if you don't get a good offer.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 

I'm not saying he should PH for dozier, I'm saying he should PH for Robinson who really has no business being on this roster in the first place.

And yes, hunter should be put through waivers, along with pretty much every player not named Dozier, Gibson, Rosario, Hicks and Sano at this point. It's August and the Twins are sliding, might as see if you can strike a deal. You can always pull anyone back if you don't get a good offer.

 

 

I put all the veterans on waivers, even Dozier. You never know what he could bring in return, and there is actually a viable replacement at his position. Not saying I want him traded, but it is not like he is a franchise player or all that young. You have to see what he could get, and just maybe we sell high and win a trade again.

[Seth Stohs]

 

... and having a pet player list and a player banished list.

 

Who are these guys?

[gil4]

 

Whether you bunt, or don't bunt, you realistically need one more hit that inning.

Bunting gives you two shots at it instead of three.

I prefer three.

No bunt means you need two hits or an extra-base hit. 

[twinsnorth49]

 

i hear ya 100% re: Arcia, but that hopefully isn't Molitors call. What is his call is letting Hunter not PH.

Speaking of which, if you weren't gonna PH for Robinson, why didn't you PH for Fryer with Hunter instead of Nunez. I know Nunez got a single and all...but I have to think Hunter would have had better odds not only to hit a single, but perhaps a double or HR as well....

I was surprised when I saw Nuno, I fully expected to see Hunter and should have by almost any measure.

[Seth Stohs]

 

To soon to know for Molitor but some day it will become apparent because just about all coaches do this.

 

I don't know about Molitor but Gardy had Nick Punto, Michael Cuddeyer and Chris Parmalee to name a few as his guys. He called Collabello a mudder and not as a compliment. No I am not arguing that the Twins should have kept Collabello.

 

There was a comparison of Molitor and Gardy and then this was brought up... and now it's not something that is the same.

[USAFChief]

No bunt means you need two hits or an extra-base hit.

 

Actually, no.

 

An extra base hit works, obviously.

 

A single gives you 1st and second, no outs, or 1st and third, no outs. Now you have the tying run at second, or third, and can tie the game without another hit.

 

Either of those is preferable to 2nd and third, one out, when you STILL need a hit to tie the game, but can no longer afford the out.

 

By giving up the one out you had to play with--intentionally---before you get the hit you needed either way, you reduce your chances, IMO.

 

Like I said, you need another hit...why waste one of three chances on purpose?

[DaveW]

Who are these guys?

Wasn't my argument but off the top of my head:

Santana, Boyer, Duensing, Pelfrey.

 

Santana was given playing time over everyone else because of Molitors fondness for him ( I am a Santana fan actually)

 

Duensing is getting out in spots where ORouke should.

 

May on the other hand is clearly "not one of his guys", he banished him from the rotation and uses him poorly in the pen, often in low leverage spots.

[USAFChief]

I don't like bunting, but it totally made sense in that situation. On the road, you play for the tie and keep the game going. I have zero problem with it in that case.

I don't agree with it, but isn't conventional wisdom to play for the tie at HOME, and to win on the road?

[DaveW]

I don't agree with it, but isn't conventional wisdom to play for the tie at HOME, and to win on the road?

again, that is football, and stupid anyways.

 

 

"You play to win the game!"

[gil4]

 

...and having a pet player list and a player banished list.

 

 

Who are these guys?

 

Danny Santana is on both lists.  Vargas and Arcia are on the banished list (and probably deserve it).  Suzuki and Duensing are on the pet list. 

It's hard to tell where Molitor's list ends and Ryan's starts, and I really don't have major complaints about the roster handling this year.  There were a couple of times I thought they were slow to pull the plug, but I think this is about the year we expected.

[Seth Stohs]

They needed to score two runs before worrying about scoring a third.

[Jham]

 

They needed to score two runs before worrying about scoring a third.

 

I like our chances with Hunter, Hicks, and Dozier with 2 on and no outs better than Robinson, Hicks, and Dozier with Robinson being counted on to get a bunt down (which he did), but that was far from a guarantee.  Hunter probably should have pinch hit for lefty Hicks as well.  Hicks has been better of late from the left side, but I like Hunter's experience in that spot.

[gil4]

 

 

Actually, no.

An extra base hit works, obviously.

A single gives you 1st and second, no outs, or 1st and third, no outs. Now you have the tying run at second, or third, and can tie the game without another hit.

Either of those is preferable to 2nd and third, one out, when you STILL need a hit to tie the game, but can no longer afford the out.

By giving up the one out you had to play with--intentionally---before you get the hit you needed either way, you reduce your chances, IMO.

Like I said, you need another hit...why waste one of three chances on purpose?

OK, I can see that.  You still have to get that hit in the first two tries or you are depending on a wild pitch or another hit, plus you leave the double play on the table, so you might use up two of your three chances on one swing.  I'm not sure I can calculate the percentages, but there can't be much to choose from either way.

[twinsnorth49]

They decreased their odds of scoring any amount of runs by giving up an out. Just put the ball in play, the runners still likely move over and maybe, just maybe you actually get a hit......crazy I know.