Game one (over) reactions.

[Willihammer]

Well yeah, it was scored a sacrifice because Dozier failed to beat it out lol.

[Willihammer]

Here's the Miller article

http://www.startribune.com/postgame-santana-was-inserted-for-speed-but-not-to-steal/374848141/

[DaveW]

The fact that no where did anyone write that it was "Dozier bunting for a hit" it's pretty safe to assume that it was a sacrifice bunt plain and simple called from the bench, go look at the bunt and play again, Buxton new the bunt play was on, and Dozier laid down the safe/effective sacrifice bunt.

[nicksaviking]

I didn't get to see the play, but if the infielders were positioned where a bunt hit was a reasonable expectation, I'm not entirely bothered.

 

Pinch running for Dozier is a bigger issue for me. The ultimate outcome for Dozier and Santana on 1st is probably the same 95% of the time, probably even higher. Meanwhile, if they do happen to score the game is merely tied, meaning a high likelihood of extra innings, in which case, obviously you'd rather have Dozier's bat than Santana's. They have to stop this pinch running for a guy on 1st nonsense if the guy getting removed is a vastly superior hitter.

 

Also, whoever was on first should have stolen 2B. With a guy on 3B there's a good chance there would have been no throw, and then you can at least let them contemplate the idea of not giving Joe Mauer anything to hit and getting Sano to the plate.

 

Though honestly, if we allow the players any early-season slack for being rusty, and I do, we should probably do the same for the manager.

[Willihammer]

I suppose I can't prove it was anything but a sacrifice but let me ask you hypothetically, if dozier fouls off the first bunt attempt, do you think he'd square around again on the next pitch after the cat is out of the bag?

[USAFChief]

I watched the game.

 

Until either Dozier or Molitor specifically says "it was a straight sacrifice," my opinion won't change just because an official scorer might have given him credit for a sacrifice.

 

It was a bunt for a hit.  Perhaps he bunted for a hit with the idea that at worst, it advances a runner.

 

 

[SwainZag]

 

The fact that no where did anyone write that it was "Dozier bunting for a hit" it's pretty safe to assume that it was a sacrifice bunt plain and simple called from the bench, go look at the bunt and play again, Buxton new the bunt play was on, and Dozier laid down the safe/effective sacrifice bunt.

 

After watching it about 5 times right now, I am going to say he was bunting for a hit.  He squared extremely late and the 3B was playing back by the bag, Dozier just bunted it too hard.  It looks like Buxton took off when he squared because Machado charged and there was no one even in the vicinity of third base.

[Mike Sixel]

 

After watching it about 5 times right now, I am going to say he was bunting for a hit.  He squared extremely late and the 3B was playing back by the bag, Dozier just bunted it too hard.  It looks like Buxton took off when he squared because Machado charged and there was no one even in the vicinity of third base.

 

Maybe next time he should square, Buxton should straight up steal 3rd, and Dozier should pull his bat back so he can hit with a man on third?

 

Maybe this is all part of "hit sequencing" setting things up for later in the year.

[DaveW]

 

I watched the game.

 

Until either Dozier or Molitor specifically says "it was a straight sacrifice," my opinion won't change just because an official scorer might have given him credit for a sacrifice.

 

It was a bunt for a hit.  Perhaps he bunted for a hit with the idea that at worst, it advances a runner.

Well clearly there are several people who saw it as a straight sacrifice as well, until I read "He was bunting for a hit" my opinion won't change because someone thought he was bunting for a hit.

 

It was a sacrifice, Buxton knew it was coming as well, just look at how he reacted.

[DaveW]

 

 

 

Also, whoever was on first should have stolen 2B. With a guy on 3B there's a good chance there would have been no throw, and then you can at least let them contemplate the idea of not giving Joe Mauer anything to hit and getting Sano to the plate.

 

 

The guy on 3rd has no effect on that outcome of the game at that point, they most certainly would throw down to 2nd base to try to get the last out. The guy scoring from third in that scenario only effects the pitchers ERA.

 

However, yeah I agree PR Santana for Dozier essentially seemed like a wash.

[SwainZag]

 

Maybe next time he should square, Buxton should straight up steal 3rd, and Dozier should pull his bat back so he can hit with a man on third?

 

Maybe this is all part of "hit sequencing" setting things up for later in the year.

 

In that situation it would have probably worked fine if he would have pulled back, the camera angle isn't great to see if he just had a giant lead and waited to take off on contact or not. Normally on a sacrifice, the batter squares before the pitch has been thrown and the defense reacts accordingly.  Dozier didn't square until the ball was leaving his hands, hence the minor confusion and 3rd base being open.  The way he put the bat on the ball and was already moving out of the box makes me look at it like a bunt for a hit, but who knows.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Perhaps he bunted for a hit with the idea that at worst, it advances a runner.

And that "idea" is a bad one, and one that is ultimately up to the manager to squash.  Particularly when it comes with our fastest baserunner in scoring position and one of our better hitters at the plate.

[USAFChief]

 

And that "idea" is a bad one, and one that is ultimately up to the manager to squash.  Particularly when it comes with our fastest baserunner in scoring position and one of our better hitters at the plate.

I disagree with the idea that bunting for a hit occasionally is a bad idea.  (Except with 2 out, which is almost always a bad idea.)

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I disagree with the idea that bunting for a hit occasionally is a bad idea.  (Except with 2 out, which is almost always a bad idea.)

Yeah. If Dozier does this five times and fails to execute all five opportunities, then I'll complain about it.

 

But once? Nah, not so much. If he gets on base, he looks like a genius.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I disagree with the idea that bunting for a hit occasionally is a bad idea.  (Except with 2 out, which is almost always a bad idea.)

I was responding to your post where you said: "the idea that at worst, it advances a runner"

 

THAT is the idea.  Quit saying that I oppose bunting for a hit, it was my bread and butter play in little league.  (Although mine were "swinging" bunts, if you will. )

[Otto von Ballpark]

If Dozier wants the right to calculate his odds of a bunt hit and go for it, fine.

 

But like Chief, I suspect part of Dozier's calculation was advancing the runner as a worst case scenario, which is a bad calculation that he probably shouldn't be making on the fly.  It was the first pitch, Machado wasn't playing far back (he was on the infield grass already when they cut to the wide camera shot) and he's a great defensive third baseman.  And Gallardo made the play, I don't know about his defensive chops but he looked great here.  Is Dozier even a good bunter?  Bremer said it was a beautiful bunt, but Dozier was pretty easily out at first.

 

And as I previously mentioned, Buxton didn't need that kind of help to advance to third base.

 

Oh, and Buxton had just lined a double to left.

 

Oh, and with Sano due up 2 batters later, a Dozier out guaranteed that there would be an open base to put Sano regardless of what Mauer did.

 

Seriously, a bad time to try getting a sneak bunt hit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If Dozier wants the right to calculate his odds of a bunt hit and go for it, fine.

 

But like Chief, I suspect part of Dozier's calculation was advancing the runner as a worst case scenario, which is a bad calculation that he probably shouldn't be making on the fly.

Agreed and agreed.

 

If he's thinking "I can get on base", I'm down with that.

 

If he's thinking "I probably won't get on base but I'll advance Buxton", I'm not down with that.

[nicksaviking]

 

Maybe next time he should square, Buxton should straight up steal 3rd, and Dozier should pull his bat back so he can hit with a man on third?

 

Maybe this is all part of "hit sequencing" setting things up for later in the year.

 

Right, I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but this team shouldn't be sacrificing outs for capable speedsters who should be able to advance all on their own.

 

If Buxton, Santana or Dozier aren't able to steal a base with a good chance of success, that absolutely needs to be one of the first things this team has to fix, and really, it should have been fixed this spring.

 

 

[DaveW]

Agreed and agreed.

 

If he's thinking "I can get on base", I'm down with that.

 

If he's thinking "I probably won't get on base but I'll advance Buxton", I'm not down with that.

Dozier is/should be a .800 ops guy for us at minimum, therefore when he is "bunting" for a hit, he needs to be successful at that at least 40% of the time to make it worthwhile. .400/.400/.400

 

Whether it was Molly's call or Doziers call, the 3rd inning of a game is not the time to be having a 30 HR type guy laying down a bunt. (Unless there is some super wacky insane shift on where the odds of getting on base are very high)

[Brock Beauchamp]

Dozier is/should be a .800 ops guy for us at minimum, therefore when he is "bunting" for a hit, he needs to be successful at that at least 40% of the time to make it worthwhile. .400/.400/.400

 

Whether it was Molly's call or Doziers call, the 3rd inning of a game is not the time to be having a 30 HR type guy laying down a bunt. (Unless there is some super wacky insane shift on where the odds of getting on base are very high)

I view a bunt hit as forcing defenses to stay honest. Maybe that helps Dozier when he's not bunting but I admit that's conjecture on my part.