Logan Morrison: Bad or Just Bad Luck?

Oh, same here. It looks like he’s pressing for sure. But it could be six of one, half dozen of the other. He’s struggling in the cold but also pressing to live up to expectations. It’s so early and there are likely multiple factors in play.

I don’t think he’ll be as good as last season but it’s way too early to predict where he will land.

Me neither, I thought when they signed him they were paying for Vargas-esque production with a little more offensive upside, although they also gave up the option to truly platoon at 1B. Agreed, it's too early to say we have a solid idea about how any of these guys end up. 

So it should be on Molitor to tell him it's not an option. Or on the front office to tell Molitor that it's not an option.

I hope the front office isn't jumping in and telling players how to approach an at bat.

It’s really not that hard. Every player in the big leagues has been playing baseball for years, if not decades. They’ve all had years and years of BP, and laid down bunts as part of that BP. It doesn’t have to be a good bunt.

 

What’s hard is squaring up a pitch.

Just because they do it professionally doesn't mean it's not hard. I'd imagine it's pretty difficult, even for the pros, to bunt a ball traveling 95 with movement. Not that they shouldn't try, or that we shouldn't expect them to be able. Saying it isn't hard minimizes the level of play it requires to be a big leaguer.

Just because they do it professionally doesn't mean it's not hard. I'd imagine it's pretty difficult, even for the pros, to bunt a ball traveling 95 with movement. Not that they shouldn't try, or that we shouldn't expect them to be able. Saying it isn't hard minimizes the level of play it requires to be a big leaguer.

Exactly. I've said that many times, but you'll never win that argument.  And it gets even harder to bunt it to the 3B side if the lefty is being pitched inside (especially offspeed pitches).  

We can argue the difficulty ... but I'll disagree with you. They're all used to seeing 95. It's more difficult to bunt for a hit against a normal defense, I agree. You not only have to bunt, you have to bunt into a good spot. But none of that applies here. It can be bunted hard, soft, it doesn't matter. It can be a popup, line drive. It doesn't matter.

 

In any case, What ISN'T arguable is that bunting a ball poorly to the left side is orders of magnitude easier than hitting a line drive. Why do you think teams have their pitchers bunt whenever there's a runner on with less than 2 out? They do so because it's easier than hitting.

 

Those same pitches that are so tough to bunt are the same ones he's trying to hit.

 

And we already have studies done that show a fair bunt against a shift has a better than .500 chance of being a hit.

 

He should bunt. Often. If teams want to play four outfielders, with nobody on the left side of the infield, if he can get one down once in every 3 ABs, the team comes out ahead. What's the worst that can happen? He misses and it's strike one? He bunts foul? Again, strike one. He gets it fair, he's on first.

IMO he'd have to get one down more often than that (1 in 3 is only a .666 OPS, if my math is correct), but otherwise agree totally.

We can argue the difficulty ... but I'll disagree with you. They're all used to seeing 95. It's more difficult to bunt for a hit against a normal defense, I agree. You not only have to bunt, you have to bunt into a good spot. But none of that applies here. It can be bunted hard, soft, it doesn't matter. It can be a popup, line drive. It doesn't matter.

 

In any case, What ISN'T arguable is that bunting a ball poorly to the left side is orders of magnitude easier than hitting a line drive. Why do you think teams have their pitchers bunt whenever there's a runner on with less than 2 out? They do so because it's easier than hitting.

 

Those same pitches that are so tough to bunt are the same ones he's trying to hit.

 

And we already have studies done that show a fair bunt against a shift has a better than .500 chance of being a hit.

 

He should bunt. Often. If teams want to play four outfielders, with nobody on the left side of the infield, if he can get one down once in every 3 ABs, the team comes out ahead. What's the worst that can happen? He misses and it's strike one? He bunts foul? Again, strike one. He gets it fair, he's on first.

I definitely agree that bunting is a lot easier than squaring one up. My point is just that bunting probably wouldn't work as often as we like to think it would.

The excuse of someone not knowing how to bunt is a non-starter for me. If you don't know how to bunt, learn, it's your job. We all have to learn how to do new things in our jobs to stay relevant, so you get no sympathy from me on that front.

And to me the actual success rate of the bunts isn't really that important and misses the point. As I said earlier, the end goal is actually just to get the defense to stop shifting. Even if you're only successful 1/3 times (and I firmly believe that with a little practice, success rates would be much higher than 1/3), I bet that would be enough for opposing teams to stop shifting. Anyway, I'd rather be successful 1/3 times bunting against the shift, than probably 1/5 trying to hit into a shift (I'm completely guessing at that number and have no stat to back it up).

The excuse of someone not knowing how to bunt is a non-starter for me. If you don't know how to bunt, learn, it's your job. We all have to learn how to do new things in our jobs to stay relevant, so you get no sympathy from me on that front.

And to me the actual success rate of the bunts isn't really that important and misses the point. As I said earlier, the end goal is actually just to get the defense to stop shifting. Even if you're only successful 1/3 times (and I firmly believe that with a little practice, success rates would be much higher than 1/3), I bet that would be enough for opposing teams to stop shifting. Anyway, I'd rather be successful 1/3 times bunting against the shift, than probably 1/5 trying to hit into a shift (I'm completely guessing at that number and have no stat to back it up).

No one said anything you're arguing against.

No one said anything you're arguing against.

The last 20 or so posts have all been discussing how players don't bunt because it's hard and they don't know how, and about what the success rate would be...

Worse than Buxton?  Buxton had a hard time just making contact.  After ten games last year Buxton was hitting .081 and had 20 Ks in 37 at bats.

I can't recall a position player ever looking worse than he did those first 10 games last year.  He was downright scary

Sorry, but bunting is only just a quick fix.  If Logan Morrison resorts to bunting every few games then he has been effectively neutralized.   What he needs to do is go against the shift every so often.  Develop an opposite field swing.  It is like he is the exact opposite of Mauer in the way they are shifted.

Are we left to hope that opposing teams have a mental lapse and give Morrison Mauer's shift?  He's going to need to adapt