Dusty Can’t Get Out of His Own Way, So Someone Gets In His Own Way to Get Dusty Out of His Way
It’s no secret how we feel about Dusty Baker around these parts. His tactical incompetence knows no bounds, and Wednesday was more proof.
Here’s the situation. The Reds are down two runs in the ninth inning against Arizona and they get their first two runners on. Edwin Encarnacion, a fine young hitter with decent pop, strides to the plate. Let’s keep in mind three things here: the Reds need two runs, Encarnacion has never laid down a successful sacrifice in his major league career and, according to Baseball Prospectus’ 2007 run expectancy matrix, teams scored an average of 1.51 runs with runners on first and second and no outs and they scored 1.44 runs with runners on second and third and one out. In short, there’s no goddamned reason in the entire world to bunt.
So what does Dusty call for? Naturally, a bunt. Hilarity ensued from there. Encarnacion got two strikes on him without laying down a successful bunt (shock), so he’s allowed to swing and he promptly deposits the game-winning homer into the left field stands. Way to go Dusty! You did it! You did your best to lose and the fates wouldn’t let you!
Unfortunately, as FanHaus’ Will Brinson points out “it does matter how you ‘win ‘em’, because if you’re not being smart in your attempt to win, or giving yourself the best possible competitive advantage, you will win less.” And that folks is how Dusty Baker is going to spoil the most promising Reds team of the decade. Tune in only if you want to see lots of Corey Patterson, Scott Hatteberg and Adam Dunn batting seventh.
I don’t know about you, but I’d take the bunt over the HR any day of the week. Dusty Baker is a genius.
Even though the average run expectancies are pretty close (1.51 to 1.44) the likelihood of scoring two or more runs would go way, way down after a sacrifice bunt. The likelihood of scoring exactly one run would go up, which is why the averages are pretty similar. It’s actually much dumber than the averages would imply.