Disclaimer first: I was raised on American League baseball. I like the DH. I like to see players swing the bat. I like to see balls scream through the infield or over an outfielder's head. I love to hit.
My daughter is on the jr. high team this year. I get to go to a double header on Sunday. The coach calls for bunts no less than 15 times per game. In 6 plate appearances, my daughter got the bunt sign 4 times. It doesn't seem to matter what the situation is. Runners can be on any base, or completely absent from the bases and he calls for a bunt. Runners on 2nd and 3rd with #4 batter up...bunt. Previous 2 batters drill the ball to the outfield? time for a bunt.
I'm in the stands biting my tongue...I know different coaches have different styles. And I don't have any problem with the strategic bunt. Slow runner on 1st that needs to get into scoring position; I'm good with that. Close game with a good runner on 3rd? Sure. I'm not anti-bunt, I just prefer to use it for specific purposes rather than as the meat and potatoes of the offense.
Mid-way through the game, the score-keeper leans back to me and asks: "does this make sense to you? Why is he bunting the #4 batter with runners in scoring position?" "I don't know," I reply. "Maybe it is just early in the year and he is trying to find out who can lay the bunt down with consistency." Dad behind me leans forward: "nope...it was like this all last year."
My daughter has hit over .500 in each of the past 3 years. In regular season, she has struck out a total of 4 times in the same time frame. This year, she has 1 hit in 3 games (a bunt) and 2 strike outs. Her confidence is in the crapper. She gets the bunts down and almost beats the throw (which is why I think she keeps getting the bunt sign...if she were out by a country mile, then the coach may not keep having her bunt) but in the end there is an out at first, and daughter gets more frustrated.
We are going to start going to the cage after school and work on changing her hitting philosophy. I've always taught her to be patient at the plate...when there are no strikes, you look for that pitch that is in her zone...if ump calls a low or high ball a strike, that is fine; she has 2 more pitches to drive. But now, (coach usually waits until the 2nd pitch to put the bunt on) she has 1 pitch to drive. She'll need to expand her zone if she wants to swing the bat because otherwise there is a good chance she'll be told to bunt.
So, since this is in the coaching part of the forum, someone please explain to me why the bunt should replace hitting as the dominant offensive philosophy. What is the benefit of playing for 1 run when you are in 'big inning' situations? I see this kind of thinking in many teams. Is there a justifiable reason for this, or is it just coaches trying to micro-manage to show that they can sneak in runs?
My daughter is on the jr. high team this year. I get to go to a double header on Sunday. The coach calls for bunts no less than 15 times per game. In 6 plate appearances, my daughter got the bunt sign 4 times. It doesn't seem to matter what the situation is. Runners can be on any base, or completely absent from the bases and he calls for a bunt. Runners on 2nd and 3rd with #4 batter up...bunt. Previous 2 batters drill the ball to the outfield? time for a bunt.
I'm in the stands biting my tongue...I know different coaches have different styles. And I don't have any problem with the strategic bunt. Slow runner on 1st that needs to get into scoring position; I'm good with that. Close game with a good runner on 3rd? Sure. I'm not anti-bunt, I just prefer to use it for specific purposes rather than as the meat and potatoes of the offense.
Mid-way through the game, the score-keeper leans back to me and asks: "does this make sense to you? Why is he bunting the #4 batter with runners in scoring position?" "I don't know," I reply. "Maybe it is just early in the year and he is trying to find out who can lay the bunt down with consistency." Dad behind me leans forward: "nope...it was like this all last year."
My daughter has hit over .500 in each of the past 3 years. In regular season, she has struck out a total of 4 times in the same time frame. This year, she has 1 hit in 3 games (a bunt) and 2 strike outs. Her confidence is in the crapper. She gets the bunts down and almost beats the throw (which is why I think she keeps getting the bunt sign...if she were out by a country mile, then the coach may not keep having her bunt) but in the end there is an out at first, and daughter gets more frustrated.
We are going to start going to the cage after school and work on changing her hitting philosophy. I've always taught her to be patient at the plate...when there are no strikes, you look for that pitch that is in her zone...if ump calls a low or high ball a strike, that is fine; she has 2 more pitches to drive. But now, (coach usually waits until the 2nd pitch to put the bunt on) she has 1 pitch to drive. She'll need to expand her zone if she wants to swing the bat because otherwise there is a good chance she'll be told to bunt.
So, since this is in the coaching part of the forum, someone please explain to me why the bunt should replace hitting as the dominant offensive philosophy. What is the benefit of playing for 1 run when you are in 'big inning' situations? I see this kind of thinking in many teams. Is there a justifiable reason for this, or is it just coaches trying to micro-manage to show that they can sneak in runs?