I hate bunts. And I love bunts.
It's complicated.
I love baseball. I mean, I really love pretty much everything about this game. Most of you understand what I mean. There’s just something special about the sport, something almost undefinable, that wiggles its way into your heart and your brain and won't leave.
Most of us fell in love with baseball as a kid, led to the game by a parent or a grandparent, or an older brother perhaps. And once it has you in its grasp, baseball rarely lets you go.* Whatever that something is, it induces me to watch Ken Burns’ “Baseball” every single spring.
*Where ya gonna go?
I’m going to be honest with you, though; there is one thing that I’ve always hated about baseball. Bunts. I expect the small ball lovers to come out of the woodwork to yell at me, but bunting is almost never the right strategy! Most of the time, it actually hurts your chances of winning a game.
Think about it like this. There is no clock in baseball!* The game goes on as long as it takes to record 27 outs. Each of those outs is a precious commodity. It's a finite resource. Giving away one of those outs for free just so you can move a runner up one base just seems silly and counterproductive to me.
*Well, I guess there is a pitch clock now. But you know what I mean!
Remember: Never bunt. Hit dingers.
But I've changed my mind! I kinda love bunts now. Let me explain.
I wrote about TJ Friedl for this week's column at Cincinnati Magazine. Part of the story was about Friedl's remarkable rise from a college walk-on to hitting .216 as a freshman to the insane story about how the Reds were able to sign him as an undrafted free agent because no one realized he was actually eligible to be drafted. I mean, I really love the TJ Friedl story. How can you not root for a kid like this?
In the column, I also wrote about Friedl's recent comments about how he wants to create chaos' during his at-bats.* A big part of his new role as Cincinnati's chaos agent is his ability to lay down about. And I am here for it. Friedl already has four bunt hits this season. He had five last year; the entire Reds team only had eight total.
*When I typed that word (“chaos”), the word “havoc” entered my mind. Remember 2009, the season when the Reds had a starting rotation that was going to create HAVOC? Harang, Arroyo, Volquez, Owings, Cueto. Dumb stuff like this is another reason I love this stupid game.
What caught my eye was this quote, when talking about his first sacrifice bunt of the season:
“To me, it’s never really a sacrifice,” Friedl said. “I’m always trying to bunt for a hit, even though in that situation it turned out to be a sacrifice. In the worst-case scenario, I wanted it to be a sacrifice bunt. Best-case scenario, we’d have runners on first and third and I’m safe. It helps create a rally. I bunt him to third with one out and they brought the infield in for Fraley. He gets a good pitch to hit and hits a groundball up the middle. That’s just different ways to create runs.”
Listen, I still hate sacrifice bunts with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. I will continue to complain loudly when Reds managers employ this strategy too often or at the wrong time. But bunting for hits? Sure! How many times over the last few seasons, with defenses shifting all over the diamond because the computers told them it was the best option, have you wished that a hitter would just lay down a bunt toward an unoccupied third base?
Obviously, The reason players didn't do that more often is that it is incredibly hard! It looks easy from the grandstand, but try to do it with a 98 mph fastball bearing down on you. It ain't easy.
So when I see a player who has a little pop in his bat like Friedl also use the bunt as yet another weapon in his arsenal, I get excited. This all circles back to the reason behind the rule changes in baseball this spring: the game has gotten duller in recent years.
I will admit that I've been part of the problem, as I loudly advocated the widespread adoption of baseball analytics even before Moneyball was written. I read all the Bill James books and have been a long time proponent of sabermetrics. But at this point, there really can be no argument that advanced analytics made the game less enjoyable to watch in recent seasons.
Defensive shifts. The prevalence of "three true outcome" hitters.* A string of 100-mph relievers who were able to throw max effort every single pitch -- leading to more of those three true outcomes. The decline of the stolen base as a weapon.
*Walk, strikeout, home run.
Maybe I'm sounding like an old man yelling at clouds here. Perhaps I'm just pining for the game to be played like it was when I was a teenager. I'm conscious of that possibility. But I'm not alone. That's why MLB has begun to make changes, and I'm completely on board. (I’m sure I’ll have much more to say about the rule changes as the season progresses.) I want to see more stolen bases. I want to see the ball put into play more often (though I'm not sure we're seeing that yet). And yes, I want to see more bunts, even if none of this is the "most efficient" or "correct" way to play the game.
Baseball is supposed to be fun. For many fans, it's best when there is more action on the field, not less. In fact, that's when the game is at its most glorious. So bring on the bunts.
This week at Cincinnati Magazine
Through eight games of the 2023 season, TJ Friedl has been one of the most entertaining and productive players on the Reds roster. Cincinnati’s athletic center fielder is hitting .345/.387/.655 with a couple of homers to go along with a double and a triple. His goal at the plate this year is to create “chaos,” he said this week.
Part of that chaos is his emphasis on bunting. Friedl had two bunt hits on Saturday, giving him five such hits already this season. (The Reds had just eight bunt hits all of last season, and Friedl was responsible for five of them.) Now, I’m firmly in the “Never Bunt, Hit Dingers” camp, but I’m intrigued with what Friedl is trying to do.
Read the rest at Cincinnati Magazine.
What Chad’s Watching
Banner week, with three* movies in theaters that I wanted to see. “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” was okay, I guess. Chris Pine was charming, as usual. Hugh Grant was funny and there was a surprising cameo. But the CGI was predictably bad.
*More than three, actually. I’ll see Super Mario Bros. eventually, and I had hoped to get out to see A Good Person, the latest from Florence Pugh and Morgan Freeman, but couldn’t make it happen.
On the other hand, there were a number of moments that others in the theater were laughing uproariously at things that weren’t funny at all. Maybe I just wasn’t the target demographic?
“Air” is the latest Matt Damon/Ben Affleck joint. Directed by Affleck, who also plays Nike founder Phil Knight, it’s the story of how legendary basketball talent scout Sonny Vaccaro convinced Michael Jordan to sign with Nike. I was skeptical after seeing the trailer, but it was pretty engaging. I recommend it…and it’s an Amazon Studios movie, so it’ll be on Prime soon for those of you who subscribe.
“Paint” stars Owen Wilson as a Carl Nargle, a legendary Bob Ross-type painter on a local Vermont PBS station. I understand why the reviews aren’t great, and it’s kind of a paint-by-numbers plot (no pun intended), but Wilson is thoroughly engaging in a silly role. Your mileage may vary, but I was entertained.
I also watched “Going My Way,” the 1944 Bing Crosby vehicle that won Best Picture. It’s part of my ongoing effort to watch every Best Picture Oscar winner ever. I’ll have a dumb newsletter about that once I’ve finished watching all 95. You’ve been warned.