The Balyhooed Bunt Attempt

[KeithStone53151]

Show the side angle that's out there instead and it looks still out there over the plate and not pulled back in time. I see the gray area now and don't think it's nearly as egregious as gut instinct says, but still side with strikeout.

 

I also had only seen the view tmwiese is noting until now. I especially agree with the bold here, there are still plenty of other reasons it should be a strike out.

[Baldkin]

If the ball bounces forward instead of straight back, still in foul territory.

 

It's a strikeout, right?

[lcbj68c]

 

Another way to look at it: Let's say the ball had been an inch or two higher and missed the bat; would it have been called a ball or a strike?

 

It doesn't matter if it is a strike or a ball, relative to the strike zone. Have you never seen a batter offer at a pitch outside of the strike zone? Lorenzen put his bat into the bunting position and did nothing to remove himself or that bat from that position and caused the bat to make contact with the ball. Again, if the batted ball is a fair ball, do the umpires get together and analyze his intent? Of course not. There should be zero reason to analyze his intent because it's a foul ball instead. Lorenzen intentionally put himself in a bunting position and while in that position, caused the bat to make contact with the ball. The fact that if he missed, it would have been a called ball, is irrelevant.

[MrTPlush]

You didn’t read his posts intent right. He is saying if that ball would have been in the strike zone and he did the same bunt attempt would the umpire have called that a strike?

 

The answer is likely no...almost definitely no. So it wasn’t a bunt attempt by that logic.

[rickh150]

You didn’t read his posts intent right. He is saying if that ball would have been in the strike zone and he did the same bunt attempt would the umpire have called that a strike?

 

The answer is likely no...almost definitely no. So it wasn’t a bunt attempt by that logic.

 

If it was in the strike zone and the batter does the same thing, the ump calls him out on strikes. Self defense was the issue, in my mind, and the ump gave him the benefit of the doubt.

 

My opinion on this continues to evolve.

[lcbj68c]

You didn’t read his posts intent right. He is saying if that ball would have been in the strike zone and he did the same bunt attempt would the umpire have called that a strike?

 

The answer is likely no...almost definitely no. So it wasn’t a bunt attempt by that logic.

 

If it was in the strike zone and the batter does the same thing, the ump calls him out on strikes. Self defense was the issue, in my mind, and the ump gave him the benefit of the doubt.

 

My opinion on this continues to evolve.

 

I don't understand why self defense is an issue. If that ball lands fair, do the umpires consider self-defense and intent?

[jerichoholicninja]

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand right now. The umpires determined he was pulling the bat back and not trying to bunt, making it a check swing. So the foul ball is just a foul ball, same as if it were a check swing. If the ball would have went fair, it would be a fair ball, same as a check swing. If the ball would have missed the bat, it would have been called a ball, same as a check swing. If the ball would have hit him, it would have been a HBP, same as a check swing. You can disagree with whether or not it was a bunt attempt but once the umpire determines he wasn't trying to bunt, the results are cut and dried with no room for interpretation.

[MrTPlush]

I believe self defense is a legitimate argument in some cases. I remember it being a huge issue in that infamous Stanton HBP game. The batter who came to finish his AB started a swing and continued it in what one might interpret as trying to defend his face from a baseball coming at him. He was called out, but people were upset about it cause they didn’t think he was defending himself.

 

I’m not sure if there is a rule for sure, but I remember the defense swing coming up around that situation.

[young guns]

I don't really know what to think. Part of me says thems the rules not a strikeout. Part of me thinks, that's not how the rule should be interpreted. But what I do know is that with 2 strikes every batter attempting to hunt should scream I'm not intending to hunt as the pitch comes in. If he gets the hunt down then good job, if it goes foul then it has to be a normal foul ball since there was no intent to bunt.

[AKCheesehead]

Unrelated completely but this whole thing got me to remembering the day Cal Eldred struck somebody out (Can't for the life of me remember who but I want to say it was against Toronto) swinging on a HBP.

[Baldkin]

Unrelated completely but this whole thing got me to remembering the day Cal Eldred struck somebody out (Can't for the life of me remember who but I want to say it was against Toronto) swinging on a HBP.

 

Mike Fiers hit two guys in a row -- Giancarlo Stanton was hit in the face and left the game (he swung), was replaced by Reed Johnson who was hit as well and swung... for a 2 hitter strikeout with 0 HBP.

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIL/MIL201409110.shtml

[PaulLeoMolitor]

The bat remained in a bunting position when the ball hit it, so strike 3. You can argue intent all you want, but that's a slippery slope. The umpire should not be guessing as to whether he still intended to bunt it. He should simply use his eyes to observe that the bat still remained in a bunting position.

[xisxisxis]

I suggest the following rule change:

 

If a batter fouls off a bunt attempt with 2 strikes, the pitcher is given 1 pitch to hit the batter wherever the pitcher desires without any repercussions. The following pitch would then be with a 2 strike count. A batter is now allowed to attempt a bunt as many times as possible with a 2 strike count until he is either too injured to proceed or is carried off the field on a stretcher...

[jerichoholicninja]

MLB needs some way for umpires to communicate what's going on with everyone. NFL referees usually go a good job of explaining what happened (whether they are correct or not) when weird stuff occurs. If the umpires could have let us all know why they made the call they did at the time, there would have been less of an uproar.

[Pugger]

The MLB rulebook defines a bunt as "a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat & tapped slowly within the infield."

 

Since Lorenzen did not intend to meet with the ball, in the judgement of the umpires, it did not qualify as a bunt attempt.

 

This. As frustrating as it was, it was the correct call. He clearly pulled back and wasn't trying to make contact anymore.

 

It appeared to me he was pulling back trying to avoid getting hit by the inside pitch and not necessarily not trying to make contact/bunt.

[Pugger]

MLB needs some way for umpires to communicate what's going on with everyone. NFL referees usually go a good job of explaining what happened (whether they are correct or not) when weird stuff occurs. If the umpires could have let us all know why they made the call they did at the time, there would have been less of an uproar.

 

This BIG TIME! How often do things happen during a game when the announcers and those in attendance have no clue what is going on with calls like this?

[lcbj68c]

 

It appeared to me he was pulling back trying to avoid getting hit by the inside pitch and not necessarily not trying to make contact/bunt.

 

What if the ball lands fair and is picked up in fair territory? Do the umpires convene and determine his "intent"?

[jerichoholicninja]

 

It appeared to me he was pulling back trying to avoid getting hit by the inside pitch and not necessarily not trying to make contact/bunt.

 

What if the ball lands fair and is picked up in fair territory? Do the umpires convene and determine his "intent"?

 

As has been stated 1000 times, a fair ball is a fair ball. By ruling he was not offering a bunt attempt it was a check swing. A foul ball on a check swing with 2 strikes is just a foul ball.