Should 1st and 2nd with no one out in a tight game not be a bunting automatic?

[No coincidences]

Teams refusing to bunt in these situations -- regardless of who is up -- continue to get burned. Tribe just killed their own rally, right after the Brewers drove theirs into the ground.

Did this not used to be a given? Now, you literally never see it anymore. Same goes for a man on 2nd and no one out. When the tying run is in scoring position, do you not sacrifice the out to get him 90 feet away? When did MLB teams abandon this concept? Is it an ego thing -- some guys just refuse to bunt? Funny, I thought baseball was a team sport and the main focus was to win the game.

[Tofudog]

I agree with you no coin.. I think it should be a given except for exceptional circumstances... Most teams do bunt with 1st and 2nd and no outs. The debatable one is when there is already an out.

With no outs.. unless you have a great player with a great average against a pitcher, you tell them to bunt.. The problem is that if you have a great hitter, they might not have developed good bunting skills

[ridims]

yes

[No coincidences]

I agree with you no coin.. I think it should be a given except for exceptional circumstances... Most teams do bunt with 1st and 2nd and no outs. The debatable one is when there is already an out.

With no outs.. unless you have a great player with a great average against a pitcher, you tell them to bunt.. The problem is that if you have a great hitter, they might not have developed good bunting skills

Agree. With one out, unless it's a strong bunter, swing away.

[whtsox13]

While we're at it, another diminishing skill is hitting to the right side with man on 2nd less than 2 outs...

[No coincidences]

While we're at it, another diminishing skill is hitting to the right side with man on 2nd less than 2 outs...

Yes.

[Tofudog]

Yes.

Yes