They aren’t bad because we actually did “win” the game but they certainly aren’t good either.

Maddon’s glasses are Good!

Yanks on our heels is Good as well! Let ‘em stay right there – behind us.

do not have a clue about Maddon.

it would have made sense to pull Percival. But that does not mean it was wrong not to. It simply means that there was another reasonable option.

While I think Maddon tends to be more bold than many more traditional managers, he still is somewhat bound by convention, and one of those is to rely on the designated closer no matter the performance. I do not like that approach, but the fact is that chances are 30 of the 30 managers would have done the same thing.

As a matter of fact, looking at the overall body of work, he has handled the bullpen very well, pulling pitchers like Sonnanstine at the appropriate times, giving relievers proper rest, moving decisively on pitchers like Glover to get them out of high leverage situations, stretching his relievers rather than wildly replacing them at the first sign of trouble, establishing roles for them in which they can excel, moving successful ones like Balfour into increasingly vital roles and more. He has also had confidence in Shields, Jackson and Garza so that he allows them to work out of early trouble and been rewarded by longer outings than might have been.

That was leaving Bartlett in to hit vs Valverde after Navi cut the lead to one. That was a horrid move. But he learned his lesson the following night pinch hitting 3 guys in a row (including Bartlett).

I don’t think he bunts enough in situations when he should bunt. i.e. runners on first and second noone out with aki at the plate up by a run, aybar single to left after aki pops out, noone scores ball was hit too hard. there has been a few more instances that have been costly but thats the only one i remember. i mean i love the big inning more than anyone but in the bigs u gotta take it when u can get it.. we lost that game by a run. don’t get me wrong I LOVE JOE! just play a little more small ball regardless of what park you are playing in….

that is one of the traits I like about Maddon. I think the Rays are last, or near the bottom of the league, in sacrifice bunts, and that is just fine with me.

Perhaps that is an example of my point that the critique is not so much about right and wrong as it is about preferences. For every instance that you can note that a sac bunt was not used and no runs resulted, I can find one in which it was and no run resulted. Each of us is assuming something else would have happened had our preference been implemented, but of course, we really have no idea what would have happened.

that just because a team is down by a run late in the game with a runner on, it does not mean a sac bunt is the best play. There are times when it makes sense. Depending on the batter, the batting order and the runner, I can see it in a tie game, 9th inning with a runner on second. There are other situations as well when it makes sense.

But it is perfectly good baseball not to bunt in the situation you described, at least given the minimum information you provided. The odds of scoring one run do go up slightly with a man on 2nd and 1 out-that assumes of course that the bunt works which is not a given-than with a runner on 1st and no outs, but there are many other factors at work in that situation and to be so dogmatic that it “isn’t good baseball” simply is invalid.

In fact, to give up a precious out against a good pitcher could be seen as squandering your most valuable and limited resource. The object may first be to tie up the game, but the sac bunt is not necessarily the best way to accomplish that.

The less bunts and intentional walks, the better.