The one I really don't get is Dozier. Berrios was the pitcher, and maybe they really were challenging the hit ruling on his double last time up, so as dumb as it is he is going to take it more personally. [bRosario, I'm guessing is more friendly with berrios being country mates, [/b]and both are young and whatever. Still dumb to be upset about it. But what is dozier on about? Being one of the vets on the twins, does he tell young guy, like rosario who did like the exact same thing, not to play to win? His quote was the most confusing.

They are country mates with Dozier too.

 

The one I really don't get is Dozier. Berrios was the pitcher, and maybe they really were challenging the hit ruling on his double last time up, so as dumb as it is he is going to take it more personally. Rosario, I'm guessing is more friendly with berrios being country mates, and both are young and whatever. Still dumb to be upset about it. But what is dozier on about? Being one of the vets on the twins, does he tell young guy, like rosario who did like the exact same thing, not to play to win? His quote was the most confusing. 

 

Baseball players often feel like they have chastise young players (or, most frequently (but not in this case), non-American players) for playing "the wrong way".

 

I don't believe this is Dozier's first foray into that sort of thing.  It won't be the last either and it won't ever stop being confusing and subjective.

Edited April 2, 20188 yr by TheLeviathan

The one I really don't get is Dozier. Berrios was the pitcher, and maybe they really were challenging the hit ruling on his double last time up, so as dumb as it is he is going to take it more personally. Rosario, I'm guessing is more friendly with berrios being country mates, and both are young and whatever. Still dumb to be upset about it. But what is dozier on about? Being one of the vets on the twins, does he tell young guy, like rosario who did like the exact same thing, not to play to win? His quote was the most confusing.

But I don't understand what there is for Berrios to take personally.

If you are shifting the hitter, then you aren't playing like the game is over. Why is it wrong for one team to keep trying when the other team clearly still is?

 

Also, a no hitter is a personal accomplishment, so that makes his behavior even worse, IMO, if that's why he's upset.

That's pretty harsh and calling them clowns seems to border on wrong side of the comment policy stipulation regarding personal attacks. I think this post would have been just as valid without the unnecessary barb and certainly less inviting of a rebuttal personal attack.

Well fair enough, and if it's a violation, I won't object to someone snipping it down.

But, I think it's the proper term for the way they are acting.

Perhaps I should have phrased it as a verb instead of a noun, as I didn't mean for it to be an unfounded personal attack, rather an accurate descriptor of how I feel they are acting.

 

I don't think it's harsh at all. At least, not nearly as harsh as they are being on this player who did exactly what he should have done.

All I hear all the time, on here, at the watercooler, sports talk radio, twins columns, is why don't players take the free single when teams shift.

This isn't even one of those things that I understand, but disagree with (like being upset for pumping a HR), I simply can't even understand how/ why they think anything was done wrong here.

And, I can't respect players that feel so entitled, that they think their team gets to keep trying, but they are disrespected if the other team does as well. And then to actually whine about it out loud. It's very poor sportsmanship, and I just can't respect it.

When I initially read reports on this, I was like, 'What? What is their problem over this? If they think that bunt was bad, then maybe the shift was worse.' Turns out that I think the media presented some of these opinions in a certain way to garner discussion over something that really is nothing and the players themselves don't think anything more of it.

 

Here are some tweets from Marney:

 

 

 

 

It wasn't something the players brought up, but something very specific they were asked to comment on. They gave their opinions, and then it was presented to us in such a way that they were complaining about it after the game, which doesn't seem to be, and isn't, the case.

When I initially read reports on this, I was like, 'What? What is their problem over this? If they think that bunt was bad, then maybe the shift was worse.' Turns out that I think the media presented some of these opinions in a certain way to garner discussion over something that really is nothing and the players themselves don't think anything more of it.

 

Here are some tweets from Marney:

 

https://twitter.com/MarneyGellner/status/980901337536827398

 

https://twitter.com/MarneyGellner/status/980865612204437504

 

https://twitter.com/MarneyGellner/status/980865320712884225

 

It wasn't something the players brought up, but something very specific they were asked to comment on. They gave their opinions, and then it was presented to us in such a way that they were complaining about it after the game, which doesn't seem to be, and isn't, the case.

I don't find their opinions any more tolerable, just because they were asked and not given unprompted.

And Dozier's comment that he was considering chastising the player at second base suggests it was closer to the front of his mind than the back.

 

I don't find their opinions any more tolerable, just because they were asked and not given unprompted.
And Dozier's comment that he was considering chastising the player at second base suggests it was closer to the front of his mind than the back.

Okay, this is where I draw the line ... Dozier did not say anything about chastising the kid. He said 'I could've said something to him' ... he didn't say 'I was about to scold him.' I think your characterization goes a tad too far. I don't think it's an issue for the players, and I don't think it really was at all to begin with. I think it's been well overplayed in the media. That's what I think.

Okay, this is where I draw the line ... Dozier did not say anything about chastising the kid. He said 'I could've said something to him' ... he didn't say 'I was about to scold him.' I think your characterization goes a tad too far. I don't think it's an issue for the players, and I don't think it really was at all to begin with. I think it's been well overplayed in the media. That's what I think.

I meant to say confront, not chastise (which is what i said in the other thread), but why is Dozier even considering saying anything to him if he doesn't have a problem with it?

The rest of his quote (where he suggests their veteran leaders will set the kid straight), suggests that he has a problem with it.

 

My problem with it has little to do with how quickly they moved on (though I'm glad they moved on, if they did), or whether they were prompted or not. My problem is that they feel he did anything wrong in the first place.

 

When I initially read reports on this, I was like, 'What? What is their problem over this? If they think that bunt was bad, then maybe the shift was worse.' Turns out that I think the media presented some of these opinions in a certain way to garner discussion over something that really is nothing and the players themselves don't think anything more of it.

 

Here are some tweets from Marney:

 

 

 

 

It wasn't something the players brought up, but something very specific they were asked to comment on. They gave their opinions, and then it was presented to us in such a way that they were complaining about it after the game, which doesn't seem to be, and isn't, the case.

 

Thank You. 

 

This is an important post. 

 

I meant to say confront, not chastise (which is what i said in the other thread), but why is Dozier even considering saying anything to him if he doesn't have a problem with it?
The rest of his quote (where he suggests their veteran leaders will set the kid straight), suggests that he has a problem with it.

My problem with it has little to do with how quickly they moved on (though I'm glad they moved on, if they did), or whether they were prompted or not. My problem is that they feel he did anything wrong in the first place.

Not to turn this thread into another discussion on unwritten rules, so I hope no one takes this up, but I chalk it up to stupid, unwritten rules culture. I hope they truly have moved on, but I still think upon further reading, it wasn't as big of a deal to me as I initially thought.

 

I don't find their opinions any more tolerable, just because they were asked and not given unprompted.
And Dozier's comment that he was considering chastising the player at second base suggests it was closer to the front of his mind than the back.

Also, IMO, nothing worse than saying " I could have done/said this....", but he didn't but whines to the media about it.  

I mentioned this in another thread, it isn't just the bunt that upset the Twins' players.  The bunt was the 2nd of 2 contradictory actions that Baltimore committed in the 9th inning.

 

In the top of the 9th, LaMarre got a 2 out hit.  Baltimore elected to not hold the runner on implying that they are going to just play Defense and you better not steal with a 7-0 lead.

 

Then in the bottom of the inning they bunt against the shift.

 

What upset the players was that we were expected to NOT take advantage of their defensive positioning by not stealing 2nd base and they immediately took advantage of our defensive positioning by bunting to beat the shift in the same inning.

 

Thank You. 

 

This is an important post. 

 

Also, Dozier could have said "well, Berrios fought thru and still got the shutout, so the bunt didn't matter"....I blame the media for a lot of things, but some of the garbage that has fallen out of Doziers mouth the last month, I don't blame them.  

 

Also, Dozier could have said "well, Berrios fought thru and still got the shutout, so the bunt didn't matter"....I blame the media for a lot of things, but some of the garbage that has fallen out of Doziers mouth the last month, I don't blame them.  

In your opinion.

 

I, on the other hand, agree with Dozier.

 

I like the "unwritten rules," they keep the game closer to what I want to see, and prevent much more conflict than they cause.

 

And the bunt was...questionable, IMO.

 

For me, and it's not always easy to discern, but I do draw a distinction between a guy using a platform to sound off about something, and simply answering what he was asked.

Btw ... if anyone is interested in discussing this issue in more general terms, as in, 'how the game should be played,' and are done commenting on the Twins' responses, Platoon started a thread to do just this, found in the 'Other Baseball' forum. Here: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/29172-to-bunt-or-not-to-bunt-that-is-the-question/

 

I mentioned this in another thread, it isn't just the bunt that upset the Twins' players.  The bunt was the 2nd of 2 contradictory actions that Baltimore committed in the 9th inning.

 

In the top of the 9th, LaMarre got a 2 out hit.  Baltimore elected to not hold the runner on implying that they are going to just play Defense and you better not steal with a 7-0 lead.

 

Then in the bottom of the inning they bunt against the shift.

 

What upset the players was that we were expected to NOT take advantage of their defensive positioning by not stealing 2nd base and they immediately took advantage of our defensive positioning by bunting to beat the shift in the same inning.

 

Originally, I thought the Twins being upset at the bunt was pretty silly, then I read this.

 

What if LaMarre steals when he's not being held on?  I'm guessing a lot of Orioles are going to be pretty upset, and I understand why.

 

I'm not a big fan of the unwritten rules, and I don't really support them, but I totally get where Dozier's coming from in context of not holding LaMarre on.  I'm not saying I agree with him, but I get it.

In your opinion.

 

I, on the other hand, agree with Dozier.

 

I like the "unwritten rules," they keep the game closer to what I want to see, and prevent much more conflict than they cause.

 

And the bunt was...questionable, IMO.

If the bunt is questionable, is the decision to shift also questionable?

Originally, I thought the Twins being upset at the bunt was pretty silly, then I read this.

 

What if LaMarre steals when he's not being held on? I'm guessing a lot of Orioles are going to be pretty upset, and I understand why.

 

I'm not a big fan of the unwritten rules, and I don't really support them, but I totally get where Dozier's coming from in context of not holding LaMarre on. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I get it.

Perhaps when they didn't hold LaMarre, they were conceding the game. But then when the Twins decide to shift, they figure, ok, I guess we're still playing?

Perhaps when they didn't hold LaMarre, they were conceding the game. But then when the Twins decide to shift, they figure, ok, I guess we're still playing?

Exactly...but then again I'm not sure the Orioles put that much thought into it, that is, until Dozier "answered a question ". I would be shocked if anything other than "Hey let's try to bunt here to start a rally and maybe knock him out of game since they are shifting us" was on Orioles mind.

 

Exactly...but then again I'm not sure the Orioles put that much thought into it, that is, until Dozier "answered a question ". I would be shocked if anything other than "Hey let's try to bunt here to start a rally and maybe knock him out of game since they are shifting us" was on Orioles mind.

At first, I saw the logic of the 'then don't shift' argument, but then I realized that shifting is now normal, not something out of the ordinary. After the bunt hit, would you suggest that the infielders not play at 'double-play' depth? With the 7-run lead, do we expect the outfielders to no longer adjust their depth based upon the hitter?

 

I think we definitely can still have the 'unwritten rules' debate but, like I said, the 'shift' argument has lost a little traction for me now.

 

At first, I saw the logic of the 'then don't shift' argument, but then I realized that shifting is now normal, not something out of the ordinary. After the bunt hit, would you suggest that the infielders not play at 'double-play' depth? With the 7-run lead, do we expect the outfielders to no longer adjust their depth based upon the hitter?

 

I think we definitely can still have the 'unwritten rules' debate but, like I said, the 'shift' argument has lost a little traction for me now.

Pitchers are still going to throw curves and changeups, too.  

 

Hitters won't get any flack for hitting a line drive.

 

 

 

I'm loving all these takes on Buntgate!
We play the Orioles again in early July. I'll be very disappointed if we drill Sisco in his first at bat. However, given Dozier and the team's post-game comments, I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.

So you're saying we should wait until his second at bat? 

So you're saying we should wait until his second at bat? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0X0ZYbnHxA

 

No! That's just what they'll be expecting us to do....

 

But I don't understand what there is for Berrios to take personally.
If you are shifting the hitter, then you aren't playing like the game is over. Why is it wrong for one team to keep trying when the other team clearly still is?

Also, a no hitter is a personal accomplishment, so that makes his behavior even worse, IMO, if that's why he's upset.

 

Yeah, me neither, but he was the guy throwing the ball, most important guy on the field. Idk i doubt he's still thinking about it, like we are. He was just pissed cause he competed and lost, and I hope all those guys feel that way. Especially whomever decided to employ that shift. But whatever, its early season baseball. We all "know" the game only count for half in april, thats why its so fun in september! And if this makes a fairly boring series between two middle pack teams have interest in april, then lets get worked up over a bunt.