2025 MLB Season

[PointWarrior]

Why the Brewers bunt with runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out?

[cheebs09]

Why the Brewers bunt with runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out?

I thought that was a poor decision. Guys are so rusty at bunting now and Taillon seemed to be on the ropes. Sort of let him off the hook.

[wadesworld]

Why the Brewers bunt with runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out?

Because we kept Lockridge on the roster. And even started him.

But yeah. Makes zero sense.

[MuggsyB]

Why the Brewers bunt with runners at 2nd and 3rd with 1 out?

I missed that.  They went for a squeeze?  What inning?  Ty. 

[HutchwasClutch]

Because we kept Lockridge on the roster. And even started him.

But yeah. Makes zero sense.

That's exactly why.  I really didn't expect Lockridge to be anything except maybe late inning defensive replacement or pinch runner.

[HutchwasClutch]

I missed that.  They went for a squeeze?  What inning?  Ty. 

Think that was the 4th inning.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I missed that.  They went for a squeeze?  What inning?  Ty. 

https://www.mlb.com/gameday/brewers-vs-cubs/2025/10/08/813049/final/box

[MU82]

I'm pissed at Ron Darling for rooting for the Tigers.

He wasn't calling that game, and he didn't actually say anything about them. But I know he was thinking about rooting for them. So unprofessional.

[MuggsyB]

I'm pissed at Ron Darling for rooting for the Tigers.

He wasn't calling that game, and he didn't actually say anything about them. But I know he was thinking about rooting for them. So unprofessional.

You're probably right.

[BM1090]

It was first and third for the squeeze, which makes it way more defensible. Not saying it was the right choice but there are reasons to do it in that situation. 2nd and 3rd would have been insane.

[tower912]

I'm pissed at Ron Darling for rooting for the Tigers.

He wasn't calling that game, and he didn't actually say anything about them. But I know he was thinking about rooting for them. So unprofessional.

You should hear what Billy Packer said about Seattle.   Even I was offended.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

If you can't trust a guy to get a run in down 2 with 2nd and 3rd and one out, with Joey Ortiz behind you, to get a run in by swinging the bat, he probably shouldn't be on your Playoff roster.

That was a teribble, head-scratching call

[wadesworld]

That was a teribble, head-scratching call

I didn't see it live and only saw the replay so I'm not really sure what was going on in the game, but it almost seems like Lockridge made that decision on his own.  And he bunted right into a defensive setup that was kind of naturally in position to defend a bunt with the 1B holding the runner on at first, so already in and on the line (like I said, didn't see it live so thought it was 2nd and 3rd, not 1st and 3rd).  He bunted as if he the Cubs were playing way back and shifted up the middle on the right side, and all he had to do was get it past the pitcher to the right and he'd have a bunt base hit.  It was pretty baffling.

That probably was a situation to pinch hit Collins and keep him in the OF the rest of the game.

[The Sultan]

If you can't trust a guy to get a run in down 2 with 2nd and 3rd and one out, with Joey Ortiz behind you, to get a run in by swinging the bat, he probably shouldn't be on your Playoff roster.

Yeah, I would have rather had Collins playing if you wanted to sit Perkins...who is giving them nothing as well.

Regardless, I think the problem is that Durbin should have stayed. I doubt they get Lockridge at first.

[Uncle Rico]

I didn't see it live and only saw the replay so I'm not really sure what was going on in the game, but it almost seems like Lockridge made that decision on his own.  And he bunted right into a defensive setup that was kind of naturally in position to defend a bunt with the 1B holding the runner on at first, so already in and on the line (like I said, didn't see it live so thought it was 2nd and 3rd, not 1st and 3rd).  He bunted as if he the Cubs were playing way back and shifted up the middle on the right side, and all he had to do was get it past the pitcher to the right and he'd have a bunt base hit.  It was pretty baffling.

That probably was a situation to pinch hit Collins and keep him in the OF the rest of the game.

Cubs have been gambling with their infielders by bringing them in as the pitcher starts his motion.  They did it multiple times Monday night when the regular suspects were hitting in situations where a bunt might be in play

[MUBurrow]

I think the issue is that with Chourio's hamstring, Murph feels that he can only play LF and so Perkins or Lockridge need to be in CF at all times.  That leaves Collins without a home and probably relegates him to one-off pinch hitting duties.  If Chourio were healthy, he would have been playing CF and Collins LF.

Theoretically, Frelick has gotten a little run in CF and and Collins a little in RF, so you could go Chourio-Frelick-Collins for your best offensive lineup, but by a "little run" I mean like less than 10 games each this year.

In either event, if the Lockridge bunt was called from the dugout, I don't like it. If you don't trust him to swing in that situation, its too important to bunt for the sake of keeping him in CF.  Assuming I'm right on the defensive alignment, I think you need to use your Collins bullet on that AB and then replace him with Perkins in the field the next half inning.  That's what ended up happening in the 7th anyway, and with no men on base. 

[PointWarrior]

I'm pissed at Ron Darling for rooting for the Tigers.

He wasn't calling that game, and he didn't actually say anything about them. But I know he was thinking about rooting for them. So unprofessional.

I am just glad he was not calling the Brewers game.

[cheebs09]

I also think Yeich's health makes it tough. I think he's pigeon holed into DH. Combine that with Chourio's injury and the other options being cold with the bat, and you have pretty limited options.

[cheebs09]

Game 1 pitching rematch. Need Freddy to get through the first and I'll be optimistic.

[TallTitan34]

It didn't affect the game at all but what are your thoughts on the no call of the infield fly rule? 

To me, that's the infield fly rule all day long.  It was fair and it was within the range of the infielders to make a catch without excessive effort.  The fact they missed it is irrelevant.  By not calling it in this situation, you are opening the door for defenses to pretend they can't see the ball.

I know it's not even on the spectrum of Major League Baseball, but I did a class when I umpired youth baseball.  They taught us when the ball is at it's apex, determine if the infielders can reach it with ordinary effort, and if so yell "INFIELD FLY IF FAIR".  You don't have to add the "if fair" part if it's clearly out around second base. 

Random other fun thing I learned... on a possible dropped third strike, if you are the first base ump for a right handed batter or a third base ump for a left handed batter, either hold out an open hand if the ball wasn't caught and a closed fist if it was caught to help out the home plate umpire if he couldn't see it from his angle.

[MU82]

I know it's not even on the spectrum of Major League Baseball, but I did a class when I umpired youth baseball.  They taught us when the ball is at it's apex, determine if the infielders can reach it with ordinary effort, and if so yell "INFIELD FLY IF FAIR".  You don't have to add the "if fair" part if it's clearly out around second base. 

I mostly umpired games between in the 10-12 age groups, but fairly often also called games of older kids, 13-17.

For 10-year-olds, I was very careful about what I called an infield fly, especially in regular league play. Those kids had enough trouble finding the ball in the air, let alone catching it cleanly. My rule: If a kid is stumbling or appearing not to see the ball, I'm not invoking the infield fly rule. But in tournament or all-star play, where the kids are better, as well as for the older ones, I called it just as you were taught.

I didn't see the play you are talking about from yesterday, so I can't comment on it.

[The Sultan]

To this day, I really only have a vague idea of what the infield fly rule even is.

[18thandWells]

From the Umpire's supervisor:

"We don't make that determination until the ball has reached its apex — the height — and then starts to come down," Young said. "When the ball went up, initially everybody thought it was going to be ordinary effort, even the batter (William Contreras). He wasn't too sure if he was going to run, then he started to run.

"When it reached the height, the umpires determined that the first baseman (Michael Busch) wasn't going to make a play on it, the middle infielder (Nico Hoerner) raced over and he wasn't going to make a play on it so ordinary effort went out the window at that point."

[CreightonWarrior]

I'm a brewers fan but the fielder needs to be able to catch it with ordinary effort. They had absolutely no idea where the ball was. No infield fly.

[TallTitan34]

I'm a brewers fan but the fielder needs to be able to catch it with ordinary effort. They had absolutely no idea where the ball was. No infield fly.

So what's stopping a defense from pretending they don't see it to nullify the infield fly?  If it's a very windy day can there be no infield fly rule because the effort to catch it is extraordinary?

To me the ordinary effort only applies to if an infielder can REACH the ball on situations where its past the infield dirt or if its a small pop up in front of the infielders.