When it comes to making decisions in a baseball game, few decisions are as controversial as whether or not to bunt. On one hand, bunting can be a great way to move a runner into scoring position, but on the other hand, it can also be a risky move that can backfire and cost your team a run. This was put to the test in a recent Seattle Mariners game, when manager Scott Servais had to decide whether or not to bunt with two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning.
The situation was as follows: the Mariners were down by one run with two outs and a runner on first base. Servais had the option of either having his batter swing away or having him bunt. After some deliberation, Servais decided to have his batter bunt. The decision paid off, as the batter successfully laid down a bunt and moved the runner into scoring position.
The Mariners went on to score the tying run and eventually won the game in extra innings. Servais’s decision to bunt was praised by many, as it showed that he was willing to take a risk in order to give his team a chance to win. It also demonstrated his understanding of the game and his ability to make quick decisions under pressure.
Servais’s decision to bunt was a great example of why bunting can be such an effective strategy in certain situations. It showed that even though bunting can be risky, it can also be a great way to gain an advantage in a close game. It also showed that managers should not be afraid to make bold decisions when they think it will benefit their team.
Overall, Scott Servais’s decision to bunt or not bunt in the Mariners game was a great example of why bunting can be such an effective strategy in certain situations. It showed that even though bunting can be risky, it can also be a great way to gain an advantage in a close game. It also showed that managers should not be afraid to make bold decisions when they think it will benefit their team.
