1275 replies to this topic

[someoneanywhere]

Bobby V should STFU about a play that happened 11 years ago and worry about his own team. For crissakes. There was nothing to be gained from bringing it up and it makes him look stupid and cocksure.

BTW it snowed yesterday. Bobby's fault.

Oh, I think he was worried about his own team when he said that. It wasn't so much that the beer and chix questions kept coming -- it's that the tone was changing. The day before the drift of the questions turned to teammates trusting one another and whether they could again -- and that's the third rail, brother. Best to get away from that as quick as possible. So tweak the Yanks. It's really that easy.

By the by, if his direct comments this morning after a B game are any indication, it's going to be fun. Gone are the days of the Francona "I probably think" and "maybe it might" and that beautifully crafted nonsense. Buckle up.

[EddieYost]

Speaking of bunting, I had a daymare that Bobby was going to strategically place good bunters after the slow guys to move them along. It started when i read that Punto was batting fifth in a spring game.

[Van Everyman]

Here's something far more concerning: Shank writing 800 words about how awesome Bobby is.

http://mobile.boston..._different_way/

[InstantKarmma]

Here's something far more concerning: Shank writing 800 words about how awesome Bobby is.

http://mobile.boston..._different_way/

I refuse to click on a link to a Shank article, but is it any surprise at all that the worst hack in Boston sports media is going to gush over a manager who will create drama and run his mouth to the press at every opportunity?

[Buckner's Boots]

My initial reactions to Valentine are negative. I'm not a fan of guys who just run their mouths to create an alternate reality; it reminds me too much of politics. However, if he is able to brainwash his troops into playing well and winning games, none of this matters. I think I'll be able to separate his success from his personality, but I can definitely see his approach having a short shelf-life, and support for him going south very quickly if and when the results aren't there.

[BucketOBalls]

I refuse to click on a link to a Shank article, but is it any surprise at all that the worst hack in Boston sports media is going to gush over a manager who will create drama and run his mouth to the press at every opportunity?

I don't read Shank much, so I can't tell

How did the Red Sox win two World Series, average 93 wins per season, and make the playoffs five times when they were clearly such a chaotic, disorganized mess in spring training for the last eight years?

Is this sarcasm? I would normally say yes, but it's Shaughnessy so I can't tell.

[Al Zarilla]

Red Auerbach said goodbye to taskmaster Fitch and welcomed family uncle K.C. back into the fold,...

Good thing for Shaughnessy that K.C.s name isn't Tom.

[Pumpsie]

Well, I just read my first CHB article in years (shudder, cough) and it seems like he's not sure what to say about Valentine, so he's trying to have it both ways here, just in case he has to go one way or the other later (depending on how successful the Sox are.) He does make Bobby V sound like a cross between Bill Belichick and Billy Crystal, however. That might not be so far off.

[Doctor G]

Well, I just read my first CHB article in years (shudder, cough) and it seems like he's not sure what to say about Valentine, so he's trying to have it both ways here, just in case he has to go one way or the other later (depending on how successful the Sox are.) He does make Bobby V sound like a cross between Bill Belichick and Billy Crystal, however. That might not be so far off.

I got the impressiuon that Shank got caught dragging his pivot foot here. Maybe the late news about Crawford caught anny a liitle off guard and he did a little late rewrite to give himself some space to move.

[reggiecleveland]

If there is anything I wonder about it a pitcher getting hurt doing a vertical jump test.

[E5 Yaz]

If there is anything I wonder about it a pitcher getting hurt doing a vertical jump test.

Good thing Papelbon is gone; he'd have failed the Wonderlic

[Pumpsie]

Good thing Papelbon is gone; he'd have failed the Wonderlic

...and the Rubik's Cube.

[CaptainLaddie]

I'm all-in on Bobby. I think he's a jackass, but he's OUR jackass. I would hate him elsewhere, and I can't stand him in the booth, but if he does the Rex Ryan thing and they actually WIN (sorry Berry), it'll be worth it.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'm actually growing ambivalent about him. I was firmly on the dislike end of the spectrum when he was hired, but the absolute tidal wave of hate here has been so blind with rage that I started wondering if I was hating on him for the wrong reasons. Re-reading some of posts made in favor of him, I think I was. I'm in no way saying I think he'll be anywhere near as good as Tito, but I'm starting to think he'll be a decent manager in the clubhouse and in the dugout, while continuing to be a major jackass everywhere else.

I'm gonna stand back and let his performance do the talking... when he shuts his mouth long enough to let it.

[Pumpsie]

After watching Valentine manage hundreds of game for the Mets (when I was living in NYC) I have to say that people are going to like Bobby best when he's managing close and tight games against the Yankees and Rays. He's not going to get out-managed there. He'll be looking for EVERY possible edge because...that's who he is...in other words, he's probably going to manage those games like most of the folks here on SOSH would like every Sox manager to do it. Speaking for myself alone, I felt that Tito often did NOT try to get every possible best match-up over the years, that sometimes a better option existed on the bench or in the pen and Tito did not pull the trigger...that won't be Bobby's way. And I think by mid-season a lot of naysayers are going to be delighted with how intensely Valentine manages the games. He may be accused of being many things but he will never be accused of being asleep at the wheel.

[BucketOBalls]

After watching Valentine manage hundreds of game for the Mets (when I was living in NYC) I have to say that people are going to like Bobby best when he's managing close and tight games against the Yankees and Rays. He's not going to get out-managed there. He'll be looking for EVERY possible edge because...that's who he is...in other words, he's probably going to manage those games like most of the folks here on SOSH would like every Sox manager to do it. Speaking for myself alone, I felt that Tito often did NOT try to get every possible best match-up over the years, that sometimes a better option existed on the bench or in the pen and Tito did not pull the trigger...that won't be Bobby's way. And I think by mid-season a lot of naysayers are going to be delighted with how intensely Valentine manages the games. He may be accused of being many things but he will never be accused of being asleep at the wheel.

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but this often translates to "over managing". Hopefully not.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but this often translates to "over managing". Hopefully not.

Hopefully not, but yeah, it's a valid worry. One of the things I loved about Tito was that he understood that sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. He rarely acted reflexively or did something just for the sake of doing something. Maybe he overdid it on occasion, but I thought it was one of his strengths.

I won't mind a more active approach from Valentine if he's good at it, though. There's more than one way to skin the cat.

[Pumpsie]

I won't mind a more active approach from Valentine if he's good at it, though. There's more than one way to skin the cat.

Well, I guess we're all about to find out; one of the many interesting twists to this season.

[redsox2020]

What I care about: whether he helps us win games.
What I don't care about: whether people like him.

[sachilles]

With the new wild card setup, I'll be anxious to see what that does to the team as well as what managerial style suits it. In Tito's time here, he really just had to manage to get to a wild card spot. So you could take a little more laid back approach towards winning enough games for a play off spot. Resting players so they are healthy when the playoffs come around. We wouldn't see "playoff Tito" until much later in the season when(if) the team's situation would become more desperate.
With the new setup, you might have increased your odds to get a wild card slot, but now that wild card slot only has a 50% chance of bearing fruit. I suspect that even if Tito were still here, there would be an increased urgency to take the 1st slot in the AL east(ie playoff Tito would show up earlier than normal).

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

An embarrassingly cloying profile of Bobby V by Pete Abe in the Globe today. Bobby must've bought the guy lunch at a buffet.

As expected, bunting will save us all:

As the fog lifts, Valentine grabs a bat and heads for an outlying field to work with left fielder Carl Crawford, an expensive free agent whose first season with the Sox was a failure.


Despite his great speed, Crawford did not have a single bunt hit last season and has only 20 in his 10-year career. A speedy infielder in his youth who was a first-round draft pick of the Dodgers, Valentine cannot fathom wasting such a weapon. So Crawford is getting a private lesson.


“Let the angle of the bat work for you. No poking at the ball,’’ Valentine says as Crawford drops a perfect bunt down. “Nice, Carl. Very nice!’’

Nothing really new here. Nothing to make anyone change their minds about him. If you like him, this article will confirm everything you like about him. If you hate him...well, ditto.

[Toe Nash]

Boy I'm glad Valentine knows the secret to bunting that no other coach has been able to successfully show Carl before. Too bad we didn't have him to show Wily Mo Pena how to lay off balls in the dirt too.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I don't understand Abe's point either: Crawford's only got 20 bunt hits in his career, which is a pretty good indication that he's not a good bunter and that now that he's over 30 it's not going to suddenly become part of his offensive game.

[Toe Nash]

I don't understand Abe's point either: Crawford's only got 20 bunt hits in his career, which is a pretty good indication that he's not a good bunter and that now that he's over 30 it's not going to suddenly become part of his offensive game.

Not to mention he started bunting less and less as he hit more and more balls hard in Tampa: he had 18 bunt attempts according to Fangraphs in 06, and then just 19 attempts since then, including last year (just 4 of them successful).

Fangraphs actually has him with 25 career bunt hits in 91 attempts, so that's just a .274 BA, lower than his career mark of .293. From 06-10 he had a .303 BA. I can see a bunt every once in a while to keep the defense honest, but I'd rather he try to figure out what was going right for him from 2006-2010 than work on new tricks at this point in his career.

Edit: plus if you bunt, the best you're going to do is a single and you can't really do it with guys on base. You'd need to have a much higher success rate than .273 to make it a good play.

Edited by Toe Nash, 06 March 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[Al Zarilla]

Boy I'm glad Valentine knows the secret to bunting that no other coach has been able to successfully show Carl before. Too bad we didn't have him to show Wily Mo Pena how to lay off balls in the dirt too.

Could be that all his previous coaches assumed a LHH with great speed would know how to bunt. ST is the time for going over fundamentals. Good Bobby, now help him learn to hit with his new stance.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Could be that all his previous coaches assumed a LHH with great speed would know how to bunt. ST is the time for going over fundamentals. Good Bobby, now help him learn to hit with his new stance.

The point being bunting's never been part of his game and that until last year his game was impressive enough without hit.

Crawford doesn't need to learn how to bunt. He needs to remember how to hit doubles and play good defense again, like he did in Tampa.

Hey, if the article had stated Bobby had Crawford taking a ton of extra work in the OF and worked with him personally out there, I'd have zero problem with that.

[Toe Nash]

Could be that all his previous coaches assumed a LHH with great speed would know how to bunt. ST is the time for going over fundamentals. Good Bobby, now help him learn to hit with his new stance.

Joe Maddon, the best manager in the history of ever, with all sorts of experience and fantastic drills to teach his team, never noticed that Carl kind of sucked at bunting? Nor did any of the Rays brilliant front office notice the numbers I pointed out above?

I'm using hyperbole, but the Rays coaching staff is pretty good. I really doubt they just assumed Crawford knew how to bunt.

[Al Zarilla]

Better late than never. If opposing teams think he may bunt now and then, they play the corner infielders in more against him. Don't know how that can hurt.

[TheoShmeo]

An embarrassingly cloying profile of Bobby V by Pete Abe in the Globe today. Bobby must've bought the guy lunch at a buffet.

As expected, bunting will save us all:



Nothing really new here. Nothing to make anyone change their minds about him. If you like him, this article will confirm everything you like about him. If you hate him...well, ditto.

I like him but Pete Abe isn't capable of changing how I think about anything.

That said, Valentine's energy and ability to teach are themes in this article and really almost every article about Valentine. Those are indeed things I like very much.

[Div School Sox Fan]

This whole discussion is bizarre. Only SJH characterized that little vignette as "bunting will save us all." That story is one of many little narratives of Valentine offering instruction to his players. Obviously not every piece of instruction offered will make a huge difference. But if he's instructing 20 players a day or more, and he makes an impact just 2% of the time, that is more than enough to justify his work.

Over his managerial career, Valentine's players have outplayed expectations by 227 runs (see Chris Jaffe, Evaluating Baseball Managers). That could be a fluke, obviously, but the stories of Valentine's instructional ocd seem to fit with his objective record.

[Doctor G]

Hopefully not, but yeah, it's a valid worry. One of the things I loved about Tito was that he understood that sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. He rarely acted reflexively or did something just for the sake of doing something. Maybe he overdid it on occasion, but I thought it was one of his strengths.

I won't mind a more active approach from Valentine if he's good at it, though. There's more than one way to skin the cat.

if Bobby can turn the Red Sox into a consistently aggressive team, it will be a change for the better.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

This whole discussion is bizarre. Only SJH characterized that little vignette as "bunting will save us all." That story is one of many little narratives of Valentine offering instruction to his players. Obviously not every piece of instruction offered will make a huge difference. But if he's instructing 20 players a day or more, and he makes an impact just 2% of the time, that is more than enough to justify his work.

Over his managerial career, Valentine's players have outplayed expectations by 227 runs (see Chris Jaffe, Evaluating Baseball Managers). That could be a fluke, obviously, but the stories of Valentine's instructional ocd seem to fit with his objective record.

My point about "bunting will save us all" is because of the picture of Valentine personally taking time to work with Crawford on bunting, which a) isn't the way Carl's going to get back to being a very good player again, and b) silly because Carl's age and career history show that he's NEVER used bunting as a weapon on his way to being a dynamic player.

He might as well be working with Shoppach on stealing bases. It's a waste of time. I'd much prefer they run Carl's ass around LF a lot and get him back to being a good defensive player.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Maybe it's easier to bunt on grass than on phonyturf, so there was less call for a bunt in TB when it was more likely to roll to the third baseman?

[reggiecleveland]

This smacks of the guy that thinks he is just smarter than all the coaches Carl has had before.

[Rasputin]

This smacks of the guy that thinks he is just smarter than all the coaches Carl has had before.

It also smacks of a guy who is trying to get everything he can out of his players. Carl Crawford is fast. If he can get accustomed to bunting for hits just enough to make other teams respect it then he's a little bit of a better player.

Who doesn't want that?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

My point about "bunting will save us all" is because of the picture of Valentine personally taking time to work with Crawford on bunting, which a) isn't the way Carl's going to get back to being a very good player again, and b) silly because Carl's age and career history show that he's NEVER used bunting as a weapon on his way to being a dynamic player.

He might as well be working with Shoppach on stealing bases. It's a waste of time. I'd much prefer they run Carl's ass around LF a lot and get him back to being a good defensive player.

If Crawford can lay down enough bunts-for-hits against LHP's -- say, 6 per season -- that's enough to bring his OBP against the bad side of his split up to reasonably decent production. With his acceleration, there's no real reason he shouldn't be able to do that.

FWIW, if he had 6 bunt hits against LHP average per year from 2008-10, then his weak-side split OBP would have been .336. His OBP split vs. RHP would have remained .365.

No, those aren't otherworldly numbers, but good situational drag bunting would justify playing him every day, perhaps even in the 2-hole. Because if Ellsbury is on 1st, and the right-side infielders also have to worry about Crawford showing bunt, that's tremendous pressure being placed on the pitching and defense.

I'm not saying having Crawford bunt in every situation would be a good thing, obviously. But having that situational threat, and having him confident enough to use it, is not a bad thing.

[bob burda]

This smacks of the guy that thinks he is just smarter than all the coaches Carl has had before.

File under "just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"....as this is easy to say about Valentine, but ultimately it is not a stretch to say he might be smarter than all those other guys. Crawford grew up in the Tampa Bay organization, and up until Maddon/Friedman hires I don't think they were good at anything. By the time Maddon arrived Crawford was an established vet and one of their best players. In terms of direction, he was probably one of the least "needy" guys on the team. It's very different now, as Crawford is one of the players most deserving of attention on his current team.

Which leads me to the part I already like about Valentine; he's unafraid to confront players about weaknesses in their game, and everything I've seen/heard says he's prescriptive in helping them improve (as opposed to the Piniella style "throw strikes!" command). I've seen Valentine on ESPN giving simple and coherent explanations of why a player is in a hitting or fielding slump, and what that player should do about it. The criticism of him as overbearing/overeaching may not be unfair either - you can lose guys by getting into issues they are just not ready to address - and that's the downside to this way of doing things. Here's hoping he's discriminating enough to find the teachable moments and not irritate guys with intervention when they don't want it/aren't ready for it.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

And if Shoppach could steal 10 bases, my God think of the possibilities!

Bunting is not a panacea, and Crawford has put together a fine career without using it as a weapon. Given how screwed up the guy was at the plate last year, it seems to me that asking him to suddenly make bunting a new part of his game is not going to be useful.

[rembrat]

Did the article mention that Crawford is sidelined because of the bunting? That's my favorite development so far.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Since this thread allows every one to fit every story and report into a pro-Bobby and anti-Bobby narrative at the same time, I'll chime in with the armchair psychology behind his working with Carl Crawford on bunting.

It's ST, and he's preaching fundamentals. Innocuous, non-controversial outside of SoSH, and sensible. Bobby Valentine is also the new guy and wants to evaluate and get to know his players, and for them to get to know him. I assume because he wants them to be in the best position to contribute to winning as a team.

Carl doesn't bunt, but bunting drills fit the ST theme and are also one of the most direct one-on-one meetings that a coach can have with a player and have it not seem like he's calling anyone out. It's like when the pitchers pick up the bat before interleague play. Most drills are group sessions and/or more public. This way Bobby approaches The Carl Situation (abysmal 2011 performance, 2012 fresh starts up and down Landsdowne Street) without it seeming to be a Carl Situation.

It's like the stepdad trying to reach out to their new son -

[Rasputin]

And if Shoppach could steal 10 bases, my God think of the possibilities!

Shoppach doesn't have the necessary skills to steal a bunch of bases. Shoppach being able to steal bases isn't going to help him use his other skills.

Crawford is fast and if he can just bunt for enough hits that the defenses have to pay attention to it, he'll get more hits when he swings away.

Bunting is not a panacea, and Crawford has put together a fine career without using it as a weapon. Given how screwed up the guy was at the plate last year, it seems to me that asking him to suddenly make bunting a new part of his game is not going to be useful.

Of course it isn't. Of course he hasn't. Of course you're wrong. It's spring training and he's being asked to work on something he's not particularly good at.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Shoppach doesn't have the necessary skills to steal a bunch of bases. Shoppach being able to steal bases isn't going to help him use his other skills.

Crawford is fast and if he can just bunt for enough hits that the defenses have to pay attention to it, he'll get more hits when he swings away.

Crawford's ENTIRE CAREER has shown that he doesn't have the skills necessary to bunt for base hits. You need more than speed to do so. If he wasn't bunting much for hits when he was 23, he's not going to be bunting for hits at 31.

Of course it isn't. Of course he hasn't. Of course you're wrong. It's spring training and he's being asked to work on something he's not particularly good at.

He could try defense, which was bad last year after being good beforehand. There's little to no benefit from Crawford working on bunting (and hey, he's already gotten hurt from doing so). His defense, however, is another issue, since previous to 2011 it made up a large part of his value.

[absintheofmalaise]

Crawford's ENTIRE CAREER has shown that he doesn't have the skills necessary to bunt for base hits. You need more than speed to do so. If he wasn't bunting much for hits when he was 23, he's not going to be bunting for hits at 31.



He could try defense, which was bad last year after being good beforehand. There's little to no benefit from Crawford working on bunting (and hey, he's already gotten hurt from doing so). His defense, however, is another issue, since previous to 2011 it made up a large part of his value.

It was mentioned upthread, but bunting is a skill that can be taught, even at the advanced age of 30. All it takes is a couple of bunt hits to change how the corners play defense on him. If they play closer to the grass that will increase the chances of a ball getting through the hole they leave.

Do you really think they aren't going to work on improving the OF defense on not just Crawford, but with all of the OFs? With all of the drills they are supposed to be doing it should improve.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Crawford's ENTIRE CAREER has shown that he doesn't have the skills necessary to bunt for base hits. You need more than speed to do so. If he wasn't bunting much for hits when he was 23, he's not going to be bunting for hits at 31.

Wrong -- his last two managers haven't been using the skills he has. Under McRae and Pinella, he bunted for a base hit at a .368 clip (well above his overall .289 AVG)

Lou Pinella/Hal McRae in charge (522 games):
53 PA, 14 H, 15 SH, 3 ROE, 0 GDP

Joe Maddon/Terry Francona in charge (843 games):
28 PA, 3 H, 12 SH, 1 ROE, 0 GDP

And in case you were wondering if he lost the ability as he aged: Crawford 2010: 7 PA, 3 H, 3 SH, 1 ROE, 0 GDP

Edited by Buzzkill Pauley, 06 March 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If he's bunted only 28 times over 843 games (which is an enormous sample size), I'm pretty sure that it's not because it's some underutilized skill, it's because he's not good at it and so his managers rightly had him do other things. The rate is so low as to be microscopic.

And I don't see what 7 plate appearances 2 years ago have to do with anything.

[JimBoSox9]

That story is one of many little narratives of Valentine offering instruction to his players. Obviously not every piece of instruction offered will make a huge difference. But if he's instructing 20 players a day or more, and he makes an impact just 2% of the time, that is more than enough to justify his work.

Writing a narrative about a manager offering instruction to his players is like writing about a third baseman taking some practice grounders. Do you really think that that little 20 players/2 percent amount makes Valentine somehow unique? He didn't invent the concept of one-on-one instruction (although, to be fair, he probably thinks he did). It's not the amount of instruction he's providing compared to other managers that's interesting, it's what he's spending his time instruction them on that matters.

OMG HE'S TEACHING PLAYERS ABOUT BASEBALL is just part of the Bobby V media sploogefest that's been coming out of Ft. Myers the past couple weeks. It all smacks of wanting to write something good instead of having something good to write about. Time will tell.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

If he's bunted only 28 times over 843 games (which is an enormous sample size), I'm pretty sure that it's not because it's some underutilized skill, it's because he's not good at it and so his managers rightly had him do other things. The rate is so low as to be microscopic

... Or it's because those managers didn't utilize a "green-light" system, or encouraged Carl to swing away to utilize power (and, by proxy, discouraging bunting), or any variety of reasons.

It's pretty clear though: before Madden, he bunted much more and at a much more productive clip. That may mean Madden identified it as a weakness, but it also may be a weakness on the part of Madden. (Or, more fairly, a strategic decision)

[aron7awol]

Wrong -- his last two managers haven't been using the skills he has. Under McRae and Pinella, he bunted for a base hit at a .368 clip (well above his overall .289 AVG)

Lou Pinella/Hal McRae in charge (522 games):
53 PA, 14 H, 15 SH, 3 ROE, 0 GDP

Joe Maddon/Terry Francona in charge (843 games):
28 PA, 3 H, 12 SH, 1 ROE, 0 GDP

And in case you were wondering if he lost the ability as he aged: Crawford 2010: 7 PA, 3 H, 3 SH, 1 ROE, 0 GDP

How many of these were sacrifice bunts and how many were bunting for a base hit? I think the answer to the question "Should Carl Crawford try to bunt for base hits?" is more complicated than H/(PA-SH). If he bunts for a base hit with a runner on, and is thrown out, it's called a sacrifice and he is not penalized. If he legitimately is sacrificing, and he happens to lay down a nice bunt and beats it out for a hit, he gets rewarded. My point is, with a runner on, it is a no risk situation to bunt, according to H/(PA-SH). Obviously we can't know his intent in bunting from looking at boxscores, but do you have this same data, but with the bases empty? At least in those situations he is clearly bunting for a base hit.

I'm okay with him trying to bunt for base hits against LHP if he can get on base about 35% of the time or more, given his poor performance against LHP.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

If he's bunted only 28 times over 843 games (which is an enormous sample size), I'm pretty sure that it's not because it's some underutilized skill, it's because he's not good at it and so his managers rightly had him do other things. The rate is so low as to be microscopic.

And I don't see what 7 plate appearances 2 years ago have to do with anything.

Crawford bunted roughly 1% of his total plate appearances under Maddon. Coincidentally, the Rays as a team have bunted roughly 1% of their total plate appearances under Maddon.

That must be because the entire Rays team over 5 seasons weren't good at it, rather than a general managerial bias against the bunt, right? Of course, the data showing Crawford's effective bunting during his last season under Maddon couldn't be relevant...

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Crawford bunted roughly 1% of his total plate appearances under Maddon. Coincidentally, the Rays as a team have bunted roughly 1% of their total plate appearances under Maddon.

That must be because the entire Rays team over 5 seasons weren't good at it, rather than a general managerial bias against the bunt, right? Of course, the data showing Crawford's effective bunting during his last season under Maddon couldn't be relevant...

1% of plate appearances tell me it's a complete waste of time, and as a bonus Crawford got injured putting in extra bunting work. Maddon's no idiot.

Bunting is by and large a stupid idea unless the batter is EXCELLENT at it and/or circumstances call for it, say when the crazy shift is on against Ortiz (and every once in a while he'll drop one down). Carl's got enough on his plate at this point in time not to be wasting time and energy trying something with such limited benefits.