Sacrifice Bunt with 1 Out, Runner on First?

A clear mistake. With the pitching so tight and Nakajima on form, trying to hit would have been the better option. Whilst a hit was not a given, the bunt was a guaranteed out. All this decision accomplished was to give Korea a bit of a lift with a second out.

Hi Christopher

I had the same doubt as you had.
Though, I'm positive about using the sacrifice bunt, especially in a 1-0 close game, I think it wasn't the right timing.

In the first place, Nakajima's record shows that he has bunted only 7 times in his 7 year professional baseball career.

I know that records do not show everything, but it makes my doubt deeper.

Just for information.

It's easy for us to question the call considering it did not work, but with Aoki coming up, who is a pretty darn good contact hitter, and a fast runner like Ichiro at second, who would surely score on a single to the outfield, I thought it was a pretty good move.

Japanese baseball is based on conservatism, is it not? You stick with what you know and what worked in the past. Can not fault them for that.

It would have been a good move with no outs. With one out it's a very dubious move. Most Japanese coaches will bunt with no outs not with one out.

With two good hitters (Nakajima and Aoki) you increase your chances and possibly set up runners on first and third with one out. The bunt decreases your scoring chances.

Taking into the consideration of how the flow of the game went with base runners in scoring position, they were few and far between. Also, was not Ryu on the hill, who is widely regarded as one of the best pitchers in all of Asia?

I'm just saying that it is not out of the question to deploy this strategy. Is it overly fundamental to want, above all else, a runner on second? Could be. Giving up outs when you are down to your last 5 is always risky.

In the end it did not work out. If it had, however, the move would have been praised. It did not, so the heat from many is felt and questioned.

And so goes the life of a Manager. They don't get the big bucks for nothing.

I have to call it a bad move regardless of it being successful or not. To bunt with 1 out so late in the game (8th inning), with the score and the pace of the game the way they were was not the best move. Maybe if it was the 5th or 6th inning and you do it to try to shift momentum or make something happen, it is a different story. I would have taken my chances turning Ichiro "loose" (steal 2nd) and give my team 2 very good chances to score (Nakajima and Aoki).

But I'm not the one running the team; so kudos to Hara-kantoku for taking risks and showing he's not afraid to do anything to win.

However, I think it's time for Uchikawa to take over first base duties and try Abe as DH (at least once). With Uchikawa in the line-up you give yourself a better chance to get the offense flowing (i.e., first game vs. Korea).

I do still believe Japan will win it all; hopefully they can make all adjustments necessary.

Not only has Nakajima laid down seven sacrifice bunts, but he has failed four times. Not a good percentage move with an 82 percent base stealer on first. The bunt is often a better move than people give it credit for, but not this one.

As for Hara getting flak? Yasunari Oshima on NHK this morning said Hara shouldn't have waited until the 8th inning to bunt. What game was he watching?

The only chances prior to that were:

1. with Aoki in the fourth, runner on second one out. Aoki got Nakajima to third with a ground out; and
2. with Murata one out and Nakajima at third.
Using Murata to squeeze? What are these people thinking?