Which do baseball stats show is more likely to succeed, the bunt or the sac fly? The potential payout of the sac fly is inherently higher, but is it higher risk?

(03-21-2013 11:17 AM)grol Wrote:  Bunting

Coach stated Monday night that bunting was better this year. From the games I've seen, I agreee. It does seem like the team has practiced this skill more this year (fall and spring).

Last night's performance did not show the overall improvement that we've witnessed and that Coach acknowledged, "Walt Greenberg would like."

At least a couple of instances of missed bunts occurred when it looked as if the batter was trying to disguise the play to the last, though everyone in the stands and on the field was expecting a bunt. Also, the UTSA pitcher at the time was effectively wild, meaning that there were several shows of bunt that were pulled back (and then some pulled back that were called strikes, and some bunts attempted on balls out of the zone).

I agree with Walt that a higher percentage of sac bunts are completed when the batter is squared around ahead of the pitch. If that is the play, and everyone knows it, does it need to be disguised? The opposite can happen, too: Batter squares around early, then back to swing (the butcher boy).

One does not-- or should not-- disguise a sac bunt. The proper technique, and the one that will greatly increase the success rate, is to fully square around and get yourself in position facing the pitcher. Not only are you in a better position to properly bunt down on the ball, but you're also better able to determine whether the pitch is in the strikezone. The ONLY time one should be disguising a bunt is when bunting for a hit (with no intention of sacrificing) or when the squeeze is on. Not fully squaring around on a sac bunt is simply poor technique and will greatly reduce the success rate. Again, that's a fact and is not really debatable.

(03-21-2013 02:49 PM)elf owl Wrote:  There are natural bunters and there are natural hitters. I think our recruiting shows that we opt for the hitters over the bunters except where they are one and the same. Bunting can be learned but not everyone has the proper knack, even with practice.

I don't doubt we practice bunting and that it will pay off more and more as the season progresses, especially since we seem bound and determined to play a lot of low scoring games. If we keep doing it we are probably going to improve.

So the Coach is aware as are all the players that we need effective bunting. All the fans are now aware that bunting is not our best look. So that's pretty much everyone.

The question is do we really need to criticize what we are working hardest to correct? Is it not beating a dead horse?

Elf, that is simply not the case. There is no such thing as a "natural bunter". Good bunters get that way because they learn the proper technique and work at perfect it. As many have mentioned, most players at the D-1 level-- certainly at the top programs-- were rarely called upon the bunt prior to college because they were the stars of their Little League and High School teams. Again, that's true of every quality D-1 program; not only Rice. However, I really do not see the debate that bunting is a learned skill that ANYONE can develop proficiency on with proper teaching of technique and practice. I am not saying-- and never have said-- that our coaching staff does not practice bunting, and Im pretty confident they know the proper technique. However, something is amiss when year after year we have multiple guys who refuse to square around and sacrifice themselves when called upon to lay down a sac bunt. Either we do not practice it as much as other teams (which is fine if the coaching staff has a different set of priorities), or we simply do not emphasize/demand the proper technique to the same degree as other coaches.

(03-21-2013 02:29 PM)mort goldblatt Wrote:  I have heard OG answer this question before. They always have bunting practice and probably don't need to schedule it. I think people got stirred up because you seem to be suggesting (maybe just sarcastically) that OG is too incompetent to 1. do this in the first place and 2. that you could understand all the other variables that may have contributed to the poor bunting last night by your vantage. I was not there, but I can tell you that owlvision combined with a radio broadcast did not leave me with any confidence that I knew what the heck was going on. You must have a better pixel ratio than I do.

It is mildly interesting what others (mis)read into my short post "Memo to Wayne: Schedule bunting practice." It was not a criticism of the OG, whose little finger knows more about baseball than I do. It wasn't about how often or when Rice bunts, or the wisdom or strategy of bunting. In was wry criticism of the unmistakeably poor execution when bunts were attempted against UTSA. I do feel confident that bunt execution was poor against UTSA. I did have a better pixel ratio. I was sitting behind home plate.

well then I am sure you were correct.

On the caught stealing I'm pretty sure the runner got the sign wrong, as I heard some coaching when he got back to the dugout.

On the UTSA runner going to third on the WP / PB, that was ill advised when they were down big and he was almost thrown out at third.

On the bunting, we have been better this year until last night. I agree with the effectively wild comment. In Rat's attempts it looked to me like he got 2 low sliders which were hard to handle.

Good win for the Owls. Lets get Southern Miss!

At the risk of being obvious, it seems to me that the dead bats and more bunting and small ball go ball-in-glove (hand-in-hand...).

And another observation (not necessarily mine) is that the surest way for a hitter to go into a period of long flyball outs, is to hit a home run.

(03-21-2013 04:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 02:49 PM)elf owl Wrote:  There are natural bunters and there are natural hitters. I think our recruiting shows that we opt for the hitters over the bunters except where they are one and the same. Bunting can be learned but not everyone has the proper knack, even with practice.

I don't doubt we practice bunting and that it will pay off more and more as the season progresses, especially since we seem bound and determined to play a lot of low scoring games. If we keep doing it we are probably going to improve.

So the Coach is aware as are all the players that we need effective bunting. All the fans are now aware that bunting is not our best look. So that's pretty much everyone.

The question is do we really need to criticize what we are working hardest to correct? Is it not beating a dead horse?

Elf, that is simply not the case. There is no such thing as a "natural bunter". Good bunters get that way because they learn the proper technique and work at perfect it. As many have mentioned, most players at the D-1 level-- certainly at the top programs-- were rarely called upon the bunt prior to college because they were the stars of their Little League and High School teams. Again, that's true of every quality D-1 program; not only Rice. However, I really do not see the debate that bunting is a learned skill that ANYONE can develop proficiency on with proper teaching of technique and practice. I am not saying-- and never have said-- that our coaching staff does not practice bunting, and Im pretty confident they know the proper technique. However, something is amiss when year after year we have multiple guys who refuse to square around and sacrifice themselves when called upon to lay down a sac bunt. Either we do not practice it as much as other teams (which is fine if the coaching staff has a different set of priorities), or we simply do not emphasize/demand the proper technique to the same degree as other coaches.

Walt, after the radio show the other night I'm sure that OG would love for you to go to Houston and give a bunting demonstration. Maybe you could show us how to bunt a 92 mph slider. By the way let's leave the criticism to a minimum...11 runs isn't so bad. As the OG would say win baby win!!!!!!! :badger::badger::badger::noisycricket::noisycricket::noisycricket::bandit::bandit::smokie::rolltide::rolltide::rolltide::discoaintdead::ugaexams::kneelsucka::kneelsucka::dirtyvegas::clap2::uberbow::uberbow::tomcat::moon2::moon2::moon2::withstupid::withstupid::withstupid:

(03-21-2013 01:06 PM)Hardball Owl Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 11:26 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 11:17 AM)grol Wrote:  Bunting

Coach stated Monday night that bunting was better this year. From the games I've seen, I agreee. It does seem like the team has practiced this skill more this year (fall and spring).

Last night's performance did not show the overall improvement that we've witnessed and that Coach acknowledged, "Walt Greenberg would like."

I agree that I believe this year's team has been bunting the ball better than recent teams.

Since I started this with my "Memo to Wayne: Schedule bunting practice," my point was only that against UTSA when Rice attempted to bunt those attempts were not well executed. I agree that our team's bunting generally seems to be more effectively executed when called this year than last year (although that's not saying much), but against UTSA it was not. Quite a number of bunts for strikes, not even foul balls.

I'm not a fan of bunting in the expectation of a single as opposed to a sacrifice, even with our fastest players on the basepaths, absent a known weak fielder who is badly positioned on the play. We've tried that quite a number of times this year without much success as I recall.

You kind of started it as my response wasn't totally to what you posted.

The only part directed at you was the definition of practice, and I was trying to point out that people practice medicine and law, etc., and that every bunt attempt, in that context is practice. (And I wanted to make the point that I was very confident that the team was already practicing bunting aside from the games.

My other issue was not with bunting, yay or nay, but the observation that when we don't bunt enough - - there is criticism. When we bunt unsuccessfully, it's the fact 'we're bunting at a bad time' when we fail to get the bunt down, because 'the situation called for a SF' i.e., more criticism for not doing the 'obvious' (for the life of me, I've never heard of a player intentionally trying to hit a SF. A SF is better than a strikeout, or a sharp grounder to 3rd, but not better than a double in the gap or on the line hit with the same force but just not at someone. More to the point, I believe almost all SF's occur when players are trying to get a hit. I don't believe it's part of the never-ending situational hitting discussion.)

I don't hate the SH. It's the second-guessing when the Coach doesn't do what you think he should, and then the second-guessing after he does what you've been publically flogging the team for not doing. (and by 'you', I'm not necessarily referring to you or to anyone, just the tendency to second guess when things don't work out).

13th put it very well. Sometimes you do the right thing, but it just doesn't work out well. In sports like baseball, that can happen because there is a team of 9 players trying to prevent you from executing, and you can give them some credit when they're successful, or you can always assume it's because you're own team's players are 'failing to execute'. It's not always one or the other. More on that in my next post.

(03-21-2013 07:20 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 05:19 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 10:09 PM)Hardball Owl Wrote:  Memo to Wayne:

Schedule bunt practice.

Sounds like that's what he was doing tonight (not that they don't practice bunting in practice, but that's still not the same as doing it 'live'). And I think that's fine.

When Coach doesn't bunt earlier this season, some of the board goes nuts because 'why don't we realize that we are not a 3-run HR ball club anymore? Why can't we see we need to play some small ball, and play to the situation?"

Fair enough, but. . . . .

So when we fail to bunt, there's much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Maybe the reason that coach wasn't bunting more earlier is that he felt that our team batting average, even when bad, gave us a better chance swinging away then bunting. I've given it some thought, and I've come to the conclusion that he sees a lot more of the player's bunting capabilities than we do.

This game, after a failed bunt, there are cries 'can't we see the situation called for a sacrifice fly."

then an inning or so later, we score 'only' one run . . . on a sacrifice fly no less . . . and the predictable post - - 'again we fail to execute.'

one inning we're screwing up because we failed to bunt and don't order up the 'on demand SF'. The next we're failing to execute when we do score on a SF (after another failed bunt). At some point then don't we get to credit someone for executing when they deliver the 'demanded' SF?

Or is it only 'executing' when a SF is produced in very specific conditions?

I realize that this is the result of spur of the moment, emotion filled posting in the heat of a game.

And given our offense to date, I hardly blame coach for trying to manufacture a run or three by bunting, particularly when our starter was stringing together shutout innings early on.

Good grief, Rick. Any team at this level should be bunting successfully at a least a 75% clip (and that is a lowball, bare minimum number). Just look at what our opposition's success rate is, and we're usually a better defensive team than our opponents. Stop making excuses or rationalizing our sub-par ability to bunt consistently. And make no mistake about it, bunting is a learned skill; if you practice it and emphasize the correct techniques to employ you WILL improve your ability. We still have far too many guys who when sacrificing, instead of fully squaring around, committing to the bunt, and "sacrificing" themselves, are waiting to the last minute and only partially squaring around. The techniques for bunting for a hit are very much different than laying down a sac bunt; in the latter case, you should be fully squaring around well in advance so that you're in the proper position. You're not trying to deceive anyone. Only a couple of our guys do that. And this has been the case the past 3 - 4 seasons. Consequently, I have to seriously question whether we spend much time teaching proper bunting techniques.

Again, don't give me the same tired explanation that most of these guys were the #3 or #4 hitter on their high school team and never were asked to bunt. The exact same thing could be said of every player on every other Top 100 D-1 team...yet we appear to be one of the few who cannot bunt consistently. Again, it's a learned skill that can most definitely be developed and perfected with practice.

I will agree that failing to get down 5 bunts in a game is not a desireable outcome, and that on the surface there would seem to be room for improvement, on a game-by-game basis. However,

However, I believe you're oversimplifying and aren't providing adequate statistics to justify a 75% bare, acceptable minimum, successful bunt ratio, or the statement that we're one of the few teams who cannot bunt consistently.

Apart from regular practice (where I teach all the team to bunt, or at least attempt to . . . these are 9 and 10 year olds), I take my son out and throw him a bucket of balls and have him attempt to bunt. It hasn't taken him long to be successful more than 50% of the time, and actually higher, considering my command is what you'd expect of someone throwing to a 9-year old without a catcher.

However, that is not translatable obviously, not even to his league.

It would be nuts for me to say, 'heck any 9-year old can get half his bunts down, so clearly we're abject failures at bunting.'

Moreover, when he squares around, I'm not trying to bust him inside, or burying breaking balls in the dirt. In fact, I'm not throwing him any breaking balls at all, or anything close to the velocity and movement of a college fastball. Heck, I'm not throwing with the speed of some of the pitchers in his league. There are other factors at play here as well.

Compared to his teammates, he's an 'excellent' bunter (he's had orders of magnitude more practice). But the reality is that it's just low pressure practice outside of a game environment provided for the necessary reps.

As I alluded to a 'post ago', there is another team and specifically a pitcher on the field, who is trained as well. When a batter turns to bunt, they've got a variety of things they can do to combat the bunt, starting with intentionally throwing a pitch that the pitching coaches have taught them is hard to handle. they can pitch out, particularly if they also suspect a steal is on. They can throw inside. If the called pitch was a breaking ball, maybe they just throw it anyway. Breaking balls can be harder to bunt. Maybe because it's a bunt and run, or because the batter wants so badly to get the bunt down, he makes an attempt at a pitch that is not a strike, and is virtually non-bunteable. He tries a little too hard to do his job.

And then there's the defense. It it's a likely bunt situation, the opposing coach can put a play on to defend it.

NOW, if your batter is someone who is normally not called upon to bunt (Willie McCovey the extreme to Freddie Patek, but there are variations all along the way), the other factors get compounded.

To your points, I don't disagree that we could stand to get better results, and I agree 100% that the more practice we have, the better bunters we'll be. But all the practice in the world won't guarantee results, 75% or otherwise. 0 for 5 is bad. If it's coming on the heels of an 8 out of 10 success ratio . . . .
This is baseball, and the guy with the bat isn't the only one controlling the game.

It's not so much the desire for better results that invoke reaction, but the histrionics and absolutes that come out when we don't achieve them. And as I've tried to note, they do come in the heat of the moment.

Well of course the sacrifice fly isn't so much the objective as it is the less-than-hoped-for-but-still-satisfactory outcome of an instruction to the batter to swing for the fences. I would have thought that went without saying. But regardless of what one believes about a batter's ability to control the outcome enough to get a long shot to OF vs something else, there's still a fundamental difference between swinging and bunting, and a SF cannot result from a bunt. Would it help to use the phrase trying for a hard hit instead of trying for a SF? That's what's meant.

As for not kibbitzing from the bleachers and never debating the decisions on the field from the comfort of an armchair - well, that's just unAmerican!

(03-21-2013 04:11 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 11:17 AM)grol Wrote:  Bunting

Coach stated Monday night that bunting was better this year. From the games I've seen, I agreee. It does seem like the team has practiced this skill more this year (fall and spring).

Last night's performance did not show the overall improvement that we've witnessed and that Coach acknowledged, "Walt Greenberg would like."

At least a couple of instances of missed bunts occurred when it looked as if the batter was trying to disguise the play to the last, though everyone in the stands and on the field was expecting a bunt. Also, the UTSA pitcher at the time was effectively wild, meaning that there were several shows of bunt that were pulled back (and then some pulled back that were called strikes, and some bunts attempted on balls out of the zone).

I agree with Walt that a higher percentage of sac bunts are completed when the batter is squared around ahead of the pitch. If that is the play, and everyone knows it, does it need to be disguised? The opposite can happen, too: Batter squares around early, then back to swing (the butcher boy).

One does not-- or should not-- disguise a sac bunt. The proper technique, and the one that will greatly increase the success rate, is to fully square around and get yourself in position facing the pitcher. Not only are you in a better position to properly bunt down on the ball, but you're also better able to determine whether the pitch is in the strikezone. The ONLY time one should be disguising a bunt is when bunting for a hit (with no intention of sacrificing) or when the squeeze is on. Not fully squaring around on a sac bunt is simply poor technique and will greatly reduce the success rate. Again, that's a fact and is not really debatable.

I agree that you are more likely to be succesful if you can square around and get in position to bunt before the ball gets close to the plate. With 9 and 10 year olds, it's a night and day difference. And it's certainly reasonable to expect better results at the college and pro levels as well, although a very good bunter may not have a terrible dropoff in success even when disguising the bunt.

On the other hand, I would disagree with an absolute statement that there is never a need to disguise a sacrifice bunt. There can be situations, particularly if you're facing a great fielding team, particularly one with quick corners, and a laser-armed catcher, when your chances of being successful (i.e., moving the runner(s) up) are greater if you have the element of surprise. For that matter, disguising a bunt may prevent the pitcher from taking counter-measures (i.e. busting the batter inside, etc).

In other words, don't necessarily disagree with the gist of your statements, but do (unsurprisingly) disagree with the statement posed as an absolute fact.

(03-21-2013 10:39 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 07:20 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 05:19 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 10:09 PM)Hardball Owl Wrote:  Memo to Wayne:

Schedule bunt practice.

Sounds like that's what he was doing tonight (not that they don't practice bunting in practice, but that's still not the same as doing it 'live'). And I think that's fine.

When Coach doesn't bunt earlier this season, some of the board goes nuts because 'why don't we realize that we are not a 3-run HR ball club anymore? Why can't we see we need to play some small ball, and play to the situation?"

Fair enough, but. . . . .

So when we fail to bunt, there's much weeping and gnashing of teeth. Maybe the reason that coach wasn't bunting more earlier is that he felt that our team batting average, even when bad, gave us a better chance swinging away then bunting. I've given it some thought, and I've come to the conclusion that he sees a lot more of the player's bunting capabilities than we do.

This game, after a failed bunt, there are cries 'can't we see the situation called for a sacrifice fly."

then an inning or so later, we score 'only' one run . . . on a sacrifice fly no less . . . and the predictable post - - 'again we fail to execute.'

one inning we're screwing up because we failed to bunt and don't order up the 'on demand SF'. The next we're failing to execute when we do score on a SF (after another failed bunt). At some point then don't we get to credit someone for executing when they deliver the 'demanded' SF?

Or is it only 'executing' when a SF is produced in very specific conditions?

I realize that this is the result of spur of the moment, emotion filled posting in the heat of a game.

And given our offense to date, I hardly blame coach for trying to manufacture a run or three by bunting, particularly when our starter was stringing together shutout innings early on.

Good grief, Rick. Any team at this level should be bunting successfully at a least a 75% clip (and that is a lowball, bare minimum number). Just look at what our opposition's success rate is, and we're usually a better defensive team than our opponents. Stop making excuses or rationalizing our sub-par ability to bunt consistently. And make no mistake about it, bunting is a learned skill; if you practice it and emphasize the correct techniques to employ you WILL improve your ability. We still have far too many guys who when sacrificing, instead of fully squaring around, committing to the bunt, and "sacrificing" themselves, are waiting to the last minute and only partially squaring around. The techniques for bunting for a hit are very much different than laying down a sac bunt; in the latter case, you should be fully squaring around well in advance so that you're in the proper position. You're not trying to deceive anyone. Only a couple of our guys do that. And this has been the case the past 3 - 4 seasons. Consequently, I have to seriously question whether we spend much time teaching proper bunting techniques.

Again, don't give me the same tired explanation that most of these guys were the #3 or #4 hitter on their high school team and never were asked to bunt. The exact same thing could be said of every player on every other Top 100 D-1 team...yet we appear to be one of the few who cannot bunt consistently. Again, it's a learned skill that can most definitely be developed and perfected with practice.

I will agree that failing to get down 5 bunts in a game is not a desireable outcome, and that on the surface there would seem to be room for improvement, on a game-by-game basis. However,

However, I believe you're oversimplifying and aren't providing adequate statistics to justify a 75% bare, acceptable minimum, successful bunt ratio, or the statement that we're one of the few teams who cannot bunt consistently.

Apart from regular practice (where I teach all the team to bunt, or at least attempt to . . . these are 9 and 10 year olds), I take my son out and throw him a bucket of balls and have him attempt to bunt. It hasn't taken him long to be successful more than 50% of the time, and actually higher, considering my command is what you'd expect of someone throwing to a 9-year old without a catcher.

However, that is not translatable obviously, not even to his league.

It would be nuts for me to say, 'heck any 9-year old can get half his bunts down, so clearly we're abject failures at bunting.'

Moreover, when he squares around, I'm not trying to bust him inside, or burying breaking balls in the dirt. In fact, I'm not throwing him any breaking balls at all, or anything close to the velocity and movement of a college fastball. Heck, I'm not throwing with the speed of some of the pitchers in his league. There are other factors at play here as well.

Compared to his teammates, he's an 'excellent' bunter (he's had orders of magnitude more practice). But the reality is that it's just low pressure practice outside of a game environment provided for the necessary reps.

As I alluded to a 'post ago', there is another team and specifically a pitcher on the field, who is trained as well. When a batter turns to bunt, they've got a variety of things they can do to combat the bunt, starting with intentionally throwing a pitch that the pitching coaches have taught them is hard to handle. they can pitch out, particularly if they also suspect a steal is on. They can throw inside. If the called pitch was a breaking ball, maybe they just throw it anyway. Breaking balls can be harder to bunt. Maybe because it's a bunt and run, or because the batter wants so badly to get the bunt down, he makes an attempt at a pitch that is not a strike, and is virtually non-bunteable. He tries a little too hard to do his job.

And then there's the defense. It it's a likely bunt situation, the opposing coach can put a play on to defend it.

NOW, if your batter is someone who is normally not called upon to bunt (Willie McCovey the extreme to Freddie Patek, but there are variations all along the way), the other factors get compounded.

To your points, I don't disagree that we could stand to get better results, and I agree 100% that the more practice we have, the better bunters we'll be. But all the practice in the world won't guarantee results, 75% or otherwise. 0 for 5 is bad. If it's coming on the heels of an 8 out of 10 success ratio . . . .
This is baseball, and the guy with the bat isn't the only one controlling the game.

It's not so much the desire for better results that invoke reaction, but the histrionics and absolutes that come out when we don't achieve them. And as I've tried to note, they do come in the heat of the moment.

1. Unless it's a suicide squeeze situation, which The OG rarely, if ever, deploys, the batter/bunter should not be bunting at pitches on the dirt or busting on on the hands. In sacrificing situations, one should not be bunting at balls out of the strike zone; square around and lay off the pitch.

2. My biggest concern I'd one of technique. Save for only several of our players, we're not squaring around when caked upon to bunt, and consequently, we're not only not properly positioned to get the bunt down how and where desired, but more importantly, we're not best positioned to determine whether the pitch is a strike or not. When you wait to the last minute and don't fully square around, you are prone to bunting at the pitch regardless to whether it's even buntable...and that's precisely what a number of our guys are doing.

(03-21-2013 10:50 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well of course the sacrifice fly isn't so much the objective as it is the less-than-hoped-for-but-still-satisfactory outcome of an instruction to the batter to swing for the fences. I would have thought that went without saying. But regardless of what one believes about a batter's ability to control the outcome enough to get a long shot to OF vs something else, there's still a fundamental difference between swinging and bunting, and a SF cannot result from a bunt. Would it help to use the phrase trying for a hard hit instead of trying for a SF? That's what's meant.

As for not kibbitzing from the bleachers and never debating the decisions on the field from the comfort of an armchair - well, that's just unAmerican!

The SF comment was not really aimed at you or your earlier question. During the game, early on, there was a post that stated more or less "Why did we try (and fail) to bunt there. The situation obviously called for a SF?"

The statement came across as so specific and absolute that it stuck with me and I couldn't get rid of it. I should let it go, because it was made in the heat of the moment. It's likely what would happen on TV broadcasting if you had one announcer trying to be the play by play man, the statistician and the color commentator all at once by himself in the booth.

In a sense, it is specific and absolute. As a textbook exercise, calling for a swing to OF with one out and runners on the corners isn't a wrong answer and could very well work, so that's what yours truly, a random yahoo in the stands, thought ought to be done at that moment. But that's where coaching comes in, because OG applied his wisdom and his knowlege of the situation to arrive at a different, better- informed decision that was the better thing to do. The Fates of Baseball are cruel mistresses, though, and can sometimes make yahoo in the stands look "right".

(03-21-2013 10:50 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well of course the sacrifice fly isn't so much the objective as it is the less-than-hoped-for-but-still-satisfactory outcome of an instruction to the batter to swing for the fences. I would have thought that went without saying.

This statement seems incorrect on two counts:

First, a sacrifice fly is NOT primarily an accidental by-product of trying to hit a home run or a double off the wall. It is the result of a deliberate decision to approach a particular plate appearance in a way that increases the odds of hitting a ball that is (1) a fly and (2) reasonably deep but (3) with no concern for catchability, AT THE EXPENSE of decreasing the odds of hitting safely (i.e. with a low degree of catchability) -- including the odds of an extra-base hit. Which is why a successful sac fly is not charged as an at-bat. The hitter goes up looking for a particular kind of pitch, which is different from the kind of pitch he would look for in other situations.

Second, I am pretty sure that Coach Graham would never instruct a player to just "swing for the fences". That is a recipe for popping up (and not necessarily a deep pop-up either) or striking out. I've heard Coach Graham say explicitly that the way to drive the ball to the fence is NOT to aim for hitting the ball high or deep, but simply to aim for hitting the ball hard and square -- which is different from (and harder than) hitting a deep but easily catchable fly ball.

(03-22-2013 10:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 10:50 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well of course the sacrifice fly isn't so much the objective as it is the less-than-hoped-for-but-still-satisfactory outcome of an instruction to the batter to swing for the fences. I would have thought that went without saying.

This statement seems incorrect on two counts:

First, a sacrifice fly is NOT primarily an accidental by-product of trying to hit a home run or a double off the wall. It is the result of a deliberate decision to approach a particular plate appearance in a way that increases the odds of hitting a ball that is (1) a fly and (2) reasonably deep but (3) with no concern for catchability, AT THE EXPENSE of decreasing the odds of hitting safely (i.e. with a low degree of catchability) -- including the odds of an extra-base hit. Which is why a successful sac fly is not charged as an at-bat. The hitter goes up looking for a particular kind of pitch, which is different from the kind of pitch he would look for in other situations.

Second, I am pretty sure that Coach Graham would never instruct a player to just "swing for the fences". That is a recipe for popping up (and not necessarily a deep pop-up either) or striking out. I've heard Coach Graham say explicitly that the way to drive the ball to the fence is NOT to aim for hitting the ball high or deep, but simply to aim for hitting the ball hard and square -- which is different from (and harder than) hitting a deep but easily catchable fly ball.

+1. In a sac fly situation, the batter should be looking for a pitch he can drive and get off the ground. He's not looking to make an out, but he should be consciously looking to get the ball in the air. This means laying off pitches at the knees or below. Of course, if there's a runner ONLY on 3B with less than two outs, the batter is simply looking to make good contact, as a ground ball with oftentimes score the run. The situation the other night with Rat at bat, we had runners on 3B and 1B. That was definitely a sac fly situation. Given Rat has been a pretty reliable fly ball hitter, The OG's appparent decision to squeeze there had me a bit baffled.

(03-22-2013 10:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Second, I am pretty sure that Coach Graham would never instruct a player to just "swing for the fences". That is a recipe for popping up (and not necessarily a deep pop-up either) or striking out. I've heard Coach Graham say explicitly that the way to drive the ball to the fence is NOT to aim for hitting the ball high or deep, but simply to aim for hitting the ball hard and square -- which is different from (and harder than) hitting a deep but easily catchable fly ball.

The deep fly ball is what will result in the RBI, and if the objective is the go-ahead run, why wouldn't the batter do that the easier way? And if it goes on over the fence, even better.

(03-22-2013 12:25 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 10:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Second, I am pretty sure that Coach Graham would never instruct a player to just "swing for the fences". That is a recipe for popping up (and not necessarily a deep pop-up either) or striking out. I've heard Coach Graham say explicitly that the way to drive the ball to the fence is NOT to aim for hitting the ball high or deep, but simply to aim for hitting the ball hard and square -- which is different from (and harder than) hitting a deep but easily catchable fly ball.

The deep fly ball is what will result in the RBI, and if the objective is the go-ahead run, why wouldn't the batter do that the easier way? And if it goes on over the fence, even better.

Either you are arguing a distinction without a difference, or this is one of the most ignorant comments made on this board.

It's you that started parsing the meaning of a phrase like "swing for the fences" so there's the distinction without a difference. But if I'm ignorant, then don't be the greater fool by arguing with me. Call me ignorant and I'm done talking to you.