(05-15-2014 11:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One other point about the college players are worse fielders comment. Per RiceOwls.com, Rice is fielding at a .980 clip and opponents at a .967 clip this year. The average for all of MLB is .983. So the difference is something like one play out of every 60 or more being made. Admittedly, that doesn't consider range factors, but there's no indication of a huge variation either way, particularly on bunt plays. So defensive prowess might be a reason to justify different strategies in some few cases, but the differences are going to be pretty thin.

One thing that surprises me a bit about major leaguers. All these new shifts are pretty much giving away a hit if you can get a bunt down. If I were seeing shifts, I'd bunt for a single until they went back to playing me straight up. I was listening to a game the other night, team is down by 1 in the bottom of the ninth, first two guys up go single and walk, so 2 on with nobody out. Next hitter is a left-handed pull hitter, they put the shift on, he hits into it for a double play and they strike the next guy out to end it. Why in the world he doesn't put the bunt down to load the bases is inexplicable. I would think teams should be having everyone take bunting practice just to take advantage of these situations.

Noting that bunting for a sacrifice and bunting for a hit are in most cases fundamentally different decisions - and they are conscious decisions by the batting team, not fielding mistakes - it seems to me like you see the bunt for hit more in the college game. The primary difference would be defensive discipline and coaching, as many bunt-for-hits seem to catch the defensive team by surprise, at least in college. Except for taught and learned skills, though bunt-for-hit likelihood shouldn't generally come into play when discussing whether to sacrifice bunt or not.

edit: and I think that Walt at least tried to introduce that into the discussion at one point.

(05-16-2014 05:09 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Walt's argument is (a) Rice is bad at bunting, therefore (b) Rice should learn how to bunt, and then © Rice should bunt.

Thank you.

I agree with points a and b, but less so on point c. I think that should be a decision that takes into account (1) current score differential, (2) remaining at bats, (3) skills of the player at bat and the players that follow him, (4) skill of opposing pitchers and current pitch count (i.e. if you either have a stud on the mound with low pitch count or expect to see a stud closer come in within the next few at bats, you may favor bunting to increase the chances that your current baserunners score), (5) your currently available pitchers (which may help you decide whether it's important to score lots of runs or just get out front with a small but defensible lead). I favor hitting when you want to maximize expected runs, esp. early in a game.

(05-16-2014 07:02 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Of course I'm not kidding. I'm not saying there are not differences. I noted there are differences, but I doubt they alter the odds as much as you want us to believe. You're talking eyeballs, I'm talking numbers here. But when you talk odds, that is numbers and not eyeballs. Even glaring differences are things that come up one time in ten, or maybe one time in twenty (for some perspective, consider that a .900 fielding percentage is absolutely brutal, at any level, and that's booting one play out of ten). And while I noted that I have not seen any simulations based on the college game, I would not anticipate many situations where the equities shift that drastically.

One, have you seen MLB scoring these days? Half the errors in MLB (particularly of the non-throwing variety) are ruled "hits" there, too. Two, agree on the ranige, but I think that's going to be more of a factor on a batted ball than a bunt, particularly an expected bunt for which the defenders were properly deployed. Agree that the charging Rendon/Hoelscher scoop and throw play is hard for college players to make. It's also hard for major leaguers to make and at both levels not necessary for probably 90% of runners on probably 90% of bunt placements.

It seems to me that a key factor in how successful bunts are at different levels are the speed of the runners. And, as you filter up the pyramid in most sports (youth-HS-college-minor-major), you expect the speed of the game to increase dramatically from level to level. Given that the skills of hitting a baseball are unrelated to sprinting ability, that may be less dramatic in baseball than in other sports, but I would expect that to make a significant difference in the success from college to MLB, perhaps even moreso than defensive skills. How much, who knows?, but I don't think the stats to prove or disprove that hypothesis are available.

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

Yup, Reeves bunting with three of your best hitters to follow; runners on 1b and 2n, no outs, in a scoreless game. Most coaches would bunt in that situation every time.

(05-16-2014 11:28 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:25 AM)West U Rice Fan Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

Totally agree. When you are down two runs or less, no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, a bunt puts two runners in scoring position and takes out the double play. Bunting seems like a solid move to me.

Yeah, but this situation was in the 1st inning with arguably our best hitter up. Not a bunting situation.

Most definitely a bunting situation. It would be one thing if Reeves was a speedy runner or didn't have multiple quality hitters behind him, but next up came red hot McDowell, scorching hot Aquino, and Ewing.

(05-16-2014 02:01 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:28 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:25 AM)West U Rice Fan Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

Totally agree. When you are down two runs or less, no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, a bunt puts two runners in scoring position and takes out the double play. Bunting seems like a solid move to me.

Yeah, but this situation was in the 1st inning with arguably our best hitter up. Not a bunting situation.

Most definitely a bunting situation. It would be one thing if Reeves was a speedy runner or didn't have multiple quality hitters behind him, but next up came red hot McDowell, scorching hot Aquino, and Ewing.

I'm not pulling the bat out of his hands. We can agree to disagree.

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

This is my favorite jondon reply ever.

(05-16-2014 03:57 PM)Ron Lafond Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

This is my favorite jondon reply ever.

Well, to be fair, it's a pretty small sample size. I post at the end of game threads arguing strategy following 11-2 victories that clinch our 20th straight conference championship like never.

(05-16-2014 11:25 AM)West U Rice Fan Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

Totally agree. When you are down two runs or less, no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, a bunt puts two runners in scoring position and takes out the double play. Bunting seems like a solid move to me.

Umm, Walt, I think you've been called out on your faux outrage.
Granted that's first and second, not just first. But my comment didn't rule that out.
And your love for the bunt is such that I'm guessing we'd find a lot more if we had the time.

Actually, I like the bunt there a lot better than most places. It's one of the few places where the successful bunt actually increases the expected number of total runs as well as the likelihood of scoring one run. Not sure I'd do it with the 3 hitter in the first inning, but along about inning five, still scoreless, I'd think hard about it. Again, the Durocher approach, there's a strategic advantage to being tactically unpredictable.

The other place where the successful bunt statistically increases both the probability of scoring one run and the expected total number of runs scored is one that makes no sense to me--bunting the runner from second to third with nobody out. I find it difficult to believe that the possibility of a one-out sacrifice fly outweighs having three chances instead of two to get a base hit, but the numbers say it does.

(05-16-2014 07:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:25 AM)West U Rice Fan Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 11:15 AM)jondon Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 09:01 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez. Love your exaggeration. When have I ever called for a bunt with the #3 or #4 hitter with a man on 1B early in the game? Like NEVER.

First post of this thread:
Cook leadoff double. That's a good start.
Hoelscher walked. Runners on 1B and 2B, no outs. I'd bunt here.
Reeves not bunting...struck out looking. Ugh....against a total non-strikeout pitcher.

Totally agree. When you are down two runs or less, no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, a bunt puts two runners in scoring position and takes out the double play. Bunting seems like a solid move to me.

Umm, Walt, I think you've been called out on your faux outrage.
Granted that's first and second, not just first. But my comment didn't rule that out.
And your love for the bunt is such that I'm guessing we'd find a lot more if we had the time.

Actually, I like the bunt there a lot better than most places. It's one of the few places where the successful bunt actually increases the expected number of total runs as well as the likelihood of scoring one run. Not sure I'd do it with the 3 hitter in the first inning, but along about inning five, still scoreless, I'd think hard about it. Again, the Durocher approach, there's a strategic advantage to being tactically unpredictable.

The other place where the successful bunt statistically increases both the probability of scoring one run and the expected total number of runs scored is one that makes no sense to me--bunting the runner from second to third with nobody out. I find it difficult to believe that the possibility of a one-out sacrifice fly outweighs having three chances instead of two to get a base hit, but the numbers say it does.

For us, this year, the odds of hitting a sac fly or ground ball or error or passed ball or wild pitch is much, MUCH greater than getting a base hit...and with us there's no guarantee in the slightest that a single scores the runner from 2B.

You've obviously never been a pitcher, and have no comprehension how difficult it is to pitch with no margin for error. Getting an early one or two run lead is absolutely HUGE for your pitchers' mindset. Why are you waiting until the 5th or 6th inning to bunt?

Walt, looking at the stats, as a team we are hitting .290. Our opponents have 39 wild pitches and 7 passed balls (those are in all situations, not just with a runner on third), and we have 28 (that's a huge number) sacrifice flies. Don't have ground ball stats, but of course not every ground ball scores the runner from third (although most do with less than 2 outs). Those would not appear to be statistics that would support "MUCH greater than getting a base hit."

(05-16-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Walt, looking at the stats, as a team we are hitting .290. Our opponents have 39 wild pitches and 7 passed balls (those are in all situations, not just with a runner on third), and we have 28 (that's a huge number) sacrifice flies. Don't have ground ball stats, but of course not every ground ball scores the runner from third (although most do with less than 2 outs). Those would not appear to be statistics that would support "MUCH greater than getting a base hit."

Most of our hits have come leading off innings; we tend to press with runners in scoring position. Second, as you saw yesterday, we don't score all that frequently on one single with a man on 2B.

(05-16-2014 07:56 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Walt, looking at the stats, as a team we are hitting .290. Our opponents have 39 wild pitches and 7 passed balls (those are in all situations, not just with a runner on third), and we have 28 (that's a huge number) sacrifice flies. Don't have ground ball stats, but of course not every ground ball scores the runner from third (although most do with less than 2 outs). Those would not appear to be statistics that would support "MUCH greater than getting a base hit."

Most of our hits have come leading off innings; we tend to press with runners in scoring position. Second, as you saw yesterday, we don't score all that frequently on one single with a man on 2B.

What are the averages in those different situations?

(05-16-2014 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 07:56 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Walt, looking at the stats, as a team we are hitting .290. Our opponents have 39 wild pitches and 7 passed balls (those are in all situations, not just with a runner on third), and we have 28 (that's a huge number) sacrifice flies. Don't have ground ball stats, but of course not every ground ball scores the runner from third (although most do with less than 2 outs). Those would not appear to be statistics that would support "MUCH greater than getting a base hit."

Most of our hits have come leading off innings; we tend to press with runners in scoring position. Second, as you saw yesterday, we don't score all that frequently on one single with a man on 2B.

What are the averages in those different situations?

Through yesterday:

Leadoff: .282
Runners in Scoring Position: .302

Any Situation w/2 outs: .261
Runners in Scoring Position w/2 outs: .268

(05-16-2014 09:18 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 07:56 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Walt, looking at the stats, as a team we are hitting .290. Our opponents have 39 wild pitches and 7 passed balls (those are in all situations, not just with a runner on third), and we have 28 (that's a huge number) sacrifice flies. Don't have ground ball stats, but of course not every ground ball scores the runner from third (although most do with less than 2 outs). Those would not appear to be statistics that would support "MUCH greater than getting a base hit."

Most of our hits have come leading off innings; we tend to press with runners in scoring position. Second, as you saw yesterday, we don't score all that frequently on one single with a man on 2B.

What are the averages in those different situations?

Through yesterday:

Leadoff: .282
Runners in Scoring Position: .302

Any Situation w/2 outs: .261
Runners in Scoring Position w/2 outs: .268

Walt - this is why I don't believe you when you tell us that we are the "worst bunting team in the country" or our OBP is shamefully low. I'm sure that you are correct some of the time, but there appears to be a very poor correlation between your statements and the numbers (when available).

(05-16-2014 07:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  You've obviously never been a pitcher, and have no comprehension how difficult it is to pitch with no margin for error. Getting an early one or two run lead is absolutely HUGE for your pitchers' mindset. Why are you waiting until the 5th or 6th inning to bunt?

I'm not a pitcher, but I imagine pitchers should be focused on executing gameplay and pitches and less on the margin for error in the score. A mentally tough pitcher shouldn't be bending under the stress of the game situation just like a mentally tough hitter should've be at bat late in the game with runners on worrying about his popup in the 2nd inning. Just focus on executing to the best of your ability on each individual pitch. Something I was always quite terrible at...

(05-16-2014 07:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  For us, this year, the odds of hitting a sac fly or ground ball or error or passed ball or wild pitch is much, MUCH greater than getting a base hit...and with us there's no guarantee in the slightest that a single scores the runner from 2B.

You've obviously never been a pitcher, and have no comprehension how difficult it is to pitch with no margin for error. Getting an early one or two run lead is absolutely HUGE for your pitchers' mindset. Why are you waiting until the 5th or 6th inning to bunt?

Thanks for this post. Since I was never a pitcher myself, I don't have any other way to understand the psyche of every D1 pitcher.

Quote:You've obviously never been a pitcher, and have no comprehension how difficult it is to pitch with no margin for error. Getting an early one or two run lead is absolutely HUGE for your pitchers' mindset. Why are you waiting until the 5th or 6th inning to bunt?

What pitching career I had (any future I had in baseball was my bat and nothing else) ended with a torn rotator cuff many years ago. But that doesn't mean I don't have any idea how they think. I've discussed this very question with a few people who absolutely do understand it, and I am capable of learning from others.

If pitching in a 0-0 game is no margin for error, then pitching with a 1-0 lead is only slightly better. Getting a big lead early is huge for the mindset, 1 run still leaves a lot of the pressure. In a 0-0 game, the batter is always the potential run that beats you. With a 1 run lead, as soon as anybody gets on base, the batter is the potential winning run.

Earl Weaver never bunted and he had four 20-game winners in the same season. I guess Cuellar, Dobson, Palmer, and McNally could handle the pressure.

Yes the college game is different from the MLB game. But marginally different, not night and day different. It's a lot more different to the eyeball than it is statistically. And that's the real difference here, the eyeball versus the statistical odds. Comparing those stats, we get more hits and get on base more often that the average MLB team, but we slug the ball worse and we are a poor base stealing team. That skill combination is going to create a lot of innings where we take three hits to score a run, and that's your offensive inefficiency. That's a team that probably should bunt often, but not every time.

How many times did we get the lead runner on last night? How many times did we bunt him over, how many not? How many runs did we score bunting him over, how many not bunting him over? Your arguments make it sound as if we score every time we bunt him, and don't score every time we don't. News flash, that's not how it works out.

Please fix that quote.