...not just in college baseball.

Pitchers have the advantage.

Of course in the majors it's not the bats or the seams. Funny to see KC tonight get a runner on, then bunt him over to 2nd...small ball.

(09-30-2014 08:19 PM)grol Wrote:  ...not just in college baseball.

Pitchers have the advantage.

Of course in the majors it's not the bats or the seams. Funny to see KC tonight get a runner on, then bunt him over to 2nd...small ball.

Offense down or no, bunting is still bad strategy. The math does not lie.

(09-30-2014 08:27 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:19 PM)grol Wrote:  ...not just in college baseball.

Pitchers have the advantage.

Of course in the majors it's not the bats or the seams. Funny to see KC tonight get a runner on, then bunt him over to 2nd...small ball.

Offense down or no, bunting is still bad strategy. The math does not lie.

Disagree. It's not that black and white, especially at the college level. If it's such a bad strategy then please explain why so many of the most successful college coaches use the bunt so prominently. I guess you're just smarter than they are, and a higher baseball IQ.

Bunting would make sense if a team just needs one run in a late inning, especially in the bottom of the ninth or an extra inning. It is probably a good skill to teach a player that will be going to the pros since they are expected to know how to lay it down if needed. But, giving up an out lessens the chances of having a big inning, so Earl Weaver did not believe in it all that much. SABREmetics points out that bunting is usually a bad strategy.

(09-30-2014 08:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:27 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:19 PM)grol Wrote:  ...not just in college baseball.

Pitchers have the advantage.

Of course in the majors it's not the bats or the seams. Funny to see KC tonight get a runner on, then bunt him over to 2nd...small ball.

Offense down or no, bunting is still bad strategy. The math does not lie.

Disagree. It's not that black and white, especially at the college level. If it's such a bad strategy then please explain why so many of the most successful college coaches use the bunt so prominently. I guess you're just smarter than they are, and a higher baseball IQ.

(09-30-2014 10:17 PM)75src Wrote:  Bunting would make sense if a team just needs one run in a late inning, especially in the bottom of the ninth or an extra inning. It is probably a good skill to teach a player that will be going to the pros since they are expected to know how to lay it down if needed. But, giving up an out lessens the chances of having a big inning, so Earl Weaver did not believe in it all that much. SABREmetics points out that bunting is usually a bad strategy.

(09-30-2014 08:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:27 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:19 PM)grol Wrote:  ...not just in college baseball.

Pitchers have the advantage.

Of course in the majors it's not the bats or the seams. Funny to see KC tonight get a runner on, then bunt him over to 2nd...small ball.

Offense down or no, bunting is still bad strategy. The math does not lie.

Disagree. It's not that black and white, especially at the college level. If it's such a bad strategy then please explain why so many of the most successful college coaches use the bunt so prominently. I guess you're just smarter than they are, and a higher baseball IQ.

Sabremetrics have not been done at the college level. For any program that is pitching and defense first, bunting to get an early lead (and give the pitcher some margin for error) is a sound strategy. Obviously, bunting late in a one-run game (whether up or down) is the widely accepted strategy. We can talk big inning all we want, but how many big innings are there any more in the college game? Bunting, and putting runner(s) in scoring position puts pressure on both the opposing pitcher and defense...and in the less polished and poised college game, that's a significant issue. Also, as we've seen on numerous occassions (both for us and against us), fielding bunts in play is NOT a given at the college level. Of course, you need to perfect the fundamenals so that you can consistently and reliably get the bunt down and in play. It's this latter issue that has been our primary shortcoming the past several seasons.

Brandon Finnegan - who pitched for TCU in Omaha THIS June - just retired the A's in order in the 10th.

(09-30-2014 10:53 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  Brandon Finnegan - who pitched for TCU in Omaha THIS June - just retired the A's in order in the 10th.

And looked pretty damn good.

Bunting combined with deadly speed got the Royals back in the game tonight. Their pinch runner in the 8th, Gore, stole second faster than I've seen anyone do in awhile.

(09-30-2014 10:53 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  Brandon Finnegan - who pitched for TCU in Omaha THIS June - just retired the A's in order in the 10th.

If the Astros had drafted him, he'd have spent the entire season in A ball.

To clarify, sabremetrics would not say to avoid bunting ever. But rather bunt in certain situations, not in others. Nonetheless, Walt is right, bunting is a fundamental that should be mastered by every hitter, because it's not that hard (although harder with a metal bat) and the opportunities where it is a useful strategy do come up often enough to make it worth. Bill James did some interesting research suggesting that bunting made far more sense at home than on the road.

The game last night was a good example of when to play and when not to play small ball. Both teams had big innings, 5 for Oakland, 3 for KC. Oakland's 5 were ultimately not enough, KC's 3 came when they could not afford to play for 1. But in the end, when KC absolutely had to have one run, they played small ball and got it.

It's situational, and the odds change as the situation changes. I wouldn't bunt as much as Walt likes, but I wouldn't avoid it altogether.

(10-01-2014 07:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To clarify, sabremetrics would not say to avoid bunting ever. But rather bunt in certain situations, not in others. Nonetheless, Walt is right, bunting is a fundamental that should be mastered by every hitter, because it's not that hard (although harder with a metal bat) and the opportunities where it is a useful strategy do come up often enough to make it worth. Bill James did some interesting research suggesting that bunting made far more sense at home than on the road.

The game last night was a good example of when to play and when not to play small ball. Both teams had big innings, 5 for Oakland, 3 for KC. Oakland's 5 were ultimately not enough, KC's 3 came when they could not afford to play for 1. But in the end, when KC absolutely had to have one run, they played small ball and got it.

It's situational, and the odds change as the situation changes. I wouldn't bunt as much as Walt likes, but I wouldn't avoid it altogether.

Agree 100% that it's definitely a situational play....and contrary to popular belief, I do not advocate bunting in every situation. I'm against bunting with a runner on 2B and no outs (though I'd bunt almost all the time with runners on 1B and 2B with no outs-- unless we have a huge leaad or trail by more than 3 runs). Yes, as a former pitcher, I'm a strong advocate for bunting early to get a quick lead. The squeeze almost always works at the college level (so long as the batter can get the bunt in play), but I still hate it when The OG calls for it with one of our power hitters up and less than two outs, as I'd much rather (and think the odds are better) see him try for the sac fly.

I watched the game last night until reason told me to hit the sack -- wrong time zone to appreciate a 5 hour game. There was a lot of bunts and I don't remember any failed bunt attempts.

So boys, if you want to play in the bigs, learn to bunt.

(10-01-2014 07:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To clarify, sabremetrics would not say to avoid bunting ever. But rather bunt in certain situations, not in others. Nonetheless, Walt is right, bunting is a fundamental that should be mastered by every hitter, because it's not that hard (although harder with a metal bat) and the opportunities where it is a useful strategy do come up often enough to make it worth. Bill James did some interesting research suggesting that bunting made far more sense at home than on the road.

The game last night was a good example of when to play and when not to play small ball. Both teams had big innings, 5 for Oakland, 3 for KC. Oakland's 5 were ultimately not enough, KC's 3 came when they could not afford to play for 1. But in the end, when KC absolutely had to have one run, they played small ball and got it.

It's situational, and the odds change as the situation changes. I wouldn't bunt as much as Walt likes, but I wouldn't avoid it altogether.

Oakland had a catcher who could not throw and pitchers who didn't hold runners. The Royals could have stolen every bag they bunted on rather than giving up the outs. Pedro Martinez expertly skewered Yost after the game last night for his many foibles including going to Ventura rather than his excellent bullpen in a crucial situation. Just because a college coach is unbelievably successful doesn't mean his strategy is great. Skip Bertman hated the bunt and won a few games. Just because Augie likes to ruin the game and win doesn't make it right. I realize everyone has their own favorite flavor of baseball just like ice cream, but again, you only get 27 outs. I hate wasting them.

The Royals won despite their strategy last night, not because of it.

(09-30-2014 08:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:27 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:19 PM)grol Wrote:  ...not just in college baseball.

Pitchers have the advantage.

Of course in the majors it's not the bats or the seams. Funny to see KC tonight get a runner on, then bunt him over to 2nd...small ball.

Offense down or no, bunting is still bad strategy. The math does not lie.

Disagree. It's not that black and white, especially at the college level. If it's such a bad strategy then please explain why so many of the most successful college coaches use the bunt so prominently. I guess you're just smarter than they are, and a higher baseball IQ.

Damn, Walt - that's a little strong, don't you think ? The guy has an opinion; you don't have to make it personal.

(10-01-2014 08:51 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:27 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:19 PM)grol Wrote:  ...not just in college baseball.

Pitchers have the advantage.

Of course in the majors it's not the bats or the seams. Funny to see KC tonight get a runner on, then bunt him over to 2nd...small ball.

Offense down or no, bunting is still bad strategy. The math does not lie.

Disagree. It's not that black and white, especially at the college level. If it's such a bad strategy then please explain why so many of the most successful college coaches use the bunt so prominently. I guess you're just smarter than they are, and a higher baseball IQ.

Damn, Walt - that's a little strong, don't you think ? The guy has an opinion; you don't have to make it personal.

But he didn't state it as an opinion in his post; rather as an absolute fact (which it is anything but).

(09-30-2014 08:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:27 PM)Mademen Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 08:19 PM)grol Wrote:  ...not just in college baseball.

Pitchers have the advantage.

Of course in the majors it's not the bats or the seams. Funny to see KC tonight get a runner on, then bunt him over to 2nd...small ball.

Offense down or no, bunting is still bad strategy. The math does not lie.

Disagree. It's not that black and white, especially at the college level. If it's such a bad strategy then please explain why so many of the most successful college coaches use the bunt so prominently. I guess you're just smarter than they are, and a higher baseball IQ.

Entirely unnecessary. If it's such a bad strategy to not let players have water at football practice and shake off concussions/injuries, why did so many of the most successful college football coaches do that so prominently for 60 years? I guess they were just smarter than we are now, and have a higher medical IQ.