Don't give up!

I believe there were four "successful" and one unsuccessful SAC bunt today. I wonder if our chances of scoring more runs would have been better if we had swung away in at least some of these at-bats. I know the decision depends on a lot of factors, but I agree with the "Money Ball" opinion that the SAC bunt is way overused and often decreases the expected number of runs you will get in a game.

This isn't MLB...

(04-06-2013 05:24 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  I believe there were four "successful" and one unsuccessful SAC bunt today. I wonder if our chances of scoring more runs would have been better if we had swung away in at least some of these at-bats. I know the decision depends on a lot of factors, but I agree with the "Money Ball" opinion that the SAC bunt is way overused and often decreases the expected number of runs you will get in a game.

Don't blame our inefficient offense and lack of production on the bunting. The story of our season (actually, the last two seasons)-- 17 baserunners (6 hits, 7 BBs, 2 HBP, 2 errors and 4 sac bunts) and all we could muster was 2 runs...and, BTW, both of those runs scored thanks to the sac bunt moving the leadoff runner into scoring position. We had runners on 2B with less than two outs just about every inning it seemed. Our ability to hit in the clutch and with runners in scoring position is just plain bad...and that's being as polite as one can be. Also, suddenly, after a couple weeks of cutting down on our strikeouts, we've struck out 10 times two consecutive games-- against pitchers that have averaged well under a strikeout per inning pitched.

Our pitching has been outstanding, as has been our defense. It's due time our offense answered the bell and provided some much needed relief and support.

Tomorrow morning's game is now critical (even with UH having lost two straight to Marshall). I'm assuming McDowell will be the starter (with McCanna the likely starter Tuesday at Lamar), with both Fox and Lemond available to relief. ECU is going with their usual Saturday starter, but a guy who threw 100 pitches Tuesday evening vs. NC State. He's got the best control of their 3 weekend starters, but has struck out just 26 batters in 52.1 IP, and opposing batters have hit .286 against him. JUCO RHP, but sounds like a soft-tosser. Somehow, we've got to get the offense back on track.

Any word on when Hoelscher will be game ready?

(04-06-2013 05:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our ability to hit in the clutch and with runners in scoring position is just plain bad

So why give up outs in an atempt to achieve a situation that we suck at? I am reminded of the Einstein defintion of insanity.

(04-06-2013 06:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 05:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our ability to hit in the clutch and with runners in scoring position is just plain bad

So why give up outs in an atempt to achieve a situation that we suck at? I am reminded of the Einstein defintion of insanity.

Well, it did produce both of our runs. I think the far bigger problem so far this weekend has been the spate of strikeouts, especially with guys on base.

(04-06-2013 06:08 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 05:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our ability to hit in the clutch and with runners in scoring position is just plain bad

So why give up outs in an atempt to achieve a situation that we suck at? I am reminded of the Einstein defintion of insanity.

Well, it did produce both of our runs. I think the far bigger problem so far this weekend has been the spate of strikeouts, especially with guys on base.

We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

(04-06-2013 06:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:08 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 05:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our ability to hit in the clutch and with runners in scoring position is just plain bad

So why give up outs in an atempt to achieve a situation that we suck at? I am reminded of the Einstein defintion of insanity.

Well, it did produce both of our runs. I think the far bigger problem so far this weekend has been the spate of strikeouts, especially with guys on base.

We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play.

There is also the chance that the bunter fails to advance the runner, which I believe happened in this game. I hate giving away outs, and don't believe the college game is so incredibly different from MLB that bunting is a much better proposition.

(04-06-2013 07:00 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play.

There is also the chance that the bunter fails to advance the runner, which I believe happened in this game. I hate giving away outs, and don't believe the college game is so incredibly different from MLB that bunting is a much better proposition.

Yeah, it is incredibly different than MLB, where free passes, passed balls, wild pitches and fielding miscues are very, very rare.

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:08 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 05:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our ability to hit in the clutch and with runners in scoring position is just plain bad

So why give up outs in an atempt to achieve a situation that we suck at? I am reminded of the Einstein defintion of insanity.

Well, it did produce both of our runs. I think the far bigger problem so far this weekend has been the spate of strikeouts, especially with guys on base.

We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

some of those non-hots will advance the runner also. i believe you call them productive outs. Some hits, bythemselves,will score the runner - extra base hits. Sometimes, we are asking batters with power to forego that opportunity. If we are cnsidering the possiblity of an error on a bunt attempt, we must also consider the possibility of an error on a hard hit ball.

with runners on first and second and zero out, why bunt? we already have the lead run inscoring position, and need only one hit in3 ABs to score him. add in the possibility of walks and HBPs to further advance baserunners, I believe the question of swnging away at that point versus bunting is a reasonable question.

outs are precious, and IMO should not be spent like a rich kid'sallowance.

JMHO

(04-06-2013 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:08 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So why give up outs in an atempt to achieve a situation that we suck at? I am reminded of the Einstein defintion of insanity.

Well, it did produce both of our runs. I think the far bigger problem so far this weekend has been the spate of strikeouts, especially with guys on base.

We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

some of those non-hots will advance the runner also. i believe you call them productive outs. Some hits, bythemselves,will score the runner - extra base hits. Sometimes, we are asking batters with power to forego that opportunity. If we are cnsidering the possiblity of an error on a bunt attempt, we must also consider the possibility of an error on a hard hit ball.

with runners on first and second and zero out, why bunt? we already have the lead run inscoring position, and need only one hit in3 ABs to score him. add in the possibility of walks and HBPs to further advance baserunners, I believe the question of swnging away at that point versus bunting is a reasonable question.

outs are precious, and IMO should not be spent like a rich kid'sallowance.

JMHO

You are absolutely correct. Trying to convince Walt or his ilk on this point is fruitless.

(04-06-2013 08:21 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:08 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Well, it did produce both of our runs. I think the far bigger problem so far this weekend has been the spate of strikeouts, especially with guys on base.

We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

some of those non-hots will advance the runner also. i believe you call them productive outs. Some hits, bythemselves,will score the runner - extra base hits. Sometimes, we are asking batters with power to forego that opportunity. If we are cnsidering the possiblity of an error on a bunt attempt, we must also consider the possibility of an error on a hard hit ball.

with runners on first and second and zero out, why bunt? we already have the lead run inscoring position, and need only one hit in3 ABs to score him. add in the possibility of walks and HBPs to further advance baserunners, I believe the question of swnging away at that point versus bunting is a reasonable question.

outs are precious, and IMO should not be spent like a rich kid'sallowance.

JMHO

You are absolutely correct. Trying to convince Walt or his ilk on this point is fruitless.

walt's my friend, and knows a lot about basebal, more than me for sure. i just think it is a reasonable question whether we might be trying to bunt too often.

(04-06-2013 08:21 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:08 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Well, it did produce both of our runs. I think the far bigger problem so far this weekend has been the spate of strikeouts, especially with guys on base.

We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

some of those non-hots will advance the runner also. i believe you call them productive outs. Some hits, bythemselves,will score the runner - extra base hits. Sometimes, we are asking batters with power to forego that opportunity. If we are cnsidering the possiblity of an error on a bunt attempt, we must also consider the possibility of an error on a hard hit ball.

with runners on first and second and zero out, why bunt? we already have the lead run inscoring position, and need only one hit in3 ABs to score him. add in the possibility of walks and HBPs to further advance baserunners, I believe the question of swnging away at that point versus bunting is a reasonable question.

outs are precious, and IMO should not be spent like a rich kid'sallowance.

JMHO

You are absolutely correct. Trying to convince Walt or his ilk on this point is fruitless.

Absolutely correct? I guess you think you're smarter or more knowledgeable than The OG? There is no absolute right or wrong answer; rather, it's a question of philosophy. Usually, a strong pitching and defensive team will use the sacrifice to get an early lead...or if down by one run...or when tied or within a run late on the game. Unfortunately, we're not a base stealing team or one that gets alot of extra base hits. We also are prone to hitting onto double plays. Consequently, it's awfully hard to argue with this team bunting in close games-- especially in games on which we're not hitting at all-- whenever we get the lead off batter on base.

(04-06-2013 08:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 08:21 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

some of those non-hots will advance the runner also. i believe you call them productive outs. Some hits, bythemselves,will score the runner - extra base hits. Sometimes, we are asking batters with power to forego that opportunity. If we are cnsidering the possiblity of an error on a bunt attempt, we must also consider the possibility of an error on a hard hit ball.

with runners on first and second and zero out, why bunt? we already have the lead run inscoring position, and need only one hit in3 ABs to score him. add in the possibility of walks and HBPs to further advance baserunners, I believe the question of swnging away at that point versus bunting is a reasonable question.

outs are precious, and IMO should not be spent like a rich kid'sallowance.

JMHO

You are absolutely correct. Trying to convince Walt or his ilk on this point is fruitless.

walt's my friend, and knows a lot about basebal, more than me for sure. i just think it is a reasonable question whether we might be trying to bunt too often.

Buddy, I don't think we're bunting too often, and don't think The OG could ever be accused of doing so. This weekend, we have not hit...at all. Given how poorly we've been hitting-- or how well ECU has been pitching-- even with the extra out, do you really think we have a better chance of getting an additional two hits with 3 outs vs. getting just one hit with two outs? Personally, I do not.

it's the "whenever"in the last sentence that bothers me. Maybe we would be more of a base stealing team if we weren't a bunting team.

but don't play the OG card. we all, including you, sometimes questionhis moves.

(04-06-2013 08:50 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 08:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 08:21 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

some of those non-hots will advance the runner also. i believe you call them productive outs. Some hits, bythemselves,will score the runner - extra base hits. Sometimes, we are asking batters with power to forego that opportunity. If we are cnsidering the possiblity of an error on a bunt attempt, we must also consider the possibility of an error on a hard hit ball.

with runners on first and second and zero out, why bunt? we already have the lead run inscoring position, and need only one hit in3 ABs to score him. add in the possibility of walks and HBPs to further advance baserunners, I believe the question of swnging away at that point versus bunting is a reasonable question.

outs are precious, and IMO should not be spent like a rich kid'sallowance.

JMHO

You are absolutely correct. Trying to convince Walt or his ilk on this point is fruitless.

walt's my friend, and knows a lot about basebal, more than me for sure. i just think it is a reasonable question whether we might be trying to bunt too often.

Buddy, I don't think we're bunting too often, and don't think The OG could ever be accused of doing so. This weekend, we have not hit...at all. Given how poorly we've been hitting-- or how well ECU has been pitching-- even with the extra out, do you really think we have a better chance of getting an additional two hits with 3 outs vs. getting just one hit with two outs? Personally, I do not.

well, it doesn't always take two hits. And sometimes, because that batter is notbunting, he will walk. and sometimes, he will get on with a HBP or error. and sometimes, among those times he doesn't get a hit, he will advance the runner anyway. and sometimes, he will score the runner,and then whatever the next two batters do is gravy. So I am not sure thatapproach A has an EV that is higher orlower than appoach B. I certainly can the use in bunting sometimes. But every time we get the leadoff on? And when we already have a runner at second?

maybe these are stupid questions. But I think I am not the only one wondering about this. and please, I would appreciate hearing the opinions of other knowledable people, like 13th or Coatzalowl. if you don't want to get into the public debate, and have an opinion either way,PM me, ANYBODY who wants to express an opinion.

(04-06-2013 08:21 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:08 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Well, it did produce both of our runs. I think the far bigger problem so far this weekend has been the spate of strikeouts, especially with guys on base.

We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

some of those non-hots will advance the runner also. i believe you call them productive outs. Some hits, bythemselves,will score the runner - extra base hits. Sometimes, we are asking batters with power to forego that opportunity. If we are cnsidering the possiblity of an error on a bunt attempt, we must also consider the possibility of an error on a hard hit ball.

with runners on first and second and zero out, why bunt? we already have the lead run inscoring position, and need only one hit in3 ABs to score him. add in the possibility of walks and HBPs to further advance baserunners, I believe the question of swnging away at that point versus bunting is a reasonable question.

outs are precious, and IMO should not be spent like a rich kid'sallowance.

JMHO

You are absolutely correct. Trying to convince Walt or his ilk on this point is fruitless.

Lol.

Questioning bunting w 1st and 2nd and nobody out in extra innings is ridiculous. And obviously putting yourself in position to score without a hit >>> one extra chance to get a hit (for a team that went 6 for 41 today!).

Extra base hits? Power? This team has one regular slugging over .360.

(04-06-2013 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  but don't play the OG card. we all, including you, sometimes questionhis moves.

Absolutely. Total straw man argument. Walt states HIS opinion as if there cannot be any debate, but when challenged with an alternate approach, he hides by saying it is criticism of Graham. It is not. It simply is an academic discussion of different theories.

(04-06-2013 09:42 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 08:21 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 07:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:20 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 06:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We can never know for sure the road not taken, and i can see the reasoning behind playing for one run in a close game, but sometimes when we make that third out with a runner or two stranded, I sure wish we had that one more batter that we gave away with the sacrifice.

In each of the times we've bunted, it was to move the runner to 2B (or 2b and 3B) with one out...and there's always the chance the bunter beats out the throw or there is a fielding miscue on the play. That gives us two chances to get the runner in with just a single. Given how we've been hitting this weekend, do you think the odds are better for us getting at least two more hits in the same inning? Really?

some of those non-hots will advance the runner also. i believe you call them productive outs. Some hits, bythemselves,will score the runner - extra base hits. Sometimes, we are asking batters with power to forego that opportunity. If we are cnsidering the possiblity of an error on a bunt attempt, we must also consider the possibility of an error on a hard hit ball.

with runners on first and second and zero out, why bunt? we already have the lead run inscoring position, and need only one hit in3 ABs to score him. add in the possibility of walks and HBPs to further advance baserunners, I believe the question of swnging away at that point versus bunting is a reasonable question.

outs are precious, and IMO should not be spent like a rich kid'sallowance.

JMHO

You are absolutely correct. Trying to convince Walt or his ilk on this point is fruitless.

Lol.

Questioning bunting w 1st and 2nd and nobody out in extra innings is ridiculous. And obviously putting yourself in position to score without a hit >>> one extra chance to get a hit (for a team that went 6 for 41 today!).

Extra base hits? Power? This team has one regular slugging over .360. Get real.

I appreciate your thoughts. anyone else?