(04-07-2013 02:36 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Since OPS is on the table, I will take this moment to reprise the trivia question that I don't think anyone answered. What team won a World Series with the highest OPS among those with at least 125 plate appearances belonging to a pitcher? Team and pitcher.
Hints: The pitcher is in the HOF and he's not Babe Ruth. Boston won 3 World Series with Ruth, one he was primarily an OF, one he didn't lead the team in OPS, and one he didn't have 125 plate appearances.

Don Drysdale of the '65 Dodgers.
Full disclosure: I used baseball reference. I first looked at Steve Carlton of the '80 Phillies. Then went to Big D, whose career was before my time.

Yes. Walter Alston actually used him to pinch hit for position players several times in positions where the long ball was needed, as well as using him to hit for other pitchers. He had 7 home runs in limited at bats, and the team leader had, I think, 12 in a full season. That of course pissed off the position players, but I think one or two of the homers were pinch home runs, so it was a reasonable strategy. Of course, since his position was actually pitcher/pinch hitter, maybe he's not a valid answer to the question either.

I once heard him say in an interview that he would have liked the DH rule, because he felt that he could take the ball every fifth day and DH the other four. Had he been able to pull that off--and he was a big, strong, and fairly durable guy, so he might have--he would have had a truly remarkable career.

(04-07-2013 02:36 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Since OPS is on the table, I will take this moment to reprise the trivia question that I don't think anyone answered. What team won a World Series with the highest OPS among those with at least 125 plate appearances belonging to a pitcher? Team and pitcher.

Hints: The pitcher is in the HOF and he's not Babe Ruth. Boston won 3 World Series with Ruth, one he was primarily an OF, one he didn't lead the team in OPS, and one he didn't have 125 plate appearances.

Don Drysdale of the '65 Dodgers.

Full disclosure: I used baseball reference. I first looked at Steve Carlton of the '80 Phillies. Then went to Big D, whose career was before my time.

I would've looked at Gibson in 64 or 67 before Carlton. I don't believe Carlton was that great a hitter. Gibson was and HR'd in at least 1 World Series.

Drysdale was not that big a surprise. The mid-60's Dodgers did not win on 3-run HR's.

(04-07-2013 03:17 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I would've looked at Gibson in 64 or 67 before Carlton. I don't believe Carlton was that great a hitter. Gibson was and HR'd in at least 1 World Series.
Drysdale was not that big a surprise. The mid-60's Dodgers did not win on 3-run HR's.

Gibson also played for the Harlem Globetrotters. He was a truly amazing athlete. I once heard a scout say that he would have been the best shortstop in the big leagues if he had stayed there instead of pitching.

One follow up to my prior Drysdale post. The interview comment started me wondering whether Ruth would have done with the DH rule. He very possibly could have pitched and DH'd his whole career. He would probably have more home runs (from additional AB's in the years that he pitched) and would easily have won 200, maybe 300, maybe more, if he had kept pitching.

(04-07-2013 12:13 PM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 10:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 10:02 PM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  Also, for what it's worth, late in a close game with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs is one of the best times to bunt.

although you were talking to Walt, I appreciate the info.

To clarify, your last sentence, best means in terms of eventually scoring a run, right?

Best overall strategy, which includes scoring 1 or more runs. If you are up 1 run late, one additional run is very important. If you are down 1 run late, the 2nd go-ahead run is almost as valuable as the first.

Coming late to the discussion, it is interesting and probably too focused on either/or.

I'm not a big fan of absolutes. Walt's or anyone else's.

But given this teams slugging percentage and our pitching (low ERA, many shutouts), playing for a run isn't necessarily a bad thing, and strategies this year may be different for us (and our pitching) that that for other teams and for previous Owl teams.

Moreover, I agree with the posts above. If you have runners on 1st and 2nd in an extra inning tie game with no one out, (while it depends some on the batter and the runners, so I'm not stating this as an absolute), if there is ever a 'text book' bunt situation, this would come close to qualifying.

A successful bunt takes away the DP, and puts 2 runners in scoring postion with one out. If subsequently your runner on 3rd is cut down at the plate, the runner on 2nd has likely moved up to take his place.

It may be more of a 'given' it it's the home team, but it sounds like a smart play in most instances either way.

Best hitting pitchers that I have ever seen (other than Drysdale): Ken Brett, Tim Lollar, Rick Rhoden, Micah Owings and Earl Wilson.

(04-07-2013 04:48 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Best hitting pitchers that I have ever seen (other than Drysdale): Ken Brett, Tim Lollar, Rick Rhoden, Micah Owings and Earl Wilson.

Tony Cloninger of the 1960's Reds should be added to the list. He hit 2 grand slams in the same game (albeit against the lowly Mets of the early-to-mid '60s).

(04-07-2013 05:14 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 04:48 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Best hitting pitchers that I have ever seen (other than Drysdale): Ken Brett, Tim Lollar, Rick Rhoden, Micah Owings and Earl Wilson.

Tony Cloninger of the 1960's Reds should be added to the list. He hit 2 grand slams in the same game (albeit against the lowly Mets of the early-to-mid '60s).

He was with the Atlanta Braves at the time (1966). I omitted one hitting pitcher: Carlos Zambrano.

Bob Gibson was a better hitter than Drysdale.

(04-07-2013 05:14 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 04:48 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Best hitting pitchers that I have ever seen (other than Drysdale): Ken Brett, Tim Lollar, Rick Rhoden, Micah Owings and Earl Wilson.

Tony Cloninger of the 1960's Reds should be added to the list. He hit 2 grand slams in the same game (albeit against the lowly Mets of the early-to-mid '60s).

He had 9 RBI in that game.

Don Drysdale was the starting Dodgerpitcher for the first pro baseball game that I went to the ballpark. My uncle took me in 1963 to Colt Stadium to see the Houston Colt .45s play the Dodgers.

Later that year, the Dodgers swept the Yankees in the World Series. My female elementary school teachr brought a television set into the classroom so we could see the World Series. This was back when the World Series was played exclusively in the daytmine

(04-07-2013 02:36 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 09:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Since OPS is on the table, I will take this moment to reprise the trivia question that I don't think anyone answered. What team won a World Series with the highest OPS among those with at least 125 plate appearances belonging to a pitcher? Team and pitcher.

Hints: The pitcher is in the HOF and he's not Babe Ruth. Boston won 3 World Series with Ruth, one he was primarily an OF, one he didn't lead the team in OPS, and one he didn't have 125 plate appearances.

Don Drysdale of the '65 Dodgers.

Full disclosure: I used baseball reference. I first looked at Steve Carlton of the '80 Phillies. Then went to Big D, whose career was before my time.

But the skill to lay down a good bunt is less available with college players than major leaguers. OG has been persisant over the years in trying to get his players to learn how to bunt even when some of them seem to be slow in picking it up

I agree with the Sabrmetrics that bunting is overused in baseball. The extreme small ball started in the 1890s when the baseball was preet dead so runs had to obtained one by one.

(04-07-2013 07:55 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Three final thoughts

1. There is a lot of energy to debate whether or not to sac, but I believe the underlying issue in the offense is a .700 team OPS (comparison: 2012 full season with same bats was .774). Since we can't do anything to fix that, it is human nature to focus on the visible symptom of low OPS, which is OG's commitment to bunting after the leadoff reaches base

2. OG may have scouting reports or other data on the degree to which college teams are prone to make an error fielding a sac bunt, and that data might inform his strategy.

3. Here is some data that directionally supports Walt's view that the difference in fielding skills between college and MLB is important to consider. In 2012 AL, there were 8.5 unearned runs for every 100 earned runs. So far this year for the Owls, we are scoring 22.5 unearned runs for every 100 earned runs.

(04-07-2013 08:49 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 08:44 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Why not steal more? I'm very surprised Leon Byrd has only 3 steals with an on base percentage of over .400.

One of my pet peeves for years. Many teams with no better than average team speed steal far more bases and at a better rate than we do-- year in and year out. I've long advocated getting in an assistant coach who really understands baserunning, and can teach how to watch the pitchers move to get a better jump...and for us to take bigger leads. However, it is what it is. And after getting caught stealing at a better than 50% rate during our first 10+ games, The OG has pretty much limitted base stealing to situation where either the pitcher has a VERY slow delivery to the plate and/or the catcher has a poor arm.

I no longer recall the specific numbers but we (pitchers and catchers) were given very specific time targets in the running game. I believe pitchers were asked to deliver the pitch in 1.25 seconds or less (clock starts when front foot comes off the ground out of the stretch and stops when pitch hits catcher's mitt). I believe catchers were asked to deliver the throw to second in 1.75 seconds or less (clock starts when pitch hits mitt and stops when throw hits middle infielder's glove at second). The idea behind this was that if a pitcher and catcher could meet these goals then all the pitcher needed to do was inhibit the runner from getting good jumps by picking-off, varying holds, etc.

Unless Coach's thoughts on this subject have changed, I imagine this is why he limits stolen base attempts to the situations you describe.

I am not arguing with your thesis in any way shape or form, Walt. I'm not at all familiar with our team speed let alone the speed of delivery of opposing pitchers or arm strength of opposing catchers. Just lending an "insider's look" at how Coach, at least 10 years ago, thinks about the odds of stealing bases.

(04-06-2013 09:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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:  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.

My apologies to the tardy response to your question. I see truth in just about every response to your question (including yours btw). Hitting metaphysical questions are to me almost like asking, "Do you believe in God, and if so, please describe your relationship." Probably not something that can be best tackled on a message board via an Ipad. I think way too much about baseball and know for certain way too little...

So, I will cheat, if I may, and try to comment on the decision to bunt with runners on first and second and no outs. Simply put, I believe that you have a better shot at scoring a run by taking three shots at getting a hit, since you already have a runner in scoring positioin. I realize there are potential potholes in my run producing superhighway, such as hitting into a double play, but I would take my chances with the next three hitters producing a hit. That said, my decision might be different with a different team, or this team at a later or earlier part of the season.

I really enjoyed your question and everyone's responses. My apologies again for the late nature of my response and the less than detailed answer.

(04-09-2013 04:41 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 09:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

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

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

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

My apologies to the tardy response to your question. I see truth in just about every response to your question (including yours btw). Hitting metaphysical questions are to me almost like asking, "Do you believe in God, and if so, please describe your relationship." Probably not something that can be best tackled on a message board via an Ipad. I think way too much about baseball and know for certain way too little...

So, I will cheat, if I may, and try to comment on the decision to bunt with runners on first and second and no outs. Simply put, I believe that you have a better shot at scoring a run by taking three shots at getting a hit, since you already have a runner in scoring positioin. I realize there are potential potholes in my run producing superhighway, such as hitting into a double play, but I would take my chances with the next three hitters producing a hit. That said, my decision might be different with a different team, or this team at a later or earlier part of the season.

I really enjoyed your question and everyone's responses. My apologies again for the late nature of my response and the less than detailed answer.

Thanks for the response, albeit a tiny bit tardy. Everybody who responded, did so publicly, no PMs at all. I have moved a tad toward the bunt but I still prefer the 5 run innings and bunting does cut that liklihood down. I guess it is somewhat of a personal preference and a situational decision. I am the same way in football - I prefer to see a 35-31 game than a 14-10, and in basketball I prefer a 95 -92 score to a 43-40 score. Guess I just like scoring.

Haven't been perusing the game threads lately, just too busy. Nice to see we're back to hating each other as usual. During football season we hate the coaches. During basketball season we hate the AD. During baseball season we hate each other! (I'm kidding ... mostly)

(04-06-2013 11:28 PM)CoatzaOwl Wrote:  I have a fundamental belief about baseball that shapes my thinking about offensive strategy. I believe it's impossible to get a base hit. I can't for the life of me figure out how a hitter can stand at the plate and determine how fast the ball is traveling, whether or not it's going to curve and which way, if it's a ball or strike whether or not to swing, calculate the geometry of how to make bat and ball meet and where, then move all the appropriate muscles so as to put the bat in a place where it runs into the ball - all in a couple of tens of a second. And then if he hits the %*&) thing make it go somewhere the 8 defensive guys can't get to it. I think the guys that can master all the skills involved well enough to hit safely even 2 or 3 times out of 10 are amazing.

With that in mind, I'm a fan of "see it and hit it" offense.

Your first paragraph sums up why most hitters try not to think when they are batting. You need to have a plan and idea of what the pitcher likes to do, but mostly the batter needs to have that prep done before he's in the box. See ball hit ball (unless the ball hits you).

(04-07-2013 08:49 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 08:44 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Why not steal more? I'm very surprised Leon Byrd has only 3 steals with an on base percentage of over .400.

One of my pet peeves for years. Many teams with no better than average team speed steal far more bases and at a better rate than we do-- year in and year out. I've long advocated getting in an assistant coach who really understands baserunning, and can teach how to watch the pitchers move to get a better jump...and for us to take bigger leads. However, it is what it is. And after getting caught stealing at a better than 50% rate during our first 10+ games, The OG has pretty much limitted base stealing to situation where either the pitcher has a VERY slow delivery to the plate and/or the catcher has a poor arm.

I'd much rather see more SB attempts than bunts.
SB - If team is 66% successful on SB attempts, then 2 out of 3 times you advance the runner without an out and the other time you have no more runner, but the batter still has a chance to replace him on base.
Sac - If the team is successful on 80% of sac bunt attempts then 80% of the time you advance the runner with a guaranteed out. A small percentage of the time you get a bunt hit and some other percentage of the time there is a force out or popped up bunt.

With the SB, you might take yourself out of a few more innings when unsuccessful, but are vastly increasing the chances of a single run when successful.