(03-15-2015 08:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:29 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:22 AM)ArmChairOwl Wrote:  For those who are interested:
Sacrifice Bunts - D1 Baseball Statistics - NCAA.com

So we are tied for #31 in sacrifices and #167 in fielding percentage. That doesn't scream out that bunting is the main thing we need to be working on.

Everyone is missing the main point. We are 14th in batting average and tied for 21st in runs.

I feel confident that Walt's perceptions of how often we fail to get the bunt down are magnified by the failures bothering him. But if we really are failing to get bunts down at the rates he thinks we are, AND we're that good a hitting team, then we're bunting way too much.

I don't think that's the case, and I think we DO need to bunt. But I suspect we're bunting at pretty close to the right rate, based on how our team hits. Again, JMHO, and I trust Coach more about this than anyone else.

Rick, I'm not complaining about the frequency we're bunting; only how pathetically poor our success rate is due to awful technique. And there is no way our success rate is "about right"; it's well below average for a college team.

Earlier in this thread, you said our success rate was no better than 25%. I understand that could mean several different things. If for example Player A tries to bunt twice in the same at bat, takes a strike on the first attempt and then gets a bunt down on the second, depending on how you 'measure' it, he was either 100% successful, or 50% successful. I would say 100% as he got it down.

I would say we were unsuccessful in a given at bat if we tried to bunt, couldn't do it, and the runner(s) stayed at their respective bases, or we'd be unsuccessful also, if he bunted the ball in fair territory and was out due to a pop up, or if the fielding team got the fielder's choice on one of the runners on base.

So not knowing the basis of your 25% perception, it's really hard to analyze.

But if you're using my definition, and only look at results and not counting multiple failed bunts in one at bat, and not counting a failed first bunt if we were subsequently successful in the same at bat . . . . . .

if we really are < 25%, and we're hitting .318, and we might also walk, or be safe on error, I'm not sure that we should be bunting at all.

Again, I think our chances of a successful bunt are much higher than 25%, even if they're not at the 75% you're targeting.

A lot depends on what we're counting obviously. And the fact that evidently no one REALLY counts either kind of unsuccessful bunt makes it hard to have realistic discussions on the matter.

(03-15-2015 08:39 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 08:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:29 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:22 AM)ArmChairOwl Wrote:  For those who are interested:
Sacrifice Bunts - D1 Baseball Statistics - NCAA.com

So we are tied for #31 in sacrifices and #167 in fielding percentage. That doesn't scream out that bunting is the main thing we need to be working on.

Everyone is missing the main point. We are 14th in batting average and tied for 21st in runs.

I feel confident that Walt's perceptions of how often we fail to get the bunt down are magnified by the failures bothering him. But if we really are failing to get bunts down at the rates he thinks we are, AND we're that good a hitting team, then we're bunting way too much.

I don't think that's the case, and I think we DO need to bunt. But I suspect we're bunting at pretty close to the right rate, based on how our team hits. Again, JMHO, and I trust Coach more about this than anyone else.

Rick, I'm not complaining about the frequency we're bunting; only how pathetically poor our success rate is due to awful technique. And there is no way our success rate is "about right"; it's well below average for a college team.

Earlier in this thread, you said our success rate was no better than 25%. I understand that could mean several different things. If for example Player A tries to bunt twice in the same at bat, takes a strike on the first attempt and then gets a bunt down on the second, depending on how you 'measure' it, he was either 100% successful, or 50% successful. I would say 100% as he got it down.

I would say we were unsuccessful in a given at bat if we tried to bunt, couldn't do it, and the runner(s) stayed at their respective bases, or we'd be unsuccessful also, if he bunted the ball in fair territory and was out due to a pop up, or if the fielding team got the fielder's choice on one of the runners on base.

So not knowing the basis of your 25% perception, it's really hard to analyze.

But if you're using my definition, and only look at results and not counting multiple failed bunts in one at bat, and not counting a failed first bunt if we were subsequently successful in the same at bat . . . . . .

if we really are < 25%, and we're hitting .318, and we might also walk, or be safe on error, I'm not sure that we should be bunting at all.

Again, I think our chances of a successful bunt are much higher than 25%, even if they're not at the 75% you're targeting.

A lot depends on what we're counting obviously. And the fact that evidently no one REALLY counts either kind of unsuccessful bunt makes it hard to have realistic discussions on the matter.

Rick, I'm only counting per AB; not per attempt within an AB. And while the success rate may or may not be better than 25%, I'll bet my NYC co-op that I just had remodeled and put up for sale that our rate is no better than 33%. I really don't think I'm distorting anything here. We are horrendous at bunting, and I very much doubt The OG himself would disagree with me on this.

(03-14-2015 02:26 PM)smackdaddy Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 02:03 PM)elf owl Wrote:  They should start the game at pi. Tonight at 9?

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing this morning when reading about Pi Day. It would be so awesome if Rice honored dork holidays like that, starting the game at 3:14, serving special pecan pi, having Neil deGrasse Tyson throw out the first pitch, hiring a Pythagorus impersonator to sing the National Anthem, etc, etc.

Can you imagine how disheartening it would be from the perspective of a visiting team like LaTech, to watch a big nerdfest celebration before the game, then get smoked by those same nerds in the game? Hahahaha. Love it. #thegeekshallinherittheearth

Not baseball related, but I believe I heard that MIT wholly embraced Pi Day by sending out acceptances on 3/14/15 at 9:26. It'll be another 100 years before someone can do that.

(03-15-2015 11:41 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:36 AM)ArmChairOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:22 AM)ArmChairOwl Wrote:  For those who are interested:
Sacrifice Bunts - D1 Baseball Statistics - NCAA.com

So we are tied for #31 in sacrifices and #167 in fielding percentage. That doesn't scream out that bunting is the main thing we need to be working on.

Those are just the number of total sacrifice bunts, I believe. Some teams have played fewer games than we have yet still have as many or more sacrifice bunts than us. And I could not find a "bunting average;" that is, number of bunts we have attempted. Still, I just cannot understand making a statement that we are "MUCH worse," without seeing the stat, and I do attend the games (all home games except for one thus far). We seem to have improved in fielding and my best guess is that is what Graham has really had them working on in practice. As a previous poster said, there is only so much practice time that is allowed.

Looking at simply the number of sac bunts tells you nothing about how successful you are at sac bunting. All it shows is the number of times you successfully laid it down (or got credit for the sacrifice due to a fielding miscue); it doesn't address your success rate, which in our case, this year so far, is not better than 25%, if that (when it should be up around 75% or better).

Why should we expect to be bunting 75% or better when big leaguers typically successfully bunt just around 67%?

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/163...todays-mlb

(03-15-2015 09:46 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 02:26 PM)smackdaddy Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 02:03 PM)elf owl Wrote:  They should start the game at pi. Tonight at 9?

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing this morning when reading about Pi Day. It would be so awesome if Rice honored dork holidays like that, starting the game at 3:14, serving special pecan pi, having Neil deGrasse Tyson throw out the first pitch, hiring a Pythagorus impersonator to sing the National Anthem, etc, etc.

Can you imagine how disheartening it would be from the perspective of a visiting team like LaTech, to watch a big nerdfest celebration before the game, then get smoked by those same nerds in the game? Hahahaha. Love it. #thegeekshallinherittheearth

Not baseball related, but I believe I heard that MIT wholly embraced Pi Day by sending out acceptances on 3/14/15 at 9:26. It'll be another 100 years before someone can do that.

I went to House of Pies (very original, I know)

(03-15-2015 06:44 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 03:02 AM)OWLmanz Wrote:   Our catcher giving up three runs on 2 pick-off attempts at 2nd and a bungled ball in the dirt was very disturbing. I suppose the pick-off attempts were called for him, but they were both BIG MISTAKES with a man on third......... VERY DISTURBING

The way the defeat, or at least halt, the delayed double-steal is for the catcher to get up as if he's throwing to 2nd base, but instead rifle the ball back to the pitcher, who whirls to see if he can catch the runner off 3B. I'm more than a little surprised we didn't put that "play" on the 2nd time.

That bothers me a lot that a rice team gets beat twice on the double steal in the same game. It would bother me that they get beat once.

(03-15-2015 09:47 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:41 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:36 AM)ArmChairOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:22 AM)ArmChairOwl Wrote:  For those who are interested:
Sacrifice Bunts - D1 Baseball Statistics - NCAA.com

So we are tied for #31 in sacrifices and #167 in fielding percentage. That doesn't scream out that bunting is the main thing we need to be working on.

Those are just the number of total sacrifice bunts, I believe. Some teams have played fewer games than we have yet still have as many or more sacrifice bunts than us. And I could not find a "bunting average;" that is, number of bunts we have attempted. Still, I just cannot understand making a statement that we are "MUCH worse," without seeing the stat, and I do attend the games (all home games except for one thus far). We seem to have improved in fielding and my best guess is that is what Graham has really had them working on in practice. As a previous poster said, there is only so much practice time that is allowed.

Looking at simply the number of sac bunts tells you nothing about how successful you are at sac bunting. All it shows is the number of times you successfully laid it down (or got credit for the sacrifice due to a fielding miscue); it doesn't address your success rate, which in our case, this year so far, is not better than 25%, if that (when it should be up around 75% or better).

Why should we expect to be bunting 75% or better when big leaguers typically successfully bunt just around 67%?

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/163...todays-mlb

1. The MLB rate is right around 75%.
2. I'd expect college to be higher because the fielding is MUCH worse. Also, I'd guess that at least 50% of the bunts in MLB today are by pitchers in the NL.

(03-15-2015 07:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If we are hitting so well, it seems like we could afford a little more practice time to improve this aspect of our game. Nothing wrong with being good at everything.

Maybe we are hitting so well since we spend that much time on hitting? I don't know.

But I have said time and time again that I wont second guess coaches who know how to and do win, so that is my stance here.

But the very reason this is a topic is that it has caused us to lose games we could have, should have, won.

15-6 is good. 17-4 would be better.

In any sport, if a coach's players are deficient in some skill, and they will be called upon to use that skill, the coach needs to coach them on how to do it. Even if he is a HOF coach with a NC on his resume, and they are top notch recruits. My limited time in coaching taught me that time is best spent of correcting mistakes.

I have no idea how much time is devoted to bunting, or what skills might suffer if more time was devoted to it. But I think if we are going to call for it, we need to be able to do it right, else stop calling for it.

(03-16-2015 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have no idea how much time is devoted to bunting, or what skills might suffer if more time was devoted to it. But I think if we are going to call for it, we need to be able to do it right, else stop calling for it.

I had been told that the NCAA limits team organized activities to five days per week. Implementation of the delayed start of the season caused many weeks to contain five scheduled games, ergo ... no practice time available.

Is my understanding of the limit is correct ? If so, practice time is obviously not available during many weeks of the baseball season.

(03-16-2015 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If we are hitting so well, it seems like we could afford a little more practice time to improve this aspect of our game. Nothing wrong with being good at everything.

Maybe we are hitting so well since we spend that much time on hitting? I don't know.
But I have said time and time again that I wont second guess coaches who know how to and do win, so that is my stance here.

But the very reason this is a topic is that it has caused us to lose games we could have, should have, won.
15-6 is good. 17-4 would be better.
In any sport, if a coach's players are deficient in some skill, and they will be called upon to use that skill, the coach needs to coach them on how to do it. Even if he is a HOF coach with a NC on his resume, and they are top notch recruits. My limited time in coaching taught me that time is best spent of correcting mistakes.
I have no idea how much time is devoted to bunting, or what skills might suffer if more time was devoted to it. But I think if we are going to call for it, we need to be able to do it right, else stop calling for it.

(03-16-2015 08:50 AM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have no idea how much time is devoted to bunting, or what skills might suffer if more time was devoted to it. But I think if we are going to call for it, we need to be able to do it right, else stop calling for it.

I had been told that the NCAA limits team organized activities to five days per week. Implementation of the delayed start of the season caused many weeks to contain five scheduled games, ergo ... no practice time available.
Is my understanding of the limit is correct ? If so, practice time is obviously not available during many weeks of the baseball season.

Regardless of specifics, practice time is very limited. That requires that it be allocated to those skills and proficiencies which the coach believes are most important. Maybe we'd be 17-4 instead of 15-6 if we had worked on bunting more, but maybe we'd be 11-10 too, because maybe what we have been doing instead of working on bunting is working on the things that have made us 15-6.

Particularly at the beginning of the year, I think our defensive struggles hurt us far more than not getting a bunt down. We have improved in that area, and I don't think it is unrealistic to assume that the reason why is because we've worked extensively on that, instead of working on bunting. Maybe it's time to work on bunting now, or maybe it isn't, I'm not privy to those coaching discussions. I tend to think Wayne Graham knows what he is doing, I think he's earned at least that much respect, and therefore I tend to go along with his decisions.

I have three hours a week with the rugby team. I'd love to be able to teach them specific plays for scrums, lineouts, and other set pieces. But set pieces comprise 15% of the game, open play is 85%, and my time is limited. And if they can master three skills--rucking (with an r, don't get any ideas, a ruck is like a scrum except it happens dynamically when a player is tackled instead of being a set piece), passing, and tackling--they can win about 75% of the open play game. So we spend 90% of our time on those three skills, and pretty much all we try to teach with scrums and lineouts is how to get through them safely. I would expect that Wayne has similar practice time issues and must allocate his time accordingly.

(03-16-2015 02:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  .

I have three hours a week with the rugby team. I'd love to be able to teach them specific plays for scrums, lineouts, and other set pieces. But set pieces comprise 15% of the game, open play is 85%, and my time is limited. And if they can master three skills--rucking (with an r, don't get any ideas, a ruck is like a scrum except it happens dynamically when a player is tackled instead of being a set piece), passing, and tackling--they can win about 75% of the open play game. So we spend 90% of our time on those three skills, and pretty much all we try to teach with scrums and lineouts is how to get through them safely. I would expect that Wayne has similar practice time issues and must allocate his time accordingly.

So, if your players are good at passing and not so good at tackling, would you allow extra practice time to tackling at the expense of passing drills? I think I would.

Since you took this to another sport, I will take it to a third one. If a football coach has a line that is very good at run blocking, but mediocre at pass blocking, and the coach wants to try and achieve a 50/50 balance between running and passing, it just seems logical to me to spend the time to improve the pass blocking.

Just an opinion, but it seems to me that practice time is best used strengthening weaknesses. If we bunted well, I would advocate trying to improve in other areas in which we may be weak.

JMHO.

(03-16-2015 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if your players are good at passing and not so good at tackling, would you allow extra practice time to tackling at the expense of passing drills? I think I would.

Actually, that's exactly where they are right now, and that's exactly what we are doing.

Quote:Since you took this to another sport, I will take it to a third one. If a football coach has a line that is very good at run blocking, but mediocre at pass blocking, and the coach wants to try and achieve a 50/50 balance between running and passing, it just seems logical to me to spend the time to improve the pass blocking.

He's got two choices. He can work on pass blocking or he can change his 50/50 aspiration to fit better with his team's capabilities.

Quote:Just an opinion, but it seems to me that practice time is best used strengthening weaknesses. If we bunted well, I would advocate trying to improve in other areas in which we may be weak.

It's interactive. You work on things that 1) you need to improve and 2) are important to winning the game. The more important to winning the game, the higher the standard for what is good enough. Continuing with the rugby analogy, say we're not good at lineouts. But we have maybe 3 of those a game. We have 80-100 tackle/breakdown situations in a game, and we are better at those than we are at lineouts, but not really good. Do we get more bang for the buck from spending our time on lineouts or tackle/breakdown situations? New Zealand say you perfect the tackle/breakdown situations first, and they are #1 in the world. Most American rugby coaches say you get the lineouts perfected first. That's where I disagree philosophically with most American rugby coaches. Americans like to work excessively on set pieces because they are more like American football--everybody starts from a fixed position and you can draw actual lines for them to run. I say you get the 85% right first, and then you worry about the 15%.

If you're bad at something that is a key skill, then you'd better address it fairly quickly. I'd put our early season defense in that category, and it looks as if we have fixed it. If you're bad at something that isn't important, then maybe you stay bad at it until you perfect the more important skills.

One corollary to the approach I'm talking about is that if you know you are not good at something, you elect as a matter of strategy not to do it. That would call into question the practice of bunting at all if we are not good at it, and I think that is a legitimate question.

(03-15-2015 09:53 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 09:46 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 02:26 PM)smackdaddy Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 02:03 PM)elf owl Wrote:  They should start the game at pi. Tonight at 9?

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing this morning when reading about Pi Day. It would be so awesome if Rice honored dork holidays like that, starting the game at 3:14, serving special pecan pi, having Neil deGrasse Tyson throw out the first pitch, hiring a Pythagorus impersonator to sing the National Anthem, etc, etc.

Can you imagine how disheartening it would be from the perspective of a visiting team like LaTech, to watch a big nerdfest celebration before the game, then get smoked by those same nerds in the game? Hahahaha. Love it. #thegeekshallinherittheearth

Not baseball related, but I believe I heard that MIT wholly embraced Pi Day by sending out acceptances on 3/14/15 at 9:26. It'll be another 100 years before someone can do that.

I went to House of Pies (very original, I know)

Just hit me, that on Saturday, March 14, on vacation in Taormina, Sicily, we drove down to Syracuse first thing that morning to catch the opening of the local museum showing of the Leonardo da Vinci models exhibit. (An Archimedes model exhibit follows this summer.) So then totally unawares, at 3-14-15 at 9:26 Sicilian time, I was in the place the discoverer of pi called home. How 'bout that.....

(03-16-2015 04:14 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 09:53 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 09:46 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 02:26 PM)smackdaddy Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 02:03 PM)elf owl Wrote:  They should start the game at pi. Tonight at 9?

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing this morning when reading about Pi Day. It would be so awesome if Rice honored dork holidays like that, starting the game at 3:14, serving special pecan pi, having Neil deGrasse Tyson throw out the first pitch, hiring a Pythagorus impersonator to sing the National Anthem, etc, etc.

Can you imagine how disheartening it would be from the perspective of a visiting team like LaTech, to watch a big nerdfest celebration before the game, then get smoked by those same nerds in the game? Hahahaha. Love it. #thegeekshallinherittheearth

Not baseball related, but I believe I heard that MIT wholly embraced Pi Day by sending out acceptances on 3/14/15 at 9:26. It'll be another 100 years before someone can do that.

I went to House of Pies (very original, I know)

Just hit me, that on Saturday, March 14, on vacation in Taormina, Sicily, we drove down to Syracuse first thing that morning to catch the opening of the local museum showing of the Leonardo da Vinci models exhibit. (An Archimedes model exhibit follows this summer.) So then totally unawares, at 3-14-15 at 9:26 Sicilian time, I was in the place the discoverer of pi called home. How 'bout that.....

That's pretty special. Sounds like a great trip.

(03-16-2015 04:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if your players are good at passing and not so good at tackling, would you allow extra practice time to tackling at the expense of passing drills? I think I would.

Actually, that's exactly where they are right now, and that's exactly what we are doing.

Quote:Since you took this to another sport, I will take it to a third one. If a football coach has a line that is very good at run blocking, but mediocre at pass blocking, and the coach wants to try and achieve a 50/50 balance between running and passing, it just seems logical to me to spend the time to improve the pass blocking.

He's got two choices. He can work on pass blocking or he can change his 50/50 aspiration to fit better with his team's capabilities.

Quote:Just an opinion, but it seems to me that practice time is best used strengthening weaknesses. If we bunted well, I would advocate trying to improve in other areas in which we may be weak.

It's interactive. You work on things that 1) you need to improve and 2) are important to winning the game. The more important to winning the game, the higher the standard for what is good enough. Continuing with the rugby analogy, say we're not good at lineouts. But we have maybe 3 of those a game. We have 80-100 tackle/breakdown situations in a game, and we are better at those than we are at lineouts, but not really good. Do we get more bang for the buck from spending our time on lineouts or tackle/breakdown situations? New Zealand say you perfect the tackle/breakdown situations first, and they are #1 in the world. Most American rugby coaches say you get the lineouts perfected first. That's where I disagree philosophically with most American rugby coaches. Americans like to work excessively on set pieces because they are more like American football--everybody starts from a fixed position and you can draw actual lines for them to run. I say you get the 85% right first, and then you worry about the 15%.

If you're bad at something that is a key skill, then you'd better address it fairly quickly. I'd put our early season defense in that category, and it looks as if we have fixed it. If you're bad at something that isn't important, then maybe you stay bad at it until you perfect the more important skills.

One corollary to the approach I'm talking about is that if you know you are not good at something, you elect as a matter of strategy not to do it. That would call into question the practice of bunting at all if we are not good at it, and I think that is a legitimate question.

Bunting is an important and fundamental part of baseball; especially in the current college game. And it really doesn't take all that much time to learn the proper technique. Yes, it requires weekly practice to ensure you don't forget the technique, but that can be done as part of regular batting practice (so long as the coaches are paying attention, and ensure that the proper technique continues to be employed).

(03-16-2015 04:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:Since you took this to another sport, I will take it to a third one. If a football coach has a line that is very good at run blocking, but mediocre at pass blocking, and the coach wants to try and achieve a 50/50 balance between running and passing, it just seems logical to me to spend the time to improve the pass blocking.

He's got two choices. He can work on pass blocking or he can change his 50/50 aspiration to fit better with his team's capabilities.

sounds like we are right back to what I was advocating two weeks ago - either teach the kids to bunt or stop calling for them to bunt.