2014 Bunting

[Will James]

Another year of looking the percentages in the face an giving them the bird from Cohen. We will start with the "Man on 1st, no outs" bunts this year. This is the worst of them all. In 2012 we scored only 6 of 26 times we did this. It's nearly as bad this year. Todd will you stand here today and condemn this play? Or will you go back to your pre-typed posts of "have to do things like bunting, stealing, manufacturing......"

Man on 1st, no outs. 49% chance of scoring (Boyd)
11 sac bunts... Scored 3 times.... 27% of the time. Shitting on the odds here guys.

Man on 2nd, no outs. 70% chance of scoring (Boyd)
14 sac bunts... Scored 8 times... 57% of the time.

1st and 2nd, no outs. 71% chance of scoring (Boyd)
14 sac bunts... Scored 8 times... 57% of the time.


Keep in mind these are the successful bunts!

[Todd4State]

Per Boyd:

Runner on 2nd and one out- drops from 49% to 47%

Runner on 3rd and one out- INCREASE from 70% to 73%

Runner on 2nd and 3rd and one out- INCREASE from 70% to 73%

You have basically proved three things:

1. We play the odds, but our hitters aren't getting the job done. Shocking to anyone who has watched this season and knows baseball I'm sure. And so, with hitters who have enough trouble getting a guy home from third, you want to make them get three hits in a row to score. Not smart.

2. As I said, a majority of the time when we sac bunt it's with a runner on second and no one out or second and third and no one out- both of which statistically yield a higher chance of scoring. 28 to 11.

3. You hate bunting even if it is proven to help us score statistically using the situations you have provided and you will try to manipulate stats to fit it your agenda. Also not shocking. Nice try, but fail.

[Will James]

1. As I've said, bunting hurts bad hitting teams more.

2. Those odds of post-bunt situations are only after a SUCCESSFUL bunt. We routinely buntfail.


You continue to NEVER address the numbers. Just like 2012. Predictable. You look at the "good intentions" of the bunt. Not the actual results.

[Will James]

Not to mention the runs/inning drop in all cases.

[Todd4State]

1. As I've said, bunting hurts bad hitting teams more.

2. Those odds of post-bunt situations are only after a SUCCESSFUL bunt. We routinely buntfail.


You continue to NEVER address the numbers. Just like 2012. Predictable. You look at the "good intentions" of the bunt. Not the actual results.

I don't see how you could seriously say that based on the post that I provided. I addressed every number you talked about.

Based on your Boyd's research, we should score 73% of the time when we bunt since that is the national average. Based on your research we score 57% of the time. YOU think that means that bunting is a bad idea. What it really means to anyone else who isn't biased, can interpret data, and has a brain is we don't hit very well in clutch. You're basically trying to take two sets of numbers from two data sets and trying to throw them together to prove a point because the numbers in the first data set shows that you are wrong and don't fit your agenda.

Sevendust says I seen your game before.

[Will James]

Based on your Boyd's research, we should score 73% of the time when we bunt

So bunting hurts us MORE because we are offensively challenged. Who's said that before?

And it's only 73% if we even have a successful bunt. Not even talking about the man on first bunt where complete success still lessens your chances of scoring.

[Noxdog]

The 2 biggest ****wads on the board are having a pillow fight.




I don't see how you could seriously say that based on the post that I provided. I addressed every number you talked about.

Based on your Boyd's research, we should score 73% of the time when we bunt since that is the national average. Based on your research we score 57% of the time. YOU think that means that bunting is a bad idea. What it really means to anyone else who isn't biased, can interpret data, and has a brain is we don't hit very well in clutch. You're basically trying to take two sets of numbers from two data sets and trying to throw them together to prove a point because the numbers in the first data set shows that you are wrong and don't fit your agenda.

Sevendust says I seen your game before.

[Todd4State]

So bunting hurts us MORE because we are offensively challenged. Who's said that before?

And it's only 73% if we even have a successful bunt. Not even talking about the man on first bunt where complete success still lessens your chances of scoring.

No it doesn't. Not being able to hit is what hurts us. The odds of scoring are even less when men aren't on third based on Boyd's research. You're saying we should not put our offensively challenged selves into a statistically better chance to score. Omarr Conner drop back passer.

We already talked about the man on first bunt. I said it decreases your chance of scoring by a whopping 2%. Agree it's not a statistically good play. According to your research we have only done this 11 times compared to the 28 times that we have bunted to put ourselves in a better position.

[Will James]

28 times that we have bunted to put ourselves in a better position.

No it's been way more. Again you assume that 100% of our bunt attempts are successful. NOT THE CASE.

.
.
.
WJ says: So bunting hurts us MORE because we are offensively challenged.

Todd says: No it doesn't. Not being able to hit is what hurts us.

Am I living in an alternate universe or something? That says the same thing. And you don't address the runs/inning drop WAY off when bunting which we often do early.

You see our results and STILL claim I am the one off base… There is no helping you.

[Todd4State]

No it's been way more. Again you assume that 100% of our bunt attempts are successful. NOT THE CASE.

.
.
.
WJ says: So bunting hurts us MORE because we are offensively challenged.

Todd says: No it doesn't. Not being able to hit is what hurts us.

Am I living in an alternate universe or something? That says the same thing. And you don't address the runs/inning drop WAY off when bunting which we often do early.

You see our results and STILL claim I am the one off base… There is no helping you.

I'm also not assuming that when we square around and take a pitch for a ball or a strike as an "unsuccessful bunt".

And yes you do live in an alternate universe- one where you don't know the difference between a curveball and a fastball, a sac bunt and a drag bunt, and try to say that bunting is bad even in situations where it is proven to be good by the data you've provided.

[Will James]

even in situations where it is proven to be good by the data you've provided.

Its STILL bad because that assumes a successful bunt. You don't seem to understand that point.

Also scoring ONE run is not the best that you can do in an inning.

[Todd4State]

Its STILL bad because that assumes a successful bunt. You don't seem to understand that point.

Also scoring ONE run is not the best that you can do in an inning.

You don't seem to understand that 1 run is better than none and that there are 25 ways we can score from third, that our best asset is our speed, and that Earl Weaver was famous for f******* up the World Series.

[Will James]

You don't seem to understand that 1 run is better than none

You have no comprehension of percentages, none.

[Will James]

For those of you not named Todd.

These numbers show that we cost ourselves when successfully bunting.. more so because of all of the failed bunts.

Boyd's numbers show what would happen if a bunt is successful, but mostly the odds are even and when accounting for the chance of a bunt fail that play becomes costly. Also, Boyd shows that the runs scored in an inning drop way off so the only time you should do it is if you NEED one run late in the game and have a bad hitter up and no better options on the bench.

[Todd4State]

For those of you not named Todd.

These numbers show that we cost ourselves when successfully bunting.. more so because of all of the failed bunts.

Boyd's numbers show what would happen if a bunt is successful, but mostly the odds are even and when accounting for the chance of a bunt fail that play becomes costly. Also, Boyd shows that the runs scored in an inning drop way off so the only time you should do it is if you NEED one run late in the game and have a bad hitter up and no better options on the bench.

In other words, like our hitters that you want to try to get three hits in a row.

Sly Croom.

[Todd4State]

You have no comprehension of percentages, none.

You have no comprehension of baseball.

[Maroons]

In other words, like our hitters that you want to try to get three hits in a row.

Sly Croom.

Do you really think it takes three hits to score a runner from 1st?

[WeWonItAll(Most)]

Do you really think it takes three hits to score a runner from 1st?

For us, yes

[Will James]

Do you really think it takes three hits to score a runner from 1st?

"You have no comprehension of baseball"

- T4S

[Todd4State]

For us, yes

This^

Now again, as I have said all along there are other ways that we can manufacture runs other than bunting. We do those things also- stealing, hit and running, and bunting is part of that as well. There is risk/reward with anything in baseball and what it boils down to are individual pitcher/hitter match-ups and the current in game situation. Even swinging away there is risk/reward and that is reflected in batting average and OBP.

When you have a lineup full of hitters that have a lot of speed, you are going to do things to take advantage of that speed. When you have a lineup full of power hitters, you are going to probably let them swing away. Small ball teams by nature are going to score less because they don't have as much ability to get a 2, 3, 4 run home run or even a lot of doubles which can drive in multiple runners. That's the advantage of having power hitters and why they are so desirable- because you can score more immediately and you don't have to do as many things that are risky. The downside is a lot of times power hitters strike out more and hit into double plays more than contact hitters.

Personally, I see the value in both, as well as the downside to both. That's why I want a balanced lineup that can do both the small ball stuff and at the same time hit home runs and have power. A lot of the things that small ball teams do drive pitchers, coaches, and defenses nuts. I'm sure our fans have seen that at times during Cohen's career. You force the other team to account for it. And you have to remember- our opponents are not MLB players- they're college kids. You can distract them and break their concentration a lot easier and sometimes they are going to have glaring weaknesses defensively that can be exploited. So when you have a pitcher on the mound and he has to worry about whether the base runner is going to steal, it increases the chance that your power hitters are going to get pitches to hit- and hit hard.

Right now, we're pretty much all small ball. But with the players we have coming in that have power and the seams changing, I would not be shocked at all if we benefit the most from the changes. We're also bringing in some guys that can run like Mangum, Alexander, and Ryan Girdley, so we're going to have some of both. It should be fun to watch!

[messageboardsuperhero]

Look, I can understand us bunting under certain circumstances- with that said, a sac bunt is a bad play more times than not.

Bunting Pirtle in the 8th inning of this game was one of the dumbest things I've seen us do strategically in a while. He's our best hitter and has gotten on base in pretty much every conference game he's played in since being here... And what to we do? Take the bat out of his hands and force him to make an out. That's just not smart baseball. Period.

What made it funny was the dumbass announcers trying to tell us that bunting our best hitter and OBP guy was "the sign of a championship team." LOL, no it's not. It's just a stupid play that decreases your chances of scoring.

Again, I don't have a problem with us bunting in certain circumstances and am pumped that we won- but the decision to bunt Pirtle there is something that I disagree with.

[CadaverDawg]

Personally, I have no problem with bunting some....but bunting your best hitters with men on 1st and 2nd with 0 outs up 3-0 is simply meddling. But if Britton is up with 1st and 2nd with 0 outs I'm bunting unless we're down more than 2 runs and it's later in the game.

When it comes to y'all's argument....There IS good bunting situations, so WJ is extreme on the "never bunt" mantra. BUT, we bunt WAY too much, and in WAY too many dumb situations. Everyone knows this is Will's pet peeve, so I'm of the belief that it's more fun to laugh and appreciate OUR bunt hater, than to argue with him. Just my 2 cents

[CadaverDawg]

Look, I can understand us bunting under certain circumstances- with that said, a sac bunt is a bad play more times than not.

Bunting Pirtle in the 8th inning of this game was one of the dumbest things I've seen us do strategically in a while. He's our best hitter and has gotten on base in pretty much every conference game he's played in since being here... And what to we do? Take the bat out of his hands and force him to make an out. That's just not smart baseball. Period.

What made it funny was the dumbass announcers trying to tell us that bunting our best hitter and OBP guy was "the sign of a championship team." LOL, no it's not. It's just a stupid play that decreases your chances of scoring.

Again, I don't have a problem with us bunting in certain circumstances and am pumped that we won- but the decision to bunt Pirtle there is something that I disagree with.

Agree

[Todd4State]

I do agree that you can bunt too much and that there is a right and wrong time to do it. It's not really much different than anything else. For example stolen bases- you don't want Prince Fielder to steal. Billy Hamilton- probably a good idea. There are some baseball people that feel about the same way about stealing bases that Will feels about bunting. There is research that shows that if you are stealing at less than a 65% clip, you are costing yourself runs.

I do agree that having Pirtle bunt tonight was a bad idea. That's an example of what I am talking about where you have a hitter who is hitting really well, so you would want him to swing the bat. Even though getting the runners over to second and third would have increased the chance of scoring globally 2%. The fact that Pirtle is hitting .357 in SEC play should trump the 2% increase in potential scoring. In baseball you have to integrate a lot of different stats and make the best most informed opinion.

[Todd4State]

Look, I can understand us bunting under certain circumstances- with that said, a sac bunt is a bad play more times than not.

Bunting Pirtle in the 8th inning of this game was one of the dumbest things I've seen us do strategically in a while. He's our best hitter and has gotten on base in pretty much every conference game he's played in since being here... And what to we do? Take the bat out of his hands and force him to make an out. That's just not smart baseball. Period.

What made it funny was the dumbass announcers trying to tell us that bunting our best hitter and OBP guy was "the sign of a championship team." LOL, no it's not. It's just a stupid play that decreases your chances of scoring.

Again, I don't have a problem with us bunting in certain circumstances and am pumped that we won- but the decision to bunt Pirtle there is something that I disagree with.

College baseball announcers are ridiculous in general.

[Irondawg]

This whole conversation is meaningless with looking at the numbers of what happens when WE don't bunt.

Boyd's numbers are greats for statistical analysis on what you should expect but what's really important is what you are actually getting. So let's say Boyd says we should score 70% of the time when we don't bunt. What if for us that's only 40%?

That could radically alter what is good and bad in our minds. Let's face it, we are a below average hitting team so I would venture that our numbers in all situations would be below Boyd's expected values.

[War Machine Dawg]

1. As I've said, bunting hurts bad hitting teams more.

2. Those odds of post-bunt situations are only after a SUCCESSFUL bunt. We routinely buntfail.


You continue to NEVER address the numbers. Just like 2012. Predictable. You look at the "good intentions" of the bunt. Not the actual results.

He's got you here, Todd. Sacrifice bunting is by far the dumbest play in all of baseball. Never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever give away an out. The ONLY time I'd even consider it anymore is on a squeeze play. You're at least gambling on scoring a run with the squeeze. Otherwise, you're just letting the opponent off the hook with an easy out that doesn't do shit to help you. **** intentions, results have to matter at some point. And the results are well beyond shitty and have been for a long time now. Plus, there's a difference between being aggressive and giving away free outs.

[Todd4State]

He's got you here, Todd. Sacrifice bunting is by far the dumbest play in all of baseball. Never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever give away an out. The ONLY time I'd even consider it anymore is on a squeeze play. You're at least gambling on scoring a run with the squeeze. Otherwise, you're just letting the opponent off the hook with an easy out that doesn't do shit to help you. **** intentions, results have to matter at some point. And the results are well beyond shitty and have been for a long time now. Plus, there's a difference between being aggressive and giving away free outs.

I would say a squeeze play is an aggressive play. How do you feel about trying to bunt for a hit? A lot of my issue is this- it seems like every bunt we do regardless of intention is regarded as a sacrifice bunt, when that is clearly not the case every single time. I'm simply pointing that out, as well as reasons why we do bunt. Whether it's for a sacrifice or trying to bunt for a hit.

That said, there are times in games where it is appropriate to sacrifice. My intentions are for us to put ourselves in a good position to win and take advantage of the strengths of our players. If that means sacrificing, we should do that. If that means swinging away we should do that as well. Again, it is all based on the hitter and the situation.

[shoeless joe]

Bunting with a runner on 1st early in the game I disagree with. Unless we' re facing someone's ace and the game is gonna be low scoring. Runner on second and no outs bunting is always a good play unless we're down a ton. Getting a runner to third with less than two outs is THE goal in baseball at every level next to actually scoring. Why? Because it sets up the easiest ways to then score. Why do MLB teams high five a guy that just sac flied a guy to third? Same as a bunt.

If you would take situations and individual teams into account your argument would hold more water...but since you have decided you wanna be known for hating the bunt you lose baseball credibility whether you've ever played or not. Name one successfull coach that has completely ignored bunting?? I trust proven baseball guys more than some number cruncher.

[Will James]

Runner on second and no outs bunting is always a good play unless we're down a ton. Getting a runner to third with less than two outs is THE goal in baseball at every level

This is retarded

[Will James]

This whole conversation is meaningless with looking at the numbers of what happens when WE don't bunt.

Boyd's numbers are greats for statistical analysis on what you should expect but what's really important is what you are actually getting. So let's say Boyd says we should score 70% of the time when we don't bunt. What if for us that's only 40%?

That could radically alter what is good and bad in our minds. Let's face it, we are a below average hitting team so I would venture that our numbers in all situations would be below Boyd's expected values.

You are exactly right so I did that this morning.

UPDATED NUMBERS FOR ALL SITUATIONS

Man on 1st, 0 outs (Boyd 49%)
12 sac bunts….. Scored 3 times….. 25%
124 non sacs…. Scored 54 times… 44%



Man on 2nd, 0 outs (Boyd 70%)
14 sac bunts…. Scored 8 times…. 57%
22 non sacs…. Scored 18 times… 82%

(Yes we have bunted in this retarded situation 39% of the time)


Men on 1st and 2nd, 0 outs (Boyd 71%)
14 sac bunts… Scored 8 times…. 57%
24 non sacs…. Scored 18 times… 75%


We are pretty darn clutch when given a full inning to work with. It seems that we are NOT because 33% of our opportunities are often taken away by John Cohen.

[messageboardsuperhero]

Bunting with a runner on 1st early in the game I disagree with. Unless we' re facing someone's ace and the game is gonna be low scoring. Runner on second and no outs bunting is always a good play unless we're down a ton. Getting a runner to third with less than two outs is THE goal in baseball at every level next to actually scoring. Why? Because it sets up the easiest ways to then score. Why do MLB teams high five a guy that just sac flied a guy to third? Same as a bunt.

If you would take situations and individual teams into account your argument would hold more water...but since you have decided you wanna be known for hating the bunt you lose baseball credibility whether you've ever played or not. Name one successfull coach that has completely ignored bunting?? I trust proven baseball guys more than some number cruncher.

I'll give you two: Bob Melvin and Joe Maddon.

Granted they don't COMPLETELY ignore the bunt, but their teams both sac bunted only about 20 times each last season. Like I said we should do, they only bunt in very limited and specific situations.

[Cowbellringer]

Innocent bystander here.

Couple of questions:

1) Does Boyd have a situational breakdown of what gives teams a higher % chance of scoring (bunting vs hitting away), or does his stats only included both factors? If not, could we be an outlier? How do we know that bunting is actually reducing this overall percentage for Boyd's numbers? Maybe bunting is actually increasing the chance of scoring? Without having the situational stats like Will has provided for MSU, it's impossible to know what the national averages are.
(FYI..I'm more concerned about what gives OUR team a greater chance to score, regardless of what the national numbers are.)

2) I'd love to see our SEC vs non-conference numbers. I'm thinking it's much more likely we can keep getting back to back base hits to score a runner vs Alcorn than LSU, but I'll let the numbers convince me. (Again..I'm more concerned about what gives OUR team a greater chance to score, regardless of what the national numbers are.)

My 2 cents is that I've learned it's almost never a good idea to speak in absolutes. Probably a time to use both methods depending on statistical evidence and current situation.

[shoeless joe]

This is retarded

Exactly my point. Using this as an argument makes you look like you have no clue about the game. Ever heard of situational hitting? Hitting behind a runner? These are things that teams work on during every BP session. Moving runners is a good play.

[shoeless joe]

I'll give you two: Bob Melvin and Joe Maddon.

Granted they don't COMPLETELY ignore the bunt, but their teams both sac bunted only about 20 times each last season. Like I said we should do, they only bunt in very limited and specific situations.

You are right and madden was one I was thinking of as I typed. But as you said they do bunt in specific situations, which is really the argument here.

[Will James]

Exactly my point. Using this as an argument makes you look like you have no clue about the game. Ever heard of situational hitting? Hitting behind a runner? These are things that teams work on during every BP session. Moving runners is a good play.

Man on 2nd, 0 outs (Boyd 70%)
14 sac bunts…. Scored 8 times…. 57%
22 non sacs…. Scored 18 times… 82%

[Will James]

which is really the argument here.

No, it's not.

[shoeless joe]

Man on 2nd, 0 outs (Boyd 70%)
14 sac bunts…. Scored 8 times…. 57%
22 non sacs…. Scored 18 times… 82%

How many times when we did not sacrifice did the runner end up on 3rd with 1 out? Which would be the same play as a bunt. And it constitutes "moving a runner" which you stated was a "retarded" play.

[shoeless joe]

No, it's not.

Then what is it?

Most agree we bunt too much. But most folks realize there are situations that call for the bunt. You say there is no situation that calls for a bunt.

[Maroons]

Look, I can understand us bunting under certain circumstances-

This is what both sides of the argument have to account for - the game situation has to be factored in. You can't make blanket statements or use macro stats to say, for example, bunting with a runner on 1st is always a good or bad play.

Some obvious questions -
What is the inning and score?
Who is batting, running, and on-deck.
Who is pitching?
Who is ready in the other team's pen?

The situational decision-making is part of what makes the game fun, and stats will never account for all the variabilities.

[Will James]

How many times when we did not sacrifice did the runner end up on 3rd with 1 out? Which would be the same play as a SUCCESSFUL bunt. And it constitutes "moving a runner" which you stated was a "retarded" play.

What about this do some of you fail to grasp

[Will James]

Then what is it?

Most agree we bunt too much. But most folks realize there are situations that call for the bunt. You say there is no situation that calls for a bunt.

No there are VERY LIMITED situations. We should have about 6-7 sacs, not 40.

[Will James]

SEC ONLY NUMBERS

Man on 1st, 0 out (Boyd 49%)

Bunted 3 times………. Scored 0 times… 0%
Didn't bunt 51 times… Scored 22 times. 43%


Man on 2nd, 0 outs (Boyd 70%)
Bunted 10 times……….Scored 4 times… 40%
Didn't bunt 4 times…. Scored 3 times… 75%


1st and 2nd, 0 outs (Boyd 71%)
Bunted 7 times………Scored 4 times… 57%
Didn't bunt 6 times..Scored 5 times… 83%


***KEEP IN MIND THE FAILED BUNTS ARE IN THE DIDNT BUNT CATEGORY***

[Todd4State]

This is what both sides of the argument have to account for - the game situation has to be factored in. You can't make blanket statements or use macro stats to say, for example, bunting with a runner on 1st is always a good or bad play.

Some obvious questions -
What is the inning and score?
Who is batting, running, and on-deck.
Who is pitching?
Who is ready in the other team's pen?

The situational decision-making is part of what makes the game fun, and stats will never account for all the variabilities.

Amen.

[Will James]

Amen.

You can amen all you want and continue to provide nothing to support your side but the fact is our BEST HITTER leads the team in sac bunts.

We should have 6-7 "right situation" bunts asking those questions. You honestly cannot come here and claim "the situation will dictate" and then defend all of our bunts KNOWING THE ACTUAL RESULTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED in the situations.

[Todd4State]

You can amen all you want and continue to provide nothing to support your side but the fact is our BEST HITTER leads the team in sac bunts.

We should have 6-7 "right situation" bunts asking those questions. You honestly cannot come here and claim "the situation will dictate" and then defend all of our bunts KNOWING THE ACTUAL RESULTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED in the situations.

I've provided plenty of support. You just don't like what I have to say about it. Your numbers also don't include bunts that go for hits, they don't show the effect that it has on the defense as far as getting them out of position and then we get a hit later in the game because of that, they don't take into account for the fact that the other team has to spend valuable time practicing defending it against us. Your stats where we don't bunt also don't tell the whole story about the situation- whether we were swinging away bcause we were behind or ahead, or because we had Wes Rea at the plate, because the pitcher was struggling etc. I look at those things. Most people with logic and common sense look at those things as well.

When we square around take a pitch- you see a "failed bunt attempt". Then when we get a hit because we force the defense to move or cause the pitcher to throw a fastball because he thinks we're bunting- then you think "well, see I was right!" You can't capture those things in stats- especially very broad stats. But some of those hits are due in part to at the very least showing bunt.

Edit to say- some of Pirtle's "Sac bunts" are times where he is trying to bunt for a hit and is thrown out.

[messageboardsuperhero]

SEC ONLY NUMBERS

Man on 1st, 0 out (Boyd 49%)

Bunted 3 times………. Scored 0 times… 0%
Didn't bunt 51 times… Scored 22 times. 43%


Man on 2nd, 0 outs (Boyd 70%)
Bunted 10 times……….Scored 4 times… 40%
Didn't bunt 4 times…. Scored 3 times… 75%


1st and 2nd, 0 outs (Boyd 71%)
Bunted 7 times………Scored 4 times… 57%
Didn't bunt 6 times..Scored 5 times… 83%


***KEEP IN MIND THE FAILED BUNTS ARE IN THE DIDNT BUNT CATEGORY***

I generally agree with this. Sac bunting is a bad play 98% of the time.

[Will James]

Your numbers also don't include bunts that go for hits

Yes they do. And EVEN if they didn't the bunt fails far outnumber the bunt hits. The actual numbers on bunt attempts are even worse than these numbers show.



they don't show the effect that it has on the defense as far as getting them out of position and then we get a hit later in the game because of that

It shows the extreme failures that us bunting has resulted in. "We'll **** up here so we MIGHT be able to hit it past a 3B playing in later!!!" Don't ****ing think so.




they don't take into account for the fact that the other team has to spend valuable time practicing defending it against us.

Bwahahahahaha



Your stats where we don't bunt also don't tell the whole story about the situation- whether we were swinging away bcause we were behind or ahead, or because we had Wes Rea at the plate, because the pitcher was struggling etc. I look at those things. Most people with logic and common sense look at those things as well.

Our best hitter leads the team in sac bunts


When we square around take a pitch- you see a "failed bunt attempt". Then when we get a hit because we force the defense to move or cause the pitcher to throw a fastball because he thinks we're bunting- then you think "well, see I was right!"

You have the numbers on how many times this happened? Bet they don't outweigh the extreme failures the actual numbers show

[Todd4State]

Yes they do. And EVEN if they didn't the bunt fails far outnumber the bunt hits. The actual numbers on bunt attempts are even worse than these numbers show.

And yet, you never include that in your stats or denote that in any way until I say something. I wonder why?





It shows the extreme failures that us bunting has resulted in. "We'll **** up here so we MIGHT be able to hit it past a 3B playing in later!!!" Don't ****ing think so.



Good hitters only are successful 30% of the time. Is that an extreme failure too? Defensive positioning is the big thing right now in baseball. If you can force the third baseman and first baseman to play in on the corners, it opens up holes which makes it easier. This is mostly due to drag bunting and using speed- not sacrificing. When you have hitters that are contact hitters and you don't open up the field for them- it makes them worse as hitters.




Our best hitter leads the team in sac bunts

And he's also pretty fast as well. Drag bunts that are unsuccessful go down as sac bunts and are not true "sacrifices".





You have the numbers on how many times this happened? Bet they don't outweigh the extreme failures the actual numbers show

And you don't have the numbers either. There are some things you can't capture in stats, and some of us understand baseball better than you. It's not all black and white. If you play a fast hitter back on the corners at third base and it's a tie game or you are behind, they will drop it down on you and get an easy hit on you. Ask Ole Miss- Pirtle did that to their third baseman in the Governor's Cup and we got a hit out of it. In other words- whether you like it or not, it has to be accounted for by the defense. Unless you do like Ron Polk and just let teams bunt on you all day and get cheap hits.

[War Machine Dawg]

I would say a squeeze play is an aggressive play. How do you feel about trying to bunt for a hit? A lot of my issue is this- it seems like every bunt we do regardless of intention is regarded as a sacrifice bunt, when that is clearly not the case every single time. I'm simply pointing that out, as well as reasons why we do bunt. Whether it's for a sacrifice or trying to bunt for a hit.

That said, there are times in games where it is appropriate to sacrifice. My intentions are for us to put ourselves in a good position to win and take advantage of the strengths of our players. If that means sacrificing, we should do that. If that means swinging away we should do that as well. Again, it is all based on the hitter and the situation.

Bunting for a hit is completely different, and I'm fine with it. Doing so allows a player to take advantage of his primary asset: speed. It also forces the defense to make a good play in order to get out a fast player. But Will is talking about sacrifice bunting, not drag bunting/bunting for a hit.

[Will James]

Bunting for a hit is completely different, and I'm fine with it. Doing so allows a player to take advantage of his primary asset: speed. It also forces the defense to make a good play in order to get out a fast player. But Will is talking about sacrifice bunting, not drag bunting/bunting for a hit.

Todd's been hung up on this since 2012

[RougeDawg]

Two points on this subject:

1. Giving up outs hurts a bad hitting team more than a team that hits well.

2. To compounds things, bad hitting teams usually suck at bunting and situational hitting.

This team should only bunt when necessary (i.e. Down 1 run in the last 3 innings, with a fast runner on base and fast hitter that bunts well). Period. End of discussion.

[shoeless joe]

Two points on this subject:

1. Giving up outs hurts a bad hitting team more than a team that hits well.

2. To compounds things, bad hitting teams usually suck at bunting and situational hitting.

This team should only bunt when necessary (i.e. Down 1 run in the last 3 innings, with a fast runner on base and fast hitter that bunts well). Period. End of discussion.

Score is 0-0 facing a left handed ace. We have Ross on the mound. Heck leads off the 5th with a double. Bradford is up. Is a sac bunt to get him to third a bad play?

This is why the phrase period end of discussion doesn't work in baseball. It ALL situational.

[Will James]

Score is 0-0 facing a left handed ace. We have Ross on the mound. Heck leads off the 5th with a double. Bradford is up. Is a sac bunt to get him to third a bad play?

This is why the phrase period end of discussion doesn't work in baseball. It ALL situational.

I'm not giving away an out in the 5th of a tie game. I believe it was a lefty CT bunted a popup to the 2nd baseman against JSU the other day... in the 1st inning... with a runner on 1st...... in a game we lost

[RougeDawg]

Score is 0-0 facing a left handed ace. We have Ross on the mound. Heck leads off the 5th with a double. Bradford is up. Is a sac bunt to get him to third a bad play?

This is why the phrase period end of discussion doesn't work in baseball. It ALL situational.

You don't bunt with a left handed hitter and runner on second in that situation. You have supposedly taught your hitters how to creep up on the plate in that situation, making it easy to pull a pitch on outer half of plate. Ct can roll over a weak ass ground ball with the best of them. A roles over ground ball moves runner to third and has a better chance of being a base hit than a sac bunt. You didn't concede the out to move a runner. Giving up outs reduces the amount of chances the other team has to make a mistake. You sac bunt 3 tones a game and you essentially take one flak inning away frk their defense they have to play in a game. One less inning they have to make errors, wild pitches and passed balls. All ways to move runners.

[dawgoneyall]

Exactly.
I am not a fan of bunting a man on second with no outs over the third but that situation is more likely to work than a man on first no outs....just depends on the next batter the pitcher, numbers of pitches the pitcher has pitched etc. etc. etc.

Bunting is and will always be a significant and important part of baseball....just need to make sure your team can bunt. Only 1 or 2 in a lineup shoud not be able to bunt successfully 90 % of the time.

[ckDOG]

This is what both sides of the argument have to account for - the game situation has to be factored in. You can't make blanket statements or use macro stats to say, for example, bunting with a runner on 1st is always a good or bad play.

Some obvious questions -
What is the inning and score?
Who is batting, running, and on-deck.
Who is pitching?
Who is ready in the other team's pen?

The situational decision-making is part of what makes the game fun, and stats will never account for all the variabilities.

Glad someone understands this. You can't take generic stats and make definitive concrete decisions based on those without regard to the scenario faced. That's lazy management and only simpletons would use it to guide their team.

That said, if our execution is significantly lower than the generic stats say we should expect, it's probably a sign that we suck at that particular element and shouldn't rely on it until we our players know how to carry it out.

[WinningIsRelentless]

You can't use Boyd's numbers because his numbers are computed using our team. The issue with "Money Ball" Baseball is you have to build your team around that theory and we haven't.

[PMDawg]

I do agree that you can bunt too much and that there is a right and wrong time to do it. It's not really much different than anything else. For example stolen bases- you don't want Prince Fielder to steal. Billy Hamilton- probably a good idea. There are some baseball people that feel about the same way about stealing bases that Will feels about bunting. There is research that shows that if you are stealing at less than a 65% clip, you are costing yourself runs.

I do agree that having Pirtle bunt tonight was a bad idea. That's an example of what I am talking about where you have a hitter who is hitting really well, so you would want him to swing the bat. Even though getting the runners over to second and third would have increased the chance of scoring globally 2%. The fact that Pirtle is hitting .357 in SEC play should trump the 2% increase in potential scoring. In baseball you have to integrate a lot of different stats and make the best most informed opinion.

I almost NEVER want to sacrifice an out to raise my odds of scoring by a measly 2%. If it was closer to 10%, let's talk.

[WinningIsRelentless]

What about this do some of you fail to grasp

Define successful bunt for me?