2015 College baseball stat from the Arky/Miami broadcast

[Schultzy]

Boone said runner on first and nobody out scored 49% of the time this season.

Runner on 2nd and one out scored 46% of the time this year.

It's been such heated debate about this all year, just thought I'd pass along. I'm a swing away proponent as well the majority of the time.

But also 1st and 2nd and nobody out scores 71% of the time but...

2nd and 3rd and one out scores at 73%

[I seen it dawg]

Oh shit here we go

[DistrictDawg92]

The more interesting stat would be the average runs scored in an inning with man on 1st no outs compared to the average runs scored in an inning with a man on 2nd with one out. Bunts kill rallies.

[I seen it dawg]

Oh shit here we go

[Smitty]

The only way to get that 2nd and 3rd scenario is assuming around a 97% bunt rate.

Considering bunters look like morons most of the time this is not wise.

Arkansas had a prime opportunity to take the lead and put Miami away in the 7th but a Buntfail™ meant only one run scored on a timely 2 out hit. Florida did the opposite and scored 11.

But it goes back to impressing the other coaches and analysts and having the stupid desire to put their own fingerprints on the outcome. Making it about themselves. Selfish managing.

[Schultzy]

And down angle approach fails again for Miami in bottom 7.

Why running home on a shot to the 1st baseman is a good idea just doesn't make good sense.

Couldn't help it.

[DistrictDawg92]

You can think of it like Blackjack. Bunting would be your safe bet, put in $5 with the risk of only losing $5 but the reward of only winning $5. Then you could think of swinging away with a man on first as doubling down, adding another $5 on top of the first $5 with a risk of losing it all or winning $10. In our case we choose to take the safe bet, due to our shitty "hand" that was dealt. In a team like LSU's case you double down bc their "hand" is pretty much loaded regardless of who is batting. A shitty hand=6'0" 180 lb contact hitter who can easily ground into a double play. A loaded hand= 6'3" 220 lb gap hitter. Cohen plays his odds, and he damn sure isn't gonna double down with a face and a 6. You coach the way you play and you play the way you recruit. Just the way it works. There's really no right or wrong answer, you just play the hand your dealt and hope at the end of the day you wind up on top.

[Smitty]

You can think of it like Blackjack. Bunting would be your safe bet, put in $5 with the risk of only losing $5 but the reward of only winning $5. Then you could think of swinging away with a man on first as doubling down, adding another $5 on top of the first $5 with a risk of losing it all or winning $10. In our case we choose to take the safe bet, due to our shitty "hand" that was dealt. In a team like LSU's case you double down bc their "hand" is pretty much loaded regardless of who is batting. A shitty hand=6'0" 180 lb contact hitter who can easily ground into a double play. A loaded hand= 6'3" 220 lb gap hitter. Cohen plays his odds, and he damn sure isn't gonna double down with a face and a 6. You coach the way you play and you play the way you recruit. Just the way it works. There's really no right or wrong answer, you just play the hand your dealt and hope at the end of the day you wind up on top.

That's a stupid analogy.

[LC Dawg]

Arkansas pulled a pitcher with a 1-2 count and their players are doing stupid shit in the dugout so I guess we're really not that far away from being a CWS team. Seems like we just need to figure out whether to bunt or not. I wish someone could give some opinions on that.

[I seen it dawg]

Thread fail. Dead horse all over this trash.

[DistrictDawg92]

That's a stupid analogy.

In both baseball and blackjack you consider risk vs. reward according to the hand you are dealt. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong way. You can play it safe 3 hands in a row and win $15 or you can double down three hands in a row and lose $30, and vice versa. Just depends the route you want to take.

[I seen it dawg]

That's a stupid analogy.

You don't have any right to say to anyone their analogy is stupid when it concerns baseball. Get back to your video games.

[Smitty]

In both baseball and blackjack you consider risk vs. reward according to the hand you are dealt. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong way. You can play it safe 3 hands in a row and win $15 or you can double down three hands in a row and lose $30, and vice versa. Just depends the route you want to take.

The results don't mirror your analogy. The best way of looking at it.... Is just looking at it. The results don't lie. Hands on managers want to have their fingerprints on the game even if it means lessening their chances of winning.

[I seen it dawg]

Look breaking ball with 2 strikes.

[DistrictDawg92]

The results don't mirror your analogy. The best way of looking at it.... Is just looking at it. The results don't lie. Hands on managers want to have their fingerprints on the game even if it means lessening their chances of winning.

I think the results do mirror the analogy. This year we couldn't afford to double down, because our hands were continuously shitty. When you draw a 16 every hand you can't double down and you most likely won't win most of the hands regardless. This leads to our sub .500 record, or in black jack, walking out of the casino in the negative. For a team like LSU, who doubles down on 11's every time, odds say they are gonna walk out of the casino with heavy pockets, aka making the CWS.

When you bunt you are sacrificing a chance of a ralley for a 50% chance of scoring one run. Unfortunately we had too many players that were double play risks and had to make that sacrifice. It comes down to recruiting, if you haven't seen the numbers from this year, the game is shifting from a pitchers game to a hitters game, and Cohen failed to predict that change correctly.

[Really Clark?]

The only way to get that 2nd and 3rd scenario is assuming around a 97% bunt rate.

Considering bunters look like morons most of the time this is not wise.

Arkansas had a prime opportunity to take the lead and put Miami away in the 7th but a Buntfail? meant only one run scored on a timely 2 out hit. Florida did the opposite and scored 11.

But it goes back to impressing the other coaches and analysts and having the stupid desire to put their own fingerprints on the outcome. Making it about themselves. Selfish managing.

Look I don't disagree with the idea that some coaches bunt too much, depending on the age and league you are playing. But there are also flaws with the analytics some use. One major flaw is when you look at run expectancy with each base position and different number of outs, what they don't tell the readers that a lot of them still use the data when a sac bunt occurred. In other words, when you see the data on ERT they include all bunts as well as other outcomes. So in that analysis of results included numerous big innings (above the ERT projections) when a bunt was used to help create that big inning. I think they are still missing an issue that is worse for scoring that sac bunting. Strikeouts are a bigger issue that need to be address in reference to scoring or in recent years the decrease of scoring.

Also you reference that for this to work you have to assume a 97% bunt rate. Actually think it does not have to be that high because you have to include a pretty significant probability of a double play in this scenario as well. That kills your run potential even more. Yes it could happen with a bunt but a much greater risk swinging away. That is again when the manager has to be in tune with the game and his players.

Like I said I am not as conventional as a lot of guys when it comes to the bunt. I will say I have my team practice sac bunts more than a lot I know because I know it is a great fundamental for a player to have. Some of the trends are more of self fulfilling prophecies. Bunting is not as good today because it is not a skill that coaches spend time working on. Straight sac, angled sac, drag, pull back bunt, pull back hit, bunt hit, slap bunt, whatever you want to call several of these techniques were all practiced (and some times just us playing around) at some point when we were coming up. It helped hitting as well when you felt in control of that bat in every scenario. Also, you don't want your bunter to look like a moron, you have to spend a significant amount of time practicing it.

[smootness]

I think the results do mirror the analogy. This year we couldn't afford to double down, because our hands were continuously shitty. When you draw a 16 every hand you can't double down and you most likely won't win most of the hands regardless. This leads to our sub .500 record, or in black jack, walking out of the casino in the negative. For a team like LSU, who doubles down on 11's every time, odds say they are gonna walk out of the casino with heavy pockets, aka making the CWS.

When you bunt you are sacrificing a chance of a ralley for a 50% chance of scoring one run. Unfortunately we had too many players that were double play risks and had to make that sacrifice. It comes down to recruiting, if you haven't seen the numbers from this year, the game is shifting from a pitchers game to a hitters game, and Cohen failed to predict that change correctly.

Except that, as has been proven time and time again, bunting slightly reduces your chances of one run while greatly reducing the chances of even more runs.

So bunting is actually the greater risk, and for a smaller reward.

[Schultzy]

Hands inside pre load.

[Smitty]

Except that, as has been proven time and time again, bunting slightly reduces your chances of one run while greatly reducing the chances of even more runs.

So bunting is actually the greater risk, and for a smaller reward.

Yep. It's like choosing to shoot a 3 pointer for 50$ over a free throw for 75$

[dawgoneyall]

What is really important is what percentage and runner on first (no outs) scores when there is no bunt and percentage when runner on first (no outs) scores after being sacrificed over.

[DistrictDawg92]

Except that, as has been proven time and time again, bunting slightly reduces your chances of one run while greatly reducing the chances of even more runs.

So bunting is actually the greater risk, and for a smaller reward.

Did Cohen tell you that?

But seriously I'd like to see a stat on that. However even if true, the reason would be due to double plays skewing the results, obviously if you hit into a double play with a man on 1st and no outs your chances of scoring any runs are very slim. The teams like us with contact hitters are more double play prone causing the skew and a reason for arguing something that shouldn't even be an argument. Im all for get em on, get em over get em in baseball, but when your playing teams who get em on and get em in, without the get em over step, your at a disadvantage due to giving away outs. Batting averages in the CWS are up .50 points and already 6 home runs, the game has changed yet we remain the same. I guarantee teams like LSU, A&M and Florida have scored many more runs with a man on 1st and no outs compared to man on second with one out this year. When you bunt someone over you are grinding for one out, not a rally. I'd be willing to bet that this year we were in the bottom 10% in multi run innings and the top 10% in sac bunts. Don't you see a correlation? I never said more runs were scored with man on 1st no outs, I only said that you have the chance to score more, hence the "double down", high risk(double play) high reward(men on 1st and 2nd no outs(71% chance of scoring) or men on 2nd and 3rd no outs(73% chance of scoring).

[I seen it dawg]

Oh shit here we go

[Drugdog]

Someone do us a favor and lock this.

[I seen it dawg]

Hell no want to see how long this shit show lasts

[Todd4State]

Hell no want to see how long this shit show lasts


Glutton for punishment. The fact of the matter at the end of the day is when you look at all the percentages, (71% vs. 73%) you're talking about a very small difference in the grand scheme of things.

[Todd4State]

It's good to see college stats compared to college stats rather than college compared to MLB for a change.

The MLB consensus on the matter is the same as mine- it depends on the hitter and the pitcher and the score. If it's 1st and 2nd no one out and Miguel Cabrera is at the plate vs. an average pitcher, swing. Same situation and it's Billy Hamilton vs. Gerritt Cole, bunt.

You do what your hitters are capable of and what their strengths are.

[Dawg61]

Lol

[Smitty]

9th inning haha plays out like it usually does.

Arkansas gets the leadoff man on. Bunts him over. Doesn't score.
Miami gets the leadoff man on, singles him in, and wins.

Arkansas has nobody but their coach to blame for wasting so many at bats. One day these foolish coaches will learn to stop giving away outs. Too bad we have one of the more foolish ones around on this topic. Costs games, host spots, and eliminates you from postseasons.

[I seen it dawg]

With our season over isn't it about time for you to crawl back under your rock?

[Really Clark?]

9th inning haha plays out like it usually does.

Arkansas gets the leadoff man on. Bunts him over. Doesn't score.
Miami gets the leadoff man on, singles him in, and wins.

Arkansas has nobody but their coach to blame for wasting so many at bats. One day these foolish coaches will learn to stop giving away outs. Too bad we have one of the more foolish ones around on this topic. Costs games, host spots, and eliminates you from postseasons.

The last 4 games Serrano is like 0-13 with 7 strikeouts. The coach is probably thinking if I am giving up an out here with this batter I'm at least moving the runner over. With it being Serrano, and good bunt and maybe it's 1st and 2nd. In that situation it was a good call. You can't pick and choose only the failures without an analysis that the team has. How many times has it worked for them this year? I know it worked for them in the regional to beat St. John. Where were you then when it worked and got the go ahead run in.

[KB21]

The last 4 games Serrano is like 0-13 with 7 strikeouts. The coach is probably thinking if I am giving up an out here with this batter I'm at least moving the runner over. With it being Serrano, and good bunt and maybe it's 1st and 2nd. In that situation it was a good call. You can't pick and choose only the failures without an analysis that the team has. How many times has it worked for them this year? I know it worked for them in the regional to beat St. John. Where were you then when it worked and got the go ahead run in.

This is where analytics fail. They are a useful tool, but the Saber guys try to come up with one stat to explain everything. In MLB, that stat is WAR. Where they fail at is that they don't look at situations as they happen in the game. Like the situation you mentioned where you have a slumping hitter batting with no one out and a runner on first.

[Mjoelner34]

It's good to see college stats compared to college stats rather than college compared to MLB for a change.

The MLB consensus on the matter is the same as mine- it depends on the hitter and the pitcher and the score. If it's 1st and 2nd no one out and Miguel Cabrera is at the plate vs. an average pitcher, swing. Same situation and it's Billy Hamilton vs. Gerritt Cole, bunt.

You do what your hitters are capable of and what their strengths are.

Agree. And I would even throw in infield position sometimes. Are they back playing for two or are they in looking for the bunt?

[maroonmania]

There is really only one best way to do it as a coach, you tell the hitter "If you think you are going to hit into a double play or strikeout then bunt, otherwise swing away". That's your winning strategy right there. :)