Cohen to host press conference tomorrow at noon

Real simple...bullpen has to improve dramatically and there's gotta be a better mix of hitters in the lineup. You need a couple small ball/speed guys then 5 or so good-sized (6' 180 lbs +) gap to gap hitters with occasional power plus a couple power hitters in the lineup. Beyond that, accountability starts at the top. Just throwing players under the bus is a very slippery slope.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Superhero I understand where you are coming from and you have some good questions but we didn't lead the league in sac bunts and don't think we ever have under Cohen. We have been close, too close probably but we didn't lead the league. And look while I am not as big of a proponent of bunting I do see several 1 seeds that lead the nation in sacrifice bunts UCLA, Oklahoma State, Missouri State, Miami, Houston, and Cal St Fullerton. 37.5% of the 1 seeds all were Top 50 in sacrifice bunts and had more than we did. Now the when to bunt and several of those instances, I see where you are coming from. But let's be fair about how much we really bunted.

---

Only two SEC teams bunted more than we did in 2015- Auburn and Tennessee. And Auburn actually played more games than we did, so we sac bunted more per game than they did... Essentially we were 2nd in the league in sac bunts. We're arguing over semantics.

I get what you're saying though. Sac bunts were not our biggest issue this past season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Superhero I understand where you are coming from and you have some good questions but we didn't lead the league in sac bunts and don't think we ever have under Cohen. We have been close, too close probably but we didn't lead the league. And look while I am not as big of a proponent of bunting I do see several 1 seeds that lead the nation in sacrifice bunts UCLA, Oklahoma State, Missouri State, Miami, Houston, and Cal St Fullerton. 37.5% of the 1 seeds all were Top 50 in sacrifice bunts and had more than we did. Now the when to bunt and several of those instances, I see where you are coming from. But let's be fair about how much we really bunted.

---

Sacrifice bunting is a part of the game. I don't like doing it when you have a runner at 1st with no one out, because you do not increase your chances of scoring with a runner on 2nd with 1 out. The run expectancy of a runner on first with no one out is 0.86 runs per inning. The run expectancy of a runner on second with one out is 0.68. So, you actually decrease your run expectancy by bunting a runner over from first to second and giving up that out.

Here's the rub. There is a reason bunt heavy teams are called "small ball" teams, and their goal is to manufacture runs. While bunting a man over from first to second when no one is out, giving up that out in the process, decreases your run expectancy, it does improve your chances of scoring exactly one run by 5.69%. This is from 2013 data on bunting.

The numbers don't describe the situations though, so you have to evaluate bunting based on the situation and the structure of the line up. The fact of the matter is, MSU did not have very many sluggers in the line up. The guy with the best SLG% on the team was also the guy with the best OBP% on the team.

H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by messageboardsuperhero

Only two SEC teams bunted more than we did in 2015- Auburn and Tennessee. And Auburn actually played more games than we did, so we sac bunted more per game than they did... Essentially we were 2nd in the league in sac bunts. We're arguing over semantics.

I get what you're saying though. Sac bunts were not our biggest issue this past season.

---

I don't think it was either. And Cohen backed off the bunts toward the end of the season. Bullpen really hurt and we had offensive issues for sure. We are probably in the tourney with correcting either one of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

H

I don't think it was either. And Cohen backed off the bunts toward the end of the season. Bullpen really hurt and we had offensive issues for sure. We are probably in the tourney with correcting either one of those.

---

Pitching as a whole is the key. I said last year. This team needs TWO starters that can give them 90+ innings on the year. Ideally, one starter will push 100 innings pitched. When you do not have starters that can consistently go deep in the game, you have to rely on your bullpen more. Unlike 2013, we did not have that long relief guy like Chad Girodo and an effective Ross Mitchell that could come out of the pen and give you 3-4 strong innings.

Austin Sexton had 76+ innings on the year, so I think he's ready to make that jump to be the main innings guy on the staff. There is no reason he should not push 100 innings pitched in 2016.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KB21

Sacrifice bunting is a part of the game. I don't like doing it when you have a runner at 1st with no one out, because you do not increase your chances of scoring with a runner on 2nd with 1 out. The run expectancy of a runner on first with no one out is 0.86 runs per inning. The run expectancy of a runner on second with one out is 0.68. So, you actually decrease your run expectancy by bunting a runner over from first to second and giving up that out.

Here's the rub. There is a reason bunt heavy teams are called "small ball" teams, and their goal is to manufacture runs. While bunting a man over from first to second when no one is out, giving up that out in the process, decreases your run expectancy, it does improve your chances of scoring exactly one run by 5.69%. This is from 2013 data on bunting.

The numbers don't describe the situations though, so you have to evaluate bunting based on the situation and the structure of the line up. The fact of the matter is, MSU did not have very many sluggers in the line up. The guy with the best SLG% on the team was also the guy with the best OBP% on the team.

---

Don't disagree with any of that and we have discussed run expectancies before and the strategy of when to bunt and why and what that does to runs in a given inning. It is a philosophy that can be very successful. Now like I said, I'm not as big on bunting as some people. Depending of the level of ball.

Our slugging has been an issue for a while. Type of player we have is an issue but there are other problems at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

H

I don't think it was either. And Cohen backed off the bunts toward the end of the season. Bullpen really hurt and we had offensive issues for sure. We are probably in the tourney with correcting either one of those.

---

Did Cohen back off bc he's changing philosophy, or bc it took him 3/4 of a year to finally realize our pen sucked and 4 runs would win us zero games? I'm not sure he won't go right back to it if our pitching improves.

I'm not anti-sac bunt, but I'm against doing it every time you get a guy on 1st to start an inning. Bc you only do that 4-5 times a game which means you're playing for 4-5 runs, which won't win many games nowadays.

And I'm 100% anti-sac bunting a leadoff double to third base. Talk about a wasted out. If we had a semi-competent 3rd base coach or base running coach, we would score damn near every single time on a single with a man on 2nd...so no need to move a guy to 3rd by wasting an out.

Bunting is part of the game, but we don't use it the way it's supposed to be used. Not the right personnel, situations, execution, etc. that's my issue with it. If you're going to be a sac bunt heavy team, by God be good at it. And be excellent at base running and situational hitting so you can best maximize your wasted outs. Your only other option is a lights out pitching staff.

In other words, too many things have to go right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KB21

Pitching as a whole is the key. I said last year. This team needs TWO starters that can give them 90+ innings on the year. Ideally, one starter will push 100 innings pitched. When you do not have starters that can consistently go deep in the game, you have to rely on your bullpen more. Unlike 2013, we did not have that long relief guy like Chad Girodo and an effective Ross Mitchell that could come out of the pen and give you 3-4 strong innings.

Austin Sexton had 76+ innings on the year, so I think he's ready to make that jump to be the main innings guy on the staff. There is no reason he should not push 100 innings pitched in 2016.

---

And going back to the bunting we have discussed, stronger pitching leads to more wins and fewer complain about it in situations that it actually makes sense. Not saying there were not questionable times it was called, but everything becomes magnified when the team struggles. I agree with having 100 IP guy but kind of thought we might get there this year with our staff. The pen struggles amplified a lot of issues with the team that we could have worked around in a transition year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

H

I don't think it was either. And Cohen backed off the bunts toward the end of the season. Bullpen really hurt and we had offensive issues for sure. We are probably in the tourney with correcting either one of those.

---

We "backed off" because of previously shown numbers identifying our leadoff OBP down the stretch was dreadful and we were often behind. Those two equal not gonna bunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

And going back to the bunting we have discussed, stronger pitching leads to more wins and fewer complain about it in situations that it actually makes sense. Not saying there were not questionable times it was called, but everything becomes magnified when the team struggles. I agree with having 100 IP guy but kind of thought we might get there this year with our staff. The pen struggles amplified a lot of issues with the team that we could have worked around in a transition year.

---

That could be a relevant question tomorrow.

"Coach, you knew your pitching staff was a dumpster fire yet you still played for 1 early in games... Why? Why not maximize your runs?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

And going back to the bunting we have discussed, stronger pitching leads to more wins and fewer complain about it in situations that it actually makes sense. Not saying there were not questionable times it was called, but everything becomes magnified when the team struggles. I agree with having 100 IP guy but kind of thought we might get there this year with our staff. The pen struggles amplified a lot of issues with the team that we could have worked around in a transition year.

---

I do agree that our pitching magnified the bunting issues....HOWEVER...how realistic is it that we will have Lindgrens, Holders, and 2013 version Mitchell's every year moving forward? Truth is, our pitching will likely fall somewhere between the 2013 staff and the 2015 staff, except we won't have the luxury of the high seams. So...that leads me to believe that even with a good staff we're going to have to get away from so much wasting outs and awful base running errors. Both of which have been staples of the Cohen era.

We can't rely on Butch to pull off a miracle staff each year, or else we might as well make him the coach and try to find an offensive assistant. I believe in Cohen, but if all we're asking him to do is give us a sub par offense and then rely on Butch's staff to make our good seasons, what are we doing?

Why not have both, by maximizing offense AND trying to have a good staff. That's what a lot of us are saying. That doesn't mean going full Smitty and never bunting...but it definitely means not bunting guys like Rea, Pirtle, Collins, etc for the sake of one run in the 3rd inning of a scoreless game.

You get what I'm saying I'm sure. As do I with your stance.

Your goal should be to field a team that maximizes the run differential.

Hypothetically you'd rather win a bunch of 7-3 games than win a bunch of 2-1 games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CadaverDawg

Did Cohen back off bc he's changing philosophy, or bc it took him 3/4 of a year to finally realize our pen sucked and 4 runs would win us zero games? I'm not sure he won't go right back to it if our pitching improves.

I'm not anti-sac bunt, but I'm against doing it every time you get a guy on 1st to start an inning. Bc you only do that 4-5 times a game which means you're playing for 4-5 runs, which won't win many games nowadays.

And I'm 100% anti-sac bunting a leadoff double to third base. Talk about a wasted out. If we had a semi-competent 3rd base coach or base running coach, we would score damn near every single time on a single with a man on 2nd...so no need to move a guy to 3rd by wasting an out.

Bunting is part of the game, but we don't use it the way it's supposed to be used. Not the right personnel, situations, execution, etc. that's my issue with it. If you're going to be a sac bunt heavy team, by God be good at it. And be excellent at base running and situational hitting so you can best maximize your wasted outs. Your only other option is a lights out pitching staff.

In other words, too many things have to go right

---

Agree with a lot of that. We struggled doing a lot of the little things right. Of course I think overall, including MLB, base running among other aspects of the game has declined over the years. And it's a shame to an extent. To answer you first question though, did he change philosphy? Honestly I don't know. I think he is planning a philosphy shift offensively and this was just a get by year to get to the different style players we have added in recent years and this. But if you look at 2013 and even his Kentucky years, it's not like you can't be a leader in runs and slugging and sac bunts. So in that vain I still feel like he may be at least in the top half of the league in sac bunts every year. I may be wrong but I think he will still use the bunt more than most teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

Your goal should be to field a team that maximizes the run differential.

Hypothetically you'd rather win a bunch of 7-3 games than win a bunch of 2-1 games.

---

Exactly. If all we're hoping for is an offense that pushes 4 runs across by sac bunting and then hoping Butch's staff shuts everyone down to win games, we might as well make Butch the coach because it doesn't take a "guru" to waste outs, score a few, and cross your fingers.

We should be trying to score max runs AND shut opponents down...not just one of the 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CadaverDawg

I do agree that our pitching magnified the bunting issues....HOWEVER...how realistic is it that we will have Lindgrens, Holders, and 2013 version Mitchell's every year moving forward? Truth is, our pitching will likely fall somewhere between the 2013 staff and the 2015 staff, except we won't have the luxury of the high seams. So...that leads me to believe that even with a good staff we're going to have to get away from so much wasting outs and awful base running errors. Both of which have been staples of the Cohen era.

We can't rely on Butch to pull off a miracle staff each year, or else we might as well make him the coach and try to find an offensive assistant. I believe in Cohen, but if all we're asking him to do is give us a sub par offense and then rely on Butch's staff to make our good seasons, what are we doing?

Why not have both, by maximizing offense AND trying to have a good staff. That's what a lot of us are saying. That doesn't mean going full Smitty and never bunting...but it definitely means not bunting guys like Rea, Pirtle, Collins, etc for the sake of one run in the 3rd inning of a scoreless game.

You get what I'm saying I'm sure. As do I with your stance.

---

I don't necessarily disagree and for me and my offensive philosphy, I wouldn't plan a game the way he does at times. Again depending of the level of ball and even your competition changes your game time calls from time to time. But for me I prefer to have my players hit there way out of problems. But I am not so hard headed to not understand the beauty of guys who do win games with small ball. When done right it is harder to defend and pitch to than some think. Especially in high school or showcase levels. I have seen teams really destroy a team with a hard throwing ace that they probably would have struggled getting runs on if they played it straight up. But they really rattled the pitcher and defense (who was not use to having to field many balls behind this pitcher) to the point that they won going away and only had 2 hits out of the infield and both of those were just singles. It not only can work at the college level but can be very succesful in conjunction with and overall philosphy and players that make it work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

No it's that they can get away with it because their talent means it doesn't hurt them as much. Like I've said for years the sac bunt hurts bad teams MORE because it's a bigger road block. See our 2012 year.

Bunting is not the reason they are good offenses. The correlation to them being a one seed and them bunting is nothing. You fail to understand statistics though because you think a statistical luck factor is an insult.

---

You change your opinion on this issue every time and quite frankly I'm sick of it. You've gone from bunting is horrible you should never do it to it's ok sometimes to only good teams should do it. At least pick a side and stick with it because we all know you have no clue what you are talking about anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

I don't necessarily disagree and for me and my offensive philosphy, I wouldn't plan a game the way he does at times. Again depending of the level of ball and even your competition changes your game time calls from time to time. But for me I prefer to have my players hit there way out of problems. But I am not so hard headed to not understand the beauty of guys who do win games with small ball. When done right it is harder to defend and pitch to than some think. Especially in high school or showcase levels. I have seen teams really destroy a team with a hard throwing ace that they probably would have struggled getting runs on if they played it straight up. But they really rattled the pitcher and defense (who was not use to having to field many balls behind this pitcher) to the point that they won going away and only had 2 hits out of the infield and both of those were just singles. It not only can work at the college level but can be very succesful in conjunction with and overall philosphy and players that make it work.

---

I agree 100%. I just feel like we aren't utilizing it properly. Like there's a disconnect.

There's a time for small ball...there's a time to avoid it...for some reason our head coach is totally missing these times, among several other mistakes.

Let's just hope it's part of a transition year and a change in philosophy, and we will all be able to look back at this year and laugh one day as Cohen leads us to a Title. I'm not giving up on him, just really concerned bc I see multiple issues that aren't easy fixes. We'll see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

Your goal should be to field a team that maximizes the run differential.

Hypothetically you'd rather win a bunch of 7-3 games than win a bunch of 2-1 games.

---

I don't disagree with that but you can also do that from the defensive and pitching side as well. 4-0, 5-1 is the same is 7-3. And you also have to consider as a coach you have to be true to your self and your philosphy. I like to consider myself flexible in a lot of areas in the game and especially open minded in learning but I have already admitted that in certain levels in the game I don't like bunting as much as some do. Now you have to always be willing to change but it has to be inside the frame work of who you are as a coach and person and your philosphy. I know a team I coach would not be as effective if I tried to be a small ball guy offensively. I know coaches that can beat you to death that way. It works for them. It doesn't for me but it doesn't mean it doesn't work and a lot of championships have been won that way. Now all of this is relative to the level of ball you are playing. Even the type if you throw softball in to the mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by It_Could_Happen

You change your opinion on this issue every time and quite frankly I'm sick of it. You've gone from bunting is horrible you should never do it to it's ok sometimes to only good teams should do it. At least pick a side and stick with it because we all know you have no clue what you are talking about anyway.

---

1. Your logic is flawed. Bunting limits run production but it limits it even MORE for bad teams that can't overcome it as well.

2. Find a quote where I say "never" bunt. You can't. We should be in the lower quarter of the league in sacs not nearly leading it.

3. Addressing my first point with an analogy. Croom coaching Oregon last year would have harmed them but since they are insanely talented he wouldn't have had as bad an effect as him coaching.... Kansas. Oregon could overcome Croom better than Kansas. Good offenses overcome bad sacs better than bad teams. See us scoring in just 6 of 32 innings in 2012 with a bunt one man over from 1st play. Bad offense. Hurt MORE by bunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CadaverDawg

I agree 100%. I just feel like we aren't utilizing it properly. Like there's a disconnect.

There's a time for small ball...there's a time to avoid it...for some reason our head coach is totally missing these times, among several other mistakes.

Let's just hope it's part of a transition year and a change in philosophy, and we will all be able to look back at this year and laugh one day as Cohen leads us to a Title. I'm not giving up on him, just really concerned bc I see multiple issues that aren't easy fixes. We'll see

---

I think transition is part of it. And I have said before I hate stepping all over coaches and players, especially when you are not living the program with them day in a day out. But you mentioned a disconnect. I think we had more than one actually. This may sound strange but a lot of talk we have gotten into lately with his fundamental teachings on offense. The man knows what he is doing in the basic sense of things. I disagree with him on aspects but I think the bigger issue from the coaching aspect is maybe he tries too hard to get every detailed covered with the mechanics and just doesn't let it come in a more natural way. You can see this in how several guys take a bit longer for it to click than maybe it should. The other disconnect, and this is just subjection on my part, but I don't think we had strong club house leadership from the players. A lot of times what we see as poor coaching because of problems on the field is actually poor leadership and work ethic from the players.