Cohen to host press conference tomorrow at noon

We were either 1st or 2nd in sac bunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgoneyall

We were either 1st or 2nd in sac bunting.

---

This year? No we were 3rd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

---

Baseball isn't a math formula. There's a reason the Oakland A's haven't won a World Series yet. There are situations to bunt and situations to swing away. 1st and 2nd and 0 outs: Bunt. Late in the game runner on first or 2nd and you need a run to tie or lead: Bunt. Those are just a few examples. Quit going by your damn formulas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by It_Could_Happen

Baseball isn't a math formula. There's a reason the Oakland A's haven't won a World Series yet. There are situations to bunt and situations to swing away. 1st and 2nd and 0 outs: Bunt. Late in the game runner on first or 2nd and you need a run to tie or lead: Bunt. Those are just a few examples. Quit going by your damn formulas.

---

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos...bmodm06282.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos...bmodm06282.gif

---

#Moneyball

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.

---

And you fail to understand baseball at any level because you think it's all about luck and that hard work, preparation, and execution don't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Btw, I wasn't really trying to make a correlation between bunting and #1 seeds. I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily a hinderance that many always think when it is brought up. Bunting could help make a team better. Some of these teams also have good offenses and, without studying each case, it could have helped or been a negative. It is more of a part of the philosphy relationship those teams probably have. I think several of those teams I listed also have very good pitching and defense. Bunting can be used to enhance the overall scheme for a team, especially with a pitching and defensive relationship that makes sense. But each case is different and the game time strategy of the bunt has a big part to play in whether it enhances an offense.

---

This guy gets it.

And I want to point out that Cohen doesn't SAC bunt as much as he appears because we drag bunt even in sacrifice situations a lot. It can be hard to tell because sometimes for players they sacrifice bunt the same way that they drag bunt as evidenced by this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0G6kpbrO8

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.

---

And another person that gets it.

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.

---

Holder and Lindgren were special players- but we don't have to have special players to have a good bullpen. It's actually a lot easier to find bullpen guys than it is starting pitchers. If we can find a guy like a Saunders Ramsey, a Brett Cleveland, etc. we would be more than fine.

It's very realistic to find guys that can get 3-6 outs a game- which is all you are really asking a relief pitcher to do in general in college.

I've seen a ton of guys that weren't all world prospects that could get the job done at the college level throughout the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos...bmodm06282.gif

---

Well played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by It_Could_Happen

1st and 2nd and 0 outs: Bunt.

---

This one always humors me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

And you fail to understand baseball at any level because you think it's all about luck and that hard work, preparation, and execution don't matter.

---

Only Siths believe in absolutes.

Darth Todd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

Only Siths believe in absolutes.

Darth Todd.

---

So how many usernames has it now taken you to decide your philosophy is not "absolute"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

Holder and Lindgren were special players- but we don't have to have special players to have a good bullpen. It's actually a lot easier to find bullpen guys than it is starting pitchers. If we can find a guy like a Saunders Ramsey, a Brett Cleveland, etc. we would be more than fine.

It's very realistic to find guys that can get 3-6 outs a game- which is all you are really asking a relief pitcher to do in general in college.

I've seen a ton of guys that weren't all world prospects that could get the job done at the college level throughout the years.

---

I agree.

However, the further you get from an elite pen, the more runs you need to score to win games. Which is where my point is....That there is a happy medium between the amount of sac bunting, when we do it, who we do it with, vs the Smitty approach of basically never sac bunting.

In other words, abandoning sac bunts is NOT the answer. Improving our pitching is #1, and utilizing the sac bunt and small ball properly us #2. If we clean up those 2 aspects, we will cut down opponents runs per game while increasing our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

And another person that gets it.

---

You know what's funny? I've been on these message boards for quite a while. I can remember fans criticizing Ron Polk for "not bunting" and playing for the big inning too much. Now, John Cohen gets criticized for bunting too much and not playing for the big inning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KB21

You know what's funny? I've been on these message boards for quite a while. I can remember fans criticizing Ron Polk for "not bunting" and playing for the big inning too much.

---

If Polk coached and Cohen recruited we'd be lethal. Their faults are opposites. Except for crooting midgets, but Polk wouldn't have played them and he would have made Garner, Rea, Hump, Collins, and Rooker into monsters.

Lol @ the implication of Polk "making guys into monsters"...

Polk did very, very little with hitters in his second stint at msu. I can't speak to his first because I wasn't coming thru then. Had you, you know, played the game -- you would have known State's hitting development was practical all Raffo.

I just wish we did the simple things right. Like scoring a run if we get a runner on 3rd with less than 2 outs. I don't know what our % for scoring that run this past year was, but I can remember so many damn times we ended up stranding the guy at 3rd while he watched one or two batters not even be able to hit a fly ball to the outfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engie

Lol @ the implication of Polk "making guys into monsters"...

Polk did very, very little with hitters in his second stint at msu. I can't speak to his first because I wasn't coming thru then. Had you, you know, played the game -- you would have known State's hitting development was practical all Raffo.

---

I didn't know this until researching it but it turns out one of the aspects of being a head coach is good assistants. Or have you forgotten this last season already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

I didn't know this until researching it but it turns out one of the aspects of being a head coach is good assistants. Or have you forgotten this last season already.

---

Nice deflection. Yeah -- Polk was so good at hiring assistants that his last best guy is .500 at Arkansas St. But I forgot -- the reigning national assistant of the year is terrible**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadDawg

I just wish we did the simple things right. Like scoring a run if we get a runner on 3rd with less than 2 outs. I don't know what our % for scoring that run this past year was, but I can remember so many damn times we ended up stranding the guy at 3rd while he watched one or two batters not even be able to hit a fly ball to the outfield.

---

I know what you are saying. And for all the fundamental talk (which I love) and strategy thoughts, at some point the players need to do their job and nut up and hit the snot out of the ball. Even with sloppy fundamentals these guys have above avg hand to eye coordination and a leader will get the job done regardless.

the decision to bunt a runner to 2nd with no outs should hinge on how good the the next batter is. If it is a Frasier or Renfrow maybe I bunt. But if it is a Guy hitting close to the Medoza Line, hell no don't bunt.Why give up an out to put runners at second if all you have is weak ass ground ball hitters who strike out 50% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KB21

You know what's funny? I've been on these message boards for quite a while. I can remember fans criticizing Ron Polk for "not bunting" and playing for the big inning too much. Now, John Cohen gets criticized for bunting too much and not playing for the big inning.

---

I think about that sometimes. I think Polk underutilized guys like Jeffrey Rea and Joseph Hunter as far as their talents go- but it wasn't just bunting- Polk wouldn't steal bases, hit and run, etc.

Of course part of that could have been because he was asleep in the dugout.

The bottom line is if your players do something well, it should be utilized. That's how you maximize a lineup- and why you can't always rely on large broad blankets of data to determine what you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by engie

Lol @ the implication of Polk "making guys into monsters"...

Polk did very, very little with hitters in his second stint at msu. I can't speak to his first because I wasn't coming thru then. Had you, you know, played the game -- you would have known State's hitting development was practical all Raffo.

---

I was about to ask what he was basing that on. I believe it was Mutt the Hoople that described our hitting approach under Polk as the "Cold War approach to hitting."

Actually, after Clark and Palmeiro came through we didn't get very many hitters into MLB that played for Polk- Jon Shave, Adam Piatt, Mitch Moreland (who Polk tried to redshirt), Craig Tatum, and just now Ed Easley. Pete Young made it as a pitcher. Tatum and Easley are basically back-up catchers- which is more about handling a pitching staff than being a great hitter.

Polk bashing lol.. Cohen's 2015 was worse than Polk ever was. Polk never had less than 9 wins in the league and that came in his last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

Polk bashing lol.. Cohen's 2015 was worse than Polk ever was. Polk never had less than 9 wins in the league and that came in his last year.

---

Thanks to the players and recruiting class that Pat McMahon left him which he rode for about four years- and then proceed to run the program into the ground by not recruiting people like Stephen Head.

Didn't win 50 in his last 14 seasons at MSU. Never in his career went as far as Cohen has. Polk allowed Ole Miss to be built into something we can never fully put away again. You can play make believe all you want -- but that never happens if we hire Cohen's equivalent in 2002. They never are able to recruit the players. We prevent that, the fan support never shows. And it is never built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

Polk bashing lol.. Cohen's 2015 was worse than Polk ever was. Polk never had less than 9 wins in the league and that came in his last year.

---

Wait a minute, the debate for these last posts was about developing hitters. You are switching topics to wins. That's a different subject altogether. If I am not mistaken in Cohen's first two years he eclipsed the 60 hr mark or in 2 of his first 3 years. Something like that. Polk did not have guys slugging quite as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

Thanks to the players and recruiting class that Pat McMahon left him which he rode for about four years- and then proceed to run the program into the ground by not recruiting people like Stephen Head.

---

Something occurred in 2007 in Nebrasaka, can't quite put my finger on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

Something occurred in 2007 in Nebrasaka, can't quite put my finger on it.

---

38 wins. "Anybody can get hot in the postseason!1!11 It's all about regular seasons!!1!1". Talk about using lightning in a bottle at your own convenience.

Cohen has matched that trump card of yours in 4 of the last 5 years here. Try harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smitty

Something occurred in 2007 in Nebrasaka, can't quite put my finger on it.

---

When you have a program as good as ours was before Polk, it takes some time to completely destroy it. We had a very obvious gradual decline that eventually culminated with the 2008 season that pretty much everybody that knew anything about baseball could see coming.

Even that team in 2007 could have been built a lot better- we had a chance to get Zack Cozart but we had Bunky Kateon. The only reason we had Moreland and Easley on that team was because they promised Polk that they would withdraw from the MLB draft.

Nebrasaka?

Was that going to be the target if we'd had to drop a 3rd bomb on Japan?