SEMO Game Thread?

[engie]

Our "lesser hitters" are also pretty fast for a team. We have to take advantage of that. Telling "lesser hitters" to go out and string three hits in a row to get a run is not "maximizing" our talent. It certainly works better when we run the bases well- and we didn't do that tonight.

You can point to tonight's game which we won anyway. I'll point to the game we won where we beat Tyler Beede.

My thing is just -- is "sacrificing" helping anything with those base runners? We should be 2 singles away from scoring them from first. I'd bet that statistically, it's a better play to hit and run or to straight steal these guys from first -- rather than taking the bat out of another(likely tremendous baserunner) with the sac. Which still takes a hit to score from second. And we strike out/pop up a bunch.

When I have the energy, I'm going to run through the exact numbers, because I'm curious to know...

[Will James]

My thing is just -- is "sacrificing" helping anything with those base runners? We should be 2 singles away from scoring them from first. I'd bet that statistically, it's a better play to hit and run or to straight steal these guys from first -- rather than taking the bat out of another(likely tremendous baserunner) with the sac. Which still takes a hit to score from second. And we strike out/pop up a bunch.

When I have the energy, I'm going to run through the exact numbers, because I'm curious to know...

Exactly. Sacrificing is not forcing pressure or playing aggressive.


Why Todd exactly do we have to go against the percentages just because we have fast runners. It's still the wrong play.

[messageboardsuperhero]

I agree on all points. I'm just glad we got through and came out with a win. This was a trap game for us- and Jacksonville State will be one later in the year.

As an aside, another bonus to playing the 4-game weekends early on is that it gets those non-conference games over with early and allows us to focus almost exclusively on the SEC schedule down the stretch.

This leads to fewer trap games for us and more scouting/prep focus on the good teams when it matters most, while our opponents have to split some of their time between us and another team. I'd say this is just one more of those little things that help us get hot at the end, IMO.

[engie]

It's a 76% chance we are safe when we steal. And that's overall -- not just second -- and I recall us getting hosed at 3rd alot more than second. I'd think it's better than 80% on straight steals at second.

It's a 49% chance we score that guy from 1st with 0 outs.
It's a 47% chance we score him from 2nd with 1 out.
It's a 70% chance we score him from 2nd with 0 outs.

The math gets too complex for where my mind is at right now -- but it seems that it's a better play to straight steal there for us...

[Intramural All-American]

I didn't understand why we tried to sacrifice Randolph with Armstrong on first for sure. With Armstrong you gotta straight steal. With a slower runner, I understand the SAC there.

I don't care what the "numbers" say. It's easier to get 1 hit with 1 out, than it is to get 2 hits with 0 outs. Especially with the new bats, the fewer number of hits needed to score, the better. Now if you start stealing second more, the bunting is unnecessary. But bunting over to second eliminates the DP, too. Obviously, if you are looking for a big inning, you don't ever give up outs. However, our team is not a big inning team.

[engie]

I don't care what the "numbers" say. It's easier to get 1 hit with 1 out, than it is to get 2 hits with 0 outs.

The statistics across college baseball say this is incorrect. 49% chance of scoring one run from first with no outs. 47% chance of scoring one run from second with 1. T

And it doesn't take 2 "hits" with no outs. It takes 2 quality at bats including one hit.

We gain NOTHING by bunting that guy over statistically. We just shorten the game by giving ourselves less opportunities.

That said, I don't have much problem with the efforts in the 8th and 9th... The ones in the 2nd and 7th are what pissed me off...

[Intramural All-American]

I'll give you that. I don't know why I had in mind they had to be base hits. However, every situation is different, and I feel that some instances the bunt is better whereas some instances are not. There is no cookie cutter approach, so to view it as such as Will James does is short-sighted.

[Coach34]

agreed Eng- any bunt before the 8th is a waste and is giving away an out. Dont do it unless it's your 9-hole guy who has really struggled or some shit.

[Will James]

I'll give you that. I don't know why I had in mind they had to be base hits. However, every situation is different, and I feel that some instances the bunt is better whereas some instances are not. There is no cookie cutter approach, so to view it as such as Will James does is short-sighted.

Short-sighted - "short si-ted" - the thinking aligned with those who believe that the only way to move runners is on a hit and that the only type of hit is a single.

[engie]

I'll give you that. I don't know why I had in mind they had to be base hits. However, every situation is different, and I feel that some instances the bunt is better whereas some instances are not. There is no cookie cutter approach, so to view it as such as Will James does is short-sighted.

I'm not whole-heartedly against bunting. Just some situations. And I align mostly with Coach on that one. I f'n love drag and push bunting in certain circumstances at any point in a game as well. Love doing it fresh off a double or homer.

I just don't like "giving up" outs early in games with sacrifices -- and hate playing for a single run in the 2nd inning like we did tonight -- in a situation where the run would have scored anyway -- and we'd have had a chance to score more runs without that sacrifice...

[Intramural All-American]

Short-sighted - "short si-ted" - the thinking aligned with those who believe that the only way to move runners is on a hit and that the only type of hit is a single.

I deserved that. So I won't rebutt.

[Intramural All-American]

I'm not whole-heartedly against bunting. Just some situations. And I align mostly with Coach on that one. I f'n love drag and push bunting in certain circumstances at any point in a game as well. Love doing it fresh off a double or homer.

I just don't like "giving up" outs early in games with sacrifices -- and hate playing for a single run in the 2nd inning like we did tonight -- in a situation where the run would have scored anyway -- and we'd have had a chance to score more runs without that sacrifice...

In a game like tonight I agree with you. We shouldn't have to do that in midweek non-con games. However, I have no problem with it against stud pitchers like Vandy. And you saw how bunts really bothered Beede Friday night. In a game where runs are expected to be at a premium, I have no problem trying to scratch one out early, because taking an early lead can be huge. I'm not bunting my 1-6 hitters that early, though.

[Todd4State]

My thing is just -- is "sacrificing" helping anything with those base runners? We should be 2 singles away from scoring them from first. I'd bet that statistically, it's a better play to hit and run or to straight steal these guys from first -- rather than taking the bat out of another(likely tremendous baserunner) with the sac. Which still takes a hit to score from second. And we strike out/pop up a bunch.

When I have the energy, I'm going to run through the exact numbers, because I'm curious to know...

I wasn't talking about sacrificing. I was talking about stealing bases.

Telling our guys to play station to station with singles hitters is not a good idea. We have to steal bases and hit and run to maximize our offense. Bunting is part of that- but more as a tool to get on base rather than straight up sacrificing. Now- no doubt we did sacrifice some tonight, no question about that. But we are bunting for a hit a good bit of the time- I'm not sure of the exact percentage.

But I was talking more about getting to second via the steal rather than sac bunting. Having a runner on second and no one out is better than a runner on first and no one out and doing nothing.

I've seen plenty of people complaining about "why did we try to steal there"? And that was more of what I was targeting.

[Todd4State]

Exactly. Sacrificing is not forcing pressure or playing aggressive.


Why Todd exactly do we have to go against the percentages just because we have fast runners. It's still the wrong play.

When we steal, we are successful 76% of the time- and that includes tonight's Tom Emanski's nightmare. They say that if you are stealing at a 65% clip, you are creating runs for yourself. Our team currently has about a 27% chance of getting a hit. We have about a 38% chance of even getting on base at all. Of our 227 hits, only 42 have gone for extra bases.

Explain to me how that is going against the percentages?

I believe I saw you complaining about some of the times we have tried to steal, hence why I responded to you. At the very least I read your criticism of "Cohenball" as complaining about the times we have tried to run that didn't work out included in that as well.

[tcdog70]

My thing is just -- is "sacrificing" helping anything with those base runners? We should be 2 singles away from scoring them from first. I'd bet that statistically, it's a better play to hit and run or to straight steal these guys from first -- rather than taking the bat out of another(likely tremendous baserunner) with the sac. Which still takes a hit to score from second. And we strike out/pop up a bunch.

When I have the energy, I'm going to run through the exact numbers, because I'm curious to know...

Amen-I am with You on this. I hate giving away outs. If I am on defense I always hope the offense bunts the runner over and gives away an out. Armstong-maybe our fastest guy-let him steal