Project for Smitty...

[Outside Dawg]

Im sure most of you already know this (and there may be a better place), but all of this years data, and last year's for that matter, can be found linked from the baseball stats page on our website. Its not in table format, but it wouldn't be that hard to go inning by inning for this year and put it together. http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle...&ATCLID=944260

This whole conversation has made me wonder...Do we not have somebody doing advanced stats for our sports teams? Do the coaching staffs not have somebody running whatever advanced metrics they are curious about? I know Dan has talked about stats before, but surely we have somebody accessible to all of our coaches to work on whatever the coaches want to see. Heck, that would be a great "internship" at a minimum for some MSU math, stats, engineering, business major.

[engie]

Im sure most of you already know this (and there may be a better place), but all of this years data, and last year's for that matter, can be found linked from the baseball stats page on our website. Its not in table format, but it wouldn't be that hard to go inning by inning for this year and put it together. http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle...&ATCLID=944260

This whole conversation has made me wonder...Do we not have somebody doing advanced stats for our sports teams? Do the coaching staffs not have somebody running whatever advanced metrics they are curious about? I know Dan has talked about stats before, but surely we have somebody accessible to all of our coaches to work on whatever the coaches want to see. Heck, that would be a great "internship" at a minimum for some MSU math, stats, engineering, business major.

Agreed with your premise. Cohen could certainly have those stats made constantly available if he so chose. There's just no way he's actually looking at those stats -- and continuing to do the same thing that isn't working and for the most part hasn't since he's been here. This year has been the most bunting success we've had -- and those were largely drag bunts...

[Smitty]

Sac bunts
---------
1. Mississippi State... 26
2. Tennessee........... 25
3. Auburn.............. 14
4. Georgia............. 13
Vanderbilt.......... 13
6. Ole Miss............ 12
7. Kentucky............ 11
Alabama............. 11
9. LSU................. 9
South Carolina...... 9
11.Florida............. 8
12.Missouri............ 7
Texas A&M........... 7
14.Arkansas............ 4

[blacklistedbully]

What's the "goal" of this argument you are pulling out of thin air? The sake of arguing?


I'm not the one failing to get it. With later quotes in this post, I literally don't think you know the difference between sacrifice and drag bunting -- it's going to be impossible for me and you to come to common ground in that case...


Which was a bad position and wide-ranging argument you made, based on a single situational snapshot playing for a walk-off win. That's the only time in a baseball game that you are ever playing for exactly one run. Smoot took that argument apart. But you not getting his point then virtually assures that you won't get mine now, so I don't really know why I'm trying...


Link? No one said to "NEVER" bunt. You've never heard that come out of my or anyone else here's mouth. You are creating phantom opposition. And you are still hung up on your "one run" ideal.. Only applicable as a home team in a tie game in the final/extra innings. Otherwise, in reality, exactly one run is NEVER the actual goal of the inning, thus not even the actual goal.


Which is why it should be employed rarely...


Still missing the forest for the trees.

52% scoring from 1st with no outs.
49% scoring from 2nd with 1 out.
If the odds went down after it happened, then the second situation is NOT HELPING THE FIRST SITUATION, BUT RATHER HINDERING IT.

How can you possibly argue that "that second data set significantly effects the first". The only way it effects the first is to artifically deflate a number that should be more like 53%. Hence not supporting your previous assertions about bunting...


Trees. Forest. Everyone knows the "numbers include everything". What's your point? What does that change with significance about the numbers? Or was it just to argue for the sake of arguing?


Not really. Not to sacrifice.


Where did anyone ever argue "all bunting is bad and that you should never sac bunt"? Why are you arguing against a position nobody is taking?


Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread. I didn't start it for that purpose.


Holy crap -- now we're talking drag bunting?
I have never once condemned bunting for a hit in any situation.


Drag bunting is different from sac bunting.

You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than using a number you found on "better odds to score exactly one run(as if that's a goal 99% of the time) and throwing together a bunting philosophy off of that number, which is a very minimal participant in overall bunting situations.

You are STILL not getting it. it is IRONIC that you keep telling me I'm the one not seeing the forest for the trees. Look in the mirror, pal. You are the one who seems to have a mental block, and appears to be gleaning something more from my comments than are there. Reciting them again & again for you is not going to do any good, apparently.

As far as, "drag bunting" versus sac bunting to zone 6 (3b) is concerned, you are the one who does not know what he is talking about. A drag bunt is a type of bunt, not just a location. To be sure, drag-bunting is a style more widely used when the batter is trying to bunt for a single. But when I refer to, "Zone 6" bunts, I'm talking about all bunts that go toward 3b. Even Bill James, the KING of anti-bunt, has charts that indicate SAC BUNTS to Zone 6 carry a .291 average. He has bunting batting average for zone 6 when not in Sac mode at .720!

He goes on to say, "What if we consider a successful sacrifice as no at-bat, just like we do when we compute a normal batting average? Here are the bunt batting averages by zone in this situation: Zone 6 = .743.

You can suggest I'm out of touch with reality, you can criticize my posts all you want, but you're dead wrong if you think I'm in left-field on this one, as if it's some sort of, "settled science" in your favor. Hell, I'm getting these numbers from the prophet himself, Bill James.

Much of the other crap you keep harping on, incredibly, are areas we don't really even seem to differ on, but you're so damned argumentative you want to argue about that shit too!

Consider that this latest barrage from you came about because you took issue with me merely pointing out that the 58/49 numbers do include sac bunt attempts as well. Nothing in that statement indicated I was taking the position that we should sac bunt more often, yet that seems to be what you want to continue to tie around my neck like an Albatross. That is your failure, not mine.

Another great example of this is your , "Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread." They are not my theoreticals, they are from Bill James, but I guess you feel like attributing them to me instead further validates your point by discounting mine as the theories of a guy who doesn't possess your level of understanding. Guess that means you consider Bill James uninformed on the matter as well, compared to you.

Here's the link, BTW. http://www.billjamesonline.com/bunting_for_a_hit/

You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than falsely accuse me of suggesting, "one run is a goal 99% of the time". Not only have i never said that, I have, in fact said it is a thing that is done too often, too early in a game and at too great an expense. I have merely pointed out there there are logical situations in a game that justify a coach/manager, "playing for exactly one run", and that sac bunting can be a legit tool to use in that situation. Again, an area I don't think we differ wildly on, but you keep insisting we are miles apart on. You should also use that break to gain an understanding of the difference between, "technique" and "location" as it pertains to bunting. Even though drag-bunting is more often associated with, "bunting for a hit", it is not mutually exclusive from a sac bunt situation.

[maroonmania]

Sac bunts
---------
1. Mississippi State... 26
2. Tennessee........... 25
3. Auburn.............. 14
4. Georgia............. 13
Vanderbilt.......... 13
6. Ole Miss............ 12
7. Kentucky............ 11
Alabama............. 11
9. LSU................. 9
South Carolina...... 9
11.Florida............. 8
12.Missouri............ 7
Texas A&M........... 7
14.Arkansas............ 4

Pretty amazing stat, so outside of TN we have nearly twice as many Sacrifice Bunts as the next closest SEC team. Also helps me understand why TN continues to struggle so much.

[tcdog70]

y'all did some nice Stats. But I've played and Watched baseball for fifty years. I don't need stats to tell me we bunt too ****ing much. If I would bunt somebody to second and give up an out it would really depend on who the hell I had coming to Bat. You only get 27 outs a game they are too precious to give up only to have somebody who can't drive the run home coming to bat. Has anyone ever seen a team that compares to us in giving up outs? has Cohen never heard of hitting behind the runner , hit and Run or how about a straight steal. I think He knows in His heart that this bunting shit sucks, but he is so hardheaded he wants to prove it works. Why does no one have the balls to ask him what the **** he is thinking. Maybe he can explain it to us.

[shoeless joe]

y'all did some nice Stats. But I've played and Watched baseball for fifty years. I don't need stats to tell me we bunt too ****ing much. If I would bunt somebody to second and give up an out it would really depend on who the hell I had coming to Bat. You only get 18 outs a game they are too precious to give up only to have somebody who can't drive the run home coming to bat. Has anyone ever seen a team that compares to us in giving up outs? has Cohen never heard of hitting behind the runner , hit and Run or how about a straight steal. I think He knows in His heart that this bunting shit sucks, but he is so hardheaded he wants to prove it works. Why does no one have the balls to ask him what the **** he is thinking. Maybe he can explain it to us.

After 50 years you still think there's only 18 outs in a game?

[engie]

You are STILL not getting it. it is IRONIC that you keep telling me I'm the one not seeing the forest for the trees. Look in the mirror, pal. You are the one who seems to have a mental block, and appears to be gleaning something more from my comments than are there. Reciting them again & again for you is not going to do any good, apparently.

It's amazing that everyone here agrees with me -- no one agrees with you -- yet I'm the one that doesn't get it.

As far as, "drag bunting" versus sac bunting to zone 6 (3b) is concerned, you are the one who does not know what he is talking about. A drag bunt is a type of bunt, not just a location. To be sure, drag-bunting is a style more widely used when the batter is trying to bunt for a single. But when I refer to, "Zone 6" bunts, I'm talking about all bunts that go toward 3b. Even Bill James, the KING of anti-bunt, has charts that indicate SAC BUNTS to Zone 6 carry a .291 average. He has bunting batting average for zone 6 when not in Sac mode at .720!

You don't "sac" bunt at zone 6. If you are placing it there purposefully -- you are bunting for a hit. The whole purpose of the sacrifice bunt is to get it down in FAIR territory somewhere that the lead runner can't be thrown out at 2B. Hence the term sacrifice. It is not to lay it perfectly down the line, where it can roll foul -- and thus becomes a failed attempt.

He goes on to say, "What if we consider a successful sacrifice as no at-bat, just like we do when we compute a normal batting average? Here are the bunt batting averages by zone in this situation: Zone 6 = .743.

You can suggest I'm out of touch with reality, you can criticize my posts all you want, but you're dead wrong if you think I'm in left-field on this one, as if it's some sort of, "settled science" in your favor. Hell, I'm getting these numbers from the prophet himself, Bill James.

So, a sacrifice itself doesn't count as an AB -- but a zone 6 bunt does? The ball going in that zone = bunting for a hit. Or a total accident.

Much of the other crap you keep harping on, incredibly, are areas we don't really even seem to differ on, but you're so damned argumentative you want to argue about that shit too!

I'm the one that's argumentative -- yet you are the one here pooping all over MY thread -- starting and continuing an argument on something you don't understand.

Consider that this latest barrage from you came about because you took issue with me merely pointing out that the 58/49 numbers do include sac bunt attempts as well.

Because you are arguing a negligible point that is of no consequence to the overall data -- simply for the purpose of starting an argument. Which is exactly the same thing you are bitching about now. Hell, how did we bunt when it was cold outside vs a soft throwing right hander on breaking balls? That makes a difference and has an effect on the numbers too**

Nothing in that statement indicated I was taking the position that we should sac bunt more often, yet that seems to be what you want to continue to tie around my neck like an Albatross. That is your failure, not mine.

Then why did you come start the argument in the first place -- if you actually wanted to agree? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

Another great example of this is your , "Link? You are now to make theoreticals say what you want them to say... I'm not interested in your theoreticals in this thread." They are not my theoreticals, they are from Bill James, but I guess you feel like attributing them to me instead further validates your point by discounting mine as the theories of a guy who doesn't possess your level of understanding. Guess that means you consider Bill James uninformed on the matter as well, compared to you

Here's the link, BTW. http://www.billjamesonline.com/bunting_for_a_hit/.

Notice the bolded words. "Bunting for a hit" /=/ "Sacrifice bunting". Again implying that you don't know the difference between sacrifice and drag bunting. And the numbers presented in that article as "sacrifice situations" is not even remotely the same thing as "sacrifice bunting". You can bunt for a hit(read: Drag, push) in a "sacrifice situation" all day long. We see Robson do it damn near every game. Bunting for a hit in a "sacrifice situation" is no different than"swinging away in a "sacrifice situation" in my opinion. I'm fine with that. Again -- if a bunt is placed in zone 6 -- it is either NOT a sacrifice bunt -- or is an accident. That's basically universally how the game is taught. Zone 6 = "bunting for a hit" = "drag bunting"...

You need to take a little break and think through your position a little better rather than falsely accuse me of suggesting, "one run is a goal 99% of the time".

Where did I allegedly accuse you of that? You are, in fact, hung up on "the percentage likelihood of scoring exactly one run" and all common sense from there be danged. Smoot went round and round with you about it until he got sick of trying to explain something you obviously wasn't going to get. You need to take a break and go learn the difference between a sacrifice and a drag bunt. Then, come back, and admit that you agree with me.

Not only have i never said that, I have, in fact said it is a thing that is done too often, too early in a game and at too great an expense. I have merely pointed out there there are logical situations in a game that justify a coach/manager, "playing for exactly one run", and that sac bunting can be a legit tool to use in that situation.

There are not "situations" where that's logical. There is situation(singular). Which is a walk-off winning run on base. Otherwise, there is no situation where you are playing for exactly one run, but situations where you are playing for AT LEAST one run. 2>1 in every other circumstance in the game. But Smoot already went through all of that in detail and you didn't get it..

Again, an area I don't think we differ wildly on, but you keep insisting we are miles apart on. You should also use that break to gain an understanding of the difference between, "technique" and "location" as it pertains to bunting. Even though drag-bunting is more often associated with, "bunting for a hit", it is not mutually exclusive from a sac bunt situation.

What is the very meaning of the word sacrifice? Thank you. If you are "bunting for a hit", you are not sacrifice bunting. They are mutually exclusive. I've never once complained about bunting for a hit. If you REALLY think "sacrifice bunts should go to zone 6" -- based on an article by Bill James titled "bunting for a hit" that never even remotely implies that in actuality -- you need to go play on sabr.com** so you can pretend that reading(and not comprehending in this case) SABR stats somehow gives you a clear understanding of the game...

[smootness]

Blacklisted is bringing up a good point when talking about the fact that sac bunts are also included in the 'runner on 1st, no outs' scenarios.

However, the percentage for a runner on 2nd and 1 out being lower than that for a runner on 1st and no outs means that the difference between bunting and not bunting is actually larger than it seems.

I'll use an example with 200 instances just to make the numbers work. For the sake of argument, let's say you bunted half the time with the runner on 1st and swung away the other half. And we'll even assume a 100% bunting success rate.

So in 100 instances you bunted the runner to 2nd, meaning 47 times in those 100 instances, the runner scored. In the other 100 you swung away. In order to get to the overall percentage of 49% in the 200 instances in which you had a runner on 1st and no outs, that means the run will score 98 times out of the 200.

98-47 is 51, which means the run would score 51% of the time you swung away, even higher than the 49% the numbers show now. So while your point is correct, it is yet again actually hurting your argument.

[blacklistedbully]

Blacklisted is bringing up a good point when talking about the fact that sac bunts are also included in the 'runner on 1st, no outs' scenarios.

However, the percentage for a runner on 2nd and 1 out being lower than that for a runner on 1st and no outs means that the difference between bunting and not bunting is actually larger than it seems.

I'll use an example with 200 instances just to make the numbers work. For the sake of argument, let's say you bunted half the time with the runner on 1st and swung away the other half. And we'll even assume a 100% bunting success rate.

So in 100 instances you bunted the runner to 2nd, meaning 47 times in those 100 instances, the runner scored. In the other 100 you swung away. In order to get to the overall percentage of 49% in the 200 instances in which you had a runner on 1st and no outs, that means the run will score 98 times out of the 200.

98-47 is 51, which means the run would score 51% of the time you swung away, even higher than the 49% the numbers show now. So while your point is correct, it is yet again actually hurting your argument.

You're really close, but miss on just one thing, that I'm "hurting my own argument". Whether you agree or not, my argument is that, the percentages, though a little lower, are close enough so that personnel involved and game situation can make sac-bunting a viable option. Even 51% versus 47% is only a 4% delta. At just 4%, how can we not reasonably look at the personnel? If we have a guy AB who is not swinging the bat well, but has been bunting well, can you not see how quickly that, "on average 4% advantage" might disappear? Remember, that, "4% advantage" is an average of all hitters. What if the guy at the plate is batting 20 points below the team average? What if he leads the league in hitting into DP's? What if the guy behind him has been a particularly good singles hitter, and the guy behind him not so much?

Engie is saying the only time you should ever play for 1 run with a sac bunt is if it's a, "walk-off winning run OB". If I had the above situation, down by 1 run in my half of the 9th, I'd give serious thought to playing for the tying run to extend the game. I'd give serious thought to sac bunting that guy over to 2nd, setting up my next batter to drive him in with a single. I'd do that because I know, based on who I have involved that my present batter has a better chance of getting me in scoring position with 1 out by bunting than he does by swinging away. I'd know that I'm also reducing my chances of hitting into a DP, or finding myself with 1 out and a guy still at 1B.

What's more, if faced with the same situation in the 8th, I still might do it. But I wouldn't do it earlier in the game, and I wouldn't do it if the guys I have involved were close to or above the aforementioned averages, and their recent play reflected that, or if my 2-hitter wasn't a capable bunter. I'm saying it's just not as cut-and-dried as Engie & some others would like to believe, IMO. I don't think it's a call you make in the vacuum of ERT tables, overall averages and/or generalizations based on league or even overall team stats. I think you have to look at the individual stats of the players involved and balance that with what you, as a coach, know about their recent play and/or other potentially impacting factors.

Please don't confuse my argument as one in favor of early & frequent use of sac bunting. In fact, I'm against it for the most part, just apparently not, "as against it" as some others. I think Cohen uses it it WAY too much, WAY too early and often with an apparent disregard for the players involved.

Engie is just completely blinded by his determination to argue. He just keeps doing silly shit like claiming I'm saying or insinuating stuff I'm not, and then arguing that made up point. Really weak-ass stuff, that. And then he mixes in crap like, pointing out the title of the Bill James article while completely ignoring the content within that disputes some of his viewpoint, as if the title of the link is more important than the actual content. Ridiculous. Funny thing is, I knew he was going to do that before I hit the post button. He's going to look for any reason to argue, no matter how weak, no matter how much he has to invent or pervert the dialogue.

He roundly ridicules and disputes the idea that a sac bunt attempt can be placed in Zone 6, and thus increase it's success and the chance of reaching base, yet apparently didn't bother to read James article that explains it. NEWSFLASH, Engie, just because it's a sac bunt situation, that doesn't mean the hitter isn't going to try to reach safely as well. It just means he's more willing to take the out to get the lead runner over. Just because he doesn't have to bunt it to zone 6 to successfully sac bunt, it doesn't mean he can't. Oh, and a zone 6 bunt is not solely defined as a bunt down the line, just as it is not solely defined as a drag-bunt. It is a bunt anywhere between the the line and the point at which the pitcher can't get to it and make the play.

[tcdog70]

After 50 years you still think there's only 18 outs in a game?

ha brainfart-after 50 years you have them--thanks for the correction.

[smootness]

Then we probably mostly agree. I do think there are times when it makes sense.

But given that on average it takes away your chance at a big inning while also reducing your chances of scoring even one run, I think those times are usually few and far between.

[blacklistedbully]

Then we probably mostly agree. I do think there are times when it makes sense.

But given that on average it takes away your chance at a big inning while also reducing your chances of scoring even one run, I think those times are usually few and far between.

This is really the only place I think we may differ a little. I'm saying it depends on the situation at hand, including the players, how they're performing in the various skills that might apply, including bunting, hitting, pitching, base-running, etc. While I'll concede overall averages suggest this is true in most cases, I submit there absolutely can be situations where the odds of scoring 1 run increase by sac bunting. This cannot be disproven by using team or league averages any more than we can say a .250 hitter has as much chance at getting a hit as a .350 hitter if the team BA is .300. But yes, it is at a cost of reduced chances of scoring more than 1 run and/or maximizing total runs scored in an entire game, thus making it a strategy that should not be employed until late in the game and under the aforementioned circumstances. I do still maintain these situations can and do arise more than just the, "walk-off run" Engie advocates.