USCe Game 2 Thread

[confucius say]

Having runners there increases your chances of scoring 2%. To get runners there you MUST have a successful sac bunt which can't be done at a 95% rate. Meaning bunting does not increase your chances.

I told you I'm assuming we get the bunt down. More importantly, your theory is, even when the percentages are in your favor if you successfully sacrifice runners over, you still believe you should not sacrifice runners over in order to take advantage of the percentages out of fear that your SEC baseball player who is a good bunter (Hump) cannot get a sac bunt down and your guy on second (Vickerson) who is a 4.0 home-to-first guy cannot get to third successfully once the sac bunt is laid down. If that is your theory (which amounts to never bunting in any situation), that is fine, just don't expect others, including baseball coaches, to adopt it.

[Smitty]

I told you I'm assuming we get the bunt down.

But you can't assume that.

I accept the move two runners bunt with poor hitters (NL pitchers.. Kyle Hann). But in the college game, where hitters are much more likely to get on base, with the DH, with worse defenses, with worse bunters, the bunt is used entirely too much. Reid Humphreys should never EVER lay one down. Gavin Collins should never EVER lay one down.

[confucius say]

But you can't assume that.

I accept the move two runners bunt with poor hitters (NL pitchers.. Kyle Hann). But in the college game, where hitters are much more likely to get on base, with the DH, with worse defenses, with worse bunters, the bunt is used entirely too much. Reid Humphreys should never EVER lay one down. Gavin Collins should never EVER lay one down.

Fair enough. I just disagree. Reid is a good bunter and it really comes down to whether or not you feel he is more likely to get the bunt down or to get a hit. If I feel Reid has a better chance of getting the bunt down then getting a hit, I bunt. Cohen obviously felt that way, as did I, as would 99% of people on this board, and as do you if you are honest with yourself because it is much easier to get a sac bunt down than get a hit. At that point, it doesn't matter what the results are the rest of the inning, because the percentages tell you that you have a better chance to score one run after the sacrifice, and you have given your guys the odds-on percentage to score one run. Its simple math, and that's how metric guys like Cohen approach the game, for better or worse.

[Smitty]

Fair enough. I just disagree. Reid is a good bunter and it really comes down to whether or not you feel he is more likely to get the bunt down or to get a hit. If I feel Reid has a better chance of getting the bunt down then getting a hit, I bunt. Cohen obviously felt that way, as did I, as would 99% of people on this board, and as do you if you are honest with yourself because it is much easier to get a sac bunt down than get a hit.

But you are getting OUT. It's the furthest thing from "better chance of a bunt or a hit"... Mike Trout has a better chance of getting a bunt down than a hit. You are giving away a free out is the issue. What if Reid walks? Extra base hit? HBP? Home run! Scores 3! Why are we limiting our offense anyway? Why not try to go up 4-5 there?

[blacklistedbully]

But you are getting OUT. It's the furthest thing from "better chance of a bunt or a hit"... Mike Trout has a better chance of getting a bunt down than a hit. You are giving away a free out is the issue. What if Reid walks? Extra base hit? HBP? Home run! Scores 3! Why are we limiting our offense anyway? Why not try to go up 4-5 there?

Because he could also SO, hit into a DP, hit into a force out at 3rd, etc, etc. It is the VERY reason the odds of scoring 1 run are greater, even though the odds of scoring more than 1 run are less.

You have been explained this repeatedly. You're just unable to grasp it. It is possible to increase your odds of scoring 1 run while simultaneously reducing your chances to score more than 1 run.

[confucius say]

But you are getting OUT. It's the furthest thing from "better chance of a bunt or a hit"... Mike Trout has a better chance of getting a bunt down than a hit. You are giving away a free out is the issue. What if Reid walks? Extra base hit? HBP? Home run! Scores 3! Why are we limiting our offense anyway? Why not try to go up 4-5 there?

You are not getting it. The only goal, the only mindset, is to score one run! If you are trying to score multiple runs, then you absolutely do not bunt. You are limiting your offense (the big inning) for the higher probability of scoring one run. And that is the fundamental disconnect between you and I-your self admitted goal is to score multiple runs, even if in attempting doing so you lessen your chance to score one run. My goal is to score one run, even if in attempting to do so you lessen your chance to score multiple runs.

You agree that Reid has a better chance of being successful sac bunting then reaching on a hit (HBP/walk does not count because you can do that bunting, just like Collins did in the 8th). If he hits away and fails (which is much more likely than sac bunting and failing), you are in same position with one out, which leave you with a much less chance to score one run. Because my only goal is to score one run, and he is much more likely get the bunt down than get a hit, I bunt.

In any event, lets sweep tomorrow.

[Smitty]

You are not getting it. The only goal, the only mindset, is to score one run!

Because you CANNOT assume a successful bunt the odds of scoring, even ONE run go down! It is NOT a tradeoff.

[confucius say]

Because you CANNOT assume a successful bunt the odds of scoring, even ONE run go down! It is NOT a tradeoff.

The odds of scoring one run if you don't bunt are 71%. Do you agree that the odds of getting the bunt down with Reid are greater than that?

The answer is an obvious yes. At that point, you then have a better than 71% chance to score one run.

[Smitty]

The odds of scoring one run if you don't bunt are 71%. Do you agree that the odds of getting the bunt down with Reid are greater than that?

The answer is an obvious yes. At that point, you then have a better than 71% chance to score one run.

The odds of scoring AT LEAST one run with men on 1st and 2nd and no outs is 71%
The odds of scoring AT LEAST one run with men on 2nd and 3rd and one out is 73%

So you would need to be almost perfect at bunting to justify that. Not to mention that we were bunting Reid 17ing Humphreys.

[Homedawg]

Yes, Reid humpries, not mike trout, not Raphael palmeiro.

[Smitty]

Yes, Reid humpries, not mike trout, not Raphael palmeiro.

Hump's SEC slash line mirrors Trout

[Really Clark?]

Hump's SEC slash line mirrors Trout

Not going to get into the bunt debate because it's a close call either way especially when you factor in the win expectancy of a 3 run lead vs 2 run lead. The game is played 90 feet at a time and you run into trouble trying to coach beyond the next base. The only thing is, as you well know it is not a fair comparison of direct numbers between a MLB player vs a college. Not to mention I disagree that they have similar stat lines in this case. Trout is a career .305/.395/.549 hitter in the majors. Big difference straight up and if adjusted for competition, Trout would have big college numbers. Humps sample size is way way to small to compare as well. 30 at bats vs over 2,000 plate appearances for Trout. Trouts average and OBP go up a good bit of you throw in his minor league totals as well.

[Dawg61]

College players aren't as good defensively and are more likely to make mistakes when pressure is put on them in the late innings. Even just faking the bunt puts more pressure on the pitcher to locate better while at the same time it's the most difficult already. At home with the home crowd already all over the pitcher the bunt can be used more as a weapon late in a game with a small lead or tied than only being a sacrifice. I DO NOT want to see the bunt early in games but tonight in the eighth with a small lead and at home it is absolutely the correct call.