ACC CG (Tech v MD)

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,117
Location
North Shore, Chicago
The sac bunt with Gonzalez on second and no outs was the correct call, even though the 4-hole was batting. Move the runner over and get that run home. Didn't turn out that way, but that's the smart play.

I'd equate that to taking the made FG off the board approaching halftime because of an offside penalty, trying for a TD. Keep the points unless you're trailing.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,797
Location
Poquoson Virginia
Hall has completely changed his philosophy to small ball. Like it or not, I think it is more effective. We are following in UVa's model - emphasis on great defense and pitching less emphasis on great power hitters. Look at the large number of pitchers we have on the roster -17 with two others as fielders first. And look at our recruits - most are pitchers. Look at our power numbers, the highest number of HRs for any of our players I remember is 4 this year. And our double plays lead the NCAA.

At the ACC CG, we had several conversations in the stands about the sacrifices to get a man from 2nd to third with no outs. I didn't like it at all, but it is part of the plan. A UVa fan (who was a coach) said that absolutely was the right statistical play.

From wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_ball), teams may incorporate a small-ball strategy for a variety of reasons, including:
  1. They are confident that their pitching staff will allow very few runs, thus one or two runs may win the game.
  2. The opposing pitching staff allows few hits, especially extra-base hits, and small ball may be the best way to score runs at all.
  3. The team lacks consistent hitters and must find a way to score runs with few base hits.
  4. The team has several members who are very quick and are likely to steal bases, or go from first base to third base on a single.
  5. The team is in the late innings of a close game and a single run will tie the game, break a tie, or extend a narrow lead.
Reasons 1 (good pitching), 3 (lack consistent hitters) and 4 (fast runners) apply the most and are what we are built for. Reasons 2 and 5 are game specific. You both remember what it was like when we had power but not as good of defense or pitching. Now we have to play good fundamental baseball to win and can't hope to be able to bludgeon the opponent to defeat.

For me, this is very much like the football flexbone / TO / running game discussion and a question of what you like to watch. Like football, I like to watch us win.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,117
Location
North Shore, Chicago
When they changed the bats, they changed the whole complexion of the game. Personally, I like this better and it's better for the players in the long run. This is more like what they would have experienced if the played in the Minors.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,797
Location
Poquoson Virginia
I think the big change they are going to make to college ball this year is to have the seams on the ball be more raised. So that will give the pitchers more advantage and keep the trend toward small ball.

Are there other significant changes that are being made that anyone knows about?
 

collegeballfan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,694
Hall has completely changed his philosophy to small ball. Like it or not, I think it is more effective. We are following in UVa's model - emphasis on great defense and pitching less emphasis on great power hitters. Look at the large number of pitchers we have on the roster -17 with two others as fielders first. And look at our recruits - most are pitchers. Look at our power numbers, the highest number of HRs for any of our players I remember is 4 this year. And our double plays lead the NCAA.

At the ACC CG, we had several conversations in the stands about the sacrifices to get a man from 2nd to third with no outs. I didn't like it at all, but it is part of the plan. A UVa fan (who was a coach) said that absolutely was the right statistical play.

From wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_ball), teams may incorporate a small-ball strategy for a variety of reasons, including:
  1. They are confident that their pitching staff will allow very few runs, thus one or two runs may win the game.
  2. The opposing pitching staff allows few hits, especially extra-base hits, and small ball may be the best way to score runs at all.
  3. The team lacks consistent hitters and must find a way to score runs with few base hits.
  4. The team has several members who are very quick and are likely to steal bases, or go from first base to third base on a single.
  5. The team is in the late innings of a close game and a single run will tie the game, break a tie, or extend a narrow lead.
Reasons 1 (good pitching), 3 (lack consistent hitters) and 4 (fast runners) apply the most and are what we are built for. Reasons 2 and 5 are game specific. You both remember what it was like when we had power but not as good of defense or pitching. Now we have to play good fundamental baseball to win and can't hope to be able to bludgeon the opponent to defeat.

For me, this is very much like the football flexbone / TO / running game discussion and a question of what you like to watch. Like football, I like to watch us win.

Not to mention, at least for me. small ball is just more fun to watch. And "small ball" is how the game of baseball developed. Remember, the big bruiser home run hitter Casey? He struck out!

"But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and the men saw what had occurred,
There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third."

Small ball!
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,042
Hall has completely changed his philosophy to small ball. Like it or not, I think it is more effective. We are following in UVa's model - emphasis on great defense and pitching less emphasis on great power hitters. Look at the large number of pitchers we have on the roster -17 with two others as fielders first. And look at our recruits - most are pitchers. Look at our power numbers, the highest number of HRs for any of our players I remember is 4 this year. And our double plays lead the NCAA.

At the ACC CG, we had several conversations in the stands about the sacrifices to get a man from 2nd to third with no outs. I didn't like it at all, but it is part of the plan. A UVa fan (who was a coach) said that absolutely was the right statistical play.

From wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_ball), teams may incorporate a small-ball strategy for a variety of reasons, including:
  1. They are confident that their pitching staff will allow very few runs, thus one or two runs may win the game.
  2. The opposing pitching staff allows few hits, especially extra-base hits, and small ball may be the best way to score runs at all.
  3. The team lacks consistent hitters and must find a way to score runs with few base hits.
  4. The team has several members who are very quick and are likely to steal bases, or go from first base to third base on a single.
  5. The team is in the late innings of a close game and a single run will tie the game, break a tie, or extend a narrow lead.
Reasons 1 (good pitching), 3 (lack consistent hitters) and 4 (fast runners) apply the most and are what we are built for. Reasons 2 and 5 are game specific. You both remember what it was like when we had power but not as good of defense or pitching. Now we have to play good fundamental baseball to win and can't hope to be able to bludgeon the opponent to defeat.

For me, this is very much like the football flexbone / TO / running game discussion and a question of what you like to watch. Like football, I like to watch us win.

We use the bunt far too liberally. To the point where I think it hurts our offense. Whenever I see us get a leadoff single and the next guy immediately attempts to bunt I want to throw something at my TV. You get little to no benefit from doing this and you give up an out. Some call it small ball but I'd call it dumb. If you play for one run that's probably all you're gonna get. There's plenty of times a bunt is a good move. It's not as often as we try to drop one down.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,797
Location
Poquoson Virginia
We use the bunt far too liberally. To the point where I think it hurts our offense. Whenever I see us get a leadoff single and the next guy immediately attempts to bunt I want to throw something at my TV. You get little to no benefit from doing this and you give up an out. Some call it small ball but I'd call it dumb. If you play for one run that's probably all you're gonna get. There's plenty of times a bunt is a good move. It's not as often as we try to drop one down.

Bunting with a lead off single doesn't bother me as much as bunting with a lead off double and 300 hitters at the plate. Bunting after a lead off single gets us out of the DP and puts a man in scoring position. Plus, many of our guys are fast enough and have gotten so much practice that they can beat out the bunt / infield hits.

The article I linked points out the same thing you are saying; you might get a run but you are much less likely to get the big inning. So it's all a trade off with no definite right or wrong answer. What is remarkable is that Hall has changed his approach so much in the last 10 years. I think this type of baseball is an acquired taste, and I'm beginning to like it the more I understand it.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,042
Bunting with a lead off single doesn't bother me as much as bunting with a lead off double and 300 hitters at the plate. Bunting after a lead off single gets us out of the DP and puts a man in scoring position. Plus, many of our guys are fast enough and have gotten so much practice that they can beat out the bunt / infield hits.

You've actually got it backwards. Getting the runner to 3rd with less than 2 outs increases your chances of scoring a run and can be a good move. Sacrificing bunting to get a runner to second does not significantly increase. This is based on research by Tom Tango. Granted his data is coming from major league history not college baseball players but I think the lessons are pretty translatable.

The article I linked points out the same thing you are saying; you might get a run but you are much less likely to get the big inning. So it's all a trade off with no definite right or wrong answer. What is remarkable is that Hall has changed his approach so much in the last 10 years. I think this type of baseball is an acquired taste, and I'm beginning to like it the more I understand it.

Well I disagree there's a right or wrong answer because if you're hurting the offense it's definitely not the right answer. But whatever, I'll can deal with it as long as we win.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,797
Location
Poquoson Virginia
You've actually got it backwards. Getting the runner to 3rd with less than 2 outs increases your chances of scoring a run and can be a good move. Sacrificing bunting to get a runner to second does not significantly increase. This is based on research by Tom Tango. Granted his data is coming from major league history not college baseball players but I think the lessons are pretty translatable.



Well I disagree there's a right or wrong answer because if you're hurting the offense it's definitely not the right answer. But whatever, I'll can deal with it as long as we win.

This could be a very interesting discussion. I have to review and think about this http://www.tangotiger.net/lwtsrobo.html I'll get "The Book" and try to digest it. That is the type information I was looking for so thanks ...... we should probably have a thread on baseball strategy.

As far as there being no definite right or wrong, I was thinking more of the "meta" game of small /smart ball versus power hitting but I didn't make it clear. Which one is best depends on the players you have put on your team. And which players you have put on your team depend on which type players are available and which style you believe will be more effective. I agree that for a given situation there are "right and wrong" plays based on assumed average batter and pitcher capabilities. But if you had a batter with a 750 hitting average and a man on second with no outs, would you have the 750 hitter sac bunt? (I realize a 750 hitter would be walked to set up the double play, but that is another discussion ......)
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,042
This could be a very interesting discussion. I have to review and think about this http://www.tangotiger.net/lwtsrobo.html I'll get "The Book" and try to digest it. That is the type information I was looking for so thanks ...... we should probably have a thread on baseball strategy.

It's actually pretty good. Not the most exciting read but he does a great job breaking down the advanced concepts and challenging a lot of perceived notions.

As far as there being no definite right or wrong, I was thinking more of the "meta" game of small /smart ball versus power hitting but I didn't make it clear. Which one is best depends on the players you have put on your team. And which players you have put on your team depend on which type players are available and which style you believe will be more effective. I agree that for a given situation there are "right and wrong" plays based on assumed average batter and pitcher capabilities. But if you had a batter with a 750 hitting average and a man on second with no outs, would you have the 750 hitter sac bunt? (I realize a 750 hitter would be walked to set up the double play, but that is another discussion ......)

Ok I gotcha. You gotta play the hand your dealt. Can't base your offensive philosophy on getting the extra base hit when a lot of your hitters don't much power. I can buy that. And no way in hell on that bunt. I'd never take the bat out of that guy's hand if I had a choice.
 
Top