Ga Southern

[GT33]

I wish TV had captured a good shot of CDH chewing out Ramsey for such nonsense.
[Just a "possible" alternative]

I was just trying to play with the "I hate bunting" crowd. We loved it when Simspon bunted then stole second, we either love it or are ok with it when it works, it's only when we produce an out with no runs that we really hate it.

 

[wrmathis]

I was just trying to play with the "I hate bunting" crowd. We loved it when Simspon bunted then stole second, we either love it or are ok with it when it works, it's only when we produce an out with no runs that we really hate it.

Bunting for a base hit, ok. Sac bunting? **** off.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

you mean the worst play ever called in the history baseball & it just happened to be by Danny Hall?

While I think Hall is responsible for putting together talented teams that don't play to their talent level over the last 15 or so years, I can't blame Hall for this call. It was probably Ramsey who put the bunt on and kept it on. And Ramsey has more than proven himself in getting us to the top of the offensive rankings consistently.

To recap, T7, down 1-4, first batter 2-0 single, second batter 7 pitch walk. Then 9 hole hitter Brosius comes to the plate. Two ugly ineffective bunt attempts, ball, two swinging fouls and then a successful ugly bunt which was ruled a sacrifice. The bunt was successful since it advanced both runners to scoring position with Burress coming up.

I think Ramsey called the bunt since GS is very good at turning DPs. Two against us and 3 over the weekend. I didn't like it since Brosius is not a good bunter (at least in that AB) and was amazed that he was attempting another bunt with two strikes.

Pick your poison, risk another DP from the 9 hole hitter who probably hits a lot of ground balls or set up like we did to have Burress come through. Ironic that the inning ended on a DP isn't it? But we made it a 1 run game. Could have scored more and could have scored less.

We won

 

[MWBATL]

While I think Hall is responsible for putting together talented teams that don't play to their talent level over the last 15 or so years, I can't blame Hall for this call. It was probably Ramsey who put the bunt on and kept it on. And Ramsey has more than proven himself in getting us to the top of the offensive rankings consistently.

To recap, T7, down 1-4, first batter 2-0 single, second batter 7 pitch walk. Then 9 hole hitter Brosius comes to the plate. Two ugly ineffective bunt attempts, ball, two swinging fouls and then a successful ugly bunt which was ruled a sacrifice. The bunt was successful since it advanced both runners to scoring position with Burress coming up.

I think Ramsey called the bunt since GS is very good at turning DPs. Two against us and 3 over the weekend. I didn't like it since Brosius is not a good bunter (at least in that AB) and was amazed that he was attempting another bunt with two strikes.

Pick your poison, risk another DP from the 9 hole hitter who probably hits a lot of ground balls or set up like we did to have Burress come through. Ironic that the inning ended on a DP isn't it? But we made it a 1 run game. Could have scored more and could have scored less.

We won

I happened to watch Tulane last night after the GT game. They played a very good Nichols club (NCAA team last year) and executed a perfect sac bunt in the 7th inning of a 2-1 game to move a lead off double over to third base. Next batter sac fly to score the insurance run. Won the game 3-2. Announcers talked about how effective Tulane was at using the sac bunt. Certainly worked to perfection in that game.
For every decision one can argue that the opposite would have turned out better <shrug>.

 

[Golden Tornadoes]

After that first inning, McGuire really locked in and shut down GSU's offense. I was really impressed how he responded to adversity and worked through it.

 

[L41k18]

The numbers clearly show that, statistically, giving away an out deceases the potential for scoring. It's not an emotional thing, just data.

However. In (very rare) circumstances, when all the variables are in place, it's the right move.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

The numbers clearly show that, statistically, giving away an out deceases the potential for scoring. It's not an emotional thing, just data.

However. In (very rare) circumstances, when all the variables are in place, it's the right move.

The "data shows" that "giving" away an out is bad. But bunting which results in a hit is good.

Radford had two successful bunts for hits in a row against us.

I have a baseball book of stats which basically says in 30 pages that bunting is appropriate if the chances of a hit are higher. Whether due to skill of bunt placement and/ or speed of runner.

I'll take a Chandler Simpson anytime. Bunted well and had speed.

 

[L41k18]

The "data shows" that "giving" away an out is bad. But bunting which results in a hit is good.

Radford had two successful bunts for hits in a row against us.

I have a baseball book of stats which basically says in 30 pages that bunting is appropriate if the chances of a hit are higher. Whether due to skill of bunt placement and/ or speed of runner.

I'll take a Chandler Simpson anytime. Bunted well and had speed.

Of course. I was referring to the sac bunt.

 

[YoungSting]

yes, statistically giving up a sac bunt is not worth giving up an out. But you know what hurts your chances even more, a double play. At the moment, did you trust our bats to stay out of the double play?

 

[TampaBuzz]

There are times when a sac bunt is absolutely the correct play. Here is my "absolutely" scenario. You are down 4-1 in the 7th with men on 1st and 2nd with nobody out and the #9 hitter coming up. You absolutely, positively need to score at least one run to close the gap. Best percentage play is sac bunt and get both runners into scoring position. The man on third can score in a myriad of ways in that situation - base hit, sac fly, past ball, grounder to short/2nd (assuming they are playing back for an out), error.

 

[CINCYMETJACKET]

I was just trying to play with the "I hate bunting" crowd. We loved it when Simspon bunted then stole second, we either love it or are ok with it when it works, it's only when we produce an out with no runs that we really hate it.

I thought you were talking about Georgia Southern's sac bunt in the top of the first with the 3 hole hitter. Moved the runners over to second and third with one out and the next hitter drove them both in.

 

[L41k18]

I thought you were talking about Georgia Southern's sac bunt in the top of the first with the 3 hole hitter. Moved the runners over to second and third with one out and the next hitter drove them both in.

It's very dumb to do that in the first inning. They quite probably bunted themselves out of an even bigger inning. No sac, next batter singles as he did, only 1 run scores at the moment but you have runners at 1st & 3rd with no outs, as opposed to a runner at 1st with one out.

 

[GTRambler]

“To bunt, or not to bunt? That is the question.”

LOL

 

[GT33]

“To bunt, or not to bunt? That is the question.”

LOL

Bottom Line: If the bunt worked, you needed to have done it, but if you’d have gotten a hit instead, then shouldn’t have done it. If it didn’t work, it was a dumb idea to begin with. It’s about that basic.

 

[CINCYMETJACKET]

It's very dumb to do that in the first inning. They quite probably bunted themselves out of an even bigger inning. No sac, next batter singles as he did, only 1 run scores at the moment but you have runners at 1st & 3rd with no outs, as opposed to a runner at 1st with one out.

Yeah, I thought it was a strange move at the time. But then I recalled the stats that Nuke posted in post #3: Georgia Southern AVE 0.185, SLG 0.272, OBP 0.325. I guess they decided they needed to try to get runs any way they could get them...

 

[JacketOff]

If you guys are looking at MLB data for the success rates of sac bunts, you obviously have never watched a college baseball game. College is not MLB, especially not in a Tuesday midweek game with a wet field. An error turns into a rally. A rally turns into a 5 spot, a 5 spot turns into a W. The Braves don’t sac bunt because they have 8 guys in their lineup who are going to hit 20+ homers, and 3-4 who are going to hit 40+. Obviously you don’t take the bat out of their hands, but the 9 hole hitter in a college midweek game is a textbook example of a bunt situation

 

[FredJacket]

If you guys are looking at MLB data for the success rates of sac bunts, you obviously have never watched a college baseball game. College is not MLB, especially not in a Tuesday midweek game with a wet field. An error turns into a rally. A rally turns into a 5 spot, a 5 spot turns into a W. The Braves don’t sac bunt because they have 8 guys in their lineup who are going to hit 20+ homers, and 3-4 who are going to hit 40+. Obviously you don’t take the bat out of their hands, but the 9 hole hitter in a college midweek game is a textbook example of a bunt situation

Good points. I do wonder about the amount of analytic data available to college coaches (compared to MLB)... in addition (obviously) to the differences in said data informing in-game decisions.

I did not like the bunt decision in B7 last night. If the wetness of the field (which was real and legit) and/or some other factors I have no access to tipped the scale for Ramsey, then credit to him for getting it righr. The 2 baserunners that moved over on the bunt did score. My gut feeling in the moment was the guy bunting had failed to execute a bunt during a previous at bat (one where he singled with 2 strikes... IIRC) and in a 3-run game with 9 outs to give, I felt baserunners were a premium in that spot... over giveaway outs.

I agree with you that the MLB game is different "enough" that some in-game tactical moves should be made using the college "book" and not the MLB one.

Another thing I wonder.. as I continue to ramble... is delegation of duties prepping for games and in-game. Until told otherwise, I assume game planning is done pregame with CDH acting as a CEO aware to the extent he needs/wants to be; but the work & the plan is put together by the staff. ...and in-game, in practical terms how are things managed. Is Ramsey/Taylor calling all the shots with CDH having veto power. If so.. how is the veto executed? ...and even more interesting, how much vetoing happens?

 

[JacketOff]

Good points. I do wonder about the amount of analytic data available to college coaches (compared to MLB)... in addition (obviously) to the differences in said data informing in-game decisions.

I did not like the bunt decision in B7 last night. If the wetness of the field (which was real and legit) and/or some other factors I have no access to tipped the scale for Ramsey, then credit to him for getting it righr. The 2 baserunners that moved over on the bunt did score. My gut feeling in the moment was the guy bunting had failed to execute a bunt during a previous at bat (one where he singled with 2 strikes... IIRC) and in a 3-run game with 9 outs to give, I felt baserunners were a premium in that spot... over giveaway outs.

I agree with you that the MLB game is different "enough" that some in-game tactical moves should be made using the college "book" and not the MLB one.

Another thing I wonder.. as I continue to ramble... is delegation of duties prepping for games and in-game. Until told otherwise, I assume game planning is done pregame with CDH acting as a CEO aware to the extent he needs/wants to be; but the work & the plan is put together by the staff. ...and in-game, in practical terms how are things managed. Is Ramsey/Taylor calling all the shots with CDH having veto power. If so.. how is the veto executed? ...and even more interesting, how much vetoing happens?

CDH runs the show, with input from Taylor/Ramsey. Unless things have changed drastically this year.

Pitching wise, the PC will provide a list of arms who are available and the game situations he feels comfortable using them in. It’s up to CDH who gets hot and when to make changes, probably with Taylor in his ear based on what he’s seeing with his guys.

Ramsey’s job is to get the hitters ready for the starter they’re going to face on any given day, and give input to CDH on who he thinks should get the nod in the lineup. CDH is the one with the card and pen in his hands.

Nothing happens on gameday without CDH giving the OK, and most decisions are coming straight from CDH. No matter what y’all think about the guy, he’s the winningest active coach in the country for a reason. He knows what he’s doing, a helluva lot more than the local yokels who light up this board.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

........

Nothing happens on gameday without CDH giving the OK, and most decisions are coming straight from CDH. No matter what y’all think about the guy, he’s the winningest active coach in the country for a reason. He knows what he’s doing, a helluva lot more than the local yokels who light up this board.

I don't like Hall's record in getting to and performing in post-season. over the last 15 years relative to the ranked talent we have coming in. Sure he knows what he is doing more than me or others but he doesn't get the results for the talent.

Sure he's the winningest coach around since he is one of the longest serving and we have such a talent differential that even a local yokel could do well on winning percentage against weak teams. Not in post season where the best teams play.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Of course. I was referring to the sac bunt.

Here's my problem with the concept of the "sac" bunt. It's only a sac if it doesn't work out and an out is made with runners advancing. So the player is trying to bunt successfully in all cases I would think. I haven't seen a player just stand at home plate waiting to be tagged. (Like Schrödinger's cat we only know after the fact what it was, until it happens it could be either.)

If it does work out, it's scored a successful bunt or in field hit isn't it? I don't think that successful bunts are scored as sacs, but then again it's scoring.