Louisville at GT Easter Weekend

[Lagrangejacket]

And to go back to your previous comment, you can never say that a sac bunt 'got us runs' (or didn't 'get us runs'). Let's go back to the 8th:

Johnson flied out. 1 out.
Wilhite singled.
Murray bunted (Wilhite to 2nd). 2 outs.
Curry singles, Wilhite scores. Curry to second on the throw.
Peurifoy grounded out. 3 outs.

You can't say that 'got us' runs because we don't know what would've happened if Murray hadn't bunted. Maybe he grounds into a double play, and the sac truly did 'get us' a run. Maybe he homers, and the sac cost us at least one run and and out (with a .299 and .329 hitter due up). Maybe he grounds out to 1B, advancing he runner, and the outcome was indifferent to the sac. That's why using averages over the course of the season (or many seasons) is important.

The goal is to score more runs than the opponent, period. Our strategy didn't do that today. On average, our bunts cost us 0.73 runs for the game.

 

[THWG]

Let me ask you this: does it matter? If I've never played the lottery, and I tell you that it's a bad investment, am I wrong? Would you rather trust someone who plays the lottery and insists that the 'feeling' or the 'streak' is more important than the statistics?

It's only a bad investment if I lose. That is an apples and oranges comparison. I wouldn't listen to a person who plays the lottery and insists that there us a streak or it's a feeling. In baseball though, I would play it by the books and based on feel because that's what has worked in baseball. I mean just look at the west coast teams who have won the college world series recently. UCLA would sac bunt every chance they get and score just enough for their pitching. I don't think that they scored over 5 runs in a game, yet they won it all. This is just the way that I look at baseball and I'm not going to change that.

 

[THWG]

And to go back to your previous comment, you can never say that a sac bunt 'got us runs' (or didn't 'get us runs'). Let's go back to the 8th:

Johnson flied out. 1 out.
Wilhite singled.
Murray bunted (Wilhite to 2nd). 2 outs.
Curry singles, Wilhite scores. Curry to second on the throw.
Peurifoy grounded out. 3 outs.

You can't say that 'got us' runs because we don't know what would've happened if Murray hadn't bunted. Maybe he grounds into a double play, and the sac truly did 'get us' a run. Maybe he homers, and the sac cost us at least one run and and out (with a .299 and .329 hitter due up). Maybe he grounds out to 1B, advancing he runner, and the outcome was indifferent to the sac. That's why using averages over the course of the season (or many seasons) is important.

The goal is to score more runs than the opponent, period. Our strategy didn't do that today. On average, our bunts cost us 0.73 runs for the game.

Agree to disagree I guess because that's not the way I see it. What I see is a productive out that moved a runner into scoring position which increased the odds of getting him in and that's what happened.

 

[Lagrangejacket]

It's only a bad investment if I lose. That is an apples and oranges comparison. I wouldn't listen to a person who plays the lottery and insists that there us a streak or it's a feeling. In baseball though, I would play it by the books and based on feel because that's what has worked in baseball. I mean just look at the west coast teams who have won the college world series recently. UCLA would sac bunt every chance they get and score just enough for their pitching. I don't think that they scored over 5 runs in a game, yet they won it all. This is just the way that I look at baseball and I'm not going to change that.

And I can count on one hand the number of times we've held an ACC opponent to under 5 runs this season.

It's one thing to play small ball if you're trotting out Greg Maddux. It's another thing if your pitching staff is 13th in ERA in the conference.

 

[THWG]

And I can count on one hand the number of times we've held an ACC opponent to under 5 runs this season.

It's one thing to play small ball if you're trotting out Greg Maddux. It's another thing if your pitching staff is 13th in ERA in the conference.

I can agree with that, but as a coach or a player, you have to feel that 1 run might win the game for you. If you don't trust your staff (That's a very hard thing to do when they're 13th in ERA) then you might as well forfeit the game.

 

[FredJacket]

But the goal of baseball isn't to get runs. It's to get more runs than the other team.

Using the expected run tables I linked above, those three decisions cost us 0.73 expected runs.

But 4.73 is still less than 5.

 

[buzz_wiser©]

When is the last time we haven't even qualified for the ACC tourney?

 

[FredJacket]

I'd assume... it's never happened.
...but I don't have energy to do research right now.

 

[buzz_wiser©]

I'd assume... it's never happened....

That's what I'm thinking!

 

[tatertot1]

I was at this game today,first time,right behind Coleman Poje parents,nice family,his mother was keeping score,Curry impresed me the most and wished Shaddy was out there another inning,we have to protect better leads than this one,we had it won! but u cant win them all louisville was just a good team,we had a great time im also glad that there's somebody from south georgia at Tech from my alma mater Tift county,we will beat Mercer and beat georgia we need to,Go Jackets i was glad to be there

 

[Squints]

Hey guys I found some of our season highlights in gif form:

 

[Squints]

But the goal of baseball isn't to get runs. It's to get more runs than the other team.

Using the expected run tables I linked above, those three decisions cost us 0.73 expected runs.

What expected run tables are you referring to? I can't seem to find your link. You have to be careful applying those to college baseball because as far as I know they are all made with MLB data. They don't necessarily translate to NCAA.

That being said we bunt way too much and it's maddening. We're asking guys who have an OPS in the neighborhood of .900 to give themselves up in the first few innings. That's insane. I could understand it if we did it late game when it's close. I wouldn't like it but I could understand it. It feels like every time we get a lead off single it's a guaranteed bunt for the next guy regardless of the game situation. With a line-up filled with guys who can hit and hit with authority. It's one of my biggest issues with Danny Hall's coaching. It appears he's way too old school on this. I mean IIRC we've asked Joey Bart to bunt after a lead off single late in a game while we were down by a run or two. What the ****? That should not happen.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

What expected run tables are you referring to? I can't seem to find your link. You have to be careful applying those to college baseball because as far as I know they are all made with MLB data. They don't necessarily translate to NCAA.

That being said we bunt way too much and it's maddening. We're asking guys who have an OPS in the neighborhood of .900 to give themselves up in the first few innings. That's insane. I could understand it if we did it late game when it's close. I wouldn't like it but I could understand it. It feels like every time we get a lead off single it's a guaranteed bunt for the next guy regardless of the game situation. With a line-up filled with guys who can hit and hit with authority. It's one of my biggest issues with Danny Hall's coaching. It appears he's way too old school on this. I mean IIRC we've asked Joey Bart to bunt after a lead off single late in a game while we were down by a run or two. What the ****? That should not happen.

I hate to agree with you twice at once but here goes.

First, on bunting, I agree again since we don't bunt well. That pop out bunt by Bailey in the first inning after a lead off double against ND (Friday game) will haunt me until I kill the brain cells.

Second, I haven't done a statistical study, but I think you are right that the ineptness of our infield is not well demonstrated by lack of turning double plays. (Previous post.) It seems that our pitchers have generated very few ground balls in the last two weeks. It seems we (Gold) did a lot better last year. I have no stomach to go back and research those stats. The fielding percentages and lack of a first baseman who can consistently dig out the errant throws (like English seemed to do last year) are enough.

 

[Lagrangejacket]

What expected run tables are you referring to? I can't seem to find your link. You have to be careful applying those to college baseball because as far as I know they are all made with MLB data. They don't necessarily translate to NCAA.

That being said we bunt way too much and it's maddening. We're asking guys who have an OPS in the neighborhood of .900 to give themselves up in the first few innings. That's insane. I could understand it if we did it late game when it's close. I wouldn't like it but I could understand it. It feels like every time we get a lead off single it's a guaranteed bunt for the next guy regardless of the game situation. With a line-up filled with guys who can hit and hit with authority. It's one of my biggest issues with Danny Hall's coaching. It appears he's way too old school on this. I mean IIRC we've asked Joey Bart to bunt after a lead off single late in a game while we were down by a run or two. What the ****? That should not happen.

Maybe it was another thread on which I linked it, but the expected run tables I'm using are from NCAA division 1. They are post-BBCOR but before the new balls.

Also, our expected runs are ~10% higher than that table implies , so bunting is probably slightly worse than the table and my previous calculations imply.

 

[ibeattetris]

Are Louisville fans angry at their coach for sac bunting in the ninth? I'm guessing not. There is a time and place for bunting (I agree with Squints that we bunt too early in the game). All of these score sheets are across all batters. This doesn't take into account for whether it is a strong or a weak hitter.

If you have a struggling batter with a runner on first, no outs and down one in the eighth, a bunt is a great call. If it's the third inning and you have Barry Bonds coming to the plate, maybe you let him swing away.

 

[Lagrangejacket]

It’s easy to look back and say certain strategies were a good or bad decision - but outcome can easily be confused with strategy. It’s the same fallacy THWG made with the ‘it's only a bad investment if I lose’ comment about lottery tickets above: unfortunately, you can’t know which lottery tickets are winners beforehand. Similarly, you don’t usually know how many runs you need to win a baseball game.

A notable exception is the late innings, especially the bottom of the 9th. If you’re tied in the bottom of the 9th, you know you need exactly one run to win the game, and you should maximize your probability to score exactly one run. That sometimes - but not always - means laying down a bunt, depending on how good the batter is.

That situation aside, your chances of winning a game obviously increase as you score more runs. And the more runs you give up - either by bad pitching or bad fielding - the more runs you need to score. We are 13th of 14th in the ACC in runs allowed - so we need to score a lot of runs. The obvious implication is that we need to make managerial decisions that increase our expected runs - and essentially zero of our decisions to bunt do that.

As ibeattetris says above, exceptions may be in order if you batter sucks. But that’s not the case - the average OBP of our 4 top sac bunters is 0.326.

 

[Lagrangejacket]

I also did a correlation of ACC teams of runs/game to sacrifice hits/game. Stats are here. The data are noisy, but the correlation coefficient is -1.4; that is, for each additional sacrifice hit per game a team averages, they average 1.4 fewer runs per game.

Wake Forest is tied for lowest of sac hits/game (.263) and lead the league in runs per game (8.66).

 

[THWG]

It’s easy to look back and say certain strategies were a good or bad decision - but outcome can easily be confused with strategy. It’s the same fallacy THWG made with the ‘it's only a bad investment if I lose’ comment about lottery tickets above: unfortunately, you can’t know which lottery tickets are winners beforehand. Similarly, you don’t usually know how many runs you need to win a baseball game.

Exactly, you don't know how many runs you will need to win a game, so get 1 when you can and that might be enough to win the game. This is why I believe so strongly in sac bunting with a runner on 2nd and nobody out, unless it's your 3-5 hitters or your team is teeing off on a guy. Especially in college when a good bunt could also turn into an error or a base hit. Get runs when you can because you don't know how many you will need. As a coach, you have to have confidence in your staff and defense to make all the plays and hold the other team to less runs than you. Is it realistic, absolutely not (especially when your 13th in ERA). However, you have to believe that they can and will.

 

[Squints]

Maybe it was another thread on which I linked it, but the expected run tables I'm using are from NCAA division 1. They are post-BBCOR but before the new balls.

Also, our expected runs are ~10% higher than that table implies , so bunting is probably slightly worse than the table and my previous calculations imply.

Oh cool this is awesome! I had no idea that someone actually did the work to figure a matrix for the NCAA. Thanks!

 

[Squints]

Exactly, you don't know how many runs you will need to win a game, so get 1 when you can and that might be enough to win the game. This is why I believe so strongly in sac bunting with a runner on 2nd and nobody out, unless it's your 3-5 hitters or your team is teeing off on a guy. Especially in college when a good bunt could also turn into an error or a base hit. Get runs when you can because you don't know how many you will need. As a coach, you have to have confidence in your staff and defense to make all the plays and hold the other team to less runs than you. Is it realistic, absolutely not (especially when your 13th in ERA). However, you have to believe that they can and will.

I'd argue that as a coach you need to realize the team you have and play to its strengths. Like having confidence in your hitters to get the runs in without giving themselves up whenever the chance presents itself. I think they've earned that confidence far more than our pitching staff has. Playing for one run when we all know you're going to need a lot more than that is just flat out tone deaf dumb. Reeks of being too dogmatic.