When Should Hall Leave?

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm not positive, but I think he is the one that fired the previous women's softball coach. It may be that he only hired the replacement.

Yep, I just looked that up. The news about a year ago was that they decided not to renew Shelly Hoerner's contract. So technically he didn't fire her. What I'm wondering is can he make the tough personnel calls like that? We just pushed Ted Roof out even though his contract had runway left on it...without having to fire him. Can he convince Danny Hall to retire?

 

[LongforDodd]

I'm an old guy who gave 32 years to my employer. I think loyalty should be very highly valued. I know a lot of young people are job hoppers today and don't know the meaning or value of loyalty. I was allowed to retire on my terms and would have been pissed if it was otherwise. Hall should be given the same treatment as I was and see his sons play for him.

As much as it might suck for what, 2 more years, I agree with this. In the mean time, it might be worse than "suck".

 

[LongforDodd]

He will not retire/resign as long as the big three are still in his corner and I can assure you that they are. No amount of wishing will make resolve this matter unfortunately. I will still go to Omaha every year as I always do and note how much better the top programs are as compared to ours. Tech will be great one day in baseball, I really believe that. Just not with the leadership that is presently on board.

Don't you think that the "big three" might care as much about GT as they do Hall and perhaps talk DH into leaving for the betterment of the program and not selfishly stay on just to coach his sons?

 

[Home Park Jacket]

He will not retire/resign as long as the big three are still in his corner and I can assure you that they are. No amount of wishing will make resolve this matter unfortunately. I will still go to Omaha every year as I always do and note how much better the top programs are as compared to ours. Tech will be great one day in baseball, I really believe that. Just not with the leadership that is presently on board.

I wonder if any of the big 3 would keep a stock with that chart. Besides MT, who are the other 2?

 

[Lagrangejacket]

I made that chart earlier in the season, guessing the rest of our record. I actually won't need to edit it unless we lose to UNC, in which case the 2018 dot will need to be decreased by 0.25 games.

 

[Home Park Jacket]

I made that chart earlier in the season, guessing the rest of our record. I actually won't need to edit it unless we lose to UNC, in which case the 2018 dot will need to be decreased by 0.25 games.

Well, at least you expected to be disappointed (once again)

 

[GTNavyNuke]

The game has passed Hall by and he just can't get it done. My bitching won't change anything.

We had the talent to be in the NCAAs regardless of the ACC tourney but Hall couldn't get the team ready to play on the road.

My vote remains the same; Hall should have been gone before this season if the program was placed above his longevity.

 

[MWBATL]

The sad part is that he (Hall) is destroying program interest by semi-interested fans like me. I used to attend at least 10-15 home games a year and went to Omaha the last time GT went there. This year I attended (iirc) 3 home games). I just don't want the frustration of seeing this type of baseball anymore, so I dissociate and never watch them on TV either.

That's just sad. It's not like we had a huge fan base to begin with...

 

[wrmathis]

When you have your best hitter bunt with 2 on and no outs, u deserve to be fired right then and there

 

[Gold1]

He needs to go now

 

[GTNavyNuke]

When you have your best hitter bunt with 2 on and no outs, u deserve to be fired right then and there

The Pitt coach did the same thing with one of his best hitters. I think Fox of UNC did the same thing too. It's just small ball. I really don't care if it works, i.e. the person bunting is good enough at laying down the bunt, fast enough and the defense is playing back far enough to make it a good chance at getting an in-field single on top of advancing the runners. Most of the time our best hitter doesn't get on base when trying to hit as opposed to sacrifice.

My problem with Hall is that what he has been doing with the entire program doesn't bear results. I'm not arguing that we should have bunted in that situation, just that overall the program isn't winning like we should with the talent we have. And if anyone wants to argue that we don't have the talent, that is on Hall too. Maybe keep Hall as the lead recruiter.

 

[Home Park Jacket]

Maybe keep Hall as the lead recruiter.

HELL NO

 

[wrmathis]

The Pitt coach did the same thing with one of his best hitters. I think Fox of UNC did the same thing too. It's just small ball. I really don't care if it works, i.e. the person bunting is good enough at laying down the bunt, fast enough and the defense is playing back far enough to make it a good chance at getting an in-field single on top of advancing the runners. Most of the time our best hitter doesn't get on base when trying to hit as opposed to sacrifice.

My problem with Hall is that what he has been doing with the entire program doesn't bear results. I'm not arguing that we should have bunted in that situation, just that overall the program isn't winning like we should with the talent we have. And if anyone wants to argue that we don't have the talent, that is on Hall too. Maybe keep Hall as the lead recruiter.

But its been proven over and over to be a horrible strategy. just cuz everyone does it sill doesnt make it a good idea. If he was bunting for a basehit then sure fine whatever thats on the player, but its sac bunts. which most of the time is a ****ing horrible idea.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

But its been proven over and over to be a horrible strategy. just cuz everyone does it sill doesnt make it a good idea. If he was bunting for a basehit then sure fine whatever thats on the player, but its sac bunts. which most of the time is a ****ing horrible idea.

No problem. I think that many intentional sac bunts become base hits due to the placement of the bunt and the speed of the runner. So I think you are right if it is "known" that you are going to get an out and are only sacrificing. "The Book - Playing the Percentages in Baseball" spends 50 pages talking about the stats for when to bunt. The conclusion is that it is complex and not ironclad. Maybe the stats have changed. And it is fair to argue that "The Book" is based on pro ball and not college ball. In college ball, you don't have nearly the stats to base a decision on.

Here is one of the conclusions of "The Book": "In an average run environment, almost any batter can bunt as long as he is a good bunter, or a fast runner, preferably both. A poor or slow bunter should rarely be allowed to sacrifice. This trumps our earlier recommendations, which applied to all bunters as a whole, good or bad, fast or slow." I think the reason is that a good bunter is about as likely to get on by bunting as hitting. The better the hitter, the more the defense should be playing back and less able to defend the bunt. It's all about maximizing the run expectancy of the at bat.

 

[CrackerJacket]

I just don't like wasting outs on sac bunts, unless the runner you move to 3b or scoring position is for a win, a tie, or a 2-run lead in the 7th inning or later. The run expectation tables I've looked at say you have a better chance of scoring at least one run from a runner on first with no outs than a runner on 2nd with one out. The tables were based on pro baseball data, not college, but still....

I remember a game against Duke a few years ago when our first two hitters hit hard, line drive singles. So with our #3 hitter at the plate, runners on 1st & 2nd with no outs in the first inning, and Hall has the guy sac bunt. We scored just one run and eventually lost by a run. Egad. That was my Danny Hall epiphany.

But what really horrifies me is that # of wins graph vs time. We've had 10 years of declining success, with a couple of exceptions. What other Power 5 athletic program would tolerate that these days?

 

[FredJacket]

I just don't like wasting outs on sac bunts, unless the runner you move to 3b or scoring position is for a win, a tie, or a 2-run lead in the 7th inning or later. The run expectation tables I've looked at say you have a better chance of scoring at least one run from a runner on first with no outs than a runner on 2nd with one out. The tables were based on pro baseball data, not college, but still....

I remember a game against Duke a few years ago when our first two hitters hit hard, line drive singles. So with our #3 hitter at the plate, runners on 1st & 2nd with no outs in the first inning, and Hall has the guy sac bunt. We scored just one run and eventually lost by a run. Egad. That was my Danny Hall epiphany.

But what really horrifies me is that # of wins graph vs time. We've had 10 years of declining success, with a couple of exceptions. What other Power 5 athletic program would tolerate that these days?

I'm glad you brought up those run expectation tables. I've seen those too. I need to know if those tables "remove" innings where sac bunts occurred. If not... then the "expected" run numbers include runs produced from sac bunts. Am I wrong or would that make use of that data to show the flaw in sac bunting flawed?

BTW... data not withstanding, I agree with your general "situations" where sac bunting is ok.

 

[Lagrangejacket]

I just don't like wasting outs on sac bunts, unless the runner you move to 3b or scoring position is for a win, a tie, or a 2-run lead in the 7th inning or later. The run expectation tables I've looked at say you have a better chance of scoring at least one run from a runner on first with no outs than a runner on 2nd with one out. The tables were based on pro baseball data, not college, but still....

I remember a game against Duke a few years ago when our first two hitters hit hard, line drive singles. So with our #3 hitter at the plate, runners on 1st & 2nd with no outs in the first inning, and Hall has the guy sac bunt. We scored just one run and eventually lost by a run. Egad. That was my Danny Hall epiphany.

But what really horrifies me is that # of wins graph vs time. We've had 10 years of declining success, with a couple of exceptions. What other Power 5 athletic program would tolerate that these days?

There are NCAA expected runs tables, though not with as many years data as MLB. See here. There's also pre- and post-BBCOR bat era data.

MLB expected runs is lower, so sac bunting in NCAA is more costly. For example, moving runners on 1st and 2nd to 2nd and 3rd for an out decreases the expected run total by 0.1 runs in MLB but 0.23 runs in NCAA.

 

[Backstreetbuzz]

I'm an old guy who gave 32 years to my employer. I think loyalty should be very highly valued. I know a lot of young people are job hoppers today and don't know the meaning or value of loyalty. I was allowed to retire on my terms and would have been pissed if it was otherwise. Hall should be given the same treatment as I was and see his sons play for him.

Loyalty works both ways. If it is obvious you cannot do the job any more, leave and let the company that paid you for 32 years get someone who can do the job. I also retired after 32 years and turned down a “package” because I’m not get paid for not working.

 

[4shotB]

Loyalty works both ways. If it is obvious you cannot do the job any more, leave and let the company that paid you for 32 years get someone who can do the job. I also retired after 32 years and turned down a “package” because I’m not get paid for not working.

I am fascinated by the psychology of people who "hang on" despite the data that indicates they are no longer effective (worst case) or show a trend line of declining results (best case). Is it attachment to the place? or to a paycheck? To coworkers or in this case the student athletes? The belief that (somehow) "things are going to work out"? "I'm going to get my mojo back"?Not wanting to tarnish a professional reputation by leaving on a downward trend? It's common in "regular people" in the workplace as well for coaches who are in the public limelight. It's sad when the person is oblivious to the data (or chooses to ignore it) and it always forces the decision to leave to be made by someone else, which exacerbates the issue.

 

[65Jacket]

Sometimes the downward trend is not the Coach's fault. There are other factors like (1) the ACC is much tougher than it was ten years ago and (2) GT is the most unforgiving school in the conference when academics are concerned.