I guess Cohen and Renfroe didn't read Will James's post
- Thread starter Bro Montana
- Start date
God 17ing damnit you moron if there is a man on 1st and no outs and our sac gets us on via error it's still equated in the BUNT category. That happened TWICE last year!!! For the 50th time I am already doing what you want
Your and dubmass. Don't view the thread and especially don't comment. It's not a sometimes sometimes not. MLB has been reducing the bunts greatly over the past decade
Why didn't you include Renfroe's bunt?
Hmmmm.....
Again- what that stat doesn't tell you is the game situation. Are we facing another teams ace? Maybe we aren't bunting because we are tearing the cover off the ball and scoring lots of runs against a certain pitcher? Maybe we are more likely to bunt against a certain pitcher that is more difficult to hit and we are in a close game?
All I know is that doing ******** "your way" would have us either down a run or tied at best in this game.
The only thing that is obvious to to the board is that you are a troll who is using flawed stats in a lame effort to be Coach34 junior. Only problem is Coach34 actually has good points and knows more about sports than you.
Hmmmm.....
Again- what that stat doesn't tell you is the game situation. Are we facing another teams ace? Maybe we aren't bunting because we are tearing the cover off the ball and scoring lots of runs against a certain pitcher? Maybe we are more likely to bunt against a certain pitcher that is more difficult to hit and we are in a close game?
All I know is that doing ******** "your way" would have us either down a run or tied at best in this game.
The only thing that is obvious to to the board is that you are a troll who is using flawed stats in a lame effort to be Coach34 junior. Only problem is Coach34 actually has good points and knows more about sports than you.
Instead of getting your panties in a wad
Why don't you answer the question? You said in this thread that Renfroe's squeeze was a dumb play. So, I said you should have been OK with a squeeze play since that's not moving the runner over to second with no outs. And are bunt singles equated as bunts? No.
Oh- and look at that as I'm typing this we just won a game in large part because of that "dumb play". Maybe you like baseball so much you want to see extra innings?
So, I guess I guess it's Cohen's 17ing fault that we won this right?
Why don't you answer the question? You said in this thread that Renfroe's squeeze was a dumb play. So, I said you should have been OK with a squeeze play since that's not moving the runner over to second with no outs. And are bunt singles equated as bunts? No.
Oh- and look at that as I'm typing this we just won a game in large part because of that "dumb play". Maybe you like baseball so much you want to see extra innings?
So, I guess I guess it's Cohen's 17ing fault that we won this right?
If you have your high SLG guys bunt after bad strike outs, then over the course of a season, you will score less runs. In my opinion, and I know that many disagree with this, the coach should only consider bunting when you need one run to tie or take a lead late. That probably fit this situation.
Come on Todd, these are college players with scouting reports...
And they know exactly how a pitcher will pitch them the rest of the time he's in the game, after their initial at bat. If he makes you look stupid on a pitch in a certain AB, you better be looking for that the first pitch next time, and keep looking for it until you either hit it hard somewhere or he cannot throw it for a strike.
If you hit a pill on a Fastball you previous AB, you better be looking something offspeed next AB. And vice versa. This is baseball and its a game of adjustments. Its knowing tendencies, pitchers "Out" pitches, what and when they throw specific pitches. If our hitters aren't smart enough to remember scouting report and make in game adjustments, it will be a long year in the batters box.
There is no GF 17ing excuse for bunting Rea in the, man on 1st no out, situation. You take the bat out of the hands of your best power hitter? No way. He can advance the runner many ways and also has the potential to hit one in the gap/over fence, to advance the runner multiple bases. You dont take the bat out of Rea's hand in that spot.
ONLY TIME you MIGHT THINK to BUNT REA in that situation is if you are in the last 3 innings and down by 1. Not in the 4th-5th inning.
And we can't keep depending on 1 run wins all year. There's no chance to win CWS or even make Omaha if you have to depend on bunting and giving up 1-2 innings worth of outs a game to score runs. Once again, these are college athletes.
When you give up 3-6+ outs a game on bunts, you take away 3-6+ opportunities for something to go wrong on defense. A bunt is the easiest play to defend for a putout. Therefore you're essetially conceding 1-2 innings a game. Not to mention 3-6+ opportunities for us to get a hit that could be for multiple bases, thus moving players and the batter more than one base potentially.
We will not make OMAHA playing this way. Every team in a Super Regional has great pitching. The difference in a SR the team who can put up crooked numbers on the scoreboard. The teams that play in Omaha can swing the sticks and only bunt when necessary. They don't use the bunt as their main offensive weapon. You can't argue that.
And they know exactly how a pitcher will pitch them the rest of the time he's in the game, after their initial at bat. If he makes you look stupid on a pitch in a certain AB, you better be looking for that the first pitch next time, and keep looking for it until you either hit it hard somewhere or he cannot throw it for a strike.
If you hit a pill on a Fastball you previous AB, you better be looking something offspeed next AB. And vice versa. This is baseball and its a game of adjustments. Its knowing tendencies, pitchers "Out" pitches, what and when they throw specific pitches. If our hitters aren't smart enough to remember scouting report and make in game adjustments, it will be a long year in the batters box.
There is no GF 17ing excuse for bunting Rea in the, man on 1st no out, situation. You take the bat out of the hands of your best power hitter? No way. He can advance the runner many ways and also has the potential to hit one in the gap/over fence, to advance the runner multiple bases. You dont take the bat out of Rea's hand in that spot.
ONLY TIME you MIGHT THINK to BUNT REA in that situation is if you are in the last 3 innings and down by 1. Not in the 4th-5th inning.
And we can't keep depending on 1 run wins all year. There's no chance to win CWS or even make Omaha if you have to depend on bunting and giving up 1-2 innings worth of outs a game to score runs. Once again, these are college athletes.
When you give up 3-6+ outs a game on bunts, you take away 3-6+ opportunities for something to go wrong on defense. A bunt is the easiest play to defend for a putout. Therefore you're essetially conceding 1-2 innings a game. Not to mention 3-6+ opportunities for us to get a hit that could be for multiple bases, thus moving players and the batter more than one base potentially.
We will not make OMAHA playing this way. Every team in a Super Regional has great pitching. The difference in a SR the team who can put up crooked numbers on the scoreboard. The teams that play in Omaha can swing the sticks and only bunt when necessary. They don't use the bunt as their main offensive weapon. You can't argue that.
Um I won't include Renfroes bunt in my analysis of bunting with a man of first with no outs because it wasn't a man on first and no outs. Are you that dumb? I would rather not squeeze there but it was not the source of my problem. Bunting with just a man on first and no outs is. Like Fraziers and Reas were. Which led to no runs.
OH **** IT .. All we need now is Extremedog to jump in with his free throw ********. You stupid ******** need a life and quit wanting to be coaches cause you would suck at it. It would put you in the category with Corch 34 which is not a place you would want to be.
So because our players read a scouting report, they should be able to hit a pitcher just based on that? One that they have NEVER faced before? Just because a hitter is looking for a pitch and knows it's coming doesn't mean that he will be able to hit it. I know Randy Johnson would throw me a slider. Lots of MLB hitters knew it. FEW could hit it. Again- sometimes hitters have trouble hitting certain pitchers.
See the above response. Again, just because you are looking for a pitch does not mean you will be able to hit it. If you can't hit it, you have to do something else. And just because you adjust - it doesn't mean you will be successful from at bat to at bat.
We're talking about Renfroe bunting here. Try to stay on topic.
We can't "depend on winning one run games?" So, what do you propose we should do? Lose them? Not do anything to try to win them? So, we should light up everyone we face? Let me tell you something- the 1927 Yankees played some one run games that were low scoring. Sometimes, an offense doesn't hit a pitcher. It happens to everybody. We are going to play some low scoring games. We are also going to play some high scoring games. We are also going to blow some people out like yesterday. I'm glad we have a coach that will do something to create some runs to try to WIN the low scoring games rather than just sit back and do nothing and lose or go to extra innings. We beat the tar out of this team yesterday and didn't bunt once because we didn't have to. We did today because we were facing their ace and it allowed us to win. Don't sit there and act like ANYONE is saying let's play all low scoring one run games.
Secondly, we are bunting 3-6 x a game? Link please? According to the MSdawg34 we only averaged a little over ONE sacrifice a game-(67 in 64 games) not including bunt singles which obviously aren't giving up outs. And that was with our worst offense that we've had with Cohen with very little power
So, you're saying that we won't make it to OMAHA by doing what it takes to win a close game? I'm not saying that the bunt is our main offensive weapon, but if squeezing a man home wins the game as it did today, and it wins us a close game to win the NC- I'm all for it. Not only that- I think Augie Garrido would strongly disagree with you- and he bunts far more than Cohen. Let's not confuse bunting as a main weapon for creating runs. There is a BIG difference. Bunting is only part of creating runs- that also includes stealing, hit and running, and etc.RougeDawg842179 said:
I will tell you what I believe wins in OMAHA- great pitching (we agree), great defense, and balance on offense. Balance means being able to win a slugfest with power and also being able to create runs in a low scoring game if necessary. I think Cohen agrees with me. Today happened to be a day where we had to win a low scoring game. But instead of being HAPPY about winning, we have some fans that have to try to douche it up because it's not "the way that they wanted to win".
Once again question Stans, Koenning, Wilson, Mullen? Ok. Question Cohen? Aw **** stop your dumb just... Just.... You don't know just stop.
It's ridiculous that any criticism of Cohen gets these merry band of groupies aroused. Can't even talk about one little aspect of the game without you people shitting debate down.
So, your "bunt analysis"
Doesn't include bunts that work? And YET you aGAIN you said that was a dumb play. It was the play that was the difference in us maybe losing or going to extra innings.
If I was going to do quality analysis on something- I would include all situations and all instances. Something aGAIN you have failed to do and have proven that you didn't account for. So, don't call me dumb when I am calling you out shooting holes when you are the one that wasn't smart enough to account for them in the first place. That doesn't make me the "dumb" one. It makes me right.
Doesn't include bunts that work? And YET you aGAIN you said that was a dumb play. It was the play that was the difference in us maybe losing or going to extra innings.
If I was going to do quality analysis on something- I would include all situations and all instances. Something aGAIN you have failed to do and have proven that you didn't account for. So, don't call me dumb when I am calling you out shooting holes when you are the one that wasn't smart enough to account for them in the first place. That doesn't make me the "dumb" one. It makes me right.
Are people not criticizing Cohen for throwing Mitchell to start the sixth?
I wonder why me, Coach34, and Cadaver aren't getting called out about that? Probably because we are right and can back it up.
The reason YOU are getting called out is not because Cohen is a sacred cow. It's because what you are saying is flawed and wrong and you keep hammering it even though you have been proven wrong. You're not ruffling anyone's feathers- in fact last time I checked you were the one calling me dumb among other things. You're just making yourself look ridiculous and like you are a Coach34 wannabe. I know he is flattered.
If you are going to criticize Cohen- that's fine- but pick something logical to criticize about him. I gave you a good example with Mitchell, now go for it.
I wonder why me, Coach34, and Cadaver aren't getting called out about that? Probably because we are right and can back it up.
The reason YOU are getting called out is not because Cohen is a sacred cow. It's because what you are saying is flawed and wrong and you keep hammering it even though you have been proven wrong. You're not ruffling anyone's feathers- in fact last time I checked you were the one calling me dumb among other things. You're just making yourself look ridiculous and like you are a Coach34 wannabe. I know he is flattered.
If you are going to criticize Cohen- that's fine- but pick something logical to criticize about him. I gave you a good example with Mitchell, now go for it.
Just like your discussion with patdog about drafting juniors and seniors you are now just being willfully ignorant. If we were discussing hitting with runners in scoring position would you come back with "Well you're not counting the at bats with no one on base so it's flawed"? Probably...
I didn't like the bunt with Frazier because he is a hit machine but I thought we made a mistake in the earlier inning where Renfroe bunted by not bunting again with the bases loaded and 1 out with Henderson. He ended up hitting into a double play instead to end the inning.
I didn't like using Renfroe there. Last year he screwed a couple up and today's bunt got popped up 15 feet in the air. Some people just aren't comfortable bunting especially at this level. Hunter has probably never bunted outside of BP before college. He is a beast at the plate, extra bases threat every AB. Ammo and Slauter would have caught his pop up bunt, doubled off Rea, and we have a wasted inning. Everyone else, go for it. Renfroe, just swing baby. With first and third no out, and first and second no out that could have potentially been a HUGE inning sealing the game. After two of our best hitters bunt (Renfroe and Norris) we get one. That's what Coach mentioned earlier about our big bats laying them down as well as the great post by RougeDawg. Holde will not have a 0.00 era again and Rouge's point about putting up crooked letters in the NCAA's is correct. Rouges was the post of the year in my opinion and should be stuck at the top of the board as a PSA for all to read.
Interesting thread. Good points by everybody.
The constant name calling, esp. dumb and various variations, gets really old and doesn't add quality to the discussion. But a lot of baseball thought-food in this thread for sure. Coach34 at his best here.
The constant name calling, esp. dumb and various variations, gets really old and doesn't add quality to the discussion. But a lot of baseball thought-food in this thread for sure. Coach34 at his best here.
When someone questions why I don't include bunts with runners on 3rd in my "bunts with a man on first, no out" stats I think it's dumb. The fifteenth time they ask I will say it's dumb and ignorant.
Can't bunt Henderson with the bases loaded....force play at every base. Just bad luck that the grounder he hit was hit hard enough to double him up.
Everybody knows that I think bunting in certain situations is good for producing runs. I thought the Renfroe bunt was a good call just because it caught them off guard and we weren't swinging the bats well at the time. If the pitcher had caught it would I have felt that way? Probably not. But it worked so I give credit to Cohen for the ballsy call.
At the same time, I think he made the wrong decision in sac bunting Wes Rea, and I think he made an even worse decision in sac bunting Frazier. Frazier gets a hit over a third of his at bats...you gotta let him try to get on. Then, if he walks or gets a single and you want to bunt CT to move runners to 2nd and 3rd, fine....but don't take the bat out of Frazier's hands in that spot.
Cohen has a lot of confidence in his pitching staff. Some could say too much confidence...but so far it has worked more times than it has failed. I agree with Will James that Holder will not have a 0.00 ERA this year, so I think Cohen needs to play for some bigger innings this year. And I think he will. But when in doubt, Cohen is going to try to get a 1 run lead and hold em if he doesn't feel like we can string hits together. That lefty had our number today so Cohen felt the need to manufacture. As long as he picks his spots and they work, I'm fine with it. But if/when our staff starts blowing these 1 run leads....he will be criticized heavily by many, including me, if he doesn't quit doing that ****.
Once again...if our staff can continue dominance like last year, then do whatever as long as you're winning. But as soon as they can't shut opponents down, I will expect Cohen to try and play for bigger innings.
There aren't many coaches that take the bat out of a power hitter's hands in the middle of a game. Late game situations, and situations where we have to try something to score some runs bc we aren't hitting, I can live with bunts. Having Rea or Frazier sac bunt a guy to 2nd in the 5th or 6th inning against Portland....I'm not a fan of. But a W is a W, I just want him to learn from it.
Basically, as we begin hitting the ball as a team with better average and power...I fully expect Cohen to reduce the bunting. We shall see though.
Last edited:
The fact that you have an "analysis of bunting" is laughable in and of its self. We have a coach that likes to bunt. Either like it or don't like it. But let's not rehash this argument every game like we did last year. And if you seriously compute every bunt we have into a little calculation, then you really need to get another hobby. The bunting will work some, and it won't work some.
Did you pass first grade? It's not a calculation, it's a tally. Runner on 1st, no outs. We either bunt or don't. We score or don't. My 'hobby' takes 20 seconds of my day. Genius. Notice that I didn't start this thread and nobody rehashed anything after yesterday's game. You also don't have to read it. Like Coach said we will have a lot of good debates this year on the MSU sports message board so if you're looking for "OT: Best bowties and loafers in Jackson" get the 17 over to Nafoom.
I'm sure that most players believe....
in being "hot" and "cold" and that they feel differently, see the ball differently, etc. when they are on hot streaks. But if you accept that, you've torpedoed your entire argument regarding bunting. If you accept that, then you can accept Todd4State's analysis that you should bunt because that batter had a poor at-bat against the pitcher his last time up, or you can accept any number of other subjective reasons why you should bunt at any given point in the game. However, hot and cold streaks can be explained almost completely by pure chance.
Flipping a coin hundreds of times will result in "hot" and "cold" streaks much longer than most people expect is possible from chance. Its been proven that bunting reduces the number of runs scored over the long term. Just as its been proven that base stealing can reduce the number of runs scored over the long term. These results prove that managers are not better at maximizing runs through their consideration of factors such as how hot a player is, game situations, etc.
Having said all of that, there are certainly times in a game when you would trade a higher chance to score one run for a reduced chance to score more than one run. Which is why bunting can be appropriate in late game situations.
in being "hot" and "cold" and that they feel differently, see the ball differently, etc. when they are on hot streaks. But if you accept that, you've torpedoed your entire argument regarding bunting. If you accept that, then you can accept Todd4State's analysis that you should bunt because that batter had a poor at-bat against the pitcher his last time up, or you can accept any number of other subjective reasons why you should bunt at any given point in the game. However, hot and cold streaks can be explained almost completely by pure chance.
Flipping a coin hundreds of times will result in "hot" and "cold" streaks much longer than most people expect is possible from chance. Its been proven that bunting reduces the number of runs scored over the long term. Just as its been proven that base stealing can reduce the number of runs scored over the long term. These results prove that managers are not better at maximizing runs through their consideration of factors such as how hot a player is, game situations, etc.
Having said all of that, there are certainly times in a game when you would trade a higher chance to score one run for a reduced chance to score more than one run. Which is why bunting can be appropriate in late game situations.
Sure but that's not what Cohen does. He plays for one run early and in the middle of games bunting our best hitters. And even considering what you are saying Boyd has updated his run tables boydsworld.com/data/ert.html
From the 2011 and 2012 college D1 seasons man on first no outs produced 1.07 runs per inning (right where we were last year when not bunting MO1 no out) and a 49% chance of scoring.
Man on 2nd 1 out produced .82 runs per inning and dropped to a 47% chance of scoring.
This is why I rail on the bunt one man over play. Bunting over 2 runners is not the same thing, although I don't like doing that with big bats like Norris yesterday. But the bunting one man over from first is not good, even when trying to manufacture just one run.
Im on a phone so if that link doesn't work I'll update it later on a CPU.
Bunting is a vital part of baseball. Anyone who can't or won't understand that needs to stick to soccer.
I don't think they bunt in soccer.
I don't think they bunt in soccer.
Bunting one man from first to second is not. It's baffling that idiots like you and Todd can't see the difference that I am talking about.
They should have shown this thread to the terrorist from the opening scene of zero dark thirty. It would have saved me the next 2 plus hours of the movie and the usa 7 years of searching for bin laden.
Apparently, it is. That's why you've been incessantly whining for the past three days. Right? Riiiiiiiiggghhht!
Baseball is a situational game and I'm sorry everything doesn't fit neatly into your little calculat ... errr ... tally.
You are not "right" about this. Never have been and never will be.
Seems that many on here agree with me or are seeing the light (Pat CadDawg Coach Philly Rogue)
ETA my sig quotes should set you straight. Engie carries more weight around here than you
Last edited:
I don't care who agrees with you. That means nothing.
The bottom line is there is more to coaching baseball than Will James' Paint-by-Numbers Simple Decision Making Tally. If it were that simple, we could hire a trained monkey ... or ... you ... to coach our baseball team for us. Save us a lot of money. But, no team in America has done that. Do you wonder why?
Coach Cohen is paid to make those in-game decisions and if they don't mesh with you little "tally", then so be it. There are a variety of factors that play into the decision more than simply "man on first with nobody out". Factors that your tally can't account for and which makes it invalid and irrelevant as Todd4State suggests.
You can never take the human component out of the game. If the players were robots, then the statistics provided by your little tally may apply to every situation like you think they should. However, since they are human, I'll give a coach latitude to make decisions based on what he sees and what he thinks will allow us the chance to win the game depending on the situation.
Of course there is more to coaching than this. Cohen is a great coach but this one flaw costs us runs and games. There is no flaw in my analysis. That makes no sense whatsoever. I've shown you the Boyd numbers ive shown you our results. If you want to stick your head in the sand about this flaw fine but most people are aware of it.
The only flaw is in your reasoning. The silly idea that coaching decisions should always be based on statistics. That's the only flaw.
Shut up and let the man coach.
This is Never said for Stans Mullen Koenning Wilson Croom etc... Any Cohen critiques brings your type out in full force though.