Question about Polk and/or bunting

FQDawg

Senior
May 1, 2006
3,076
618
113
I know there was a lot of heartache about Polk and bunting... Was it because he would never call for a bunt or because when he did, we usually sucked at it (ie, didn't coach it very well)?

The reason I ask is that I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night who said that there are stats that prove bunting a lead-off baserunner over to second makes you less likely to score. I was always under the impression that bunting a guy over was one of those accepted baseball rules but my buddy said that a guy on first with no outs is more likely to score than a guy on second with one out.

Anybody else heard this?
 

FQDawg

Senior
May 1, 2006
3,076
618
113
I know there was a lot of heartache about Polk and bunting... Was it because he would never call for a bunt or because when he did, we usually sucked at it (ie, didn't coach it very well)?

The reason I ask is that I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night who said that there are stats that prove bunting a lead-off baserunner over to second makes you less likely to score. I was always under the impression that bunting a guy over was one of those accepted baseball rules but my buddy said that a guy on first with no outs is more likely to score than a guy on second with one out.

Anybody else heard this?
 

State82

Redshirt
Feb 27, 2008
1,130
0
36
Because if it were so, why is it done so often at all levels of baseball? Now, I agree that there are certain teams where that may be so, depending on their personnel and tendencies. I can't back it up one way or the other.
 

JacksonDevilDog

Freshman
Jan 13, 2008
3,390
61
48
But he has stated many times that he didn't like to give up an out to move a runner over. That **** doesn't fly anymore with MSU baseball. I was at the double header yesterday and I saw us double steal on a 3-1 count with 1 out. You would never see that with Polk, even though that is a good situation to do that. It was also refreshing to see a coach get pissed when our guys strike out at a bad time.

I also watched us lose to UM in the Mayors Trophy game in the last one played at Smith Wills. We lost by 1 run. We started off the 9th with a leadoff double. We never even tried to bunt the guy over and score him with a sac fly or a hit to the middle or right side. We struck out 3 times and lost the game.
 

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
if the other team is going to give you an out, take it- regarding bunting.

My take on it is this- the problem wasn't that Polk never bunted, it was that he would play station to station and would rarely try to do anything to create any runs. Bunting is part of creating runs. There were other things that Polk rarely did that could have helped us score runs- lile steal bases, putting on an occasional hit and run, taking an extra base are all things that can be done to create runs. The other thing it does is put pressure on the defense, and maybe more importantly the pitcher. It's a lot easier for a pitcher to concentrate on getting the hitter out at the plate if he knows that he doesn't have to hold the runner on at first, which obviously makes it more difficult for the hitter, which again makes it more difficult to score runs. The other thing that small ball does for you is it helps you to stay out of double play situations. For example, if a guy is on first and then steals second, and then the batter hits a weak ground ball to the right side, instead of it being a double play and at least two outs, you now have a runner on third and two outs and are still batting in a worst case scenario. And then who knows? Wild pitch, passed ball could score the runner, a base hit- a lot of things can happen.

The other problem with Polk's strategy was that we were not aggressive at the plate in general. There were MANY times we would come up to the plate, and you could tell that our guy was scared and basically trying to work a walk out of the pitcher. Now, Cohen is preaching attack the ball, I've seen hitters trying to go with the pitch, and not once so far have I seen anyone look like they're scared to swing the bat. Polk's strategy was also not balanced. We were trying to play Earl Weaver ball with a lineup of singles hitters. Earl Weaver ball works great when you have Clark and Palmeiro, but most of the time you're going to have Russ Sneed and Jet Butler- who have greatly improved by the way, props to them. And you want to be balanced so that you can try to create runs when you are in a pitchers duel, like when you're facing a David Price-type pitcher, and at the same time, you want to be able to have some power guys so that you can survive a slug-fest. I think that's what Cohen is shooting for- balance.

But as far as bunting and things like that as far as calling a bunt- It all depends on the situation, meaning inning, the batter, the runner, the pitcher, the defensive abilities of the players in the field- all factor in as far as when you bunt. If I was a coach, I would have rule as far bunting- if a guy has a better chance of hitting a home run than getting a bunt down, I'm going to let that guy swing away. And vice versa. I don't like bunting when my team is behind because typically, you don't want to give up outs when you are down. I'd much rather try to steal if the opportunity presented itself. It makes sense statistically- a catcher that can throw out 30% of baserunners that try to steal, which is considered very good vs. how often a batter who tries to sacrifice is thrown out. Not sure of that statistic, but I'm sure it's a LOT more than 30%. If I have a player that is struggling and he has halfway decent speed and the third baseman is playing back, I might ask the player to try to bunt for a hit. If the other team has a pitcher that can really bring it- like say 98 MPH- I'm going to be a little more reluctant to bunt. Also if you have a runner that's incredibly slow, like a Cecil Fielder, I would be reluctant to bunt there to.

So, there's a lot that goes into it.

But I think Polk gets lampooned a lot about it because there were a LOT of Polk supporters- the nutty ones who thought that because he wrote a book on baseball, his way was gold. If that was true, Tom Emanski should be in Cooperstown. Polk didn't like that style and kind of discouraged it, and I have heard Polk say that he does not like to bunt. And I think it's just people making fun of the Pro-Polk nuts like KB21 more than anything, because they were saying that Polk's way was right and Cohen's way was "not baseball". And to be honest I like "that's not baseball" a lot better than "that's baseball" so far.

And so far I haven't seen Cohen bunt in a situation where it wasn't uncalled for. It's not like we get a guy on first and then we're automatically bunting.
 

JacksonDevilDog

Freshman
Jan 13, 2008
3,390
61
48
We didn't have much power the last few years. We would try to play for the big inning while playing in the biggest SEC stadium, DNF. We never tried to manufacture runs and it hurt us. How many times did we have the bases loaded in the last couple of years and leave them loaded? How many times did we get a lead off double and never see him score? Tons of times. Cohen said that our ballpark plays huge so doubles become triples. He said we would take advantage of that. He said that at Kentucky, you never got triples. He said that he can be more aggressive on the base paths here.
 

thedog

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
298
0
0
on 60 Minutes about a statistical guru for the Boston Red Sox a couple of years back that said that it is statistically correct that there is no gain by bunting.
 

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
it was almost uncanny how many times we had the bases loaded and got nothing out of it that year. I'm sure it happened a lot more as you said, but that year really stood out.

Like last year we hit into an unreal number of double plays.
 

wpnetdawg

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
724
0
0
shows a negative correlation between runs scored and sacrifice bunts. There is so much evidence on the subject now that I could consider the evidence to indisputable.

Of course, all of the articles are based on MLB stats. I got bored one day a couple of years ago, so I ran one on some college stats I got from Boyds World and it showed every sacrifice bunt cost a team about .176 run.
 

8dog

All-American
Feb 23, 2008
13,912
5,749
113
I watched Ole Miss beat the eventual national champions in 2005 super regional by bunting the ball. Bunting just seems to put too much pressure on college defenses.
 

8dog

All-American
Feb 23, 2008
13,912
5,749
113
where someone reached or the defense made an error?

How do these stats determine what the bunter would have done had he not bunted?
 

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
I do think that there is a time and place for it.

One thing those statistics can't measure is how many times those same batters would have gotten out or hit into a double play and not moved the runner along into scoring position vs times that they actually sacrificed. To me, that's the only way to accurately measure that, and that's obviously an unknown.

How are they measuring it? Runs scored in every inning that a sacrifice is executed vs ones where no sacrifice is executed? If that's the case, I'm not sure that is really all that accurate. For example, if you have Will Clark at the plate and a runner on first and no one out, and he hits a two run home run, and then Palmeiro follows up with a home run of his own- so that's three runs without a sacrifice. Now let's say that Grant Hogue sacrifices a runner over and then Russ Sneed drives them in with a single, and then Conner Powers hits into a double play, that's one run, but it's a run that we would not have had if Hogue doesn't sacrifice the runner to second.
 

wpnetdawg

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
724
0
0
It doesn't take into account individual at-bats. What it does do is attempt to correlate the number of times a team sacrifices with the number of runs it scores. Basically, it says that teams with a greater number of sacrifice bunts score fewer runs over the course of a season. The sacrifice bunt (-.176) is nearly as negatively correlated with run scoring as the strikeout (-.181). The king of all run scoring killers is the GIDP (-.361).

Here is an example: Team A sacrifice bunts 30 more times in a season than team B. In this case, Team A can expect to score a little over five (30 * -.176) fewer runs than team B.

These numbers are very consistent both in result and the technique as what Bill James does with MLB numbers and forms a large foundation of the book, Moneyball. My analysis had about 1100 observations over four seasons.
 

8dog

All-American
Feb 23, 2008
13,912
5,749
113
and knew this was a principle of James', but its one of the ones i've had a hard time dealing with. The first thought is: Of course teams that dont score a lot of runs sac bunt a lot...b/c they can't score a lot of runs the conventional way so they have to try to manufacture what they can.

The fact that the stat is basically from 30,000 feet supports Todd's idea that there are plenty of places to bunt in the game and it is prudent.
 
Sep 7, 2005
822
0
0
team...His teams usually lead or are in the top of both power statistics and sacrifices...His style is attack and pressure. It seems to work. Worked for texas too...you cant just take a philosophy as a whole. You have to take into account the particular team, their stadium, speed, their power, their pitching, the weather etc etc...
 

wpnetdawg

Redshirt
May 1, 2006
724
0
0
I agree there are times to bunt. I think the key is you don't want to bunt too often.

I think this probably brings up an interesting topic. Pretty much all statistical studies show Polk's general philosophy about baseball (longballs, lack of SB, pitch taking) to be solid. In fact, it might even be said that he was ahead of his time as he was doing this years before the field of sabremetrics had been established. I think the fundamental problem occurred when he tried to continue to play Gorilla-ball with a bunch of 5'10'', 165-pound players. If he desired to play such a brand of baseball, why did he not bring the fences in or establish a rigorous <span style="text-decoration:line-through">performance enhancement</span> workout program?

For the record, I am thrilled that Cohen is in Starkville, Raffo is in Jonesboro, and Polk is in Birmingham.
 

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
Teams that sacrifice less also probably tend to have more power hitters, who of course are going to drive in more runs than the Juan Pierre's of the world.

Also teams that bunt more probably feel that they need to create more runs, and they use bunting as one way of doing that. It would make sense to me that if you feel the need to create runs more than other teams, your lineup probably lacks firepower.

So, the question from me is, do these teams score less because they bunt, or because they have to bunt because of their lack of firepower?

But I will add this as a Cardinal fan who grew up during Whitey Ball in the 80's- it would frustrate me to no end that the Cardinals could NOT hit home runs. If someone did other than Jack Clark, it was a miracle. The Cardinals went from that to Mark McGwire hitting 70 home runs (never would have thought that in 1986 when the whole team hit something like 84) and other assorted power hitters, and I loved the fact that the Cardinals had guys that could knock one out at any moment.
 

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
because I heard that Polk did not like Augie Garrido for some reason.

I will say that I have no idea if that's true or not because I only heard it one time in passing, and it's not like they coached against each other a whole lot, but it would make sense because his style is very similar to Cohen's, and Polk obviously did not like Cohen's style.
 

CuzDawg

Redshirt
Apr 8, 2003
274
0
16
is the fact that the "threat" of a bunt brings the third baseman in for most of a game against Cohen coached teams and, thus, creates a wider hole between short and third for ground balls to make it through the infield.
 

JacksonDevilDog

Freshman
Jan 13, 2008
3,390
61
48
I can't remember who hit the HR for us in the first game on Saturday, but the next pitch we were bunting. It was a good bunt, but not quite as far out as it needed to be and we were thrown out. Sometimes, the best time to bunt is right after a homerun. It's the little things like that that we are doing this year that we haven't done in the past.
 

HammerOfTheDogs

All-Conference
Jun 20, 2001
10,754
1,541
113
Our batters would sit up there and take a strike one down the middle of plate. If, just for once, the player would mash it, it would put pressure on pitchers to make good pitches throughout an at-bat.

Under Polk, the book on our hitters was easy....groove a BP pitch down the middle for strike one, curveball just outside the strike zone for them to wave at or foul off for strike two, then you had up to four pitches to work the batter to a weak fly ball or an inning ending double play.

The potential problem with Cohen's players is that they may not have proper bat discipline, that they swing at too many pitches outside the strike zone. </p>
 
Mar 3, 2008
217
0
0
With less competent college defenses, it may not be so. But you also have to take into account that with more offensive environment of college baseball, outs are more valuable, which means sacrifices would make less sense.

<span style="font-style: italic;">Over the long haul</span>, sacrifices decrease run production in the major leagues. The math is done via run expectation charts like this one from Baseball Prospectus from 2003 in the majors:
Code:
 <font><font face="courier"> Runners Outs None 1st 2nd 3rd 1st&2nd 1st&3rd 2nd&3rd Loaded 0 0.531 0.919 1.177 1.380 1.551 1.869 2.023 2.474 1 0.282 0.535 0.706 1.032 0.909 1.211 1.428 1.544 2 0.109 0.237 0.341 0.384 0.454 0.518 0.541 0.797 </font></font>
That's not to say that there aren't good times to do it in certain situations when especially weak hitters are up, but they are the exception to the rule. This article from Baseball Prospectus explains it.
 

RaiderDawg24

Redshirt
May 28, 2007
240
0
0
Here is another table like Tito posted. Same conclusion - you have a 41% chance of scoring from 2nd with one out and a 41.7% chance of scoring from 1st with no outs. So, statistically speaking, don't bunt. It really all comes down to who is the runner, the batters due up next, etc.

<font size="2">With no outs and bases empty: 28 percent
With with one out and bases empty: 16.5 percent
With two outs and bases empty: 7.1 percent
With no outs and runner at first: 41.7 percent
With one out and runner at first: 27.2 percent
With two outs and runner at first: 12.7 percent
With no outs and runner at second: 62.5 percent
With one out and runner at second: 41 percent
With two outs and runner at second: 22.9 percent
With no outs and runner at third: 82.7 percent
With one out and runner at third: 66.1 percent
With two outs and runner at third: 25.4 percent
With no outs and runners at first and second: 61.6 percent
With one out and runners at first and second: 41.4 percent
With two outs and runners at first and second: 22.8 percent
With no outs and runners at first and third: 84.6 percent
With one out and runners at first and third: 64.5 percent
With two outs and runners at first and third: 26.8 percent
With no outs and runners at second and third: 86.1 percent
With one out and runners at second and third: 67.4 percent
With two outs and runners at second and third: 26.6 percent
With no outs and bases loaded: 85.6 percent
With one out and bases loaded: 65.4 percent
With two outs and bases loaded: 30.7 percent</font></p>
 

Todd4State

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
17,411
1
0
about "tracking" a pitch. He is big on strike zone judgement. So, I wouldn't worry so much about our plate discipline.