The evidence: Todd, Coach Mizzou, Cadaver, DS what is your honest analysis

[MSDawg34]

I looked at the innings which our leadoff man got on first base in conference play for analysis. I looked at what the outcomes where when we immediately followed a leadoff one-bagger (Hit, HBP, BB, IBB, etc) man on 1st 0 out. I also looked at the stats just using the 7th inning and on. I knew it was bad, but nothing like this.

With man on 1st, 0 out. WE BUNT overall/7th inn. on
Occurrences: 26/10
Score a run: 6/3
# of runs : 6/3

We bunted in that position 26 times, only scoring 6 times, one run each inning. That is 23% which is off the charts bad yielding .2 runs/inning. After the 7th it has been successful just 30% of the time (3/10) yielding .3 runs/inning. Thats after having a man on 1st and no outs

With a man on 1st, 0 out. WE DONT BUNT overall/7th inn. on
Occurrences: 66/19
Score a run: 36/12
# of runs: 77/29

We didnt bunt in that situation 66 times, scoring 36 times, with many occurrences of multiple runs. That is 55% of innings we score yielding 1.12 runs/inning, A FULL RUN higher than bunting in the same situation. In the 7th inning and on we score 63% of the time, in other words over twice as often as bunting in that situation. The 7th inning on yields 1.5 runs/inning OVER A RUN more per inning.

55% > 23% of innings we score
1.12 > .2 runs per inning, much higher in the later innings

Say what you want about me and this issue. These statistics don't lie.

 

[MSDawg34]

I looked at the innings which our leadoff man got on first base in conference play for analysis. I looked at what the outcomes where when we immediately followed a leadoff one-bagger (Hit, HBP, BB, IBB, etc) man on 1st 0 out. I also looked at the stats just using the 7th inning and on. I knew it was bad, but nothing like this.

With man on 1st, 0 out. WE BUNT overall/7th inn. on
Occurrences: 26/10
Score a run: 6/3
# of runs : 6/3

We bunted in that position 26 times, only scoring 6 times, one run each inning. That is 23% which is off the charts bad yielding .2 runs/inning. After the 7th it has been successful just 30% of the time (3/10) yielding .3 runs/inning. Thats after having a man on 1st and no outs

With a man on 1st, 0 out. WE DONT BUNT overall/7th inn. on
Occurrences: 66/19
Score a run: 36/12
# of runs: 77/29

We didnt bunt in that situation 66 times, scoring 36 times, with many occurrences of multiple runs. That is 55% of innings we score yielding 1.12 runs/inning, A FULL RUN higher than bunting in the same situation. In the 7th inning and on we score 63% of the time, in other words over twice as often as bunting in that situation. The 7th inning on yields 1.5 runs/inning OVER A RUN more per inning.

55% > 23% of innings we score
1.12 > .2 runs per inning, much higher in the later innings

Say what you want about me and this issue. These statistics don't lie.

 

[Todd4State]

There is a time to bunt and there is a time not to bunt. Usually when you bunt, you are playing for one run anyway because it's a close game and it's a pitchers duel.

And it also depends on the player at the plate as well. You have to play to their strengths. Asking Frost and Demarcus to pound out a three run home run right now doesn't play to their strengths as players. Sort of like asking Chris Relf to run the West Coast Offense.

So, I think you have to look at the context of bunting and what you are trying to accomplish, and really you're not usually trying to go for a big inning when you bunt. What you are trying to do is scratch across a run and win a game by one run.

Well, unless you are pissed off at Kentucky and you want to run a safety squeeze up five runs to make a point- but you get what I am saying. (That was awesome by the way)

Now does Cohen bunt at times where I wouldn't personally, and maybe you shouldn't? Sure. But at the same time, I don't think you shouldn't bunt at all ever either because of what a general statistic says.

The bottom line is we are 11th in the SEC in hitting, have injuries, and we were inexperienced. We had to find ways to create runs. I think we outscored Ole Miss this year- a team that has the second highest overall batting average- and a lot of that was because we manufactured.

You also have to understand what the threat of a bunt does- and that is get the fielders out of position at times, and sometimes that can lead to more hits when we swing away. And of course, those instances wouldn't show up in your stat- and I don't know how you would measure that.

So, to me it's all about match-ups and the in game situation at the time rather than something broad.

 

[MSDawg34]

And I don't think bunting is always out of the question, (man on 1st AND 2nd or just 2nd late with 0 outs). But bunting with just a man on first should never happen. Boyd's analysis here shows that Man on 1st-0 out scores 52% compared to (man on 2nd-1 out) 48% and averages 1.1 per/inning (we average 1.2) over .84 per/inning (we're at .2)

But with our hitters I believe the last thing we should be doing is giving away outs, and I believe that has shown.

 

[Todd4State]

because it's late, but that just tells you how often a runner scores in a particular situation regardless of whether you bunt or not. I'm not sure that necessarily supports not bunting or not because it doesn't tell us how often runners score after being moved over to second.

At any rate, you are only talking 4% difference there.

It's sort of like that saying in baseball- if you walk the lead off man, they score 75% of the time. Well, if you look at Boyd's data, that would be like saying it's better to walk than get a hit because you have a better chance of scoring. And I don't think you can really say that either.

The thing about our hitters is they've struggled so much that they give away a lot of bats anyway. (Or at least they did- I hope that is over) And then you have to factor in the fact that our ballpark is ginormous. At least by bunting- yes, you may be giving away an out, but you are also allowing the hitter to do something productive to help the team by moving the runner over, and that normally helps their confidence. A lot more than striking out, flying out, hitting into a double play, etc.

 

[missouridawg]

I wish I had time this week to take a look through your stats, cause I am stat geek. I have class tonight and all day Thursday-Saturday for my graduate degree... otherwise I'd love to debate some of this stuff with you.

My argument against you is that Cohen isn't and will not be on the hot seat anytime soon for MSU. Just one month ago, you, patdog, and a horde of other were turning up the burners on Cohen without even once recognizing that we were battling quite a few injuries to our most experienced players. Cohen will be the coach of MSU baseball until he's ready to move on. Period. He's good enough to do that, assuming he continues to recruit.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Sabermetrics fan, and I generally oppose bunting, but those are just averages, assuming average hitters.<div>
</div><div>We have several hitters who are notably below average, so the probably of scoring a run when those are coming up would be less than 52%. I don't know if sacrifice bunting necessarily lowers our run probability by 4% in those situations.</div><div>
</div><div>That said, I would never bunt with Frazier, Porter, etc., but I don't think it's necessarily a bad call, depending on who's at the plate and who's coming up.</div>

 

[lawdawg02]

For batters with our team average. The question comes down to whether it's more likely that (a) yOu can get one hit in two chances after a bunt, or (b) you can get two hits in three chances with no bunt (or one extra base hit). I think with our hitting average, one hit is surely more likely to happen.

That said, I agree with this post. I generally hate bunting with your best or most powerful hitters, unless it is a really tight game and you have some hitters coming up behind them.

 

[bertier]

Can we not agree our team BA is awful? Unless we have a plus runner on first and get an XBH, our probability of scoring that runner are much less with the way our team hits. We are more than likely going to need to string two hits together. How many times have we scored runs on ground balls up the middle this year? How many of those would have gotten through with a guy on 1st and the opposition's middle infielders playing at DP depth?

We can argue stats and numbers all day, but I'm going to make one assumption that a lot of people on this board are not going to like: Cohen knows more about baseball than you do. A LOT more. Can we let him do his job? I, for one, think he is an excellent coach and agree whole-heartedly with missouridawg. He is here for a long time - get used to his brand of baseball. A few stats from one year aren't going to change anyone's beliefs.

Also, for the record, no one on our team is above getting asked to sacrifice every once in a while. Not even Frazier.

 

[DerHntr]

Cohen has built a team, not a collection of players. He appears to expect the same thing out of all of them. Everyone should be able to sacrifice a bunt and the next hitter up should be ready to handle the pressure. It sends a message to all of these guys. You had all sorts of stats to prove you were right just one month ago. I would argue that you would have NEVER predicted how well this team has done in the last 30 days. Part of that success comes from their confidence to get it done, no matter which guy is at the plate. In the long run of course you are right. The stats don't lie. I'd like for you to look at one more stat though.... the win/loss column.

 

[dawgstudent]

and remembered you were the guy who got pissed b/c someone took credit for your Coach34 impersonation on the Wake Forest boards.

 

[Coach34]

And I don't think bunting is always out of the question, (man on 1st AND 2nd or just 2nd late with 0 outs). But bunting with just a man on first should never happen. Boyd's analysis here shows that Man on 1st-0 out scores 52% compared to (man on 2nd-1 out) 48% and averages 1.1 per/inning (we average 1.2) over .84 per/inning (we're at .2)

But with our hitters I believe the last thing we should be doing is giving away outs, and I believe that has shown.

you dont have to convince me of anything. I only like to bunt in late game situations, and even then I hate giving away outs

 

[MSDawg34]

My argument on this topic has always been all about maximizing our offensive potential. We have an Omaha staff and if we had just gotten a few more runs across in those low scoring games we'd be a lock to host. The win/loss column is great, but I don't think anyone is attributing that to our offense. I'd rather not have to rely on our closer holding a 0.00 ERA, but give him and the other guys a better cushion to pitch on and avoid having to walk that tightrope every game.

 

[patdog]

Even in the late innings you're about as likely to score with a man on 1st and no outs as you are with a man on 2nd with 1 out. Really, the only time to bunt is if you have a bad hitter at the plate.

 

[missouridawg]

Really, the only time to bunt is if you have a bad hitter at the plate.

 

[RobbieRandolph]

.

 

[rawdawg14]

Does anybody know how many double plays we have hit into thus year? Honest question. I don't feel like looking it up because I'm sure its sky high and I can't take the nausea this morning. Anybody wanna guess how high that number would be if we didn't bunt as much as we do, a lot higher I'd imagine. Some people say " giving away outs". But even more so you are taking away a double play and putting a runner in scoring position at the same time. With the guys we have coming to the plate you can't expect a line drive to the outfield very often. We are a contact small ball type of team. When you have contact hitters you have to manufacture runs, period. I'm sure if we get some pure hitters in the program the bunts will fade at least a little until production is proven. But we just don't have that right now. We do bunt a little more than I would, probably a little more than any of us would. But hey, do any of us get paid the big bucks to make those decisions, any of us ever taken an inept hitting team to the conference tourney? Small ball will win you more games than waiting on a few big/timely hits will

 

[RobbieRandolph]

.

 

[patdog]

The overall stats say that you're more likely to score from 1st with no outs (52% of the time) than from 2nd with 1 out (48% of the time). But if you have a bad hitter at the plate, you're not going to score 52% of the time from 1st with no outs, so you may be better off bunting.

Boyd's expected runs tables for Div. I college baseball:

Link

 

[KurtRambis4]

I had forgotten all about that thread. George is getting upset!

 

[missouridawg]

When you have a team that can't hit for power (or just in general struggle at the plate) like we do, it makes sense to bunt the runner to second more often than not.</p>

 

[missouridawg]

this year and last year, instead of 2005-2008. The bats will have changed those probabilities for the worse, I'm assuming.

 

[MSDawg34]

When you have contact hitters you have to manufacture runs, period.

Trying to manufacture a run has led to only scoring 23% of innings that the leadoff man gets on. .2 runs/inning

But even more so you are taking away a double play and putting a runner in scoring position at the same time.

Even with that risk when we don't bunt that man over we score 55% of the time 1.12 runs/inning

 

[MSDawg34]

It still would not be close to our percentages. For the most part our non-bunt in that situation is the same as Boyd.

(Man on 1st-0 out) scores 52% compared to (man on 2nd-1 out) 48% and averages 1.1 per/inning (we average 1.2) over .84 per/inning (we're at .2)

 

[patdog]

I suspect they will just be down across the board and the differences between situations won't change much, but we can't really know unless Boyd updates his study.

 

[MSDawg34]

When you have a team that can't hit for power (or just in general struggle at the plate) like we do, it makes sense to bunt the runner to second more often than not.</p>

We score in over twice as many innings when we don't, 82% more runs (.2/1.12)

 

[rawdawg14]

I could give a flying 17 about the percentages from earlier in the year. We are executing on a much higher level than earlier in the year. Would you really, honestly prefer to put the bat in Frost's hands, Fullerton's, Slauter's, Brownlee's...the list goes on and depend on them to move the runner by swinging away or by executing a bunt to get the runner over? Because we have all bitched about how they can't hit so why contradict ourselves. The goal of an offense should be to put pressure on the defense there's more pressure on a defense with runner on second one out than there is with runner on first no outs.

Like I said, I don't like bunting a whole hell of a lot but there is a place for it, and not just when you have a ****** hitter at the plate. If that were the case then there shouldn't even be an argument about this because that's all of our guys with the exception of just 2-3. I also said Cohen bunts more than I would, but I can understand it. When you have a pitching staff like our's it only takes a few runs.

 

[MSDawg34]

Bunting the leadoff man over has accomplished that goal 6 out of 26 times (23%)
Not bunting has accomplished that goal 36 out of 66 times (55%)

Yes I would rather put the bat in their hands.

 

[Hector.sixpack]

nm

 

[MSDawg34]

Like trying to just get one run across for insurance or to win the game.

 

[boomboommsu]

you should almost always only bunt when the 2 batters after the bunter are better hitters (in that situation) than the bunter. Usually that's when the #9 hitter is up. But it can happen situationally, leftie vs. rightie, high DP-rate guy upetc.

Also, part of MSDawg34's point that is being missed is that bunting, even if it raises your odds of scoring a run, substantially lowers your odds of scoring multiple runs. Bunting early in a game, when you don't know how many runs you need, is never good strategy, because even if it 'succeeds' and you score 1 run, it may turn out that you needed 3, and you intentionally gave away your chance of doing so.

The stats realization that bunting doesn't help nearly as much as people used to think it did hasn't reached most of today's managers, unfortunately.</p>

 

[Hector.sixpack]

the source of the problem is the bats. The bats have scaredEVERYBODY into this. Its what the coaches see everyday. Aguy can jack the crap out of one only to be 25 feet short of the warning track. And the way the ball travels in our park has a lot to with how Cohen has built a team and lineup.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

If you just lump all walks into the "non-bunt" category, they are going to be horribly skewed, especially for a team like ours.

 

[MSDawg34]

Why would walks change or skew anything? That's a quality plate appearance without getting out, via the sac or other out. I promise you it's okay to question strategies and still like Cohen, it won't kill you.

 

[rawdawg14]

he is right. Pass balls, steals, walks, hbp, balks, etc they all skew the non bunt category. For instance, the ninth inning yesterday. Porter hit by pitch, Fullerton stole second(pinch runner for Porter, non bunt category) Renfroe walked (non bunt) Fullerton advanced to third on pass ball( non bunt)Britton scored on pass ball (non bunt) Renfroe stole second (non bunt) Rea walked (non bunt) Henderson and Slauter advance (non bunt) and a S ton of errors. All of that skews those percentages and that's just one inning. Not to mention, if the leadoff gets on base, then guy behind him hits into double play and we somehow score runs that inning, that skews them too.

AGAIN, I capitalized it because this is the third time I've said it. We do bunt more than I would like, but I can understand it though. With all he's had to overcome this season he has gotten the job done and we have people questioning him. Like I said. Efore, once we get some hitters that can put some pop on the ball we will start to see the small ball fade. He had some good hitters at KY and they didn't play anywhere near the amount of small ball that we do.