Bethune Cookman, Game 2

[rok]

So you would rather let this team try to get base hits? The team that strikes out 16 times in 9 innings needs to be swinging away?

Yes. Again and again. And I understand that this argument will rage on as long as the game of baseball is played by young men.

Assuming the sac bunt is executed and the runners move up, the next batter is getting walked and setting up the force at any base.
It can work with flawless execution but the winning run reached on a sharply hit single, and was driven home by a sharply hit single despite our skipper's best effort at killing another rally.

Let them play! Let them play! Let them play!

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Yes. Again and again. And I understand that this argument will rage on as long as the game of baseball is played by young men.

Assuming the sac bunt is executed and the runners move up, the next batter is getting walked and setting up the force at any base.
It can work with flawless execution but the winning run reached on a sharply hit single, and was driven home by a sharply hit single despite our skipper's best effort and killing another rally.

Let them play! Let them play! Let them play!

We were also playing Bethune Cookman. When we're playing Florida and we have 1st and 2nd against Brady Singer with the 9-hole coming up, I would prefer not to watch him strike out on three pitches.

 

[rok]

It's defended because there are times when a sacrifice bunt is the right call.

A runner on first and second with no outs should not automatically call for a bunt, as it has every time we've been faced with that situation in 25 years under Morose. I get that you want to push that runner home and that statistically it's the right move when you're attempting to score one run, but the numbers aren't overwhelmingly in favor of giving away an out in that spot since the batter can pop-out into a DP (almost happened yesterday), or put down a lousy bunt that gets the runner thrown out at 3rd. Watching that strategy fail again and again (due to poor execution) hasn't deterred 3 from going to the well time after time. Hats off to him for having such a strong conviction that giving away outs is the ONLY strategy in that spot.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

The hyperbole isn't working very well. We haven't bunted EVERY time in that situation and it's not true that it has NEVER worked. You can hate the strategy if you want, but work with us just a little bit.

 

[rok]

I will never forgive 3 for having Weeks bunt against Stanford with two on, nobody out like the robot that he is. Did you know there are fans out there that don't have to put up with this ****? For others, 1st and 2nd with arguably your 2nd best hitter up to bat signifies that a rally is about to begin and you're going to win the CWS, but Morose had him bunt and the rest is history.

Yesterday's situation, while not as egregiously stupid as having Jemile Weeks bunt with two on and nobody out in the 2008 CWS, still nearly resulted in another killed rally had it not been for a heroic two-out base hit. There's a decent probability that the perfect execution required for a successful sac bunt will not be achieved, which makes it a far from the obvious strategy in that spot against a pitcher who's already shook. And the numbers really don't back this strategy up anymore, but then again I'm talking to people who don't think facilities matter in college sports and have their heads buried in sand.

 

[UMAlum21]

and

I will never forgive 3 for having Weeks bunt against Stanford with two on, nobody out like the robot that he is. Did you know there are fans out there that don't have to put up with this ****? For others, 1st and 2nd with arguably your 2nd best hitter up to bat signifies that a rally is about to begin and you're going to win the CWS, but Morose had him bunt and the rest is history.

Yesterday's situation, while not as egregiously stupid as having Jemile Weeks bunt with two on and nobody out in the 2008 CWS, still nearly resulted in another killed rally had it not been for a heroic two-out base hit. There's a decent probability that the perfect execution required for a successful sac bunt will not be achieved, which makes it a far from the obvious strategy in that spot against a pitcher who's already shook. And the numbers really don't back this strategy up anymore, but then again I'm talking to people who don't think facilities matter in college sports and have their heads buried in sand.

Those situations aren't remotely comparable you nit.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

.....I'm talking to people who don't think facilities matter in college sports and have their heads buried in sand.

Yep, it's all about facilities.

Tackett dropped a fly ball
Mediavilla couldn't get anyone out
Cook fired a ball into RF
multiple mental mistakes
runners LOB

If we had a covered batting cage none of this would have happened. But since we don't have a covered batting cage, we need miracles to walk off against Bethune Cookman.

 

[rok]

Those situations aren't remotely comparable you nit.

We're a tight, knit-fit group of fans on this board. Let's agree to disagree on the practice of giving away outs and be bros, bro.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I will never forgive 3 for having Weeks bunt against Stanford with two on, nobody out like the robot that he is.

We blew that CWS in game one, not game three.

 

[rok]

3We blew that CWS in game one, not game three.

Regardless of which loss you think was worse in 2008, there isn't one move and one move only in that situation. Bethune's pitcher was struggling and Morris' play was to throw him a line and give away an out. It was unnecessary and it's been too long having to endure such robotic decision making.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Regardless of which loss you think was worse in 2008, there isn't one move and one move only in that situation. Bethune's pitcher was struggling and Morris' play was to throw him a line and give away an out. It was unnecessary and marked it's been too long having to endure such robotic decision making.

If he gets the bunt down, we win. Plenty of teams get nothing with 1st and 2nd, no outs when they swing away.

 

[rok]

If he gets the bunt down, we win.

Lol

 

[scane]

Bunting is usually the right call with runners on first and second with nobody out when you need to produce a single run. In that situation it was absolutely the right call because Quinones is exceptionally slow. If Burns produces an unproductive out any groundball hit by Quinones is an almost certain double play.

In that situation the fault lies exclusively with Burns. You'd think someone would have taught him how to bunt at three different schools over the course of five years.

 

[rok]

And still another Miami fan who ignores sabermetrics. Wasting outs has been proven wrong to everyone but a small sect of Miami fans and their head coach. Weird.

According to baseballanalysts.com, in situations with two base runners, teams stand a 10.4% better chance at scoring one run with runners on first and second with no outs than they do with runners on second and third with one out.

Even though it's been proven wrong, I can live with bunting the runner over from first to secure a runner in scoring position, which we had already achieved with Zamora getting plunked by their spaz pitcher. Forget that this slap **** was already on the ropes with a runner at 2nd and no outs, better give away a free out in that spot because this is baseball darn it! Never mind that it's not 1988 anymore and there's mountains of data to backup how retarded it is to continue doing that. Opposing managers love free outs in 2018 and we're happy to hook them up.

 

[tcgrad1014]

Look at you all arguing about how the deck chairs should be arranged on the titanic. Lol.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

But I thought you were all about sabermetrics? Bunting from first to second is worse than bunting from second to third.

None of this would matter, though, if there was a **** cover on the batting cage.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I can live with bunting the runner over from first to secure a runner in scoring position.

Never mind that it's not 1988 anymore and there's mountains of data to backup how retarded it is to continue doing that. Opposing managers love free outs in 2018 and we're happy to hook them up.

You're an elite kind of retarded. Like up there near Dannyboy.

 

[UMAlum21]

And still another Miami fan who ignores sabermetrics. Wasting outs has been proven wrong to everyone but a small sect of Miami fans and their head coach. Weird.

According to baseballanalysts.com, in situations with two base runners, teams stand a 10.4% better chance at scoring one run with runners on first and second with no outs than they do with runners on second and third with one out.

Even though it's been proven wrong, I can live with bunting the runner over from first to secure a runner in scoring position, which we had already achieved with Zamora getting plunked by their spaz pitcher. Forget that this slap **** was already on the ropes with a runner at 2nd and no outs, better give away a free out in that spot because this is baseball darn it! Never mind that it's not 1988 anymore and there's mountains of data to backup how retarded it is to continue doing that. Opposing managers love free outs in 2018 and we're happy to hook them up.

See you ****ed up. It was a solid effort, but you showed you don't really have a strong grasp about how advanced analytics and probabilities work in sports. It's pretty weird actually how frequently you toss out buzzwords and cliches that you either don't get or don't apply, regardless of sport. "Searles has a propensity for only starting upperclassmen so Linder and Odogwu will start," despite evidence and logic pointing against that.

Data compiled over half a decade of MLB seasons this decade show that the reduction in run expectancy when going from 1st and 2nd no out to 2nd and 3rd with 1 out is negligible (less than .06 runs lost per inning). Not this 10.4% you quoted. So statistically there is almost nothing lost from bunting in this situation. The run expectancy for runners on 1st and 2nd and no outs is 1.44 runs and for runners on 2nd and 3rd and one out, the run expectancy is 1.38 runs. Keep in mind this is in ANY instance that there is almost no difference in the two actions, let alone in a tie game in the last inning. But you need to take it further (and this is where you got lost). With runners on first and second, no outs, the probability you score 0 runs is 37%, 1 run is 23%, 2 runs is 16%, 3 runs is 12%, and 4+ runs is 12%. With runners on second and third, one out, the probability you score 0 runs drops to 33%, 1 run increases to is 27%, 2 runs increases to 22%, while 3 and 4 runs decline to is 9% and 8%.

So what does this tell us? Taking those numbers into account, by bunting you actually increase your chances over scoring a run from 23 to 27% and decrease your odds of scoring 0 runs from 37% to 33%. You're increasing your odds of scoring a run at the expense of scoring 3 or more runs. Given the fact that we needed 1 run to walk off and win the game, coupled with the reality of the situation (keep in mind these statistics represent all players and all situations so their has to be a situational element applied to your data), that you have a below average hitter at the plate and your 3 and 4 hitters coming up to bat, and as mentioned a chance to walk off and win the game (if this was say the 3rd inning of a game it can be argued you're slightly limiting your chances of a big inning by sacrificing an out) it is obviously the right decision to bunt over those runners and let your best hitters come up with a chance to win the game.

Good try on the analytics though.

 

[rok]

Guysm,

To be fair, I said I could live with bunting the runner from 1st to 2nd, not that I necessarily agree with it. I don't strongly disagree with getting a RISP at the expense of an out even though the data doesn't support it. My issue is with wasting an out once you've secured the RISP, and not making the pitcher work to make that first out when he is clearly struggling.

And we can skew the numbers in anyone's favor. Win expectancy drops drastically once we go down the road of wasting outs. From .81 with runners on 1st and 2nd and 0 outs, to .66 with bases loaded and two outs. Surrendering outs for free is flatly retarded and so are you if you are still doing so, as evidenced by most decision-makers in contemporary baseball.

And it's really not worth wasting an out sacrificing Michael Burns to get to Isaac bleeping Quinones, a decent hitter who strikes out a ton. Burns runs well so the likely worst case scenario with Escala at 2nd is he grounds into a force play setting up runners at 1st and 3rd, but at least we didn't give their awful pitcher a free out in that scenario.

Most managers who aren't completely set in their ways are choosing to let a batter swing away in this situation in 2018, and it's for a reason. Giving away outs (especially when you already have a RISP) is pretty stupid, specifically when the opposing pitcher is all over the place. We've seen Morris let an opposing pitcher off the hook again and again and again using this approach.

Assuming Burns laid down a successful sac bunt, we'll have bases loaded with one out. The next batter (in this case it would've been Romy, who leads the team in Ks) strikes out (fouls out, grounds out, pops out, lines out) and then you're down to just one out remaining needing a base hit. Why limit the amount of chances you have?

---
Canespimp, you've GOT to let go of this Linder and Dogflu thing my man, as that was an admitted hot take from the jump lol. However, the current starting 5 OL are 3 seniors, 1 junior, 1 sophomore.

2016: 3 juniors, 2 seniors,\ (3 if you include Gall for the final 5 games) and two sophomores for 4 games (St. Lou and TG).

2017: 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 EE freshmans

I'd still say Searels has a propensity for starting upperclassmen if given the choice, as do most OL coaches.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Owned.