forums

Who is a better coach in college baseball than Jim Morris

Jaromir Jagr said:
Brian Piccolo said:
Jaromir Jagr said:
This just isn't true. The study is out there. Runs scored per inning DROPS when you go from runner on 1st with no outs to runner on 2nd with one out.
Click to expand...

As usual you're answering a different question. Expected runs scored is lower because you're giving up an out for a base. But in this case we're talking about percentage change of scoring a run.

Again when up 5-3 in the 7th at home in an elimination you should play for the run.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get it.

Runner on first, no outs: .88 runs per inning
Runner on second, one out: .69 runs per inning

That is less of a chance of scoring a run no matter how you choose to say it.

Maybe you haven't heard about this sabermetrics thing, but we now know that sac bunting is stupid. You score less. That's why major league teams never sac bunt anymore except with the pitcher. You're so big on odds and probabilities, you have to be able to understand this one.
Click to expand...

The problem is those numbers aren't comparing the same thing. One is before the play and one is after the play. You have a higher percentage of advancing the runner with a bunt then a grounder or pop up. So you could very likely still have a runner at first with one out and nobody advancing if you don't go for the sacrifice. It all depends on the guy you got up. Now if he gets a single and you have two guys on with no outs then that's the best case scenario but that wouldn't be the most common outcome.
 
Advertisement
Look, there is a time and a place for the sac bunt. Yeah if you need one run in the 8th or later that's one thing. But to do it in the 4th inning of a one run game absolutely kills the inning and theres no sense for it.
 
KevinCaneFace said:
Jaromir Jagr said:
Brian Piccolo said:
Jaromir Jagr said:
This just isn't true. The study is out there. Runs scored per inning DROPS when you go from runner on 1st with no outs to runner on 2nd with one out.
Click to expand...

As usual you're answering a different question. Expected runs scored is lower because you're giving up an out for a base. But in this case we're talking about percentage change of scoring a run.

Again when up 5-3 in the 7th at home in an elimination you should play for the run.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get it.

Runner on first, no outs: .88 runs per inning
Runner on second, one out: .69 runs per inning

That is less of a chance of scoring a run no matter how you choose to say it.

Maybe you haven't heard about this sabermetrics thing, but we now know that sac bunting is stupid. You score less. That's why major league teams never sac bunt anymore except with the pitcher. You're so big on odds and probabilities, you have to be able to understand this one.
Click to expand...

The problem is those numbers aren't comparing the same thing. One is before the play and one is after the play. You have a higher percentage of advancing the runner with a bunt then a grounder or pop up. So you could very likely still have a runner at first with one out and nobody advancing if you don't go for the sacrifice. It all depends on the guy you got up. Now if he gets a single and you have two guys on with no outs then that's the best case scenario but that wouldn't be the most common outcome.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the post, but this topic has been covered ad nauseum and studied a hundred different ways. Giving away the out is mathematically less desirable than playing it straight up. It's not opinion, it's math. More runs score when you don't give away the out.
 
Advertisement
Also, if the chance of winning a 2-run game is XX% in a given inning and that probability is quite high, then you sacrifice even if the probability of getting a run is whatever .33 versus .47.

You cannot say "probability of a run under two scenarios: (1.)1 out and man on second; and (2.) no one out and man on first.

You also have to look at: what is probability of hit with man on first; and what is probability of another hit before the 2nd out AND THEN you have to multiply the probabilities together.

Larranaga is a statistics KING, but Morris definitely uses them and updates them. Morris can tell recruits to the cent by how much UM improves their draft stock.

I showed up at Mark Light two years ago during a game and they had borrowed a machine from a Spring training facility that recorded batters swings. They were going to measure the swings of the batters. Morris does what he can and he learned this from Fraser. Martin is lazy and solely focuses on recruits. Morris hustles.
 
canesproponent said:
Also, if the chance of winning a 2-run game is XX% in a given inning and that probability is quite high, then you sacrifice even if the probability of getting a run is whatever .33 versus .47.

You cannot say "probability of a run under two scenarios: (1.)1 out and man on second; and (2.) no one out and man on first.

You also have to look at: what is probability of hit with man on first; and what is probability of another hit before the 2nd out AND THEN you have to multiply the probabilities together.
Click to expand...

Oh, my, did you ***** this up. The stats are already there. No one needs to multiply anything. The calculations have been done. I guess you're saying that the entire sabermetrics community has it wrong? Would love to see you take them on.

Sac bunting is dumb and bad baseball. Again, it's not opinion, it's math.
 
Runners 0 Outs 1 Out 2 Outs
Empty 0.461 0.243 0.095
1 _ _ 0.831 0.489 0.214
_ 2 _ 1.068 0.644 0.305
1 2 _ 1.373 0.908 0.343
_ _ 3 1.426 0.865 0.413
1 _ 3 1.798 1.140 0.471
_ 2 3 1.920 1.352 0.570
1 2 3 2.282 1.520 0.736

At Miami, we don't like scoring more than one run in an inning, so we sac bunt in the 4th inning with one of the hottest hitters in the country.
 
My life is Analytics.

You are cutting the data and not accounting for causal (not casual but causal) relationships. Some instances are correlated, so you have to account for that.

Your data shows that a man on first with no outs usually results in 0.831 runs and 0.644 for a man on second with 1-out. That calculation does not take what inning the game is in. It does not take YOUR OWN TEAM"S statistics into consideration.

Is that figure for MLB; Triple A; Double A; college: etc...

My little brother was obsessed with Burrell; Michaels; Huff and the 2 other stars. Morris NEVER bunted during that 3-year period. He allowed those guys to rake. They won a ton of games, but faltered in Omaha.

He bunts when he has to.
 
Advertisement
Dude.......

Are you citing MLB; college; or what level of the Minors....... Stealing bases in Khoury League is 80% succesful in MLB it is less than 10%......

Do you understand correlation?

Do you understand that it you posses a reliever with whom batters have a batting average of 0.200 it is better to bunt in the 7th? Do you understand Bayesian theory?
 
canesproponent said:
Dude.......

Are you citing MLB; college; or what level of the Minors....... Stealing bases in Khoury League is 80% succesful in MLB it is less than 10%......

Do you understand correlation?

Do you understand that it you posses a reliever with whom batters have a batting average of 0.200 it is better to bunt in the 7th? Do you understand Bayesian theory?
Click to expand...

Good Lord. This is what happens when you bring an academic into the real world.

You can apply all the theories you want, but there is nothing mathematically sound about bunting Johnny Ruiz in the 4th inning of a 1-0 game.

It's amazing the lengths you people go to in order to defend one man.
 
Advertisement
Do you honestly think that a concierge in a hotel knows more about baseball probabilities than a coach that has won more than a 1,000 games at GTech and Miami?
 
canesproponent said:
Do you honestly think that a concierge in a hotel knows more about baseball probabilities than a coach that has won more than a 1,000 games at GTech and Miami?
Click to expand...

Concierge? Front desk specialist.

Morris, like many managers and head coaches, don't consider the probabilities. They manage the way they manage. And that was fine for the first 100 years of baseball. Now we have advanced metrics. Even with the introduction of these metrics, some coaches still coach the same way they have always coached. Doesn't make them right.
 
Morris definitively uses "saber metrics". Larranaga discussed in an article that he was an Econ major and has completely embraced this discipline. In the same article, he mentioned that the baseball program uses it widely. Many people in and around the program discuss how "numeric" MIami baseball is (starting with the university's basketball coach).
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top