CockyTalk

Welcome to Cockytalk!

Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

If you have any problems registering or logging in, please contact our Admins. Thanks!

Go Back   CockyTalk > Gamecocks Sports > The Sarge

Today's Top 10
Posters (by posts)Threads (by views)Newest Posts Gamecock Headlines 
thekob
carolina_corpsman
Spur's Addiction
RGHoskins
TastyLicks
sporkgod50
jdaniel
kick_ball
Three and Out
Spurticus
Tennessee HC Job (1677)
Anyone see this? Whi (877)
Clemson Fight Club (704)
Waiver being sought (646)
FAVORITE COMMERCIAL (442)
Florida soccer at Da (261)
Georgia coach Kirby (256)
***2017 World Series (73)
LA Clippers: Sin in the L
Butch breaks down UT's lo
2018 MBB Zion Williamson
Discussion: 2018 Recruiti
Tennessee HC Job
Coming down for the REALL
Cack's Toast of the Game
2019 - Ani Izuchukwu
***2017 World Series Thre
Discussion: 2019 Recruiti


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2017, 11:24 PM   #81
tcmac08
Three-toed sloth
 
tcmac08's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: aiken
Posts: 3,200
CockyCash: 3198
tcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot materialtcmac08 is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

So, let's just agree to disagree and let this thread die!!!
tcmac08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2017, 08:19 AM   #82
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,792
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcmac08 View Post
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/201...t-sabermetrics

More data for you Ace and this deals with college bunting. Not opinions, but stats and facts

Favorite sentence "This suggests that bunting is a more reasonable option for college coaches than for MLB managers, and the improvement in rBIP suggests this is due to the improved defensive skill of major-league defenders."
Glad to discuss. In your first article on the major leagues, it states "While acknowledging it as the correct strategy in a small number of cases, most feel that any gain in moving players around the bases is more than offset by giving up an out, the "clock" in baseball." In other words, your first article comes to the conclusion that bunting should be used rarely in the majors. And that is the strong trend.

The article above on college bunting is skewed because of several variables, which the article admits. One is that bunting for a base hit - which I think is good strategy - is included. I have seen stats that show that bunting for a base hit works at least 50% of the time (53% was the actual number). Of course, the guys that do it are usually fast, good with the bunt, only do it when the infield is playing back and when they can take them by surprise. Getting a fast runner on base leads to runs via bunting but is not the topic of this thread - it is sacrifice bunting.

Second, bunt strike-outs are often just shown as strike-outs and not failed bunts. That increases the likelihood of scoring with bunts - since the failed bunt does not count on the bunt side - and decreases the likelihood of scoring when swinging away, when the batter did not actually swing away.

Third, it does not reflect the situations where bunts are attempted and the batter gets one or two strikes, then has to swing away down in the count. The chances of a successful outcome are reduced because of the wasted strikes on bunt attempts, but that also goes on the "failed swinging away" side of the ledger and not the "failed bunt side".

Even with those flaws that skew the results in favor of bunting, you still score more runs with a runner on First and no outs than a runner on Second with one out.

And then there is this - college coaches bunt 17.8% of the time with a runner on 1st and no outs and 29.4 % of the time with a runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. In other words, not all coaches do it that often, and when they do, it is based on the situation in the game and the batter at the plate. So - unlike what the pro-bunting people are posting - it is not universal strategy in college.

Holbrook does it about 90% of the time, regardless of the game situation and the batter. That is what I complain about and it hurts our team. And our chance of bunting successfully is reduced because every opponent knows that we are going to bunt.

There are those on this board that think the key play of yesterday's game was the successful sacrifice that put runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out, and allowed the go ahead run to score on a sac fly. I think the key play was allowing Cortes to swing away with a runner on 1st and no outs (he did square up on Ball Three but did not offer). The resulting walk put runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs, and allowed the sacrifice to work.

I have never said that all bunting in every situation was bad. I like the idea of bunting for a base hit, and advancing runners from 1st and 2nd with no outs makes sense if you are tied or down one run late (depending on the hitter). I was fine with the sac bunt yesterday but would have gone ballistic if Cortes bunted - he had hit 3 dingers in less than two games and was the one guy that the pitcher would be careful throwing to, and it resulted in the walk.

Holbrook uses the sac bunt way too much, period. It has cost us games and contributes to the hitting malaise that we seem to go through every year. Except in special situations, let em hit.

I'm done now.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2017, 09:07 AM   #83
conwaycock2
Bowl MVP
 
conwaycock2's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: longs
Posts: 2,089
CockyCash: 500
conwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot materialconwaycock2 is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
Glad to discuss. In your first article on the major leagues, it states "While acknowledging it as the correct strategy in a small number of cases, most feel that any gain in moving players around the bases is more than offset by giving up an out, the "clock" in baseball." In other words, your first article comes to the conclusion that bunting should be used rarely in the majors. And that is the strong trend.

The article above on college bunting is skewed because of several variables, which the article admits. One is that bunting for a base hit - which I think is good strategy - is included. I have seen stats that show that bunting for a base hit works at least 50% of the time (53% was the actual number). Of course, the guys that do it are usually fast, good with the bunt, only do it when the infield is playing back and when they can take them by surprise. Getting a fast runner on base leads to runs via bunting but is not the topic of this thread - it is sacrifice bunting.

Second, bunt strike-outs are often just shown as strike-outs and not failed bunts. That increases the likelihood of scoring with bunts - since the failed bunt does not count on the bunt side - and decreases the likelihood of scoring when swinging away, when the batter did not actually swing away.

Third, it does not reflect the situations where bunts are attempted and the batter gets one or two strikes, then has to swing away down in the count. The chances of a successful outcome are reduced because of the wasted strikes on bunt attempts, but that also goes on the "failed swinging away" side of the ledger and not the "failed bunt side".

Even with those flaws that skew the results in favor of bunting, you still score more runs with a runner on First and no outs than a runner on Second with one out.

And then there is this - college coaches bunt 17.8% of the time with a runner on 1st and no outs and 29.4 % of the time with a runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. In other words, not all coaches do it that often, and when they do, it is based on the situation in the game and the batter at the plate. So - unlike what the pro-bunting people are posting - it is not universal strategy in college.

Holbrook does it about 90% of the time, regardless of the game situation and the batter. That is what I complain about and it hurts our team. And our chance of bunting successfully is reduced because every opponent knows that we are going to bunt.

There are those on this board that think the key play of yesterday's game was the successful sacrifice that put runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out, and allowed the go ahead run to score on a sac fly. I think the key play was allowing Cortes to swing away with a runner on 1st and no outs (he did square up on Ball Three but did not offer). The resulting walk put runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs, and allowed the sacrifice to work.

I have never said that all bunting in every situation was bad. I like the idea of bunting for a base hit, and advancing runners from 1st and 2nd with no outs makes sense if you are tied or down one run late (depending on the hitter). I was fine with the sac bunt yesterday but would have gone ballistic if Cortes bunted - he had hit 3 dingers in less than two games and was the one guy that the pitcher would be careful throwing to, and it resulted in the walk.

Holbrook uses the sac bunt way too much, period. It has cost us games and contributes to the hitting malaise that we seem to go through every year. Except in special situations, let em hit.

I'm done now.
Holy crap, I wasn't going to engage any more is this ridiculous argument but this is too much. "I never said that all bunting in every situation was bad". Are you kidding me? That is exactly what you said (see below) You also said bunting was STUPID, period.

I realize that there are key moments in games where a run is needed to tie or win, and bunting makes more sense then. But it is still a bad move

(So is it a bad move or not a bad move? You've called it both in the span of a single thread)

Then you come back & totally contradict youself by saying it's ok in certain situations.
Literally every person on this thread that disagreed with you has said there are situations where the bunt is appropriate & where it's not & you argued with every one of us. Never did you say there were times to do it & times not to do it. You just said the bunt was a stupid play. Now you come back & say it's ok in certain situations which was all any of us said to begin with. Then you totally shift gears from bunting being bad/stupid to Holbrook bunts too much, a completely different argument. Damn

Last edited by conwaycock2; 04-17-2017 at 10:03 AM..
conwaycock2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2017, 10:14 AM   #84
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,792
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by conwaycock2 View Post
Holy crap, I wasn't going to engage any more is this ridiculous argument but this is too much. "I never said that all bunting in every situation was bad". Are you kidding me? You said bunting was STUPID, period. You also posted this

I realize that there are key moments in games where a run is needed to tie or win, and bunting makes more sense then. But it is still a bad move

(So is it a bad move or not a bad move? You've called it both in the span of a single thread)

Then you come back & totally contradict youself by saying it's ok in certain situations.
Literally every person on this thread that disagreed with you has said there are situations where the bunt is appropriate & where it's not & you argued with every one of us. Never did you say there were times to do it & times not to do it. You just said the bunt was a stupid play. Now you come back & say it's ok in certain situations which was all any of us said. You totally shifted gears from bunting being bad/stupid to Holbrook bunts too much. Damn
I have been pretty consistent in all of my discussions, even in previous threads from last year. I never said that all bunting was bad, or that you should never sac bunt. I just said it was stupid and it is.

I like bunting for a base hit. I personally don't like sac bunting at all - I think it deflates the Offense - but understand why it is done in certain situations and have no problems with it. It depends on the time of the game, being down one run or in a tie, and the hitter - if he is not hitting well, or is a very good bunter. If you really want to research all of my posts, I say something along the lines that it is a bad idea 90% if the time, and that Holbrook bunts way, way too much.

I did not like the idea of bunting yesterday - Cullen is one of our better hitters, a power guy, and he is not very fast. And you can argue whether it was needed or not - we got three hits after the sac fly and all of the runners would have scored anyway. But I was okay with it and it worked out. I would not have been okay with Cortes bunting, given how hot he was and the lower percentage of success with bunting a runner to 2nd with one out.

Holbrook bunts almost automatically, and early in games. I think we would be a much better hitting team if he cut them loose, and we would have more big innings and score more runs.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2017, 11:12 AM   #85
CapitolCock
Game MVP
 
CapitolCock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Gamecock Nation
Posts: 1,787
CockyCash: 1000002258
CapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
Glad to discuss. In your first article on the major leagues, it states "While acknowledging it as the correct strategy in a small number of cases, most feel that any gain in moving players around the bases is more than offset by giving up an out, the "clock" in baseball." In other words, your first article comes to the conclusion that bunting should be used rarely in the majors. And that is the strong trend.

The article above on college bunting is skewed because of several variables, which the article admits. One is that bunting for a base hit - which I think is good strategy - is included. I have seen stats that show that bunting for a base hit works at least 50% of the time (53% was the actual number). Of course, the guys that do it are usually fast, good with the bunt, only do it when the infield is playing back and when they can take them by surprise. Getting a fast runner on base leads to runs via bunting but is not the topic of this thread - it is sacrifice bunting.

Second, bunt strike-outs are often just shown as strike-outs and not failed bunts. That increases the likelihood of scoring with bunts - since the failed bunt does not count on the bunt side - and decreases the likelihood of scoring when swinging away, when the batter did not actually swing away.

Third, it does not reflect the situations where bunts are attempted and the batter gets one or two strikes, then has to swing away down in the count. The chances of a successful outcome are reduced because of the wasted strikes on bunt attempts, but that also goes on the "failed swinging away" side of the ledger and not the "failed bunt side".

Even with those flaws that skew the results in favor of bunting, you still score more runs with a runner on First and no outs than a runner on Second with one out.

And then there is this - college coaches bunt 17.8% of the time with a runner on 1st and no outs and 29.4 % of the time with a runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs. In other words, not all coaches do it that often, and when they do, it is based on the situation in the game and the batter at the plate. So - unlike what the pro-bunting people are posting - it is not universal strategy in college.

Holbrook does it about 90% of the time, regardless of the game situation and the batter. That is what I complain about and it hurts our team. And our chance of bunting successfully is reduced because every opponent knows that we are going to bunt.

There are those on this board that think the key play of yesterday's game was the successful sacrifice that put runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out, and allowed the go ahead run to score on a sac fly. I think the key play was allowing Cortes to swing away with a runner on 1st and no outs (he did square up on Ball Three but did not offer). The resulting walk put runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs, and allowed the sacrifice to work.

I have never said that all bunting in every situation was bad. I like the idea of bunting for a base hit, and advancing runners from 1st and 2nd with no outs makes sense if you are tied or down one run late (depending on the hitter). I was fine with the sac bunt yesterday but would have gone ballistic if Cortes bunted - he had hit 3 dingers in less than two games and was the one guy that the pitcher would be careful throwing to, and it resulted in the walk.

Holbrook uses the sac bunt way too much, period. It has cost us games and contributes to the hitting malaise that we seem to go through every year. Except in special situations, let em hit.

I'm done now.
Is this a verified statistic or a figure or speech?
CapitolCock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2017, 11:59 AM   #86
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,792
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitolCock View Post
Is this a verified statistic or a figure or speech?
It is my best guess based on following Gamecock baseball. Feel free to do the research yourself. But he is way, way above the norm for college coaches (17.8% bunts for runner on 1st/no outs, 29.4% bunts for runners on 1st and 2nd no outs). And I am sure you know that.

After having experiencing how incensed you guys are when someone questions the sanctity of bunting, he might just be bunting so he does not get second-guessed by you traditionalists.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2017, 12:58 PM   #87
CapitolCock
Game MVP
 
CapitolCock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Gamecock Nation
Posts: 1,787
CockyCash: 1000002258
CapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
It is my best guess based on following Gamecock baseball. Feel free to do the research yourself. But he is way, way above the norm for college coaches (17.8% bunts for runner on 1st/no outs, 29.4% bunts for runners on 1st and 2nd no outs). And I am sure you know that.

After having experiencing how incensed you guys are when someone questions the sanctity of bunting, he might just be bunting so he does not get second-guessed by you traditionalists.
He gets second-guessed after making any decision. That's part of the downside of coaching baseball at this school. Nobody can actually coach anymore. Instead, they have to answer to "know-it-all" fans who get to argue about decisions that were made after the fact.
CapitolCock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:21 PM   #88
Spur20001
Blue Chip
 
Spur20001's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Greenwood, South Carolina
Posts: 931
CockyCash: 500
Spur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudly
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

clemson is a team I dislike with a passion but since my 2nd favorite team plays them every game other than my number one favorite Gamecocks I watch many of their games on replays. I just got through watching their 3 game series with FSU. Going into this series the announcer said clemson only had 17 sac bunts for the season. If memory serves me correctly they did not attempt any bunts in this series. I think they have played around 37 games. It appears Monte Lee is not in love with the bunt and his team is ranked #4 in the nation.

You guys can argue with Ace all you like but you can't prove him wrong on the stupid sac bunts. I am in his corner on this and you can also attack me in the same way. MLB is at an all time low in sac bunts and this is being done with very smart high paid managers. Too bad many of the college coaches (including Chad) are slow to figure out the odds against bunting. I believe many of you guys must also think going to Vegas will win you money. Smart money and knowing the odds are the reasons so many of those huge hotels and casinos exist there.
Spur20001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 10:12 PM   #89
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,792
CockyCash: 1748
Ace Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot materialAce Dilcock is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spur20001 View Post
clemson is a team I dislike with a passion but since my 2nd favorite team plays them every game other than my number one favorite Gamecocks I watch many of their games on replays. I just got through watching their 3 game series with FSU. Going into this series the announcer said clemson only had 17 sac bunts for the season. If memory serves me correctly they did not attempt any bunts in this series. I think they have played around 37 games. It appears Monte Lee is not in love with the bunt and his team is ranked #4 in the nation.

You guys can argue with Ace all you like but you can't prove him wrong on the stupid sac bunts. I am in his corner on this and you can also attack me in the same way. MLB is at an all time low in sac bunts and this is being done with very smart high paid managers. Too bad many of the college coaches (including Chad) are slow to figure out the odds against bunting. I believe many of you guys must also think going to Vegas will win you money. Smart money and knowing the odds are the reasons so many of those huge hotels and casinos exist there.
Thanks for the support - I feel like a voice shouting in the wilderness sometimes. The 4/24 edition of ESPN the Magazine published an excerpt from Keith Law's book "Smart Baseball".Here is a part of the excerpt:

"IF YOU'VE SPENT any time on Twitter, you've probably come across fans and analysts criticizing manager decisions to bunt, from the band Puig Destroyer's crude but effective song "Stop F---ing Bunting" to my own term #smrtbaseball, an allusion to a Simpsons episode in which Homer calls himself smart, spells it S-M-R-T and then sets the house on fire. Here's the main reason for all of this vitriol: In the majority of situations when it's used, the sacrifice bunt is a terribly stupid play.
Let's highlight some specific scenarios when you might see the bunt applied. With a man on first base and no outs, an MLB team's probability of scoring at least one run in the inning in 2015 was 0.499, or roughly 50-50. Pushing that runner up to second in exchange for an out reduced those odds to 0.447, or just under 45 percent. So not only does the bunt reduce the number of runs the team could expect to score in that inning (from 0.84 to 0.65) but it reduces the team's odds of scoring any runs at all. Remind me again what the point of the bunt was?"

I just thought it was funny to read the write-up in light of the recent discussion and thought I would share. And yes, I realize it is based on the Majors, not college. But the author is also ignoring the fact that the bunt is "successful" only 87% of the time at the major league level. So a lot of times, they make an out with even creating the scenario where there is a lesser chance of scoring.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 12:49 PM   #90
RoosterBooster
1st Team All-SEC
 
RoosterBooster's Avatar
 


Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,871
CockyCash: 100500
RoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot materialRoosterBooster is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Chad must have read your logic and decided not to bunt Stokes to third. (of course good base running would have gotten him there anyway)
__________________
I HATE ORANGE
RoosterBooster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 05:55 PM   #91
Spur20001
Blue Chip
 
Spur20001's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Greenwood, South Carolina
Posts: 931
CockyCash: 500
Spur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudly
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoosterBooster View Post
Chad must have read your logic and decided not to bunt Stokes to third. (of course good base running would have gotten him there anyway)
If he had tried bunting Stokes to third would the sac have been successful? If we do waste an out and get him to third, would he have scored? Argue against the facts all you like but show me the studies that show bunting beats the odds.
Needless to say I love having a man at 2b with no outs more than a man on third with one out. Most teams can move a runner from 2b to 3b by swinging the bat even if the hitter makes an out. Time and time again when Chad tries the bunt and it fails and he clearly goes against the odds.
Spur20001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2017, 06:33 PM   #92
Spur20001
Blue Chip
 
Spur20001's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Greenwood, South Carolina
Posts: 931
CockyCash: 500
Spur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudlySpur20001 is crowing loudly
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Chad does it again and once again with awful results. How many times did we sac bunt or attempt to sac bunt against Florida? How many times did the sac bunt contribute to a run(s)? We only scored one time following a sac bunt but the sac bunt was not a factor as we followed up with a double and a single. Also put our hitters in a hole following 2 sac bunt attempts with two strikes on the hitter. Any wonder why we continue to lose?
Spur20001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2017, 07:11 PM   #93
GamecockSuperFan
Banned
 
GamecockSuperFan's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 5,590
CockyCash: 666
GamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot materialGamecockSuperFan is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Looking for a word to define when one does the same thing over and over with the same result and doesn't change it.
GamecockSuperFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2017, 07:32 PM   #94
Ironfan
1st Team All-SEC
 
Ironfan's Avatar
 


Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,266
CockyCash: 600
Ironfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot materialIronfan is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan View Post
Looking for a word to define when one does the same thing over and over with the same result and doesn't change it.
Insanity
Ironfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2017, 07:46 PM   #95
CapitolCock
Game MVP
 
CapitolCock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Gamecock Nation
Posts: 1,787
CockyCash: 1000002258
CapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot materialCapitolCock is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spur20001 View Post
Chad does it again and once again with awful results. How many times did we sac bunt or attempt to sac bunt against Florida? How many times did the sac bunt contribute to a run(s)? We only scored one time following a sac bunt but the sac bunt was not a factor as we followed up with a double and a single. Also put our hitters in a hole following 2 sac bunt attempts with two strikes on the hitter. Any wonder why we continue to lose?
There were a lot of times where we didn't try to bunt with a runner on first and nobody out. We also tried the hit and run a few times. So I can't say it's just the bunting and/or Holbrook. The man is trying a lot of different things. Nothing is working.
CapitolCock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2017, 08:15 PM   #96
EAtMoRTaYtErz
1st Team All-SEC
 
EAtMoRTaYtErz's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Surfside Beach, SC
Posts: 4,374
CockyCash: 7500
EAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot materialEAtMoRTaYtErz is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

He has been changing things. Players. and he has gotten mixed results, because not enough of them are good.
EAtMoRTaYtErz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Provided by SLB Development