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 
Master Bedroom
The Yancey
cocky0
Blitzkrieg
AR1
GeoCocky66
TwoNotch Dreams
Spur's Addiction
GregoryHouse
ConwayGamecock
Felder Arrested (3329)
Grad Transfer To USC (1141)
Schedule Preview and (924)
No cable or Dish (810)
Predict the Gamecock (729)
RIP EP (487)
PODCAST: 2017 Predic (203)
Are you one of those (130)
Mr. Mercedes TV Seri (122)
2018 - Jaycee Horn
Ric Flair Not Doing Well
No cable or Dish
Predict the Gamecocks' fi
Felder Arrested
2018 - Paxton Brooks
Been away for a while, bu
Tiger Woods' Toxicology R
Grad Transfer To USC
2017 Roster


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2017, 07:50 AM   #41
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,117
CockyCash: 650
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
I just can't get behind the whole "bunting scores less" runs studies. Here's why...

If you're bunting, you're not looking for a lot of runs. You're probably looking for one, and you either get it or you don't. This naturally keeps the average number of runs scored lower.

If you're looking for as many runs as possible, then you probably aren't bunting.

Either way, this debate is probably more about personal preference than anything. Nobody is ever going to win this argument.
The argument is already won and you conceded as much - if you're bunting, you're not looking for a lot of runs. If you are hitting away, you are looking for a lot of runs.

And - correct me if I am wrong - isn't it better to score a lot of runs? And doesn't that improve your chances of winning?

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. Studies have shown that the batter is less likely to score from 2nd with one out than from 1st with no outs, same with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs versus runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out. So your chances of getting one run are less if you bunt - in the Major Leagues! And that assumes a successful bunt - and the Major League "success" rate is about 87%. I would be willing to wager that the rate is much lower in college.

And, of course, we will bunt even in the 1st inning - when we are not needing to get that one run.

We would score more runs if we cut back on the bunting - the numbers don't lie - and it would build more confidence in our hitters. We would be saying that we trust them to hit, and not sacrifice their at-bat because we lack confidence in them doing something good. Bunting just puts pressure on the batter to get the bunt down - a lose-lose situation, because a successful bunt is still an out that reduces your chances of scoring runs - and puts more pressure on the following batter because the previous batter "sacrificed" his at-bat. The next hitter often tries to hard to get the clean hit and swings at bad pitches - plus the pitcher can nibble because there is an open base. If anyone ever did the study, they would find that the hitter following a sacrifice bunt has a lower BA/OBP than he would have over all his at-bats.

The definition of futility is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Why not try something different? Even the major leagues, the most old school and reactionary pro sports league out there, is catching on.

Next thing you know, we might learn that the earth is not flat and you won't sail off the edge.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 10:05 AM   #42
HHess
4-Star
 
HHess's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Summerville
Posts: 304
CockyCash: 7382743
HHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudlyHHess is crowing loudly
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by USCBatgirl21 View Post
Bunting is the least of our worries...
I agree. We just gave up 20 runs to UNC. You should never give up that many runs to anybody...
__________________
I'm just here for the Cocky Cash and Reputation Points...
HHess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 10:25 AM   #43
USCBatgirl21
Official Baseball Chick
 
USCBatgirl21's Avatar
 
Female

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sec 4, Row 1, Seat 16 - Carolina Stadium
Posts: 12,011
CockyCash: 1000500
USCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot materialUSCBatgirl21 is USC mascot material
Send a message via MSN to USCBatgirl21
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HHess View Post
I agree. We just gave up 20 runs to UNC. You should never give up that many runs to anybody...
I just find it humorous that with the myriad of problems we are facing right now the damn bunting argument has resurfaced.
USCBatgirl21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 10:35 AM   #44
CapitolCock
Game MVP
 
CapitolCock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,549
CockyCash: 1158
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
The argument is already won and you conceded as much - if you're bunting, you're not looking for a lot of runs. If you are hitting away, you are looking for a lot of runs.

And - correct me if I am wrong - isn't it better to score a lot of runs? And doesn't that improve your chances of winning?

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. Studies have shown that the batter is less likely to score from 2nd with one out than from 1st with no outs, same with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs versus runners on 2nd and 3rd with one out. So your chances of getting one run are less if you bunt - in the Major Leagues! And that assumes a successful bunt - and the Major League "success" rate is about 87%. I would be willing to wager that the rate is much lower in college.

And, of course, we will bunt even in the 1st inning - when we are not needing to get that one run.

We would score more runs if we cut back on the bunting - the numbers don't lie - and it would build more confidence in our hitters. We would be saying that we trust them to hit, and not sacrifice their at-bat because we lack confidence in them doing something good. Bunting just puts pressure on the batter to get the bunt down - a lose-lose situation, because a successful bunt is still an out that reduces your chances of scoring runs - and puts more pressure on the following batter because the previous batter "sacrificed" his at-bat. The next hitter often tries to hard to get the clean hit and swings at bad pitches - plus the pitcher can nibble because there is an open base. If anyone ever did the study, they would find that the hitter following a sacrifice bunt has a lower BA/OBP than he would have over all his at-bats.

The definition of futility is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Why not try something different? Even the major leagues, the most old school and reactionary pro sports league out there, is catching on.

Next thing you know, we might learn that the earth is not flat and you won't sail off the edge.
In a vacuum, yes, we want to score as many runs as possible. But people are bashing Holbrook for bunting in the 9th inning when all we need is one. We weren't looking for a grand slam against Clemson. We were looking for a single run. Situational bunting isn't a bad idea, but you keep looking at the numbers as if the decision is a long term strategy. It's not.

And as far as I can tell, the studies don't show that bunting doesn't yield the desired outcome. Instead, the studies show that on average, you will score less runs overall in an inning (which I agree with). I would love to see a study that compares not bunting to "how often does bunting result in the 1 run that was desired?"

Because there is a major difference between average number of runs scored in an inning, and which strategy works better if you are looking for a single run.
CapitolCock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 05:14 PM   #45
Spur20001
Blue Chip
 
Spur20001's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Greenwood, South Carolina
Posts: 922
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 CapitolCock View Post
I just can't get behind the whole "bunting scores less" runs studies. Here's why...

If you're bunting, you're not looking for a lot of runs. You're probably looking for one, and you either get it or you don't. This naturally keeps the average number of runs scored lower.

If you're looking for as many runs as possible, then you probably aren't bunting.

Either way, this debate is probably more about personal preference than anything. Nobody is ever going to win this argument.
OK, I'll use your quote and see if this makes any sense to you. I'm not talking about scoring lots of runs, just the one run you spoke of. If you are only looking to score one run why would you bunt when the odds of scoring a run from 2b with one out are against you? As has been mentioned numerous times the odds of scoring a run from 1b with no outs are much better?

If stats/numbers don't lie forget the bunt unless bunting for a hit. The studies clearly prove this. MLB sac bunts are the lowest in history for a very good reason. It is a shame some of the college coaches (Chad being one of them) can't figure this out.

Not using your quote: Anytime teams waste outs they are going to score less runs. Bunting simply kills the chance for big innings. Ace also made a very good point when he said asking these players to bunt hurts their confidence as the coach does not trust them to handle the bat. Swinging away gives lots more chances of scoring a run and often even when the hitter makes an out the runner will advance.

If Chad sticks to his love of sac bunts, clemson owns us and forget about us going to Omaha. Our middle relief is terrible. Johnson is the only great relief pitcher we have. If we are going to be successful playing for the big inning is our best chance, not giving useless outs away.
Spur20001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 05:47 PM   #46
CapitolCock
Game MVP
 
CapitolCock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,549
CockyCash: 1158
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
OK, I'll use your quote and see if this makes any sense to you. I'm not talking about scoring lots of runs, just the one run you spoke of. If you are only looking to score one run why would you bunt when the odds of scoring a run from 2b with one out are against you? As has been mentioned numerous times the odds of scoring a run from 1b with no outs are much better?

If stats/numbers don't lie forget the bunt unless bunting for a hit. The studies clearly prove this. MLB sac bunts are the lowest in history for a very good reason. It is a shame some of the college coaches (Chad being one of them) can't figure this out.

Not using your quote: Anytime teams waste outs they are going to score less runs. Bunting simply kills the chance for big innings. Ace also made a very good point when he said asking these players to bunt hurts their confidence as the coach does not trust them to handle the bat. Swinging away gives lots more chances of scoring a run and often even when the hitter makes an out the runner will advance.

If Chad sticks to his love of sac bunts, clemson owns us and forget about us going to Omaha. Our middle relief is terrible. Johnson is the only great relief pitcher we have. If we are going to be successful playing for the big inning is our best chance, not giving useless outs away.
Are the odds of scoring a single run lower, or is the average number of runs lower? There's a big difference, and the only numbers I've seen on here are the average number of runs per inning.
CapitolCock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 08:50 PM   #47
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,117
CockyCash: 650
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
In a vacuum, yes, we want to score as many runs as possible. But people are bashing Holbrook for bunting in the 9th inning when all we need is one. We weren't looking for a grand slam against Clemson. We were looking for a single run. Situational bunting isn't a bad idea, but you keep looking at the numbers as if the decision is a long term strategy. It's not.

And as far as I can tell, the studies don't show that bunting doesn't yield the desired outcome. Instead, the studies show that on average, you will score less runs overall in an inning (which I agree with). I would love to see a study that compares not bunting to "how often does bunting result in the 1 run that was desired?"

Because there is a major difference between average number of runs scored in an inning, and which strategy works better if you are looking for a single run.
You might have missed it but...the runner is less likely to score from 2nd with one out than 1st with no outs. Same with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs and 2nd and 3rd with one out. In other words - the times when Holbrook automatically bunts. So - provided the bunt is successful - he is still less likely to get the one run he needs.

It was a bad percentage move to bunt against Clemson in the 9th. But when you take your best power bat out of the line-up and put in a true Freshman that had barely played, well...and the game went to extra innings with not Destino.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 09:03 PM   #48
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,117
CockyCash: 650
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
Are the odds of scoring a single run lower, or is the average number of runs lower? There's a big difference, and the only numbers I've seen on here are the average number of runs per inning.
The likelihood of the single runner scoring is lower. He has a better chance of scoring from first with no outs than from second with one out - assuming the bunt is successful, which is about 87% of the time in the pros. The numbers for first and second with no outs are better than second and third with one out although that is a little closer.

And the problem with the "bunting to avoid the double play" argument is that the pitcher can walk the next batter and set the DP up again - only this time, the DP ends the inning. Or - and this happens a lot - the pitcher keeps the ball out of the strike zone, making it harder to get a hit. If he walks the batter, no big deal, the DP is back in order.

One argument for bunting was that college players had to learn bunting to get ready for the pros. Only bunting is about gone from the pros, so it is just a waste of time now - teaching them something that they will never need (like calculus for most people).

Hitting is contagious. Bunting is the cure that keeps hitting disease from spreading across the line-up, and it eliminates big innings.
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 09:28 PM   #49
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,117
CockyCash: 650
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:

On a follow-up note - the MSU game just had an example of another downside to bunting. Matt Williams fouled off two bunt attempts with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs, then abandoned the bunt to avoid a foul-out strike-out. With an 0-2 count he had to protect the plate and wound up swinging at a pitch in the dirt for out one.

It does not count as a failed bunt, but trying to bunt helped to insure that the at-bat would not be successful (not that Williams has been very successful lately anyway, but still).
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 10:22 PM   #50
JoeCock
Blue Chip
 
JoeCock's Avatar
 


Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hartsville, SC
Posts: 841
CockyCash: 19484
JoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot materialJoeCock is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

I have to give you credit Ace. When you commit to something, you stick to it.

Honestly, no disrespect intended in my post, really admire your tenacity.
__________________
I'm no expert, just an "Ordinary Joe".
JoeCock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2017, 10:46 PM   #51
TaySC
Starter
 
TaySC's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Aiken
Posts: 1,346
CockyCash: 200
TaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeCock View Post
I have to give you credit Ace. When you commit to something, you stick to it.

Honestly, no disrespect intended in my post, really admire your tenacity.
Yep, even in cases like this when he is wrong, he commits wholeheartedly to it.
TaySC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 01:36 PM   #52
Ace Dilcock
2nd Team All-American
 
Ace Dilcock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mt. Pleasant
Posts: 8,117
CockyCash: 650
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 TaySC View Post
Yep, even in cases like this when he is wrong, he commits wholeheartedly to it.
Got it. I have shot down every argument with facts and explanations, leaving no sane rebuttal left. So your response is "well, you are wrong anyway". Great contribution to the discussion.

Not a big deal. Holbrook loses 2-3 more games per year with his automatic bunts and we seldom have big innings or good offensive games. 2-3 games is the difference between being a regional host or going on the road, or between being a regional host and a super-regional host.

You know, the little things that make the difference between getting to Omaha or not. Or between losing your job and keeping it.

Last edited by Ace Dilcock; 04-15-2017 at 05:19 PM..
Ace Dilcock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 01:44 PM   #53
CapitolCock
Game MVP
 
CapitolCock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,549
CockyCash: 1158
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
The likelihood of the single runner scoring is lower. He has a better chance of scoring from first with no outs than from second with one out - assuming the bunt is successful, which is about 87% of the time in the pros. The numbers for first and second with no outs are better than second and third with one out although that is a little closer.

And the problem with the "bunting to avoid the double play" argument is that the pitcher can walk the next batter and set the DP up again - only this time, the DP ends the inning. Or - and this happens a lot - the pitcher keeps the ball out of the strike zone, making it harder to get a hit. If he walks the batter, no big deal, the DP is back in order.

One argument for bunting was that college players had to learn bunting to get ready for the pros. Only bunting is about gone from the pros, so it is just a waste of time now - teaching them something that they will never need (like calculus for most people).

Hitting is contagious. Bunting is the cure that keeps hitting disease from spreading across the line-up, and it eliminates big innings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
On a follow-up note - the MSU game just had an example of another downside to bunting. Matt Williams fouled off two bunt attempts with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs, then abandoned the bunt to avoid a foul-out strike-out. With an 0-2 count he had to protect the plate and wound up swinging at a pitch in the dirt for out one.

It does not count as a failed bunt, but trying to bunt helped to insure that the at-bat would not be successful (not that Williams has been very successful lately anyway, but still).
Matt Williams is a singular event. I know you were just using it as a reference though.

I still don't disagree with a bunt if you have a batter that can do it with a statistically reliable hitter on-deck. We can argue about execution all we want, but then we would just be talking about baseball haha. It's always would have, could have, should have in baseball.
CapitolCock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 02:13 PM   #54
TaySC
Starter
 
TaySC's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Aiken
Posts: 1,346
CockyCash: 200
TaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post


Got it. I have shot down every argument with facts and explanations, leaving no sane rebuttal left. So your response is "well, you are wrong anyway". Great contribution to the discussion.

Not a big deal. Holbrook loses 2-3 more games per year with his automatic bunts and we seldom have big innings or good offensive games. 2-3 gamse is the difference between being a regional host or going on the road, or between being a regional host and a super-regional host.

You know, the little things that make the difference between getting to Omaha or not. Or between losing your job and keeping it.
Actually the last time that you and I debated this you never could disprove any of my points and continually reached by using stats from a different game, trying to claim they are the same. About the same thing you are doing here.

You get your butt handed to you in every debate, even in the smacktalk forum by rival posters, yet you still claim victory every time you debate a subject matter,

I get it. I've seen guys like you on every board I've ever posted on over the past 25 years or so. You claim your knowledge is superior, which it isnt. You claim your resources are more accurate, which they arent.

The mere fact that you are still debating this subject proves without a doubt that you haven't won any argument because you are still trying to prove your point, which you haven't been able to do in long winded post after long winded post. Serously, I know I proved my points the last time this was debated and I moved on because it isn't up to me to prove the error of your ways. Some people will never get it because to them being right is more important than the facts. So take care and I'm sure you will be winning this same tired debate a year from now.

TaySC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 03:33 PM   #55
11SWU10
Blue Chip
 
11SWU10's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: simpsonville, s.c
Posts: 577
CockyCash: 1120
11SWU10 is developing his comb11SWU10 is developing his comb11SWU10 is developing his comb11SWU10 is developing his comb11SWU10 is developing his comb11SWU10 is developing his comb11SWU10 is developing his comb11SWU10 is developing his comb11SWU10 is developing his comb
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Down one or two runs, men on first and second with no outs. You MUST bunt them over. We had to trade an out to avoid the DP. Williams had to make it happen.
I like Matt as a player. He came to Carolina as a middle infielder(2nd) and a middle infielder must able to bunt if they want to play at the next level.

Stokes had to be running on contact, no excuse to be out at the plate. none.
Fifteen year old kids should know these things. We should have told him to be moving on contact with every pitch of that at bat. Tuff if it embarrassed him.

We swing at too much crap, especially low and away on first and second strike, then we fail to protect the plate on a similar pitch for strike three. Happens to often.
11SWU10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 03:40 PM   #56
GamecockUltimate
BIGGER. STRONGER.LONGER
 
GamecockUltimate's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Club Fields
Posts: 6,953
CockyCash: 200
GamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot materialGamecockUltimate is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaySC View Post
Actually the last time that you and I debated this you never could disprove any of my points and continually reached by using stats from a different game, trying to claim they are the same. About the same thing you are doing here.

You get your butt handed to you in every debate, even in the smacktalk forum by rival posters, yet you still claim victory every time you debate a subject matter,

I get it. I've seen guys like you on every board I've ever posted on over the past 25 years or so. You claim your knowledge is superior, which it isnt. You claim your resources are more accurate, which they arent.

The mere fact that you are still debating this subject proves without a doubt that you haven't won any argument because you are still trying to prove your point, which you haven't been able to do in long winded post after long winded post. Serously, I know I proved my points the last time this was debated and I moved on because it isn't up to me to prove the error of your ways. Some people will never get it because to them being right is more important than the facts. So take care and I'm sure you will be winning this same tired debate a year from now.

We may argue in another forum but damn this post is spot on
GamecockUltimate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 03:41 PM   #57
tcmac08
Three-toed sloth
 
tcmac08's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: aiken
Posts: 3,174
CockyCash: 950
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Dilcock View Post
On a follow-up note - the MSU game just had an example of another downside to bunting. Matt Williams fouled off two bunt attempts with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs, then abandoned the bunt to avoid a foul-out strike-out. With an 0-2 count he had to protect the plate and wound up swinging at a pitch in the dirt for out one.

It does not count as a failed bunt, but trying to bunt helped to insure that the at-bat would not be successful (not that Williams has been very successful lately anyway, but still).
The bunt was the right call. Execution of the bunt was the failure. MSU bunted a runner to third in the ninth and the bunter reached base because he forced the defense to make a play. The bunter came around to score later in the inning. Was this a success, Ace, or are you going to put your spin on it. I will not post again in this thread as I have, on numerous occasions in the past, shown where bunts were essential to the outcome of the games. Should the team bunt all the time? No However, it is an essential part of many games.
tcmac08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 03:43 PM   #58
TaySC
Starter
 
TaySC's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Aiken
Posts: 1,346
CockyCash: 200
TaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot materialTaySC is USC mascot material
Default Re: If Chad Has Not Read The Sac Bunt Studies:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GamecockUltimate View Post
We may argue in another forum but damn this post is spot on
Us agreeing on something is scary.
TaySC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 04:02 PM   #59
CapitolCock
Game MVP
 
CapitolCock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,549
CockyCash: 1158
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 TaySC View Post
Us agreeing on something is scary.
We all find ourselves agreeing with each other occasionally. It's possible haha.
CapitolCock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2017, 04:23 PM   #60
conwaycock2
Bowl MVP
 
conwaycock2's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: longs
Posts: 2,043
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 tcmac08 View Post
The bunt was the right call. Execution of the bunt was the failure. MSU bunted a runner to third in the ninth and the bunter reached base because he forced the defense to make a play. The bunter came around to score later in the inning. Was this a success, Ace, or are you going to put your spin on it. I will not post again in this thread as I have, on numerous occasions in the past, shown where bunts were essential to the outcome of the games. Should the team bunt all the time? No However, it is an essential part of many games.
Correct. Saying the bunt is stupid is as dumb as saying it's appropriate in every situation. The key is what the situation is at that moment. The one thing you do not want when trying to advance runners into scoring position is a dead out, eg K, infield or shallow popup, etc. In Williams case he is struggling at the plate, rolling over & hitting grounders to the 2nd baseman frequently. That is a taylor made DP. You might also have a situation where a hitter is just a bad matchup (left on left etc), a hitter who is not seeing the ball well off a particular pitcher, etc. A bunt there is the correct call. If you've got your best hitter up & a guy struggling on deck, or down 3 in the 8th, then hitting away might very easily be the right call.

Every, or at a minimum nearly, college coach in the country utilizes the bunt. Now all that's left to decide is do they know the game as well as a random internet poster who likely never coached even a pee wee game.

Last edited by conwaycock2; 04-15-2017 at 04:35 PM..
conwaycock2 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 12:16 AM.


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