In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
LHN just had a graphic showing that Texas scores (3-12) 25% of the time when bunting after getting the lead-off man on base.
Of course they are scoring (12-28)43% of the time in the same situation when Augie allows his players to swing away.
This post was edited by NLeininger 16 months ago
Outs are baseball gold. You never give them away.
Damn you LHN for thinking you know more than Augie! Austinr hates you
They should also run the stats to see how many times Texas scores more than one run in the described innings.
Interviewer: Coach, we've noticed that your team scores in only 25% of the innings in which you bunt after getting a lead-off man on base, but 48.3% of the time in which you swing away after getting the lead-off man on base. We've also found that you score more than one run in those innings nearly 2.5 times more often when you swing away versus when you bunt. Would you comment on that?
Garrido: Well, yes, we are scoring less frequently and in lesser amounts, but I'm teaching them how to play the game.
This post was edited by bierce 16 months ago
Attached here is an excellent article for the more mathematically inclined on the arguments against the bunt. Essentially, by looking at many years of baseball games, analysts have found that when an inning starts a team can expect to score between 0.45 and 0.5 runs. If the team gets the leadoff man to first base, the expected (average) runs in that inning increases to between 0.8 and 0.9. If the team sacrifices SUCCESSFULLY, so that there is a man on second and one out, the expected runs for that inning actually DECREASES back down to about 0.65. Obviously, an unsuccessful sacrifice is even worse. Bottom line: bunting makes sense in very few situations, but especially early in the game with a man on first and no outs and a good hitter at the plate. Bunting can make sense when you're playing for one run late in the game with the bottom of the order at the plate.
This post was edited by JerseyBornHorn 16 months ago
Bierce is exactly right. The biggest problem with bunting isn't the frequency of scoring, it's making a crooked number less likely. In the long run, the probability of scoring in an inning isn't really affected by bunting if you bunt with zero outs. However, the expected number of runs declines substantially because the probability of scoring more than one run is in fact diminished.
Signatures are stupid. You should block them.
It's proven. The math is there. But you will still hear the "So you know more than Augie and his 1855 wins and 7 rings?" argument as a response. All we can do is keep putting the facts out there. More and more are realizing the truth.
I am not really a supporter of any particular style of baseball. Different situations call for different strategies IMO.
My point has ALWAYS been that I support Augie, I trust him and his 1800 + wins to make the decisions regarding
Longhorn baseball. The game will always be about scoring 1 more run than the other team. How they do that matters
not to me.
Don't be afraid to ride the lightning.
Maybe even Coach Garrido to a certain extent. Let us at least be heartened by the ratio of 29 instances in which a bunt was not attempted to 12 in which one was. Imagine how we'd feel if it was the reverse, and for some reason I have a feeling it might have been in recent years. I remember watching tournament games for years knowing the bunt was coming the moment a guy got to first.
As the great Judge Judith Sheindlin says..............if something makes sense its probably true ........if something doesn't make sense it probably is false. So here is the recap:
-The T-Ball coaching alphabet boys------------"won"1 participation trophy
-A "3 Sport Letterman" at UT (nobody ever heard of) -----------"won" nothing.........but Augie said he washed jock straps well
-A self-appointed know-it-all lawyer---------"won" The Legend in his Own Mind Award
-(soon to post) Drunk Weatherman-----------(looking for)2 bottles of vodka (to finish the weekend)
-Augie Garrido-----------most wins in NCAA history of any sport plus 5 CWS Championships
The simple question who knows more about playing winning baseball?
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by austinr 16 months ago
"Leadership is wisdom, courage and great carelessness of self"
Yes, I'd like to think that Augie is humble enough and self-scouts enough to make that change, even slightly. I'm not demanding that he never bunt, but it's nice to see him make the right play and see it pay out. We need the bottom of the order to hit.
Probably not the guy who responds to statistics with ad hominem attacks and an appeal to authority.
Pretty long retort. I'm wrong would've done just fine.
...................we are glad you finally admitted it!
Admitting you don't know something is the beginning of knowledge...................you are beginning to learn!
And you wind up owing a rooster to Asclepius.
All we are is dust in the wind, dude.
So out of 40 chances total he bunted 12 times. Based on that stat they only bunt/play small ball 30% of the time and swing away 70% of the time. Doesnt seem like that suggests he's a small ball guy but I dont know how that compares to other small ball coaches or his prior history.
austinr is a great example of why critical thinking skills need to be stressed in our school systems, as well as the meaning and value of statistical data.
It's not his fault that he's ignorant, our society failed him.
The Point being is that Augie is willing to change.... You can thank Tommy Nicholson for that!
Absolutely and I'm not the type that believes baseball is only played in one particular way. He's obviously earned the right to play his gut whenever he feels like it but it's clear they've noticed something about their odds of scoring runs.
One advantage of bunting the lead off runner to second base is you reduce the possibility of an inning killing double play.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by TeeDoe 16 months ago
The irony/stupidity of this post is off the charts.
Calling my post stupid is not necessary. Look, you can juggle these statistics any way you want. But I'll bet the odds of getting somebody home from second base is better than getting somebody home from first base. UT has good pitching, not many power hitters, and a big fast ball park.
But the whole point of the stat was to show the odds of getting a man home from first without wasting an out is nearly twice that of getting a man home from second after you have wasted an out.
Basically, you were shown reality and ignored it.
Hey, I wasn't argueing one way or the other. I simply stated one advantage of bunting the lead off runner to second base. But since you've been a jerk, I'll say that you have no clue what the "reality" I supposedly ignored is comprised of. Does it only include runners on first with no outs, or does it include doubles, steals, runners on first with one out or two etc. There's a reason they say a runner on 2nd is in scoring position. Bunting the lead off runner to second is common in baseball, at all levels. The St Louis Cardinals have used it pretty successfully.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports