Wow, no. We have had an anemic offense since Hoover. You most certainly bunt to put runner's in scoring position with one out.
Game 3 thread
- Thread starter tngamecock#
- Start date
We needed one run. One. Early in game, I agree with you.
Struggling to get hits down one in the 7th. BUNT
No. It’s counterintuitive, but teams that struggle at the plate need to value outs more than other teams. You’d think bunting, stealing, hit and run, etc., would help a team that’s poor at the plate, but it often does not. Just gives away outs/opportunities and they need every single one.
I would like to have a man on third and second down one run . can score on pass ball or fly ball to outfield and still have a man in scoring position .
Its all situational.
That ball gets thru and we arent having this convo.
He bunts there and its 4-3 us right now
We get it. You think bunts are stupid.
Bottom line... we are winning right now if we could and would bunt.
You cannot ignore a part of the game like being able to bunt.
We need more team speed on the base paths, a hitting coach and most likely a new staff to be competitive again in the SEC.
Honestly this team wasnt very good. We played about as deep in the tournament as could be expected.
14 ks against a very average team tells you all you need to know.
14 ks against a very average team tells you all you need to know.
That’s absurd. What do you think Kingston wanted to accomplish there at the end? Take the bat out of the hands of a guy with a .835 OPS so he could give two of the worst hitters in the country a shot to drive in a guy from second? Great move.
Next year won’t be any better.
Lost confidence in USC’s coaching staff.
Lost confidence in USC’s coaching staff.
Last edited:
I think this is just who we are in baseball, now. A decent team with a typical ceiling of an early exit in regionals, with the rare season that goes a little further. The Glory Days ended almost a decade ago.
We strike out WAY TOO DAMN MUCH to not bunt there. I would've left the bunt on with 2 strikes. Guys tend to want it more when they have to bunt with 2 strikes. Don't want to strike out bunting.
And the result was a grounder to short that luckily didnt result in a double play.
Didnt matter because we responded with K's number 13 and 14.
Sadly this is what the game has become. It’s the same in the major leagues. Sports have become all about the highlights.
Bunting and small ball. Potentially 9 runs a game?
1. Get the first batter on first with no outs (yeah, right!)
2. Bunt to advance the runner to second, one out.
3. Sacrifice fly deep in the outfield, runner on second comes home, two outs, and 1 run for that inning.
What could go wrong?
1. Get the first batter on first with no outs (yeah, right!)
2. Bunt to advance the runner to second, one out.
3. Sacrifice fly deep in the outfield, runner on second comes home, two outs, and 1 run for that inning.
What could go wrong?
Over the long run, yes.
But, that is why there are lies, damn lies and stats.
And, then there are those who can’t tell the difference or fail in their application. Sort of like our head coach.
If you think playing situational baseball like stealing, bunting, hit and run, going the other way etc., in a single event is bad baseball, then you (not literally you) don’t know anything about baseball.
“Often does not” would describe our ability to get a hit. In some games, it describes how pathetic we are at making simple contact.
If a team is incapable of manufacturing a run when needed, then that is on their coach and the way their roster is constructed.
That is quintessential baseball. Not hack away until you run into one.
Right, if you had just a general rule that you wouldn’t ever sacrifice or steal, you’d come out better in the end. Those actions really limit the likelihood of multi run innings. Overall, the outcomes are simply not in your favor if you are constantly, artificially altering variables to marginally improve a single instance based on a limited situational sample or “intuition.”
With that, it becomes more of a guessing game based on scenarios and compound probabilities, especially at the college level when the sample sizes are smaller, to determine when to apply an intervention strategy. Today, Kingston needed one run to keep his season alive, and opted to sacrifice with Wimmer, who has had a really nice season at the plate. And doesn’t often sacrifice.
We know Wimmer can produce extra base hits and gets on base at a 32% clip, but we really don’t know what the likely outcomes are for him trying to bunt in that situation. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps 75 percent of the time he gets a good bunt down. If that happens, you’re putting it all on Burgess and Satterfield to get a hit. Just on the general numbers, that’s probably around a 26 percent chance overall, but certainly less against a good pitcher in a high leverage situation. At that point, you’re obviously just playing for the one run, so fair enough if Kingston thought there was a legit ~20 percent chance overall that Wimmer could get a sacrifice down and one of those guys could deliver a hit to drive in the run.
Personally, it just seems like over-managing. Just let Wimmer hit away. You’ve got about a 1 in 3 chance of ending up with runners at first and second and no outs.
The strikeouts are bad enough but we struggle to just make contact. Seeing our best hitters swing at balls in the dirt that catchers can barely reach just blows my mind. We rarely see opponents swing at pitches like that against us.
Thank you. Been reading all the comments about "Kingston disinterested", "need a pitching coach", blah blah, and I think its the exact opposite, and was vividly demonstrated in that Wimmer at bat and in the subsequent Burgess at bat. Our guys are like the golfer with 10 different swing thoughts going his head as he's standing over the ball; paralysis by analysis. You can't do that, and you can see it in our guy's faces when they come to the plate. These guys CAN hit the ball; they have demonstrated that. Its a game, mano a mano, one they've been playing for quite a while; let THEM do the playing.
Those two at bats in particular, Wimmer and Burgess, were as helpless, befuddled, and wasted as I have ever seen, and it ____ sure ain't because they just can't hit. That wasn't Greg Maddux they were facing.
Oh for F sske.
The program has sucked out loud at hitting since Kingston has been here.
Fact. Not opinion.
That spans numerous hackers.
If it’s the players, then that os on the coach.
If it’s the approach or lack thereof, then that is on the coach.
I’m not for getting rid of him yet unless there is an obvious upgrade.
But, he has got to fix their bottom feeding offense.
It is marginally different. the main factor being when 2 guys get on because the pitcher can't throw strikes, no need to give him an out when another walk gets the batters over too and no out.
Similar threads
