An important note: Carolna (that is, UNC) uses a really nice pitch/fx camera and computer setup at their games (that they man with players who aren’t playing- usually yesterday’s starter). I wonder what other teams are doing.
I care, but mostly because i want to learn more about anyone named mooneybarger and wikipedia isn’t helping. Also, the increased usage of sabermetrics at the college level seems likely to produce more young players who accept sabermetric ideas about bullpen usage, batting order, etc. which in turn might allow traditional ideas about these things at the major league level to be reconsidered.
yeah, bunting increases the likelihood you can score one run, reduces the likelihood of “big” innings. if it’s true that the run environment is ultra-low, and teams are unlikely to see these big innings, the relative value of a bunt just increased. now factor in that bunt defense is poorer at the college level and can turn some of these “sacrifice” bunts into hits or reaches on error. now there is some real value to a bunt. i don’t see what the problem is here. (though some expected value calculations would be nice.)
EV of a bunt could (*could*) be higher because the fielding’s not nearly as good in college as it is in pro. However, that same fielding discrepancy could mean that you get a lot more people on base just by making contact, wiping out any relative gain bunting would have on swinging away.
And i suppose i was a bit premature to dismiss others’ dismissals of bunting. It may not be the case. I’ll support my points more concisely so they can easily be picked apart:
1) Assuming there is a certain constant with a bunt (a trade of one base for one out), a lower run environment reduces the nominal expected value of swinging away more than it reduces the nominal expected value of a sacrifice bunt. The unknown is the magnitudes of the elasticities- how low of a run environment makes the bunt the sound play?
2) Along the same lines, there may be specific defensive maneuvers associated with the bunt (throwing on the run, knowing the right base to throw to, base coverage) where college kids are especially weak.
These are both hunches. No analysis whatsoever. Not defending them to the death. But as the article states, there hasn’t really been any significant rigorous quantitative analysis done on the college game, so where we’re at is throwing around ideas based on what we do know from MLB sabermetrics, the next step being empirical testing.
USS makes the points that I was assuming, which is great. I probably should have written those up, but there is a difficulty in proving these with the paucity of readily available college statistics in usable form.
College to me is interesting becuase [1] the quality of batters at the bottom of the lineup is muc worse than the majors, and [2] the talent level of the picthers is far above the hitters, in part due to #1.
We saw this plainly in the CWS, relievers would come in with guys on base multiple times and the lineup would go down 1-2-3, parituclarly if you played on UNC or against Florida.
Each team has basically 2-3 good hitters and the guys at the bottom of the lineup are essentially automatic outs.
So, a 5 hitter in NCAA might not be as close in talent to the 4 hitter as they would be in MLB.
IMHO, I think applying MLB data and conclusions to the college game is a mistake, especially in regards to IBB, bunting, reliever usage, etc.
It’s true that the run environment and quality of bats makes a big difference. And that the schedule is very different. But I’ll maintain that using your best player as a closer / DH is not the best use of resources, no matter how different the game.
No, david, at least in the majors, even assuming that a bunt is successful, it reduces the probability of scoring one run.
However, as Joe points out, that fact may be different in college.
The Stanford coach says that even 3rd and 4th hitters bunt, which I have seen in some of the few college games I watch. That can’t be right at any level.
they don’t say that anymore, I hear “dank” more now. Maybe it’s a midwest thing. Or if you want it to be even more exciting “hella dank” which is some sort of bastardized version of “dank as hell”. I’m not sure how they take a word that basically describes most basements (dank) and turn it into a positive, but they do.
I disagree that Stanford is sabermetric friendly. Talk to any person with knowledge about scouting about the “Stanford swing.” It’s designed to eliminate slugging. It is a bunt over the infield.
But I’ll maintain that using your best player as a closer / DH is not the best use of resources, no matter how different the game.
Rather than make statements, we should be analyzing evidence.
Is it a case of using a star player as a part-timer? Or is it a case of getting one guy to perform 2 roles well?
1. The guy is playing DH to save throws on his arm. I like that. The coach is deliberately not overusing the kid for his own personal gain. He’s keeping his bat in the lineup.
2. He’s using him as a relief ace.
Is basically asking “Is he worth more as relief ace or defensive left fielder?”
Don’t we need to look at: [1] their options in LF, and [2] their options at relief ace?
It’s entirely possible that their option at LF is better than their option at RA, and that by having the star player RA/DH allows the best overall players to play the most.
I suspect that the kid can play LF given that relief aces usually have strong arms. The problem is that relief pitchers in college are used a lot, so having him play LF with the throws between innings, hard throws to bases, etc is actually a detriment to the kid.
I would also posit that NCAA coaches are more likely to use their relief ace in a non-save situation if it a critical moment.
I don’t think the answer is anywhere close to as obvious as you are positing.
My feeling is that most coaches want pitchers that strike out a lot of batters and walk very few while not allowing home runs. I’m also going to guess that most coaches wanted these type of pitchers for the last century.
I’d also suggest that unlike their MLB counterparts, college coaches will use their relief ace, wherever, whenever.
I would also go out of a limb and say that coaches strongly prefer and recruit players that hit for extra bases and get on base a lot (I would posit that many coaches respect the “on base any way possible” more than MLB), and most college coaches REALLY value defense if for no other reason it makes coaching a lot easier and gives you a lot of options.
They may not know all of the acronyms and xTERMS, but the sabermetric stats just more accurately measure qualities that have traditionally been associated with success.
We already went through the bunt debate during the CWS and anyone who saw how over-matched the batters were understood that teams were, in fact, playing for 1-run and noted how many RISP the RP left on the bases.
It’s a different environment. Does that mean that in college, walks are bad for batters? No, of course not. But the environment was much more like 1960s MLB than the steroid era (where much of the research on bunting, etc was conducted). I grew up as a huge NCAA baseball fan during the “Gorilla Ball” era. No one bunted during gorilla ball.
Joe says:
February 9, 2012 at 10:43 am
An important note: Carolna (that is, UNC) uses a really nice pitch/fx camera and computer setup at their games (that they man with players who aren’t playing- usually yesterday’s starter). I wonder what other teams are doing.
Al says:
February 9, 2012 at 10:43 am
No one cares. What does this have to do with sabermetrics?
juan pierres mustache says:
February 9, 2012 at 10:53 am
I care, but mostly because i want to learn more about anyone named mooneybarger and wikipedia isn’t helping. Also, the increased usage of sabermetrics at the college level seems likely to produce more young players who accept sabermetric ideas about bullpen usage, batting order, etc. which in turn might allow traditional ideas about these things at the major league level to be reconsidered.
Baltar says:
February 9, 2012 at 10:56 am
The colleges have a lower run environment, so they compensate by bunting. Huh?
ussdavidprice says:
February 9, 2012 at 11:03 am
yeah, bunting increases the likelihood you can score one run, reduces the likelihood of “big” innings. if it’s true that the run environment is ultra-low, and teams are unlikely to see these big innings, the relative value of a bunt just increased. now factor in that bunt defense is poorer at the college level and can turn some of these “sacrifice” bunts into hits or reaches on error. now there is some real value to a bunt. i don’t see what the problem is here. (though some expected value calculations would be nice.)
Joe says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm
EV of a bunt could (*could*) be higher because the fielding’s not nearly as good in college as it is in pro. However, that same fielding discrepancy could mean that you get a lot more people on base just by making contact, wiping out any relative gain bunting would have on swinging away.
ussdavidprice says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:22 pm
And i suppose i was a bit premature to dismiss others’ dismissals of bunting. It may not be the case. I’ll support my points more concisely so they can easily be picked apart:
1) Assuming there is a certain constant with a bunt (a trade of one base for one out), a lower run environment reduces the nominal expected value of swinging away more than it reduces the nominal expected value of a sacrifice bunt. The unknown is the magnitudes of the elasticities- how low of a run environment makes the bunt the sound play?
2) Along the same lines, there may be specific defensive maneuvers associated with the bunt (throwing on the run, knowing the right base to throw to, base coverage) where college kids are especially weak.
These are both hunches. No analysis whatsoever. Not defending them to the death. But as the article states, there hasn’t really been any significant rigorous quantitative analysis done on the college game, so where we’re at is throwing around ideas based on what we do know from MLB sabermetrics, the next step being empirical testing.
Eno Sarris says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:42 pm
USS makes the points that I was assuming, which is great. I probably should have written those up, but there is a difficulty in proving these with the paucity of readily available college statistics in usable form.
Eno Sarris says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:43 pm
This was hilarious. Thanks dude. Fixed it… MooneyHAM.
Dan says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:53 pm
As a college coach, I care what my peers are doing and how they view the game. This is important stuff.
J Walter Weatherman says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm
I thought I enjoyed the article, but then Al alerted me to the face that no one cares. Sorry Eno.
CircleChange11 says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm
College to me is interesting becuase [1] the quality of batters at the bottom of the lineup is muc worse than the majors, and [2] the talent level of the picthers is far above the hitters, in part due to #1.
We saw this plainly in the CWS, relievers would come in with guys on base multiple times and the lineup would go down 1-2-3, parituclarly if you played on UNC or against Florida.
Each team has basically 2-3 good hitters and the guys at the bottom of the lineup are essentially automatic outs.
So, a 5 hitter in NCAA might not be as close in talent to the 4 hitter as they would be in MLB.
IMHO, I think applying MLB data and conclusions to the college game is a mistake, especially in regards to IBB, bunting, reliever usage, etc.
Eno Sarris says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:52 pm
It’s true that the run environment and quality of bats makes a big difference. And that the schedule is very different. But I’ll maintain that using your best player as a closer / DH is not the best use of resources, no matter how different the game.
Baltar says:
February 9, 2012 at 2:15 pm
No, david, at least in the majors, even assuming that a bunt is successful, it reduces the probability of scoring one run.
However, as Joe points out, that fact may be different in college.
The Stanford coach says that even 3rd and 4th hitters bunt, which I have seen in some of the few college games I watch. That can’t be right at any level.
Baltar says:
February 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Amen to that, Eno!
Can you imagine a football coach saving his best QB for situations in which his team is leading in close games?
juan pierres mustache says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:08 pm
oh god are you talking about shanahan
Mike says:
February 9, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Edit your articles, goodness.
JdeWitt88 says:
February 10, 2012 at 7:16 pm
dont know if linking to another site is allowed but if anyone is looking for college data collegesplits.com is as the kids say “off the chain”
Antonio Bananas says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:48 am
they don’t say that anymore, I hear “dank” more now. Maybe it’s a midwest thing. Or if you want it to be even more exciting “hella dank” which is some sort of bastardized version of “dank as hell”. I’m not sure how they take a word that basically describes most basements (dank) and turn it into a positive, but they do.
Antonio Bananas says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:50 am
I guess “hell of a lot” is a better way to describe “hella”. I think it’s a dumb word.
Brian says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:49 am
I disagree that Stanford is sabermetric friendly. Talk to any person with knowledge about scouting about the “Stanford swing.” It’s designed to eliminate slugging. It is a bunt over the infield.
CircleChange11 says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:37 am
Rather than make statements, we should be analyzing evidence.
Is it a case of using a star player as a part-timer? Or is it a case of getting one guy to perform 2 roles well?
1. The guy is playing DH to save throws on his arm. I like that. The coach is deliberately not overusing the kid for his own personal gain. He’s keeping his bat in the lineup.
2. He’s using him as a relief ace.
Is basically asking “Is he worth more as relief ace or defensive left fielder?”
Don’t we need to look at: [1] their options in LF, and [2] their options at relief ace?
It’s entirely possible that their option at LF is better than their option at RA, and that by having the star player RA/DH allows the best overall players to play the most.
I suspect that the kid can play LF given that relief aces usually have strong arms. The problem is that relief pitchers in college are used a lot, so having him play LF with the throws between innings, hard throws to bases, etc is actually a detriment to the kid.
I would also posit that NCAA coaches are more likely to use their relief ace in a non-save situation if it a critical moment.
I don’t think the answer is anywhere close to as obvious as you are positing.
CircleChange11 says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:55 am
My feeling is that most coaches want pitchers that strike out a lot of batters and walk very few while not allowing home runs. I’m also going to guess that most coaches wanted these type of pitchers for the last century.
I’d also suggest that unlike their MLB counterparts, college coaches will use their relief ace, wherever, whenever.
I would also go out of a limb and say that coaches strongly prefer and recruit players that hit for extra bases and get on base a lot (I would posit that many coaches respect the “on base any way possible” more than MLB), and most college coaches REALLY value defense if for no other reason it makes coaching a lot easier and gives you a lot of options.
They may not know all of the acronyms and xTERMS, but the sabermetric stats just more accurately measure qualities that have traditionally been associated with success.
We already went through the bunt debate during the CWS and anyone who saw how over-matched the batters were understood that teams were, in fact, playing for 1-run and noted how many RISP the RP left on the bases.
It’s a different environment. Does that mean that in college, walks are bad for batters? No, of course not. But the environment was much more like 1960s MLB than the steroid era (where much of the research on bunting, etc was conducted). I grew up as a huge NCAA baseball fan during the “Gorilla Ball” era. No one bunted during gorilla ball.