Funny

I'll play. I bought season tix for first time this year because I had faith.

What are the point of this and the fire Childress thread.

Never wanted him fired.

Don't know why the threads were started, but I like to take any opportunity to congratulate a job well done and coach Childress has done a great job for us. I think there are many Aggies who look at our lack of post-season success in CWS appearances and victories and suppose RC has had enough time to show he can't make it enough or win enough there, but I don't see that as a reason to fire him and my personal view is he's made us consistently very good and now can build on that to the next level in CWS. Good luck coach and players next week! What a great season you have provided us and yourselves!

I've never been a huge fan, but I've never wanted him fired. If we don't make a deep run in Omaha this year, though, I may change my mind.

quote:

---

Not me...

But if he keeps the bunt on with 2 strikes again I may reconsider

---

X1000

There's absolutely no excuse for that kind of idiocy. It's almost like someone is trying to send a message to the team that half-ass sac bunt attempts (which shouldn't be called for in the 1st place) won't earn you the chance to swing away with two strikes. In an effort to make sense of it that's all I've got.

That's pretty much the only major gripe I've got. My hopes for this season were a national seed, and a good chance at going for it in Omaha. It looks like we're on pace, and I couldn't be happier.

It'll be interesting to see who steps up for us next year. We're losing a lot of talent offensively it seems. Pitching should be good I'd think!

But stubbornly clinging to the sac bunt with this lineup... With 2 strikes now... Vomit.

JLammers
I too feel there has to be something else going on with the 2 strike bunt attempts. Does not make sense otherwise. I would be interested to see someone in the media ask him about the attempts.

Why would anyone want Choruby swinging with two strikes right now when the goal was moving two runners 90 feet? I'd do the same thing tomorrow and take the double play off the table.

The Homan bunt w/ 2 strikes can be debated but the percentages really aren't in your favor to take the bunt off with two strikes. I don't like that we were doing it in the first place but a hitter isn't put in a more likely position to succeed (moving runners 90 feet), by taking the bunt off with two strikes.

There were clear execution failures there that both players would tell you can't happen.

quote:

---

Why would anyone want Choruby swinging with two strikes right now when the goal was moving two runners 90 feet? I'd do the same thing tomorrow and take the double play off the table.

The Homan bunt w/ 2 strikes can be debated but the percentages really aren't in your favor to take the bunt off with two strikes. I don't like that we were doing it in the first place but a hitter isn't put in a more likely position to succeed (moving runners 90 feet), by taking the bunt off with two strikes.

There were clear execution failures there that both players would tell you can't happen.

---

On an over-simplified level, yes, the goal in that situation would be to move the runners 90 feet. My problem with it is that moving the runners 90 feet isn't the only possible positive outcome of that ab until you make it so by putting the bunt on. I guess the other possible outcome would be actually reaching due to a defensive lapse or even an error, but it's not likely.

Choruby has grounded into his fair share of dp's, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Personally I wouldn't manage a game in fear of the possibility of a dp, but with more of a focus on all of the positive things that could happen by putting the ball in play in that situation... Even with Choruby at the plate I'd be thinking rbi opportunity. I don't agree with the sac bunt in that situation, and disagree with you about swinging away after 2 strikes not increasing the likelihood of a productive ab.

Even when you haven't faced several pitches from a squared bunting stance, hitting with two strikes is a statistical disadvantage for the hitter. Bolt and RC had committed to 90 feet and they player owes them that result.

The technical failures in each case were glaring and we can discuss unless you'd rather continue to agree to disagree.

quote:

---

Even when you haven't faced several pitches from a squared bunting stance, hitting with two strikes is a statistical disadvantage for the hitter. Bolt and RC had committed to 90 feet and they player owes them that result.

The technical failures in each case were glaring and we can discuss unless you'd rather continue to agree to disagree.

---

No doubt, hitting with two strikes is an order of magnitude more difficult. We agree there. That's actually one of the many reasons why I very rarely support bunting in general.

Regardless, that was the decision made in this situation by the coaching staff, you are correct about that. However, hear me out on this... Choruby absolutely didn't owe RC and Bolt the results you mention, of moving both of the base runners over. What you could argue is that Choruby owed his coaching staff his best efforts in attempting to do so.

That said, it's not like the sac bunt is something that is guaranteed... How often do you see guys fail to successfully get one down in a couple of tries? It happens fairly often. Is it a failure of execution... Yes. But so are the majority of ABs in baseball anyways, right?

Where I think the meat of the our discussion lies is in keeping the bunt sign on with two strikes. My position is that if the sac bunt is generally a waste of an out (and it is,) then calling for the sac bunt with 2 strikes is on another level entirely. It's just one of those things that should never happen.

Just like hitting, bunting with two strikes also becomes more difficult. A foul bunt attempt is suddenly a wasted out. Not to mention, there's a pretty good chance that now you're going to be attempting to bunt secondary pitches, which doesn't make the situation any easier. And then... Oh yeah, there's two strikes... What the heck am I doing here? Should I protect the plate on stuff that's close? Well, probably not. You're actually probably better off rolling the dice, hoping that anything somewhat close is called a ball, because you're much more likely to foul out on those pitches (or just as ineffectively) pop one up to the catcher or pitcher.

It's just a strategic nightmare. It's playing the game so passively, so conservatively, that you are literally coming to the conclusion that you are ok with wasting an out. In my opinion there's like 2 situations in the game of baseball where sacrificing an out is acceptable. The are no situations where wasting an out is acceptable.

So I guess another way of looking at what you said is this... Would it not be fair to say that the coaching staff owes Choruby the opportunity to swing the bat, foul off close pitches, stay alive, and ultimately do something more productive with his AB than a sac bunt if he has given it his best but failed to get a bunt down, and is now facing a 2 strike count?

Also, you mentioned earlier that it was debatable whether or not bunting Homan earlier in the tournament (again, fully committed, kept the bunt on with 2 strikes) was the correct call.

Considering that Homan was a hitting MACHINE for the duration of the tournament, and finished up with a tournament batting average somewhere right around .600 (his obp may have been higher, don't remember any BBs or HBPs, though I'm pretty sure he reached at least once in an error) I'd be willing to tell you that in my opinion it was absolutely the incorrect call.

Actually, it still would've been the incorrect call had Homan been able to get a successful sac bunt down with two strikes.

In the Saturday game against Ole Miss we successfully laid down a sac bunt, moving two runners over after 2 consecutive singles. We only scored one of them. Had we not "sacrificed" an out it's not unreasonable to speculate that the inning could've just as easily ended up with a crooked number on the scoreboard than a goose egg. After all, we had a runner in scoring position and nobody out...

Anyways... Not trying to ruin this thread. As unbelievably frustrating as it is seeing these sac bunts cost us runs it's not a reason to call for RC's head. Like I've said, we've pretty much already met my expectations for this year.

While I certainly don't agree with all of the decisions that are made I definitely support the program 100%.

I like the way RC remains positive in every tough situation and never gives in...that carries over to his players who have become very tough minded! I thought RC pushed all the right buttons in Hoover. We had a lot of heroes.

quote:

---

What are the point of this and the fire Childress thread.

---

The best of our Big 3 coaches!

Congrats Aggies --

RC's team just came out of a stretch of playing 14 of 15 games against Top 10 teams with an SEC Tournament Championship and a #1 National ranking and there's questions about whether we should have bunted once with two outs?

This is like asking if a CEO of a Fortune 500 company that just reported record profits is competent because the Coke machine in the break room is on the fritz.

Only on TexAgs.

I'm on this list. I like Childress and the direction of the program. Never wanted him fired.

Also on the keep Sumlin list as well.

I would have fired Kennedy 2 years ago but I was apparently wrong as that program now seems headed in the right direction.