Not a fan of it, but it worked today. Was Condel trying to bunt for a base hit or was he called on to sacrifice? Official scorers credited him with a sacrifice.

threeanout said:

---

Not a fan of it, but it worked today. Was Condel trying to bunt for a base hit or was he called on to sacrifice? Official scorers credited him with a sacrifice.

---

Why would you not be a fan of putting the winning run into scoring position?

As for your question, he was probably doing a little of both...

My opinion is that he was told to bunt and then bunted aggressively and tried to get on.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

threeanout said:

---

Not a fan of it, but it worked today. Was Condel trying to bunt for a base hit or was he called on to sacrifice? Official scorers credited him with a sacrifice.

---

Why would you not be a fan of putting the winning run into scoring position?

As for your question, he was probably doing a little of both...

---

I am all for putting a runner in scoring position but giving up an out to do it when you already have one out is rarely ever done. The exception being in the National League with a pitcher batting. Can almost guarantee the Ags haven't done it all year before today. But hey, it worked.

threeanout said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

threeanout said:

---

Not a fan of it, but it worked today. Was Condel trying to bunt for a base hit or was he called on to sacrifice? Official scorers credited him with a sacrifice.

---

Why would you not be a fan of putting the winning run into scoring position?

As for your question, he was probably doing a little of both...

---

I am all for putting a runner in scoring position but giving up an out to do it when you already have one out is rarely ever done. The exception being in the National League with a pitcher batting. Can almost guarantee the Ags haven't done it all year before today. But hey, it worked.

---

Strong hitting teams would normally never do that, but as we all know we are not that this year.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

threeanout said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

threeanout said:

---

Not a fan of it, but it worked today. Was Condel trying to bunt for a base hit or was he called on to sacrifice? Official scorers credited him with a sacrifice.

---

Why would you not be a fan of putting the winning run into scoring position?

As for your question, he was probably doing a little of both...

---

I am all for putting a runner in scoring position but giving up an out to do it when you already have one out is rarely ever done. The exception being in the National League with a pitcher batting. Can almost guarantee the Ags haven't done it all year before today. But hey, it worked.

---

Strong hitting teams would normally never do that, but as we all know we are not that this year.

---

This. We have to put guys in scoring position regardless if it only leaves us one out. Arkansas would probably never do that under any circumstance. We have to, by necessity

Normally I'd be completely against it. Today, there were a few things in play that made me thing it was an okay decision:

1. We only needed 1 run. If it were a 0-0 game in the 2nd inning it would be different. But one run wins it. Bunting at least got that guy into scoring position without risk of a double play.

2. Ducoff was up. All year he's come up big in clutch situations it seems. Giving him the bat when is confidence was at a high was a sure bet.

With a tie score in the bottom of the inning, only the lead runner matters. You weigh the possibility of the following:
Double Play - end of inning
Other out, but no advance - two outs, runner at 1st and next batter outcome
Bunt, then single - two outs, runner at 2nd and next batter outcome
Other out, but advances the runner - two outs, runner at 2nd and next batter outcome
Extra base hit to bring winning run home

It also depends on the current runner, batter and the on-deck hitter.
Ducoff was the on-deck hitter with a slightly better average and who previously had an 11-pitch at-bat ending in a 3-run homer. His game-winning RBI would likely have been a double and scored a runner from 1st anyway.

Personally hate it. But obviously it worked and sometimes that's about all you can do.

I want to say, statistically the odds of scoring after a 1 out sac bunt are considerably lower than not bunting in that situation. I could be "Mis-remembering"...I'll have to see if I can find it.

2020P.O. said:

---

Personally hate it. But obviously it worked and sometimes that's about all you can do.

I want to say, statistically the odds of scoring after a 1 out sac bunt are considerably lower than not bunting in that situation. I could be "Mis-remembering"...I'll have to see if I can find it.

---

Childress and Bolt certainly get their fair share of criticism on here when their decisions don't work out (even if statistically it was the right decision), so I think it's only fair to give them a lot of credit for a game winning decision even if it isn't the statistically correct decision...

I thought it was a great decision considering the circumstances. I saw it as Condel attempting to Bunt for a base hit or at the very least it being a modified drag bunt. It definitely wasn't a square around early give yourself up sac. Not something you'd do in the earlier innings but definitely an option for the bottom half of the potential last inning with a hitter at the plate hitting 250, and a guy on deck who has shown a propensity to step up in the big moments.

I thought it was the right decision. The odds were far more likely that had we not bunted, it would have ended up being a wasted out (no runner advance) or a double play.

As someone else said, if it's early in the game and a tie game, then you don't do it.

Also, one thing I have noticed about RC teams, I actually think we bunt less now than in previous years. I used to feel like we would bunt anytime we had 1 or 2 runners on with 0 or 1 outs. But now, I feel like we only bunt with runners on first AND second UNLESS you are in a late game situation where you only need 1.

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

mwlkr said:

---

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

---

So it was the correct decision in a game winning situation.

mwlkr said:

---

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

---

So in other words, it was the correct decision in a game winning situation.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

2020P.O. said:

---

Personally hate it. But obviously it worked and sometimes that's about all you can do.

I want to say, statistically the odds of scoring after a 1 out sac bunt are considerably lower than not bunting in that situation. I could be "Mis-remembering"...I'll have to see if I can find it.

---

Childress and Bolt certainly get their fair share of criticism on here when their decisions don't work out (even if statistically it was the right decision), so I think it's only fair to give them a lot of credit for a game winning decision even if it isn't the statistically correct decision...

---

A good decision is about playing the best percentages. I can't stand it when people justify a poor decision because it happened to work one time. With that said, as others have mentioned, this was about the ONLY situation where I agree with bunting with 1 out. First, you had Condel at the plate as a defensive replacement. The odds of a hit was pretty low. Second, it's a walk-off extra inning situation. You are playing for the one run for the win. Third, Ducoff had the big home run and he had a lot of confidence. Under the circumstances, you have to wonder why Florida didn't intentionally walk Ducoff.

Hop said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

2020P.O. said:

---

Personally hate it. But obviously it worked and sometimes that's about all you can do.

I want to say, statistically the odds of scoring after a 1 out sac bunt are considerably lower than not bunting in that situation. I could be "Mis-remembering"...I'll have to see if I can find it.

---

Childress and Bolt certainly get their fair share of criticism on here when their decisions don't work out (even if statistically it was the right decision), so I think it's only fair to give them a lot of credit for a game winning decision even if it isn't the statistically correct decision...

---

A good decision is about playing the best percentages. I can't stand it when people justify a poor decision because it happened to work one time. With that said, as others have mentioned, this was about the ONLY situation where I agree with bunting with 1 out. First, you had Condel at the plate as a defensive replacement. The odds of a hit was pretty low. Second, it's a walk-off extra inning situation. You are playing for the one run for the win. Third, Ducoff had the big home run and he had a lot of confidence. Under the circumstances, you have to wonder why Florida didn't intentionally walk Ducoff.

---

I'm not justifying making poor decisions because of an outcome, I personally don't see this as a poor decision. My response was to the person calling it a poor decision because of what the statistics tell you to do there, and I'm betting that he's also the same person that blames Childress and Bolt for decisions they make even if it is the correct decision based on the statistics because it didn't work out.

mwlkr said:

---

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

---

Well, this is the "lying statistics" side of your argument. it's a tie game, so you only need one run, but you can score more (up to 4 in the bottom of the 9th or extras).

You're right, that the odds of scoring 1 run are 12.2 with first and one out and 15.0 with runner on 2nd with 2 outs, but the better way to look at it is:

Odds of scoring 0 runs in a situation:
1 out, runner on 1st: 73.4%, or in this situation a 25.6% chance of scoring one or more and winning the game.
2 out, runner on 2nd: 78.1%, or a 21.9% chance of winning the game.

It definitely dropped our odds and was a bad move statistically if it was an intentional bunt (which I'm not convinced of).

Edit: There are specific reasons regarding your lineup and the relative speed and batting prowess of current and future batters that make bunting in this particular situation (tie game, bottom of the 9th or later) a smart play. I'm not commenting on those at all.

Aggies2009 said:

---

Normally I'd be completely against it. Today, there were a few things in play that made me thing it was an okay decision:

1. We only needed 1 run. If it were a 0-0 game in the 2nd inning it would be different. But one run wins it. Bunting at least got that guy into scoring position without risk of a double play.

2. Ducoff was up. All year he's come up big in clutch situations it seems. Giving him the bat when is confidence was at a high was a sure bet.

---

3. It worked

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

mwlkr said:

---

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

---

So in other words, it was the correct decision in a game winning situation.

---

That's assuming you can get from (1) to (2) with zero risk of a double play.

Hop said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

2020P.O. said:

---

Personally hate it. But obviously it worked and sometimes that's about all you can do.

I want to say, statistically the odds of scoring after a 1 out sac bunt are considerably lower than not bunting in that situation. I could be "Mis-remembering"...I'll have to see if I can find it.

---

Childress and Bolt certainly get their fair share of criticism on here when their decisions don't work out (even if statistically it was the right decision), so I think it's only fair to give them a lot of credit for a game winning decision even if it isn't the statistically correct decision...

---

A good decision is about playing the best percentages. I can't stand it when people justify a poor decision because it happened to work one time. With that said, as others have mentioned, this was about the ONLY situation where I agree with bunting with 1 out. First, you had Condel at the plate as a defensive replacement. The odds of a hit was pretty low. Second, it's a walk-off extra inning situation. You are playing for the one run for the win. Third, Ducoff had the big home run and he had a lot of confidence. Under the circumstances, you have to wonder why Florida didn't intentionally walk Ducoff.

---

In all fairness, percentages and "odds" don't win baseball games. Yes, you can do things to "maximize" your chances of winning, but there are intangible things that can't be put into numbers that you have to rely on sometimes.

SchizoAg said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

mwlkr said:

---

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

---

So in other words, it was the correct decision in a game winning situation.

---

That's assuming you can get from (1) to (2) with zero risk of a double play.

---

All I know is Childress wanted us to be in a situation where a base hit wins the ball game and that's exactly what happened.

TODAY, in the bottom of the 10th, it was a GREAT idea that worked out BEAUTIFULLY!!!

mwlkr said:

---

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

---

I always love statistics. To say it was statistically the correct decision with the stats you provided is incorrect. You are assuming that a sacrifice bunt is 100% successful.

threeanout said:

---

mwlkr said:

---

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

---

I always love statistics. To say it was statistically the correct decision with the stats you provided is incorrect. You are assuming that a sacrifice bunt is 100% successful.

---

Read again. The stats just provide the probability of a run scoring. It has nothing to say about how the run made it around the bases. The last comment was just a poke.

threeanout said:

---

mwlkr said:

---

Funny, you should ask. Using statistics from major league baseball: (1) runner on first with one out: the probability of scoring one run is 12.2%. (2) runner on second with two outs: the probability of scoring one run is 15.0%.

Stats from 1957 to 2015. 391,647 opportunities. gregstoll.com

Stars might lie but the numbers never do.

---

I always love statistics. To say it was statistically the correct decision with the stats you provided is incorrect. You are assuming that a sacrifice bunt is 100% successful.

---

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.

I agree with you. I don't like putting all your marbles with just one hitter. However, it sure worked today so I can't really second guess. I just think with one out, you don't give them another just to advance a runner.

Another factor was that this is a double elimination tournament where extra inning games are deadly, especially when you are needing an impressive tournament, maybe not just a win. Even if you win, but go deep into your bull-pen, you lose more than likely. Take advantage of every opportunity possible and not rely on 2 singles minimum to get a run.

Unfortunately, none of those stats can account for having a weaker hitter up at bat.

Better decision as home team

aggiebrad94 said:

---

Unfortunately, none of those stats can account for having a weaker hitter up at bat.

---

This. The stats with an average hitter batting with one out and another average hitter on deck do not favor bunting (at least in the MLB). Condell is a below average hitter and Ducoff is (at least by 2019 Aggie standards) an above average hitter. I don't know the numbers but both of these factors shift the odds towards bunting.

Add in that Condell was at least trying to get on base with the bunt and the decision to bunt is very defensible.

FWIW I still wouldn't have done it.

LSU just bunted with one out. FYI.

As mentioned, bunting is situational and this was the situation for it.

Condel had very few ABs toward the end of the season. He hadn't seen pitching in this game. He's slugging .270 and has 1 extra base hit this season. At this point, and knowing there aren't a bevy of high % sluggers waiting to take his AB, you absolutely want to do whatever it takes to eliminate the double play and put the runner in scoring position to let Ducoff (who had just hit the most authoritative HR of the season) get another shot with a RISP.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

As mentioned, bunting is situational and this was the situation for it.

Condel had very few ABs toward the end of the season. He hadn't seen pitching in this game. He's slugging .270 and has 1 extra base hit this season. At this point, and knowing there aren't a bevy of high % sluggers waiting to take his AB, you absolutely want to do whatever it takes to eliminate the double play and put the runner in scoring position to let Ducoff (who had just hit the most authoritative HR of the season) get another shot with a RISP.

---

This is an advanced post.

Lance Uppercut said:

---

As mentioned, bunting is situational and this was the situation for it.

Condel had very few ABs toward the end of the season. He hadn't seen pitching in this game. He's slugging .270 and has 1 extra base hit this season. At this point, and knowing there aren't a bevy of high % sluggers waiting to take his AB, you absolutely want to do whatever it takes to eliminate the double play and put the runner in scoring position to let Ducoff (who had just hit the most authoritative HR of the season) get another shot with a RISP.

---

I agree with this. If A&M was in the middle of the lineup, I would be strongly against the practice. The fact that Condel was up with Ducoff on deck, and we were in extra innings as the home team where a walk-off wins it, it's at least an understandable strategy.