Here are the answers we should be looking for in an interview of the next 3rd base coach:

What is the most important batting statistic: Short answer - there isn't one. Many may say RBI, and justifiably so. I would agree that as a team, runs are the goal, so RBI would make sense as the important stat. However, RBIs are very much out of a batter's control. There are so many variables that go into getting an RBI that are not anything the batter did (i.e. runner speed, OF arm strength, 3rd base coach competency, etc), that I don't think it's the most accurate stat to use for evaluating best hitters. I would use OPS or OPS+. Combining 2 of the most important stats into 1 is extremely telling and useful. High OBP = higher chance of being a run. High slugging = more bases/hit = more chance of becoming a run. Because a weak OBP can be covered by high slugging or vice versa, it isn't a perfect stat, but I would start here. Then I'd look at OBP and slugging respectively, then RBI, then BA, then BB. Anything that would tell me the offensive production value of the player.

% trust in systematic bunting: 0.05%

Does systematic bunting increase or decrease odds of scoring runs: decrease

Should you ever bunt?: only if improves your odds of scoring a run; runner must be on 2nd already

What is the cardinal rule of base running?: never make the 1st or last out at 3rd base

What are the cardinal rules of hitting?:
If you are going to hit into a double play, strike out
Never watch the 3rd strike go by. Defend the plate and at least foul it off. It doesn't matter if it was a strike or not, if you are heading back to the dugout, it was a strike.

What are you going to do to help the program build on last year?: Instill and reinforce the mentality that it doesn't matter how many games we win or if we make the regionals. If we aren't in Omaha dog piling after the CWS, we aren't the champions.

What type of player will you recruit?: Depends what gaps we need. If we need a power hitter, I'll go after a power hitter. If we need a clutch singles guy, I'll recruit a clutch singles guy. Consistency is key. It doesn't matter if a kid can run fast if he can't get on base. It doesn't matter if you can hit the ball out of the park 10% of your ABs if you strike out the remaining 9. Consistent singles and doubles wear defenses down allow for triples and increase pitch counts for pitchers, wearing them
out and allowing fat pitches that result in HRs.

What swing adjustments will you make to the Aggie baseball team?: Whatever adjustments generate base hits. I don't care if you chop down, hit inside out or outside in, if you get base hits consistently, I don't care what it looks like.

Why are you the person for the job?: Because I understand you don't play to win the game, you play the game to win. Winning means runs need to be scored. Pitching is important, but pitchers can have sub 3 ERAs and losing records if they have horrible offensive production(see Jeff Samardzija 2.83ERA 2W-7L or 2014 Aggies)

Who do you need to make sure is satisfied with your coaching job?: In order, Aggie baseball fans who want wins, section 203, players (if they are happy with you bc you make them better, awesome, if they don't like you because you make them work hard who cares), RC (wins matter more than bunting)

Be sure to send it in to Hyman..

so basically you watched Moneyball?

Is this the part where someone tells us Moneyball philosophy doesn't work in the NCAA? That's my favorite, especially when I look at the MLB standings and see Oakland, dead last in all of MLB in SH with only 7 at the All Star break, breezing along to another ALW title and having far and away the best record in MLB. Then someone tries to tell me you can't compare MLB and the NCAA, for whatever reason. Love that too.

The MLB puts far and away too much emphasis on drafting pitchers. Most anyone with the talent to be a dominant pitcher in the SEC is going to be drafted too high to ever play college baseball. On top of that, it's rare to ever see more than 1 on a team and he only gets to pitch once a week. So in the games he doesn't start, you're going to have to score runs. Since the MLB puts such a premium on pitching, that leaves a lot of guys who can hit the ball available. Now what are they looking for where they go play college ball? Do you think they're looking to bunt every time they come up with a man on first and nobody out? Does giving up outs on the base paths give you a better chance to win when your dominant pitcher isn't on the mound?

quote:

---

...breezing along to another ALW title...

---

Game and a half up on the Angels, not sure I'd call that breezing to a title.

quote:

---

...and having far and away the best record in MLB.

---

Getting to play the Astros and the Rangers 38 times this season might have a little to do with that.

Also, I thought the bottom line with you was championships or at least getting to the World Series. How many of these has Moneyball produced?

They're already played the Rangers & Astros 38 times?

They're always in the post season & that's what it's all about according to you

[This message has been edited by Rocco s (edited 7/17/2014 10:36a).]

Yes, American League baseball is very comparable to College Baseball. Both have a DH right?

Home Run levels are the same right?
Toronto has 116 HR in 96 games or 1.2 HR per game

The most SH for a Team in AL is Texas Rangers with 28 Sacs in 95 games or .29 SH/game.

Those percentages match up closely with College Right?

But Oakland does lead the American League in one Category of note.

ERA they have the best pitching in American League

So the MLB team that bunts the most has the worst record

And the one that does it the least has the best.

Literally no one has said pitching and defense aren't important

This says the Reds have the most sac bunts. They're a couple games back in the wild card.

The Astros also have 2 less sac bunts than the A's and are 1.5 games ahead of being the worst team in baseball.

quote:

---

Most anyone with the talent to be a dominant pitcher in the SEC is going to be drafted too high to ever play college baseball. On top of that, it's rare to ever see more than 1 on a team and he only gets to pitch once a week. So in the games he doesn't start, you're going to have to score runs.

---

Yes, you have to score, but of the teams we played in the SEC this season, 8 out of the 10 weekend series we played had 2/3 of their weekend starters end the season with ERAs under 3.

2.16
2.23
2.01
2.70
2.22
2.90
2.27
2.51
2.53
2.58
1.47
2.12
1.98
2.30
2.37
2.45

That was Friday and Saturday for us 8 times during last season's conference slate. Considering those are end of the season numbers, the Aggies weren't the only team that struggled to score often against these guys. Add in the dead bats and bunting isn't the 'dumb guy' move that people think. Also, 11 out of 14 teams in the SEC put down more bunts than A&M.

[This message has been edited by Lance Uppercut (edited 7/17/2014 12:41p).]

Who are the 3 that didn't

Think there were 2. Georgia and Kentucky.

Rocco

Are you still trying to compare college and pro ball?

And finally, here's the 2013 and 2014 Aggie stats. Look at the type of hitters who are bunting, and the guys we rarely (if ever) asked to bunt. Then compare it to an actual small ball team like Texas who's bunting everyone all the time.

The Aggies aren't a 'bunt is the solution' exclusive team, and had an inordinate amount of bunts twice...2013 and 2011. They don't have a history of asking their power/high average/slow players to bunt. Though I will note that I disagreed with the strategy we would see sometimes of playing for a run early in a game instead of later.

quote:

---

Rocco

Are you still trying to compare college and pro ball?

---

Are you telling me they might as well be different sports entirely?

This thread was over with the first reply when Shane Minks went boom, headshot!

quote:

---

Then someone tries to tell me you can't compare MLB and the NCAA, for whatever reason. Love that too.

---

I suspect that Augie's offense generates more errors than you would ever see at the MLB level. For that matter, I also suspect that you see a lot more balls thrown into center field on steal attempts in college than in MLB.

I read Moneyball about ten years ago and loved it. The guys who developed sabermetrics did a ridiculous amount of research, and all of it was from MLB baseball. I don't think any sabermetrician would assume that their results were applicable anywhere other than MLB.

The "rely on the defense to **** up" strategy doesn't work in the SEC. We saw that countless times as Sawyers sent guys home who were thrown out by 20 feet routinely.

quote:

---

They're already played the Rangers & Astros 38 times?

---

No not yet, my point is that they have gotten to fatten their record on two struggling teams.

quote:

---

The "rely on the defense to **** up" strategy doesn't work in the SEC. We saw that countless times as Sawyers sent guys home who were thrown out by 20 feet routinely.

---

There is a difference in putting pressure on the defense to make the play and some of the idiot wave through Sawyers did this season. Vandy runs a put the pressure on the defense type offense.

quote:

---

Great middle infield defense is far more important in 2-1, 3-2 games than hitting

---

Hitting is key to keep you out of 2-1, 3-2 games. Changing the bats slowed down the exit velocity of the ball, it didn't remove the ability to get base hits. With the ball change next year, balls should carry a little farther. However, as it stands today, there are teams that can score 5-6 runs a game easy. Our defense and pitching can easily take care of that. And I'd venture to say that producing more runs will take a HECK of a lot of pressure from the pitching staff; maybe even reducing some wear and tear.

Not sure how this turned into an MLB/moneyball conversation. Not sure how anyone can argue with scoring more runs = better chance of winning.

quote:

---

Not sure how anyone can argue with scoring more runs = better chance of winning.

---

If the lineup designed to score more runs also allows a bunch a runs, where is the gain? There is a reason players such as Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski made the Show without putting up great offensive stats. Ozzie eventually became a good offensive player, Maz never really did. When MLB teams have their occasional open tryouts, before any player gets a chance to show what they can do offensively, they have to show at least competence in the field. In other words, keeping runs off the board is just as important as scoring them, and this goes beyond pitching. All baseball lineups are a balance what a manager hopes to get in the way of production at the plate and what he expects in the field.

quote:

---

If the lineup designed to score more runs also allows a bunch a runs, where is the gain?

---

Why does a lineup designed to score more runs also allow more runs?

It does not necessarily have to but my response was made to matt.maggio3's questioning the need for a strong defense. He seems to think any lineup that should put up more runs is always the best option. Some here obviously disagree.

I didn't read that in his post at all. It was seemingly entirely about offense.

Funny because his post was in direct response to Hop's post about how in this era of college ball combined with the excellent pitching found in the SEC that a great middle infield (and I'll add catcher and center fielder) being more important in winning games than having a great offensive team. In other words, Hop believes, and I agree, that great pitching will limit even great offenses and the difference between a W and a L might be who can field the best.

It also helps, in this era, not to run yourself out of innings, not to give up outs unnecessarily on the bases.

Not to mention the dreaded sac bunt in the first inning.......

quote:

---

I think we can all agree that a great fielding SS who is also a great hitter probably is playing in the minors and not college ball.

---

So are most dominant pitchers with + fastballs and strikeout stuff.

Jose Duran could field and hit.

[This message has been edited by Rocco s (edited 7/19/2014 12:56p).]

Rob had a pretty good group of shortstops. Salazar, Hicks, Duran, Jackson, Reynolds. Brodie Greene even played some short and wasn't bad at it.

Allemand isn't a bad shortstop. He's actually a good fielder, and a .958 FLD% is nothing to scoff at considering he was shuffled between 2nd, 3rd, and short all season. And though he doesn't hit for power, he hit .290 in the dead bat era (going on a tear in SEC play), was third on the team in hits, and had the best OBP% of anyone above the line.

quote:

---

So are most dominant pitchers with + fastballs and strikeout stuff.

---

You don't necessarily need a plus fastball to be a dominant pitcher. It is possible dominant by pitching to contact, but it makes a strong defense all the more important.

quote:

---

Jose Duran could field and hit.

---

No one is saying it has to be one or the other.