Texas Baseball Report

by Peter Bean on Apr 9, 2007 10:44 AM CDT in Baseball Comment 24 comments

There's a lot to like about this year's Longhorn baseball team. They're anchored in the rotation by two frontline starters. The lineup is positively loaded. Randy Boone, who struggled early in the year, has established himself as a go-to reliever. What's more, the Longhorns are playing some pretty darn good baseball this season. They're now 28-10 overall, 9-3 in the Big 12, and 11-6 away from the Disch.

Is Texas set up for a run to Omaha?

Well, yes and no. On the one hand, this team hits the ball like the Yankees of the late 1990s and early 2000s. On the other hand, outside Alaniz, Russell, and Boone, the Texas pitching staff has been pedestrian. Augie's desperately been seeking a reliable third starter to fill in behind his two horses (Joseph Krebs may be the solution here, but his K-rate is worrisome) as well as a reliable set of relievers to assist Boone (who has now amassed 40 2/3 innings pitched on the year).

There are two other things that worry me about this team, and both have to do with the way Coach Garrido is managing. As has become an annual complaint of mine, the number of sacrifice bunts Garrido calls for is positively criminal. Sacrifice bunting as a tactical play in a late-inning situation when you're playing for one run is fine, but Garrido calls for them almost willy-nilly. Most annoyingly, he's doing it with what is perhaps the best hitting team he's had at the 40 Acres. The team is slugging a ridiculous .532 on the season, with seven regulars all over .480, and he just bunt-bunt-bunts away, as though the team can't plate the damn runs if he doesn't move the runner over. I love Coach Garrido for a lot of reasons, but I hate this about him. Absolutely hate it. And with a team like this, which relies a lot on scoring big, it's potentially devastating.

The other thing I can't figure out is why Garrido continues to bat Preston Clark fifth in the lineup. This weekend, Clark (.279/.348/.478) batted fifth while Prince (.400/465/.480) batted eighth on Thursday, ninth on Friday, and eighth on Saturday. Russel Moldenhauer (.308/.410./.492) batted eighth on Friday and seventh on Saturday.

It's not like Clark is just slumping, either. The sophomore catcher hit .273/.332/.417 last season, so it's pretty clear what kind of hitter he is (at least at this point in his career). Clark's certainly not a bad hitter to have, but there's absolutely no justification for batting him fifth. In the grand scheme of things, lineup construction is a pretty minor point, but it still pays to be sensible, especially when there are some incredibly appealing alternatives.

While both of these points aren't back breakers on their own, they make me worry that Garrido fundamentally misunderstands the strengths of this team. In reality, it's difficult to imagine Garrido doesn't know the strengths of this particular club, but it's bothersome that he still manages the group the exact same way he did the 2005 team (which was heavily dependent on pitching and defense). Play for the big inning already, Augie!

As for the bullpen, well. . . it's hard to know what to say. Garrido doesn't trust anybody other than Randy Boone. I don't necessarily blame him, but one can't help but wonder how much Boone will have left in the tank by time it comes time for postseason play.

This Texas team has the ingredients to be a special, Omaha-bound team, but there are a host of small problems which need to be resolved sooner rather than later to avoid a disappointment.

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

augie

I've always loved how Augie manages. Even with a great hitting team, it makes sense to play for every run you can. Besides, why go for a big inning every time when all you need is a sacrifice and a base hit to score a run?

You shouldn't try to force big innings. Score the runs you can and let the bats in your lineup produce extra runs. Work the counts. Force pitchers into tight situations. It makes perfect sense. There's nothing worse than a leadoff double followed by a popup and two flyball outs.

by Jason Mayer on Apr 9, 2007 11:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Because

You score more runs in the long-run going for the big inning. By NOT playing for the big inning and playing for one run, you're actually playing for FEWER runs. That's the problem.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Apr 9, 2007 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i disagree

Because you can change the complexion of the whole game by scoring runs early. You put more pressure on the opposing pitcher by jumping out to an early lead and allow for your pitcher to pitch with a lead. That enables your team to play more aggressively.

Plus, those big innings will come just as easily with one out than with no outs. And if they don't happen, you at least have one run to show for it rather than zero.

by Jason Mayer on Apr 9, 2007 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The numbers don't lie, Jason

You of all people should be with me on this...

The run expectation for a runner on first with no outs is roughly .85 runs. The run expectation for a runner on second and no outs is roughly .50.

The differences are more profound in other situations (e.g. runns on first and second, nobody out). And the above run expectation numbers cited above are calculated using major league baseball averages, where the batters hit significantly worse. The run expectation for college hitters - where the batting numbers are SIGNIFICANTLY better - is even more dramatic.

It's a waste of an out.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Apr 9, 2007 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

cortexas' comment below

Beat me to it. It's all about putting pressure on college pitchers and defenses. I think it's a smart play, especially early in the game or late in a tight game.

In other instances, you definitely play for the big inning, and perhaps in some instances I would disagree with Augie's use of the sacrifice. But I don't know when and in what situations he's using it.

by Jason Mayer on Apr 9, 2007 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sacrifice bunting stats

So I was checking out the stats, and I noticed a trend. Here are the number of times UT attempted a sacrifice bunt in previous years:

2003 - 157
2004 - 158
2005 - 133
2006 - 101
2007 - 72 so far

So I think that Garrido is adjusting for more powerful hitters. I think he's calling for the sacrifice less often these days, without eliminating it completely.

by hornbone on Apr 9, 2007 11:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

nice stat

Thanks hornbone.

by Jason Mayer on Apr 9, 2007 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

We're on pace for about 125 bunts, in line with the 2005 numbers and up from last year.

Further, ALL these numbers are too high.

Thanks for digging up this data, though.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Apr 9, 2007 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Augie bunts too much?

It seems positively stupid to criticize Augie for bunting too much. That's what he does. That's like complaining about the heat in Austin in August.

...and I'm sure he's read Moneyball just like PB.

A sacrifice bunt in college ball is not the same as a sac bunt in MLB. It really does put pressure on defenses in college.

by cortexas on Apr 9, 2007 11:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, one things for sure

Augie's a multiple College World Series winner. And I am not.

So it's more of just my pet peeve. I think that you've got to put those metal bats to good use, and plunking down bunts ain't the way to do it.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on Apr 9, 2007 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if it is harder to bunt

because the metal bats would not absorb as much shock and would cause the bunts to be more likely to have enough speed where the pitcher or third baseman would be able to get the runner at second.

by Wells on Apr 9, 2007 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sac bunts are different in MLB than in college...

but not for the reason you're saying. the difference between sac bunting in college and in the pros is that it's even LESS logical in college (except in late game situations where you only need one run of course).

the reason is that in the pros, you don't get a team slugging percentage over .500 with SEVEN regulars over .480. In 2006, the highest slugging percentage for a team was the Chicago White Sox at .464.

Kyle Russell has a slugging percentage of .915. 915!!! and an OBP of .467. and yet he has attempted 9 sac bunts this year. the highest slugging percentage in the majors last year was Pujols at .671 and he had an OBP of .431. Would you EVER ask Pujols to bunt anyone over? of course not. that's ridiculous. any manager who used Pujols to bunt would be fired the next day. the numbers just don't make sense. and yet Kyle Russell has an OPS a full .280 higher than Pujols and has sac bunted 9 times!

In college, for various reasons from the aluminum bat to terrible pitching depth, hitters hit for a much higher average and with much higher OPS's. thus it makes even LESS sense to waste an out in college than it does in the pros.

by billyzane on Apr 9, 2007 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What is Russell's OBP?

I think your number might be a typo.

by Wells on Apr 9, 2007 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

according to Texassports

it's .467, making his OPS 1.382. Pujols' OPS in 2006 was 1.102.

by billyzane on Apr 9, 2007 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is my problem

I was mixing acronyms.

by Wells on Apr 9, 2007 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

915...

wow.

by bamfor on Apr 9, 2007 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the problem

is that this is a philosophical difference. I've never liked Earl Weaver baseball, I'm not going to start now.

But I'll make a couple of points:

I don't care who is up - if it's the first or second inning, you try to get that first run on the board when handed the opportunity. Bunting a runner over makes perfect sense in that situation. An early lead is extremely valuable in baseball.

There's also a big difference between "regular season" baseball and "playoff" baseball. As Texas advances farther in the tournament (hopefully), and starts facing better pitching on a regular basis, I want to be sure that they can scratch out a run or two when it's needed.

Like I said, big innings will come. You don't need to force them, especially with a team hitting as well as Texas is right now. You may disagree with this line of thinking and sometimes you may even be right. But I'll play for that one run, especially early and late in games.

by Jason Mayer on Apr 9, 2007 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

we're going to have to just disagree

but i wanted to point out that allowing people to hit away is not forcing a big inning. swinging away is the default for a hitter, bunting is what requires a signal from the 3B coach. you're forcing the issue by bunting, not by swinging away.

additionally, I will definitely agree with you that certain late game situations call for bunting by good hitters because you know almost exactly what you need to win. and i will agree that having an early lead is much better than having an early deficit. but the problem with playing for 1 run in the first inning is that you don't know what sort of game it's going to be. college style of play (lots of big hitters, not so much great pitching) often lends itself to games with scores like 10-8 or 12-11. if you play for one run in the first inning and it ends up being a pitchers duel, then great. but what if it turns into a high scoring game? you're going to regret giving up a possible big innning for 1 run. the problem is that early in the game, unlike late in the game, you just don't know.

by billyzane on Apr 9, 2007 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

terms

I think we're using different definitions of "forcing." I'm more willing to sacrifice three runs for one, rather than sacrificing one run for zero. To me, having batters swing away is trying to force a big inning. I prefer bunting, moving runners, forcing the defense and the pitcher to have to be at the top of the game and be aware of the different scenarios. You can just as easily get a big inning out of an error or a nicely placed bunt.

But your statement that you don't know what kind of game it is means that you swing away seems backwards and illogical to me.

Not knowing how the game is going to play out is exactly the reason you play for that one run early. If it turns into a slugfest, then you have that one run already - swinging away might have gotten you a base hit followed by three fly balls.

by Jason Mayer on Apr 9, 2007 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

right

it MAY result in a base hit followed by 3 fly balls. but the numbers say that you will score more runs over the course of a game by not sacrificing outs than you will by bunting. now, psychologically or whatever, having the first run might help the pitcher. i can't speak to that because i'm no psychologist. but the numbers are extremely clear here.

and to me, allowing a guy with a 1.382 OPS swing away with a man on first and no outs forces the opposing pitcher "to have to be at the top of [his] game" way more than giving him an out and putting a runner on 2nd base while not forcing the pitcher to get that hitter out.

by billyzane on Apr 9, 2007 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Numbers often lie

especially in baseball

by Jason Mayer on Apr 9, 2007 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well that's a blanket statement...

maybe you can back that up with some argument that I don't see, but numbers in fact have their greatest salience in a sport like baseball because baseball is such an individual sport and because there are easy ways to quantify the various variables. In football, it's very hard to quantify a player's worth based on statistics alone because his statistics rely so much on other players. same goes for basketball.

That's why there's such a cottage industry that's sprung up around baseball statistics that doesn't really exist for other sports. Precisely because stats are so much better at quantifying real life in baseball than they are in other sports.

by billyzane on Apr 9, 2007 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

relax billy

It was a joke. I thought we agreed to disagree on this one. But, yes, I think people rely a little too much on "numbers."

For instance, what are the odds that a batter will get a base hit on a cold day on the road against a pitcher with a good slider and changeup? What about when a hitter wakes up with a sore throat that morning and is facing a reliever who tops out at 96? How well does an opposing defense handle a sacrifice bunt with a runner on second base and a backup third baseman?

I think every situation in baseball is unique and requires a good sense of what's going on at that moment. So while numbers provide a decent starting point to consider, they're not always the answer. Which is why I always play for the run early.

by Jason Mayer on Apr 9, 2007 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Putting Pressure on the defense

This goes back to the idea of bunting to put pressure on the defense. I don't have the stats to know for sure, but from watching Texas games (or following them on line), it seems like the bunts actually result in infield hits or errors a good percentage of the time. Sure, college hitters hit for a higher average than MLB hitters, but college fielders make more errors. Also, we've got a few guys that can really get to first in a hurry.

by Texas Wahoo on Apr 9, 2007 12:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs