The Sarge

22 in a row using that strategy.

Because it has worked out so poorly for us. Sheez.

Enough...you lost!

"We won, durr" is such an empty response that you would be better off saying nothing. Guess we should instruct our LF'er to misread fly balls and give up a couple undeserved early runs every game.

Sad response really.

How so?

I just reviewed the play by play, and we definitely lost two of our first twelve outs on bunts. That seems to indicate my post was accurate. Perhaps you meant to dispute my opinion with a thoughtful post indicative of a rational adult, but the reply was hijacked by a 14 year old.

Last night's sac bunts or sac bunt attempts:
USC 2nd: One out, runner on 1st, 9 hole hitter and DB candidate Rosenberg (.212) bunts runner to 2nd. Pankake pops up to end inning.

UF 3rd: No outs, runner on 1st, Ramjit (.273) fails to bunt, hits single with 2 strikes
No outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, Tobias (.258) pops up bunt for 1st out

USC 4th: No outs, 1st and 2nd, Vergason (.268) bunts into fielder's choice, lead runner out at 3rd

USC 5th: No outs, 2nd, English (.311) bunts runner to 3rd for 1st out. Vargason follows with single which would have scored runner from 2nd.

USC 6th: No outs, 1st, Marzili (.291) bunts runner to 2nd for 1st out. Runner dies on 2nd.

UF 7th: No outs, 1st and 2nd, Fontanta (.285) bunts runners over. No runs score in inning.

USC 9th: No outs, 1st, Matthews bunts runner to 2nd. Runner eventually scores on wild pitch. I don't have a big problem with this one, as an insurance run was huge with Price on the mound. My main point is you don't give away outs early in the game when future needs are not known. With a 5-3 lead in the 9th, you know the significance of playing for an additional run.

That's seven combined early and middle inning bunts or bunt attempts.
The most productive was Florida's failed bunt attempt in the 3rd, which resulted in a two strike single.
Two were failures by any definition (UF 3rd, USC 4th).
The remaining four "successful" bunts advanced five total runners. One of those scored, and that was on a hit that would have scored the runner had he remained at 2nd.

Rosenberg's BA and C speed makes the call to bunt with him understandable, but a worst case DP scenario would have merely allowed the top of the order to lead off the following inning. I would prefer the #1 hitter lead off, but can understand why you would bunt to avoid the DP.

Post-BBCOR college baseball offensive numbers compare favorably to ML numbers from the early 60's, which was an era dominated by pitching. Runs were at even more of a premium in that time than in 2011 college baseball. Collegiate fielding is also literally at an all-time high, and not far from the ML fielding percentages of that time frame.

MLB stats by year: http://michaelbein.com/baseball.html
NCAA stats by year (pg 22 of PDF): http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/baseball_cws_RB/2012/1-CWSGeneral.pdf

Despite an era of pitching dominance, successfully executed bunts in 1963 still reduced the bunting team's chances of scoring.
Source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075767/1/index.htm

I think coaches have overreacted to the BBCOR-era by falling back on discredited bunting orthodoxy, and that they (and most of the respondents here) are exhibiting confirmation bias rather than critically examining the success rate of bunts. We have been successful the last three years due to fantastic pitching, fantastic post-season defense, and timely hitting. We are not bunting our way to victory.

As for the "Shut up, we won" replies, Florida also clearly follows the same strategy. They lost.

I see you're going with option #1 with a just a trace of #4.

So inning overides situation. Predictable/ unpredictable. Sure Coach Tanner would welcome your valuable advice.

College coaches must play percentages! We are more often than not a singles-hitting team...It's a very low percent of runners that will score from 1st on a single, the percentages goes way up though if said runner is at 2nd. It's not rocket science really.

Gwinnett and I went round and round about this the other day and while I respect his knowledge and his argument, I disagree with him that coaches aren't smart enough to understand the philosophy to which they subscribe. It is without a doubt tougher to have a big inning when you give away outs by bunting runners over. However, if your goal is to score a run, it's not a foolish strategy. I don't like bunting much in the first half of a game, but in certain situations, if you're facing a great starter, or if the infield defense of the opponent is suspect, I can understand the strategy. We discussed last weekend how different the level of execution is in college from MLB, where infielders very seldom ever make a poor decision or a mistake on a sac bunt. I like the fact that our tendency to bunt causes other coaches to play their infield shallow in bunting situations. I like that Tanner has guys show bunt early in the count to see what defense we're facing before he makes a decision on the sac vs. a hit and run or swinging away. However, like the original poster, I would much rather we just swing the bat until late in the game when 1 run might be necessary. However, like I have said repeatedly, Tanner knows his players and he has spray charts that show their batting tendencies. I also don't like double play grounders, ground balls to the left side with a man on second and less than two outs, or fly balls to the outfield with a man or third and two outs. He knows who is more likely to do those things, so if he chooses to bunt a guy in a situation I wouldn't, I can only assume he has a reason.

Thinking in terms of probabilities and expected runs, sac bunting generally will give you lower E[runs per inning] than hitting. I'd imagine that P(exactly 1 run) is much higher when sac bunting, but P(more than 1 run) is much higher (with a wildly high variance, probably) if you just swing away.

So, as a manager, you have to decide how important that 1 run is and if it's worth losing out on the potential for a rally. In general, I like the idea of a rally better, but in these high pressure games, sometimes the psychology of a run here and there can work magic and cause other teams to wilt.