Calhoun and Bunting

[Torridd]

1 minute ago, Griffey's Corner said:

Another thing to worry about Kole & Mike Trout are very good friends. I believe Kole was in his wedding party? If Kole is jettisoned that would not be good. Kole needs to right the ship and do it soon.

Ha! I sure hope this isn't an issue. Just throw professionalism out the window.

[Griffey's Corner]

His hitting has been okay other than there has been quite a few times where he hits it right at a defender in the shift that should not be there. If for no other reason bunt or choke up and hit a grounder the other way just to get rid of the shift. Even if that only gets you an extra 10 hits a year. We are all striving for optimum performance... aren't we?

[eaterfan]

2 minutes ago, Torridd said:

 

I have nothing to back me up here, but I truly believe that Kole is not being stubborn about bunting. I think the organization wants to solve his hitting problem so they're focusing on that rather than getting a couple of bunt hits. Right or wrong, I think that's what they're trying to do.

I think the point is that what they are trying to do is wrong. They've been trying this for a year plus at this point and it hasn't worked. Beyond that, it's more than a few bunt hits. It's a lot of bunt hits.

[Griffey's Corner]

Would you guys want Kole hitting well and being a natural pull hitter with no shift vs. Kole hitting well being a natural pull hitter and hitting into that shift? I vote for the former. I am just advocating Kole forcing them to get rid of the shift so whether he is squaring up the ball or not Kole is achieving optimum performance.

[CubsFan]

24 minutes ago, SuperTroopers said:

When people say Fat Mike I immediately discredit what they have to say.  Not because I am overweight, but because I assume the person saying it is unfunny and lacks intelligence.  I could be wrong, but I haven’t been yet.  

when I see Fat Mike it makes me hungry and I want to eat a sub sandwich.

[Erstad Grit]

People blaming mike are funny.  Carpenter on the cardinals is even worse but he's still starting and swinging away. 

Young is getting more at bats and now blash is here.  Calhoun knows his grace is nearing an end.  Scioscia handling it well imo.

 

[UndertheHalo]

18 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Here is a mathematical argument why you're wrong. This is from another Calhoun thread:

" https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/38922/baseball-therapy-bunt-joey-bunt/

Here's a nice article on bunting against the shift. Basically, people who don't bunt are almost as good at getting a bunt down as those who do. They are about 2% worse. Non bunters successfully get a bunt down about 42% of attempts. Given 3 attempts this should be about 81% of plate Appearances. Bunters reach base about 58% of the time against the shift. This would lead to a .470/.470/.470 line. While Calhoun will strike out bunting 20% of the time, he has struck out just under 28% of the time since the start of 2017. 

Since the start of 2017 Calhoun has 46 XBH, 20 of them HRs. They would most likely all be gone. But if he hit .470 bunting then he would have made 84 fewer outs. 3 games worth of outs all by himself.

The article here focuses on Joey Gallo, but it's even more true for Calhoun. He gives up less XBH's by bunting because he has less power than Gallo but gets all the advantages of bunting. He should be bunting until they stop shifting."

I’m not wrong.  There’s no valid numbers for what you guys want.  No one always tries to bunt.  Which is what some of you are proposing.  I already said, he’d get a few more hits.  Also, who gives a shit. A couple of hits and that will be it.  When they back off the shift Kole still won’t be getting hits because the shift isn’t the problem.  Listen, I don’t care if he tries to lay down a bunt.  My point is, that you guys freaking out about it are just punching at the wind.  It doesn’t matter.  In baseball.  Batters swing the bat.  Kole can’t do that successfully right now. 

[UndertheHalo]

19 minutes ago, Griffey's Corner said:

Great post. great research. Who here would not want the black hole in RF hitting .470? It's so frustrating because we just fixed LF.... now to have this.

This is so dumb.  Kole just bunting isn’t going to hit .470.  You understand those numbers have zero context ?  

[krAbs]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’m not wrong.  There’s no valid numbers for what you guys want.  No one always tries to bunt.  Which is what some of you are proposing.  I already said, he’d get a few more hits.  Also, who gives a shit. A couple of hits and that will be it.  When they back off the shift Kole still won’t be getting hits because the shift isn’t the problem.  Listen, I don’t care if he tries to lay down a bunt.  My point is, that you guys freaking out about it are just punching at the wind.  It doesn’t matter.  In baseball.  Batters swing the bat.  Kole can’t do that successfully right now. 

Okay, how about this. Do you think that other teams are right or wrong to shift against Calhoun right now? Like, are they taking hits away from him by doing this?

[stormngt]

57 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Why are you guys pretending that bunting is such a guaranteed thing ? Calhoun hardly ever bunts and probably isn’t great at it.  Even if it works out; are a handful of cheap singles really that important ? Calhoun’s problem isn’t the shift.  His problem is inability to make good contact with the baseball.  His problem is horrible swings and horrible AB’s.  Since the first game he’s rarely hit anything hard.   Is it mental ? Is it physical ? I don’t know.  He appears to not be seeing the ball.  You sound ridiculous going along with this “Scoscia isn’t a leader” because he hasn’t ordered Calhoun to bunt.  Some of you guys will blame Scoscia for literally anything.  Now Calhoun’s struggles are because of Scioscia.  Lol. 

its not a sure thing.  Its just a surer thing than him hitting into the shift every time.

And every major leaguer should know how to bunt!

And every left handed batter facing a shift should have the threat to  bunt.

I  can see the exception of the great power hitters like Harper or maybe Ortiz.  But Calhoun isn't one of those two.

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, krAbs said:

Okay, how about this. Do you think that other teams are right or wrong to shift against Calhoun right now? Like, are they taking hits away from him by doing this?

Yea of course.  The shift is effective.  But it’s effective against most players.  

This is a dynamic thing.  As soon as they see Kole putting bunts down, they’ll adjust (and it won’t take long)  and he still won’t hit.  

[UndertheHalo]

And bunting is not easy.  Some guy a few posts backs said that. 

[Angels#1Fan]

4 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

This is so dumb.  Kole just bunting isn’t going to hit .470.  You understand those numbers have zero context ?  

Bingo!

The league average has nothing to do with how a specific person will do.

[Griffey's Corner]

What context. That MLB players used to hit over .400 all the time. And players nowadays all swing for the fences. When is the last time you saw a batter choke up on the bat? Pitchers throw harder... big whoop. All that means is the ball comes off the bat harder. Pitchers also used to doctor the baseballs and throw spitters. They would throw at your head with no helmets! Hitters were still hitting over .400 than.

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, stormngt said:

its not a sure thing.  Its just a surer thing than him hitting into the shift every time.

And every major leaguer should know how to bunt!

And every left handed batter facing a shift should have the threat to  bunt.

I  can see the exception of the great power hitters like Harper or maybe Ortiz.  But Calhoun isn't one of those two.

Calhoun is a threat to bunt.  He can attempt to do it whenever he feels like it.  Maybe it makes more sense when they REALLY need him to bunt. 

[krAbs]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

Yea of course.  The shift is effective.  But it’s effective against most players.  

This is a dynamic thing.  As soon as they see Kole putting bunts down, they’ll adjust (and it won’t take long)  and he still won’t hit.  

So you agree, if the shift is effective, and they stop shifting, then the end result of them not shifting is better for us than the end result of them shifting. In short, Calhoun gets more (not a lot, but more) hits.

So, is it better for Calhoun to get more hits or less hits? I'm NOT asking if its better for him to his .100 or .300 - I am asking if its better for him to hit .100 or >.100.

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, Griffey's Corner said:

What context. That MLB players used to hit over .400 all the time. And players nowadays all swing for the fences. When is the last time you saw a batter choke up on the bat? Pitchers throw harder... big whoop. All that means is the ball comes off the bat harder. Pitchers also used to doctor the baseballs and throw spitters. They would throw at your head with no helmets! Hitters were still hitting over .400 than.

Dude what the hell are you talking about. 

When I say context.  I mean that these numbers don’t factor in situational variables at all.  Almost all bunting in the major leagues is for situational reasons.  Not, as your proposing an every AB approach.  No one going up to the plate bunting is going to hit .470.  They aren’t going to hit .100

[Angels#1Fan]

Just now, krAbs said:

So you agree, if the shift is effective, and they stop shifting, then the end result of them not shifting is better for us than the end result of them shifting. In short, Calhoun gets more (not a lot, but more) hits.

So, is it better for Calhoun to get more hits or less hits? I'm NOT asking if its better for him to his .100 or .300 - I am asking if its better for him to hit .100 or >.100.

That's not the question..the question should be if you think Kole bunting a few times is going to get him hitting again? I doubt it, but he might get on base a couple of extra times which I don't think would make any difference one way or the other.

[Griffey's Corner]

Kole would hit .470 until they put back a 3baseman. and than swing away and he will hit .260 with no shift. 

 

That is better than Kole hitting .167. 

 

Bunt... grounders.... I do not care.... But when a team is getting you the WHOLE side of a field..... do not be an idiot and not take advantage of what they are giving you. In football the Qb will take what the defense gives him. Same thing here.

[krAbs]

Just now, Angels#1Fan said:

That's not the question..the question should be if you think Kole bunting a few times is going to get him hitting again? I doubt it, but he might get on base a couple of extra times which I don't think would make any difference one way or the other.

That IS my question though. Would you take a Calhoun with a better batting average or a worse one?

[Angels#1Fan]

Just now, Griffey's Corner said:

Kole would hit .470 until they put back a 3baseman. and than swing away and he will hit .260 with no shift. 

 

That is better than Kole hitting .167. 

 

Bunt... grounders.... I do not care.... But when a team is getting you the WHOLE side of a field..... do not be an idiot and not take advantage of what they are giving you. In football the Qb will take what the defense gives him. Same thing here.

You're assuming that Kole would be able to get down a lot of bunts..I don't think it's as much of a certainty as you do.

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, krAbs said:

So you agree, if the shift is effective, and they stop shifting, then the end result of them not shifting is better for us than the end result of them shifting. In short, Calhoun gets more (not a lot, but more) hits.

So, is it better for Calhoun to get more hits or less hits? I'm NOT asking if its better for him to his .100 or .300 - I am asking if its better for him to hit .100 or >.100.

My position is that I’ll take my chances with him possibly getting an XBH in almost all situations.  

I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but a double results in a run at dramatically higher rate then a single.  If a runner is on base a well hit ball is more efficient for moving runners around the diamond.  Almost always, this is the correct play.  

There are a few situational instances where I would call for a bunt.  But not many. 

When Kole starts actually making good contact I’ll worry about the shift. 

[Griffey's Corner]

3 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Dude what the hell are you talking about. 

When I say context.  I mean that these numbers don’t factor in situational variables at all.  Almost all bunting in the major leagues is for situational reasons.  Not, as your proposing an every AB approach.  No one going up to the plate bunting is going to hit .470.  They aren’t going to hit .100

LOL. Of course they will when you do not have a position player standing over there. How would they not????? he would hit .470 UNTIL they put back the 3B & SS. It would take about 5-6 at bats.... and than he could go swing away and hit .270 with no shift..... That is a lot better than your proposal of let Kole magically break out of his 3 year slump or keep hitting .167....

[Angels#1Fan]

1 minute ago, krAbs said:

That IS my question though. Would you take a Calhoun with a better batting average or a worse one?

You're assuming his average would go up..I'm saying it's not a certainty!!

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, Angels#1Fan said:

You're assuming that Kole would be able to get down a lot of bunts..I don't think it's as much of a certainty as you do.

He thinks it’s “easy”