Printable View
What's the difference between getting in the loser's bracket after Game 1 vs. after Game 2? None. You are at a big disadvantage either way and would have to win the same number of games to win that half of the bracket while USM would still have a weekend starter available to pitch against the bottom of our bullpen who haven't pitched in over a month if we are fortunate enough to eliminate Charlotte and UTSA with our bullpen guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
I'm hoping we don't get to the losers' bracket. Pitch Nate game one. Scratch out a win vs. USM/UTSA in Game 2 and let everyone else duke it out on Friday :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Big difference - momentum and psyche - probably the two most importantQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Two wins in the tourney and we are golden
I never said RPI was an automatic passage into the tourney - all I said for weeks ago was that win 2 of 3 every weekend and our rpi was in the mid to low 30's while you were bemoaning the fact that we couldn't make rpi gains with our remaining schedule without reeling off a long string of wins
I think that do to the fact we have been in the fray all year and that except for the one "blip" during the season we are fine as along was we get two wins in the tourney
Not exactly. If you lose in Round 1 you face elimination in Round 2, instead of playing Round 2 with the chance to get to skip Friday's round. It can be a mental grind to face elimination in every game after the opener.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
If we're going on the assumption, we will win if Harris starts, and we most likely won't win when he don't, we are toast any way you slice it. The only option aspect to look at is the opposing pitcher. Is Charlotte starting their ace in Game 1? Are the other two teams starting their aces? If yes to all three, then the next thing to look at is how does our #2 stack up against theirs? If we like our chances of our #2 vs. whoever we play in Game 2, winner's or loser's bracket, then start Harris in Game 1. And take our chances.
I don't know the answer to these questions, because I have not followed it closely enough. But Burr and our coaching staff should know! As a HC & staff, you are managing the ENTIRE tourney, not just one game at a time. This is what Burr and his coaches get paid for.
I start him in game 1 solely because of the fact I could use him later in the tourney again in more than just a spot relief appearance if we advance
That's a consideration for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
On the other hand, it might be prudent to assure we are no worst than 1-1 after two games in this tourney. 0-2 is probably a deal killer, being on the bubble.
Would be great if Harris starts game 1, and around the 5th or 6th inning we have built a huge lead and can pull him, saving him for the relief innings later on. Burr gets paid to make such decisions.
Nate is definitely going to start Game 1. I'm sure he has asked for the ball already, making it an easy decision for Coach. You can argue either way whether he SHOULD start Game 1 or 2, but the fact of the matter is that he WILL start Game 1.
The better question is who will be our other starter... I have no clue what Coach will do. No one has taken that job. I really wish we would have given Follis more of an opportunity as a true freshman (really liked the way he threw against Ark), instead we gave it to griffen (who looks like he is serving up bp at times). I wouldn't be opposed to letting our best relievers (Sullivan, Ahlrich, Hamilton, Hasler) try to get us through. I don't particularly like Linck, Sutton, Miller, or Griffen in that spot. What do y'all think?
P.S. Griffen may turn out to be a great pitcher for us, but as of right now and what he has shown me so far, I do not want him pitching with our regional hopes on the line.
After that 1-7 start, winning 2 of 3 was never gonna get us where we needed to be. We ended up winning 2/3 of our games over those last 3 series (6-3) like you wanted, but we ended up in 5th place with a 39 RPI leaving us squarely on the bubble with pressure to win games in Biloxi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
I wasn't "bemoaning the fact we couldn't make RPI gains with our remaining schedule." I was simply stating what we needed to do to get an at-large bid by the end of the regular season without having to put pressure on us winning games in the C-USA Tourney. That's what I repeatedly said. I wanted a 3rd place finish with a Top 32 RPI, and we needed sweeps over the weaker C-USA teams to do it. That would've made us a lock without making us beat a dominant USM squad in their backyard to make the NCAAs. We almost did it but didn't come through at MTSU.
If we advance far enough for our opening game starter to be available for a second appearance, I think we would've already won enough to clinch the at-large bid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
Griffen has been really good in pretty much every outing except the last one. He had a really bad matchup against an MTSU lineup loaded with hot-hitting righties in a hitters' park.Quote:
Originally Posted by rlirette
I agree Griffen has been very impressive all but one appearance .I think I'd pitch Harris game one, Griffen game two, and Miller game three. The chance to start Harris a second game late in the tourney vs USM who didn't see much of him in our series is the tipping point to go with him game one. USM didn't see much of Griffen either and it seemed they had quite a few lefties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
He gets crushed by good hitting. So Miss will have a field day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Who were his starts against again? I can't remember. I feel like they were all against weak teams, like wku, Marshall, and mtsu or something.
We are #39 entering today.
A win today vs. Charlotte would boost us by ~.0021 to ~#35.
A loss today vs. Charlotte would drop us by ~.0027 to ~#42.
We are #41 entering today.
A win today vs. Southern Miss would boost us by about +.0038 to about a 3-way tie for #35.
A loss today vs. Southern Miss would drop us by about -.0010 to about #44.
If we lose today, we are done for the seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Yep. Which is why I kept harping that we needed to rest Nate for the biggest game of our season in Game 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooster
I posted the same thing, by posing the question shouldn't we try to assure being 1-1 after Game 2. But, then again, as USM is that game 2, Harris could have been rested, pitched well today, and we still might have lost. So, Burr rolled the dice, it came up snake eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
I don't think he nor most of our fans thought he was taking a risk by starting Nate in G1. I think the "gotta start your ace in G1" folks thought that was the conservative move.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
We went 0-2 bcuz we had 19 Ks & were 1/22 with runners on baseQuote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Because Burroughs wasn't tuned in enough to recognize that the team was in a funk and he needed to call for a small ball game plan... scratch out a run or two when the situation allowed for it and see if the team can't get some momentum going.
We had guys in scoring position last Saturday, yesterday, and today. Didn't need small ball to get them in position, we needed hitting instead of strikeouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone_afide_Dawg
There were times over the last two weeks when we had runners on 1st and 2nd that we could've advanced. Being on 2nd and 3rd makes it an easier RBI for any batter. Runs scored makes for momentum. Stepping away from the plate without getting the job done is obviously contagious.
We also dug big deficits early on in both games, which likely affected our approach at the plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceWillisDawg
I think Griffen in G1 and Harris in G2 would have produced better results.
2nd base is scoring position. We had guys in place to score over the past two days. The "small ball' you wish we had tried requires bunting players over to 3rd. Even though there were a few times we could have done that with 0 or 1 outs, when the guys behind them are striking out instead of hitting fly balls it does not matter what base they are on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone_afide_Dawg
In both games, we were awful at the plate when it mattered the most. Yesterday, we were something like 0-10 with 2 outs and 1/20 with runners in scoring position. 20? that might be a bit high, but regardless, we were horrible. But! there are ways to generate runs w/o scoring on a hit. Sac flies, ground outs can plate runs from 3rd with less than 2 outs.
Yesterday the "meat" of our order, 2,3,4 were awful. They collectively had one hit. That's the part of the lineup that is supposed to produce offense.
Sac bunt with a force at 3rd is a poor percentage play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone_afide_Dawg
I'm not a big fan of bunting, but I think if we'd gotten some runs in 1st & 2nd against Charlotte, it could have changed the game.
Quote:
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2013/8/7/4590940/a-statistical-defense-sort-of-of-the-sac-bunt
But what about bunting over runners on 1st and 2nd? The run expectancy for runners on 1st and 2nd and no outs is 1.47 runs, and the specific breakdown is as follows:
Runs Probability 0 36.99% 1 22.94% 2 16.27% 3 12.23% 4+ 11.57%
For runners on 2nd and 3rd and one out, the run expectancy is 1.36 runs, and the specific breakdown is as follows:
Runs Probability 0 33.26% 1 27.34% 2 22.28% 3 9.11% 4+ 8.01%
Now we're getting somewhere. You've still reduced your overall run expectancy. But you've decreased your chances of scoring 0 runs by 3.62%, so you've increased your likelihood of scoring at least one run. What's more, you've increased your chances of scoring exactly one run by almost 5%, and exactly two runs by 6%!
Did any Tech fan who watched our games this year feel good about a sac bunt when we were trailing by multiple runs?
The whole point of the game when on offense is to get on base, advance runners and score. If it's working to swing through and hit balls then so be it. When swinging through isn't working the only other option is to bunt. If all you can do to compete is bunt then bunt.
We were second in C-USA in batting average. Going through a cold streak is not cause for panic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone_afide_Dawg
With the season sadly fizzling to a lifeless end perhaps now is a good time to panic since I know of only one returning position player and a coach who seemed incapable of igniting his team to succeed when it mattered most. I hope he's ready, willing and able to work his ass off putting together his own competitive team otherwise it could be a disastrous state of affairs for Tech baseball. As of right now he has one underachieving season to his name at Tech and he did it with a previously proven group of players.
They didn't hit in the last two games. That's not on the coach. Small ball was not the answer unless you didn't keep up until the last two games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone_afide_Dawg
So many games we won this year we didn't find our bats until the last couple of innings. And how many times did we get to two outs in an inning before getting a man on base then score 1 - 3 runs? Enough that I learned not to count the Dawgs out just because we were down in late innings.
A lot of this being down on Burroughs sounds like what was said after Holtz first year after Dykes left. That's turned out ok. I can be patient a while and give Burroughs some time.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy at all with how the MidTn series went down or with the tournament. I expected a lot better results. I don't know how the other bubble teams have done in their tourneys; maybe we'll still get the nod for regionals. But it's a long shot. A heck of a long shot.
We were up 8-4 vs MTSU and had our two top relievers in to close it out and didn't get it done. Hard to blame anyone really for that, it just came at a bad time and is therefore magnified. Baseball has a way of doing that.
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenacious_dog
Y'all think Burroughs regrets not pursuing 2 additional midweek games down the stretch to replace our cancellations?
:icon_mad:
You're right about small ball not being the answer. When you have a pitching staff like we have, it never is. This team has been streaky all year long. They just picked the absolute worst time you could possibly pick to go cold as ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
What if he had "pursued" those games and not gotten them? Would you feel better? Who was available?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
If only he had pitched Nate in game 2 vs. USM. :icon_razz:
[QUOTE=PawDawg;1648607]What if he had "pursued" those games and not gotten them? Would you feel better? Who was available?
If only he had pitched Nate in game 2 vs. USM. :icon_razz:[/
We averaged 7 runs per game coming in to tourney. We scored only 2 - it suffice to say we were below avg offensively & if we were even close to avg we likely win 1of the 2 or both.
1/22 with runners on base- 19 Ks.
Can't play like that this time of year & advance.
Small ball was the ticket...or if only we had not pitched Nate in game 1...or only if we had played those make up games...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceWillisDawg
Or if this just wasn't the season of " it's just baseball"
Interesting weekend of college baseball. Tech, ODU, UL-Lafayette, Coastal Carolina, McNeese, and SELU all going winless in tournament play.
I can see not going small with 1st and 2nd with 0 out in the 1st. Don't take the bat away from the #3 spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
But already behind when the same thing happened in the 2nd with the lower part of the order, the runners have to be moved over. I think Tech tried but just didn't get it done.
The team did not execute in any phase of the game in Hattiesburg. And that includes on the field, in the dugout, and in the coaches' boxes.
That's baseball!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Question:
If USM wins today it appears we finish with second highest RPI in CUSA. Assuming committee takes (3) CUSA teams doesn't that bode-well for us??
I'm not getting my hopes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceWillisDawg
My thoughts are we're out at this point. If we do somehow make it to a regional I'll be elated. I've learned with Tech sports it is always best to expect the worst and hope for the best to avoid disappointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceWillisDawg
Regardless of the rpi factor when it comes down to who beats who as much as I'd love for Tech to get an NCAA bid, I think Charlotte is more deserving.
Warren Nolan has USM predicted to win today and Louisiana Tech barely scraping by into the NCAA tournament. Now that would have to be a program first to not be on the outside looking in. http://warrennolan.com/baseball/2017/projection
that was before We were 0-2 in tournamentQuote:
Originally Posted by DogsWin
But strangely they list our record post tourney 36-20Quote:
Originally Posted by sportdawg
Yes, I would've felt better if he tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
IIRC: ULL, McNeese, and Arkansas were a few I found with openings on a quick search back then. I'm sure there were many more Top 50 to Top 100 teams available.
But it's the lack of seeing the need to try to add a couple games that really bothers me. I could see all this coming a mile away. Starting with scheduling a 3-game SWAC series to open with to refusing to try to replace the Arky State and ULM games. He (and our softball coach) stated over and over again that they have no clue how RPI works. All of this really bothers me. Are our diamond coaches really not that bright? It's not difficult to simulate RPI. I can easily do it in a spreadsheet along with probably every engineering and math major and professor at Tech. It's a really simple formula. They really need to seek the help they need to understand it because their ignorance will end up costing us big time.
By refusing to add a couple good games, Burroughs was basically telling our guys they had to be almost perfect down the stretch, basically winning 9 of our last 10 to secure an at-large bid heading into the C-USA Tourney. He should've known our lack of pitching depth after Nate didn't set us up well for success in the conference tourney. He put so much pressure on our guys down the stretch and gave us no room for error, which is not very smart in a sport like baseball.
And I'm still waiting for you to admit Pawdawg was wrong and Dawg06 was correct about the starting pitching strategy for the tourney. :icon_razz: Times like this I hate being right. :((
ODU won their opening tourney game vs. FIU.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
McNeese State won their tourney opener vs. Lamar.
The selection committee will have a very interesting case if USM beats Rice.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceWillisDawg
If that happens, C-USA looks like a 1-bid league with 4 teams just on the wrong side of the bubble: Tech, ODU, UNCC, FAU. Rice would be ineligible without a winning season even with a Top 50 RPI.
Would the selection committee only put in 1 team from the nation's No. 6 conference? I'd like to think not. Our prayer is for USM to win and for the committee to overlook of 5th place finish and dreadful finish in favor of our strong RPI compared to the other C-USA bubble teams. I'm guessing less than 10% chance. We no longer have a single Top 50 series win thanks to ODU's collapse. Does ODU have the best case to be the 2nd team from C-USA? Probably.
It's really interesting to compare C-USA to the Southland. The SLC is No. 12. The SLC has a bid thief plus to potential at-larges with Top 40 RPIs in SELA and McNeese. Would the committee give the #12 SLC 3 bids and #6 C-USA only 1? I hope not.
I was all for adding the games, but it was obvious he was not going to. He actually said he was when Arkie St was rained out. My guess from history says he took the sword for our AD who actually nixed the plan. The guy who is afraid of $1 hot dog night was likely afraid to spend a few thousand on travel for a game or two. No need to worry about things our stealth AD does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
I don't believe Nate would have been any better against USM than he was against Charlotte. Why do you think an extra 18 hours of rest would have mattered so much?
I don't assume we would've lost to UNCC with Griffen on the mound. Griffen gave up ZERO earned runs in 4.0 IP vs. USM on only 59 pitches. He was awesome in every game except for the bad matchup at MTSU.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
And I do think the rest would've helped, however much it may have been. But you also know I was screaming for him to take Nate out at MTSU when we got up double digits. Instead, Burroughs kept him in there for two more innings. Huge mistake.
The extra rest may have helped. He threw an extra 21 pitches or so against Middle that were not needed in the 5th and 6th and he had struggled some in the 5th. I wasn't screaming for him to be pulled but I expected it for sure after he got through the 5th.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Wait, we do have a Top 50 series win now... on the road over the C-USA Tourney champs! :laugh: But they probably just killed any hopes we had. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Even in a down year with sub-par (by Rice standards) talent, Rice is able to win the conference. It must be nice to have a great coach at the helm :((
Rice has A LOT more going for them than just a good coach.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
BTW USM coach's stupid decision not to walk the guy who hit the game winner to set up the double play was, well, really stupid.
Take out Griffen's MTSU game, and he would have an ERA of 3.18 (12 ER in 34.0 innings), which would be good enough for #6 best ERA in C-USA if he pitched enough innings to qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
He should be a good one next year. I look forward to having lefties we can go to when needed next year along with at least one left handed starter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Hopefully better than the returning ones this year who for whatever reason couldn't find an edge that would work.
I know you probably meant the entire pitching staff, but I meant lefties. We only had one lefty other than true freshman Griffen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone_afide_Dawg
The sixteen regional hosts in alphabetical order by host city:
LSU
North Carolina
Clemson
Oregon State
Arkansas
TCU
Florida
USM
Houston
Kentucky
Long Beach State
Louisville
Texas Tech
Stanford
Florida State
Wake Forest