|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 16, 2024 18:09:55 GMT -8
Runs per game are irrelevant when looked at singularly. Not going into a lengthy diatribe, but how can a team go to a CWS scoring 2.5 runs per less?? For one the simple reason such comparisons are moot. Different teams, opponents, etc. Then taken into account... pitching staff, errors, etc. One team needed all they could get and it still wasn't Omaha worthy. Runs scored... not all runs scored or opportunities wasted are the same. The plethora of runs scored vs inferior NC competition looked great. But, all the while the same issue existed... this team struck out too much. From Surprise on it was a key flaw never "fixed". Runs scored as a isolated stat means little. It doesn't take into account situational hitting where run scoring opportunities were wasted. K's are irrelevant if runs are being scored? 😆 Do those count all the key runs not scored because or multiple innings with multiple Ks? Or was that just bad luck? I guess a lot of high scoring teams had a bunch of bad luck... Woffard, Austin Peay, N Kentucky, Irvine, Coastal Carolina. Plus in looking before the CWS only two teams had more Ks than runs scored... FL by a ton, but the last part of the season it was reversed... and TAM. OSU was (-58). Do you think a few less than the (25) Ks vs UK could have at least extended it to a 3rd game? Or bad luck? You are moving the goalposts, trying to argue away from my primary argument. My primary argument is that Oregon State had an Omaha-caliber offense. You seem to be arguing away from that, because that is a loser. And instead, you are arguing something else, which does not really make any sense to me. You evaluate an offense based on runs scored. If you score more runs than your opponent, you win. Runs per game Oregon State and the eight College World Series teams: 1. Virginia 9.22
2. Tennessee 9.00
3. Florida State 8.914. Oregon State 8.49
5. Texas A&M 8.46
6. North Carolina 8.45
7. Kentucky 7.93
8. NC State 7.61
9. Florida 6.94Oregon State had an Omaha-caliber offense. Runs per game allowed Oregon State and the eight College World Series teams: 1. Tennessee 4.122. Texas A&M 4.21
3. Oregon State 4.70
4. North Carolina 4.80
5. Kentucky 5.27
6. Florida State 5.39
7. Virginia 6.05
8. Florida 6.26
9. NC State 6.28
Oregon State was clearly an Omaha-caliber team.
The Beavs got screwed in seating for sure. Is that "luck?" |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Jul 16, 2024 18:26:29 GMT -8
In my mostly ignorant opinion this team had too much of a pucker factor. Put the pressure on and guys could not perform anywhere near their best. The pieces were there but they had serious trouble winning close games and performing in high-stress situations. Like if you are golfing with a friend (you know their tendencies) and say five bucks you miss this three-foot putt. Some guys dial in and do it and some guys get a hitch in their stroke and miss badly.
|
|
|
|
Post by 56chevy on Jul 16, 2024 21:15:57 GMT -8
They were not an Omaha team....because they did not go to Omaha. They were very close to being an Omaha team in 2022. Had they gotten there, I didn't sense they were a championship caliber team. Going to be difficult for us to feel confident about any Omaha caliber team when 2017 and 2018 squad are the reference points.
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jul 17, 2024 5:53:02 GMT -8
Lol... you don't generate opponent errors when you fail to put the ball in play over 28% of your official ABs. That's not bad luck. It's simply a poor hitting approach. Not only are there no chances for opponent errors, OSU was poor at moving runners and n situational hitting. They basically played a season getting only 17-18 outs to score per game. Some teams can overcome some lower BAs spread thru a lineup when players actually put the ball in play. OSU couldn't as those guys were giving up "free" outs. OSU had a good season. Maybe better than some stats would show. Others would say they were right on. But, bad luck wasn't it. Of course, if that's the premise one goes with... it goes both ways and you can analyze the "what if's" forever. But, the reality is what actually happened. This team wasn't an Omaha team. What in holy hell? Lol! 2024 Oregon State was the greatest offensive team in Oregon State history. (snip) Ironic, isn't it, given the way the season ended. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jul 17, 2024 8:05:36 GMT -8
What in holy hell? Lol! 2024 Oregon State was the greatest offensive team in Oregon State history. (snip) Ironic, isn't it, given the way the season ended. But, wait... it was an Omaha caliber offensive team... until it wasn't!? |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Jul 17, 2024 8:12:34 GMT -8
Runs per game are irrelevant when looked at singularly. Not going into a lengthy diatribe, but how can a team go to a CWS scoring 2.5 runs per less?? For one the simple reason such comparisons are moot. Different teams, opponents, etc. Then taken into account... pitching staff, errors, etc. One team needed all they could get and it still wasn't Omaha worthy. Runs scored... not all runs scored or opportunities wasted are the same. The plethora of runs scored vs inferior NC competition looked great. But, all the while the same issue existed... this team struck out too much. From Surprise on it was a key flaw never "fixed". Runs scored as a isolated stat means little. It doesn't take into account situational hitting where run scoring opportunities were wasted. K's are irrelevant if runs are being scored? 😆 Do those count all the key runs not scored because or multiple innings with multiple Ks? Or was that just bad luck? I guess a lot of high scoring teams had a bunch of bad luck... Woffard, Austin Peay, N Kentucky, Irvine, Coastal Carolina. Plus in looking before the CWS only two teams had more Ks than runs scored... FL by a ton, but the last part of the season it was reversed... and TAM. OSU was (-58). Do you think a few less than the (25) Ks vs UK could have at least extended it to a 3rd game? Or bad luck? You are moving the goalposts, trying to argue away from my primary argument. My primary argument is that Oregon State had an Omaha-caliber offense. You seem to be arguing away from that, because that is a loser. And instead, you are arguing something else, which does not really make any sense to me. You evaluate an offense based on runs scored. If you score more runs than your opponent, you win. Runs per game Oregon State and the eight College World Series teams: 1. Virginia 9.22
2. Tennessee 9.00
3. Florida State 8.914. Oregon State 8.49
5. Texas A&M 8.46
6. North Carolina 8.45
7. Kentucky 7.93
8. NC State 7.61
9. Florida 6.94Oregon State had an Omaha-caliber offense. Runs per game allowed Oregon State and the eight College World Series teams: 1. Tennessee 4.122. Texas A&M 4.21
3. Oregon State 4.70
4. North Carolina 4.80
5. Kentucky 5.27
6. Florida State 5.39
7. Virginia 6.05
8. Florida 6.26
9. NC State 6.28
Oregon State was clearly an Omaha-caliber team.
The Beavs got screwed in seating for sure. Is that "luck?" No goalposts moved... actually your basic premise was "bad luck". It appears that anytime an OSU team doesn't succeed they were doomed by the fate of bad... you name it... calls, weather, seeding (seating if you'd like), other teams playing perfect/no errors, etc. Like none of those things ever happen to opponents! And, as mentioned above, all those other top scoring "Omaha caliber" teams that didn't succeed... bad luck too? Or just teams lacking in a certain area(s)? The actual, easy response is that there is no such thing as an "Omaha-caliber offense". Omaha-caliber teams make the CWS and year to year stats for said teams will vary. The constant? They win when they have to. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 17, 2024 9:13:33 GMT -8
You are moving the goalposts, trying to argue away from my primary argument. My primary argument is that Oregon State had an Omaha-caliber offense. You seem to be arguing away from that, because that is a loser. And instead, you are arguing something else, which does not really make any sense to me. You evaluate an offense based on runs scored. If you score more runs than your opponent, you win. Runs per game Oregon State and the eight College World Series teams: 1. Virginia 9.22
2. Tennessee 9.00
3. Florida State 8.914. Oregon State 8.49
5. Texas A&M 8.46
6. North Carolina 8.45
7. Kentucky 7.93
8. NC State 7.61
9. Florida 6.94Oregon State had an Omaha-caliber offense. Runs per game allowed Oregon State and the eight College World Series teams: 1. Tennessee 4.122. Texas A&M 4.21
3. Oregon State 4.70
4. North Carolina 4.80
5. Kentucky 5.27
6. Florida State 5.39
7. Virginia 6.05
8. Florida 6.26
9. NC State 6.28
Oregon State was clearly an Omaha-caliber team.
The Beavs got screwed in seating for sure. Is that "luck?" No goalposts moved... actually your basic premise was "bad luck". It appears that anytime an OSU team doesn't succeed they were doomed by the fate of bad... you name it... calls, weather, seeding (seating if you'd like), other teams playing perfect/no errors, etc. Like none of those things ever happen to opponents! And, as mentioned above, all those other top scoring "Omaha caliber" teams that didn't succeed... bad luck too? Or just teams lacking in a certain area(s)? The actual, easy response is that there is no such thing as an "Omaha-caliber offense". Omaha-caliber teams make the CWS and year to year stats for said teams will vary. The constant? They win when they have to. Thank you. I believe that you agreed with my primary point. Oregon State had an Omaha-caliber offense. Also, just because, Oregon State got screwed in the seeding. Finally, my primary point was not bad luck. My point was that it appears that Oregon State ran into "bad luck." Whether "luck" is the correct term appears to be your primary hang-up. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 17, 2024 9:24:10 GMT -8
What in holy hell? Lol! 2024 Oregon State was the greatest offensive team in Oregon State history. (snip) Ironic, isn't it, given the way the season ended. I would say that part of the issue is that the offense was omnipresent but wildly inconsistent. Bad analogy time: Bobby Fischer revolutionized chess. At the time, everyone attacked the middle in a very set way. Bobby Fischer realized that you could control the middle without taking it and tried to utilize old ways of doing that. Oregon State seems to have bought into what everyone else is doing. And Oregon State seems to do that well. Part of the fun of Pat Casey, though, was that he did things in an old kind of way, and it seemed to catch some teams off guard. One of the things that is galling is that Kentucky seemed to out-Pat Casey Mitchy Slick. Small ball. Station to station. Kentucky was better able to put together a better team strategy to beat out a better team. It sucks being on the other side of it. The issue, as I see it, with Oregon State, outside of being knocked down to 15 for no good reason, is that the Beavs' fundamentals on offense sucked. And there was not really a cohesive offensive strategy to pull out those 4-3 style ballgames, where you have a questionable umpire or where the bats just are not finding the ball. You either out-firepower the other team or you lose. That can work, but I see it as a less consistent path to victory than the Pat Casey way. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Jul 17, 2024 10:05:50 GMT -8
In my mostly ignorant opinion this team had too much of a pucker factor. Put the pressure on and guys could not perform anywhere near their best. The pieces were there but they had serious trouble winning close games and performing in high-stress situations. Like if you are golfing with a friend (you know their tendencies) and say five bucks you miss this three-foot putt. Some guys dial in and do it and some guys get a hitch in their stroke and miss badly. I think this is pretty accurate. Two completely different teams at home, vs on the road. Bats disappeared en masse at the worst times. Pitching gives it up at the worst times. Defense was not up to typical OSU standards. I think too much of an emphasis on hitting, and power pitching.....not enough emphasis on those guys who are dogs, with a chip on their shoulder. We need a little more of that. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 17, 2024 10:44:05 GMT -8
Ironic, isn't it, given the way the season ended. I would say that part of the issue is that the offense was omnipresent but wildly inconsistent. Bad analogy time: Bobby Fischer revolutionized chess. At the time, everyone attacked the middle in a very set way. Bobby Fischer realized that you could control the middle without taking it and tried to utilize old ways of doing that. Oregon State seems to have bought into what everyone else is doing. And Oregon State seems to do that well. Part of the fun of Pat Casey, though, was that he did things in an old kind of way, and it seemed to catch some teams off guard. One of the things that is galling is that Kentucky seemed to out-Pat Casey Mitchy Slick. Small ball. Station to station. Kentucky was better able to put together a better team strategy to beat out a better team. It sucks being on the other side of it. The issue, as I see it, with Oregon State, outside of being knocked down to 15 for no good reason, is that the Beavs' fundamentals on offense sucked. And there was not really a cohesive offensive strategy to pull out those 4-3 style ballgames, where you have a questionable umpire or where the bats just are not finding the ball. You either out-firepower the other team or you lose. That can work, but I see it as a less consistent path to victory than the Pat Casey way. I will add that the defense was atrocious this year, and it tends to correlate, in my mind at least, with a general lack of baseball fundamentals. I remain somewhat concerned about a general lack of baseball fundamentals, both offensively and defensively. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Jul 17, 2024 14:46:58 GMT -8
I would say that part of the issue is that the offense was omnipresent but wildly inconsistent. Bad analogy time: Bobby Fischer revolutionized chess. At the time, everyone attacked the middle in a very set way. Bobby Fischer realized that you could control the middle without taking it and tried to utilize old ways of doing that. Oregon State seems to have bought into what everyone else is doing. And Oregon State seems to do that well. Part of the fun of Pat Casey, though, was that he did things in an old kind of way, and it seemed to catch some teams off guard. One of the things that is galling is that Kentucky seemed to out-Pat Casey Mitchy Slick. Small ball. Station to station. Kentucky was better able to put together a better team strategy to beat out a better team. It sucks being on the other side of it. The issue, as I see it, with Oregon State, outside of being knocked down to 15 for no good reason, is that the Beavs' fundamentals on offense sucked. And there was not really a cohesive offensive strategy to pull out those 4-3 style ballgames, where you have a questionable umpire or where the bats just are not finding the ball. You either out-firepower the other team or you lose. That can work, but I see it as a less consistent path to victory than the Pat Casey way. I will add that the defense was atrocious this year, and it tends to correlate, in my mind at least, with a general lack of baseball fundamentals. I remain somewhat concerned about a general lack of baseball fundamentals, both offensively and defensively. I'm a big believer that the season reveals a team. This team lost 7 of 8 road games in row against SC 0-2, Nevada 1-1, Cal 0-3, and uo 0-1. That is not bad luck, if they would have went 4-4 and lost 3 by a run, maybe that would be bad luck, but losing 7 of 8 road games in a row...nahhh...that just reveals the flaws of the team. If they were better they would have won 3 or 4 more of those road games. If they were good enough to win 3 or 4 more of those road games they would have won the pac 12 and hosted a super regional and probably went to Omaha, but they weren't good enough. The season revealed it. |
|
|
|
Post by ricke71 on Jul 17, 2024 16:23:32 GMT -8
Back to the seemingly boring topic of WHO COMES BACK? I doubt if any of the drafted players return, especially Guerra, who has more than enough reason to move on considering his 2024 performance.
The D-1 BB tracker of free agent signings currently shows 68 players/no Beavers. Though he is out of eligibility and won't back, I hope to see Brady Kasper on that list some day.
Eligible for either free agent signing...or???...returning: Trosky, Weber, Mundt.
|
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Jul 17, 2024 16:56:28 GMT -8
In my mostly ignorant opinion this team had too much of a pucker factor. Put the pressure on and guys could not perform anywhere near their best. The pieces were there but they had serious trouble winning close games and performing in high-stress situations. Like if you are golfing with a friend (you know their tendencies) and say five bucks you miss this three-foot putt. Some guys dial in and do it and some guys get a hitch in their stroke and miss badly. I think this is pretty accurate. Two completely different teams at home, vs on the road. Bats disappeared en masse at the worst times. Pitching gives it up at the worst times. Defense was not up to typical OSU standards. I think too much of an emphasis on hitting, and power pitching.....not enough emphasis on those guys who are dogs, with a chip on their shoulder. We need a little more of that. I see Trosky as a baller. Less natural talent than some of his teamates but add some pressure and he got better. |
|
|
|
Post by beavdowg on Jul 17, 2024 19:59:26 GMT -8
Ironic, isn't it, given the way the season ended. I would say that part of the issue is that the offense was omnipresent but wildly inconsistent. Bad analogy time: Bobby Fischer revolutionized chess. At the time, everyone attacked the middle in a very set way. Bobby Fischer realized that you could control the middle without taking it and tried to utilize old ways of doing that. Oregon State seems to have bought into what everyone else is doing. And Oregon State seems to do that well. Part of the fun of Pat Casey, though, was that he did things in an old kind of way, and it seemed to catch some teams off guard. One of the things that is galling is that Kentucky seemed to out-Pat Casey Mitchy Slick. Small ball. Station to station. Kentucky was better able to put together a better team strategy to beat out a better team. It sucks being on the other side of it. The issue, as I see it, with Oregon State, outside of being knocked down to 15 for no good reason, is that the Beavs' fundamentals on offense sucked. And there was not really a cohesive offensive strategy to pull out those 4-3 style ballgames, where you have a questionable umpire or where the bats just are not finding the ball. You either out-firepower the other team or you lose. That can work, but I see it as a less consistent path to victory than the Pat Casey way. Wilky, I don’t know you but I sure appreciate your history lessons! I mean it. The data and stories you share are really stinkin’ cool! Cheers brother! 🍻 |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jul 17, 2024 20:55:32 GMT -8
Back to the seemingly boring topic of WHO COMES BACK? I doubt if any of the drafted players return, especially Guerra, who has more than enough reason to move on considering his 2024 performance.The D-1 BB tracker of free agent signings currently shows 68 players/no Beavers. Though he is out of eligibility and won't back, I hope to see Brady Kasper on that list some day. Eligible for either free agent signing...or???...returning: Trosky, Weber, Mundt. Returning costs Guerra tens of thousands of dollars and time. Guerra only comes back, if they lowball him, Guerra just really loves Corvallis, or Guerra has no MLB aspirations and really wants to finish his degree. |
|
