2ndGenBeaver
Sophomore
Posts: 1,837 
Grad Year: 1991 (MS/CS) 1999 (PhD/CS)
|
Post by 2ndGenBeaver on Jun 29, 2017 16:11:05 GMT -8
Baseball strategy is not my strongest suite, so keep that in mind with this question:
Why did PC not employ a "Johnny Wholestaff" approach in the last LSU game?
We had, statistically speaking, the best bullpen in the entire nation, why not throw relievers for a couple innings each for the whole game?
Is there some strategic downfall to that approach?
Go Beavers!
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 29, 2017 16:37:09 GMT -8
Baseball strategy is not my strongest suite, so keep that in mind with this question: Why did PC not employ a "Johnny Wholestaff" approach in the last LSU game? We had, statistically speaking, the best bullpen in the entire nation, why not throw relievers for a couple innings each for the whole game? Is there some strategic downfall to that approach? Go Beavers! Statistically, the best pitchers for Oregon State at the College World Series in order were: Engelbrekt, Verburg, Mulholland, Eisert, Thompson, Rasmussen, Gambrell, Britton, Fehmel, Tweedt, and Hickey. I personally think that Ras should have started. If not Ras, Mulholland. There are several problems with Johnny Wholestaff. LSU used seven pitchers in the Monday game. You can ask bayouboys how that worked out. The Tigers illustrate the problem with the "strategy." None of the pitchers got settled in. They came in cold in hitter-friendly situations. And the Oregon State hitters grew more and more confident as the game wore on. LSU lost a lot of innings on a lot of arms. A Johnny Whoestaff approach is better earlier in the College World Series than later. By Saturday, a Johnny Whoelstaff approach would have wasted several Oregon State arms that the Beavers could have used on Florida. |
|
|
|
Post by bayouboys on Jun 29, 2017 16:58:23 GMT -8
Baseball strategy is not my strongest suite, so keep that in mind with this question: Why did PC not employ a "Johnny Wholestaff" approach in the last LSU game? We had, statistically speaking, the best bullpen in the entire nation, why not throw relievers for a couple innings each for the whole game? Is there some strategic downfall to that approach? Go Beavers! Statistically, the best pitchers for Oregon State at the College World Series in order were: Engelbrekt, Verburg, Mulholland, Eisert, Thompson, Rasmussen, Gambrell, Britton, Fehmel, Tweedt, and Hickey. I personally think that Ras should have started. If not Ras, Mulholland. There are several problems with Johnny Wholestaff. LSU used seven pitchers in the Monday game. You can ask bayouboys how that worked out. The Tigers illustrate the problem with the "strategy." None of the pitchers got settled in. They came in cold in hitter-friendly situations. And the Oregon State hitters grew more and more confident as the game wore on. LSU lost a lot of innings on a lot of arms. A Johnny Whoestaff approach is better earlier in the College World Series than later. By Saturday, a Johnny Whoelstaff approach would have wasted several Oregon State arms that the Beavers could have used on Florida. Actually LSU used 8 pitchers on the Monday game vs OSU. SMDH |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jun 29, 2017 17:05:39 GMT -8
Baseball strategy is not my strongest suite, so keep that in mind with this question: Why did PC not employ a "Johnny Wholestaff" approach in the last LSU game? We had, statistically speaking, the best bullpen in the entire nation, why not throw relievers for a couple innings each for the whole game? Is there some strategic downfall to that approach? Go Beavers! Statistically, the best pitchers for Oregon State at the College World Series in order were: Engelbrekt, Verburg, Mulholland, Eisert, Thompson, Rasmussen, Gambrell, Britton, Fehmel, Tweedt, and Hickey. I personally think that Ras should have started. If not Ras, Mulholland. There are several problems with Johnny Wholestaff. LSU used seven pitchers in the Monday game. You can ask bayouboys how that worked out. The Tigers illustrate the problem with the "strategy." None of the pitchers got settled in. They came in cold in hitter-friendly situations. And the Oregon State hitters grew more and more confident as the game wore on. LSU lost a lot of innings on a lot of arms. A Johnny Whoestaff approach is better earlier in the College World Series than later. By Saturday, a Johnny Whoelstaff approach would have wasted several Oregon State arms that the Beavers could have used on Florida. Or it could be as simple as our BP was truly not used much and the coaches didn't have as much confidence in them as some fans or the "stats" would indicate. To me it's very simple... PC/Nate want to win... they set a lineup that they believe will do the job... they did not believe much in the BP if you look at the multiple opportunities/ IP they could have been used down the stretch. You play guys you believe in as long as they are healthy. The BP didn't "play" much. Actually was surprised Razz threw as much as he did in the final game where we really never threatened to make it a game. |
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on Jun 30, 2017 7:17:57 GMT -8
I do believe in the Wholestaff philosophy in that you have to take care of today, today. Take care of tomorrow, tomorrow. Particularly if you don't take care of today, there is no tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by justdamwin on Jun 30, 2017 13:54:55 GMT -8
I do believe in the Wholestaff philosophy in that you have to take care of today, today. Take care of tomorrow, tomorrow. Particularly if you don't take care of today, there is no tomorrow. Whole staff also includes situational matchups which a lot of scouting is limited when making the CWS. Conference foes are more we'll know even in today's information heavy age |
|
