CSNbbs

After the Gonzaga series disaster, I thought I'd look at the NCAA team stats to see where we'd sunk to, relative to the NCAA's 297 D1 baseball competitors.

But after the impressive mid-week wins vs. TCU and Columbia, I thought I'd wait before posting them, so I could note the hoped-for long-term improvement up from that 17-game low point.

Alas, after the LaTech & A&M disasters, we set new low points in most (but not all) metrics. Here are the figures and rankings after 17 (post-Gonzaga) and 23 games (post-A&M), which represent 31% and 42% of the season, respectively:

Improvements in rank:

Sac Flies - 9 (#31) // 13 (#12)
Walks/9 innings - 3.92 (#113) // 3.91 (#111)
Runs - 78 (#139) // 112 (#115)
K/Walk ratio - 2.13 (#125) // 2.12 (#120)

Declines in rank:

Batting average - .271 (#111) // .269 (#115)
WHIP - 1.36 (#104) // 1.46 (#140)
ERA - 4.29 (#115) // 4.86 (#152)
Hits allowed/9 innings - 8.51 (#110) // 9.27 (#153)
Sac bunts - 6 (#139) // 7 (#172)
Slugging % - .358 (#180) // .364 (#182)
Winning % - .412 (#184) // .391 (#205)
Fielding % - .965 (#180) // .961 (#217)

Two categories that I did not record after 17 games:

Homeruns/game - .57 (#166)
Doubles/game - .57 (#226)

(03-21-2018 09:14 PM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]After the Gonzaga series disaster, I thought I'd look at the NCAA team stats to see where we'd sunk to, relative to the NCAA's 297 D1 baseball competitors.

But after the impressive mid-week wins vs. TCU and Columbia, I thought I'd wait before posting them, so I could note the hoped-for long-term improvement up from that 17-game low point.

Alas, after the LaTech & A&M disasters, we set new low points in most (but not all) metrics. Here are the figures and rankings after 17 (post-Gonzaga) and 23 games (post-A&M), which represent 31% and 42% of the season, respectively:

Improvements in rank:

Sac Flies - 9 (#31) // 13 (#12)
Walks/9 innings - 3.92 (#113) // 3.91 (#111)
Runs - 78 (#139) // 112 (#115)
K/Walk ratio - 2.13 (#125) // 2.12 (#120)

Declines in rank:

Batting average - .271 (#111) // .269 (#115)
WHIP - 1.36 (#104) // 1.46 (#140)
ERA - 4.29 (#115) // 4.86 (#152)
Hits allowed/9 innings - 8.51 (#110) // 9.27 (#153)
Sac bunts - 6 (#139) // 7 (#172)
Slugging % - .358 (#180) // .364 (#182)
Winning % - .412 (#184) // .391 (#205)
Fielding % - .965 (#180) // .961 (#217)

Two categories that I did not record after 17 games:

Homeruns/game - .57 (#166)
Doubles/game - .57 (#226)

So... 4/7 HR and doubles per game which comes out to 4/7/9 per inning. That’s better than 69/70/75 but still not too impressive.

We are very mediocre at everything except for trading outs for runs (probably not the best stat to be good at).

(03-22-2018 08:11 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]We are very mediocre at everything except for trading outs for runs (probably not the best stat to be good at).

We really need to get better at that, too.

(03-21-2018 09:14 PM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]After the Gonzaga series disaster, I thought I'd look at the NCAA team stats to see where we'd sunk to, relative to the NCAA's 297 D1 baseball competitors.

But after the impressive mid-week wins vs. TCU and Columbia, I thought I'd wait before posting them, so I could note the hoped-for long-term improvement up from that 17-game low point.

Alas, after the LaTech & A&M disasters, we set new low points in most (but not all) metrics. Here are the figures and rankings after 17 (post-Gonzaga) and 23 games (post-A&M), which represent 31% and 42% of the season, respectively:

Improvements in rank:

Sac Flies - 9 (#31) // 13 (#12)
Walks/9 innings - 3.92 (#113) // 3.91 (#111)
Runs - 78 (#139) // 112 (#115)
K/Walk ratio - 2.13 (#125) // 2.12 (#120)

Declines in rank:

Batting average - .271 (#111) // .269 (#115)
WHIP - 1.36 (#104) // 1.46 (#140)
ERA - 4.29 (#115) // 4.86 (#152)
Hits allowed/9 innings - 8.51 (#110) // 9.27 (#153)
Sac bunts - 6 (#139) // 7 (#172)
Slugging % - .358 (#180) // .364 (#182)
Winning % - .412 (#184) // .391 (#205)
Fielding % - .965 (#180) // .961 (#217)

Two categories that I did not record after 17 games:

Homeruns/game - .57 (#166)
Doubles/game - .57 (#226)

Incredible that with a fielding percentage that bad that you see so many earned runs. That. Is. Bad. Also not scoring runs doesn't help too much...

edit: Thanks for looking these up

(03-22-2018 08:41 AM)Clad Scheme Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2018 09:14 PM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]Runs - 78 (#139) // 112 (#115)

ERA - 4.29 (#115) // 4.86 (#152)

Fielding % - .965 (#180) // .961 (#217)

Incredible that with a fielding percentage that bad that you see so many earned runs. That. Is. Bad. Also not scoring runs doesn't help too much...

edit: Thanks for looking these up

The NCAA site doesn't have a ranking for them, but the "runs allowed" and "earned runs" data is shown in the ERA tables.

After 17 games, we allowed 85 runs -- 70 earned/15 unearned -- in 147 innings pitched.

After 23 games, we allowed 127 runs -- 107 earned/20 unearned -- in 198 innings pitched.

(The NCAA's "Runs" tally is for "runs scored".)

- - -

You're very welcome. :-)

As of yesterday, here are the changes in our stat ranks:

Improvements in rank:

Sac Flies - 9 (#31) // 13 (#12) // 17 (#11)
Sac bunts - 6 (#139) // 7 (#172) // 13 (#134)
ERA - 4.29 (#115) // 4.86 (#152) // 4.78 (#150)
Hits allowed/9 innings - 8.51 (#110) // 9.27 (#153) // 9.20 (#150)

Declines in rank:

K/Walk ratio - 2.13 (#125) // 2.12 (#120) // 2.04 (#125)
Batting average - .271 (#111) // .269 (#115) // .267 (#134)
Runs - 78 (#139) // 112 (#115) // 148 (#145)
WHIP - 1.36 (#104) // 1.46 (#140) // 1.50 (#150)
Walks/9 innings - 3.92 (#113) // 3.91 (#111) // 4.32 (#160)
Homeruns/game - .57 (#166) // .48 (#200)
Slugging % - .358 (#180) // .364 (#182) // .357 (#200)
Winning % - .412 (#184) // .391 (#205) // .387 (#212)
Fielding % - .965 (#180) // .961 (#217) // .961 (#225)
Doubles/game - .57 (#226) // 1.16 (#276)

Average improvement: 11 spots. (Not counting Sac Bunts, the average improvement is only 2 spots.)
Average decline: 23 spots. (5 categories declined 18 or more spots.)

Mike, I love you, man-- but why are you feeding the overall negativity? We don't need to see the updated stats to know how poorly this team is play in almost every aspect of the game.

Finally, our baseball team's stat ranks are improving: 13 of the 14 I've tracked are up ... in 8 categories, the the gain is more than 30 spots!

As of this morning, here are the changes in our stat ranks since my last post:

Improvements in rank:
K/Walk ratio - 2.13 (#125) // 2.12 (#120) // 2.04 (#125) // 2.24 (#75)
Batting average - .271 (#111) // .269 (#115) // .267 (#134) // .280 (#80)
ERA - 4.29 (#115) // 4.86 (#152) // 4.78 (#150) // 4.38 (#112)
Walks/9 innings - 3.92 (#113) // 3.91 (#111) // 4.32 (#160) // 4.00 (#112)
WHIP - 1.36 (#104) // 1.46 (#140) // 1.50 (#150) // 1.45 (#118)
Sac bunts - 6 (#139) // 7 (#172) // 13 (#134) // 18 (T125)
Hits allowed/9 innings - 8.51 (#110) // 9.27 (#153) // 9.20 (#150) // 9.03 (#135)
Runs - 78 (#139) // 112 (#115) // 148 (#145) // 199 (#135)
Slugging % - .358 (#180) // .364 (#182) // .357 (#200) // .386 (#143)
Homeruns/game - .57 (#166) // .48 (#200) // .58 (#167)
Winning % - .412 (#184) // .391 (#205) // .387 (#212) // .434 (#191)
Fielding % - .965 (#180) // .961 (#217) // .961 (#225) // .965 (#198)
Doubles/game - .57 (#226) // 1.16 (#276) // 1.47 (T210)

Declines in rank:
Sac Flies - 9 (#31) // 13 (#12) // 17 (#11) // 22 (T12)

The average improvement is 35.8 spots!!

Yay, Owls. Now keep improving ... and winning!! :-)

We are up to 43 unearned runs on the year, representing 18% of total runs allowed. Our opponents have allowed 25 unearned runs, which is 11% of their total. Put a different way, we are allowing ~1 unearned run a game (44 games played so far) and almost a half a run per game more than our opponents. I can't find aggregated stats on runs allowed by team, but I imagine our unearned runs allowed is close if not worse to our fielding percentage (0.965) which is good for #198 (otherwise known as abysmal).

I made a comment in another thread about how small ball only is plausible if you have top pitching especially in the bullpen. We only have two guys under 5.00ERA in the pen and several in the ~6 area. Add in unearned runs on top of this already sieve-like bullpen, and it is hard to make an argument for the continued approach of small ball when we are nursing small leads. I am sure we will see more bunting by our cleanup man to finish out the season though.

(05-01-2018 11:23 AM)flash3200 Wrote: [ -> ]We are up to 43 unearned runs on the year, representing 18% of total runs allowed. Our opponents have allowed 25 unearned runs, which is 11% of their total. Put a different way, we are allowing ~1 unearned run a game (44 games played so far) and almost a half a run per game more than our opponents. I can't find aggregated stats on runs allowed by team, but I imagine our unearned runs allowed is close if not worse to our fielding percentage (0.965) which is good for #198 (otherwise known as abysmal).

I made a comment in another thread about how small ball only is plausible if you have top pitching especially in the bullpen. We only have two guys under 5.00ERA in the pen and several in the ~6 area. Add in unearned runs on top of this already sieve-like bullpen, and it is hard to make an argument for the continued approach of small ball when we are nursing small leads. I am sure we will see more bunting by our cleanup man to finish out the season though.

All of our upperclassmen pitchers (i.e. a lot of the guys that Walt classified preseason as "proven arms") have been awful this year. Only Moss and Canterino have been good, with occasional (very seldom) bright spots from Acker, Gayle and Garcia. All freshmen and sophomores. Everyone else--including every single upperclassmen-- has been bad.